6 ms·

Will China Protect Kim Jong Un from International Justice?

31 points by benologist 11y ago

tombell93 11y ago
Block everyone who petitioned to block Donald J Trump from UK entry from the UK - #freespeech #crazybutfree https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115005/sponsors/HO8NmNvN0nN9V7trNOlP https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115005/sponsors/HO8...
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Are you seriously asking for the censorship of people who exercised their right to free speech (asking for the banning of Trump's entry to the UK), in the name of free speech? What incredible hypocrisy. Also, please don't spam irrelevant links on HN. That's a quick way to get banned.
  - meagain20000 11y ago
    Didn't read what he was saying. But free speech does not shield you from the consequences from other people i.e I can certainly censor him in my home. The USA government cannot censor him of course, up to a certain point. The government can censor your free speech if it consists of you yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, or so the theory goes. Trump getting a Yuuuuuuge amount of hate from the people is part of their right to free speech.
    - skj 11y ago
      When someone calls for censorship, they generally do not mean in their homes.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
China wants stability, they don't want trouble on their borders. So if this would cause NK trouble (it might), they'll block it. Some day, though, NK will fall apart, if only when this Kim or the next runs out of planned economy money to reallocate to bribes. Then China will have a problem on its hands.
- Geekette 11y ago
  China's also an unlikely ally for intervention here as it too was recently reprimanded for continued use of torture in prison and cracking down on human rights lawyers and activists by the UN Committee Against Torture: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35058284 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35058284
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    "Reprimanded", but no one's going to war with them over it.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > China's also an unlikely ally for intervention here as it too was recently reprimanded for continued use of torture in prison and cracking down on human rights lawyers and activists by the UN Committee Against Torture: That's like saying that he US is an unlikely proponent of action here (despite the fact that it is, obviously a key proponent of that action) since it, too, has been reprimanded by the UN Committee Against Torture over its use of torture, particularly in the context of detainees at Guatanamo Bay and at secret, exterritorial detention facilities.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  If NK didn't fall apart from losing somewhere around 10% of their population in the 90's famine, what could possibly make it fall apart? They've been out of money for a long time. They've been imprisoning just about everyone and shooting people left and right for a long time. It's a lot worse there than any western novel about disutopians ever imagined. I don't think it's falling apart any time soon, especially now that the regime is nuclear armed.
  - hga 11y ago
    I can't see how the DPRK is anything but meta-stable, but we have so little visibility into it we just don't know. 3 generations of a single family's dictatorship is remarkable in modern times, usually one of the power bases upon which the regime stands swerves it from such a thing. The nuclear arming just helps with outside threats, I would think, and no one with the means really wants to destabilize them. As I understand it South Korea shudders at the thought of trying to integrate such a population into their country, one which is on average a foot shorter and significantly less intelligent due to pervasive malnutrition. That even the Army is filled with malnourished men says something significant, and, yeah, indicates more stability that you'd expect on general principles.
Geekette 11y ago
Deeply saddening but I doubt Kim Jong Un will actually face international justice. 2014 report aside, the world has long been made aware of the cruelty in N Korea, to no avail. I don't see what's different this time to suggest that the tide will actually turn.
- benologist 11y ago
  The only way he'll avoid prison is if he dies young, he won't be able to avoid justice for 4+ decades, there are many corrupt old people in prison who thought they could.
  - Bootvis 11y ago
    Sadly his father and his grandfather escaped justice. There is no reason to believe this time will be different.
    - benologist 11y ago
      Open access to information might make a difference - at some point the world will be blanketed with internet access from satellites/drones/balloons, it will be impossible for the average North Korean to be forcibly kept ignorant forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
littletimmy 11y ago
There is really no international justice. The international arena is an anarchy, where countries operate to keep each other in check while expanding their own sphere of influence. NO COUNTRY has ever intervened to "bring justice" to another country. Even during World War II, the Allied powers went to war against Hitler's expansionism, and not on account of the holocaust. If Hitler had just concentrated on killing people in his own country (like Stalin), no one would have clamored for bringing the Nazis to justice.
- mhurron 11y ago
  > NO COUNTRY has ever intervened to "bring justice" to another country. Except the US when dealing with Manuel Noriega.
  - cafard 11y ago
    I think that you need to move that quotation mark one token right. One could instance India's intervention in the then East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh; the always bad relations between India and Pakistan had plenty to do with it, but I don't think were the deciding factor. It has been a while since that was in the news, though, and I haven't read up on it since.
    - hga 11y ago
      From my brief look at that conflict, how the fight in East Pakistan was spilling over into India, millions? of refugees fleeing and that sort of thing that compelled them to act. That they could poke West Pakistan in the eye was just gravy, that this was a humanitarian action was incidental, sort of like Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia which put paid to the Khmer Rouge's extraordinary demoniacal regime. They didn't invade to do that, or have their National Guard equivalent give the PRC a drubbing, they did it to stop the Khmer Rouge from going across the (disputed) border and slaughtering their own people.
  - imglorp 11y ago
    Noriega was not a justice or humanitarian thing. It was a regional politics thing. See also Saddam. If we were serious about justice and humanity, we'd have intervened in Rwanda and NK and other disasters long ago.
ankitml 11y ago
.....
Theodores 11y ago
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... It is interesting how our mainstream media phrases these things, to make them a question. They frame debate to be 'normal' or 'silly'. For instance, they could also ask: Will China protect Tony Blair from International Justice? Will Mozambique protect George W Bush from International Justice? More generally the U.S. in its dealings with China always want to put our Chinese friends on the back foot by questioning their human rights record. Meanwhile, which country imprisons the most? USA. I would not be at all surprised if there were more people imprisoned inside the USA than there are people imprisoned in the rest of the world. Hence, when it comes to important matters of human rights it is difficult to take the U.S. government or media seriously.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes > I would not be at all surprised if there were more people imprisoned inside the USA than there are people imprisoned in the rest of the world. I would, since it's common knowledge that the US has 22% of the world's prisoners. America has an incarceration-per-100k of about 700, while North Korea has an estimated 600-800, but we can't be sure because they're so secretive. HOWEVER, america's prisoners get medical care, food, and many protections. North Korea's prisoners are starved, beaten, raped, and worked to death in brutal camps that rival nazi germany for pure concentrated evil.
notahacker 11y ago
Whether China chooses to exercise its veto to prevent the UN from issuing a strongly worded condemnation or not, North Korea will protect Kim Jong Un from international justice. They have weapons pointed at some of the world's most densely populated areas, and enough fanaticism to use them. Even if the rest of the North Korean leadership were to decide Kim Jong Un was going too far, I don't think the UN would be invited to participate in their palace coup.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Whether China chooses to exercise its veto to prevent the UN from issuing a strongly worded condemnation or not A referral to the ICC is a substantively different action than a condemnation (of course, the DPRK is unlikely to cooperate with the ICC, at which point there is a different discussion that may happen at in the UNSC -- or potentially even the GA, under "Uniting for Peace" -- about how to deal with that.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

31 points by benologist 11y ago

Block everyone who petitioned to block Donald J Trump from UK entry from the UK - #freespeech #crazybutfree https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115005/sponsors/HO8NmNvN0nN9V7trNOlP https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/115005/sponsors/HO8...

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Are you seriously asking for the censorship of people who exercised their right to free speech (asking for the banning of Trump's entry to the UK), in the name of free speech? What incredible hypocrisy. Also, please don't spam irrelevant links on HN. That's a quick way to get banned.
- meagain20000 11y ago
  Didn't read what he was saying. But free speech does not shield you from the consequences from other people i.e I can certainly censor him in my home. The USA government cannot censor him of course, up to a certain point. The government can censor your free speech if it consists of you yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, or so the theory goes. Trump getting a Yuuuuuuge amount of hate from the people is part of their right to free speech.
  - skj 11y ago
    When someone calls for censorship, they generally do not mean in their homes.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

China wants stability, they don't want trouble on their borders. So if this would cause NK trouble (it might), they'll block it. Some day, though, NK will fall apart, if only when this Kim or the next runs out of planned economy money to reallocate to bribes. Then China will have a problem on its hands.

Geekette 11y ago
China's also an unlikely ally for intervention here as it too was recently reprimanded for continued use of torture in prison and cracking down on human rights lawyers and activists by the UN Committee Against Torture: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35058284 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35058284
- hellbanner 11y ago
  "Reprimanded", but no one's going to war with them over it.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > China's also an unlikely ally for intervention here as it too was recently reprimanded for continued use of torture in prison and cracking down on human rights lawyers and activists by the UN Committee Against Torture: That's like saying that he US is an unlikely proponent of action here (despite the fact that it is, obviously a key proponent of that action) since it, too, has been reprimanded by the UN Committee Against Torture over its use of torture, particularly in the context of detainees at Guatanamo Bay and at secret, exterritorial detention facilities.
merpnderp 11y ago
If NK didn't fall apart from losing somewhere around 10% of their population in the 90's famine, what could possibly make it fall apart? They've been out of money for a long time. They've been imprisoning just about everyone and shooting people left and right for a long time. It's a lot worse there than any western novel about disutopians ever imagined. I don't think it's falling apart any time soon, especially now that the regime is nuclear armed.
- hga 11y ago
  I can't see how the DPRK is anything but meta-stable, but we have so little visibility into it we just don't know. 3 generations of a single family's dictatorship is remarkable in modern times, usually one of the power bases upon which the regime stands swerves it from such a thing. The nuclear arming just helps with outside threats, I would think, and no one with the means really wants to destabilize them. As I understand it South Korea shudders at the thought of trying to integrate such a population into their country, one which is on average a foot shorter and significantly less intelligent due to pervasive malnutrition. That even the Army is filled with malnourished men says something significant, and, yeah, indicates more stability that you'd expect on general principles.

Geekette 11y ago

Deeply saddening but I doubt Kim Jong Un will actually face international justice. 2014 report aside, the world has long been made aware of the cruelty in N Korea, to no avail. I don't see what's different this time to suggest that the tide will actually turn.

benologist 11y ago
The only way he'll avoid prison is if he dies young, he won't be able to avoid justice for 4+ decades, there are many corrupt old people in prison who thought they could.
- Bootvis 11y ago
  Sadly his father and his grandfather escaped justice. There is no reason to believe this time will be different.
  - benologist 11y ago
    Open access to information might make a difference - at some point the world will be blanketed with internet access from satellites/drones/balloons, it will be impossible for the average North Korean to be forcibly kept ignorant forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

littletimmy 11y ago

There is really no international justice. The international arena is an anarchy, where countries operate to keep each other in check while expanding their own sphere of influence. NO COUNTRY has ever intervened to "bring justice" to another country. Even during World War II, the Allied powers went to war against Hitler's expansionism, and not on account of the holocaust. If Hitler had just concentrated on killing people in his own country (like Stalin), no one would have clamored for bringing the Nazis to justice.

mhurron 11y ago
> NO COUNTRY has ever intervened to "bring justice" to another country. Except the US when dealing with Manuel Noriega.
- cafard 11y ago
  I think that you need to move that quotation mark one token right. One could instance India's intervention in the then East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh; the always bad relations between India and Pakistan had plenty to do with it, but I don't think were the deciding factor. It has been a while since that was in the news, though, and I haven't read up on it since.
  - hga 11y ago
    From my brief look at that conflict, how the fight in East Pakistan was spilling over into India, millions? of refugees fleeing and that sort of thing that compelled them to act. That they could poke West Pakistan in the eye was just gravy, that this was a humanitarian action was incidental, sort of like Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia which put paid to the Khmer Rouge's extraordinary demoniacal regime. They didn't invade to do that, or have their National Guard equivalent give the PRC a drubbing, they did it to stop the Khmer Rouge from going across the (disputed) border and slaughtering their own people.
- imglorp 11y ago
  Noriega was not a justice or humanitarian thing. It was a regional politics thing. See also Saddam. If we were serious about justice and humanity, we'd have intervened in Rwanda and NK and other disasters long ago.

ankitml 11y ago

.....

Theodores 11y ago

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... It is interesting how our mainstream media phrases these things, to make them a question. They frame debate to be 'normal' or 'silly'. For instance, they could also ask: Will China protect Tony Blair from International Justice? Will Mozambique protect George W Bush from International Justice? More generally the U.S. in its dealings with China always want to put our Chinese friends on the back foot by questioning their human rights record. Meanwhile, which country imprisons the most? USA. I would not be at all surprised if there were more people imprisoned inside the USA than there are people imprisoned in the rest of the world. Hence, when it comes to important matters of human rights it is difficult to take the U.S. government or media seriously.

knodi123 11y ago
> People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes > I would not be at all surprised if there were more people imprisoned inside the USA than there are people imprisoned in the rest of the world. I would, since it's common knowledge that the US has 22% of the world's prisoners. America has an incarceration-per-100k of about 700, while North Korea has an estimated 600-800, but we can't be sure because they're so secretive. HOWEVER, america's prisoners get medical care, food, and many protections. North Korea's prisoners are starved, beaten, raped, and worked to death in brutal camps that rival nazi germany for pure concentrated evil.

notahacker 11y ago

Whether China chooses to exercise its veto to prevent the UN from issuing a strongly worded condemnation or not, North Korea will protect Kim Jong Un from international justice. They have weapons pointed at some of the world's most densely populated areas, and enough fanaticism to use them. Even if the rest of the North Korean leadership were to decide Kim Jong Un was going too far, I don't think the UN would be invited to participate in their palace coup.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Whether China chooses to exercise its veto to prevent the UN from issuing a strongly worded condemnation or not A referral to the ICC is a substantively different action than a condemnation (of course, the DPRK is unlikely to cooperate with the ICC, at which point there is a different discussion that may happen at in the UNSC -- or potentially even the GA, under "Uniting for Peace" -- about how to deal with that.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]