Having seen the BBC2 programme on North Korea last night by journalist A.Frenkel
I'm putting this up as a comment point.
a few points; Ms Frenkel said she'd not come across a communist regime like it".
Probably because it's more like a fascist regime (?)
The 'expert' from the Carnegie Inst said there was a lot of evidence
of the human right abuses,BUT as he said it he had a small smile on his
face. That said,the documentary evidence shown appears genuine on
what's happening at camp 22.
Did anyone else see the programme and what do you think. What is the 'solution' to
the situation in North Korea? (without invading and risking a poss nuclear or chem
retaliation-if they really have that capability-the army spokesman claiming they'd
launch a pre-emptive strike sounded like sabre rattling)
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
tyrants need sieges
02.02.2004 17:45
But how to tackle such regimes? Invasion? Look at history; usually* the regimes installed after an invasion are little or no better than those overthrown, look at what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. Plus lots of people get killed.
(*I accept Germany + Japan after WWII as exceptions, but then they were aggressive imperialist powers themselves.)
Sanctions then? Well certainly stopping selling arms to nasty regimes would be good. But general across-the-board sanctions tend to hurt ordinary folk, look at Iraq.
In fact, putting evil regimes under siege tends to help them bolster their position. It's working now for North Korea, also for Mugabe in Zimbabwe, as it worked for many years for Saddam Hussein in Iraq and for Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.
The old Stalinist regimes in Russia + Eastern Europe were, in the end, overthrown by their own people, not by invasions or sanctions. I think there's a lesson there.
kurious
What to do . . .
02.02.2004 19:00
North Korea is totally dependent on imported oil, and exported weapons technology (mostly missiles (2)), and so concerted multilateral pressure and/or economic sanctions could win concessions, perhaps exile for political prisoners rather than the camps? (I know that sounds shit, but its an improvement, and only a suggestion).
However, there is something somewhat absurd about the US, China etc getting together to demand a nation does not put its political enemies in camps.
The 'Left', 'movement of movements' or whatever does need to set its own agenda, not simply react negatively to all US policy. If the BBC programme is correct, or even partially correct, then the North Korean regime can fairly be described as 'evil'. Where Madeline Albright's infamous comment 'its a price worth paying' re: 500,000 iraqi children dying ranks on the heirachy of evil is open to question. The North Korean regime appears to be an affront to humanity, and should not be defended simply because they are also an enemy of the US. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy, it appears.
The UK also tested chemical weapons on its own people, at least until 1983(3). Arguably the DU expossure/Gulf War syndrome is a continuation of this practice; although not as brutal as the alleged North Korean attrocities.
SOLIDARITY WITH THE VICTIMS OF TOTALITARIANISM EVERYWHERE
Tom
Sources:
(1)
(2) The BBC programme we're on about.
(3)
Tom