Meant to post this earlier. Squander Two fisks this BBC story about how North Korea is feeling “under pressure and ignored.”
BBC words in italics, S2 in ordinary type.
The BBC’s Charles Scanlon in Seoul says the North has been feeling under pressure and ignored in recent months, with the US refusing to negotiate on its demands over its nuclear plans.
Its nuclear plans, as eny fule no, involve threatening other states with nuclear missiles in order to extort and probably invade them. Which bit should the US negotiate over, do you think?
Long-running talks over North Korea’s nuclear capabilities have stalled, with six-party negotiations on the issue being repeatedly postponed as neither Washington nor Pyongyang are prepared to give ground.
I love the implied equivalence there. “We want to nuke people!” “We’d rather you didn’t.” Both parties are simply refusing to give ground.
Whenever the BBC chooses to inform us about the parlous state of North Korea’s economy and the appalling levels of poverty afflicting the population of the country, they always state that this has been brought about by “Bad weather and economic mismanagement”.
Recently the BBC upgraded this to “Natural disasters and economic mismangement”.
The reality is that North Korea is not a sovereign state but a criminal enterprise. It is involved in the export of weapons of mass destruction, the export of drugs and the counterfeiting of foreign currencies, predominately US$. (I have personal knowledge of the last part)
It runs a gulag in its truest sense, imprisoning hundreds of thousands of its population where summary executions are carried out on a daily basis and conducts chemical and biological experiments on its political prisoners. In addition to this it routinely kidnaps foreign nationals.
It is of no suprise to me, whatsoever, that the BBC should seek to downplay this squalid and vile regime.
Were I to be running BBC news output I would be kicking my hacks backsides to find out what the preposterous Kofi Annan and what all the assorted human right movements were doing (given that the BBC gleefully slavers over any utterance from these groups when it concerns gitmo) to expose this nightmare.
Instead we get the BBC floundering about for some sort of non-existent moral equivalence.
john reith are you not ashamed to be associated with such an organisation
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4437001.stm
Interesting analysis of N Korea’s problems without a single reference to Marxism or Communism.
And, please, let’s get it right: it’s ‘any fule kno’!!!!
Charlie,
I was stunned to find this…
“North Korea has recently attempted limited reforms to its economy, but these have not been comprehensive or well-enough planned to work.”
The BBC even thinks like a communist that the economy has to be planned.
The BBC and the dictators it loves are both vile scum.
Do what I do, DON’T pay them! The feeling you get from stopping funding your enemy is worth it.
You what? That’s actually a reasonably grown up and economically literate analysis of the situation – you’d rather a toytown paragraph on the evils of communism and the utopia of free market capitalism?
Surely even the most blinkered fool realises you have to plan a transition from a Stalinist to any sort of market economy, as a full scale market economy can’t function unless there’s infrastructure and institutions is in place. On a far lesser scale post Commie Russia shows what happens when you try and do these things too quickly whilst intoxicated by liberal fervour – within a couple of years most of the population were pining for communism until oil prices bailed them out.
Cockney | 12.07.06 – 10:30 am
you’d rather a toytown paragraph on the evils of communism and the utopia of free market capitalism?
You’re not likely to get even that from the beeb. Get the point now?
Well yeah, what I’m saying is that the article which Charlie highlighted is far superior to a half arsed sermon on the evils of Communism, in that it specifically tells us why the particular Korean strand of Communism failed and why their half hearted ‘market’ reforms have fizzled out.
I appreciate that this is highly unusual for the Beeb but to criticise one of their better efforts seems a bit much. Chas and ACO would seem to prefer something off the peg.
Charlie. Hang on the article you quote does explain that North Korea’s single bargaining chip is it’s nuclear weapons. That apparently is something the BBC doesn’t say according to the original post. But there it is on the website.
As for the second point, I’m sorry your interpretation doesn’t make sense. Both sides are refusing to give ground in the talks. That’s true. That’s all it says.
Oooh, have I Fisked you all? How exciting!
I would like to see any analysis of N Korea’s problems acknowledge the fact that the economic troubles are caused to a significant degree by a slavish adherence to a Marxist doctrine. Simple as that. The way it is presented in the piece I highlighted suggests that anything and everything else is responsible.
‘North Korea became an independent state in 1953, and has operated a rigid centrally planned, or “command” economy based on that developed by Stalin in the USSR.
Industry and agriculture are planned on a five-year basis, all farms are collectivised, volume is praised over value and most foods and goods are rationed.
This model initially allowed for rapid industrialisation and rebuilding, but it failed to deliver sustainable growth or raise living standards.’
That’s pretty much as succint a critique of Stalinist economics as I can think of?
“The BBC even thinks like a communist that the economy has to be planned.”
The word “planned” refered to the reforms, not the economy.
“The BBC and the dictators it loves”
Pure hyperbole.
Try to be more rational in the future please.
“Try to be more rational in the future please.”
I think I got a bit carried away there.
It’s weaker posts like this that damage the case BBBC is trying to make.
Cockney writes: Industry and agriculture are planned on a five-year basis, all farms are collectivised, volume is praised over value and most foods and goods are rationed.
This model initially allowed for rapid industrialisation and rebuilding, but it failed to deliver sustainable growth or raise living standards.’
That’s pretty much as succint a critique of Stalinist economics as I can think of?
****
It leaves out the death toll; you know the starvation, show trials and state terrorism?
Roxana
Erm, are show trials and state terrorism really part of Stalinist ECONOMICS?
Given that all countries trying communism have reigns of terror and death tolls in the millions I’d say yes to that.
“Erm, are show trials and state terrorism really part of Stalinist ECONOMICS?”
They are the inevitable by product of travelling down the Road to Serfdom, yes.