How does the world benefit from having North Korea in the UN? I understand they vote against the US and Europe on just about everything. Would kicking North Korea out of the UN for violating every sanction against them make any difference? Is the UN just coddling a ruthless dictator?
I think the general idea of diplomacy is that you have to include the bad guys. I don’t approve of the régime in North Korea, but I don’t see why they in particular should get kicked out. There are many non-democratic countries represented at the United Nations, including several who oppose the Western powers pretty systematically. As for violating the sanctions, well, generally some other country has to be involved, or at least turn a blind eye. Should China be kicked out ?
I’m sure, over the past 70 years or so, there have been several occasions when the governments of some Arab countries would have liked to kick out Israel and the U.S., Pakistan would have liked to kick out India, Iran would have liked to kick out Iraq, etc.
Country A can expel some of Country B’s diplomats from its borders, or even force it to close its embassy; but the general idea of the U.N. is to keep the channels open in a somewhat-neutral zone. It’s a flawed institution in several ways, and certainly not immune from political influence, but arguably its limited effectiveness is part of the reason why countries don’t generally mind maintaining a presence there.
So it doesn’t matter what they do? Is there no line they can cross to get expelled? We’re talking about a pariah nation. That makes no sense in a logical world. If there are no consequences for a country’s actions, the UN is completely powerless to do anything.
But what is kicking them out going to do, other than isolate them further, and discourage them from dialogue? It may even make them more desparate for attention, and more likely to do crazy stuff.
Russia invaded a sovereign nation, for no reason at all. There is a line that got crossed, but no one is seriously suggesting Russia be expelled.
All of this is true. They’re a danger to their neighbours, except for China which sees them as a problematic cousin.
But it’s unclear what expelling them from the U.N. would actually accomplish. Send a clear message that most of the world is unhappy with them ? I think they know. (ninja’d)
Having a means to communicate with NK on more-or-less neutral ground, without having to consider the expense, risk, etc of having a direct embassy.
Would kicking NK out of the UN make any difference?
Probably not. As @snowthx pointed out, it might make it worse.
Is the UN coddling a ruthless dictator?
-A- ruthless dictator? We only wish, more like many!
But as far as the ‘haves’ of the nation-states are concerned, this is a feature and a benefit. The set up the security council with veto powers was designed to ensure that the UN was never going to have substantial power over them. It does give a forum for everyone to talk in, but without the support of the money and armies of the constituents, has no real teeth.
Seems the membership rules are pretty fuzzy.
But I agree with several folks that it is better to have them in the club than out. Along with some other ones.
At least have one global forum for all to present and contribute their opinions, beefs etc on a somewhat equal footing. Aside from the inequalities in it for all.
Ah, you just figured out the UN’s dirty little secret. As an organization it has slightly more teeth than the League of Nations when it comes to smaller-scale conflicts the big boys don’t care as much about. But the existence of the five-member permanent Security Council with veto powers renders it essentially a neutered body.
As Heracles said you do want a forum for even the shit regimes to be engaged diplomatically in some formal way. But even if you didn’t China and/or Russia would immediately veto any attempt to remove North Korea from the UN for their own geopolitical reasons. Likely at least some smaller nations would join them in voting no as well, because they would find the notion philosophically distasteful - “if they vote that pariah state out this year, what’s to stop them from deciding my authoritarian regime is a pariah state next year and voting us out?”
But really that doesn’t matter - China and/or Russia would never permit it, so it’s dead in the water.
Being a member of the United Nations doesn’t mean you have some international seal of approval. All it means is that you are an existing sovereign nation. North Korea qualifies.
I would say the more fundamental premise of diplomacy is that “as long as you’re still talking, you’re not fighting.” The corollary argument, then, from advocates of diplomacy, would be, “if you take away a forum for talking, you make fighting more likely.”
It should also be remembered what, exactly, “fighting” really means in this context. The UN was formed in the wake of the most destructive and deadly war ever known. The good intention behind forming the UN was to make that kind of conflict less likely. Not impossible, of course. But it’s a venue where political conflicts can be hashed out short of the declaration of total war.
That, to me, is why accusations of failure against the UN for its inability to stop or even mitigate every regional conflict are misplaced. That’s not the mindset behind its formation and it’s not really constituted to take those kinds of actions. Over time it has expressed increasingly lofty words about its mission and its mandate, but clearly it’s limited in its capacity to deliver.
So I would turn the question around. Rather than asking, what good is it to have North Korea as a member, what, specifically, is harmed as a result of its membership, and what is the relative level of potential harm that could result from its removal?
Well, they’re a bona fide nation, so they should be a member. Besides, their leadership may not remain as hostile as it is now, so there is always a chance for them to become a worthwhile, contributing member of the U.N. Also, expelling North Korea would only encourage them to be even more isolated than they are now.
Besides, expelling them because we don’t like them would also raise the question, “Where does that policy begin and end?”
I see your points, and while I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with a representative of an oppressive regime like North Korea, others seem okay with that since at least you can engage with them on some level.
But you’ve forgotten something… not all countries are allowed in the UN. The following countries aren’t permanent members, and Vatican City is 94 years old. So it’s okay for North Korea to be a member but not that horrible totalitarian state threatening all its neighbors, the Holy See?
The cite that you used to come up with those names also explains why they are not members.
Palestine is the only one that is at all comparable to North Korea in the reasons it has not been accepted, and it is ostensibly because Palestine has not ceased hostilities against Israel.
Aside from Vatican City, those are all countries that are not generally and fully recognized as sovereign countries. They’re not excluded because they did something bad, but because there isn’t a general agreement that they are countries.
The United States formally recognized Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state on February 18. To date, Kosovo has been recognized by a robust majority of European states, the United States, Japan, and Canada, and by other states from the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
So because Russia doesn’t recognize Kosovo they can never be declared an independent country and should not be allowed to join the UN?
Yeah, that’s what having a permanent veto vote means, unfortunately.
(Though your should is doing some moral work here that is not relevant to the legal status we are talking about.) (And, they can be declared an independent country, they just aren’t members of the UN.)