The Instigator
andre
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Zetsubou
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Three issues against North Korea.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
andre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,577 times Debate No: 10798
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (1)

 

andre

Pro

This debate is on three issues:

a.) The proposed peace treaty between North Korea and the United States should be rejected.
b.) The ICC (International Criminal Court) should issue an arrest warrant for Kim Jong-Il (or the triumvirate of Kim Jong-Il, Kim Yong-Il and Kim Yong-nam) and pursue prosecution against him for crimes against humanity.
c.) The UN should, if necessary, reject its procedures and violate North Korea's national sovereignty to take action against it (including arrest and prosecution of the leaders).

As for definitions:

the "proposed peace treaty " means the peace treaty suggested by North Korea to officially end the Korean War:

http://www.nytimes.com...

"North Korea" means the government of the country bordering South Korea to the North.

"ICC" Means the International Criminal Court, the criminal judicial branch of the United Nations currently headquartered in the Hague, Netherlands.

The "UN" means the United Nations, the international organisation of countries formed in 1945 with currently 192 members.

The "United States" means the United States of America.

"Kim Jong-Il" means the current leader of North Korea.

"Triumvirate" means the three men who lead North Korea - Kim Jong-Il, Premier Kim Yong-Il, and parliamentary chairman Kim Yong-nam.

"National Sovereignty" means the rights and powers of a state to govern itself in any way it feels necessary.

Here I'll be brief:

My contentions are that the proposed peace treaty should be rejected by the United States because it would mean acceptance of North Korea as a state, and end official outrage at its policies. The problem is that the West, e.g. the United States, is too concerned with its own protection from North Korea than it is for the human rights of North Korean citizens. North Korea, put simply, is nothing more than a crime gang which has violated almost every human right imaginable.

Which brings us to another contention: the UN, and other countries, should not recognise the national sovereignty of North Korea for the land it claims. This allows us to take strong action against them and is a symbolic gesture of our outrage.

Lastly, the ICC should pursue a prosecution to end the atrocities committed domestically by North Korea against their own citizens, to be so attested to by a significant number of North Korean defectors who have managed to escape the country, who have declared that they would like to testify against North Korea.

More to come.
Zetsubou

Con

Thanks, hope this will be a good debate.

Note to reader: I'm am not Pro Korea I just need two more wins so don't think of me as Kim Yong.

Also Note: This was done in just less than 2 hours so "eek".

_________
Argument
_________

A.) The proposed peace treaty between North Korea and the United States should be rejected.

A A.)For those you do not know the current proposed Treaty is one between North Korea and America BY NORTH KOREA. The reason I stress follows soon.

The Current Treaty is in Benefit to the US and other States, this treaty, much to misconception is NOT for:

-Vassalage (to America) in the event of war.
-American sovereignty or "blind eye" action in the event of war.
-Military Alliance and Military Access.
-Acceptance of the Non Existence of Human rights. (It's stupid but some people think so).

The purposed treaty is much like the Cold War Yalta treaty. The Treaty purposed is for the recreation of the Post Korean Civil War 6 Nation Union, consisting of North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the USA. The Treaty is for open talks and for co-understanding, something in the interest of both Nations. This Treaty can potentially help those in need in North Korea, to reject on the grounds of supposed Human rights is illogical.

[Citation: "The removal of the barrier of such discrimination and distrust as sanctions may soon lead to the opening of the six-party talks."- Official Korean Central News Agency Foreign minister]

[Citation: http://www.guardian.co.uk... // I know it's questionable as a Media article but I was short of time.]

B.) The ICC (International Criminal Court) should issue an arrest warrant for Kim Jong-Il (or the triumvirate of Kim Jong-Il, Kim Yong-Il and Kim Yong-nam) and pursue prosecution against him for crimes against humanity.

A B.) Pro has the burden the Prove Kim Jong-Il, Kim Yong-Il and Kim Yong-Nam gave done anything against their own nation and be even questioned for Crimes against humanity.

The Triumvirate have not:

Ordered the genocide on any Asian Ethnic Groups.
Directly ordered the mass killing of anyone.
Stayed inactive in the Mass starvation after the Korean Civil War.

Do not mistake that I am oblivious to the actions in War by Korea's Dictators however these actions do not account for Execution as is the punishment for crimes against humanity, he is as accountable as George Bush, Tony Blair, Winston Churchill, Porfirio D�az or Henri Navarre.

C.) The UN should, if necessary, reject its procedures and violate North Korea's national sovereignty to take action against it (including arrest and prosecution of the leaders).

A C.)

--Military action--

I don't think anyone in the right mind would what to attack North Korea at its current state. North Korea holds the 4th biggest Military in the world [Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org...] [Census: Cordesman & Kleiber], not to mention their Missile and Nuclear capabilities.

Even If you wish to risk nuclear war winter in the name of "Human rights" you'll just get angry American Citizens--> people hate you --> revolution. Besides, that it's was affirmed in the Cold War that you do not risk Nuclear war for the Wars of the "Rich".

Wars of the "Rich"
Iraq
UN peace keeping Wars
Imperialist Wars (ei. Russian Expanse)
Colonist Wars(ei, Indochina War French side)
Most WWI Campaigns

Wars of the "poor"
Revolutions (American Independence)
Most Civil Wars (Sudanese CW)
WWII

A war for Human rights of a foreign country is an unnecessary war.

--Economic action—

Economic Sanctions are an argued action against Nations. As you would agree on the Citizens of North Korea are not the richest or happiest people on earth it makes no sense to make them poorer.

--Leaders (see B) --

--------------------------------------
All for now.
Debate Round No. 1
andre

Pro

The proposed treaty is a peace treaty. The United States and South Korea are technically still at war with North Korea, as the 1950-1953 Korean War was ended in a ceasefire - technically the war is not over. A peace treaty sends the message that we accept the outcome of the war, and we no longer have a dispute.

The BBC documentary, Access to Evil, contained the accounts of several North Korean defectors.
(The transcript can be found at this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk...
I will refer to this documentary several times.)

South Korea's Unification Minister had this to say in the documentary:

"We do not encourage any North Koreans to defect."
[INTERVIEWER] "Why not?"
"We want to improve the situation in North Korea so that North
Koreans do not have to defect. That's our primary concern. Regime change is not our objective . We want to negotiate with North Korean Government to improve situation in North Korea.
"Regime change is not your objective?"
"No."

The problem with this is obvious. Negotiation is not going to change North Korea's behaviour. Their promises to hold talks on nuclear disarmament could hardly be held to truth.
Defectors, however, who have experienced the full-blown truth about North Korea, recognise this. They know better than to make deals with the devil. Defector Hwang Jang Yop, a former politician from North Korea contends that the regime is evil and that the US should not seek any deal with North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org... - The article states, "However, under the Sunshine Policy of president Kim Dae-jung, who took office in 1998, Hwang found himself increasingly marginalised; in November 2000, he was removed from the chairmanship of the Unification Policy Research Institute, leading him to complain that the South Korean government wanted him to stay quiet so as not to upset the North."

The South wants to have its cake and eat it too - to seek a peaceful resolution and yet end human rights violations. It's not going to happen, and they know it.

Now, I'm not an advocate for war unless it is the last resort, which is why I favour the intervention of the ICC.

_________

More on that in a moment. First, since you brought up economic action, let's think about this.
We know that much of North Korea's budget goes into the military spending. This is not in dispute.
I quote, on the subject of food aid:
"The rationing is actually done. One representative of each family stands in line to receive rice or corn."However, when night comes, leaders of people's groups and clerks of the Labour Party visit each home and take all of the rationed food back. They say to each family, 'Let's feed the sons and daughters who are starving and fighting on the front line.'" The food donated by foreign countries is called "rice for patriots" and transformed into food for military forces.

(http://www.flatrock.org.nz...)

Money spent by North Korea to advance the personality cult of Kim Sung-Il and Kim Jong-il:

http://www.dailynk.com...

And much funding also comes from Chosen Soren (Chongryon) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) a organisation that supports North Korea, (and is essentially run by the regime) which operates businesses in Japan and transfers money to North Korea to support it.

"In 2003, a North Korean defector made a statement to the US Senate committee stating that more than 90% of the parts used by North Korea to construct its missiles were brought from Japan aboard the ship [Mangyongbong-92]." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

In this way, economic sanctions make little difference to the people. But you can hurt the regime economically. (However, the North has recently declared it will accept food aid from the South - whether or not the rationing system will be fair is currently unknown.)

_______

ICC:

While North Korea currently has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, a peaceful, and reasonably civilised way to bring North Korea to justice is to arrest them.
My opponent has not argued this.
I do not have the burden to prove anything about that - you accept that the triumvirate is responsible for the control and occurrences in North Korea, and you also accept that such occurrences exist, testified to by defectors, a list of which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org....

The Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity: [in these brackets I have listed sources for the acts committed by North Korea]

"For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder; [source: the Aquariums of Pyongyang, Kang Chol-Hwan and Pierre Rigoulot]
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture; [source: the Aquariums of Pyongyang, Kang Chol-Hwan and Pierre Rigoulot]
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; [source: the Aquariums of Pyongyang, Kang Chol-Hwan and Pierre Rigoulot, http://en.wikipedia.org...]
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (POLITICAL) [a number of sources already listed]
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons; [http://en.wikipedia.org..., the Aquariums of Pyongyang]
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health." [Aquariums of Pyongyang, http://www.guardian.co.uk..., Access to Evil, BCC 2004 (see above)]

Kim Jong-Il retains full control of the country. All defectors have spoken of various crimes against humanity and other human rights violations, and some have testified to them in the US Senate.

______

Now, I agree that we should avoid nuclear war at all costs, but, we should clarify some things: The US and its allies, even UN forces, make up a far larger army that North Korea and even China alone. Furthermore, the US also has more advanced military technology that North Korea does not.

Whether or not it is wise, it is our sense of humanity which has always sent us to root out terror wherever it thrives. That is what sent us into Korea in the first place! It is what sent us to WWII, to Vietnam (though I hate to reference Vietnam as an example, in Korea the fighting is not against guerillas but an organised, easily targeted government), what has us in the Middle East today. It is what sends UN missions into dangerous and unstable territories.

North Korea is a country of almost 30million people, suffering under the rule of what is essentially a crime gang. It violates almost every human right imaginable. Citizens cannot leave the nation, and cannot even move around their own country. They are only allowed access to propaganda on TV and radio, and freedom is virtually non-existent. North Korea continues to trade in illegal materials, drugs and even radioactive elements to terrorist organisations, to fund its evil. 30million human beings are suffering, and the regime must be removed.
Zetsubou

Con

Ok thank you,

Notes For clarity:
I have based my argument on my opponent's argument using his order. They have been named accordingly with a quote from that that section. Please assume the quote continues from the Ellipsis ( dot dot dot) to the next quote. PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS ON THE COMMENTS PAGE.

I also urge Pro to "clean up" his argument in future rounds, Rebuttals, resolve ect; and to redirect his argument to the original clauses. [Round1, Pro, Paragraph one]

________
Argument
________
-->Clause A

"technically the war is not over…"

It ended in Armistice which is more or less Combat end. It's an agreement to stop fighting that's almost as good as peace. You said it yourself it's only "technically" not over unless; you left no argument to why this was a bad thing, do you wish for a continued warfare?

Armistice

--Dates--
17 July 1953 – Wikipedia [Citation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War]
17 July 1953 – Korean War Fan Site [Citation: http://www.korean-war.com...]
17 July 1952 – BBC [Citation: http://www.bbc.co.uk...]

-------
-->Questionable Vibrant of Clause A?

Defection – "The BBC documentary, Access to Evil, contained the accounts of several North Korean defectors…"

Question of reasoning, is this a proposed argument or rebuttal, and is it the succeeding text: "The problem with this is obvious. Negotiation" justified by the preceding one? My answers: Rebuttal and No.

Notice I never once said that this Treaty would, as you put it, "tame" North Korea. If you can start official talks with North Korea, It would be a start, the treaty was never meant to "tame" Kim Jong-Il or create support for North Korean citizens it's resolve was stated in My First round. A state of Open negotiations is better than a state armistice.

If you disagree, the only possible rejection would be on the grounds that you deny diplomatic relations with North Korea unless it's on the grounds of Human rights and removal of the Dicators. Surely you prefer Peace to Armistice?

Citations:
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au...]
[http://www.nowpublic.com...]
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

-------
--> Economics ( Fraction of Clause C)
Rebuttal to A) Starting with: "More on that in a moment. First, since you brought up economic action, let's think about this."
Ending with: "…whether or not the rationing system will be fair is currently unknown.)"

I am aware of current Food-Aid, do you use the information as justification of Economic Sanctions?

To: http://www.flatrock.org.nz...
The First like you gave me about Korean cannibalism gets it's eveidence form testimoniese from the North Korean Refugees Assistance Fund (NKRA). This is Not the Direct Human rights regulation given to the government of Kim-Jong-Il. After all its North Korea(NKRA) against the Black Market. North Korea is aware and is not oblivious to the issue it is trying to fight this disgusting practice and those who supply it.

To: http://www.dailynk.com...

I doubt the reality of that? 900 Million? Even if North Korea had money like that they'd buy New Missiles. It doesn't even cost that much.

Nelson's Column Refurbishment I: �600,000. Refurbishment II: �420,000
Statue of Liberty: $530,300 + Misc refurbishments another $500,000.

To http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see nothing on Japanese exports on the link, besides if this is true attacking or Blockading a North Korea's Cargo is More or Less a declaration of war. War will lead to South Korea's immanent destruction. That's a bad thing.

Conclusion – "economic sanctions make little difference to the people."
Are you for real? This is the only reason they're not going "UN" on North Korea and doing the Economic Boycott* now?

*That's what it is.

Citations:
Above 4 +
[http://news.bbc.co.uk...]
[http://www.amnestyusa.org...]
-----------
-->Clause B also fraction of Clause C

ICC and Crimes against Humanity: "While North Korea currently has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, a peaceful, and reasonably civilized way to bring North Korea to justice is to arrest them…"

ICC, as Pro and Instigator you have the burden of proof everything you say must be argued and backed up otherwise I have nothing to attack see: http://ddofans.com...

Human Rights(Rebuttles)

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court said that a crime against humanity MUST BE A SYSTEMATIC PRACTICE BY THE STATE WITH FULL INTENTION.

See list [http://untreaty.un.org...] Article 7
(a) ---Non Systematic, I reject. See Yodok CC below.
(b) ---Reject.
(c) ---Reject.
(d) ---Reject.
(e) ---Reject. Possibly, Yodok CC.
(f) ---Done but not illegally
(g) ---No, You misunderstand see Yodok CC below
(h) ---Reject. Paragraph 3 here: http://untreaty.un.org...
(i) ---Nope
(j) ---Reject.
(k) --- Below>

You used Yodok concentration camp, so it would be best you realised want is actually is. The Yodok concentration camp or Aquariums of Pyongyang to Pro, is an reeducation for Political undesirables. Now NONE of the above actions are significantly systematically done to the state. All the State does is teach and "employ" the prisoners it's not kill the workers directly; now, I'm not going to say rape, inhuman beatings and murder do not occur but It's not a Crime against humanity to charge against the State or by Kim Jong-Il. It's a fact that is why Leaders in countries like Sudan, Central African Republic and Serbia* cannot be questioned as such, it may be sad, but thus is the Law and the law stands.

Examples of the ONLY MAJOR Past perpetrators [http://en.wikipedia.org...]:

Nazi's - Nuremberg trials - Holocaust
Imperial Japanese - Tokyo trials – Nanjing massacre
Apartheid's – SA Trial – Black Prisons

As you can see only the obvious cases, with written evidence and full intent can be taken to court. The ICC isn't like a normal court.

Equation:
HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE evidence. +
Armed Nation, able to defend Eg. not a push over. (like others) +

= Rejection.

-------
-->War (Fraction of Clause C)

This Section I take is Pro - Korean War II. I will extend from Round 1 Con Last Section: --Military action--

To Paragraph 1: My Proposition is that the Second Korean War will be a war of the Rich, or at least to the US it will be. Peace keeping wars and Anti Terror wars are was when you have the time, money and public happiness to fight.

To Paragraph 2: I repeat, If the is a Second Korea War it will be the first Nuclear war of the "rich". WWII was a war of Necessity*, Vietnam a War of Convenience*. One Equal side the other as One sided as you can get.

To Paragraph 3: You call the Regime a crime gang; well I haven't seen a Crime Gang with Nuclear Arms before. No Argument in this Paragraph… just a message.

Thank you; good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
andre

Pro

The fact that they are still technically at war means that the two nations are currently in a dispute, even if the physical war is not still actually continuing. A peace treaty would be an official end to the dispute, meaning that the South now fully accepts the North Korean government, and no longer seeks to have control over the peninsula but rather seeks a peaceful unification - this wouldn't be a bad idea, but it has been said many times that the only unification the North would be happy with would be one that happens on its terms, and we know the South would never accept the Korean Worker's Party as its ruler. A peace treaty is also a statement of cooperation with the North.

_______

South Korea believes that it can convince Kim Jong-il to act humanely, and as I've shown this will not happen. I have also shown that nothing is going to change in the North through peaceful negotiation. Let's say that the peace treaty is accepted and the six-nation nuclear disarmament talks are held (the North keeping its promise), and miraculously, Kim Jong-il agrees to immediately shut down his nuclear weapons program, convinced that it is in NK's economic and military interests to drop it. Where to from there? More peaceful talks on reunification and human rights? By what motivation would Kim agree to change this? Having promised no sanction in return for disarmament, what other leverage is there?

- The country is protected by national sovereignty.
- The country is protected from economic sanctions.
- There is a peace treaty to prevent attack.
- No international court can intervene unless North Korea becomes a signatory to either of them, which there is no sign of.
- Now that the West is protected, who's going to do anything about it?

I would deny any diplomatic relations with North Korea unless they change their ways, and we shouldn't just sit around and wait for them to do so, it is not going to happen because there is no incentive on North Korea's part to do so.

_______

If no help can be given to the citizens of NK, and perhaps it cannot since much of it does not even reach them, then it makes little sense to retain any economic relations with the country - we wouldn't be hurting the people, but their government only, which is hardly a bad thing. In any case, due to Juche, sanctions are probably worthless. Few countries retain such economic relations anyway.

The "cannibalism testimony" doesn't speak to a human rights violation (although it does that as well), but rather to the poverty that the North Korean government is ignoring. Cannibalism is horrible, but the question is why the people have had to resort to this behaviour. It is evidence of a lack of adequate food aid domestically and abroad due to the country's actions in preventing international food aid. It is also evidence of a government that is squandering its money.

When Nelson's Column and the Statue of Liberty are restored, a large amount of gold isn't used, unlike North Korean statues, and further more the cost isn't for restoration but a building from the beginning, which contains significant amounts of gold. My source can only be considered correct since you don't have enough to bring a reasonable doubt upon it.

[I'm sorry, the link is meant to link you to the section, "Controversies over Chongryon". Plus, one doesn't need to attack the cargo, merely ban it from travelling from Japan to North Korea.]

I also agree with you and believe that if food aid can be given, it should, not being subjected to other sanctions.

I would have had the burden of proof had you not admitted that human rights violations occur in North Korea. Since you have stipulated to the facts there is no burden.

a.) It is systematic - the public execution and other killings by soldiers, or perhaps less direct killings by enforced starvation, of political criminals without a trial can be considered murder.
I might also like to add that the North has also sent representatives to foreign countries where they have attempted murders, such as the Silmido incident, "a 1983 bombing that killed several members of the South Korean government, and the 1987 destruction of a South Korean airliner over the Thailand-Myanmar border" (http://www.answers.com...)

d.) I perhaps should have argued this one. Also written about in the book Aquariums of Pyongyang, after being released from a concentration camp, one is not allowed to live in the city, which is reserved for the elite only. Some people are forcibly removed from the city to be relocated elsewhere.

e.) My intentions may have instead been covered by (f) and (k), so OK then.

f.) How can torture be considered "legal" to you? Whether or not it is legal under North Korea's laws is irrelevant.

g.) Forced prostitution/rape and so on doesn't occur necessarily within the concentration camp, did you miss my source on the Gippeumjo?

h.) I'm sorry, what?

i.) Nope what? North Korea has kidnapped these people, and it counts.

k.) ?

Kim Jong-il doesn't lack an intent to commit crimes against humanity and can quite conceivably be indicted for it.

The evidence is hardly questionable, especially given that most organisations, including the UN itself, have recognised the atrocities.

I agree mostly with your section on war. Which is why people should not oppose indictment of the regime by the UN. Failing that, I think that a so-called "war of the rich" is warranted. Granted, the risk of loss of life and even nuclear war, combined with the economic consequences, do not present a nice picture. However, let's consider that the US entered the Middle East thinking that there could potentially be weapons of mass destruction. Why would they risk such danger then but not now? We may fear North Korea; but they too are fearful of the wrath of the United States and the South. Furthermore, at the risk of sounding strange, we shouldn't be selfish. If we could wage a war as clean as possible, why shouldn't we take the leap to try and save North Korea? Personally, I hate the idea of a war. If you'll actually think back to the start of the debate I never proposed a war. But I'm very inclined to agree with defectors - the regime needs to get out now.

Many people have agreed that a prosecution for crimes against humanity is justified in this situation. If necessary, I do believe the UN should violate the DPRK's national sovereignty to, at the very least, remove the regime, or send in forces to keep watch over human rights, or arrest Party leaders. Why does North Korea earn the world's recognition for sovereignty? Do we really care if we have to violate the power of a totalitarian regime to enforce the most basic of human rights? What kind of society are we if we turn our backs on horrors the likes of which we in the West have never and will never see?

The peace treaty should be rejected. We shouldn't sign off an entire nation's human rights to the devil and allow them to continue to abuse people without our official objection to protect ourselves.

[An integral source of mine was http://www.dailynk.com..., if you want to request a source for anything I said, within reason, just ask unfortunately I left them out so would have to look for them all again.]

More to come... Perhaps we can reach a more effective and impassioned debate towards the end of it.
Zetsubou

Con

Zetsubou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
andre

Pro

The West has surely underestimated North Korea. Mostly, they have underestimated what it's like to live there. We cannot imagine what it is like to have such little worth in one's life. To be under the complete control of a system as the word authoritarianism has always implied.

We can best get an idea from the lucky few who have managed to escape from the prison that is the DPRK. Before making any decisions, or opinions on any issue regarding North Korea it is important that we at least know what we're dealing with. At least, we should learn what we can from defectors. Anyone who reads this debate and especially my opponent should do some simple research on the Internet, utilising a great luxury of the West, in the privacy and comfort of their homes, and for a moment to imagine what it would be to experience life as the defectors have.

Anyone who can compare various takes on life to life in North Korea knows that human rights abuses, more importantly violations of humanity, in the country need to stop without hesitation. The only thing that is disputed is how. (Although some would certainly dispute who this job belongs to.)

Knowing the grip the North Korea's leader has on the country, we conclude that this isn't easy. It is highly unlikely that a mass revolt will take place in North Korea tomorrow, even while the Worker's Party may well go too far to the point that such mass outrage will occur, as we nearly saw with the famine and more so with the currency revaluation. It isn't easy given North Korea's evident military strength, and its possible alliance with another great military power. It isn't easy given the system the world has created to deal with these matters and enforce international law.

The best thing we can do is make it easy. For those nations with the conscience and determination to do something about the problem, we must break down our objective to a simple and fundamental idea - that human beings are suffering needlessly, under the stolen power of an maniacal bully, and we have the ability to help them.

Full-scale violence and war is not a desirable image, although given our current military technological capacity, we may not ever need see that.

Even so, a more civilised option remains favourable. We have a justice system which is designed so that people who have seized power in foreign countries and commit abhorrent crimes will not be protected by boundaries. There are some flaws that could make it difficult to use this system to help North Korea, but there's a simple and perhaps what sounds like a childish one at first - do it anyway. If you think about it you have to ask yourself, why not? Does the North Korean government, knowing all that we know, deserve the same rights of sovereignty as countries who treat their citizens like real people? No it does not.

In any case, if the international community put ample pressure on North Korea, it is very possible that something can be done, but it takes people to care about the issues first. For the United States or for anyone to make deals with the devil that is Kim Jong-il does not help at all. Negotiation on his terms is not acceptable. The United States should not sign a treaty with North Korea, but should instead continue its protest against its atrocities.

You may have noticed that when defectors groups and other North Korean human rights groups talk about what needs to be done, they don't protest in a complicated way. I too have used the words "save" or "rescue" in place of a longer phrase like "End human rights abuses in North Korea".

It is because the idea that is being conveyed is simple and elemental - the people of North Korea need to be rescued from a tyrant with which it is not going to be possible to negotiate rationally. They need to be saved from the death of their beings that are threatened by the chains that bind them. They need to be delivered from the pain and suffering that is beyond any of our wildest dreams.

With our conscience, we simply cannot allow for the extreme injustices of North Korea to continue under any circumstances.
Zetsubou

Con

My argument is based on Opponents Lines (____________)

I thank my opponent for not grasping for the Conduct point or rushing to attack my missing argument the last round, you have my gratitude.

Pro's 4 round posts lack an argument, reread, see below. I'll base most of this argument on Pros 3rd round post.

I want to remind Pro of the original resolutions terms, this is not me arguing that North Korea can be controlled or that North Korea is a "fair" state.

i) The proposed peace treaty between North Korea and the United States should be rejected.
ii) The ICC (International Criminal Court) should issue an arrest warrant for Kim Jong-Il (or the triumvirate of Kim Jong-Il, Kim Yong-Il and Kim Yong-nam) and pursue prosecution against him for crimes against humanity.
iii) The UN should, if necessary, reject its procedures and violate North Korea's national sovereignty to take action against it (including arrest and prosecution of the leaders).

NOT
i) North Korea should disarm Nuclear weapons
ii) Defectors are treated badly or abused.
iii) North Korea has committed crimes against humanity.

You have lost the starting roots of your argument this is why (in the comments) I say the 4th round is personal and lacking in argument. Look over your 4th round and relate it to the resolutions, you should understand. If you relate it to the 2nd and 3rd motions is far-related and rash.

Arguments
__________
>>Above Underscore Line 1

I know and I agree. No connection what so ever.
__________
>>Below Underscore Line 1

"South Korea believes that it can convince Kim Jong-il to act humanely," you are yet to successfully say Kim has actually acted inhumanly your only attempt was Rome Status violations. (Answered in the arguments below).

Six Nation talks NOT Six Nation nuclear disarmament talks. Note that Korea didn't have Nuclear weapons the first time. The Peace treaty stops the war and allows Negotiations for ANYTHING between the countries though Nuclear Disarmament is a hot topic the talks are not for that or for any specific purpose at all.

"No international court can intervene unless North Korea becomes a signatory to either of them, which there is no sign of."

Then why did you propose it?

"I would deny any diplomatic relations with North Korea unless they change their ways, and we shouldn't just sit around and wait for them to do so, it is not going to happen because there is no incentive on North Korea's part to do so."

-and that is the argument, morally that's wrong, it makes you a war monger.

__________
>>Below Underscore Line 2

a.) It is systematic - the public execution and other killings by soldiers, or perhaps less direct killings by enforced starvation, of political criminals without a trial can be considered murder.
I might also like to add that the North has also sent representatives to foreign countries where they have attempted murders, such as the Silmido incident, "a 1983 bombing that killed several members of the South Korean government, and the 1987 destruction of a South Korean airliner over the Thailand-Myanmar border" (http://www.answers.com......)

R-a) Records of their murder must be by the state signed and authorized BY KIM IL SUNG. I) the public execution murder without a trial isn't a crime against humanity. Assassinations can be denied, you must prove it. It's not strong enough as a case to be taken to the ICC

d.) I perhaps should have argued this one. Also written about in the book Aquariums of Pyongyang, after being released from a concentration camp, one is not allowed to live in the city, which is reserved for the elite only. Some people are forcibly removed from the city to be relocated elsewhere.

R-d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

e.) My intentions may have instead been covered by (f) and (k), so OK then.

R-e) F doesn't exist and h is "?"

f.) How can torture be considered "legal" to you? Whether or not it is legal under North Korea's laws is irrelevant.

R-e) Torture is legal in North Korea and outside North Korea, just need a national court allowance.

g.) Forced prostitution/rape and so on doesn't occur necessarily within the concentration camp, did you miss my source on the Gippeumjo?

R-g) Gippeumjo aren't raped they're concubines, that make them Prostitutes, that is Legal from Nation to Nation.

Exploited but legal I don't see North Korea making a camp SPASIFICALLY for rape.

h.) I'm sorry, what?

R-h) Non Systematic as is in the Definition in the Article, "reduction camps aren't surprisingly" for Persecution, as is what happens in North Korea. If Persecution happens it's not in the camps intention. I need the order form by North Koreas to prove this, but it is for this reason that it has been so hard to make a real if ICC allegation against them.

i.) Nope what? North Korea has kidnapped these people, and it counts.

R-i) No, see torture

k.) ?

R-k) Aquariums of Pyongyang is based on the see Yodok reeducation camp, Last round.

--Quotes of Pros errors--

"The evidence is hardly questionable, especially given that most organisations, including the UN itself, have recognised the atrocities."

Citation needed, as I've said time and time again it's too hard to prove they did anything illegal.

"I never proposed a war."

But you do now.

"The peace treaty should be rejected. We shouldn't sign off an entire nation's human rights to the devil and allow them to continue to abuse people without our official objection to protect ourselves."

That's not the Situation. It's doesn't affect human rights at all, it's just talks, nothing more noting less.

__________
>>Round 4

No Argument

-Article style, reasoning is for sympathy not negating
-Unjustified
- Relies of Faith of Future
-Unrelated

Though, I am to blame, a missing 4th round gives you no reason to argue.

---
That's all, look forward to a concluding round.
__________
Citations
- [http://untreaty.un.org...]
- [http:// en.wikipedia.org/]
- All other Sources restated from the Last rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
andre

Pro

It should be said that while both of us undoubtedly went far off topic from the beginning, at the least I did address my own original issues in my last argument. It was simply a principle-based argument rather than one based on technical issues.

To simplify my arguments a little, I will address your points as paragraphs and full sentences so we don't have to continue to refer back to previous rounds.

Now, as I have stated many times, any six nation talks and negotiations mean dealing with North Korea. Let's consider again, say we choose to negotiate with them on human rights issues first. What possible incentive would North Korea have to deal with us on this? But this is the real world, and we both know that the six nations will discuss, albeit with minor talks on other issues, nuclear disarmament. North Korea can gain relaxation of sanctions and UN condemnations and the threat of war, because we, the US and its allies, want to feel safe. We're protecting ourselves. We'll make whatever deal with North Korea to end their disarmament so that we won't have to worry. We won't care if North Korea continues to abuse its own citizens in perpetuity all the while we can continue to be at peace with them.

In any case, there is no need for a peace treaty for the purpose of discussions. If that is what North Korea chooses to ask in return, it is not something we should give them. As I have said and you have agreed, a peace treaty is a symbol of cooperation and an end to dispute with the many issues we claim to have against them.

Now about my second resolution. While you claim that I have strayed from them, you forget one thing.

""No international court can intervene unless North Korea becomes a signatory to either of them, which there is no sign of."

Then why did you propose it?"

If you'll remember I proposed that despite any legal restrictions or regulations, (resolution 3), an international court should intervene. That is, even if jurisdictional restrictions bar North Korea from having to appear in any international court, I affirm that such restrictions should be violated.

My argument is not "let's go attack North Korea with no hesitation", and a denial of diplomatic relations and a refusal to stand by while they violate the very fundamentals of humanity is NOT war-mongering. I simply believe that knowing that we cannot negotiate with North Korea to end their inhumane practices, we should do something about and for God's sake, we set up these international organs so that we could stop situations like this. Is the UN and the ICC not good for anything? We shouldn't have to beg them to do something. So, the UN has rules. Evidently, they aren't working.

As for the Rome Statute. Now that I understand your main argument against the use of a charge of crimes against humanity, I can discuss the problem.

While you claim that it is too impossible to prove that such crimes were ever sanctioned by the state (NK), you forget several points. Firstly, resolution 3 again speak for itself. It is common knowledge, and the general opinion of the UN and its member states that North Korea is responsible for these crimes. Secondly, a case in any court is proved or disproved by a trial. At the least, an indictment and a trial is warranted just to see if a conviction can be achieved. Thirdly, defectors have much evidence as to North Korea's responsibility for crimes against humanity. They have some documented proof, off the top of my head I remember from the documentary "Access to Evil" a defector who smuggled from North Korea documents pertaining to the use of human experimentation. Furthermore, several defectors have come from fairly high ranks and inner circles in North Korea and know of the government's responsibility, e.g. Hwang Jang Yop. Through such defectors, we know, for instance, that Kim Jong-Il ordered the kidnapping of certain people from South Korea, perhaps most notably film directors and actors. And finally, [http://www.amicc.org...] ICC rules of evidence are somewhat less strict than that of civilian courts in say, the USA. That particular source tells us that hearsay evidence is generally admissible. This further widens the scope of testimony that can be given by defectors.

""I never proposed a war."

But you do now."

No, I do not. I do believe that having exhausted all non-military avenues available to us for fixing the problem, we should consider a military solution, but overall I think this should not be necessary if the UN takes some harder action against North Korea.

The situation, by the way, is that if we sign a peace treaty, we will most certainly have less leverage to negotiate, if that were even possible, on human rights, and we know that if we managed to disarm North Korea by way of a peace treaty followed by negotiations, not the US nor North Korea will bother with human rights.

Lastly, round 4. Reasoning can be based on principles or morals, which is warranted when it comes to North Korea (especially when I addressed my resolutions). Since this is round 5 I will conclude.

If it were you suffering what North Koreans have to suffer, you too would want something to be done, it is undeniable. A solution isn't easy, but it is possible. In situations like this we may find it difficult to be selfless. But it is that selflessness that is demanded of us by the values we preach, and by our instinctual sense of humanity. We know what the truth of the matter is. What humane society could stand idly by while such inconceivable horrors continue every day? The UN was primarily set up to prevent the same evil of WWII, the Holocaust and horrific tyranny, from repeating itself. How can it fail to act, (not only in North Korea), when state sponsored evil, or even evil simply ignored by states who fail to fix things, thrives? The UN and in fact the world has a duty to ensure that all people are given rights set out in the UDHR. They have a obligation to save fellow human beings from terror. The UN has a job to do.

Given all these reasons, and additionally Con's occasional personal attacks and sloppy argument, I strongly urge you, reader, to vote Pro. I also urge you to think about human rights issues in the DPRK, and other authoritarian states, and ask yourself what you can do to help.

I think that is all, so I look forward to a satisfactory end to this debate.
Zetsubou

Con

Zetsubou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Sadly, I could not post in time due to family crap.

Vote Pro.
Posted by andre 7 years ago
andre
If you're still on about my ethical argument, look up pathos ethos and logos.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
I hate, HATE the way you project arguments! It's so MESSY, STOP.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
You'll see in my post.

Expect it when 30 minutes are left. I've posted one with 10 minutes to go and it got rejected?!?
Posted by andre 7 years ago
andre
even if i were to concede it was a rant, which i do not, even rants can be argued. if you don't actually have counter-arguments then you shouldn't have taken the debate. i structured the argument loosely as one might structure an essay or speech, which is normal for debate.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Seriously read it again.
Posted by andre 7 years ago
andre
its not ranting, i extended my arguments with actual structured argument rather than a list of statistics, and i drew from reasoning in that argument. remember, you're faced with the last two rounds I posted.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
andre... your ranting not reasoning.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
Hence "--------"
Posted by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
The first statement was not necessarily dependent on the second.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
andreZetsubouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70