N. Korea Could Face Prosecution For 'Crimes Against Humanity' 325
An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Telegraph: "North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, has been warned that he could face prosecution for crimes against humanity after a United Nations inquiry accused him of some of the worst human rights abuses since the Second World War. In some of the harshest criticism ever unleashed by the international community against the Pyongyang regime, a UN panel branded it 'a shock to the conscience of humanity.' Michael Kirby, a retired Australian judge who has spent nearly a year taking testimony from victims of the regime, said much of it reminded him of atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Yesterday his team published a 374-page report detailing allegations of murder, torture, rape, abductions, enslavement, and starvation, describing North Korea as a dictatorship 'that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.' In a bid to put pressure on Kim Jong-un, 31, Mr Kirby has taken the unusual step of writing to the North Korean leader to warn him that both he and hundreds of his henchmen could one day face prosecution."
More at the BBC, including a cache of the report.
They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Insightful)
Issue a sternly worded warning.
That'll teach him.
Henchmen (Score:1, Insightful)
I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen." I don't mean to imply that North Korea has a good government, just that the use of language itself is supposed to sway you, like the facts are not enough.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there some political timing involved in it coming out now as opposed to a decade ago?
Obviously, since not saying precisely the same shit about China in the same breath is rampant hypocrisy. But China is still buying things, so let's keep endorsing organlegging and slavery.
Irrelavant and inept. (Score:2, Insightful)
It goes to show how irrelevant and inept the UN is. Since it has no Army or Navy, it can't enforce anything and expects member nations to toe the line. Sure, we all know the PRK is a repressive regime and the leadership is corrupt and brutal but they have a powerful ally with a permanent seat on the Security Council, meaning that nothing will ultimately come of trying to rein in Pyongyang or force the regime to collapse. This is a nation that has no problems starving its own people and putting them unwavering cruelty to make their dreams come true. Do you think they care what the UN says?
If you want to bring about change to the PRK, embargo all trade with the PRK. This means China will have to stop trading and propping them up. Stop their arms trading business by seizing cargo wherever possible. Sanction any trading partners who still continue to do business with them.
United Nations eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
My grandma was more threatening than the United Nations. This is nothing more than a joke.
Re:They're atheists... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be an atheist and still behave morally, ethically, and decently towards other human beings.
Likewise, you can believe in a god (or gods) and still be a murderous psychopath. Heck, as long as you fervently believe those gods are on your side, you can pretty much do anything you like... including interpreting scripture to suit your own purposes.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the UN is very definitely favourable towards the US, the US has veto power, you hardly give that to someone you aren't favourable towards. The problem with the UN is that they are favourable towards TOO MANY people and gave out veto power to several countries who never agree. This ensures that the UN can never actually accomplish anything because they must get all veto powered countries to agree (something that simply doesn't happen)
For the UN to be effective they have to stop the idea of ANY country having veto power, it just means that those countries are immune to the UN rules.
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as we can criticize many regimes for their ill conduct, I have a hard time imagining that what the Saudis or Israelis do is anything close to the North Korean regime's abuses.
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the thoughts going through the regime's heads is "You and what army."
So long as China sees fit to shield North Korea, there's precious little to be done, and even if China walked away, this nightmarish regime has at least some nuclear capacity, enough to turn good portions of the peninsula into Armageddon. I'm afraid there is no practical or safe way for external force to be applied, and one only hopes that eventually, somehow, those who live within this hell on Earth find a way to depose the Kims and their underlings.
Re:Henchmen (Score:3, Insightful)
I always find it interesting that a regime we like has "officials" and a regime we don't like has "henchmen."
How about the fact that a country that we're friends with has a government, and the others have regimes? I don't think I've ever seen a US newspaper talking about the Tony Blair regime, or the Francois Hollande regime.
Re:first (Score:2, Insightful)
Asinine, obnoxious hyperbole!
Way to fucking make your case!
Hyperbole? Where?
Both commit genocide, religious persecution and use state resources to fund terror and armed disturbance beyond their borders.
North Korea is small potatoes in these stakes. Designed to distract, and elevated to "Global Crisis" proportions, so that folks like you are left confused, misdirected and ultimately ineffectual in the cause of doing good, or subordinated in the works of greater evil.
Re:China's Non-Interventionst Foreign Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, it is China's view that it is no one's business outside the DPRK how the DPRK conducts it's affairs.
Baloney. If that were the case then China wouldn't be subsidizing the regime. China thinks it is China's business what the DPRK does.
China never wants to be involved in other countries' problems nor do they seek to impose their will on other countries - you don't see China out trying to spread their own unique brand of communist/capitalism elsewhere do you?
They most certainly do get themselves involved in other countries problems. Ask Tibet. Need more examples? Look at what China is doing in Africa [wikipedia.org]. They are investing hugely there and they certainly are pushing their own interests. China is contesting with Japan over various islands (over oil mostly), they continue to insist that Taiwan is their property, they are increasingly becoming a force in east asian geo-politics, they are growing their military rapidly, etc. Claims that China doesn't exert power in other parts of the world is complete nonsense and demonstrably so.
It is hard for people in the West to believe this because in the West foreign policy is essentially *ALL ABOUT* spreading your influence and trying to spread democracy. China has no interest in any of this.
Bullshit China doesn't have any interest. China is NO different than any other large nation state. They definitely see themselves as a player on the world stage and they are behaving like a country with global interests. To simply keep their economic engine humming they HAVE to be involved in other parts of the world whether they want to or not.
Re:first (Score:5, Insightful)
Many countries have departure restrictions. Not defending it, but that's hardly unique to the Saudis. India has lots of people living at or below the poverty, as well as the killing of baby girls.
No matter how you cut it, North Korea puts almost every other regime in recent memory to shame. That's not to say that there are lots of other states with appalling human rights records, but there's appalling and then there's nightmares.
Re:Henchmen (Score:3, Insightful)
regime
riZHm
noun
1. a government, esp. an authoritarian one
The emphasis is on the authoritarian part. Granted, one could argue that many "governments" we support are actually regimes in disguise...
Re:They're finally going to do something. (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about dictatorships is that it really should only take one bomb to finish the job.
Bombing the countrymen really is a bigger crime against humanity.
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Insightful)
France had atomic bombs before China. If not for domestic problems after WWI, France could have been the first nuclear power. That's where Marie Currie and other researchers came from, after all.
"The French military is currently thought to retain a weapons stockpile of around 300 operational nuclear warheads, making it the third-largest in the world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
Note, if the NK regime was demonstrably reasonable --- let's say, anywhere between China's government and South Korea's --- it would make a lot of sense to drawn down the US presence. So there is no impasse here.