this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
18 points (57.5% liked)
Memes
52826 readers
307 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
UN Security Council Resolution 2397… signed 2017 summarizes the travel section as:
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
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.
Crazy how it makes sense when you read it.
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.
Who sits on the security council?
https://main.un.org/securitycouncil/en/content/current-members
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.