Hacker News Reader

Comment by tobyhinloopen | Hacker News Reader

This is just a PR show... the war isn’t over until the NK population is free

The war is over when the people who would fight it say it's over. If the US and ROK are willing to leave Kim in power, then it's over regardless of the freedom of the DPRK population.

Just like we are not at war with Iran, or Russia, or Eritrea, or a dozen other dictatorships around the world.

We're in a proxy war with Russia/Iran in Syria.

> This is just a PR show

What a useless comment. How would we distinguish a PR move from a real one at this stage? Any contact is better than no contact, it's a step forward.

Can it fall apart, Of course! I'm pretty sure that is clear to everyone here...

Sometimes perception of something happening is all you need to make something happen. See: Crypto prices

That's a... very American statement. USA has a history of forcing their view of freedom on other nations, whether they want to or not.

By which country's standards is North Korea free?

Edit: Other than North Korea.

They might argue freedom in the context of a global imperialist hegemony of the US.

North Korea's.

I had this argument with someone the other day, that because non-western countries aren't western doesn't mean their societies aren't free/advanced. I don't know how someone can argue that getting tortured or killed for your beliefs, or being treated as basically a possession, or any of these things is "free, just not in a western morals way".

That's an argument of no human rights.. whatever anyone does is now "free".

What about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Countries have repeatedly pledged to uphold it.

Just a couple of recent examples:

In 2000, the Millennium Declaration says "We resolve therefore: To respect fully and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It was unanimously adopted by the UN.

NK wasn't there.. but they were at the World Summit a few years later... where a similar statement was again adopted unanimously:

We reaffirm the solemn commitment of our States to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for and the observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments relating to human rights and international law. The universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.

There is a definition of freedom that everyone, including NK, agrees with.. It's defined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yes, agreed. I was arguing with someone on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt, and one of their arguments was "no, because many countries in Asia and Africa don't let them either". My response was "if you're bringing up those countries as examples to follow, you need to reevaluate your position".

Many people think of “freedom” in collectivist terms. North Korea isn’t controlled by any foreign power, so they have that form of freedom.

You (and I) probably don’t think too much of that compared with the sort of freedom that lets you criticize the government without your entire family being sent to a camp, but not everybody thinks that way.

I would argue that they're pretty much controlled by one foreign power, China, given that they're heavily dependent on imports from China because of the sanctions.

So if they enter into treaties that lead to the lifting of sanctions, they could actually gain freedom (from China) by giving up other freedoms (to stockpile nukes etc.).

I don't think that it's ever easy to determine what certain 'nation' wants. Fortunately, Korea, just like Germany before it, is an excellent opportunity to compare two different options: one with "American view of freedom" and one without.

Now, do you think that koreans as a whole prefer the northern or southern option?

At least as of mid-last-century, Koreans as a whole prefer a united, mildly communist Korea that doesn't need to turn into a reclusive militarized Korea to defend itself from American aggression and can freely participate on the world stage. South Korea only came into existence because the US was terrified of more countries' populations deairing communism. Had the US's military fortunes been a bit different, it would have been a Vietnam or a China or a Cuba or something.

Now, if the world's greatest superpower is stationing soldiers in your country for decades and demanding performative capitalism for your country to not be constrained by tariffs and sanctions and travel bans, you're going to be real excited about performative capitalism.

> American view of freedom

You've got to be kidding.

Personally, I know no better approximation of my concept of 'freedom' than a traditionally American one.

No dude. The universal declaration of human rights.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/no...

Freedom undoubtedly is a spectrum and something that is worked towards, not just attained with the flip of a light switch. It’s also forever a process, so let us wish for NKs people that this is one early step on the journey

I might agree but this is monumental that a North Korean leadership crossed the line. So while there is PR involved it is still historic and represents a real change.

Likely it is because North Korea feels they have a real bargaining position with their ability to use nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Combined with a US administration which didn't roll over and it all sets the stage for both sides saving face

The big question is if China would allow it.

The answer 60 years ago was a violent "no".

If North Korea remains its own state buy they achieve some sense of peace, China would be happiest. The US would have little justification for keeping their military on the peninsula and would have to find new justification for the size of their military presence in Japan. China would still have a buffer between themselves and a US ally.

If they somehow joined into one country (doesn’t seem likely near term but let’s say it happens) the same element with the US military withdrawal remains. But China loses the buffer zone. They’d be less happy but probably not unhappy.

The rhetoric out of NK, especially since they developed nukes, could not have made China happy. All it did was help justify the US military presence in the region. This harms some of China’s objectives and also keeps the US physically and politically present in what they see as their part of the world. Peace here could strengthen Chinese political influence, especially if they can claim and justify that they were key players in achieving this peace.

The most likely path forward is for North Korea to develop using the Chinese model without all the Chinese mistakes (eg. learn all the lessons that China learned the hard way without making the same mistakes). This path forward would likely satisfice all parties, though China would probably come out a bit ahead in the grand scheme of things.

China only cares that the US troops don’t move further up north, NK is a buffer for them if that buffer isn’t needed (as the reason for their presence will be gone) then it won’t be as much of a problem.

In fact this might be better for them since it reduces the justification of deploying US ABM systems in their back yard.

Currently the US can station all the missile defense which also can be used for anti-satellite purposes and no one can bat an eye as long as NK continues to pollute the Sea of Japan with hydrazine on a regular basis (at this point I think the true goal of their missile program is to wage economic war on Japan by killing all the Tuna with rocket fuel).

Just a matter of time once relations are normalized and the population starts communicating freely.

Sure, but denuclearization is a big deal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com