North Korea from the Inside
Thursday October 12, 2006
Category: International Human Rights
North Korea has been in the news over the past week due to Kim Jong-il's decision to test a nuclear weapon on Monday. So World News guide Jen Brea passed along a really good question asked by one of her readers: If you had to choose that either Iran or North Korea develop nuclear weapons, which would you choose and why? Although I'd rather not see either country develop nuclear weapons, I'd have to go with Iran.
Yes, both North Korea and Iran are dangerous, autocratic regimes. But there are various reasons why I think Iran would be the less offensive of the two, from a human rights perspective:
Zoom to:
|
Yes, both North Korea and Iran are dangerous, autocratic regimes. But there are various reasons why I think Iran would be the less offensive of the two, from a human rights perspective:
- The Iranian theocracy is not as militarized as the autocracy of North Korea; if the Iranian government did what the North Korean government did during the 1990s and allowed 3.5 million of its citizens to starve, the result would have been a military coup. Subsequently, Iran's leaders can't afford to start a nuclear war. Kim Jong-il, whose entire government is built around forcefully maintaining the stability of his regime, probably could.
- The Iranian leadership is interested in appealing to foreign powers in Europe and Asia; the North Korean leadership routinely snubs foreign powers despite the fact that its entire food system is based on grain donations.
- Day to day life is, frankly, much better in Iran than in North Korea. The per capita income is over four times as high, starvation and malnutrition is not as rampant, and fleeing the country is not a crime, as it is in North Korea. Since nuclear weapons can deter both internal and external regime change, it is reasonable to ask which regime we would rather see gone--and it is much less offensive that the government of Iran exists than it is that the government of North Korea exists.
Zoom to:
Comments
Well is Kims dictatorship opressive, from what I learn. However everything worsens when any country is set under embargo. Embargo and self isolation goes hand in hand to maximize crisis. Suffering is always the result of effects from mis-distribution of limited resourses. In the “west” we’ve had along tradition of exploiting almost everything, yet even we have got our own poor. Communism was the effort of trying to make more equitable relationships between all people, but set out in isolation and without regard of some natural dynamics it only works to give hardship on almost everyone. The nepotism and paranoia of such regimes seem to be endemic of all regimes that are voted out of favour with the majority. Apart from the “underdog” syndrome there’s no easy verdict on the systemwise level. Let’s not forget former opposite right wing regimes that were just as bad. And in the midst of our selfconfidence let’s not forget our own systemic problems that have proven to be an unsustainable ecology for many among us now, and maybe for our whole future habitat. So what is causes and what is effects are no easy matters that can be determined by a more or less western mainstream popular view. One school that claims all the right answers and therefore wants to smoke out regimes like the North Korean, are contributing to an ever so hardening trench effect. It is hoping for a regime change, but carries with a very real danger of a serious war cost. The other school holds that negotiations and serious dialogue on systemic issues hand in hand with continued trade will implement the instruments of economic development and private incentives that will ease the road towards democratic participation and a more empowered people, without emphasis here on neither mass nor class, perhaps with a final hope for adjustments and integration with the South Korean. The fact that North Korea got nuclear weapons now is not very different in nature than the fact that the US and other big nations still hold and are unwilling to reduce their own arsenals, and on top of that often act agressively towards states and entities that they dislike. We may think Kim is unsound but so do many think about Bush and his international “ventures”. The key is not to let whole populations suffer from the actions of their unwise leaders or from the multilateral reactions thereof.
Torture is common place in both countries. Neither of the two countries provide their citizens with freedom of religion. Several North Koreans who practiced religion outside of authorized groups have been tortured or even executed, despite the fact that according to North Korean constitution the people have a right to freedom of religious belief.
I believe Capital punishment is the biggest human rights violation of all and any place where people can be “legally executed” gives me the creeps, whether it’s Iran, N-Korea or any of the 38 states in the USA in which capital punishment is officially sanctioned.
Although I know more about Iran than North Korea, since I’ve dated someone who fled Iran, because he didn’t feel safe there being an atheist and a conscientious objector, I’m not ready to choose in which of the two counties (Iran or North Korea) the people are better off from a human rights point of view. I don’t think I could justify that to anyone who has had his/her human rights violated whilst living in one of these countries.
I completely agree with EliasB on the fact that there’s no difference between the possession of Nuclear weapons by countries like the USA, Russia, China, the UK and France or places like North Korea and Pakistan.
Take care,
Dani