The rigid foreign policy of the United States is keeping the
North Korean regime in power and the North Korean people poor and hungry
History teaches us that, eventually, all Communist
dictatorships yield to the pressure of the outside world. Robert Guest's
brilliant book Borderless Economics demonstrated
how the mighty power of globalisation, continued advancement of technology, and
the free movement of people, now make it near impossible for communist despots
to keep their subjects ignorant of a free and prosperous world beyond their
borders.
The best have tried and failed to create the kind of
will-breaking, all powerful State that George Orwell chillingly portrayed in Nineteen eighty-four. Mao’s China,
Ferdinand Marcos’ despicable rule in the Philippines and the Soviet Union under
Joseph Stalin were all regimes that tried relentlessly to suffocate their
subjects of anything outside State approval.
None though, have come closer to succeeding than the ongoing
regime in North Korea. Kim Jong-un, the second beneficiary of the country’s
unique Marxist-Leninist style hereditary monarchy, has said numerous times
already that the oppressive policies of his father and grandfather will
continue under his own leadership.
Predictably, and as the North Korean hierarchy no doubt
anticipated, his ascension to leader sent the world’s media into further frenzy
about the intentions of a ‘dangerous and volatile nuclear State.’
Yet the truth about this tiny, bankrupt country, run by the
so-called ‘first family’ like their own private estate, could not be any more
different. For all their noisy riff raff, this is an administration that poses
more of a threat to its own starving and neglected people than it does to other
parts of the world.
The staged processions of soldiers uniformly marching as far
as the eye can see, the suspect claims of advanced nuclear technology and the
power of a ‘million-strong’ military are all shown to be hollow when the
surface is scratched a little.
With this in mind, why is it that the United States
continues to bite?
The Obama administration, which has made no progress from
its predecessor in dealing with foreign despots, suggested in November that
"If they [North Korea] choose to fulfil their international obligations
and commitments to the international community, they will have the chance to
offer their people lives of growing opportunity instead of crushing poverty"
 |
| Seeing red: Mr. Obama on the border of North Korea |
Mr. Obama was at it again today, peering across the border
from behind bulletproof glass in no-man's-land between North and South
Korea, he suggested food aid would be immediately cut if North Korea go ahead
with their apparent plans to test a long range missile.
Bizarrely, the United States continues to advocate this
unimaginative, one dimensional foreign policy that only serves to aid the cause
of the North Korean command. George W. Bush's rather 'cut-and-dry', one size
fits all foreign policy should have been ditched by the Obama administration
some time ago, yet, the truth of the matter is that they have enthusiastically
embraced Mr. Bush's failed model that, in this case, does nothing but ensure North Koreans remain poor, hungry and,
crucially, in the fight for a democratic future, more vulnerable to their
government’s continuous dose of anti-American
propaganda.
The North Korean hierarchy’s survival is almost wholly
dependent on the continuation of American hostilities. Without the United
States who could the regime tell their people are to blame for their empty
bellies and empty pockets? Who would they blame for the need to spend more than
a quarter of all GDP on the military to ‘protect’ their people and stand up to
the Americans?
Until the United States ends its belligerent rhetoric and
obsession with North Korea’s modest weapons program the last bastion of
communism will continue to struggle on, and millions of starving North Koreans
will pay the price with their lives. The United States must use the opportunity
afforded to them by the death of Kim Jong-il and begin to work closely with a
still new, inexperienced leader in Kim Jong-un. Would he be willing to give up
power with a guaranteed quiet exit before the entrapments of power stain his
hands with blood? It’s not unreasonable to think so, given what he will have
seen happen to Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.
However, the North Korean regime should know that it has nothing
to fear from the United States, who are morally and financially bankrupt and
would be incapable of carrying their battle beaten.
What the North Korean hierarchy fear most is the
emancipation of the hearts and minds of their people. They are afraid of them
knowing that, beyond the high walls of ‘the fatherland’, exists a land of
greater liberty and prosperity. The regime will be aware of the Eastern
Europeans of the 1980’s who knew of this land and forced down the Berlin Wall
to embrace it.
It is time for the United States to discuss a deal with
North Korea whereby food and energy aid, as well as a guarantee to respect
North Korea’s sovereignty and allay the regimes fear of being swallowed up by
China, could be exchanged for a steady opening up of the country to foreign aid
workers, greater press freedom and the transition to a multi-party state. The
previous policy against negotiating with ‘rogue’ states has shown to only harm
the innocent civilians of those countries and must be reversed. The lives of
millions of North Koreans depend on it.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
This morning, I heard a surprisingly weak and misguided
argument from the chief economist at CentreForum, Tim Leunig, who told me last
week's budget was the sole intellectual property of Chancellor George Osborne.
This was a 'Tory budget from a Tory Chancellor', he declared.
 |
| Osborne was careful not to rock the boat |
The thing is, he's completely wrong. Even the most basic
outline of the budget should allow for anyone to see that this budget is
Liberal Democrat authored.
The reduction in the tax free allowance for pensioners will
create State dependency, the lowering of the 40p threshold hits middle England,
the quiet disappearance of the Tory idea of 'enterprise zones' has gone
unnoticed, and what about taking over the liabilities of the Royal Mail? Since
when was nationalisation a Tory policy?
Most bizarrely, given he is a historian who has written on
railways, Mr. Leunig also failed to notice the expensive upgrade afforded to
the railway between Manchester and Sheffield, the latter being Nick Clegg's
personal constituency, and both being cities where there is not a single Tory
MP.
This budget is splashed with yellow, Liberal Democrat
yellow, and equally, that of the yellow-bellied Tory front-bench, too cowardly
to write their own budget for fear of rocking the foundations of the coalition.
_____________________________________________________________________
And another thing, Mr Cameron...
And another thing, Mr Cameron...
