I wasn't electing them, they elected themselves as that. That's why it is the #1 most hated nation in the world, this is fact.
Exactly. And here we've been bickering and blaming China, the US, and all of the embassies involved, and you cut right to the root of the problem!
How does that make that legal? Yet if you're advocating an illegal activity, then on what ground can you castigate Chinese police when they enter consulate grounds?
I'm not an expert in international law, but I would certainly think that if there was a way for the Chinese to do something like this, they would probably have done it. So there's obviously something wrong with anyone thinking that the Chinese can just wait the embassy-dwellers out or pick them off as they try to leave. Ludahai, are you aware that Pyongyang used to be the major center for catholicism in Eastern Asia. I realize you're pro-Chinese, but I thought you would show a little more compassion for starving, oppressed people...
They didn't do that because China eventually agreed to let those refugees who went through go out of the country. Anyway, sympathy has little to do with it. No one wants the North Koreans to suffer, but who wants to take in millions of North Koreans?
It is pressure from human rights groups and Western countries that have prevented China from doing things like this. You mean besides the Philippines, right? I am aware that Pyongyang used to have a lot of Catholics. However, the goings on in the Korean Peninsula are the concerns of Koreans, not Americans, not Chinese or anyone else. I feel awful for these people. Unlike most of the people in this thread, I have actually gotten a glimpse into North Korea from the Yalu River. While not much of a glance, it was enough to know that I would much rather have been on the Chinese side of the border. However, the foreign embassies are doing a disservice in the long run. If they encourage mass defections, the Chinese have to deal with a large number of refugees (which it doesn't really want to have to deal with) and people why might be able to oppose the Kim regime will be gone.
I think that's what the US wants, the Kim regime to be done with, so it can install it's own US style "demorcratic" type of government, if ever it happens, I doom it to failure.
Do you think the Austrian government was right to allow East German refugees to pass thru Austria into West Germany in the 1980s? Alex
I would call the PI "Southeast Asia." And when north Koreans run into the embassies of any number of nations through China, I'd say as far as those goings on it becomes a matter for more than just the Koreans. Regardless of this, though, are you perhaps arguing that what happened to the Jews in Germany during WWII was the concern of Germans only and no one else's business? Lucky then for the Jews then that the international community could rescue them as a side-effect of winning the war. Perhaps not a perfect parallel, but don't you believe that horrendous violations of human rights should be the concern of more than just the country involved? Incredibly difficult to oppose the Kim regime from within a concentration/labor camp, which is exactly where you end up if there is even a hint of your opposition to the government. They don't mess around up there -- no second chances. It's basically shoot first and ask questions later. But I certainly would hate to inconvenience the Chinese...
Not that I agree with casualfan, South Korea is not a good example. Devil's Advocate says: South Korea wasn't truly democratic until the 1980s, over 40 years after the Korean War. Between 1953 and 1972, Korea was ruled by semi-democracy, and then for 15 years, it alternated between democracy and repressive military rule. Elections were held in 1988 and Roh Tae-woo brought about reforms. So in reality, the current rule of democracy only started 14 years ago. Even then, Roh and his successor were extremely corrupt and they were imprisoned for their role in a 1980 massacre (though they were pardoned later). In short, the government that the US installed is not the same as the democratic government that currently rules Korea.
Devil's advocate not needed -- you are quite correct, and I was aware that I was going out on a limb on that one. However, the foundations of the democracy were set early on with the initial US-backed, UN sanctioned elections that put Rhee in office in the first place. It did go off track there for quite a while with "national security" (but oftentimes "personal security" of the leaders) sometimes taking precedence over the rights of individuals, and the elections of '88 were a triumph for the Korean people. However, my overall point is this: in 1948 (or so), two paths were set for the Koreas -- one, in the South, a fledgling democracy advocated and supported by the US; the other, in the north, a product of the Soviet Union. Here, 54 years later, you can witness the outcome. Perhaps "established" is too strong a word. Democracy in south Korea today is certainly a south Korean product (I know it's not a copy of the US system). Maybe we could say "guided" or "nurtured." This then leads to the speculation of what a new government in north Korea would be like with similar "nurturing." I believe that this really is something that should be worked out by the Koreans themselves. I'm sure both the US and China will feel that they should have a say, but that'll only further complicate the matter. Korea for the Koreans! Hopefully, everyone will step back and look at which system is better and adopt the best it has to offer.