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;
Pretty deliberately is meant to punish anyone caught hiring DPRK nationals, and repatriate any working overseas.
If DPRK nationals are barred from work, they are also often barred from trade, and barred from travel. Running airlines to and from the DPRK involves work, after all, and the DPRK would never allow another country to have their own airbase on their soil without intense agreements and concessions. They do travel and trade with Russia, China, and sometimes Cuba, and that's because Russia and China have land bridges and trade with the DPRK. Here's a an example of a DPRK restaurant in China. It's staffed by DPRK nationals, and run by the DPRK state.
So they are barred from travel via plane because of NK decisions on airlines, and not banned from travel via other means (if we forget about frontier guards and all, ofc).
No? How do you have airline workers integrated with airports in hostile countries, that are supposed to repatriate anyone earning money there?
There probably could be workarounds, but it's incredibly complicated, and there are tons of sanctions on the DPRK. They do travel to friendly countries, but there's a ton of hostility towards them.
Because they could have airlines if they accepted foreigns workers. That part os the NK government decision, good or bad. Let be clear : economic isolation of NK is a ofc product of both NK politics and UN embargos. But freedom of travel is not directly affected by UN. The first thing that stops NK people to travel is a border with armed guards, including with friendly states.
But they do travel to friendly states, I showed you how. The most common way to defect is to go to China and defect there, because that's pretty easy. Prior to this order, DPRK nationals actually did do work around the world as well. Part of what's keeping DPRK nationals in is their government, yes, but because the western world is extremely hostile to them.
From what i know , it is not easy at all to neither go to China, neither "defect" there, neither defect from authoritarian communist countries nearby. What you 'showed' me is people working in China, so controlled travel.
Based on what i know, i take your affirmation that it is easy to defect frop China either as ignorance, either as propaganda. If you have good info on the traveling part, please share so i and others can learn. On the original matter, i think it's not worth debating further if we do not share a same-ish perception of facts.
Filmées en caméra embarquée, les tentatives de fuite de Coréens du Nord au péril de leur vie. Un documentaire saisissant qui raconte les rêves de liberté d’une population soumise au joug mortifère de la dynastie Kim.
Even Wikipedia shows that defectors usually go through China, and Wikipedia is very biased against the DPRK. I don't know what you mean by "authoritarian communist" countries, all states are "authoritarian" in that they uphold one class over others, China is socialist and the Russian Federation is capitalist. It really isn't hard to find any of this information, but if you want more:
A bit on information from the DPRK I wrote earlier:
The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there. Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in... unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:
Felix Abt, a Swiss businessman who lived in the DPRK, argues that defectors are inherently biased. He says that 70 percent of defectors in South Korea are unemployed, and selling sensationalist stories is a way for them to make a living.
Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of DPRK defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews DPRK defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you're curious.
In fact, the report is a propaganda piece likely geared at shoring up the rule of Kim Jong Eun, North Korea's young and relatively new leader, said Sung-Yoon Lee, a professor of Korean studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Most likely, North Koreans don't take the report literally, Lee told LiveScience.
"It's more symbolic," Lee said, adding, "My take is North Koreans don't believe all of that, but they bring certain symbolic value to celebrating your own identify, maybe even notions of cultural exceptionalism and superiority. It boosts morale."
Sadly, some people end up using outlandish media stories as an "acceptable outlet" for racism. By accepting uncritically narratives about "barbaric Koreans" pushing trains, eating rats, etc, it serves as a "get out of jail free" card for racists to freely agree with narratives devoid of real evidence.
It's important to recognize that a large part of why the DPRK appears to be insular is because of UN-imposed sanctions, helmed by the US Empire. It is difficult to get accurate information on the DPRK, but not impossible; Russia, China, and Cuba all have frequent interactions and student exchanges, trade such as in the Rason special economic zone, etc, and there are videos released onto the broader internet from this.
Finally, it's more unlikely than ever that the DPRK will collapse. The economy was estimated by the Bank of Korea (an ROK bank) to have grown by 3.7% in 2024, thanks to increased trade with Russia. The harshest period for the DPRK, the Arduous March, was in the 90s, and the government did not collapse then. That was the era of mass statvation thanks to the dissolution of the USSR and horrible weather disaster that made the already difficult agricultural climate of northern Korea even worse. Nowadays food is far more stable and the economy is growing, collapse is highly unlikely.
What I think is more likely is that these trends will continue. As the US Empire's influence wanes, the DPRK will increase trade and interaction with the world, increasing accurate information and helping grow their economy, perhaps even enabling some form of reunification with the ROK. The US Empire leaving the peninsula is the number 1 most important task for reunification, so this is increasingly likely as the US Empire becomes untenable.
It's more that I have yet to see good evidence or a goid argument to the contrary. Again, like I said, people from the DPRK do travel to Russia and China.
Some folks think you just gotta love every country that calls itself communist, or voices opposition to the US, like a fun house mirror version of conservative nativism.
Honestly this description is sorta spot on made me chuckle— I’m always on the fence whether it’s this or just nation states trying to sway popular opinion.
It's neither. As I said to the other person, communists don't support, say, the Shining Path of Peru, or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Communists support socialist states, as well as anti-imperialist states, based on their actual real merits.
That's not true, though. You won't find any support for thr Shining Path of Peru or Pol Pot and thr Khmer Rouge here, for example, even though they called themselves communists and voiced opposition to the US. The fact is, the groups communists support are more nuanced than that simple binary, and trying to forcd that nuance into a binary just dodges any need to look into why communists actually support socialist states.
Yeah that's cool. Which is part of why I don't get why North Korea gets any fucking love. I mean, times are hard for everyone I'm sure but aesthetics aside they don't seem any more "socialist" than the "national" socialists. Even in all the dubious circumstances where a communist country had a presidential effectively served for the length of his natural life, aside from a brief interlude by Raul Castro none that I can recall have shown dynastic tendencies.
The DPRK is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of its economy. It's no utopia, but it's far from the dystopian hellworld the western media makes it out to be. It's entirely different from the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path. Additionally, socialist countries haven't been "dynasties."
It's a state formed as a result of an anti-colonial movement fighting for liberation against your empire. Your empire killed millions of its people, destroyed what they had, and currently maintains a genocidal blockade against it. Despite all that, it manages to hang on, and, considering the harrassment and assault from your empire, it also manages to provide its people with much better living standards than what one would expect from many states that you do not complain about (and which are not targets of the same sort of blockades). Also, you just plain haven't even brought up any wrongdoings that the DPRK has supposedly done.
Overall, I would say that that does make the DPRK fairly good as far as states go.
And obviously false memes like the OP don't convince me that there is any sincerity in its defenders.
Either you are unfamiliar with the resolution in question and are assuming that the OP lied (without you double-checking), or you know that the OP didn't lie and are trying to engage in spreading your genocidal empire's false propaganda.
UN Security Council Resolution 2397… signed 2017summarizes the travel section as:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Peasley
in reply to jankforlife • • •main.un.org/securitycouncil/en…
I was curious so i looked it up. Doesn't exactly say that
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Peasley • • •Pretty deliberately is meant to punish anyone caught hiring DPRK nationals, and repatriate any working overseas.
Takapapatapaka
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •Takapapatapaka
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •No? How do you have airline workers integrated with airports in hostile countries, that are supposed to repatriate anyone earning money there?
There probably could be workarounds, but it's incredibly complicated, and there are tons of sanctions on the DPRK. They do travel to friendly countries, but there's a ton of hostility towards them.
Takapapatapaka
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Let be clear : economic isolation of NK is a ofc product of both NK politics and UN embargos. But freedom of travel is not directly affected by UN. The first thing that stops NK people to travel is a border with armed guards, including with friendly states.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •Takapapatapaka
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •From what i know
, it is not easy at all to neither go to China, neither "defect" there, neither defect from authoritarian communist countries nearby. What you 'showed' me is people working in China, so controlled travel.
Based on what i know, i take your affirmation that it is easy to defect frop China either as ignorance, either as propaganda. If you have good info on the traveling part, please share so i and others can learn. On the original matter, i think it's not worth debating further if we do not share a same-ish perception of facts.
Corée du Nord - Le prix de la liberté - Regarder le documentaire complet | ARTE
ARTECowbee [he/they]
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •Even Wikipedia shows that defectors usually go through China, and Wikipedia is very biased against the DPRK. I don't know what you mean by "authoritarian communist" countries, all states are "authoritarian" in that they uphold one class over others, China is socialist and the Russian Federation is capitalist. It really isn't hard to find any of this information, but if you want more:
A bit on information from the DPRK I wrote earlier:
The problem with reporting on the DPRK is that information is extremely limited on what is actually going on there. Most reports come from defectors, and said defectors are notoriously dubious in their accounts, something the WikiPedia page on Media Coverage of North Korea spells out quite clearly. These defectors are also held in confined cells for around 6 months before being released to the public in the ROK, in... unkind conditions, and pressured into divulging information. Additionally, defectors are paid for giving testemonials, and these testimonials are paid more the more severe they are. From the Wiki page:
Side note: there is a great documentary on the treatment of DPRK defectors titled Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul, which interviews DPRK defectors and laywers legally defending them, if you're curious.
Because of these issues, there is a long history of what we consider legitimate news sources of reporting and then walking back stories. Even the famous "120 dogs" execution ended up to have been a fabrication originating in a Chinese satirical column, reported entirely seriously and later walked back by some news outlets. The famous "unicorn lair" story ended up being a misunderstanding:
These aren't tabloids, these are mainstream news sources. NBC News reported the 120 dogs story. Same with USA Today. The frequently reported concept of "state-mandated haircut styles", as an example, also ended up being bogus sensationalism. People have made entire videos going over this long-running sensationalist misinformation, why it exists, and debunking some of the more absurd articles. As for Radio Free Asia, it is US-government founded and funded. There is good reason to be skeptical of reports sourced entirely from RFA about geopolitical enemies of the US Empire.
Sadly, some people end up using outlandish media stories as an "acceptable outlet" for racism. By accepting uncritically narratives about "barbaric Koreans" pushing trains, eating rats, etc, it serves as a "get out of jail free" card for racists to freely agree with narratives devoid of real evidence.
It's important to recognize that a large part of why the DPRK appears to be insular is because of UN-imposed sanctions, helmed by the US Empire. It is difficult to get accurate information on the DPRK, but not impossible; Russia, China, and Cuba all have frequent interactions and student exchanges, trade such as in the Rason special economic zone, etc, and there are videos released onto the broader internet from this.
In fact, many citizens who flee the DPRK actually seek to return, and are denied by the ROK. Even BBC is reporting on a high-profile case where a 95 year old veteran wishes to be buried in his homeland, sparking protests by pro-reunification activists in the ROK to help him go home in his final years.
Finally, it's more unlikely than ever that the DPRK will collapse. The economy was estimated by the Bank of Korea (an ROK bank) to have grown by 3.7% in 2024, thanks to increased trade with Russia. The harshest period for the DPRK, the Arduous March, was in the 90s, and the government did not collapse then. That was the era of mass statvation thanks to the dissolution of the USSR and horrible weather disaster that made the already difficult agricultural climate of northern Korea even worse. Nowadays food is far more stable and the economy is growing, collapse is highly unlikely.
What I think is more likely is that these trends will continue. As the US Empire's influence wanes, the DPRK will increase trade and interaction with the world, increasing accurate information and helping grow their economy, perhaps even enabling some form of reunification with the ROK. The US Empire leaving the peninsula is the number 1 most important task for reunification, so this is increasingly likely as the US Empire becomes untenable.
Nodutdol, an anti-imperialist group of Korean expats, released a toolkit on better understanding the situation in Korea. This is more like homework, though.
Korean war POW, 95, fails at attempt to return to North
Yuna Ku (BBC News)Takapapatapaka
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •Takapapatapaka
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •Soktopraegaeawayok
in reply to Takapapatapaka • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Soktopraegaeawayok • • •Catpain Typo
in reply to jankforlife • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Catpain Typo • • •sadschmuck [none/use name]
in reply to jankforlife • • •ThermonuclearEgg [she/her, they/them]
in reply to sadschmuck [none/use name] • • •You might be interested in the comments on .ml: lemmy.ml/post/37681719
jankforlife
2025-10-17 19:50:52
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to ThermonuclearEgg [she/her, they/them] • • •cybrefool
in reply to jankforlife • • •deathbird
in reply to cybrefool • • •crimsonpoodle
in reply to deathbird • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to crimsonpoodle • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to deathbird • • •deathbird
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to deathbird • • •Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
in reply to deathbird • • •deathbird
in reply to Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them] • • •I'm willing to accept that there's been some exaggerations made about how bad the DPRK is.
That doesn't mean I think it's good.
And obviously false memes like the OP don't convince me that there is any sincerity in its defenders.
Tomorrow_Farewell [any, they/them]
in reply to deathbird • • •It's a state formed as a result of an anti-colonial movement fighting for liberation against your empire. Your empire killed millions of its people, destroyed what they had, and currently maintains a genocidal blockade against it.
Despite all that, it manages to hang on, and, considering the harrassment and assault from your empire, it also manages to provide its people with much better living standards than what one would expect from many states that you do not complain about (and which are not targets of the same sort of blockades). Also, you just plain haven't even brought up any wrongdoings that the DPRK has supposedly done.
Overall, I would say that that does make the DPRK fairly good as far as states go.
Either you are unfamiliar with the resolution in question and are assuming that the OP lied (without you double-checking), or you know that the OP didn't lie and are trying to engage in spreading your genocidal empire's false propaganda.
Bldck
in reply to jankforlife • • •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.
Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Bldck • • •Bldck
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •Cowbee [he/they]
in reply to Bldck • • •Bldck
in reply to Cowbee [he/they] • • •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 [he/they]
in reply to Bldck • • •∞🏳️⚧️Edie [it/it/its/its/itself, she/her/her/hers/herself, fae/faer/faer/faers/faerself, love/love/loves/loves/loveself, des/pair, null/void, none/use name]
in reply to Bldck • • •considine
in reply to Bldck • • •Bldck
in reply to considine • • •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
in reply to Bldck • • •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.
deathbird
in reply to Bldck • • •