xi). What that comes down to, once the message is decoded, is that with a country like North Korea, which the author basically says cannot take care of itself, the US has to measure the political costs 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 North Korea as being less for humanitarian reasons than for the purpose of making the country agree to nuclear-control talks. Nobody was fooled, and the ultimate result was that when food aid did arrive in 1997, "it was two years too late, was sent to the wrong regions of the country, and had no rigorous controls on its internal distribution to prevent the elites from stealing it" (2000, p. 163). For the donor countries, in other words, the whole matter was a lose-lose proposition because humanitarian motives intersected with "geostrategic" ones.
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 South 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 War is firmly and programmatically in place and influences virtually every geopolitical de