Mick Hartley

After the latest North Korea nuclear test, it's essential that sanctions against the Kim regime be strengthened. How can I be so sure? Because Simon Jenkins, in the Guardian, is arguing the opposite: that we should now drop all economic sanctions. As any Jenkins follower will be aware, no commentator on international affairs is so reliably, consistently wrong.

The urge to bully and dominate lesser nations remains a potent force in western diplomacy, as potent since the end of the cold war as it was in the 19th century. Economic sanctions are certainly a preferable form of state-on-state aggression to war. But like those currently imposed on Russia, they do not achieve their purpose. They are feel-good gestures, denying economic prosperity as an ultimate guarantor of peace among nations.

The sanctions so far imposed on North Korea have blatantly not made the far east a safe place. How much more dangerous is moot, since it is inconceivable China would allow North Korea to commit an act of nuclear aggression on the south. The sane alternative is to do everything to open North Korea, to flood it with trade, promote cultural exchange and hope one day that, like east Germany, it will reunite with its neighbour.

This will never happen under sanctions. Ending sanctions cannot cause more harm than what is happening now. It would probably do good. So end the sanctions.

This view is based on an altogether too rosy picture of the true awfulness of North Korea under the Kims. The South Korean Sunshine Policy was based on a similar misconception, and achieved nothing at all. The North accepted whatever they were offered, and gave back precisely nothing. Whatever hastens the end of this appalling regime counts as a positive, and that includes sanctions: increased sanctions, tougher sanctions. 

For a saner view, read the latest from Joshua Stanton at One Free Korea.