Canada imposes its own brand of sanctions on North Korea...

[William Ashley]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+unveils+sanctions+against+Korea/3744364/story.html

Is this Canadas way of saying I want in.

Personally I don't understand why everyone is on North Korea's case except for the unsettled war dating back to over 50 years ago.

Is there a reason why Canada woke up and was like - whoa we fogot to do this 30 years ago?

Is Canada officially still at war with Korea?

Apparenly Canada did as far as North Korea is concerned - from this Pravada article --- apparently a few bullets 2 actually according to press reports were fired across the truce line.

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?286138-North-Korea-Declares-War-On-Canada!

This seems like an attempt to escalate things - why is Canada blocking private business with North Korea?

Even with a new head of state the military and beaurocracy including diplomatic beaurocrachy is largely the same.

Does Canada want to put itself at risk from reprisals from North Korea - why is Canada unilaterally declaring war - now we are only an attack in poorly defended Canada - as far as I'm cocerned Canada is way less defended than the US - which increases the chance of an attack. Even in geurral form - what caused the fire at York U today.. coincidentally the same day--- the list goes on.. fact here is what sprung Canada to but in on 6 party talks? In a rather delicate situation to begin with? Fact is all it takes is some type of Actio by north korea or a fake action by people who want to do korea in to have NATO at war with korea - this is NOT what Cnaada needs

How much trade existed before that? What is up - I don't understand the logic of this move.

Who in DFAIT thought this one up?

I didn't hear any report of parliament discussing sanctions. Shouldn't international trade arrangements be discussed in parliament?

SHAME ON HARPER FOR ALLOWING HIS GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE WAR UNILATERALLY!!!

How is the G20 in Seoul going anyway how much did they spend on security 50million? WIth North Korea on their border...

Edited October 29, 2010 by William Ashley

[nicky10013]

Canada never declared war. It was a UN mandated police action. South Korea did, and since there was only an armistice and not a peace treaty, technically a state of war still exists today between North and South Korea.

As for sanctions, they're stupid. They have pretty much every sanction known to humanity levied against it and they're still able to build nuclear weapons and mistreat it's people.

[PIK]

Are we not still at war with the north?

[Topaz]

Now Harper really has to put the push on for those F-35's, NATO and the US will need us, when/if they go into N. Korea. I would think China and Russia would have something to say about that.

[Wilber]

We imposed sanctions on South Africa during Apartheid. What had they ever done to us? Were you just as upset then? The North Korean regime is so much more humane, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

Now Harper really has to put the push on for those F-35's, NATO and the US will need us, when/if they go into N. Korea. I would think China and Russia would have something to say about that.

Yea...just like in Iraq!

[Argus]

As for sanctions, they're stupid. They have pretty much every sanction known to humanity levied against it and they're still able to build nuclear weapons and mistreat it's people.

Funny, but no one on the Left was suggesting sanctions were a waste of time when they were against Rhodesia and South Africa.

[nicky10013]

We imposed sanctions on South Africa during Apartheid. What had they ever done to us? Were you just as upset then? The North Korean regime is so much more humane, right?

South Africa is the only country where sanctions ever worked. Why? Because there was a ruling class large enough (and frankly democratic enough) to change their behaviour. The whites didn't like the decline in their standard of living. They took the hint and the government fell.

In North Korea, everyone is pretty much as poor as you can be. Making their lives worse through the banning of consumer goods isn't going to help because they were never able to have access to those consumer goods because they could never afford them anyway. North Korean leadership has been able to dance around sanctions for years through smuggling. We're essentially bestowing upon North Korea a favour by sanctioning them. The more in the dark and disconnected from the world and most importantly poor it's citizens are, the easier it is for Kim to remain in power. The people there have no idea what's going on in the outside world so they really have no choice but to buy into the propaganda. Our sanctions help in all three of those areas.

Like I said, sanctions are useless.

[bush_cheney2004]

South Africa is the only country where sanctions ever worked....

Patently false...sanctions have had varying degrees of success for other nations (Libya, Russia, China, Serbia, Somalia) depending on the purpose of such actions. It's not always as dramatic as was the case in South Africa, which was not an overnight success either.

Sanctions are foreign policy on the cheap.

[nicky10013]

Patently false...sanctions have had varying degrees of success for other nations (Libya, Russia, China, Serbia, Somalia) depending on the purpose of such actions. It's not always as dramatic as was the case in South Africa, which was not an overnight success either.

Sanctions are foreign policy on the cheap.

I'm not aware of the the Libyan example. However, to say that sanctions worked in Russia, China, Serbia and Somalia is the fact that's patently false, here.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not aware of the the Libyan example. However, to say that sanctions worked in Russia, China, Serbia and Somalia is the fact that's patently false, here.

You are not aware of many sanctions by/for many individual nations and the UN. It is just ignorant to say that they have only worked on South Africa.

[nicky10013]

You are not aware of many sanctions by/for many individual nations and the UN. It is just ignorant to say that they have only worked on South Africa.

Is it really? How come you can't provide me any examples?

[M.Dancer]

I'm not aware of the the Libyan example. However, to say that sanctions worked in Russia, China, Serbia and Somalia is the fact that's patently false, here.

He said varying degrees of success.

In Serbia's case, the economic impact was evident in over half the workforce being laid off. Sanctions were mostly lifted with Seria's acceptance of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

[nicky10013]

He said varying degrees of success.

In Serbia's case, the economic impact was evident in over half the workforce being laid off. Sanctions were mostly lifted with Seria's acceptance of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

Serbia signed the Dayton Accords because NATO intervened. Sanctions didn't stop anything.

[Wilber]

In North Korea, everyone is pretty much as poor as you can be. Making their lives worse through the banning of consumer goods isn't going to help because they were never able to have access to those consumer goods because they could never afford them anyway. North Korean leadership has been able to dance around sanctions for years through smuggling. We're essentially bestowing upon North Korea a favour by sanctioning them. The more in the dark and disconnected from the world and most importantly poor it's citizens are, the easier it is for Kim to remain in power. The people there have no idea what's going on in the outside world so they really have no choice but to buy into the propaganda. Our sanctions help in all three of those areas.

If the North Korean public has nothing to lose from sanctions it stands to reason the only people they will effect are the ruling elite. Gangsters are gangsters, even when they live in presidential palaces. While I'm not in favour of government mandated boycotts on principal, Kim and his bunch make the white South African regimes look like Boy Scouts.

[nicky10013]

If the North Korean public has nothing to lose from sanctions it stands to reason the only people they will effect are the ruling elite. Gangsters are gangsters, even when they live in presidential palaces. While I'm not in favour of government mandated boycotts on principal, Kim and his bunch make the white South African regimes look like Boy Scouts.

Of course it stands to "reason." However, it doesn't actually doesn't work that way. I mentioned that the North Korean government is pretty good at smuggling. When there are sanctions, there are always ways around sanctions and governments are pretty good at it. The government had absolutely no problem getting around the sanctions designed to prevent them from building nuclear weapons, missiles and the exportation of weapons technology. Why would it effect their style of living?

[M.Dancer]

Serbia signed the Dayton Accords because NATO intervened. Sanctions didn't stop anything.

Show me where I said they did. Sanctions though went hand in hand with their ability to resist.

[Wilber]

Of course it stands to "reason." However, it doesn't actually doesn't work that way. I mentioned that the North Korean government is pretty good at smuggling. When there are sanctions, there are always ways around sanctions and governments are pretty good at it. The government had absolutely no problem getting around the sanctions designed to prevent them from building nuclear weapons, missiles and the exportation of weapons technology. Why would it effect their style of living?

It's not all about how it effects them. There is also a matter of how much you are prepared to overlook in order to make a buck. I take it you have no ethical problems when it comes to dealing with such people.

[nicky10013]

Show me where I said they did. Sanctions though went hand in hand with their ability to resist.

In Serbia's case, the economic impact was evident in over half the workforce being laid off. Sanctions were mostly lifted with Seria's acceptance of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

This basically says that since half of Serbia's jobs lost, they had to sign. Not true. Just because you didn't specifically type it out, doesn't mean it isn't implied. Either quit playing semantics as you always do when you've got nothing left to argue, or be more clear.

[nicky10013]

It's not all about how it effects them. There is also a matter of how much you are prepared to overlook in order to make a buck. I take it you have no ethical problems when it comes to dealing with such people.

Bingo. You've hit at the essence of sanctions. Despite them not working, the west often feels morally obliged to punish countries for their stance on human rights or provocative behaviour despite the fact that the sanctions hurt the people they were meant to help the most.

My answer is we shouldn't be so blind. We both have the same goals in that we should be attempting to make the lives of these people better, but in the end if that means dealing with the government, so be it. The notion that we shouldn't be dealing with "bad" people is such an immature reaction to such serious problems. It also neglects the reality that we deal with other very bad people abroad, so why the distinction? In the end, democratic development is fostered by increased societal openness and economic development. If we can start that process, I don't care who we deal with.

[Wilber]

Bingo. You've hit at the essence of sanctions. Despite them not working, the west often feels morally obliged to punish countries for their stance on human rights or provocative behaviour despite the fact that the sanctions hurt the people they were meant to help the most.

No, you feel morally obliged not to deal with gangsters. If I buy stolen goods, I make the thief's life better. I choose not to.

[nicky10013]

No, you feel morally obliged not to deal with gangsters. If I buy stolen goods, I make the thief's life better. I choose not to.

Are you simple? International economics is just a little bit more complicated than this.

[M.Dancer]

This basically says that since half of Serbia's jobs lost, they had to sign. Not true. Just because you didn't specifically type it out, doesn't mean it isn't implied. Either quit playing semantics as you always do when you've got nothing left to argue, or be more clear.

You realize my comment was hand in hand with Bush Cheney's that the sanctions had a Varying degree of success? The sanctions did not bring serbia to her knees...the certainly weakened them...as evidenced by their shattered economy and their inability to buy weapons openly.

[nicky10013]

You realize my comment was hand in hand with Bush Cheney's that the sanctions had a Varying degree of success? The sanctions did not bring serbia to her knees...the certainly weakened them...as evidenced by their shattered economy and their inability to buy weapons openly.

Arms embargo

On September 25, 1991 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 713 imposing an arms embargo on all of former Yugoslavia. The embargo hurt the Army of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina the most because Serbia inherited the lion's share of the former JNA arsenal and the Croatian army could smuggle weapons through its coast. Over 55% of the armories and barracks of the former Yugoslavia were located in Bosnia owing to its mountainous terrain, in anticipation of a guerrilla war, but many of those factories were under Serbian control (such as the UNIS PRETIS factory in Vogošća), and others were inoperable due to a lack of electricity and raw materials. The Bosnian government lobbied to have the embargo lifted but that was opposed by the United Kingdom, France and Russia. US proposals to pursue this policy were known as lift and strike. The US congress passed two resolutions calling for the embargo to be lifted but both were vetoed by President Bill Clinton for fear of creating a rift between the US and the aforementioned countries. Nonetheless, the United States used both "black" C-130 transports and back channels including Islamist groups to smuggle weapons to the Bosnian government forces via Croatia.

I also think that your assertion that these sanctions wiped out half the economy. I think the war was probably responsible for A LOT of that. Have you seen picutres of Sarajevo and the Yugoslav countryside during that period?

[Wilber]

Are you simple? International economics is just a little bit more complicated than this.

Morality isn't.