I support my imperialist US Empire 100%.
UN Security Council Resolution 2397… signed 2017 summarizes the travel section as:
Strengthens the ban on providing work authorizations for DPRK nationals by requiring Member States to repatriate all DRPK nationals earning income and all DPRK government safety oversight attachés monitoring DPRK workers abroad within their jurisdiction within 24 months from 22 December 2017. Member States are required to submit a midterm report after 15 months from 22 December and a final report after 27 months from 22 December to the Committee of all DPRK nationals that were repatriated based on this provision;
So… specifically about repatriation after 24 months if they’re earning income out of DPRK. Nothing about free travel.
Let’s look at the actual resolution text. I’ll add some emphasis
Expresses concern that DPRK nationals continue to work in other States for the purpose of generating foreign export earnings that the DPRK uses to support its prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile programs despite the adoption of paragraph 17 of resolution 2375 (2017), decides that Member States shall repatriate to the DPRK all DPRK nationals earning income in that Member State’s jurisdiction and all DPRK government safety oversight attachés monitoring DPRK workers abroad immediately but no later than 24 months from the date of adoption of this resolution unless the Member State determines that a DPRK national is a national of that Member State or a DPRK national whose repatriation is prohibited, subject to applicable national and international law, including international refugee law and international human rights law, and the United Nations Headquarters Agreement and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and further decides that all Member States shall provide a midterm report by 15 months from the date of adoption of this resolution of all DPRK nationals earning income in that Member State’s jurisdiction that were repatriated over the 12 month period starting from the date of adoption of this resolution, including an explanation of why less than half of such DPRK nationals were repatriated by the end of that 12 month period if applicable, and all Member States shall provide final reports by 27 months from the date of adoption of this resolution.
So the text, and the resolution itself, is about limiting nuclear and ballistic programs. This resolution does not prohibit free movement or refugee status… only limits DPRK nationals who are generating foreign funds to send back to DPRK because the Council believes those funds were going to nuclear weapons.
Crazy how it makes sense when you read it.
Oh, so the UN decided that DPRK nationals aren’t allowed to work abroad. That seems fair. Like, if Israelis worked abroad, sent money home, and then that money was used for genocide. Or if US citizens worked abroad, sent tax money home, and that tax was used for genocide. Kinda like that. Or any country that maintains a nuclear arsenal, that isn’t part of the the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Like Israel. Or Pakistan.
Israel is not sanctioned by the UN. They don’t need to send nationals to work abroad to patriate funds… they can just sell goods and services on the free market. Same as the US and Pakistan.
I’m confused what you’re arguing for. More nuclear weapons?
What I’m arguing for? Logical consistency. Moral consistency. If the reason to sanction DPRK is that they acquired nuclear weapons without the consent of the current nuclear powers, then all states which do the same should be sanctioned. If the reason to sanction DPRK is because they might wreak havoc with massive weapons, then countries that are already wreaking havoc with massive weapons should be sanctioned. Your argument is that Israel and the US should not suffer the consequences of sanctions because they aren’t sanctioned. My argument is that there is not logical or moral consistency in sanctions.
And no, I don’t accept that this is an argument for nuclear weapon proliferation. Those countries that developed nuclear weapons pulled the gate shut behind them, forbidding any other countries from getting them. We can see the hypocrisy in that. But then when a US ally like Israel, or a strategic partner like Pakistan acquires nuclear weapons it is ignored. Only DPRK or Iran could possibly be dangerous because… well because they aren’t cooperating with the US.
The council also tries to paint the DPRK as trying to develop nukes because they want to nuke the US Empire, and not as a defensive measure to prevent themselves from being victims of genocide like they were in the past. This is a clear-cut case of the west wielding the UN as a means to punish those that they deem “enemies” and prevent them from establishing mutually beneficial relationships internationally.
Who sits on the security council?
There are a number of seats, but the most important factor is the US Empire, which wields its financial and millitary domination of the world in favor of its imperialist ambitions.
All permanent members of the council have a veto, including PRC and Russia.
Are either of those countries supporters or enablers of the US Empire?
I’m aware of how the security council works. I’m also aware of how the US Empire wields its financial and millitary domination of the world in favor of its imperialist ambitions, and how that impacts other organizations like the security council.
Who is this for?
Some folks think you just gotta love every country that calls itself communist, or voices opposition to the US, like a fun house mirror version of conservative nativism.
What is it with people desperately trying to demonise the DPRK as if you you weren’t fed obvious lies since you were born?
That’s not true, though. You won’t find any support for thr Shining Path of Peru or Pol Pot and thr Khmer Rouge here, for example, even though they called themselves communists and voiced opposition to the US. The fact is, the groups communists support are more nuanced than that simple binary, and trying to forcd that nuance into a binary just dodges any need to look into why communists actually support socialist states.
Honestly this description is sorta spot on made me chuckle— I’m always on the fence whether it’s this or just nation states trying to sway popular opinion.
It’s neither. As I said to the other person, communists don’t support, say, the Shining Path of Peru, or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Communists support socialist states, as well as anti-imperialist states, based on their actual real merits.
Most of them don’t know about it
You might be interested in the comments on .ml: https://lemmy.ml/post/37681719
It’s not a great place over on the .ml side of things 🫠
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/s/res/2397-(2017)
I was curious so i looked it up. Doesn’t exactly say that
Strengthens the ban on providing work authorizations for DPRK nationals by requiring Member States to repatriate all DRPK nationals earning income and all DPRK government safety oversight attachés monitoring DPRK workers abroad within their jurisdiction within 24 months from 22 December 2017. Member States are required to submit a midterm report after 15 months from 22 December and a final report after 27 months from 22 December to the Committee of all DPRK nationals that were repatriated based on this provision;
Pretty deliberately is meant to punish anyone caught hiring DPRK nationals, and repatriate any working overseas.
It’s not about forbidding NK people to leave the country, it’s about working.
If DPRK nationals are barred from work, they are also often barred from trade, and barred from travel. Running airlines to and from the DPRK involves work, after all, and the DPRK would never allow another country to have their own airbase on their soil without intense agreements and concessions. They do travel and trade with Russia, China, and sometimes Cuba, and that’s because Russia and China have land bridges and trade with the DPRK. Here’s a an example of a DPRK restaurant in China. It’s staffed by DPRK nationals, and run by the DPRK state.
So they are barred from travel via plane because of NK decisions on airlines, and not banned from travel via other means (if we forget about frontier guards and all, ofc).
No? How do you have airline workers integrated with airports in hostile countries, that are supposed to repatriate anyone earning money there?
There probably could be workarounds, but it’s incredibly complicated, and there are tons of sanctions on the DPRK. They do travel to friendly countries, but there’s a ton of hostility towards them.
Because they could have airlines if they accepted foreigns workers. That part os the NK government decision, good or bad. Let be clear : economic isolation of NK is a ofc product of both NK politics and UN embargos. But freedom of travel is not directly affected by UN. The first thing that stops NK people to travel is a border with armed guards, including with friendly states.
But they do travel to friendly states, I showed you how. The most common way to defect is to go to China and defect there, because that’s pretty easy. Prior to this order, DPRK nationals actually did do work around the world as well. Part of what’s keeping DPRK nationals in is their government, yes, but because the western world is extremely hostile to them.
Cowbee has decided on a narrative and you can’t change his mind!
Removed by mod
…Trump? And I don’t recommend using ableism.
