5 ms·

I went to a talk by a couple of defectors, one of which was an embassy employee and they explained that they were always tasked with earning money through means

I went to a talk by a couple of defectors, one of which was an embassy employee and they explained that they were always tasked with earning money through means like selling illegal alcohol etc. sanctions obviously make legal trade impossible with many countries.

BelenusMordred 5y ago
From what I understood there is a huge flow of drugs like meth from NK into China. They are basically just a mafia state who will do anything for money.
- dmingod666 5y ago
  As opposed to America? Which does wars to protect its dollar hegemony and loot oil around the world. Toppling democracies to install puppet dictators.
  - usefulcat 5y ago
    Parent said nothing about the US. You have a valid point, but there are far better ways to make it than with this complete non-sequitur.
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      Yes, but.. it doesn't seem completely a complete non-sequitur. Thoughts about whataboutism: When you say "Y is basically just a mafia state who will do anything for money", there seems an unspoken premise "My country X is not like that/is better than that." And to someone to whom X is not better than Y in that respect, the initial claim sounds like "Y is evil because they have two legs", when X has two legs also. It sounds ignorantly hypocritical. How else to point out "Uh, but you also have two legs, although you're acting like you don't."? The problem wasn't that the first claim wasn't true, but that it was spoken in a hypocritical way, saying one party is bad for a reason which applies equally to the other party. And to someone to whom both parties seem to have the bad condition, before they can hear or really respond to the "Y is bad" claim, you really have to deal with—justify—your own unspoken premise of "My own country X doesn't do the bad thing." Just saying "But X also does the same bad thing!" gets accused of whataboutism, as here. "Parent said nothing about X". True, not explicitly, but X appeared in the unspoken premises. Which loom large if you think one or more of them false. I'm not sure what the solution is. I guess maybe saying "I think you have an unspoken premise, which seems false to me, that your country X doesn't do the bad thing you are accusing Y of" at least has a milder tone.
frashelaw 5y ago
North Korean defectors are paid by South Korean govt and US-funded orgs in order to push propaganda about North Korea. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-k... https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-22/problem-north-korea-s-celebrity-defectors https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-22/problem-north-korea-s...
- WalterGR 5y ago
  Neither of those links support your claims.
  - mrobot 5y ago
    Here is a video that contains some accusations of bribery of defectors and other shady business by NIS (Korean CIA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0
    - m00x 5y ago
      Ah yes, Youtube. A trusted source of information.
      - techrat 5y ago
        "Youtube" itself is not a source of information. It is a site where people post videos. Journalists post videos on Youtube through BBC, Economist, Washington Post, Nightline/PBS, etc... Does their posting content on Youtube make them less credible? Judge the originator of the content, not who hosts it. Might as well go "Ah yes, the internet. A trusted source of information." That's how shallow your retort is.
    - jxramos 5y ago
      I'm curious what the AsianBoss would make of the video. His interviews with defectors always seemed so genuine. https://www.youtube.com/user/askasianboss https://www.youtube.com/user/askasianboss
hnbad 5y ago
Regardless of whether the accusations about defectors being coerced to make North Korea sound worse are true, honestly this just sounds like an obvious consequence. If you isolate a country economically by cutting off all legal ways for it to trade with the international community, it will have to rely on illegal ways. Generalized trade sanctions have time and again proven to be ineffective because they are so indiscriminate. They're meant to work as a deterrent, not a punishment. But the deterrent works with the threat of disrupting the economy, which only works short-term as the existing supply chains come to a halt and businesses panic. If you sit the sanctions out long enough, the economy will have already collapsed and will rebuild itself under the new restrictions. Once the economy has adapted, the sanctions are no longer a deterrent, they're just how things are, and the promise of conditionally lifting the sanctions feels like a trap because it would require changes to the economy that would again make it vulnerable to those sanctions if they were reinstated.

BelenusMordred 5y ago

From what I understood there is a huge flow of drugs like meth from NK into China. They are basically just a mafia state who will do anything for money.

dmingod666 5y ago
As opposed to America? Which does wars to protect its dollar hegemony and loot oil around the world. Toppling democracies to install puppet dictators.
- usefulcat 5y ago
  Parent said nothing about the US. You have a valid point, but there are far better ways to make it than with this complete non-sequitur.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Yes, but.. it doesn't seem completely a complete non-sequitur. Thoughts about whataboutism: When you say "Y is basically just a mafia state who will do anything for money", there seems an unspoken premise "My country X is not like that/is better than that." And to someone to whom X is not better than Y in that respect, the initial claim sounds like "Y is evil because they have two legs", when X has two legs also. It sounds ignorantly hypocritical. How else to point out "Uh, but you also have two legs, although you're acting like you don't."? The problem wasn't that the first claim wasn't true, but that it was spoken in a hypocritical way, saying one party is bad for a reason which applies equally to the other party. And to someone to whom both parties seem to have the bad condition, before they can hear or really respond to the "Y is bad" claim, you really have to deal with—justify—your own unspoken premise of "My own country X doesn't do the bad thing." Just saying "But X also does the same bad thing!" gets accused of whataboutism, as here. "Parent said nothing about X". True, not explicitly, but X appeared in the unspoken premises. Which loom large if you think one or more of them false. I'm not sure what the solution is. I guess maybe saying "I think you have an unspoken premise, which seems false to me, that your country X doesn't do the bad thing you are accusing Y of" at least has a milder tone.

frashelaw 5y ago

North Korean defectors are paid by South Korean govt and US-funded orgs in order to push propaganda about North Korea. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-k... https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-22/problem-north-korea-s-celebrity-defectors https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-22/problem-north-korea-s...

WalterGR 5y ago
Neither of those links support your claims.
- mrobot 5y ago
  Here is a video that contains some accusations of bribery of defectors and other shady business by NIS (Korean CIA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktE_3PrJZO0
  - m00x 5y ago
    Ah yes, Youtube. A trusted source of information.
    - techrat 5y ago
      "Youtube" itself is not a source of information. It is a site where people post videos. Journalists post videos on Youtube through BBC, Economist, Washington Post, Nightline/PBS, etc... Does their posting content on Youtube make them less credible? Judge the originator of the content, not who hosts it. Might as well go "Ah yes, the internet. A trusted source of information." That's how shallow your retort is.
  - jxramos 5y ago
    I'm curious what the AsianBoss would make of the video. His interviews with defectors always seemed so genuine. https://www.youtube.com/user/askasianboss https://www.youtube.com/user/askasianboss

hnbad 5y ago

Regardless of whether the accusations about defectors being coerced to make North Korea sound worse are true, honestly this just sounds like an obvious consequence. If you isolate a country economically by cutting off all legal ways for it to trade with the international community, it will have to rely on illegal ways. Generalized trade sanctions have time and again proven to be ineffective because they are so indiscriminate. They're meant to work as a deterrent, not a punishment. But the deterrent works with the threat of disrupting the economy, which only works short-term as the existing supply chains come to a halt and businesses panic. If you sit the sanctions out long enough, the economy will have already collapsed and will rebuild itself under the new restrictions. Once the economy has adapted, the sanctions are no longer a deterrent, they're just how things are, and the promise of conditionally lifting the sanctions feels like a trap because it would require changes to the economy that would again make it vulnerable to those sanctions if they were reinstated.