The South’s current government is ridiculously conservative. Rolling back labour laws and women’s rights were pillars of their election run. They’ll do whatever the US tells them to. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that peaceful diplomacy is not at the forefront of their mind.
It’s honestly pretty cyclical, they bounce back and forth between more diplomatic minded leadership and more warhungry. They are much more in the antagonistic phase of their cycle right now.
Weird how the “unstable dictatorship” is the more consistent one in this relationship
Unfortunately the current situation appeases the global powers the most. China and Russia will not stand to have a US allied united Korea so close to Beijing and Vladivostok, which means a united Korea is a neutral, non US aligned Korea, which the US does not want. Having North Korea be a buffer state between China/Russia and the US aligned South Korea is the most stable option, and as a result North Korea knows that it can do whatever it wants and still be propped up by Beijing, just as it has since the Korean war
There’s no point in negotiating with a dictator whose primary goal is to remain in power. A peaceful end to the conflict means the death of Kim at the hands of the oppressed.
This is like asking a kidnapper to kindly release the hostages or we will ask again later.
Glad you’re not in charge. Currently, there is tension between Korean allies which unfortunately means there will be no peace for the Korean people.
I think with time, Korea can be peacefully reunified. It may not be in my lifetime, but one day I believe it will happen. As time move forward, new events and opportunites arise that may present the chance for reunification.
The problem with North Korea is that its entire cultural identity is built on resisting American aggression. Without having an enemy to fight, what is the reason for the country going on? Why would the people of North Korea tolerate the current government other than to resist invasion?
The North Korean regime needs conflict. It doesn’t need war, but it needs conflict. Kim could have gotten a sweetheart deal from Trump to end the war and never took it. Why? Because getting rid of the “American threat” also gets rid of North Korea’s legitimacy.
The problem with North Korea is that its entire cultural identity is built on resisting American aggression
I am curious: Why do you feel you can confidently speak on the exact nature of another nations cultural identity? Let alone reduce it in this way?
Not sure if you understand how arrogant your statement is, but you have to realize that you have 0 idea of the cultural identity of the people in the DPRK.
Corporate news isn’t interested in showing you anything but the conflict don’t make the mistake of letting that shape your perception. The first step is realizing your ignorance
I didn’t say people, I said government. Why do people conflating the two?
Bc I haven’t heard of the cultural identity of a government
And its still not true, they have a distinct political ideology that used to be called juche, idk if they changed the name.
Also you said: “the problem with North Korea is…” not really an indicator you’re talking about the government, especially given the context of a cultural identity
If you want a starting point to address your ignorance:
Why would the people of North Korea tolerate the current government other than to resist invasion?
The Kim family has done a lot for the people in the DPRK, and is generally very well liked. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows, but a lot of the problems stem not from the current DPRK leadership but the international (read: US) sanctions placed on them. Compared to the hypercapitalist hellscape of SK, the work-life balance in the DPRK seems downright utopian. Prior to the US invasion, the Korean peninsula was fairly unified in their support of socialism.
The people would certainly welcome peace, I just don’t know how that is possible while the threat of the USA looms. People like to portray them as an aggressive country, but they have never done anything to another coountry except threaten to defend themselves.
LOL
Is it well liked? Or is it only well liked because the country is doing “the best that it can” against the USA? And even then, is it actually well liked or only liked enough to keep the BoAn from paying too much attention to them?
And I didn’t mention the people of North Korea, I mentioned its government. The North Korean government needs conflict with the USA to justify itself.
Obviously anecdotal, but from the people I spoke to in the DPRK, generally very well liked. And no, I did not have government minders making sure they said “the right thing”. Several programs were quite popular, particularly housing programs. There was a big push for community-based activities during my stay, even smaller towns had community centers where people could go after work to learn new skills or continuing education. The university I was based out of was pretty international as well, but even there people didn’t spend that much time thinking about the US, nor did they have a particularly negative view of the average American citizen. More curious than hostile.
How are you sure you didn’t have government minders watching what others said?
What program were you in that took you on a tour of North Korea?
I was there in for several months in graduate school doing research for my thesis, wasn’t part of a tour. Based out of Kim Il Sung university at the time. I spent about a year in South Korea as well prior. Since I wasn’t on a formal tour, I was left to my own devices a lot of the time unless I needed a guide to help me get access somewhere.
Technically yes, every rural farming village could have been secretly micced with hidden cameras on the off chance that a foreigner was going to stop by, but that seems unlikely. This was a little over ten years ago so cell phones (which would be a fairly common metric of government surviellence) were not as prevalent in the DPRK yet as they are now, so a lot of people weren’t carrying one. I was a no-name graduate student, not a well-known diplomat, I don’t think the government was particularly invested in spending large sums of money tracking me. So yes, technically they COULD have, but just as much as any other state could have.
You literally described the US, it is funny how it is always reflection.
Also take note of the arrogance of the claim to know and declare another nations complete cultural identity.
To give them a chance I have asked them to clarify but I am pretty sure they haven’t lived in the DPRK
How is the USA defined by resisting North Korea?
Replace NK with US and American Threat with any movement or government that tries to be sovereign.
Two Kims have already died and nothing changed. The current one is Swiss educated, likes NBA, and speaks at least a little English. If there was a hope that a change of dictator was going to do anything, he was it.
Don’t even know why that was even an option, anyway. NK isn’t ever going to cooperate with its “enemies” and will just continue to indoctrinate its population with propaganda.
The only solution is a military invasion of NK. Always has been.
Worked out so well last time, right?
The only solution is a military invasion of NK. Always has been.
The US always could have not disrupted the planned elections and installed a military dictatorship that kept a lot of the Japanese colonial officers around and started mass killing Koreans. Then the democratic korea wouldn’t have had to try to liberate their country.
Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve. The US has had a long and sordid history of downright fucked-up foreign policy decisions.
But, bitching about it doesn’t really change the current situation. NK has a dictatorship with a enough military power that it still requires a decent army to overrun. Kim isn’t going to listen to any diplomacy, except when he can trick some diplomat to give him more power or image-building. At best, China might be able to cut off its funding and topple Kim’s little empire, but China has no interest in that.
will just continue to indoctrinate its population with propaganda.
Oh yes, definitely that doesn’t happen in any of those “civilized” western countries right? Nobody making up things like “North Koreans have no word for love” or “We push trains to work every day”.
I would argue that we are, as a planetary civilization, almost past the point where a war of that sort is even possible.
On the other hand, if China were to ever shun NK, I would bet that their government would likely collapse in less than a decade.
Sadly, China has a ton of reasons to want to prevent that, one of the bigger ones being the border with NK where many, many refugees would try to cross into China.
I could however see, someday, China agreeing to a massive backroom deal on a scale that would be unprecedented:
China abruptly works to ensure a complete collapse of the NK government, without any NK nuclear weapons either coming into play or any NK nuclear weapons going missing (except to China itself, if it wants them).
And SK along with a good chunk of the Western world agrees to immediately conduct one of the largest humanitarian missions in history, to ensure that nobody is fleeing NK into China unless they have tons of assets and they want to avoid repercussions for their actions.
There are, sadly, a lot of reasons why China wouldn’t want the western powers capable of pulling that off to have control of territory that close to China though.
SK would be their safest bet, but SK doesn’t have the resources to pull of that kind of a humanitarian effort.
And the chances that someone like the US wouldn’t take the chance to plop a military base in what is currently NK seems awfully slim.
deleted by creator
Many of which were Korean slaves.
Edit: lol what a comment to downvote
That, uhhh, has to do with the current topic how?
They have nukes, my lemon. This has never be the solution.
Okay seriously guys! Who let John Bolton join lemmy?
Your perspective being shared by bloodthirsty us officials is why the drpk has and is justified in having nukes
If you don’t wan’t to be invaded, don’t give your enemies a convenient and completely morally justifiable reason to do so.
Bloodthirsty imperialist, keep fantasizing about them being helpless so they could be invaded.
What are these completely moral justifiable reasons you speak of?
The government there starves and enslaves its entire population.
???
No war but class war. Death to all forms of government.
Government is the only thing protecting you from the rich and powerful.
well the government is doing a pretty bad job at that considering it is run by the rich and poweful
Without government, who’s going to stop armed gangs from killing you and taking all of your property?
You seem to be under the belief that human beings are incapable of managing themselves and we need hirearchies that “know better” to rule over us
No, I’m under the belief that there are groups of bad people that the rest of us need protection from.
I’m also under the belief that I live in a democracy, in which we the people choose our leaders. If the government does something bad, it’s because we put someone bad into power. The blame lies with us, not some distant, faceless, unelected hierarchy.
Don’t believe me? Listen to Republican rhetoric some time. Decode the dog whistles. You’ll find that they’ve been doing precisely what they’ve been saying they’d do: ban abortion, make life hell for immigrants, give money to the rich, dismantle democracy, and so on. None of their actions are surprising. There is no deep state conspiracy here, just politicians doing what they were elected to do.
First of all, protection from bad groups is very important. But I don’t believe it should be provided to us by people that would do anything to harm you as long as it’s profitable and they can get away with it (that’s also inherently a bad group)
If you were under a democracy basic human rights like the freedom of movement, housing, healthcare and autonomy of one’s body would never be QUESTIONED. Even assuming you democratically elected the republican party so they could do that (the americans elected the democrats in 2020, in case you’ve forgotten) it’s inherently undemocratic to take away your human rights, even if it was voted on.
If you were under a democracy the policies that the government approves wouldn’t be the ones lobbied by the rich. That’s what we call “corruption”
Also, it’s funny you mention abortion, considering it was the supreme court that overturned Roe v Wade. I’m not sure about you but the supreme court doesn’t look like the most democratic institution to me.
First of all, protection from bad groups is very important. But I don’t believe it should be provided to us by people that would do anything to harm you as long as it’s profitable and they can get away with it (that’s also inherently a bad group)
Then who will protect us? Who, but the government, can hope to have more manpower and firepower than organized crime?
If you were under a democracy basic human rights like the freedom of movement, housing, healthcare and autonomy of one’s body would never be QUESTIONED. Even assuming you democratically elected the republican party so they could do that (the americans elected the democrats in 2020, in case you’ve forgotten) it’s inherently undemocratic to take away your human rights, even if it was voted on.
That’s a bit of a paradox of democracy, isn’t it? Does democracy give the people the power to vote away their power to vote? You would say no, but then does that not imply there is some greater power than the will of the people? For there to be a greater power than the will of the people doesn’t sound very democratic.
If you were under a democracy the policies that the government approves wouldn’t be the ones lobbied by the rich. That’s what we call “corruption”
You forget, they do so with the tacit approval of the voters who keep voting for them after they do so. Members of Congress who sell America out to the highest bidder often do so for decades, not just one term.
Also, it’s funny you mention abortion, considering it was the supreme court that overturned Roe v Wade. I’m not sure about you but the supreme court doesn’t look like the most democratic institution to me.
It is also the Supreme Court that instituted the right to abortion in the first place. Roe v. Wade is the name of a Supreme Court case.
Congress should have codified the right to an abortion, and would have if not for people electing enough Republicans and DINOs to block such a bill.
In the USA (and most places, honestly) all your options are lobbied by rich, there is no alternative in your great democracy. It’s rich people that hate gays, women, immigrants and workers or rich people that hate workers. I wouldn’t call that democracy, personally. And I also don’t think that those people lobbied by the rich, people that couldn’t give less of a crap about us, should be the ones in charge of protecting us. There are more people in the world than monsters, there is more love in the world than hate. Humanity loves the earth and everyone on it, we have the power to create a society based on love and respect we have for eachother. A better world is possible, don’t let these inhumane beings let you believe otherwise.
As you said, you could call my definiton of democracy a paradox, that is a valid argument. But I’d like to say that’s slightly more democratic than having rich people run around and do whatever they want with the fruits of OUR labour, destroying the planet for fun and the endless accumulation of fake tokens to the point where a human can not even comprehend that big of a number, and then blaming US for the state the planet is in.
Society has existed before the state and will exist after the state.
