North Korea and UN Funds: is the U.S. Hypocritical?
by Richardson ~ June 26th, 2007. Filed under: Diplomacy, Engagement, Korean War, Nuclear Proliferation, Six-Party Talks.Is the U.S. being hypocritical for criticizing the UN for hemorrhaging cash into North Korea when America has a) paid $20 million for MIA remains, b) sent over $1 billion in food and energy aid (i.e., the heavy fuel oil called for as part of the 1994 Agreed Framework), and c) allowed $25 million in tainted funds to be transferred to North Korea?
Over the past six months, the Bush administration has repeatedly criticized the U.N. Development Program for channeling millions of dollars in hard currency into North Korea to finance the agency’s programs, warning that the money might be diverted to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.
But the United States also has funneled dollars to Kim Jong Il’s regime over the past decade, financing travel for North Korean diplomats and paying more than $20 million in cash for the remains of 229 U.S. soldiers from the Korean War. And in a bid to advance nuclear talks, the Bush administration recently transferred back to North Korea about $25 million in cash that the Treasury Department had frozen at Banco Delta Asia, a Macao-based bank that the United States had accused of laundering counterfeit U.S. currency on behalf of North Korea.
Such transactions emphasize philosophical differences in the administration over the wisdom of engaging with North Korea and highlight the compromises that the United States, the United Nations and others face in dealing with Pyongyang.
“The U.S. has no moral high ground,” said Michael Green, a former special assistant to President Bush who served as senior director for Asian affairs in the National Security Council. “In terms of bribing Kim Jong Il, UNDP is a minor offender.” (emphasis added)
While I respect Michael Green, I do not agree completely on this issue. The release of BDA funds may have a purpose, but that remains to be seen. However, funds for MIA remains is mostly justifiable, I think. The UN “atm” problem could also be much, much worse than they are admitting (they actually have no idea where the funds went as they didn’t keep records for years), and the U.S. congress is taking some action on that. I’ll add that the U.S. is seeking clear goals (return of remains and the more questionable continuation of Six-Party Talks), while the UN seemingly acted as a recordless, open cashbox for the North Korean government for years. I recognize a significant difference there.
All of these funds, however, have helped prop up Kim Jong-il’s regime and helped prove wrong time and again predictions or regime failure. Kim Dae-jung’s $500 million dollar give away helped as well, but the growing trade and aid with South Korea and China has been key in keeping the regime afloat:
North Korea’s regime has skillfully extracted hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes from foreign companies and governments, and has persuaded South Korea and China to supply billions of dollars’ worth of food and fuel with virtually no oversight. South Korea reportedly paid hundreds of millions to bribe the North Korean leader to attend a 2000 summit, and China agreed in 2005 to build a $50 million glass factory for North Korea in exchange for its participation in six-nation nuclear talks.
Such payments are “part and parcel of doing business in North Korea,” said L. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Mansfield Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes U.S. relations with Asian countries.
Since 1995, the United States has provided the North Korean regime with more than $1 billion worth of food and fuel in the hopes of forestalling famine — and of restraining Kim’s nuclear ambitions. In an effort to promote diplomatic contacts between the two countries, the Energy Department has channeled money to U.S. nonprofit agencies and universities, including a $1 million grant to the Atlantic Council to cover travel costs for informal talks between U.S. and North Korean diplomats.
U.S. military officials routinely traveled to North Korea’s demilitarized zone between 1996 and 2005 to give cash to North Korean army officers for the recovery of the remains of 229 of the more than 7,000 U.S. troops missing in North Korea since the Korean War. “There was a painstaking transfer process: cold, hard cash, counted carefully, turned over carefully,” said Larry Greer, spokesman for the Pentagon’s Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office.
Greer insisted that the payments, which covered labor, material and other expenses, were in line with recovery operations in other parts of the world. But he and other officials said North Korea frequently tried to inflate the costs and once requested that the U.S. military build a baby-clothing factory. The United States demurred, he said.
The Bush administration dramatically scaled back U.S. assistance to North Korea in 2002, but it continued to finance the effort to recover remains of Korean War veterans until 2005, when the U.S. military said it could no longer ensure the safety of U.S. recovery teams. Between 2002 and 2005, the United States flew a seven-member North Korean team, at a cost of $25,000 a year, to Bangkok for discussions about future recovery missions, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“It’s pretty close to a ransom of remains,” said James A. Kelly, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, adding he had little confidence that Washington could account for how the money was spent. “I personally didn’t like it, but I didn’t feel it was enough to get into a big squabble with the veterans organizations that felt strongly about it.”
I fully expect North Korea to again renege on the 13 February agreement – the one where they were to shutdown their nuclear reactor at Yongbyon by 14 April, but waited until they received the BDA funds to even consider it, even though that condition is not in the agreement they put their names to – over the provision for fully declare all nuclear programs, which as Christopher Hill has stated, definitely includes the highly enriched uranium (HEU) program:
North Korea will declare its nuclear programs during the second phase of the process. The declaration must include an explanation regarding the purchase of considerable equipment for its highly enriched uranium program. They will also have to make clear and detailed reports on the nuclear substances already in their possession and confirm the amount of their military grade plutonium, of which experts’ speculations vary from 40kg to 60kg. Complete disabling of its nuclear facilities would be the next step. (emphasis added)
Of course North Korea may manufacture some other reason to renege even sooner (the regime cannot deal honestly). Either way, when they break the deal again, without the dubious BDA excuse that enough in the press essentially validated for them, the Bush administration should seek strict isolation of North Korea with the goal of regime change via collapse. If they don’t use the political capital gained by pursuing “engagement” and proving it won’t work, I’ll give up on them (yeah, I know just how frightened they are at the prospect) and admit James was correct.
Read the rest of the WaPo article here.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I say toss out the GI war dead remains altogether. If they can show me that the amount of money paid for the effort per remains taken was exceedingly gross, —- that it was just a cover to give NK piles of cash — then fine, jump on it, but if it is not much money then I think trying to lump it in with others is wrong.
Next, I can entertain the idea that food aid has tainted America’s moral high ground. I have yet, I think, to hear that argument made directly by any big players. It would be interesting for me to hear someone defending the UN make that case. I guess they could if the idea is to say, “We are all immoral.”
That would be fascinating…
“We are all immoral. Yes, we keep the concentration camps going with our ATM-style, and the US keeps the concentration camps going with its food aid.”
I guess this holds together if the follow-up is that being immoral is just peachy - or the only way.
Which is what would eventually happen.
I can’t see anyone who defends the UN also saying that the UN and US should cut off food aid to topple the regime.
And that is probably the most fundamental thread in all of this: He can call the US hypocrits for doing things that do in fact keep the regime alive.
But, nobody out there seems willing to say the regime should be brought down - or - at minimum - that we shouldn’t take part in the concentration camps - that we should stop all aid and let the bodies fall where they may….
June 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Yes, the argument seems to be either a) we’re all immoral, or b) it’s not immoral to help North Korea after all, the U.S. is just hypocritical for going after the UNDP “atm.” I don’t buy either and think it’s a false dilemma.
While not happy about the heavy fuel oil given to North Korea, it was after all part of the 1994 Agreed Framework, and the U.S. keeps its deals.
No-strings-attached, unmonitored aid (hello UNDP and South Korea) is the issue, as well as general support/protection from China.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
USAinKorea,
You might feel differently if your brother, father, uncle, or grandfather’s remains were still in nK. On the other side of that issue, the money does support KJI. No money for dictators is my philosophy.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I think USinKorea meant – and he’ll probably clarify – to “throw out” the portion of the argument that might apply the ~$20 million in funds as being hypocritical of the U.S., though it didn’t come out exactly that way.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Hamilton,
It’s like Richardson said.
I meant throw out the talk of the money given for the remains in this argument over whether the US is hypocritical in part because of that money.
There is no viable means to bring that small amount of money for that purpose into the debate.
If the remains of the US soldiers were being used as an excuse to pump in significant amounts of money to the North — if it was just a ploy — then the person Richardson was quoting from could bring that up.
But, that is not the case.
So, there is nothing hypocritical about the US trying to regain the remains of GIs from the war.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Hypocrisy is a charge thrown to stifle debate. That, however, depends on the perception that hypocrisy is a bad thing. For humans, to do as we say at all times is an impossible task. Governments are made up of people, whether it is of the people or of a dead guy and a midget.
I personally think that North Korea is turning soldier’s remains into a racket and that food aid is getting the US no where. However, it does not change the belief that it is unacceptable to become an ATM machine like the UNDP.
If people want to get caught up with something like this, then their priorities are out of whack. If the rest of us can embrace that we are merely human, then something can be done, namely, cut off funding for both the UNDP and our futile attempts of “diplomacy”.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Although the Taliban, Iraninan mullahs, jihadist movements and the governments of Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe are offering stiff competition, the fact is that human beings simply do not come any worse than the gangster types who run the DPRK. EVERY dealing with the DPRK involves moral compromises that are repugnant even in an imperfect world and every transaction taints the non-DPRK party to some degree. That means pursuing your interests with noses held and eyes wide open. Seoul is too blinded by sunshine to do that, and the UN is too corrupt and self-important. I don’t know what to say about the latest turns in US policy. The MIA/remains issue is one that no US administration can afford to ignore — but a bad pattern has been set for ever rising payments for ever diminishing returns. Those Americans involved believe that vast amounts of North Korean chicanery (a redundant term, I know) are the norm and that North Korea warehouses remains and parcels them out slowly to keep the racket going.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
$20 million for the remains of 229 soldiers. The first company contracted to collect Katrina remains, Kenyon International Emergency Services, caught flack for billing the US government $6 million for recovering 535 bodies. The true cost of recovering 229 remains does not approach the $20 million paid by the US government. The amount is a tiny fraction of the federal budget, but that is irrelevant. Money ill spent is money wasted regardless of the amount. That $20 million could have been used to renovate slummy Walter Reed Hospital. With an increasing number of returning GIs with severely debilitating injuries and complaints about the quality of care, it seems especially wasteful for the US government to ransom body parts of people who no longer use them.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Wow. Did you feel that strongly before Iraq War II and/or Bush gained the White House? (Looking for useless remains of dead GIs has been going on for some time….)
I honestly wouldn’t guess yes or no one way or another after having read your thoughts for some time. But, you do seem to get a little unhinged when it comes to Bush. Throwing in Katrina……well….
Your concern for the medical treatment of GIs from the battlefield could be noble, but when you throw in Katrina, I start to have serious doubts.
As for cost comparison, seeing as how the 535 useless body parts of others’ loved ones killed by Katrina were not buried and forgotten on some battlefield half-way around the world after having given up their lives to fight for their country, over 50 years ago, costs for locating then excavating those remains might be higher.
But, your point about them being a useless collection of carbon and other inert compounds is well taken.
I don’t follow your connection to Katrina’s wasted flesh and bones, however. Would you agree that the $6 million for those 535 was a colossal waste of tax payer money?
How many news homes or low-income duplexes could that $6 millions have build? Or, how many families could it have helped move back to their home areas if it had been used to supplement their rent for 6 months or a year or so?
(Does the fact the government - under Bush - spent that $6 million put a dent in the idea Bush was a heartless bastard when it came to Katrina and didn’t care one iota because he thought it only affected a bunch of black people and he could give a rat’s ass about them?)
Maybe you could say that useless collection of decaying matter caused by Katrina was a health issue - that federal, state, and local tax money had to go to locating those dead bodies for sanitary concerns - but those bones in North Korea were no longer even fertilizing Kim Jong Il’s kimchi fields.
That would work. That argument would make the above consistent — how you could begrudge the US greatly for looking for useless bones in North Korea (notice I didn’t say “Bush” but did say “US” since looking for remains of dead GIs has been government policy for some time) but perhaps not begrudge the looking of dead bodies from Katrina.
But, I would first need some clarification on whether or not you support or didn’t support the hunt for Katrina victims, because I can’t tell from the above.
I see that you could actually be making a strong argument - a strong one - in either direction…
Was that $6 million money ill spent or not?
And why, either way?
I would have to conclude, however, that you think South Korea is highly stupid for spending so much time and money excavating Korean War dead on its own soil. I mean, SK does have a homeless problem, to name just one….
June 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Sonagi,
I understand your concern for those needing help now, but believe your sentiment would have few takers among actual soldiers or their families, including those at Walter Reed and related facilities. The U.S. has a responsibility to the families of soldiers to return those remains. Leaving anyone behind, even the dead, is not acceptable. The money is neither ill spent nor wasted.
Also, MIA recovery in a foreign country often requiring archaeologists is hardly comparable to the recovery of Katrina victims.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
“Wow. Did you feel that strongly before Iraq War II and/or Bush gained the White House? (Looking for useless remains of dead GIs has been going on for some time….)
I honestly wouldn’t guess yes or no one way or another after having read your thoughts for some time. But, you do seem to get a little unhinged when it comes to Bush.”
I felt that way after I found out our government gave KJI $20 million. I double-checked my post, and yep, no mention of Bush.
“Was that $6 million money ill spent or not?…But, I would first need some clarification on whether or not you support or didn’t support the hunt for Katrina victims, because I can’t tell from the above. “
Some expenditures were highly questionable, for example, model cars and glue to put them together. Spending money to locate remains in order to return them to their families is not wasteful if the money is actually spent on that endeavor, not on unnecessary items or activities.
“The U.S. has a responsibility to the families of soldiers to return those remains. Leaving anyone behind, even the dead, is not acceptable. “
At any cost? Even if the money could be used against us?
I believe in handling human remains with respect, but I do not believe in spending a lot of money to do so, especially when the needs of living humans are unmet. I view our bodies as not really ours; we are just borrowing matter. Every single atom in our bodies came from something else and will become part of something else after we die. That is the cycle of life.
Nearly all of my close relatives who are deceased are buried in the same cemetery. My brother was cremated, so his grave merely holds a handful of ashes. Does it matter? Not to me. His body is gone, his spirit…I don’t know, but his memory lives in my heart. That handful of ashes is not my brother, nor are the corpses that fill the caskets under the graves of my other beloved relatives.
I understand that my views are not shared by all. My mother very reluctantly respected my brother’s wishes and was not pleased when I told her I wanted cremation, also. I relented and told her, “Look, when I’m dead, my body literally becomes yours as next of kin, so do what you want.”
June 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
So Katrina and the money spent by the administration for remains in NK just naturally popped into your head - perhaps thanks to the overwhelming news coverage over such a long time…
But you did answer the question about the value of the money spent looking for dead bodies on Katrina and also anticipated a question I began having about acknowledgment of different (cultural) perspectives on human remains.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:31 am
My own opinion was always that they could leave me where I fell, and I often viewed the entire MIA search process as a tremendous waste of money. That view ignored that last fact noted by Sonagi. After we’re dead, the body that housed us becomes a “movable good”. “Property” of our nearest kin, or whomever we have designated in our wills. It is the living who have expectations, and exert pressure on their government. And it precisely that spirit which keeps the search for remains alive. As a democracy, the U.S. government views itself as responsible to its electorate, and thus to the next of kin of our fallen for returning to them as much of their loved one as is practible, so that the remains may be interred in accordance with the wishes of the family. This act, even decades after the fact, is largely viewed by the families as an act of closure. Simply put, as one of the world’s richest nations, we can afford it. Whatever was left of my good friend, deputy, and best man of my first wedding (Lt Freddie Ransbottom, killed as a recon platoon leader with the 2nd Bn, 1st US Infantry) was recovered only late last year from Kham Duc. He ws interred in his native Oklahoma in early January this year. I missed the funeral, but followed the story in the local papers. It was quite obvious that Freddy’s family viewed the funeral service as a long needed act of closure. Hopefully, it helped lift some of their pain.
Freddie Ransbottom. A short, red-headed, freckled, volkswagen driving fire-cracker of a kid who was the son of a Baptist Preacher. Freddie’s mother was diagnosed with breast cancer the year he went to Vietnam. Apparently she survived. His father did not. So it was his siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces who took time to remember him. And an old comrade surfing the net from Korea. All in all, money well spent. Whatever it cost to get those few pieces of him back.
June 28th, 2007 at 7:09 am
As someone mentioned by email, abandoning such MIA programs would also be a severe blow to military morale. And soldiers recognize that recovering the dead is not for them but for their families. Personally I prefer cremation for ease of transport back home for burial with the rest of the family. It won’t make a wit of difference to me, but will to those who want to visit the graves.
The military is in no small way responsible for the freedoms and standard of living Americans enjoy, and doing such a last service for their family is in fact an obligation. Even if it costs on average over $87,000 per repatriation.