3 ms·

Good. Even though UN resolutions are and always have been meaningless, they can still apply some pressure. Fun fact: the UN created the International Criminal

by jmyeet 4y ago

Good. Even though UN resolutions are and always have been meaningless, they can still apply some pressure. Fun fact: the UN created the International Criminal Court to prosecure war crimes, something the US vehemently opposed. The US under then-president George W. Bush, argued that such a court may lead to US servicemen being charged with war crimes. Of course the US has committed war crimes [1]. So Bush passed the Hage Invasion Act [2], which authorizes the US to invade the Netherlands if any US servicemen are brought up on war crimes at the ICC in The Hague (in the Netherlands, obviously). The point is the US wouldn't do this if the UN could be completely ignored. There are several major countries that have varying degrees of harsh long-standing sanctions at the behest of the US that are completely unjustifiable: 1. Cuba. Why? If you look beyond the "communism = bad" kneejerk reaction you come to the justification that Cuba nationalized assets of US citizens. That didn't stop the US seizing Afghan citizens' assets [3]; 2. Venezuela. Why? Because Maduro started to or threatened to nationalize their oil industry. So the sanctions were really for the benefit of Chevron, Shell and Exxon. There's no principle here. The US had no problem with Chavez (who was awful). But again, "communism = bad"; 3. Russia. This one makes sense. I mean the average citizens will bear the brunt of this but Russia started an unjustifiable war in Ukraine so what else can you do? 4. Iran.Why? After the US backed a coup of Iran's democratic government to install the US-allied Shah (again, communism and the Truman Doctrine comes into this), which pretty much sowed the seeds fo the 1979 fundamentalist revolution, which has been the government since. We've decided to pick sides with Saudi Arabia. Nevermind that Saudi Arabia funded and supported the 9/11 terrorists (and the madrasses that created them) and is currently engaging in a genocide in Yemen with US weapons. Sanctions seem to have the effect of solifying support for the regime (up until recently). Obama brokered a deal to end this. Trump blew it up essentially to appease Israel (and Biden has continued that policy). 4. North Korea. Does anyone stop and think why North Korea is really under heavy sanctions? "Because they're bad" is really the crux of this. The implicit assumption here is that US is "good", somehow by definition. That belief creates all sorts of problems. Consider this: Cuba produces a lot of cane sugar. The US spends a lot of money on the corn lobby and corn (in the form of high-fructose corn syrup) is a common cane sugar substitute in the US and almost nowhere else in the developed world. It's kinda weird how so many of these sanctions can be tied back to US economic and political interests rather than any form of principle. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes [2]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/afghanistan-central-bank-switzerland.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/us/politics/afghanistan-c...

elil17 4y ago
What I've heard is that the sanctions against North Korea a (now pointless) attempt at nuclear non-proliferation (and of course because they have a communist government) - do you think that's the case or is there another reason?
- jmyeet 4y ago
  It's... complicated. First, it should be noted that the Kim regime is awful. There's really no question about that. Yes, nuclear non-proliferation was part of this, as were other so-called "weapons of mass destruction". But the really unfortunate part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the toppling of Saddam Hussein (another former US ally I might add; this time against Iran) taught the world that the only thing that will protect you from US invasion is nuclear weapons. People said this at the time. So while Kim Jong-un (and his predecessors) are awful. Can you really blame them for seeking nuclear weapons (and other WMDs) out of self-preservation? Sanctions effectively allow China and Russia to control North Korea by deciding what trade North Korea can engage in. Both countries like this because they like having a buffer state with the US. South Korea is seen as a US client state. There is a large US military presence there so that's not completely unjustified. Again, we didn't learn this lesson with Ukraine but I digress. Sanctions allow the regime to unite the people against a common enemy. Problems like starvation and poverty are blamed on this bogeyman. That propaganda is highly effective. My personal view is you could probably restrict key military technologies from being traded with North Korea and the country could then be large ignored. This would probably have to be coupled with removing US forces from South Korea. Much like Ukraine, we could simply arm the South Koreans to defend themselves.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Remember, North and South Korea is an eventual reunification. If you allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and remove US forces from South Korea, North Korea will threaten nukes on the South and the rest of the world for interfering in what they deem their sovereignty over all of Korea.
macspoofing 4y ago

by jmyeet 4y ago

elil17 4y ago

What I've heard is that the sanctions against North Korea a (now pointless) attempt at nuclear non-proliferation (and of course because they have a communist government) - do you think that's the case or is there another reason?

jmyeet 4y ago
It's... complicated. First, it should be noted that the Kim regime is awful. There's really no question about that. Yes, nuclear non-proliferation was part of this, as were other so-called "weapons of mass destruction". But the really unfortunate part of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the toppling of Saddam Hussein (another former US ally I might add; this time against Iran) taught the world that the only thing that will protect you from US invasion is nuclear weapons. People said this at the time. So while Kim Jong-un (and his predecessors) are awful. Can you really blame them for seeking nuclear weapons (and other WMDs) out of self-preservation? Sanctions effectively allow China and Russia to control North Korea by deciding what trade North Korea can engage in. Both countries like this because they like having a buffer state with the US. South Korea is seen as a US client state. There is a large US military presence there so that's not completely unjustified. Again, we didn't learn this lesson with Ukraine but I digress. Sanctions allow the regime to unite the people against a common enemy. Problems like starvation and poverty are blamed on this bogeyman. That propaganda is highly effective. My personal view is you could probably restrict key military technologies from being traded with North Korea and the country could then be large ignored. This would probably have to be coupled with removing US forces from South Korea. Much like Ukraine, we could simply arm the South Koreans to defend themselves.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Remember, North and South Korea is an eventual reunification. If you allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and remove US forces from South Korea, North Korea will threaten nukes on the South and the rest of the world for interfering in what they deem their sovereignty over all of Korea.

macspoofing 4y ago