Sanctions against North Korea

[IronDuke]

So the world is, quite understandably, having a shitfit about the recent tests of sever guided missiles launched by North Korea. In theory, the madman running that country now has the ability to hit targets as far away as America's west coast (i.e. Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.)
THe UN security council, in an uncommon act of competence, has decided that this cannot be allowed to continue. North Korea is a danger to the world, and something must be done.

Japan, understandably nervous about having a well-armed nutjob with a historic vendetta against the island nation in their backyard, has declared that North Korea must be punished via economic sanctions. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/08/korea.missile.japan.ap/index.html)
The three "West" powers on the UNSC (USA, France, UK) have supported Japan's hard line.

China has taken a much more common-sense approach to the situation. They have absolutely nothing to gain by North Korea's current situation, and feel a huge obligation to see that their "sphere of influence" remains stable and free from rogue states like this. (China also has a historic relationship with Korea spanning thousands of years, in which the penninsular nation was something of a "little brother" to China). Economic sanctions will do absolutely nothing to deter North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. They will just cause further suffering among the common people of that country who have no say over government policy anyway. It will only serve to further complicate the situation and give Kim Jong Il an excuse to further tighten his grip on the country.

As the 5th member of te UNSC with veto power, Russia is in a difficult position. I believe, deep down, they want to see North Korea disarmed and opened, if only for the gaurentee of stability in the region. Joining China in vetoing the sanctions would certainly do a lot to strengthen the less-than-sunny relations between the two nuclear powers. On the other hand, Russia cannot risk the economic wrath of "hawks" in Europe and the USA.


Forget Iraq, this is the issue which will determine the geopolitical climate of the world for rest of the decade.

 

[Anonymous]

I think you need to isolate countries like N Korea. While the sanctions themselves may do little, how long can they go without allies? If Russia and China turn a cold shoulder, who do they turn to? I just don't see how negotiating and giving them a million second chances and olive branches will do anything. Though bombing them is probably not the answer either. Tricky situation, as is Iran...I don't know which country is worse.

 

[IronDuke]

The people of North Korea have absolutely no say in what the government does. Kim Jong Il has prven time and time again that he cares not about what the rest of the world thinks. He's derranged and egomanical. He's like Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, and Mao all rolled into one as far as personality goes.

Sanctions will do nothing except cut off food, medicine, and ideas from getting to the people, many of whom are barely surrviving as it is. You thought the famine in the 1990's was bad? It will seem like just a missed meal in comparison to the humanitarian disaster which would ensue if all outside contact (limited as it is) was severed.

Point of interest: North Korean television and radio sets are preprogrammed to only recieve government-run broadcasts, and it is the only nation on the planet where one cannot access the internet.

 

[Onhell]

FINALLY some attention is given to the country that should've been paid attention to to begin with!  I have absolutley no idea why Bush Jr. said something around the lines of "Korea is a dangerous country, THEY HAVE weapons of mass destruction, so i'm going to bomb Iraq! because THEY MAY have weapons of mass destruction!" WTF? good to see the world is going after the real threats.

 

[Anonymous]

Finally we have a good general duscussion going.

What the Korean's have done recently is nothing less than a disgrace.  They are thinking and acting as though the Cold War was still going on.  Snap out of the sixties Kim!  This could reignite old tensions and start yet another tricky war.

Forget Iraq, this is the issue which will determine the geopolitical climate of the world for rest of the decade.

I wouldn't go that far Dukey... Iraq looks like it'll be another Vietname the way it is panning out.

 

[Anonymous]

what is it that Kim wants? It can't just be attention, but at least through American media he comes across as a big baby.

 

[Anonymous]

I said it before.

And I'll say it again...

Kim Jong Il is a hero. The villains sit in Brussles, New York, Tokyo and elsewhere. Kim Jong Il is the only politician in the world who really cares for his people, and he is ready to do everything for them. All the talk about how the people in North Korea are supposed to be starving and all that are imperialist lies to turn the world against Kim Jong Il and the heroes in Pyongyang. Kim Jong Il is defamed a villain for defending his country's independence; he is marked a tyrant for trying to protect his people; but nobody knows how happy the people of North Korea actually are. Imperialist media create a fictional image of a country they envy because the people are much happier than those in their own countries. The imperialists can't stand the thought of paradise existing on earth, so they denounce the greatest servant of the people a devil.
It comes as no surprise that now, imperialist media is not only trying to keep its people from craving for this paradise; now they even want to destroy it by portraying it a threat to the world.
What people don't know is what a beautiful and good man Kim Jong Il is. His message must be carried out to the world; he is so much more than all the saints, mahatmas, lamas, sages and gurus are put together.

  Eternal life for Kim Jong Il! 

​

 

[Yax]

good to see the world is going after the real threats.

Indeed :angry: The only reason U.S.A. attacked Iraq in the first place is the oil. Soon the easy-accesable supplies of oil will be consumed and the U.S. just have to ensure they have as much oilsupplies as possible. Now that's the one and only big reason for invading Iraq, and not his pretext that they have to free the people of Iraq from the insane ex. dictator Saddam Hussein. They don't come after Libyas dictator Khadaffi, since now he has began to cooperate with U.S. So that proves that Bush jr. doesn't give a damn about all the dictators in the world.

But that does we all know. 

The U.S. does already as it is not to attack North Korea because of the about a million strong army Kim Jong Il controls. So why does he get nuclear weapons? He wouldn't attack U.S. unless they attack North Korea, since he knows what he is doing. He is mad, yes but more "Hitler-like mad" so he is in control of his actions. But why does he do this? I think he does this to get publicity for some wierd reason. Perhaps his ego so expanded that he have to have the world talking about him and be afraid of him to be satisfied? Because he has nothing to gain by that kind of publicity since he has sealed himself from the rest of the world.

 

[Wicker Man]

Indeed :angry: The only reason U.S.A. attacked Iraq in the first place is the oil. Soon the easy-accesable supplies of oil will be consumed and the U.S. just have to ensure they have as much oilsupplies as possible. Now that's the one and only big reason for invading Iraq, and not his pretext that they have to free the people of Iraq from the insane ex. dictator Saddam Hussein.

I don't want to go of topic, but I feel this is a good place to say it. Kids today (No I don't mean Yax, he's just the person that reminded me off it) talk about how Bush is such an evil person and whatnot, but I mean Saddam was an evil dictator wasn't he? Sure things might still be far from perfect in Iraq, but it's a step towards improvment isn't it?

Keep in mind that this is just what I think, and I don't hear about Iraq as much as I used to in the news, so I'm assuming a lot of this. If I'm completely wrong here just call me an idiot and give me the kicks I deserve. 

 

[Yax]

I don't want to go of topic, but I feel this is a good place to say it. Kids today (No I don't mean Yax, he's just the person that reminded me off it) talk about how Bush is such an evil person and whatnot, but I mean Saddam was an evil dictator wasn't he? Sure things might still be far from perfect in Iraq, but it's a step towards improvment isn't it?  

I consider Saddam "evil" but that's not the point. I'm just trying to not be naive. Do you really think Bush would have invaded Iraq if it wasn't for its oilsupplies? No! I don't think so. Some of the oilcontracts from Iraq went to (by a "coincidence") to an oilcompany that Dick Cheney (If my memory serves me right) owns the majority of the stocks in. And I believe Bush himself has connections to some of the companys that got oilcontracts. So it seems he and his ministers gets a private profit from the war. Now, does it seem that Bush's actions was so unselfish as I think you consider them?

 

[Wicker Man]

I consider Saddam "evil" but that's not the point. I'm just trying to not be naive. Do you really think Bush would have invaded Iraq if it wasn't for its oilsupplies? No! I don't think so. Some of the oilcontracts from Iraq went to (by a "coincidence") to an oilcompany that Dick Cheney (If my memory serves me right) owns the majority of the stocks in. And I believe Bush himself has connections to some of the companys that got oilcontracts. So it seems he and his ministers gets a private profit from the war. Now, does it seem that Bush's actions was so unselfish as I think you consider them?

I said I was going on assumptions, and if what you say is true then my assumptions were obviously wrong, so now I'm just left with the question of how are thing going in Iraq? Even if the invasion was for selfish reasons I still wonder if he actually ended up doing some good for Iraq.

 

[IronDuke]

WickerMan brings up a good point. I've given this some thought; Bush might actually be partially vindicated in a few years (I stress partially). Yes, he led his nation to war for the wrong reasons, but he did get rid of one of te most evil men to lead a country since Stalin.
When you tally up the crimes Saddam committed against his people (gassing the Kurds, rape, torture, killings, violent supression of dissent, etc.), and consider that his equally batshit crazy sons would have taken over from him when he died, maybe Iraq will be better off.

I don't want to "Godwin" (look it up if you don't know) this argument, but imagine what Germany would be like if the Allies didn't defeat the Nazis and Hitler. Sure, a lot of innocent German civillians were killed, but I think we can all agree that Germany, and indeed the entire world, is better off today because of it.

 

[Onhell]

WickerMan brings up a good point. I've given this some thought; Bush might actually be partially vindicated in a few years (I stress partially). Yes, he led his nation to war for the wrong reasons, but he did get rid of one of te most evil men to lead a country since Stalin.
When you tally up the crimes Saddam committed against his people (gassing the Kurds, rape, torture, killings, violent supression of dissent, etc.), and consider that his equally batshit crazy sons would have taken over from him when he died, maybe Iraq will be better off.

I don't want to "Godwin" (look it up if you don't know) this argument, but imagine what Germany would be like if the Allies didn't defeat the Nazis and Hitler. Sure, a lot of innocent German civillians were killed, but I think we can all agree that Germany, and indeed the entire world, is better off today because of it.

I don't think He will ever be vindicated even partially because he's proven to be a royal fuck up regardless of the war. And also, there are other "evil" dictators/regimes on this planet to which the U.S either doesn't give a shit about (Think Africa here) or doesn't do anything because it is not a wise economic move (China anyone?) So yes, Bush is a selfish idiot and yes Saddam was an "evil" bastard, but why should the U.S care? People have revolted against their governments before and who is to say the Iraqi people wouldn't have done it eventually?And why should the U.S be the one to say how the rest of the planet should be govern? And who is to say that Iraq will be better off when the U.S installed their own dictators in Latin America because they served their business purposes while the people of those countries were royally screwed over? This could be a repeat of that.

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

I may be nitpicking, but I've seen two assertions in this thread which I believe are mistaken.

The Duke stated in his opening post that N. Korea may have missles that could reach Los Angeles or San Francisco. I haven't heard that from any other source, and I've read a fair bit of the news about the missle tests. I have seen it said that the missles could reach Hawaii or Alaska, but not California.

However, I will qualify what I just said by noting that the Duke is usually well-informed in these types of matters, so I'm not saying he is wrong. I'm just saying this is the first time I've seen that assertion, and I think it might be wrong.

Secondly, Yax brought up Cheney's connection to Halliburton and noted how Halliburton got several juicy no-bid contracts for work in Iraq. It is true that Cheney used to be CEO of Halliburton. It may be true that he still owns some stock, but I strongly doubt (as Yax said) that he owns anything close to a majority. In fact, I would expect that he probably sold all his Halliburton stock before becoming vice-president in order to avoid a perceived conflict of interest. He may be throwing easy money to his friends, but I doubt he's gaining much (if any) personal benefit.

About the issue in general: most of the truly intelligent and well-informed sources which I have read universally agree that N. Korea probably doesn't care much about the US. They have disliked Japan much more and for a longer time. If they were really crazy enough to drop bombs on anyone, it would be Japan.

I also agree that sanctions will have no effect on N. Korea's actions. Kim Jong Il will not personally suffer from any sanctions, and he's the crazy mother with his finger on the trigger.

I have a good friend who is Iraqi (though he's been living in the US since he was 9). He still has a lot of family over there, and throughout Saddam's reign he got regular news of how evil Saddam was. He hated Saddam with a passion, and was overjoyed to see him toppled. BUT: he's still against the war, and always has been. He told me that the removal of Saddam doesn't justify the damage which has been done to Iraq's society, and I agree. Today's paper said Iraq is closer to civil war than ever before. It's something like cutting off your foot to get rid of an ingrown toenail, and letting yourself bleed to death. Iraq will require years, possibly decades to recover from this war. And that can be directly blamed on the neocon hawks like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney who convinced Bush to lead this war in the first place.

 

[Anonymous]

what is it that Kim wants?

He just wants to be loved, like everyone else...

 

[Raven]

He just wants to be loved, like everyone else...

Firing ICBMs into the Sea of Japan isn't the best way to go about it

Personally, I think that North Korea isn't as much of a threat to the Western world as the media wold have us believe.  I say threat, because although the missiles launched were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, they didn't get very far.  The largest missile fired (with a supposed range theoretically capable of reaching American territories) crashed after only 42 seconds of flight.  North Korea may have missiles which could reach America, but whether they would if actually launched is another matter.  The most likely targets in any attack would be, as mentionned earlier, Japan, but also South Korea.

While America may not be directly threatened by NK's missiles, the potential destruction that could be wreaked on Japan is a cause for concern.  As mad and egotistical as Kim Jong-Il is, as with Iran, he knows that he would have the entirety of the UNSC on his back if he made any moves to threaten any other country with attack.  I believe that this display is simply that; a display.  Kim Jong-Il wants his country to be powerful, as any dictator does.  In order to do this he tries to scare the world into giving him attention.  Unfortunately for him, the whole world knows that the entire North Korean regime is a farce, a facade designed to create an impression of security and peace in the country.  The government controls the media, and it is one of the worst Communist states today, in terms of inaccessibility and freedom of speech being prohibited.  But, as IronDuke said, the people are not to blame, and they will be the ones to suffer if North Korea is sanctioned.  Because, of course, what will happen if food becomes scarce in the country?  The government will simply take what they can from the people.  A vicious circle becomes clear; Sanctions are the only viable way to ensure the safety of other countries and their peoples, but may harm the Korean people.  Obviously, any direct display of force is out of the question-the man wouldn't even allow independant Humans Rights inspectors into his country-he's not going to let weapons inspectors in!

Again, drawing a parallel to Iran, some people ask this question; How can we justify sanctions?  Why should Iran not enrich Uranium?  Surely they should have nuclear power, as many other countries do.  The answer is that the West fears the use of nuclear technology in a destructive way.  Countries like NK and Iran cry out that the USA, UK, China, France, Pakistan, India and Israel all have nuclear weapons.  Well, let's look at it this way-If you're an anti-West, Communist, closed country with no links to the West, an appalling human rights record, and a mad dictator in charge, the rest of the world is not going to be as endeared to allowing you the use of nuclear technology as, say, Israel.

But through all this, we must ask one (final) question; is Kim Jong-Il enough of a nutjob to attack another country, possibly precipitating WWIII?  I don't think so.  I don't think he (or any dictator for that matter) has the balls to go head-to-head with the UN in today's world.

So, are sanctions the way to go?  Weighing up all the pros and cons, I think they'll only do more harm to innocents and than to Kim Jong-Il.  It's time for the UN to take a real stand against North Korea, and force them to clean up their human rights.  If he won't let impartial inspectors into his country, he should prepare for the consequences.  As someone (IronDuke, I think) said, Kim Jong-Il is living in the Cold War, and the sad thing is, the people can't do anything except smile and do what the government tells them.  But is North Korea a real threat?  For now, no.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, drawing a parallel to Iran, some people ask this question; How can we justify sanctions?  Why should Iran not enrich Uranium?  Surely they should have nuclear power, as many other countries do.  The answer is that the West fears the use of nuclear technology in a destructive way.  Countries like NK and Iran cry out that the USA, UK, China, France, Pakistan, India and Israel all have nuclear weapons.  Well, let's look at it this way-If you're an anti-West, Communist, closed country with no links to the West, an appalling human rights record, and a mad dictator in charge, the rest of the world is not going to be as endeared to allowing you the use of nuclear technology as, say, Israel.

Let's put it this way: You are in a group of several people, and all own a knife to cut bread with. There's one guy in the group who keeps insulting all others and says how they are great evil and how they should be wiped out. The next moment, he asks if he can have a knife- and claims he only wants to cut bread with it.
It's oversimplified, overstretched and inaccurate, but that example should still serve to give you a basic idea.

But through all this, we must ask one (final) question; is Kim Jong-Il enough of a nutjob to attack another country, possibly precipitating WWIII?  I don't think so.  I don't think he (or any dictator for that matter) has the balls to go head-to-head with the UN in today's world.

His Solar Majesty Kim Jong Il wishes to reject the following accusations: Kim might be thinking that he can drop his bombs on places like Japan or the US west coast because he knows that the other countries wouldn't be doing the same- dropping atomic bombs on a small and poor country like North Korea is incredibly bad publicity for anyone. In that case, Kim might think that his potential enemies would use conventional weapons or invade the country, in which case he believes that North Korea is sufficiently armed.
But of course Kim Jong Il would never think such things.

 

[Raven]

Let's put it this way: You are in a group of several people, and all own a knife to cut bread with. There's one guy in the group who keeps insulting all others and says how they are great evil and how they should be wiped out. The next moment, he asks if he can have a knife- and claims he only wants to cut bread with it.
It's oversimplified, overstretched and inaccurate, but that example should still serve to give you a basic idea.

His Solar Majesty Kim Jong Il wishes to reject the following accusations: Kim might be thinking that he can drop his bombs on places like Japan or the US west coast because he knows that the other countries wouldn't be doing the same- dropping atomic bombs on a small and poor country like North Korea is incredibly bad publicity for anyone. In that case, Kim might think that his potential enemies would use conventional weapons or invade the country, in which case he believes that North Korea is sufficiently armed.
But of course Kim Jong Il would never think such things.

That's actually quite a good analogy, Per.

And your second paragraph just emphasises Kim Jong-Il's Cold War attitude.  He thinks he may need nuclear weapons for defense, to deter an attack, but the West will not take the risk of him potentially using them offensively.  Ironically, the nuclear weapons he believes will protect him will only serve to make the UN shit themselves even more and push them into action.  I should have remembered that most egotistical dictators are extremely paranoid, though; they see enemies everywhere, and feel they need protection.  Going back to the Cold War, the American-Soviet fear of MAD ensured that although the threat of war was omnipresent, it never (officially) erupted, as both sides felt they had enough nukes as a deterrent.  But that was an extremely delicate balance of power, and you just can't afford to try something like that today, not with the myriad of different hates in our world...incidentally, every time I hear of an act of agression in any anti-west country, it always makes me think.  Why?  Well, look at nearly all the arms used by the Iraqi army, the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents, the North Koreans among others.  Most of the technology is Soviet, with a minority of Chinese technology.  How different could the world have been if the Kremlin hadn't been so paranoid that it had to create buffer states and arm them with its technology?  Well, apart from being even more dominated by the US than it is today, it may just be safer....

But I'm ranting again ...