The Korean Dilemma

One of the hot spots in the world today is the Korean Peninsula. A land still divided in the “spirit” of the Cold War where a communist nation in the north and a democratic nation in the south exist.

The current question that exists today is whether or not the communist Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is willing to open up economically, to give up its nuclear arms, and to begin to engage the outside world.

A series of moves by the north a few months ago were signs the North was willing to abandon is Soviet sluggish economy and move to reform it. It began to make state-owned businesses accountable more for their losses. In addition it scrapped its long time coupon rationing system introduced in the early years of its founding, overnight, causing its currency to skyrocket in the international marketplace from about 2.2 WON to the dollar to about 200.

It has also begun to pursue Chinese-style market reforms. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, in the late days of Sept., approved the creation of a special administrative zone in Sinuiju, a border town of North Korea with China. Although there have been problems regarding who will govern the zone, it seems to me that in time someone will be appointed. Some say the late South Korean president might be a candidate.

In the latest move, an agreement, reached after three days of talks in the North's capital, Pyongyang, will allow South Korean investors and capitalists to start building an industrial park near the border town of Kaesung. The statement reads this will occur in December.

Just last September, historically, the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi visited the North Korean capital. While in North Korea, Kim Jong Il admitted to Japan, that in the 1970s, his country sponsored various Japanese kidnappings. The North kidnapped various Japanese actors and citizens so that they could be used to teach the Japanese language and culture to North Korean spies.

However, as it might seem, the North should not be trusted. In my opinion the current moves do not provide a sufficient amount of evidence that the regime might be opening up. The reason I say this is because I believe the current economic policies that the North is trying to pursue in the outside world are being brought out due to the fact they are short on cash. They need cash not to improve the plight of their “subjects,” but to bolster their military position and to strengthen their police state.

North Korea is one of those countries which spends much of its GDP on its military for no reason at all but to preserve its strength domestically, thereby alienating its starving citizens. They spend over 30% of its economic output on their soldiers. They do so in order to increase the strength and hostility of its military both domestically and internationally. Any and all food aid first goes to its soldiers then its people.

One the gravest continuing dangers the DPRK possesses to freedom loving nations of the world are its weapons of mass destruction. A few weeks ago they admitted to having continued to develop nuclear arms even though it “supposedly” signed off on them in the 1994 “Agreed” Framework with the United States. This comes as no shock to me. This is what happens when inspectors are not allowed in.

What should we do? First of all we should cut off all aid to North Korea unless the communist regime allows us to oversee the distribution of it. Simply giving aid to North Korea does not help the suffering citizens, but, on the other hand, increase the power of the enemy military we might be forced to wage war with in the near future. This is a grave mistake that is occurring monthly with every aid shipment the United States, Japan, and South Korea send off.

Another area the US must push concerning this current contentious question is its foreign policy with Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Russia is a player no matter what country it deals with. The reason is mainly money. They are willing to sell weapons to countries the US considers rouge. This is an issue that must be addressed not only with regard to North Korea, but even to a more current problem and that is Iraq. Russia must follow its words with actions. It must cut off any hostile military aid to North Korea, the type of aid that includes, but is not limited to, offensive weapons such as missiles with the capability of housing biological and chemical agents. Russia should also help the US and concerned parties in pressuring North Korea. For example, Russia could withhold a month’s supply of oil in a show of criticism. We must be vigilant of Russia. It might have shed its Soviet “cloak” but it did not shed its pre-1991 foreign policy objectives which include having ties with those nations the United States justly views as enemy, such as Iraq or Iran.

On the Chinese front, the United States should call upon the North’s ally to stop rewarding the North with military and moral support in this day and age. The Cold War is over. The Chinese should stop thinking that helping the North prevents the spread of “capitalism.” However, in my opinion the reason China is supporting the North is because of the long term problems China will have if indeed the communist regime of the DPRK is overthrown. Imagine what will happen if the communist leadership in Pyongyang was no more. It will be only a matter of hours before tens of thousands of North Koreans begin pouring in to China, as China would be a safer destination then going through the minefields of the DMZ. China will be overwhelmed; a crisis which will surely need foreign help and manpower. Foreign forces and aid groups in great numbers are not what China’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” call for. China does not want to be put in that position.

In the coming weeks and months, the Korean Peninsula will serve a test to both its surrounding nations and a test to our so-called American “friends” such as the PRC and Russia. The United States must make it clear to both China and Russia that we do not take no as an answer when it comes to our security. We must act now, not later.

"First of all we should cut off all aid to North Korea unless the communist regime allows us to oversee the distribution of it. Simply giving aid to North Korea does not help the suffering citizens,"

It has been my long held opinion that this should be a requirement for all foreign aid. No Cash. Goods only. Purchased from Americans businesses and distributed by American officials to the end users.

Although there have been problems regarding who will govern the zone, it seems to me that in time someone will be appointed. Some say the late South Korean president might be a candidate.

Just which late South Korean President might this be? Syngman Rhee or Chung Park Hee?

Re #3

The trouble is that N. Korean authorities can take distributed foods away from people who had just got them in their hand after inspectors go home. You have to literally watch people actually consuming all these foods in your eyes. They go at great length to get their way.

Re #8

It is true that his name was circulated in the media. But S. Korean gov. is putting a brake on such a speculation. Under the current law, no S. Korean can work as a N. Korean official. This will be in the "aiding-and-abetting" category. Either he has to go to jail or S. Korea has to pass a new law to accomodate this, which the current S. Korean gov. rather wants to avoid because it does not want to create another domestic controversy which could work against the ruling party's election prospect, which is not good any way.

"The trouble is that N. Korean authorities can take distributed foods away from people..."

In which case you stop sending it. But my method means the government in question needs to then physically confiscate goods from the people themselves, and then cannot do much with them except stuff them in a warehouse.

And then there is the public relations fiasco that ensues when the people, having received aid from smiling Americans only to have them later confiscated by their own government. That won't go on for long before word gets out. Between raising the ire of their own population and the international community, it becomes a lose lose situation for them. And while your scenario has happened in the past, it is usually on a small scale because of the logistical problems of trying to do confiscate goods on a large scale.
The way things are now, nobody knows what happens to most of the aid we send overseas. When we send cash, little ends up where it is supposed to go, and in all cases, we rarely get credit for what is finally distributed. Half the rice the worlds poor are eating comes from the United State as aid, but those people don't know we're the ones that grew it and sent it to them because of the distribution systems. Ironically, these same people blame us for not doing enough.

And under no condition should we do it under the Aegis of the UN. They always take credit while giving it to us in the shorts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.