North Korea (and Darfur and other humanitarian crises) - What can we do?

Well, that'll happen soon.

But no, I think basically there's nothing you can do.

the idea that 'we' choose 'acceptable' systems of govt (in the past, client dictators, in the preseent, western style liberal democracy) is abhorrent, counterproductive, and increasingly discredited (hopefully)

for ourselves, or for others? plz elaborate, I don't quite understand what yr getting at...

its a slippery slope, the concept of oppression, or the concept of us deciding whether another leader is acceptable or not.

are the people of iran oppress

what is freedom, exactly?

(heh heh)

x-post

so like, e.g. all the folks in iraq will get to vote in the next US and UK elections. would make you think twice before occupying them i think.

(heh heh)

*to the tune of that Zest soap commercial* "You're not fully free unless you're sexually free!"

what happens if the citizens of a country wish a universal human right to be recinded? can this universal human right be imposed from outside? is it ok that the external country chooses which rights it believe to be universal, overruling what may be believed in the country itself?

who chooses the universals? are they really universal, if they aren't universal?

'seems to have trouble putting its own house in order too! can it really be trusted to know what is best for us in other countries' etc etc

If that's what they want, hey good for them. Note there is still self-determination involved, which cannot necessarily be said of somewhere like N. Korea.

"theres an assumption everyone in the world wants democracy, is it applicable in all cases?" No. see above.

"what happens if the citizens of a country wish a universal human right to be rescinded?"

for themselves or for others? If for themselves, they can do whatever they want. If for others, absolutely not.

"can this universal human right be imposed from outside?" Not really. It must be freely chosen.

"is it ok that the external country chooses which rights it believe to be universal, overruling what may be believed in the country itself?" No. see above.

"who chooses the universals?"

The right to freely choose yr government is really the only universal being discussed here.

"are they really universal, if they aren't universal?" this question answers itself.

x-post

ok, how about the right to be gay in a society that chooses religious law that prohibits homosexuality?

what about the view that free will is dangerous, and a temptation away from religious life?

imperialist meddling is only part of the problem, even altruistic meddling is involved in external choosing of a countrys path, supposedly helping self-determination

i think a pretty good solution would be not to pursue this end through war (and perhaps not even through ostracization). eg, north korea, ostracization didnt achieve anything anyway, perhaps positive engagement might have done, though

where does stopping genocide fall into this equation? Please note that is what the original post is addressing. I'm sorry, but murdering massive amounts of people is usually sufficient grounds for some kind of intervention.

saddam was into genocide, but the iraq was has been an unqualified disaster. we now have a situation worse than when he was there, both in and out of iraq. and the enormous muslim anger around the world, yet we expected plaudits for removing such a monster! and the repercussions are only just beginning. was the iraq war right? could it have been handled any better. even if we had got the un resolution, and a un force had gone in, would it REALLY have been any better. would it not have been seen as a us crony force? does anyone even respect the un anyway?

so if it didnt work last time, why do we not learn the mistakes? why are we looking at situations in iran and north korea, and wanting to have another crack?

dont assume they are crying to us! or what they are crying for! they might not be as happy as you think, when you turn up!

creating more anger and instability around the world, just seems nightmarish to me. surely the west has got other ways to try and regain some credibility?

I'm not sure this is even logically possible. I don't believe that non-democratic governments have ever come into power without some degree of fear, intimidation, propaganda, outright murder of enemies, etc. I'm not sure how you would democratically reject democracy. That seems like a logical fallacy.

Generically speaking, some non-military approaches to humanitarian crises would be economic pressure, acceptance of refugees, non-governmental humanitarian aid, publicizing and educating people about the problem rather than brushing it under the rug, etc. But the hypocricy surrounding an issue like nuclear proliferation makes it very difficult to even begin to approach a solution.

Democratically? Or through pressure, intimidation and propaganda stemming from existing centers of power?

Yes. as we've mentioned on several threads, there were even some folks in the U.S. State Dept and the Pentagon(some were holdovers from Bush I, some not) had MASSIVE plans about how to go about pulling this off for whatever fucking cloud of motivations that the Admin had(and they had a LOT of them).

It was called "The Future of Iraq Project" on the State Dept side, and listed such basic things as 1) don't disband the army, ending the livelihoods of a hundred thousand plus broke-ass guys still packing heat 2) stop looting.

the problem is that the current fuckheads in charge decided to ditch all that for a cloud of motivations similarly vague to the endless reasonings for going in there in the first place:

-they thought they knew better,

-they believed their own hype(america is so great they'll just throw down their arms and welcome us with rose pedals and nubile daughters)

-they wanted to prove Colin Powell wrong and show that the "light & nimble" approach worked instead of the "overwhelming force" one(okay, this was just Rumsfeld, but still)

-they're hilariously incompetent

that's the thing; even with this entire fucked war in the planning, they didn't have to go about it in such a way that would fuck things over moreso.

But they did.

And so here we are.

you may be right, perhaps going in and cleaning up nk would be a good idea, (even taking into account yet more anti-american resentment around the world). how about darfur? americans involving themselves in muslim affairs AGAIN? the west sure loves to play good muslim bad muslim (or house slave field slave?)

and relativism? sure, though an inconsistent policy of regime change around the world is also a form of relativism. and since we are dealing with the reality of forced change via american force, we have to deal with the reality of reaction to forced american change

and, as for real-world baggage aside, i dont know, pure hypothetics, ideal world stuff, ook i can live with that, but, no, not in the real world. we need to learn lessons about this stuff, and stop dreaming we are in this ideal world, as every occupation takes us further from it

america is perceived as a giant bully, as a crusader, as anti-islamic, in large sections of the world, whether it is true or not, and more actions along these lines, only increase that feeling

perhaps people are even wrong to feel that, i dont know, but are you going to tell them they are wrong, or shall i?

it may be relativism, but you cant force universals onto a people, if they dont consider themselves universal

why are they so ungrateful when we arrive in our big hats?

Citing Bush admin foreign policy is a red herring, as it takes human rights only as an afterthought, and that only where convenient. You're avoiding the moral issue at hand.

israel, if we could be bothered, is a country where *we* could do something! but there is much less interest in that, obviously

the 2nd post in this thread might be a start, or, at the very least, more engagement with countries (i wonder how long NK would have survived if it had been able to isolate). the removal of leaders (esp iran in 1953, allende in 73 etc etc) has been tremendously counter-productive. certainly some bridge-building would be a start, and some PR! if we can improve american standing in the world, and not expect it to get better for a few years. certainly i dont think going to war for moral reasons is valid (neither does the US administration, hence the halfhearted attempts where there havent been other things at stake)

the current policy seems to be making us more enemies day by day

http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/IMG_1832.JPG

DEFEAT THE AMERICA WAR MACHINE!~!!!!!
w00t woot

-- charltonlido (...), August 11th, 2005.

Just to be clear, and for the second time, I'm not talking about current policy. I'm talking about what is to be done about humanitarian crises.

surely, a global policeman must not be seen as biased to one side, or the other side will resist?

So even if an invasion was justified and required by all moral criteria you'd oppose it because some people might think badly of us for it?

-- charltonlido (...), August 11th, 2005.

I might agree with you here, from a pragmatic standpoint. It's Bush's fault though. I think under Clinton we still had some foreign policy cred, which helped our action in Kosovo.

or lets say libya (secularist leader americans dont like). thinking about the 'some people that might think badly of us for it' (also known as the islamic world), i'd argue that regime change in libya would be a total nightmare, for this reason. and fuelling islamic anti-americanism, and reinforcing the worldview that america is merely israels enforcer (rightly or wrongly) seems a bad idea yes. this is why no american invasion in a muslim country can work

You're wringing your hands and lamenting that the US or whoever can't get involved in Sudan without looking like the bad guy. That's the UN for you. The countries with the worst human rights records in the world hide behind "we don't want the West to lecture us about human rights" rhetoric and harp on Abu Ghraib in order to deflect attention from their own FAR WORSE human rights abuses (has there been a UN resolution condemning the massacre in Uzbekistan? Will there be one? Etc.). Meanwhile, the EU countries abstain from most contentious resolutions and don't have the balls to stand up and say, "hey, killing 70K people in Sudan is WRONG".

This just in -- killing 70K people in Darfur and causing another 2 million to become homeless makes you the bad guy. Pointing out that such things are wrong does not.

saddam was wrong. was the invasion right? morally? practically? perhaps it is one but not the other. if something is right morally, is it negated if it worsens the problem? how about 70K dead, but invasion sparks off much worse?

the need to do *something* is understandable, but we are getting involved in, and worsening situations, and we are also turning the entire muslim world against us (much more so in 05 than 00). is there any way to stop this?

Things like the invasion and Abu Graib are especially bad because they erode the image of moral authority that we once at least somewhat carried in the world. They rob us of our ability to intervene for moral reasons because no one believes our justifications. But I'd certainly prefer that the US had that image back and started using it for the right purposes.

yeah, exactly. vets talked about playing horseshoes with Japanese POWs, etc.

Evan Dorkin wrote something in one of this comix along the lines of "one of the reasons that this planet sucks is because the only people in it are the people in it," but that fact shouldn't necessarily stop you.

to go back to the threat title, North Korea and Darfur are dicey as shit and there aint really shit that any of us can do about, aside from letting more and more folks know about what's going on, and to try to apply pressure to elected officials to work peaceably(if possible) at it. oh yeah, and to also insure that the officials elected aren't the kinda folks to go off and invade at a multi-faceted whim.

when you have so many politicos who waver with whichever way the wind blows, then you can go about changing the direction of the air currents, as it were.

You do seem to be avoiding (or maybe I missed your response to) the point that Iraq isn't a typical situation, that it's one where more or less everything that could be bungled has been.

Also, have you been drinking? You sound like you're moderately to quite drunk, but all the letters in your words are in the right order.

its getting dangerously close to us and them, on this thread isnt it? and thats the danger, going in for humanitarian reasons, doesnt really tally with "us and them", especially if 'they' dont think right? a

again, was it justified for vietnam to invade cambodia to take out the khymer rouge? why or why not?

well, we're now talking about non-american/western forces? also we're talking then about a threat on the doorstep. im not really arguing against war per se at all, and i'm sure the vietnamese went in there as much for security reasons as for 'humanitarian' reasons. but the crux of the matter is, this thread isnt really for condemning or praising the actions of other states, this thread is about the actions of our own nations

and as for iraq, i thought i had said i dont believe it to be a 'special case'. i think any action in iran would be equally disastrous, for the same reasons, and sudan, syria, libya all have similarities. although, yes, i agree, that in principle, all situations are special cases with unique circumstances

i'd be more inclined to argue that its actually north korea that is the special case though

Dennis Rodman, in cap, and his traveling companions are now the only Americans known to have met the North Korean leader since he took power more than a year ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/01/kim-jong-un-dennis-rodman-video

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10272953/Kim-Jong-uns-ex-lover-executed-by-firing-squad.html

holy shit

whole thing is o_O but

Kim Chol was reportedly executed for drinking and carousing during the official mourning period after Kim Jong-il's death.

On the explicit orders of Kim Jong-un to leave "no trace of him behind, down to his hair," according to South Korean media, Kim Chol was forced to stand on a spot that had been zeroed in for a mortar round and "obliterated."

North Korea: still hilarious

I mean, this was probably the more appropriate thread....

Dear Leader by Jang Jin-Sung should be a compelling read, he is the former N Korean propagandist who defected to S Korea in 2004.

Jang Jin-sung held one of the most senior ranks in North Korea's propaganda machine, helping tighten the regime's grip over its people. Among his tasks were developing the founding myth of North Korea, posing undercover as a South Korean intellectual and writing epic poems in support of the dictator, Kim Jong-il.

http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/jang-jin-sung-takes-us-inside-the-sinister-and-absurd-world-of-north-koreas-god-king-regime