Six men and a woman were detained in raids in The Hague, Amsterdam and nearby Almere, the national prosecutor's office said. (...) Riot police moved in to strengthen security at the Binnenhof castle in the city where Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and others have offices.
The death toll is in the tens of thousands and the United Nations says more than 2.5 million people were left homeless by Saturday’s monster 7.6-magnitude quake.
A number of charities have already launched appeals to help with the earthquake relief efforts in south Asia. As always in a natural disaster, the immeadiate need is for cash.
Give to the charity of your choice, or consider one of these and while you have the checkbook or charge card out consider giving even more to the US hurricane victims.
Direct Relief
In the US, 805 964-4767
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
In the US, 800-HELPNOW
Mercy Corps International
In the US: 503-796-6827
Muslim Aid
Relief International
In the US, 800 573-3332 or 310 478-1200
UNICEF
In the US, 800-367-5437
World Vision
In the US, 888-56-CHILD
From California Yankee.
The Associated Press reports more than 18,000 were killed in South Asia earthquake:
Village after village was reduced to rubble, and landslides flattened an apartment building after an earthquake shook the Pakistan-India border Saturday. More than 18,000 people were killed, a Pakistani official said.
Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, Pakistan's chief army spokesman, told Pakistan's Geo TV network early Sunday that the magnitude 7.6 quake had killed more than 18,000 people and injured about 41,000. The toll included 250 girls who died when their school in northwestern Pakistan collapsed, as well as 200 soldiers on duty in the Himalayas.
UPDATE: Reuters reports the U.S. military denies that one of its officers had told reporters Osama bin Laden was seeking medical attention.
Reuters reports that Osama bin Laden is in poor health and is seeking medical attention.
“Osama bin Laden is trying to obtain medical attention,” Colonel Don McGraw, director of operations at the Combined Forces Command in Kabul, told a group of British reporters, including one from al-Hayat, it said.
“He (McGraw) refused to say what the al-Qaida leader is suffering from or whether it is the same kidney disease which Pakistani officials said in the past he was suffering from,” the newspaper added.
Al-Hayat said it was not clear how the U.S. military had obtained its information or where it thought bin Laden might be.
Another Reuters report states that Afghan commanders let bin Laden escape to Pakistan from Tora Bora in 2001:
Lutfullah Mashal, Afghanistan's Interior Ministry spokesman, said commanders helped the al Qaeda leader escape from the Tora Bora mountains as U.S. warplanes and Afghan forces attacked his hideout near the Pakistan border in late 2001.
“The help was provided because of monetary aid availed by al Qaeda and also partly because of ideological issues,” Mashal said.
“Osama along with other al Qaeda people managed to go to Parachinar (in Pakistan) at the time and then Pakistani forces battled the al Qaeda runaways, killing around 70 of them,” Mashal added, referring to an area in Pakistan's Kurram tribal agency.
He said commanders loyal to Maulvi Yunus Khalis had helped the al Qaeda leader escape. The whereabouts of Khalis, a top mujahideen leader from the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, is unknown.
From California Yankee.
Chief Justice Rehnquist died of cancer at his suburban Virginia home, shortly before 11 p.m. ET Saturday.
Rehnquist had an extraordinary career.
Rehnquist's grandparents emigrated to the United States from Sweden in 1880 and settled in Chicago. His grandfather was a tailor, his grandmother a school teacher. Rehnquist grew up in Wisconsin, the son of paper salesman and a translator.
Rehnquist attended college after World War II on the GI Bill. At Stanford, he earned both a bachelor and a master of arts degree in political science. A distinguished student, Rehnquist was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1948. He continued his education at Harvard where he received another master of arts degree — this time in government. Rehnquist returned to Stanford Law School in 1950; he graduated at the top of his class.
Rehnquist clerked for Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. He Practiced law in Phoenix before moving to Washington. He served as Assistant Attorney General of the US from 69-71
President Nixon nominated Rehnquist to replace Justice Harlan in 1971. A Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed his nomination. When Rehnquist took his oath of office on January 7, 1971, he was the court's youngest member.
In 1986, President Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice to replace Warren Burger.
Rehnquist was the force behind the court's push for greater states' rights. The chief justice has been the leader of five conservatives, sometimes called “the Rehnquist five,” Rehnquist and O'Connor, Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Thomas - who generally advocate limited federal government interference.
Rehnquist was the second-oldest person to preside over the court.
With thousands of National Guard troops being deployed to the Katrina devastated area, public order is being restored in New Orleans. The Times-Picayune reports less anarchy:
Evidence that authorities were beginning to get a grip on gargantuan problems varied from the successful and orderly evacuation of Baptist Mercy Hospital to a sharp reduction in the menacing bands of idle refugees, many of them intent on looting that had haunted Uptown neighborhoods in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
With thousands of National Guard troops being mustered to join the Louisiana guardsmen already deployed to the hurricane-stricken city, one of the early signs of the beefed-up military presence was a Blackhawk helicopter touching down near the Riverwalk to deliver water to some 1,000 refugees still sheltered in the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center.
[. . .]
As a greater presence of Chinook and Huey military helicopters became apparent in the skies over New Orleans, the near-term tactical goal was a simple one: to rescue survivors and complete an evacuation that, while massive in the days just before the hurricane struck, still left behind somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 of the city's 480,000 residents, many of them infirm, elderly and low-income people without the means to escape.
By day's end, the massive bus-lift to Houston had reduced the Superdome's population to a few thousand refugees, authorities said. But many now homeless people continue to wait on bridges and highway ramps. And while officials remained adamant about the need to get out of a flooded city without power, water, or much prospect of these services being restored for months to come, efforts to comply were frequently mired in miscommunication.
From California Yankee.
Bloomberg reports Congress will return early from its summer recess to address damage caused by Hurricane Katrina:
Both the House and Senate will be back at work by tomorrow to begin work on a package of federal disaster aid for areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Western Florida affected by Hurricane Katrina, the aide said. Lawmakers were initially slated to return to work next week from an August break.
According to Bloomberg, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the federal government has spent $2 billion on Katrina emergency aid so far.
From California Yankee.
Reuters reports 3,000 regular Army soldiers may be sent to help end lawlessness in New Orleans:
The Army has put on alert roughly 3,000 active-duty ground troops from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to be prepared to deploy to New Orleans to help bring security to the flooded city amid looting and lawlessness, said an Army official, who asked not to be named.
The brigade-sized force, likely to be from the 82nd Airborne Division, would engage in crowd control and site-protection activities, the official said.
U.S. law bars active-duty military troops from engaging in domestic law enforcement, but the Army official said crowd control and site-protection were not defined as law enforcement activities.
The official said another 240 troops from the Army's 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, also were going to the region.
From California Yankee.
The USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) to join the Katrina relief effort.
Reuters reports the number of National Guard troops under the command of state governors would reach 21,000 by the end of Friday and top 30,000 in the next few days:
The crew of up to 5,000 on the carrier would bring to nearly 35,000 the number of National Guard and active duty military troops committed to the biggest domestic relief effort ever mounted by federal agencies in the United States.
There also are nearly 8,000 sailors and other active duty troops committed to the effort, most of them aboard ships or flying air support missions.
The Truman will provide a major naval command post in the Gulf of Mexico, helping coordinate the actions of nearly a dozen other warships and supply vessels, including two Navy helicopter assault ships.
The Navy dock landing ship USS Whidbey Island will also join the relief effort. Whidbey Island will provide the capability to employ a movable causeway to help where bridges were destroyed.
The hospital ship Comfort will soon join the relief effort, providing an offshore floating medical center with 12 operating rooms and up to 1,000 beds.
From California Yankee.
Update: I and other bloggers are matching reader donations dollar for dollar over at Strengthen the Good. Double your money! Make us pay!! Visit STG and donate now …
****
Government agencies and private relief organizations are mounting what the Washington Times reports is the largest mobilization ever for a natural disaster after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast.
You can help the victims of Hurricane Katrina by making a financial donation to any of the following charities:
For a complete list of charitable agencies recommended by FEMA, visit http://www.fema.gov/rrr/help2.shtm.
The American Red Cross
The American Red Cross is launching the largest mobilization of resources in its history for a single natural disaster. More than two hundred Red Cross shelters are housing thousands of residents who fled Katrina’s wrath. More than 200 emergency response vehicles and countless other Red Cross resources are en route or on the scene to provide hot meals, snacks, bottled water and distribute other much-needed relief supplies.
You can help the victims of Hurricane Katrina by making a financial donation to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund, which enables the Red Cross to provide shelter, food, counseling and other assistance to those in need.
You can make a secure online contribution by visiting the Red Cross Online Donation Page.
You can also donate by phone:
1-800-HELP-NOW
(1-800-435-7669)
English speaking1-800-257-7575
Spanish Speaking
Catholic Charities USA
1-800-919-9338, or online at http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/
Salvation Army
1-800-SAL-ARMY, or online at http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/
United Methodist Committee on Relief
1-800-554-8583, or online at http://gbgm-umc.org/
UPDATE:
Episcopal Relief & Development:
1-800-334-7626 or http://www.er-d.org/
Archdiocese of Miami-Dade
Monetary donations are being accepted by the Archdiocese of Miami, Catholic Charities, Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund, 9401 Biscayne Blvd., Miami Shores, FL 33138.
The Greater Miami Jewish Federation
Monetary donations are being accepted by The Greater Miami Jewish Federation, 4200 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, FL 33179.
Or visit www.jewishmiami.org/pledge.cfm and make a notation in the comment box for Hurricane Katrina Relief. For more information, call 305-576-4000.
Operation Helping Hand
The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald and the United Way of Miami-Dade have activated Operation Helping Hands to help hurricane victims:
Operation Helping Hands c/o United Way of Miami-Dade, P.O. Box 459007, Miami, Florida 33245-9007.
Operation Blessing
(800) 436-6348 or online at https://www.cbn.com/giving/ob/option.asp?m=alertbar&so=3
America's Second Harvest
(800) 344-8070 or online at http://www.secondharvest.org/default2.asp
Adventist Community Services
(800) 381-7171 or online at http://www.adventist.communityservices.org/index.html
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee
(800) 848-5818 or online at http://www.crwrc.org/donate/online.html
Checks be made out to “CRWRC,” earmarked “Hurricanes 2005,” and sent to 2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE, Grand Rapids, MI, 49560 or PO Box 5070, STN LCD 1, Burlington, ON, L7R 3Y8.
Church World Service
(800) 297-1516 or online at https://secure.churchworldservice.org/catalog/display.php?product_id=177
Convoy of Hope
(417) 823-8998 or online at http://www.convoyofhope.org/
Lutheran Disaster Response
(800) 638-3522 or online at http://www.elca.org/disaster/
Mennonite Disaster Service
(717) 859-2210 or online at http://www.mds.mennonite.net/
Presbyterian Disaster Assistance
(800) 872-3283 or online at http://www.pcusa.org/pda/
Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is accepting donations at its 3,800 stores and Web site, www.walmart.com.
From California Yankee.
President Bush on approved major disaster declarations for Louisiana and Mississippi The declarations will allow federal funds to start being used to deploy resources to help victims of Hurricane Katrina in those two states.
The Associated Press reports Hurricane Katrina weakened overnight to a Category 4 storm and made a slight turn to the right before making landfall at 6:10 a.m. CDT near the bayou town of Buras. Katrina passed just to the east of New Orleans as it moved inland. Although New Orleans avoided the worse case scenario, the hurricane caused lots damage:
Elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, the storm flung boats onto land in Mississippi, lashed street lamps and flooded roads in Alabama, and swamped highway bridges in the Florida Panhandle. At least a half-million people were without power from Louisiana to Florida's Panhandle, including 370,000 in southeastern Louisiana and 116,400 in Alabama, mostly in the Mobile area.
At New Orleans' Superdome, home to 9,000 storm refugees, the wind peeled pieces of metal from the golden roof, leaving two holes that let water drip in. People inside were moved out of the way. Others stayed and watched as sheets of metal flapped and rumbled loudly 19 stories above the floor.
Building manager Doug Thornton said the larger hole was 15 to 20 feet long and four to five feet wide. Outside, one of the 10-foot, concrete clock pylons set up around the Superdome blew over.
Elsewhere in the city, the storm shattered scores of windows in high-rise office buildings and on five floors of the Charity Hospital, forcing patients to be moved to lower levels. At the Windsor Court Hotel, guests were told to go into the interior hallways with blankets and pillows and to keep the doors to the rooms closed to avoid flying glass.
From California Yankee.
From BBC News:
Canada is sending its navy back to the far northern Arctic port of Churchill after a 30-year absence.The visit by two warships to the area is the latest move to challenge rival claims in the Arctic triggered by the threat of melting ice.
The move follows a spat between Canada and Denmark, over an uninhabited rock called Hans Island in the eastern Arctic region.
Read the full story here.
As expected, the White House has appointed Jay Lefkowitz as Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, a position mandated by Section 107 of the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004. In naming Mr. Lefkowitz at this time, the administration appears to have waited for a “decent interval” between negotiating sessions with North Korea during six-nation talks. The Washington Post covered the story with an article written by Reuters, which benefits from actually taking the trouble to contact the people who were behind the NKHRA in the first place:
But U.S. officials said the appointment, announced by the White House, had been in the works for some time and was not aimed at putting pressure on the North Koreans ahead of the resumption of the nuclear talks.“It's taken this long to line everything up. I think people will read a little more into the timing than they should,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
. . . .Suzanne Scholte, a leader of the North Korea Freedom Coalition, said her umbrella group of religious and rights activists had been eagerly waiting for the appointment. “This man I understand is close to President Bush, so that means he'll have his ear on North Korean human rights, so we're very excited about the appointment,” she said.
“It's so critical that we let the North Korean people know that we know that they're suffering,” said Scholte, whose coalition will stage protests and prayer meetings in Washington over the weekend to support human rights in North Korea.
Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator in the six-party talks, said this week that he had raised the issue of human rights during the recent session in Beijing. He described rights scrutiny as the “cost of admission” to international society.
My only quibble with the Reuters report is with the estimated death toll of 1 million. Although that number is not outside the range of reasonable estimates, most reasonable estimates of the death toll are twice that.
The New York Times also reported the story, noting that the timing and circumstances of the announcement suggests an effort by the White House to keep the appointment low-key. That seems plausible. If so, don't expect to hear much from Jay Lefkowitz until after the next session of the six-party talks, scheduled to begin on August 29th. Even less encouraging is the fact that Lefkowitz will continue working his day job with the Washington law firm of Kirkland and Ellis, at least on a part-time basis. That could prove a considerable distraction from his duties as Special Envoy.
Here is the text of Section 107 of the NKHRA, which created the position of Special Envoy:
(a) Special Envoy.—The President shall appoint a special envoy for human rights in North Korea within the Department of State hereafter in this section referred to as the “Special Envoy''). The Special Envoy should be a person of recognized distinction in the field of human rights.
(b) Central Objective.—The central objective of the Special Envoy is to coordinate and promote efforts to improve respect for the fundamental human rights of the people of North Korea.
© Duties and Responsibilities.—The Special Envoy shall—
(1) engage in discussions with North Korean officials regarding human rights;
(2) support international efforts to promote human rights and political freedoms in North Korea, including coordination and dialogue between the United States and the United Nations, the European Union, North Korea, and the other countries in Northeast Asia;
(3) consult with non-governmental organizations who have attempted to address human rights in North Korea;
(4) make recommendations regarding the funding of activities authorized in section 102;
(5) review strategies for improving protection of human rights in North Korea, including technical training and exhange programs; and
(6) develop an action plan for supporting implementation of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/13.
(d) Report on Activities.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually for the subsequent 5 year-period, the Special Envoy shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the activities undertaken in the preceding 12 months under subsection ©.
A transcript of my interview with Korea expert Nicholas Eberstadt is here. The primary focus is on diplomatic and other options available to the United States and its allies if the six-party talks turn out to be demonstrable failure.
My thanks to Mr. Eberstadt for being so generous with his time. I've posted a version without hyperlinks below. The version on my own blog has hyperlinks where relevant.
My deepest thanks to Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute for agreeing to a telephone interview. Eberstadt is one of Washington's most highly regarded Korea experts. The interview ended up lasting a full hour. Nothing has been edited out save one abortive “I don't know” answer, although may have I missed a few words because I'm no stenographer. Still, this is pretty close to a verbatim transcript. Nick Eberstadt is one of those rare individuals who speaks in complete sentences.
All comments in brackets and hyperlinks are my own. My questions focused on what may well be the terminal phase of the six-party talks, clarifying questions Eberstadt raised in his latest piece for The American Enterprise, and discussing the question that everyone's assiduously avoided thus far: just exactly what are we to do if the talks demonstrably fail?
I let Mr. Eberstadt see some of the questions in advance (those not truncated by yahoo e-mail), and allowed him to see the completed transcript before publication. This was to afford him the chance to clarify any misquotes or errors, or to add clarifications. On the other hand, I did my best to ask him tough questions.
_______________
OFK: I have a wager going that North Korea will not even show up for the talks scheduled for August 29th, give or take a day. Care to join the pool? There's a $20 house minimum.
NE: I always lose at bets, so I’ll decline. But the DPRK has a good reason to return if it chooses to do so. Its posture has already opened, still further, the wound in the ROK-US alliance. The ROK Foreign Minister declared last week that his government in principle had no problem with a peaceful nuclear program in North Korea. I suppose that program would proceed in tandem with [North Korea’s] peaceful chemical weapons program, and its peaceful biological weapons program. If I were a North Korean diplomat, I'd come back to the table just to see the U.S. and ROK diplomats eat each other alive over that difference. I can’t predict if the North Koreans will return, but if they do, they will have fun watching us squirm.
OFK: Say I lose. We all know you have a stock ticker in your office that tells you what the Administration is thinking. So just how patient is this Administration willing to be?
NE: [Laughs] I would have guessed that the Administration’s patience would have limits. Here’s my reasoning: a lot of the Administration’s patience since January, during the second Bush term, has revolved around trying to get the [American] North Korea diplomatic team all in place. The obvious missing piece through most of 2005 was the appointment of a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. That appointment would be indispensable for any recommendation of sanctions to the U.N. Security Council. With the recess appointment of John Bolton, the entire U.S. roster is now in place. With the latest talks, I would have thought that the Administration is not only probing the North Koreans’ intentions, but laying the groundwork for alternatives—demonstrating that further talks would be fruitless, and pulling together allies and interlocutors for a further pressure campaign. But [implicitly denying the presence of the stock ticker] that would just be my guess.
OFK: You've suggested that we should declare the talks a failure now. But given the importance of making this someone else's fault in the eyes of as many people as possible, what's the harm in waiting another week or two, since this has become a charade anyway?
NE: I’m not privy to the U.S. government’s playbook on dealing with the North Korean nuclear crisis. If the U.S. government’s playbook runs along lines you’ve just laid out, that seems entirely unobjectionable. The important point is that U.S. diplomats and policy-makers be under no illusions that failure can be turned to triumph by describing black as white such a sufficient number of times.
OFK: In your June piece for The American Enterprise, you urged the administration to define failure for the talks and be prepared to declare failure when we get there. So this is going to be a multi-parter. . . . First, help us with your definition of failure.
NE: I would define failure as a refusal by the DPRK government to agree to the objective of complete denuclearization, and/or refusal to engage in forthcoming and cooperative disclosure on the entire past history of the DPRK nuclear effort.
OFK: Ambassador Chris Hill has talked about North Korea having to make a fundamental decision about giving up its nuclear programs. Does that, or anything else, suggest that the Administration finally gets it?
NE: I don’t know Ambassador Hill well, I’ve only met him. People talk highly of his skills and acumen. That’s promising language. It’s necessary but not sufficient to show that people in U.S. government get the problem, but it doesn’t reveal his innermost thoughts about the U.S. government’s game plan.
OFK: How does Chung Dong-Young's latest affect the odds of any success at the talks?
NE: It does affect the success. It affects the North Korean chance for success. He’s helped those out quite considerably. Almost every time he’s opened his mouth, he’s strengthened the North Korean position [pauses to think]. I can’t think of one exception off-hand.
OFK: How has the State Department's outlook changed since Secretary Rice replaced Secretary Powell?
NE: This is a little bit of Kremlinology—looking at an organization from afar. My distant observer’s perception is that an untrusted team has been replaced by a trusted team, from the White House perspective. The Powell team was kept on a two-foot leash, mainly because of a lack of White House confidence, I would guess. We now have a transmission belt of Bush loyalists on North Korea policy. Secretary Rice, John Bolton, Robert Zoellick, and Ambassador Hill are all people who enjoy the trust of the White House, and the President personally. I surmise that a second-term Bush Administration diplomatic team will have more lee-way on making initiatives in [of?] consequence.
OFK: Did The Korea Times ever clarify its misstatements about your position on the alliance to your satisfaction?
NE: [Laughs] Oh, you read that, did you? Well, they published my letter, which was very gracious, and also I got a very gracious and sincere apology from the author. It was an honest mistake. I think that the author simply confused my position with that of one of the other authors from the June TAE issue.
OFK: You oppose a complete USFK withdrawal, but then, just what level of alliance do you think North Korea serves long-term US interests? What mix, for example, of air, naval, and ground assets should we be aiming for?
NE: That’s a very important, deep, and complicated question. I am in principle in favor of a long-term U.S.-ROK alliance, because I’m convinced it can serve interests of both nations and those of peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia. That said, both sides must be in favor of the underlying principles and objectives of the alliance. It is possible to imagine circumstances under which the alliance would no longer be viable. I think Northeast Asia would be a much more dangerous place if we get to that juncture. I hope we don’t get there, but the momentum right now is not favorable.
NE: That said, I’m not a military specialist, and I should emphasize that I’m a newspaper reader when it comes to military operations and requirements. My general impression is that we have an immediate task of deterring a North Korea threat. Over the long term, we have the challenge of maintaining peace in Northeast Asia. At the very least, that will require U.S. air and naval power in the region.
OFK: Chris Nelson [author of the now-infamous Nelson Report] said that in addition to being funny and well-liked, you're “rigid, didactic, and unwilling to admit that [your] frequent predictions about very specific actions or motives of Kim Jong-il turn out to be totally wrong.” Several questions based on this. First, has anyone spotted Chris Nelson recently? Second, what does “didactic” mean? Care to touch anything else in there?
[A slightly longer-than-expected pause preceded the awkward laughter I was anticipating]
NE: I don’t believe I’ve ever actually met Chris Nelson. “Didactic” means pedantic [OFK: well, that was no help, but click here and here] and schoolmasterish [oh].
NE: As for the rest of what he says, it’s certainly true that North Korea has not collapsed. I would have been one of the people laying odds on North Korea not being here today. There are reasons North Korea has managed to survive that I could not have even fantasized about ten years ago, such as the international rescue program that happened under Sunshine. I’d also note that I was one of the few people in the U.S. who argued that Roh Moo Hyun was electable, and that Sunshine was driving at the heart of the U.S.-ROK alliance. I haven’t heard many people disputing those arguments lately.
OFK: I want to move to the “what next” question, in the event the six-nation talks fail. In your latest piece, you said, “Washington should impose real-time penalties on Pyongyang.” Can you elaborate on what you mean here?
NE: What we have to begin to do is penalize North Korea economically. The United States can increase North Korea’s economic penalties more or less unilaterially thru the Proliferation Security Initiative—working, of course, with those nations that have joined the PSI, and leading that coalition. We should be doing that anyhow. That’s just police work.
NE: We should also insist on a more humanitarian food aid program, which is to say a more intrusive and accountable food program, versus the one the World Food Program and others are kicking in for now. The current program feeds the North Korea government better than it feeds North Korea people. We should change that immediately.
NE: One other issue here is the need to confer more effectively with our European allies on international aid flows to the DPRK. Europe professes great concern for human rights in principle. North Korea is the worst human rights disaster on earth.
NE: The most important and difficult areas in aid flow are with South Korea and China. The U.S. needs to be much more effective in making its case to the South Korean public that aiding the North Korean state means endangering the South Korean state. The South Korean government is almost unconditionally supporting North Korea through its aid programs. That unconditional aid does not reflect the actual state of public opinion in South Korea; in fact, the South Korean public is deeply divided on the question of unconditional aid to the North. Making the case against unconditional aid to the North in various venues would be very helpful changing South Korean policies in this regard.
NE: China is another source of unconditional aid to the North. As long as Seoul is completely off the reservation on supporting North Korea through aid, China has much less reason to make hard choices on North Korea. The road to a stricter Chinese aid policy leads through Seoul. If we can convince South Korea to have a more rational, less emotional and ideological policy about aid to North Korea, we are more likely to succeed with China as well.
OFK: Did you see the story in this morning’s Chosun Ilbo on the survey of Korean youth?
NE: Yes.
OFK: What’s your reaction to that?
NE: Depending on how you phrase a question, you can get really imbalanced responses in one direction or other, particularly in South Korean polls. I think this is one of those cases, where the results have been exaggerated by the way the question was posed. That said, the point that many people in South Korea now look at the U.S. as a security problem and North Korea as a partner cannot be denied, and that’s a big problem for the alliance.
OFK: In your last piece in TAE, you said that “[t]he country [North Korea] is highly vulnerable to economic pressure . . . .” Others would argue that a country as poor as North Korea is actually less vulnerable to economic pressure.
NE: I think that is empirically incorrect. I think it was last fall, I published an article called “The Persistence of North Korea.” What I tried to show in that study is that North Korea’s unidentified foreign sources of funding had increased very substantially since 1998, since the Sunshine era commenced. In the mid-1990s, the DPRK was in famine, the regime was describing its situation as an “arduous march.” That period ended precisely when this upswing in foreign funding commenced. North Korean economy is a bizarre, distorted, jack-assed contraption. I agree that if you study history, coercive economic diplomacy seldom achieves its objectives. But North Korea is so economically vulnerable that North Korea is an unusually promising candidate for economic pressure.
OFK: Why would China help us in the U.N.?
NE: We can’t know until we try, but my hunch is that Chinese leadership, in the final analysis, will have to be rational about its own interests in Northeast Asia, and an aggressive nuclear North Korea is even more subversive of Beijing’s interests than a pressure campaign against the DPRK that may involve Chinese risks.
NE: The reason I say this is that China’s exposure to North Korean brinksmanship entails the possibility of very real costs in China’s strategic situation and China’s domestic stability. If the DPRK emerges as an aggressive nuclear power, the nuclear disposition of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan cannot be presumed to remain constant. Our ambassador in Japan has made this point. An aggressive nuclear North Korea will also invite responses in missile defense in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. None of these results is in china’s interest.
NE: I also mention that there’s a domestic concern for China. An aggressive nuclear North Korea could cause a business crisis in Northeast Asia—I don’t think it’s difficult to imagine how—leading to a downturn in trade, investment, and economic growth in region. It would only take a matter of months for this to lead to higher urban unemployment rates in china. If I read the newspapers correctly, China’s leaders are very concerned about stability these days. Rising unemployment is not the way to improve stability and reduce social tensions.
NE: The U.S. government can encourage the Chinese leadership to think about its own interests in North Korea more clearly. If we encourage the Chinese leadership to think about its own interests in North Korea more clearly, we will find that our interests overlap is larger than we’ve thought to date.
OFK: Do you think the United States is seriously considering a blockade?
NE: I think there are circumstances under which US would have to consider a blockade. We’re not there yet, and I hope we never get there. The idea that military action is inconceivable is wrong. It would be an awful set of circumstances that would bring us to that point, but we would have to consider it.
OFK: [Korea expert] Balbina Hwang recently cited estimates that North Korea's overseas deposits are “as high as” $5 billion [in this August 2003 piece]. Do you expect the United States to try to freeze those assets?
NE: I don’t know if that estimate is correct or not. Of course, it would be a smart and a good thing to search for and identify overseas DPRK assets. I wonder, though, whether DPRK assets are as large as some analysts have guessed. North Korea was in such a delicate economic situation in mid-90s that it would seem puzzling for the regime not to have used some of those “rainy-day” funds to relieve possible tensions that arose from that situation.
OFK: In The End of North Korea, [published in 2000] you made the point that North Korean trade with the U.S. would not likely expand much, for reasons that are internal to North Korean policy. The mirror image of this is that re-imposing sanctions would not do much, either. And of course, but for the lack of MFN trade status and sanctions on dual-use components, we really don’t have many sanctions on North Korea today.
NE: That’s right, but the real impact of our economic policy is often overlooked. It’s not the trade sanctions per se. The real financial bite from the U.S. sanctions is that the U.S. is obligated vote against North Korean membership in the International Monetary fund, which prevents it from getting access to international loans or grants. But North Korea is perfectly capable of failing as international exporter without our help.
OFK: Recently, you’ve been much more outspoken about humanitarian issues in relation to North Korea. I want to address the intersection of the humanitarian and economic issues, specifically the famine. Some NGOs have discussed the link between hunger and songbun, which is a measure of political classification and oppression. Some have raised comparisons to Stalin’s selective mass starvation in the Ukraine in the 1930s—I’ve raised them myself. Do you think that there’s evidence to support such a comparison?
NE: Well, the evidence comes from the escapees, who’ve described the starvation in North Korea in the 1990s.
OFK: Do you think that this starvation was deliberate, at least to some extent?
NE: There’s very little arguing that the regime made decisions about who should get food, and who should not. The suspect or disfavored strata were certainly not preferentially treated in allocation of food through the Public Distribution System. Since death toll and suffering from the famine in some measure seems regionally specific, it’s clear that the regime made some choices. I don’t think this was so much a pan opticon decree that some elements should be sentenced to death. I suspect it was more like the process that the Nazis called selektion [selecting who would live and who wouldn’t]. Another way to put it is that being in a disfavored status near Pyongyang, or being in a favored status, was better than being in a disfavored status near the Russian border.
OFK: Assume China and South Korea block our every efforts to relieve the human rights and famine problems in the North. What could America do to make a tangible difference in either situation?
NE: As things stand now, both South Korea and China are disposed to ignore the humanitarian disaster in North Korea. That’s why need to have a diplomatic strategy for dealing with human rights. The [Chinese and South Korean policies] are not fixed or immutable positions. The road to changing South Korea’s regrettable policy for dealing with human rights leads through Europe. The South Korean government, so heavily composed of former human rights activists, can be shamed into a more humane policy toward refugees from the DPRK.
NE: The way to shame the South Korean government is to form an international coalition to persuade people worldwide that the current situation cannot be tolerated. To do so will involve a lot of spadework with governments and NGOs in Europe, especially among the new, formerly communist, democracies. I don’t think South Korea wants to try to make the case that North Korea should be an exception to worldwide human rights principles. Obviously, we have plenty of work to do in developing that coalition, but it’s there for the building. If such a coalition were developed, there are so many promising reasons to expect that groups and people in South Korea will support a more humanitarian policy toward North Korea refugees, and that we can expect a change from the see-no-evil Sunshine approach toward North Korea.
NE: Just as the road to South Korea leads through Europe, the road to China leads through South Korea. Without the cover that South Korea’s current position provides, China will be exposed to more important choices. That importance rises as we approach 2008. China is not isolated from the calculus of costs and benefits [here, Eberstadt stopped for a pregnant consideration of his choice of words]. China wants the Beijing Olympics to be success, not an embarrassing failure.
OFK: You’re an advocate of assisting North Korean refugees, but some of those who opposed the North Korean Human Rights Act or confrontation with North Korea over human rights have accused the United States of hypocrisy in offering asylum to North Korean refugees. After all, not one North Korean refugee has been given asylum in the USA, and the NKHRA did not include a provision for Temporary Protected Status. Are we all a bunch of hypocrites for offering something we appear to have been unprepared to actually give?
NE: The confusion about accepting North Korea refugees into the United States is the tiniest corner of our INS mess. I don’t think that anyone who is familiar with it thinks our INS works like a normal and healthy operation. There is an even bigger problem than what we see through this small aperture: a badly broken INS.
OFK: But those few North Koreans who arrived in the United States had already taken first refuge elsewhere, meaning that they were ineligible for asylum anyway.
NE: The U.S. gesture of offering asylum to North Korean refugees follows a tradition of 200 years of acting on the principles later recorded in the language on the placard on the Statue of Liberty. We have to be very clear that the South Korean Constitution recognizes North Koreans as South Korean citizens if they so much as raise hands and say, “Take us home.” Given how much emphasis today’s South Korea places on constitutional rights and the rule of law, we should encourage the government to take another look at Article III.
OFK: I noticed that North Korea’s negotiating posture seemed to become temporarily more flexible after Kang Chol-Hwan’s visit. That flexibility didn’t last, of course, but do you think North Korea takes the threat of US support for a political alternative to the regime seriously?
NE: The North Korea government will take the threat of U.S. support for an alternative DPRK more seriously in proportion to the extent that the U.S. government itself takes that proposition seriously. The DPRK leadership is purportedly isolated and removed from events, but they don’t do a bad job of reading the papers. They may even surf the Internet from time to time. North Korea is capable of doing those calculations on its own.
OFK: Now for a wacky question. There is exactly one way I can think of to seriously challenge the North Korean regime’s hold on power without Chinese or South Korean cooperation: to support an anti-government resistance movement inside North Korea, supplying it clandestinely, perhaps from off the coast. In your wildest dreams, can you envision the United States providing clandestine support for an anti-Kim Jong-Il resistance movement?
NE: It certainly shouldn’t be ruled out. My impression as a newspaper reader is that the history of covert operations in North Korea over the last half century is not one of ringing successes. That said, all options should remain on the table when dealing with a government opposed to basic principles of international peace and cooperation.
OFK: Mr. Eberstadt, thank you for being so considerate of your time.
NE: Thank you. I enjoy your Web site very much.
[End of interview]
________________
One final point I'd add, in addition to thanking Mr. Eberstadt for the kind plug for my site—he's such a mensch that he never even mentioned his new book. So I just did.
From IOL News comes the latest report out of Gaza:
Die-hard settlers took to rooftops in the tiny Gadid enclave shouting “Nazis” as forces swept in, hours after clearing Gaza's main anti-pullout strongholds and all but breaking the back of opposition to ending 38 years of occupation.With the latest poll confirming solid support among the Israeli public for the first removal of settlements from land Palestinians want for a state, troops rushed to wrap up their toughest tasks before the start of the Jewish Sabbath at sunset.
Marching past flaming cars, unarmed riot troops surrounded Gadid's synagogue and forced their way in as 90 protesters, mostly radical youths who had locked themselves inside, lay on the floor. Some prayed. Others cried or shouted abuse.
In what has become a familiar scene this week, police wrestled them out one by one and carried them to waiting buses - as they had in raids on two other enclaves on Thursday.
“This is a desecration of everything that is sacred to Jews,” said Boaz Puterel, 30, echoing the belief of ultranationalist Israelis that the Gaza Strip is part of God's gift to the Jewish people and should never be relinquished.
Read the rest of the story here.