> But this is why NK gets to go merrily about its way starving and torturing its citizens.
No it's not. There are 3 foreign policy "sticks" that could be used to end this situation:
1. Invasion
2. Sanctions
3. Shaming
Aggregation of frustration is not one of them.
They have differing requirements in order to be effective:
1. Requires a weak enemy military and existent domestic political opposition to the regime. Internal dissonance exists and your forces are not over-leveraged on other fronts.
2. Requires the entity to already be integrated in the global economy. There is something real you can withhold that will not cause additional mass starvation.
3. Requires high social proof. Those doing the shaming can easily deflect accusations of hypocrisy to rapidly build a global and regional (Chinese) consensus.
Notice that no conditions necessary for 1 or 2 are present. This leaves 3 as one of the most obvious routes to discuss. As the US currently has the world's largest population of prisoners, it makes it hard for the USA to end the prisoner problem in North Korea as effectively as it could. Discourse will necessarily gravitate towards how the US can improve its social proof by striving for exemplary domestic policies. It's not a matter of "moral equivalence", but of being open to moral improvement when others remind us of our faults. Unless we can think of a new kind of stick, this may remain the best way to help those in North Korea.
Regarding #2) The North Korean regime continues it's existence and behavior in large part because of the assistance they receive from China. So while we may not be able to sanction NK directly in the world economy, we can very much influence them by proxy through our foreign policy with China.
No it's not. There are 3 foreign policy "sticks" that could be used to end this situation:
1. Invasion
2. Sanctions
3. Shaming
Aggregation of frustration is not one of them.
They have differing requirements in order to be effective:
1. Requires a weak enemy military and existent domestic political opposition to the regime. Internal dissonance exists and your forces are not over-leveraged on other fronts.
2. Requires the entity to already be integrated in the global economy. There is something real you can withhold that will not cause additional mass starvation.
3. Requires high social proof. Those doing the shaming can easily deflect accusations of hypocrisy to rapidly build a global and regional (Chinese) consensus.
Notice that no conditions necessary for 1 or 2 are present. This leaves 3 as one of the most obvious routes to discuss. As the US currently has the world's largest population of prisoners, it makes it hard for the USA to end the prisoner problem in North Korea as effectively as it could. Discourse will necessarily gravitate towards how the US can improve its social proof by striving for exemplary domestic policies. It's not a matter of "moral equivalence", but of being open to moral improvement when others remind us of our faults. Unless we can think of a new kind of stick, this may remain the best way to help those in North Korea.