06-12-2018, 05:59 PM
(06-12-2018, 05:26 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The common sense answer should be the first option as denuclearizing NK is the top priority over all else.
Sorry, but if it means them having nukes while committing human rights violations, or not having nukes while committing human rights violations, I'll take them just not having nukes. Sometimes we cant have all the cake and eat it too, or however that saying goes.
Precisely. The North Korean state cannot exist unless it keeps an iron grip on its citizenry. Since the entire point of developing nuclear weapons was to help ensure the state's survival adding human rights abuses to any deal simply makes the likelihood of such a deal being achieved remote. North Korea cannot exist as is without said human rights abuses. By tying the two to any potential deal you are essentially asking North Korea to disarm and then destroy itself when the whole goal of arming themselves in the first place was to preserve the state.
Arguing for human rights abuses to be included is altruistic but incredibly naïve and demonstrates a marked lack of understanding of the motivations of North Korea.
