all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

I support my imperialist US Empire 100%.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    UN Security Council Resolution 2397… signed 2017 summarizes the travel section as:

    Strengthens the ban on providing work authorizations for DPRK nationals by requiring Member States to repatriate all DRPK nationals earning income and all DPRK government safety oversight attachés monitoring DPRK workers abroad within their jurisdiction within 24 months from 22 December 2017. Member States are required to submit a midterm report after 15 months from 22 December and a final report after 27 months from 22 December to the Committee of all DPRK nationals that were repatriated based on this provision;

    So… specifically about repatriation after 24 months if they’re earning income out of DPRK. Nothing about free travel.

    Let’s look at the actual resolution text. I’ll add some emphasis

    Expresses concern that DPRK nationals continue to work in other States for the purpose of generating foreign export earnings that the DPRK uses to support its prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile programs despite the adoption of paragraph 17 of resolution 2375 (2017), decides that Member States shall repatriate to the DPRK all DPRK nationals earning income in that Member State’s jurisdiction and all DPRK government safety oversight attachés monitoring DPRK workers abroad immediately but no later than 24 months from the date of adoption of this resolution unless the Member State determines that a DPRK national is a national of that Member State or a DPRK national whose repatriation is prohibited, subject to applicable national and international law, including international refugee law and international human rights law, and the United Nations Headquarters Agreement and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and further decides that all Member States shall provide a midterm report by 15 months from the date of adoption of this resolution of all DPRK nationals earning income in that Member State’s jurisdiction that were repatriated over the 12 month period starting from the date of adoption of this resolution, including an explanation of why less than half of such DPRK nationals were repatriated by the end of that 12 month period if applicable, and all Member States shall provide final reports by 27 months from the date of adoption of this resolution.

    So the text, and the resolution itself, is about limiting nuclear and ballistic programs. This resolution does not prohibit free movement or refugee status… only limits DPRK nationals who are generating foreign funds to send back to DPRK because the Council believes those funds were going to nuclear weapons.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Who sits on the security council?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh, so the UN decided that DPRK nationals aren't allowed to work abroad. That seems fair. Like, if Israelis worked abroad, sent money home, and then that money was used for genocide. Or if US citizens worked abroad, sent tax money home, and that tax was used for genocide. Kinda like that. Or any country that maintains a nuclear arsenal, that isn't part of the the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Like Israel. Or Pakistan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Israel is not sanctioned by the UN. They don’t need to send nationals to work abroad to patriate funds… they can just sell goods and services on the free market. Same as the US and Pakistan.

    I’m confused what you’re arguing for. More nuclear weapons?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    What I'm arguing for? Logical consistency. Moral consistency. If the reason to sanction DPRK is that they acquired nuclear weapons without the consent of the current nuclear powers, then all states which do the same should be sanctioned. If the reason to sanction DPRK is because they might wreak havoc with massive weapons, then countries that are already wreaking havoc with massive weapons should be sanctioned. Your argument is that Israel and the US should not suffer the consequences of sanctions because they aren't sanctioned. My argument is that there is not logical or moral consistency in sanctions.

    And no, I don't accept that this is an argument for nuclear weapon proliferation. Those countries that developed nuclear weapons pulled the gate shut behind them, forbidding any other countries from getting them. We can see the hypocrisy in that. But then when a US ally like Israel, or a strategic partner like Pakistan acquires nuclear weapons it is ignored. Only DPRK or Iran could possibly be dangerous because... well because they aren't cooperating with the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (7 children)
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It's not about forbidding NK people to leave the country, it's about working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So they are barred from travel via plane because of NK decisions on airlines, and not banned from travel via other means (if we forget about frontier guards and all, ofc).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because they could have airlines if they accepted foreigns workers. That part os the NK government decision, good or bad. Let be clear : economic isolation of NK is a ofc product of both NK politics and UN embargos. But freedom of travel is not directly affected by UN. The first thing that stops NK people to travel is a border with armed guards, including with friendly states.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    From what i know , it is not easy at all to neither go to China, neither "defect" there, neither defect from authoritarian communist countries nearby. What you 'showed' me is people working in China, so controlled travel.

    Based on what i know, i take your affirmation that it is easy to defect frop China either as ignorance, either as propaganda. If you have good info on the traveling part, please share so i and others can learn. On the original matter, i think it's not worth debating further if we do not share a same-ish perception of facts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most defectors go through China == it is easier to cross the border / defect in China != it is easy to cross the border to China / defect in China

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Some folks think you just gotta love every country that calls itself communist, or voices opposition to the US, like a fun house mirror version of conservative nativism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah that's cool. Which is part of why I don't get why North Korea gets any fucking love. I mean, times are hard for everyone I'm sure but aesthetics aside they don't seem any more "socialist" than the "national" socialists. Even in all the dubious circumstances where a communist country had a presidential effectively served for the length of his natural life, aside from a brief interlude by Raul Castro none that I can recall have shown dynastic tendencies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Honestly this description is sorta spot on made me chuckle— I’m always on the fence whether it’s this or just nation states trying to sway popular opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)