It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Question about North Korea Sanctions

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:31 AM
Question. Since this last round of sanctions seems to have really pissed off Kim Jong-un and his people, why weren't they imposed sooner?

My base and possibly erroneous understanding is that sanctions were imposed a bunch of times, sanctions that really didn't affect the ruling elite, and simply made the poor and suffering there probably poor and in even worse conditions, while the ruling elite was untouched.

Knowing that North Korea's rulers would probably not respond to sanctions that don't directly affect them, why weren't the latest kind of sanctions imposed earlier?

Kim Jong-un must be really pissed that he can't import a PlayStation 3 or some new Air Jordans now, huh? Since he's threatening to attack the US and all (lol).

I'm just wondering if there was only one route or the progression of these sanctions, if it was just a major oversight that they largely wouldn't give a dang prior, or if there is a more conspiratorial reason for why it took so long to get sanctions that got their panties in a bunch.
edit on 3/13/2013 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:46 AM
It's my understanding that 'Sanctions' just described a method, not anything specific for result. I seem to recall one set of Sanctions on North Korea under Clinton had targeted the elder Kim's family, advisers and close leadership pals for their personal indulgences like favorite booze and luxury food items. Something very specific to tweak their noses directly. I'm sure I'm off on the details..but the specificity of sanctions to tweak individual men, I'm sure I recall accurately.

It sounds like they've finally moved to sanctions that MEAN something to the guy they're supposed to matter to. I have no idea why these painful sanctions aren't ALWAYS the first to be used? Why make a population suffer for years or decades when the leaders still get whatever they desire? After all..they have the full finances of those suffering people to buy their way past any sanctions for what they want.

Perhaps this set found a way past that loophole? Perhaps something else really pisses Kim off. The fact he's pissed tells me it's finally hit on some success!

edit on 13-3-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:47 AM
IMHO, sanctions are used to get the populace of a given country po'd enough that they affect some sort of changes in their respective governments. Picture it like this, lets say the US suddenly had sanctions forced on them, the one/two percenters would barely see/feel any difference in their daily lives, although certain things may cost abit more, but they can afford it. The rest of the people however is a different story. Cat food anyone.

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:56 AM
Even these newest sanctions aren't that serious, its just cutting them off from more funds.The earlier sanctions were designed with two goals in mind.

1. Upset the population enough for open revolt

2. Force the government of North Korea to use violence to quell any uprising by the populace in order to garner support for stronger action from China and Russia.

The previous sanctions failed completely. We still cannot take stronger action due to China not giving its blessing. This latest round is really nothing more than Obama taking a stronger stance than previous administrations have against North Korea.

They really won't hurt them anymore than they are but we don't have a lot left to sanction without a full military blockade of their country.

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:02 PM
National Economic Sanctions, to put it in simpler terms, work in similar principles to your boycotting of the neighbourhood grocer who had either cheated you or mistreated you the consumer, and are no only excercising your consumer rights.

First you tell off that grocer over his misdeeds. If he fails to acknowledge them and continues to misbehave wilfully, then you let your neighbours know your situation and find out if they had the same experiences and sentiment. If so , then you all boycott him by:-

a. A warning of the consequences of no one buying his product, which will cause his revenue and profits to drop and he will be unable to feed his family.

b. If he ignores it, as he will, for he believes that he has savings to tide over these emotional times and that they will still need his goods,will eventually return.

c. Having shown no fear or concern for his family, you and your neighbours decide to equally stake it out, by not patronising his store but buying goods from further afield, as you all believe he should not be allowed to get off so easily with mistreating his neighbours as well as his family.

And as a deeper measure, you all warn his suppliers of his soon to grow cash flow problems, and will result in his creditors immediately asking for repayment for credit over those goods, thus eating up his savings.

d. He does not budge, even with his savings gone. He grows a deep sense of hatred against the neighbours, as well as towards his family as they cry in hunger now, but he refuses to acknowledge his bad commercial behaviour to correct them, is prideful and decides on hurtful actions to th neighbours in retailiation, such as throwing rotten goods and faeces into his neighbours fence.

e. His mistake. The cops are called in, charged him in court for criminal offenses such as defacement to private property, etc and gets put away for a time in jail, to be rehabilitated and return back to society a better man.

Extrapoliate that into the geopolitical scene, and you will see the similarities of how the principle of sanctions work. The purpose is never for wars, but only that the leader comes to its senses on why the international community is acting seriously but peacefully against him or his policies.

It will be progessive, to hurt the leader and at the same time, to let its citizens SEE where the concerns of their leader lays in - the citizens, or his own foolish pride and refusal to correct his errors. That way, the citizens can make a choice - to suport the selfish leader who cares nothing for them, or not to support him but boot the irresponsible leader out.

Although every nation on Earth is soevereign, but each nation do SHARE the same planet, and thus there must be some form of international Rule of Law and behaviour, so that we may all co-exist in peace. In the past, wars was the first option. But today, we are an evolved civilisation, with hopes that peaceful sanctions and dialogues would be enough to wake up the irresponsible leader instead of resorting to bellicosities and wars.

top topics

log in