One thing is clear. Food aid to North Korea by the South Korean and U.S. governments has never been provided without political consideration. That is why we feel uncomfortable each time these two governments claim that food aid to North Korea has nothing to do with the political situation.

In 1985, when Mengistu's socialist regime caused massive casualties by suspending food and medical support to rebel areas in Ethiopia, which was under his iron-fisted rule at the time, the U.S. Ronald Reagan administration decided to provide food aid to Ethiopia despite domestic opposition. At the time, President Reagan left a famous phrase saying, "A hungry child knows no politics." But the fact that this expression is still mentioned today only shows that it is that rare for one country to be involved in another country’s humanitarian crisis brought on by political actions and not natural disasters, purely on a humanitarian level.

Actions taken between countries for humanitarian purposes can never be completely independent from politics. Immediately after World War I in 1919, the U.S. provided massive food aid to Germany for political reasons--to block a close relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union. Since then, the U.S has used food aid as a diplomatic tool in politically unstable areas, such as the Middle East and South America.

In 1996, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS show, 60 Minutes, and revealed the bare face of the U.S., which was taking advantage of people suffering from hunger as a political weapon. The harsh economic sanctions on Iraq at the time critically injured the vulnerable, such as children and the elderly. When asked, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Secretary Albright answered, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it," and horrified the world.

It is more explicit when it comes to North Korea. South Korea and the U.S. have used humanitarian assistance, sometimes to maintain an atmosphere of dialogue, and at other times to adjust the pressure of rising military tensions. North Korea does not separate humanitarian aid with political actions either. The North referred to food aid as "a measure to build trust." In other words, the North sees humanitarian aid as a necessary factor in establishing political trust.

On February 29, 2012, North Korea and the U.S. agreed to suspend activities at the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including nuclear and missile tests and uranium enrichment activities, in exchange for 240,000 tons of nutritional support from the U.S. The agreement was a deal involving military measures, the suspension of nuclear activities, for humanitarian aid, food for malnourished children. The agreement signed by the leaders of North Korea and the United States in Singapore last year states the humanitarian project of returning the remains of U.S. soldiers as a “political obligation” along with denuclearization and efforts to improve bilateral relations.

As we can see, humanitarian actions have long been a part of political actions when it comes to North Korea, but no one argues that this is wrong. We are all numb to the fact that humanitarian measures have been subject to political negotiations, so much so that we accept it as a matter of course.

Now, South Korea and the U.S. are once again considering food aid as a card to use in negotiations with North Korea. But their calculations are different. South Korea feels the need for food aid in order to find a breakthrough to get out of the current deadlock in talks, while the U.S. sees food aid necessary as a means to maintain sanctions.

Currently sanctions on North Korea have exceeded normal levels and are now so severe that they practically go against the spirit of the United Nations. Since 2016, the purpose of the sanctions has changed from stopping nuclear armament to giving pain so that North Korea would abandon its nuclear weapons. Washington believes that these sanctions are effective. But if North Korea suffers a humanitarian crisis due to such powerful sanctions triggering international criticism, the sanctions will collapse. We are facing a paradoxical situation, in which additional humanitarian aid must be provided in order to maintain the sanctions that brought about the humanitarian crisis.

"You and I and even the heavens know" that both South Korea and the U.S. are not considering food aid to North Korea simply at the humanitarian level. So I wish they would stop using the shameless rhetoric that the food aid has nothing to do with politics. If they are truly considering food aid at the humanitarian level, they should attach some other condition instead of expecting political results. When it comes to food shortage in North Korea, problems of distribution, government policies, and governance are just as important causes as the lack of food. To improve these factors, South Korea and the U.S. may demand reforms in North Korea's economic, agricultural, welfare, and health policies or even ask North Korea to discuss the return of South Koreans detained in the North. Then we can accept the expression, humanitarian food aid.