North Korea defied world with nuclear test. Now it seeks aid for flood disaster | Hacker News Reader

North Korea defied world with nuclear test. Now it seeks aid for flood disaster

washingtonpost.com

63 pointsendswapper108 comments

The fundamental problem with NK is that it successfully sustains the fiction that the U.S. is going to attack "real soon now". That widespread (in NK) belief combined with nukes is a very dangerous combination. We can't do much about the nukes, but this humanitarian crisis provides an opportunity to move the needle on the Dangerous Fiction: make a public offer to provide humanitarian aid in exchange for a public acknowledgement that the aid is coming from the U.S. This acknowledgement would have to be broadcast on NK television so we can know that the NK people will see it.

Yes, it is unlikely that KJU would accept this. The goal here is not to actually extract the concession, but rather to sow seeds of doubt in the Dangerous Fiction in the minds of the NK elites by setting up a situation where the only reason that people are starving is KJU's refusal to acknowledge a simple truth: the U.S. is providing food.

The US has sustained the fiction that terrorists are going to attack "real soon now" and people still accept it like some existential threat. Meanwhile we're onto the 15th year of toddlers killing parents with their own handguns outnumbering terrorists attacks. So I guess we can't really be surprised by their fears - it's the whole world against them and it sort of makes sense for them to dig in deeper.

> The US has sustained the fiction that terrorists are going to attack "real soon now" and people still accept it like some existential threat.

Touche. But at least in the U.S. dissenting from this point of view doesn't get you and your family thrown in a labor camp.

We don't need to get NK to love us. We just need to sow enough doubt in the Dangerous Fiction that launching a nuclear first strike is no longer seen within NK as a desirable (or even tenable) option.

Isn't it a little insensitive to say that imply terrorist attacks on US soil are fiction when when 49 people got killed in an attack in June? I'll agree that public fear, and public official rhetoric is out of proportion to say, car accidents, but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

There's reality and there's sensitivity.

Sensitivity would be an awareness of the tragedy the Florida nightclub attacks were to the vicitms, their families, and friends.

Reality would be recognising that that event in no way, shape, or form presented the least existential threat to the US itself, and that the ties of the madman involved to organised international terrorist groups are tenuous at best. And that armed toddlers and children present a far larger clear and present danger to the United States.

I believe they tried something like that before by writing something like "from the US" on all the food. They just told the people that the US gave them the food because they were scared of North Korea and the food was some sort of tribute.

Yes, I know. That is why I would ask for a public announcement on NK TV with wording to be mutually agreed upon in advance, to avoid exactly that problem.

That sort of stuff has been proposed in the past, and the North Koreans always balk. The leadership of the country knows it's not going to survive a change in government and is willing to let millions starve if it's necessary to stay in power.

Giving Nietzsche's bio-metaphysical claim of a "will to power" a bit more empirical ground (in the order of the millions starving) to stand on.

Then NK just intentionally impedes food delivery while cheerfully playing the required TV message. US still looks bad. We just can't go through a hostile 3rd party.

I don't understand. Why would NK impeding the deliveries make the US look bad?

Because the US lied about giving them food, why else would the food not be there?

NK doesn't have to tell their citizen they are purposely impeding the food deliveries to make the US look bad. They can lie and say it's typical American incompetence.

Here's a crazy idea: consider the possibility that the situation in Korea is inscrutable and do nothing, say nothing, and focus on problems within the four corners of America. Sometimes when a crazy person singles you out on the street, your best defense is to ignore them.

What if that person has a nuclear weapon? Still best to ignore them?

Yes. What else will you do--forcibly disarm them? The genie is out of the bottle. I say this as someone who lives within range of those nukes.

ok.. so north korea says no. now what?

do you believe that if people are starving, north koreans will overthrow their government? if so, why do you believe that?

In 94-98, upwards of 3.5m people starved to death (almost 20% of their population at the time). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't play out exactly the same way this time. what's changed?

Edit: also remember, during this time, the elites were fed. It was ordinary people who starved. There was no rebellion.

> ok.. so north korea says no. now what?

Wait a week. Then fold, saying, "OK NK, you called our bluff." (But of course, you can't announce that part of the plan up front.)

> do you believe that if people are starving, north koreans will overthrow their government?

No. As you point out, that experiment has already been done, with negative results. The goal here is not to overthrow the government, the goal is to sow the seeds of doubt in the Dangerous Fiction.

> what's changed?

The goal: to sow the seeds of doubt in the Dangerous Fiction.

> Wait a week. Then fold, saying, "OK NK, you called our bluff."

ok, that's a lot more realistic.

I this is the root of the problem. NK elites are perfectly willing to let their people starve to death. Any help from the outside will be completely on their terms.

> NK elites are perfectly willing to let their people starve to death.

If that were true they wouldn't be asking for help in the first place.

The starving people are a useful tool for extracting supplies from more developed countries; much if not all of this food will be siphoned off to bribe the elites. Famines are also a useful tool to help the tyrant punish areas which are not 'compliant'.

Why do you believe that north koreans would even know about this fairly amoral thing you are proposing?

Because there are members of the NK elite who do have access to information from the outside world. (There are actually some NK civilians who have this access too, but they are not the target audience here. Anyone brave enough to take that risk is already deconverted.)

Sadly, I think the best thing to do is to say no.

North Korea makes decisions that constantly harms it's people. Conducting nuclear test after nuclear test, for what? To say you have one? To have another toy to saber rattle with? All while preaching that it exists in a sheltered paradise. All while its people starve.

Giving them aid even though they defy what pretty much everyone in the world asks them to do (even China is getting towards their wits end), only allows them to defy even more. To abuse their people even more. Not aiding them at least gives their people a chance to see what is really going on. Sadly that means some people may starve, and I'd hate to see that happen, but honestly, what else do you do?

Speaking as an American -- to say no arguably puts us on a moral footing like North Korea's -- playing political hardball at the expense of innocent people.

Suppose that a hostage taker regularly brings out hostages, holding a gun to their head, asks for food, then takes the hostages back inside to repeat the process again. The permanent misery that the hostages are in is provably due to the hostage taker's unreasonable demands interfering with their lives.

After how many rounds of this does continuing to feed the hostages make you complicit in their problems? After how many rounds of this would you say that it is reasonable to insist that the hostage taker does not get more no matter what they threaten until they ACTUALLY give something up?

I believe that we are long past this point with North Korea.

On the other hand, the humane responses of the rest of the world help to subsidize weapons development by the North Korean/DPRK government at the expense of developing sustainable agriculture and infrastructure. I view this as a weakness that the DPRK administration repeatedly exploits.

I'm unresolved as to whether the U.S. should provide the aid. But to insist that the relationship between withholding food aid and the West's moral culpability is to ignore the guilt of the DPRK administration.

I agree. It's a shitty situation either way. But really, to give them even MORE food that we already do, would be enabling abusers. They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do.

At a certain point though, the politicians have to be held responsible to the people. And people are never more hungry for change, than when they are hungry for food.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. doesn't provide food aid to African nations anymore; when it was occurring it was considered a subsidy to U.S. farmers at the expense of dumping food on local markets and destroying local agriculture.

U.S. foreign aid to developing nations is now delivered in the form of grants to local NGOs to help improve local farming practices, infrastructure (water wells mostly), and also military aid (aid earmarked to buying U.S.-made weaponry). As a percentage of federal spending, foreign aid amounts to less than one percent, dominated by aid to Israel and Egypt. West, Central, and Eastern African aid is not a significantly high percentage of U.S. federal spending.

I agree with your point about enabling abusers, I just thought I should let you know that U.S. foreign aid is more sophisticated than simply dumping food on local markets.

I didn't mean to say we just dump food in Africa. I meant that we make a concerted effort to direct food there.

> They get fed if they play ball. (Problems with the continent aside) Look at how much we break our backs to feed Africa. We do it because it's the right thing to do.

What are you referring to?

Aid given outside the context of a specific crisis is fairly destructive. What that can do is drag the price of food down below what farmers in the region can work with.

If I implied that we just dump food into Africa, that's not what I meant. We make a concerted effort to feed people there.

I'm well aware of the economic implications of flooding the (already fragile) food markets of developing countries.

How so? They've directly aligned themselves with China and Russia. If that's who they want to align themselves with, that's who they should ask for aid. Until those two stop supporting NKs actions, their actions aren't going to change. It's a lot easier for NK to make demands when they've got two 400lbs older brothers standing behind them at the negotiation table.

Remember that the endgame worry here is a lot more innocent people getting nuked. It's not about keeping a political bargaining chip away from the country. It's the very real risk posed by a despot.

> Not aiding them at least gives their people a chance to see what is really going on.

That sounds nice but is exactly the opposite of what would happen; they'd likely be told the world has abandoned them, they can only rely on themselves, that sort of nationalist shout that would ultimately shift more power to Pyongyang. That's their game, and you'd be playing right into it.

Not helping them would likely backfire and increase anti-w{orld,est} sentiment that many North Koreans already carry -- taught and nurtured by leadership -- and make the people more supportive of the regime.

I highly doubt that when we give them food NK says "Hey look at how nice the Americans are" either. The people probably don't even know the food comes from us.

It really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation.

Is there more power that could be shifted to Pyongyang? What power is there in NK that they don't already possess?

Defectors already tell us that not everybody is on board, they just shut up about it. Denying North Koreans food when they need it might convert those folks to regime supporters once it's used for propaganda value. That increases the regime's power.

There's outright power, which is what you're talking about, and the people being behind you no matter what which is subtly different. If someone in the world starts favoring changing the regime, the people being behind the regime is insurance; it'd be way harder to accomplish those goals with the people in the fight.

Or denying food might be the last straw the spurs people to action against the regime.

The fact is, we don't really know what will happen.

But what leverage does it give them to create propaganda if we deny them aid that they can't just falsify if we do give them aid?

NK does not need a true story for their propaganda machine

Problem is...North Korea is a legitimate existential threat to a key US ally (South Korea) and a meaningful threat to others (Japan).

We have fun laughing at North Korea but they are armed to the teeth and are indeed capable of turning Seoul into a cinder.

This capability comes with or without nuclear weapons as well, since Seoul is located well within artillery range of the north.

You wouldn't know it given the land size of the country, but NK used to have the third largest standing army in the world, after the USA & PRC. (They are fourth now, after India)

Which would stand up just about as well as the Iraqi army did in either Gulf War after a week's worth of airstrikes from a CAG in the Sea of Japan, cruise missiles and land-based bombers out of Japan. It'd be a turkey-shoot.

In the week we obliterate the DPRK, they'll flatten Seoul.

The headline and the conversation it provokes are part of the problem.

The point should be that humanitarian efforts exist for the sole benefit of humanity.

Once a humanitarian effort becomes leverage for a political, or military, or any other objective it ceases to be a humanitarian effort.

I don't think we should be concerned with the regime until it proves it is a responsible actor domestically and in the global community.

Demonstrating our humanity is the only way to constructively engage the people of North Korea. It's much more powerful to face the hate and vitriol in the propaganda of North Korean with something as seemingly irrational as humanitarian aid. What I mean is that the State's propaganda loses it's power, it loses the idea that is reasonable when we continue to help them despite nuclear threats, et al. Only then can the people of North Korea find their power and choose a path. I imagine, at some point, they will reach a tipping point like Egypt. Buying in to their provocations is simply taking the bait and allowing them to continue with business as usual.

Once a humanitarian effort becomes leverage

But that was true from the start. I appears that NK makes humanitarian efforts a political issue, but basing resource allocations on the assumption that the rest of the world will bail them out.

Thus, our aid to them is effectively allowing them to invest greater resources into weapons programs.

There are so many jokes to be made about this country. I'm guilty as making them and finding them humorous. But there are people who live in this country, who can't escape, who are struck by fear, who are brainwashed, who know nothing of the outside world.

That's getting less and less common. Apparently its really easy for North Koreans to get smuggled media from other countries, and a lot of the guards look the other way or take bribes. Most North Koreans probably realize how bad their situation is but don't say anything because they don't want to go to a labor camp.

Yeah! In Cuba there's a whole network of USB thumb drives with new content each week. It's pretty awesome.

Of course, you still need a computer. Is this sort of thing going on in NK as well?

Yes it is, but with some other challenges.

Redstar OS is a linux distribution which is distributed by the North Korean government. It has a system built in pretty deep which watermarks files. https://youtu.be/KTBemKiSgWI?t=1737

If the government gets a copy of the file from someone, they can to some degree trace back where else the file has been.

That's my understanding. People there also obtain radios and listen to South Korean broadcasts, some of which contain anti-NK messages

I don't think I'm better than any citizen of North Korea, and I have enormous sympathy for the people of South Korea who are prospering while their friends and relatives (such as they still have) may be suffering. That said, the North is a home for one of the deadliest ideological diseases the world has ever known. Democide by totalitarian governments with a "communist" flavor killed more people in the 20th century than every war combined. We should not send aid to the people of North Korea until North Korea changes internally. We should leave the door open to trade, to peace, to free exchange of ideas, and to offer support for democratization. We should make every effort to destabilize the current regime in North Korea (which is still in a state of war with us, lest we forget). Giving aid just helps stabilize the status quo, which is not an acceptable outcome.

Humanitarian aid is destabilizing when the status quo is defined by the State's propaganda of hate.

At some point, and that may not be now, it begs the question: why should we hate those that are helping?

To not help, to ignore their need, is the surest way to maintain the status quo. That would preserve the framework and justifications for the State's propaganda.

Why can't we treat this like a hostage situation? Tell NK we will provide X amount of aid if they will release Y number of citizens of their choosing. That way we lighten suffering on the country as a whole but also end suffering for some of its citizens.

And where do they go? One of the reasons why China supports North Korea is because they don't want a bunch of refugees coming in.

That's the beauty of tying it to aid. You'll have a slow trickle instead of a huge flood. I'm sure the nations that are involved would figure something out on accepting 5k refugees at a time.

Right, just like how accepting the world has been of Syrian refugees?

I'm pretty sure if there was a South Syria, whose population considers themselves to be Syrians and Syrians to be exceptional in the world, with a stable government, a thriving economy, and a security guarantee from the US, they'd have zero problems taking 5K Syrian refugees.

South Korea.

Then you get into a game of escalation where you pay more and more for fewer and fewer people. That's not good either.

Yeah that would probably happen, I was just trying to throw out new solutions that didn't end with millions dying.

Because the NK government is literally unreasonable. This isn't a case of the NK government coming to the table to talk, this is a case of other nations not wanting to see citizens suffer.

And put them where? Europe too?

I love this idea.

"Yes, you get help. But you have to give up this big a chunk of land to South Korea, with at least X people on it."

We then get to move the DMZ a bit. (South Korea may want help assimilating these people.)

I was thinking more along the lines of just people. That way they still feel like they're winning the war (Since we're just under a cease-fire). The first 5k would probably be criminals, disabled people, and general undesirables... people that have it the worst under the current leadership. The next 5k would be a little better off, and so on and so forth. I doubt it would work but it's worth a shot.

I don't think that's possible. Land mines.

Because that will encourage them to capture more?

Nuclear testing and flood relief are orthogonal issues. Particularly under a regime with limited consent from the governed.

This is like when teachers are getting screwed and can't go on strike. In the teacher's case, if they go on strike it hurts the students the most, wheres the administration just has to deal with a small backlash.

In this case if we deny them help, we hurt the people of the DPRK, not really the administration.

So the global community are the teachers, who want to help the people of the DPRK, are angry at the administration, and can't do anything but keep helping.

These are linked; every time NK wants something, it starts rattling its sabres so that when talks over aid happen, they can leverage more.

Why not just form an international coalition, invade and free, once and for all, the Korean people from that horror? It's gotta be the most justified military intervention in History.

Yes, besides a funny hairdo, the crazy in chief has a few nuclear fire crackers. Just destroy those installations before sending the troops.

It's a worthy task, and the key to doing so is getting China on board. On one hand, NK is probably the most exasperating "ally" China has, but on the other hand, China really doesn't want the combination of refugees and US bases on its borders in the event the government collapses. So perhaps a deal where North Korea becomes a Chinese SAR for a period of 25-50 years (since China is much better prepared to absorb the cost than South Korea)?

There's a lot of complex issues involved, but I have to agree. If ever there was a justified invasion, this has to be top 5 at least.

Aiding DPRK would be a dangerous move. Either their populace starves or their weapons program loses money. If the population starves, there's a huge higher chance of revolution. As terrible as it is, it's a win-win for the international community, and even North Korea as well, in the long term.

I dunno. I see your point and if it were nearly any other nation, I'd even agree, but there's something special about the DPRK. I frankly don't see them ever revolting. It's perhaps the only country that's so successfully isolated it's population and -- as much as I dislike the term -- brainwashed them.

I'm beginning to think they'd sooner starve than revolt. After all, they've already been through this so many times...

This is a country that operates death camps for minor crime. The chances of a revolution led by the civilian populace is nil thanks to decades of fear and brainwashing.

It needs to have the support of the military.

> If the population starves, there's a huge higher chance of revolution

What makes you think so? They already went through one horrible famine (the "Arduous March", back in the '90s, which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine) without support for the regime shaking.

The absolutely stunning amount of indoctrination and thought control the government has put its people through has made North Korea a place where the normal political laws of nature do not apply. Light bends by itself, water flows uphill. It's a deeply weird place, which makes predicting how its people will react to events very difficult.

Generosity is the highest form of giving. The people in North Korea are in need. Providing the basics of food can empower and help many, and provide us with an opportunity for that kindness to be freely recognized, either directly or indirectly. If we needed something from them, the kindest thing they could do is give without expecting something in return. If they are our enemy, we will not win the day treating them as such when given the opportunity to be a friend.

"defied the world"

Who are they talking about? I don't feel defied.

Mostly my feeling about North Korea is that they need help

There's probably plenty of ways to use this as an opportunity to weaken the regime. Perhaps even just meeting outsiders will help shatter the propaganda bubble?

I think it is important to make a distinction between the regime and the people. In this perspective, it is wrong to start mocking their country.

I'm a little disappointed in the US. We have the best case you could make for an ethical forced regime change by a foreign power, (can you consent to be governed when you are brainwashed and not consenting is punishable by imprisonment?) and we aren't on this? I'd love to get some alternate reality tv a la rick and morty to watch america world police kim jong un's face.

Look at how successful we've been at regime change in the last 15 years! Do you really want a war with Russia and China?

I think Russia and China would be happy to (eventually) have a potential new economically productive neighbor country, but I don't know that much about politics so...

Either way though, the situation is already terrible. I don't think it could get much worse (assuming we could disable their nuclear capabilities before any kind of major military action). I'm not saying it's pretty, but it just doesn't look like we are making much progress through usual diplomatic channels.

North Korea's population is already starving.

I'm pretty cold, but that's ice cold.

What they should do is say, we'll give you aid if you let us build a military base in Pyongyang and then litter the whole country with flyers announcing the potential aide but on those conditions, and let it go from there.

Their response would most likely be "no thanks". Would that make it any better than not offering to help at all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com