The sanctions are intended to exacerbate the destitution and starvation in North Korea in order to provoke political upheaval. They are also just the current strategy, and have been ineffective from a humanitarian perspective.

I wouldn’t undermine them personally, but I understand how a rational person could come to believe it was even a moral obligation to do so.

Quoting one of the lawyers who helped draft sanctions law:

https://freekorea.us/sanctions-nkspea-faq/

""" Section 207 of the NKSPEA contains broad exemptions for food imports and humanitarian aid, and provides for waivers for humanitarian reasons, or when a waiver is important to the national security or economic interests of the United States. The Treasury Department has also published general licenses permitting humanitarian aid. """

And yet they still starve, it is almost like crippling economic systems but allowing shipments of rice is not humanitarian at all, but more a "face saving" position so they can claim they are not the baddies

It's almost like the place is run by a dictator who would take food out of the mouth of his own people to fund a nuclear weapons program that serves no purpose other than to keep him in power.

It’s exactly like that, but that was always the most likely result and hardly a surprise. The sanctions are meant to drive a wedge between the regime and the people.

Hmm if only there was an economic system or currency that could be used outside the control of authoritarian governments...

I wonder what we would call it.....

The USD - crypto is an amazing tool for authoritarian regimes looking to evade sanctions. Assuming that's where you were trying to go, you totally misunderstand the problem. People in oppressive regimes can have all the crypto in the world but, if every time they use it to buy food, there's a guy with a gun who takes it for the regime, then it's even more useless than it's normal Monopoly money status.

> intended to exacerbate the destitution and starvation

What support is there for this statement?

I’ll rephrase. While the intent is to topple or pacify the government by starving the regime, this strategy essentially requires the suffering of the people. Happy and content people don’t revolt or push for political change.

We are openly doing this to Russia right now, rooting for the economic collapse and stark decline of living standards.

In both situations we assume that making life much more difficult for the people now will achieve our goals.

If he were smuggling in food, sure, but I struggle to see how helping the North Korean government use crypto is going to lead to the people eating better.

The sanctions are to slow the nuclear weapon program and that an ally (south korea) has to spend less on defense.

Two questions:

1) Why SK spending less on defense is a good thing for US?

2) Now that Russia is under even more sanctions, why not share some rocket tech with Kim and accelerate their program?

The santions are resposible for starving women/children. Should he be in prison for helping children eat?

> The santions [sic] are resposible [sic] for starving women/children.

This is a lie, and if you think NK leadership is going to be spending crypto on food for their populace you're deluded.

If you think the Sanctions will either change the NK government or slow their weapons program I have an apartment in Shanghai to sell you

If you think filling the coffers of the North Korea, a country with a caste system that mandates certain people have limited food access, will improve the lowest caste member's lives then I've one in Pyongyang to sell you.

With all due respect, that's the point of sanctions. You've brought it up as some sort of gotcha. It's not. They're a means to cripple the war-making ability of a nation without actually bombing them into submission or shooting them. As such they're not just placed on a nation for fun or random purposes.

To say look North Korea is evil they don't feed women and kids misses the fact that this is a policy we did for whatever justifible reason. Kids are not eating and dying because of choices we made.

Kids are not eating well because NK leadership spends all the country’s money on themselves and the military in order for them to stay in power.

If your neighbour beats his children and constantly threatens to shoot your house up, you are not morally obligated to spend money at their restaurant.

If you prevent the next door neighbour from bringing in food because you have a fued with them you can't turn around and say look at those kids not eating. It's because you live like kings.

They spend money on military not to supress the local population, they do it to protect themselves against you.

You are morally responsible for your choices including preventing kids from eating.

I don't understand your argument.

It seems based on some premise that North Korea is only bad because other nations are "mean" to it.

Many authoritarian regimes have historically used food availability as a weapon against their own populations. North Korea clearly is one such regime.

There is no private enterprise in North Korea-- I don't know what you think lifting of non-food covering sanctions would do other than further strengthening a rogue state that has no intentions of having anything other than a perpetual slave caste.

That doesn't stop trade with Saudi Arabia so it can't be used here.

Fat Tony : Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

Bart : No.

Fat Tony : Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?

Bart : Uh uh.

Fat Tony : And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?

Bart : I guess that's okay.

Fat Tony : Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?

Bart : Hell, no.

That's like saying the judge is responsible when a man is experiencing a bad time in jail, instead of the man being responsible because he commited the crime which put him there.

A judge is responsible for decisions around sentencing and prision conditions. The choices they make have a big impact on whether prison will be successful in reforming a person. Sending 16 year olds to adult prison or decisions around solitary or conditions (no visitors) or type of prison can have a huge impact.

Lol, what. You really read to read my message again and if your takeaway remains the same then good luck fixing your brain.

Why would a prisoner having a bad time in jail be an acceptable outcome?

Prisons are not there to punish. Do you believe they are?

Sorry what. If I go to jail and feel bad about being there since it means I can't meet my kid, then the judge is to blame? What the actual fuck is that level of stupidity. Be better than that, dude.

International trade is a privilege not a right. If you want to thumb your nose at the international community on whom you rely to provide basic sustenance to your people you should prepare to have a bad time. Or figure out how to sustain your population without trade. But either way its the responsibility of NK, not the world, to find a way to feed the people of NK. That can be by participating in the world order and benefiting from trade, or by figuring out how to grow enough food at home.

It is neither a right or privilege given by a power higher than yourself. It is a decision by a group of powerful countries who influenced, bribed and threatened others to get everyone to partipate. It jails citizens who provide information on cryto trading.

It is no one's responsibility to feed anyone. People don't have a right to exist. People do whatever they can to survive around the world.

The countries that have decided to force these kids to die to further their geopolitcal goals are responsible for those decisions. Maybe they die for a better future for all or maybe they die because their lives don't matter to the countries preventing food from reaching them.

Throughout history many countries

> It jails citizens who provide information on cryto trading.

I wish (kidding), but no, it jails citizens who travel to foreign countries to explain how to evade sanctions to people who would benefit from that information.

> It is no one's responsibility to feed anyone. People don't have a right to exist. People do whatever they can to survive around the world.

That's not what I said. I said that this obligation extends domestically. It may be good, nice, and moral - heck I support it - to save anyone you can on earth. It may even be a moral imperative but your obligation first and foremost is to your own at home.

> The countries that have decided to force these kids to die to further their geopolitcal goals are responsible for those decisions.

All I'm saying is if you rely on the relationships with others to survive probably don't poke them in the eye?

If you're dangling from a bridge, suspended by a rope, and some burly guy catches you. You realize you don't like his face. So you throw sand at him. He lets go of the rope, and you fall. Who's at fault? You could say it was the guy who let go of the rope. But for the love of all that is good and holy, why are you throwing sand at the only person keeping you alive?

Nobody owes you trade. Whether that's right, wrong, good, bad or anything else, it's fact. States would be well served to keep that in mind. It doesn't usually come up until the "and find out" part of "screw around and find out" happens.