This is going to be a very contentious issue and I was wondering if I should bother at all but............

Recently I was reading a number of articles concerning North Korea. Mainly that because of a humanitarian crisis the EU is sending large amounts of food aid to NK. And that all university students in NK are being forced to take a year off to work in construction projects in anticipation of the "Great Founding Leader"s 100th birthday. This begs the question why shouldn't a nation with a large and unnecessary weapons budget instead not divert resources for food for its people.

My second case refers to Africa in general, or Ethiopia in particular. The census in 1984 showed the population to be at 42 million. The same year there was a famine(which led to Live Aid) due to the fact the country lacked the resources to support its population. The population is nearly double that now, and even though the resource base has improved more than ten million Ethiopians are dependant on foreign food aid to survive. There is a similar case of population growth and dependence on aid in a lot of sub-saharan african countries.

What I am getting at is that rather than solving any problems, aid just drags them out. I know this sounds just terrible but the population of several african countries is just too big. And maybe aid to NK should be stopped or decreased. A free NK would be self sufficient and maybe what the country needs is a hungry and angry population for Kim Jung Ils power base to crumble.

I know I sound like an Arsehole but that is the way I see things. So anyone digress(or more unlikely not)? Should aid be something that is so easily given away without conditions which alleviate the problem in the long term?