7 of 10 Lawmakers Want
Humanitarian Aid
Daily NK. 8/30/12 By
Cho Jong Ik
A new survey has
revealed that 7 out of 10 members of the 19th National Assembly are in
favor of the consistent provision of humanitarian aid to North Korea, along
with the separating of such aid from political and military concerns.
Professor Kang Dong
Whan of Donga University reported the survey findings at a debate event held
yesterday by the liberal 'Korean NGO Council for Cooperation with North Korea'
and 'Korean Council for Reconciliation and Cooperation'.
According to the
survey findings, 63 out of the 88 lawmakers polled responded that they either
“agree” (39) or “strongly agree” (24) with the statement “Humanitarian aid
should proceed independent of the inter-Korean political and military
situation.”
Only 4 lawmakers came
out against the statement, while 20 more gave a neutral response.
The survey, which was
conducted by a combination of email, fax and face-to-face meeting between July
24th and August 22nd this year, included 39 lawmakers from the ruling
Saenuri Party, 38 with the opposition Democratic United Party, 3
from the left wing United Progressive Party, 3 from the right wing
Liberty Forward Party and 5 independents. There was no requirement
to respond to every question.
Asked what the
greatest benefit of humanitarian aid is, 25 responded that “it provides a
minimum safety valve for inter-Korean relations” and 16 said that “it improves
the North Korean people’s image of South Korea”, while both “it improves the
humanitarian situation in North Korea” and “it improves inter-Korean relations”
garnered 15 votes each.
In line with the
findings, 34 of the respondents called for the phased removal of the May 24th Measures, the policy
put in place following the Cheonan sinking of March 26th 2010, while 24
said the measures must be eased in some areas including humanitarian aid, and
22 called for the measures to be removed entirely with immediate effect.
More on GOP
Foreign Policy I: The
Platform
Peterson Institute for
International Economics. 8/30/12 By Stephen Haggard
This week and next, we
follow up on some earlier posts on Republican foreign policy, starting with the
platform today and then looking at the major policy speeches by Senator McCain
and former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice.
There is a debate
about whether party platforms matter. They are clearly not serious policy
documents. No president in his right mind would be formally bound by them, and
they are often seen as a sop to various otherwise-disaffected factions. On the
other hand, platforms signal campaign themes and are revealing of policy
currents within the party that might politically constrain the administration.
The title of the
chapter of the Republican Party platform dealing with foreign policy is
“American Exceptionalism.” The central doctrine is the standard claim that
peace is best advanced through American military strength, an unobjectionable
argument to which both parties would agree. But the Republican platform mixes
this with a doctrine of American exceptionalism—“the conviction that our
country holds a unique place and role in human history”—and that we should rely
on Divine Providence to assure continued American greatness.
The main charge
against the current administration is that it has “led from behind” and has
“responded with weakness to some of the gravest threats to our national
security this country has faced, including the proliferation of transnational
terrorism, continued belligerence by a nuclear-armed North Korea, an Iran in
pursuit of nuclear weapons, rising Chinese hegemony in the Asia Pacific region,
Russian activism, and threats from cyber espionage and terrorism.” A Wall Street Journal preview suggests that
Syria and Iran are likely to get particular attention.
The administration’s
weakness is evident in proposed defense cuts, about which there has been a
tremendous amount of confusion, some of it purposeful on both sides of the
aisle. Particularly maddening are charges by both parties that the other side
is solely responsible for the looming sequestration cuts. In fact, the whole
purpose of the sequestration cuts was to force compromise. But the Republicans
appear to have gotten the better of this commitment mechanism because they can
now blame the Democrats for military cuts.
That said, the
Republicans are correct that the Obama administration has proposed a gradual
decrease in military spending as a component of the much-needed fiscal
consolidation; the Republicans have not—to my knowledge—outlined what role
military spending plays in their efforts to move toward a more balanced budget.
The Council on Foreign
Relations has an extraordinary useful set of graphics that place the Obama cuts
in context. Some are the natural result of a decline in so-called Overseas
Contingency Operations (Iraq and Afghanistan) but some of the cuts—setting
aside the sequestration–are real and would drop spending below the trough of
around 4% of GDP hit in 2000.
On the other hand, it
is worth noting that this leaves the US accounting for about 42% of world
military spending; if we add in NATO, Japan, South Korea, Israel and Saudi
Arabia that total rises to about 64% If we sum military spending by all
democracies—on the theory that such weapons are less likely to be turned
against other democracies—the total rises to about 87%.
Ultimately, the debate
should not be about a magic number but about the systems and personnel
expenditures required to achieve strategic aims. But as we all know, the
military budget is not just about security and the Republican platform makes
clear that “a struggling economy…can ill afford to lose 1.5 million
defense-related jobs.” (Politifact has a useful survey of how you can get to
this number if the full $1 trillion of sequestration and planned budget cuts
are made, mostly through the multiplier from declining defense procurement and
base closings; needless to say, however, it is a worst case scenario and does
not ask whether these workers could be more productively employed doing
something else).
On Asia, several
paragraphs are reproduced here, with some commentary:
The Platform. “We are
a Pacific nation with economic, military, and cultural ties to all the
countries of the oceanic rim, from Australia, the Philippines, and our Freely
Associated States in the Pacific Islands to Japan and the Republic of Korea. With
them, we look toward the restoration of human rights to the suffering people of
North Korea and the fulfillment of their wish to be one in peace and freedom.
The U.S. will continue to demand the complete, verifiable, and irreversible
dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs with a full accounting
of its proliferation activities.”
SH. We do not see
anything here that differs in substance from the Obama administration approach,
which continues to combine “strategic patience” and the willingness to resume
talks when North Korea is serious about them; as we noted in the Brookings
dialogue cited above, Romney spokesmen have said that a Republican
administration would remain committed to the Six Party Talks. However,
elsewhere the platform does state a more robust commitment to the development
of missile defenses, including not only regional ones but a national system as
well.
The Platform: “We will
welcome the emergence of a peaceful and prosperous China, and we will welcome
even more the development of a democratic China. Its rulers have discovered
that economic freedom leads to national wealth. The next lesson is that political
and religious freedom leads to national greatness. The exposure of the Chinese
people to our way of life can be the greatest force for change in their
country. We should make it easier for the people of China to experience our
vibrant democracy and to see for themselves how freedom works. We welcome the
in- crease in trade and education alliances with the U.S. and the opening of
Chinese markets to American companies.
The Chinese government
has engaged in a number of activities that we condemn: China’s pursuit of
advanced military capabilities without any apparent need; suppression of human
rights in Tibet, Xinjiang, and other areas; religious persecution; a barbaric
one-child policy involving forced abortion; the erosion of democracy in Hong
Kong; and its destabilizing claims in the South China Sea. Our serious trade
disputes, especially China’s failure to enforce international standards for the
protection of intellectual property and copyrights, as well as its manipulation
of its currency, call for a firm response from a new Republican
Administration.”
SH. The first
paragraph strikes an appropriate tone and backs off some of the more hostile
rhetoric that serves little concrete purpose. The concerns raised in the second
paragraph are all legitimate, but I am straining to see the difference with the
Obama administration, which also clearly shares these concerns; we again
recommend Jeff Bader’s thoughtful reflection on the first Obama
administration’s Asia policy.
Next: what do McCain
and Rice have to say?
RMB Exchange Up 44% as
6.28 Fear Spreads
Daily NK. 8/31/12 By
Kim Kwang Jin
The Chinese Yuan-North
Korean Won exchange rate is exceedingly volatile these days even by North Korean standards.
Having struck a high
point of 1300 North Korean Won on the 27th, a 44% rise over the rate the
previous week, by the afternoon of the 30th the exchange rate had lost some of
that value, falling back to 1100won. Nevertheless, 1100won is still extremely
high; the price of Yuan only topped 1000won on the 27th, though it subsequently
fell back.
In line with the
rising exchange rate, rice is currently selling at very high prices;
approximately 6500 Won in Hyesan, Yangkang Province yesterday. This is a huge
increase; from 3000won/kg at the beginning of June to 4000won/kg at the
beginning of August.
According to a source
from the city, people cite the introduction of new economic management
measures as the cause.
“People know that when
new economic measures get announced, the prices of goods skyrocket," she
explained. "Among the economic measures there is both a dramatic rise in
wages and the raising of prices to realistic levels, and as people are now
learning about those so rice keeps going up.”
The reason why news
about new economic measures is able to inspire such volatility is that high
rates of inflation also occurred on previous occasions when economic measures
were implemented, noticeably the July 1st Economic Management Reform Measure of
2002 and the currency redenomination of November 2009. At this point, the
source noted, people's fears about the 'June 28th Policy' are greater
than their expectations.
