Three issues against North Korea.

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.