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.

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Crazy how it makes sense when you read it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bldck@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Who sits on the security council?

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/current-members

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bldck@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] considine@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bldck@beehaw.org -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] considine@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

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.