Anti-Slavery International: ‘Forced Labor in North Korean Prison Camps’
[Update: Kathreb responds here, but VanMidd comes the closest to the truth: “[A]ll us lefties are scoob smoking hippies on welfare ….” Good on you for admitting it, and I’d gladly return the favor by recommending a decent barber and springing for bus fare to the day labor center or the nearest Home Depot. It’s going to be a long road, VanMidd, but we’ll be here for you when you decide to take that first step.]
Over at Kathreb’s blog, I found this new (to me) report, which I haven’t yet had time to read, but which looks interesting. I’ll save it to my drive and let you know if it adds additional information to what we already know, but even if it doesn’t, it’s always gratifying to see NGO’s paying some attention to this issue. It shouldn’t be so, and I often ask myself why.
I believe that the Human Rights Industry is dominated by the left, and most would probably agree with that statement. I’ve also long suspected that many on the left aren’t more aggressive in their criticism of Kim Jong Il because he’s anti-American. Since too many on the left harbor deep, emotional anti-American feelings of their own, they give other anti-Americans a pass as reflexively as they attack any authoritarian they can link to the Pentagon, even if the latter regime is Candyland compared to North Korea. One dynamic that interests me works like this: if G.W. Bush, the Great Satan of the left, is now giving aid to Kim Jong Il and cozying up to him, might the left suddenly take a new-found interest in the welfare of the North Korean people?
There are, of course, some on the political left who have always had that interest: Stephen Solarz, Joe Lieberman, Peter Beck, and Rabbi David Saperstein to name a few. And there are others, on the political right, who have stuck with their principled support for the North Korean people even when George W. Bush abandoned them. But any human rights cause that draws most of its support from the right, as this one still does, is stuck rowing in a circle. Why so? For one thing, conservatives lack the gene that makes people want to go out and protest things, and for another — forgive me for this — they’re more likely to have day jobs that prevent them from doing so. And of course, the left prides itself on being more “compassionate,” which is really another way of saying “emotional.” If you’re emotional enough to want to save the lives of people you’ve never met, the odds are that a syrupy John Edwards speech can also make you verklempt.
The counter-example of Darfur, certainly a worthy cause, proves my point: the Human Rights Industry and the reporters who follow it are blind in their right eyes. A more pernicious and far less defensible example is the fact that 300-odd terrorists fattening up in Gitmo have attracted infinitely more sympathy from the Human Rights Industry than 200,000 men, women, and children in the worst system of concentration camps since Nazi Germany, with the possible exception of Khmer Rouge-era Cambodia. The operative word there: sympathy. Extend the implications yourself. To some on the left, there are worse things than killing a few thousand innocent people. Is it really all about who you kill?
Objectively, North Korea ought to be a far higher priority for anyone motivated by a desire to help others, but objective thinkers don’t dominate inherently emotional conversations.
Such a dynamic would take time to form, of course — maybe more time than Bush has left in his term — but given sufficient time, history could record that it was the taint of George Bush that turned the world against Kim Jong Il. But we’ve certainly seen that this isn’t enough. What a woeful statement that would make about the moral retardation of our world.
A big hat tip to Kathreb, and I hope you’ll join me in wishing her an even speedier recovery in the new year.
I tend to think liberals and those in groups that you mention get so hot and active in fighting against US policy while pretty much ignoring any similar type of crusade over North Korea, not simply because they are anti-US (though they are that), but because of two other factors:
1. They feel hollow in their core when looking at a North Korea, because they know they have absolutely no chance of influencing something like the Pyongyang-regime. That is why they can’t come out swinging against radical Islam as they can a neocon Bush.
and
2. They ideologically can’t accept policies or techniques that do have some influence —– like military force — or other forms of “force” such as economic sanctions.
If they start to go on a crusade against Pyongyang, they would end up having to face the fact that a hard-line approach is the one that has a chance of working. And they can’t agree to that, because they are against hard-lines, and even if they could, (which they can’t), they wouldn’t be able to stand being grouped together with neocons who advocate such lines like a Cheney or Rumsfeld.
That is what I mean when I say that State Depatment-think has abandonned the idea that sanctions and confrontation ARE elements of diplomacy.
The liberal mind won’t let itself accept that.
And that leaves their forms of diplomacy being those akin to the Sunshine variety – which they are ashamed to admit don’t work with NK (and have no proven track record against despotic regimes).
And rather than admit they have no workable North Korea policy or set of standards that work on despots, they run from the shame of not being able to admit it —– by being even more heated in their attacks against regimes in nations where they do have some influence.
Thus, they go with attacks on “the new Hitler” Bush and forget about Kim Jong Il…
With something like Darfur, ontheotherhand, I believe they are more and more vocal as they grow to see that the Rumsfelds and Cheneys are unlikely to call for military action (and where econonmic sanctions won’t work) because the US has no tangible national interests getting involved militarily.
As someone who leans left of center, I see the relative silence on repressive anti-American regimes differently than you do. KJI doesn’t “get a pass” because he’s anti-American. Left-leaning human rights advocates probably focus on human rights issues in the West and its allies because such public attention may actually influence policy. The world’s most prominent international human rights organization, Amnesty International, certainly doesn’t pull punches on North Korea. There are elements of the extreme left that are reflexively anti-American; however, the left is as diverse as the right. I have never thought of GW Bush as evil although I do suspect that a few fomer high-ranking officials may have ascended from the netherworld. 🙂
On that last sentence in particular, I’m in complete agreement (sigh).
I don’t agree with your speculation that it’s about the capacity to influence government policy. The left advocates “soft power” against America’s allies, but it’s guys like John Bolton who advocate it against North Korea. The left supports the use of soft power against Sudan (so does the right, but China effectively blocks that). The left demanded and got crippling sanctions against South Africa while supporting “engagement” with a far worse regime in North Korea. I see no way to extract a consistent position from that.
Perhaps there’s a fear that every criticism becomes a causus belli, but then remeber the chant, “out of Iraq, into Darfur?” Furthermore, hardly anyone except William Perry (!) advocates even limited strikes against North Korea (I doubt he meant it or he’d have ordered them back in the 1990’s).
If there are two readers who can really explain this, it’s you and Kathreb. I think you’re both left of center and sincerely concerned about human rights in the North. And because I think either of you is in a better position to speak from the left than I am — perhaps helped by things you’ve heard like-minded people say — I’d love to hear your explanations. I’m at a complete loss.
The left, the left, the left. Neither the left nor the right are monolithic. I tend to confine my criticisms to both the far right and the far left. It’s not semantical dressing but recognizes extremist views that are not shared by moderates on either side.
Could you be more specific about these leftists who advocated sanctions against South Africa but supported engagement with North Korea? Who exactly are you talking about? I don’t pay much attention to human rights groups, but I couldn’t speculate about motives unless I knew which people or groups you are referring to.
Double standards and hypocrisy characterize extremists on both ends.
I’m a liberal, and I hate the KJI regime. I come here every now and then to get updates on the situation in the North, and find out what the NGOs are doing. Unfortunately, I also occasionaly have to suffer through some pretty crude, stereotyping and anti-leftist garbage. On that score, this post was up there with the best of them. And while you’re spewing hate, the Marmot has got all the latest on NK.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/01/06/north-koreas-peace-deterent/
Sonagi was too kind.
[conservatives are] more likely to have day jobs that prevent them from [protesting]. Right, because all us lefties are scoob smoking hippies on welfare, right?
And of course, the left prides itself on being more “compassionate,†which is really another way of saying “emotional.â€
Unlike all you John Wain-strong-silent-type conservatives puffing cigars while they right the wrongs of the world.
And then there’s this garbage: To some on the left, there are worse things than killing a few thousand innocent people. Is it really all about who you kill?
Give me a break. The left has its loonies but the majority, like the majority of the right, are reasonably moderate, and tend to view most issues on face value. Choosing or not choosing pet issues due to (percieved) political aliegence is not just a leftist phenomona – just look at all the global-warming naysayers, the vast majority of whom hail from the right side of the spectrum. What the frick do republican voters have against taking care of the environment?
Why is NK such a (relatively) pressing matter of the right? My guess is it has elements of politics (the downtrodden socialist state versus the US et al) but also elements of religion. It’s no coincidence that NK has banned Christianity, or that the majority, if not all, of the NGOs involved in helping Nkoreans are Christian. And the vast majority of organised Christian groups are conservative.
Not that I’m faulting them. I couldn’t care less how many souls they save, so long as they save people – and I belive the latter goal is their first priority. And they’re doing a damn fine job of it. Good. But this is also a reason this is a pet issue of the right and not the left.
I think the mainstream of the Democratic Party (and plenty of Republicans) supported sanctions against South Africa.
The mainstream of the Democrats supported both of the failed agreed frameworks. I suppose if you insist, I could dig up votes in Congress. Allowing for the imprecision of labels, changes of membership, and centrist members in either party, is the point really disputed?
The mainstream of the Democrats supported both of the failed agreed frameworks.
And mainstream Republicans didn’t?
As to the first, no. As to the second, I don’t think most are on record yet, but I think it’s fair to fault the sufficiency of their opposition. The deals are similar enough in their shared flaws that it’s inconsistent to oppose one and support another.
VanMidd, you’ve commented here several times about your observations from one or more of those monitored propaganda tours of North Korea. Surely you know what your money is really buying. How you spend your cash is your business, but if you spent less of it on financing Kim Jong Il’s repression and said more about how his regime treats the North Korean people, your righteous outrage might seem more sincere.