The article talked about the financial priorities of the Kim's regime in North Korea. Undoubtedly, the first priority is their military, which took away $1.3 billion in year 2012. After that would be the leader's personal expense (probably there are other things that the article hasn't mentioned), which was counted for $646 million. The last in the list would be the North Korean people since according to the W.F.P and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 84% of North Korean households had "borderline" or "poor" levels of "food consumption" in 2013 (food only).
This is surely what we discuss in class about socialism system. There is a consistency of shortage, especially in the consumption sector. Does socialism really distribute an equality system regarding income, or it creates a system where top government can hoard cash and power into their own pocket and leave the rest in equally deeply poverty ? All Mr. Kim cares is power so don't even bother talk about human rights with him since to him, it doesn't exist. Actually the system looks a lot like slavery, where there is only one lord and slaves are the local.
The article also mentioned a different way that other countries can use to change what is happening in North Korea. In short, since the Kim Regime has to used American Banks (and other international banks) for their transactions, the foreign entities can prevent the account from spending on wrong purposes and limited to specific activities only like providing food, health care for people. This may work, and may not work since it is rather hard to supervise the use of the money even with regulations like that.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/pyongyangs-hunger-games.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
6 comments:
This article brings up a good point of limiting banking activities of Kim's regime. The issue here is that the government can use the accounts of allies, such as China in order to continue his personal spending. With that said putting limits will put a pressure on Kim's regime.
I'm shocked at the atrocities this article exposes. But sanctions and limited banking policies is the key to correcting this dismal situation. I would actually argue, like the article alluded to, that China will not allow North Korea to exploit their accounts this time around. Because China is also dependent on the US is their route to the global financial system. With a combination of sanctions and limited banking policies, I feel that the staggering hunger-related deaths will come to an end. This will need to be a world effort though. Because North Korea is not export heavy, the global system needs to come together to impose sanctions on this clear violation of human rights.
This problem does require solution that needs global participation. China needs to limit their banking which will help reduce Kim's spending. Sanctions will help end the human rights violations, but the limiting the banking policies will have the biggest impact.
North Korea is known for its labor camps, and closely watched citizens, that if they ever say anything negative about the regime they will be killed or sent to a camp. I wonder if a revolt will ever happen but people are so oppressed I don't think they could get away with it. How far will this go until we make North Korea a place of interest and have international assistance? The UN and the U.S. have tried but I think they could do more. Could countries start sanctioning North Korea, or holding out Kim's bank accounts? Would Kim Jong-un just fight back or threaten with military?
Economically Kim Jong-un's country is whatever he wants. Is this true communism if he exports luxury goods for only himself? Or is it a socialist country with communist approaches? What would we call North Korea's economic system?
When a country has higher inequality there is usually lower growth rates. But because of the labor camps does the country not need to have high growth rate because it is exploiting people? Wouldn't the country be better off by having more food go to people and having higher productivity? But then people would have more power and could revolt. Is this how the leader sees his regime and people? This is not smart for his country, he could make more money off of people if he fed them, and import more limousines but I guess he is set with his own ways.
Post a Comment