If you think filling the coffers of the North Korea, a country with a caste system that mandates certain people have limited food access, will improve the lowest caste member's lives then I've one in Pyongyang to sell you.
With all due respect, that's the point of sanctions. You've brought it up as some sort of gotcha. It's not. They're a means to cripple the war-making ability of a nation without actually bombing them into submission or shooting them. As such they're not just placed on a nation for fun or random purposes.
To say look North Korea is evil they don't feed women and kids misses the fact that this is a policy we did for whatever justifible reason. Kids are not eating and dying because of choices we made.
Kids are not eating well because NK leadership spends all the country’s money on themselves and the military in order for them to stay in power.
If your neighbour beats his children and constantly threatens to shoot your house up, you are not morally obligated to spend money at their restaurant.
If you prevent the next door neighbour from bringing in food because you have a fued with them you can't turn around and say look at those kids not eating. It's because you live like kings.
They spend money on military not to supress the local population, they do it to protect themselves against you.
You are morally responsible for your choices including preventing kids from eating.
It seems based on some premise that North Korea is only bad because other nations are "mean" to it.
Many authoritarian regimes have historically used food availability as a weapon against their own populations. North Korea clearly is one such regime.
There is no private enterprise in North Korea-- I don't know what you think lifting of non-food covering sanctions would do other than further strengthening a rogue state that has no intentions of having anything other than a perpetual slave caste.
That's like saying the judge is responsible when a man is experiencing a bad time in jail, instead of the man being responsible because he commited the crime which put him there.
A judge is responsible for decisions around sentencing and prision conditions. The choices they make have a big impact on whether prison will be successful in reforming a person. Sending 16 year olds to adult prison or decisions around solitary or conditions (no visitors) or type of prison can have a huge impact.
Sorry what. If I go to jail and feel bad about being there since it means I can't meet my kid, then the judge is to blame? What the actual fuck is that level of stupidity. Be better than that, dude.
International trade is a privilege not a right. If you want to thumb your nose at the international community on whom you rely to provide basic sustenance to your people you should prepare to have a bad time. Or figure out how to sustain your population without trade. But either way its the responsibility of NK, not the world, to find a way to feed the people of NK. That can be by participating in the world order and benefiting from trade, or by figuring out how to grow enough food at home.
It is neither a right or privilege given by a power higher than yourself. It is a decision by a group of powerful countries who influenced, bribed and threatened others to get everyone to partipate. It jails citizens who provide information on cryto trading.
It is no one's responsibility to feed anyone. People don't have a right to exist. People do whatever they can to survive around the world.
The countries that have decided to force these kids to die to further their geopolitcal goals are responsible for those decisions. Maybe they die for a better future for all or maybe they die because their lives don't matter to the countries preventing food from reaching them.
> It jails citizens who provide information on cryto trading.
I wish (kidding), but no, it jails citizens who travel to foreign countries to explain how to evade sanctions to people who would benefit from that information.
> It is no one's responsibility to feed anyone. People don't have a right to exist. People do whatever they can to survive around the world.
That's not what I said. I said that this obligation extends domestically. It may be good, nice, and moral - heck I support it - to save anyone you can on earth. It may even be a moral imperative but your obligation first and foremost is to your own at home.
> The countries that have decided to force these kids to die to further their geopolitcal goals are responsible for those decisions.
All I'm saying is if you rely on the relationships with others to survive probably don't poke them in the eye?
If you're dangling from a bridge, suspended by a rope, and some burly guy catches you. You realize you don't like his face. So you throw sand at him. He lets go of the rope, and you fall. Who's at fault? You could say it was the guy who let go of the rope. But for the love of all that is good and holy, why are you throwing sand at the only person keeping you alive?
Nobody owes you trade. Whether that's right, wrong, good, bad or anything else, it's fact. States would be well served to keep that in mind. It doesn't usually come up until the "and find out" part of "screw around and find out" happens.
