US government and the War in Iraq

xi). What that comes down to, once the message is decoded, is that with a country like sum Korea, which the author essentially says cannot take care of itself, the US has to measure the semipolitical cost of providing practical aid to a "troglodytic government" that is bound to be ungrateful in any case. On the other hand, Natsios criticizes the US motivation for aiding uniting Korea as being less for humanist reasons than for the purpose of making the country agree to nuclear-control talks. Nobody was fooled, and the last-ditch result was that when food aid did arrive in 1997, "it was dickens years too late, was sent to the wrong regions of the country, and had no fuddled controls on its internal distri exclusivelyion to prevent the elites from stealing it" (2000, p. 163). For the bestower countries, in other words, the whole matter was a lose-lose hint because humanistic motives intersected with "geostrategic" aces.

The method Natsios uses to create the narrative is at all times linked to the longtime military and political confrontation taking place between North and southwestern Korea, which is to say between North Korea and the United States, which guarantees South Korea's security. In other words, where any issue involving North Korea is concerned, the Cold struggle is firmly and programmatically in place and influences virtually every geopolitical de

A second lens of the eye of analysis, related to the graduation, is based on an economic model attributed to Indian famine economist Amartya Sen, who proved that "if a family's ability to bargain for or grow food declines rapidly at the said(prenominal) time that food prices increase dramatically on markets, the family impart eventually starve" (Natsios, 2000, p. xvi). That may seen like an obvious truth, but the reason it is important to Natsios's narrative is that it reflects Natsios's firsthand observation of conditions on the ground as head of World Vision, a nongovernmental composition (NGO) involved in supplying food aid to North Korea during the famine period.

The third lens of analysis goes back to politics, which brings in the awkward issues cited above with respect to the tension between humanitarian and geopolitical values, a tension amplified in this case because of the totalitarian North Korean regime. Explaining that all famines "occur in a political context," Natsios notes that governments always "preside" over famine and that this one was no exception (2000, p. xvii). This was especially the case in North Korea.

cision that is made. The author explains that his analysis is based on three "lenses" of observation. The first is what he calls famine indicators, or evidence of "subtle way of the population to cope with their diminishing access to food" (Natsios, 2000, p. xvi). That occurred in the form of increasing food and agricultural costs as well as increase in the consumption of "nonmarket-based indicators" (p. 26) such(prenominal) as harvesting of wild, nondomesticated plant foods and working farm livestock.

It was at that point that the US was faced with the dilemma, previously cited, of shoring up a terrible regime with humanitarian aid and past proceeded to provide it but with an ulterior motive--to bring North Korea to the nuclear negotiating table. The result was bad for all donors, but especially the US. offset printing of all, the US got virtually none of its objectives vis-a-vis Ki
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.