Should China & other nations halt aid to North Korea?

[Gerr]

That's a dilemma. If N. Korea gets sanctioned & becomes economically isolated, the citizens suffer, but neither Kim nor his cronies are likely to miss a meal because they skim off the top. But there's a possibility that if the country suffers enough from the sanctions, someone may become desperate enough to assassinate him.

Gerry

[Naomi]

Good observation Gerry.

N. Korea has been preparing for 50 years with little or no concern for their citizens.

There are many factors to consider. I suppose we have to take into consideration the possibility of their citizens suffering short-term, or millions in surrounding countries suffering long-term.

Perhaps no one will do without provisions and China will step up to the plate and provide them with food & medicines required. They certainly have been supportive for a long time. Without their encouragement it probably wouldn't have come this far ... let them take responsibility.

[Neil D]

source

Sanctions seen as dubious leverage over North Korea with little left to lose

The Associated Press

Published: October 10, 2006

SEOUL, South Korea Sanctions loom over North Korea for staging a nuclear test, but more punitive measures might have little effect on the already isolated, impoverished regime with little left to lose.

The potency of possible new restrictions is a wild card in the efforts of the U.N. Security Council, the United States and its allies to contain North Korea's nuclear ambitions and coax it back to negotiations.

International sanctions are "not effective at all," said Paik Hak-soon, a North Korea analyst at the Sejong Institute outside Seoul. "North Korea has already tested the bomb and has long expected this response."

The United States, Japan and others have slapped a series of sanctions on Pyongyang over its nuclear program in recent years. And the countries had indicated that similar consequences would be in store over a nuclear test, long before Monday's still-unconfirmed detonation.

Actions already taken range from blacklisting North Korean banks and restricting port entry of its ships to backing a global ban on trading some military technology with the North. In the wake of the crackdown, trade with Japan alone tumbled 85 percent, to a paltry $195 million last year, from 2001.

Yet North Korea went ahead and tested anyway.

"The truth is, there is little that Washington or Tokyo can do, politically or financially, that has not already been done," Ralph Cossa, president of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum, wrote in a report on the standoff.

North Korea also has scoffed at more sanctions.

"We have lost enough," a North Korean official in Beijing was quoted as saying by South Korea's Yonhap news agency. "Sanctions can never be a solution."

But increasing sanctions may be all that's left. Military action or a strategic airstrike against North Korea is riskier than ever in the face of atomic retaliation.

Tougher measures hinge on whether China and Russia — the North's closest allies — support them. South Korea, which has long pursued a policy of engagement with its neighbor to ease tensions, is also a weak link, cautious not to spoil hard-won goodwill with its former enemy and further upset regional stability.

Measures under consideration at the United Nations include international inspection of all cargo to and from North Korea to limit the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and blanket bans on luxury and military goods and any material that could be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction.

A U.S. draft resolution contains tough new proposals from Japan to ban all countries from allowing in North Korean ships or aircraft carrying arms, nuclear or ballistic missile-related material or luxury goods.

The Japanese proposals also would impose travel restrictions on high-ranking North Korean officials and create a Security Council committee to monitor implementation of sanctions.

The U.N. Security Council can authorize a range of measures under Chapter 7, from breaking diplomatic ties and imposing economic and military sanctions to taking military action to restore peace.

In 2000, the United States eased a blanket ban on U.S. exports to North Korea dating to 1950 in an effort to improve relations. Reinstating the ban remains an option.

Legitimate trade has fueled modest North Korean economic growth in recent years after a dismal 1990s.

Trade with China has climbed for five consecutive years, doubling over the period to $1.58 billion, according to the most recent figures from South Korea's Unification Ministry. Commerce with the South more than doubled, to $1.05 billion.

But effective sanctions are also risky, posing the danger of triggering a collapse of North Korea's teetering economy.

"If the North is further weakened there is a possibility that the North could destabilize and use the military option as a stopgap measure to maintain control," said Michael Williams, head of the trans-Atlantic program at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense think tank. "In many senses it is preferable to have a strong state in control of nuclear weapons, because at least there is some hierarchy and structure."

good luck on that slight problem...With the population growing up on poor fair, and informationally challenged, it's no wonder anyone can rise up to take control and improve the people's plight.

[Dr. Shane]

North Korea has a 1 million-man+ military. It seems clear to me they are looking for a fight. It is now being reported that North Korean soldiers in the DMZ are spitting on South Korean soldiers and giving them the finger. Of course, if they are doing that it is likely because they have been ordered to.

Additional sanctions will likely prove to be an excuse by them to do what they really want to do... go to war. If a dictator really wants to go to war, is there anything anyone can do to stop him?

[gina i]

I am not even on the fence about this. There is no reason the people should suffer because of a stupid leader..

But then again, look at Iraq, etc, etc, etc.

[bevin]

Quote:

If a dictator really wants to go to war, is there anything anyone can do to stop him?

Nope.

If the Bush administration wants to go to war, what's to stop them?

The real question here is WHY is NK thinking it needs to do what it is doing.

The answer is the Bush administration is blocking all their other choices.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If the Bush administration wants to go to war, what's to stop them?

Just a little junior high school civics lesson. President Bush is not a dictator. If he wants to go to war, the Congress can stop him. He recieved authorization from Congress for the wars we are now in.

Quote:

The real question here is WHY is NK thinking it needs to do what it is doing.

Mental illness perhaps??? Too many John Wayne movies perhaps??? Only God knows.

Quote:

The answer is the Bush administration is blocking all their other choices.

SPIN ALERT! Bush does not control China. Bush does not control Japan. Bush does not control Russia. Bush does not control South Korea. Bush is not the boogieman.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

There is no reason the people should suffer because of a stupid leader..

But life isn't fair. How many Germans suffered because of Hitler? How many soviets suffered because of Stalin? Sometimes there is no good thing to do and we have to choose the least of two evils.

[Neil D]

Quote:

North Korea has a 1 million-man+ military. It seems clear to me they are looking for a fight.

Assuming that you are correct, what makes you think that it is an army ready to fight? What condition is the army in? If the citizens are starving, and the military is not, what's to think that perhaps the military will not take over the goverment? If the military is the main source for food for the citizens, then yeah, I can see why the military is a one millian man army as the citizens join to recieve food for thier familys.

Quote:

It is now being reported that North Korean soldiers in the DMZ are spitting on South Korean soldiers and giving them the finger. Of course, if they are doing that it is likely because they have been ordered to.

sources, please....and non-related sources at that. [please note, it is NOT source, but rather the plural of source, aka sources]

Quote:

If a dictator really wants to go to war, is there anything anyone can do to stop him?

Didn't seem to stop GWB...especially when he manipulated information at a time when the public was vunerable....There are times when I wonder if he didn't arrange 9/11...I know, it's very far fetched...but still, you gotta wonder how this stupid man stayed in the office as long as he did without some sort of manipulation of the populace...

Quote:

SPIN ALERT! Bush does not control China. Bush does not control Japan. Bush does not control Russia. Bush does not control South Korea. Bush is not the boogieman.

Granted, china,russia is not controled by the US. As for Japan and S. Korea, we are primary influences in those countries [ please note, we are not THE primary influence in those countries]. However, we are a major influence in China and in Russia...So, don't discount our influences in those countres. and yes, Bush IS a boogieman.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

sources, please....

I heard it on the radio. Most likely that would have been ABC or FOXNews although I do listen to one station that gets reports from CNN.

Quote:

Didn't seem to stop GWB...

Please see the junior high school civics' lesson in post #98536.

[Bravus]

The US has arrogated the role of 'World Police', so it's a bit disingenuous to now disclaim it.

I don't think other countries should use sanctions, particularly on aid and food, to pressure North Korea, because it won't effect Kim at all, but will drive the people of the nation, who are not to blame, further into starvation and desperation. Tens of thousands of Iraqi children are estimated to have died in that country due to sanctions, while Saddam was building more and bigger palaces.

I'm not sure what form pressure should take: maybe the cessation of military aid and weapons/ammo sales. But it shouldn't be the cessation of food and necessities of life.

[Kountzer]

If we impose sanctions on N Korea they are going to threaten war. Seoul S Korea, which has a population of 2 to 4 million, is only about 20 to 30 miles from the dmz. N Korea has a large portion of its million man army stationed on the border, with all sorts of missiles and cannons trained on Seoul. If a war starts it will get really ugly quick.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think the US has self-appointed itself the role of "World Police". It did take on the role of protector of the western hemisphere with the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.

World War 1 was the first European dispute the US got involved with and President Wilson was the architect of the League of Nations but the US Congress refused to join. Then we got into World War 2 and after that joined the United Nations. However we started down the road as a "world policeman" with the Marshall Plan which was more about containing communism than being a world policeman.

A point Bevin has made in the past is that eventually every nation will have nuclear weapons. If the Lord doesn't come soon, I think that is a fair assesment. Therefore what the world community needs to do is assure that governments with nuclear weapons do not sell them to militia groups or terrorists. In the case of North Korea, China is the one with the influence. The US cannot control what North Korea does.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not in favor of sactions on North Korea. I think China needs to solve this problem and preasure needs to be put on China. However IF sanctions are put in place and people suffer and die because of them, the blame for that suffering belongs to North Korea's dictator - not the nations implementing the sanctions. That would be like blaming Child Protective Services for placing children in a foster home because the parents are sentenced to prison. The blame would be on the parents not CPS and yet the innocent children suffer.

[Bravus]

That's true, but I always say in every situation that fixing where the blame lies is the least practical thing we can do. Is it any consolation to someone already oppressed by Kim that their starvation is his fault not theirs? Of course not. I oppose sanctions because (a) the human cost is just too high and ( they're unlikely to work without bringing the entire country (even more) to its knees, and likely not even then.

[Dr. Shane]

I am against them due to point (. If sanctions would work and thus prevent nuclear weapons from landing in the hands of terrorists, then the human cost may well be less than it would be with nuclear weapons in the wrong hands.