Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Saturday September 30, @05:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the another-brick-in-the-wall dept.

Submitted via IRC for guy_

China has told North Korean companies operating in its territory to close down as it implements United Nations sanctions against the reclusive state.

The companies will be shut by early January. Joint Chinese and North Korean ventures will also be forced to close.

China, Pyongyang's only major ally, has already banned textile trade and limited oil exports.

The move is part of an international response to North Korea's sixth and most powerful nuclear test.

The UN Security Council, of which China is a member, voted unanimously for fresh sanctions on 11 September.

China's commerce ministry said it had set a deadline of 120 days from the passing of the resolution for any North Korean companies within its borders to close.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41431057


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @06:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @06:04PM (#575327)

    As if by magic, these NK companies will miraculously transform into Chinese companies, with business continuing as usual.

    Problem solved.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @06:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @06:17PM (#575328)
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by nekomata on Saturday September 30, @06:44PM (17 children)

    by nekomata (5432) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30, @06:44PM (#575338)

    This seems to be quite serious, not the lip service I would have expected from China. Basically China has zero interest in weakening NK, it's their buffer zone, it keeps USA in check etc. I wonder if the threat of nuclear war is really something they consider realistic (I don't) or if this is just a ruse and will behind the scenes change nothing. Now, I don't like NK but I very much like keeping USA in check. A balance of power, even if this includes Russia and China, is still much preferable to a USA monoculture (I'm not an US citizen obv. ;))

    My assumption for this is:

    - China will keep NK alive as long as they can in any way
    - If NK actually starts a nuclear war, China will be the one to take them down. Just to avoid having the US at their doorstep.
    - Kim isn't insane (or at least not stupid), and realizes that he is a pawn in a play for power/influene in Asia
    - Trump does realize this as well but would prefer to be able to take NK himself instead of letting it fall to China should something go wrong.

    So, for my assumptions to hold, China can't really starve NK too much. We'll see how this plays out. Interesting it will be in any case.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:00PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:00PM (#575343)

      Now, I don't like NK but I very much like keeping USA in check. A balance of power, even if this includes Russia and China, is still much preferable to a USA monoculture (I'm not an US citizen obv. ;))

      I was born in the USA, live within the USA's borders, and like you I am very much appreciative that the USA is kept somewhat in check by China and Russia. Particularly because the USA has far exceeded its lawful powers and has been attempting to sustain a world-wide military empire for decades, while funding said empire by extracting resources from its citizens who are frightened near to dead of its Internal Revenue "Service" [wikipedia.org].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:05PM (#575345)

        this will be sorted out with some new rare earts mine on NK or something like it

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:16PM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:16PM (#575347)

      My assumption for this is:

      <sarcasm>You know what they say about assumptions...</sarcasm> Just sayin' :P

      - Kim isn't insane (or at least not stupid), and realizes that he is a pawn in a play for power/influene in Asia

      I don't know about this one. Insanity can often make people act stupid. A a stupid sane person and a smart crazy person will often times make the same stupid choices. In NK's case one of those choices is "Do we push The Button?" They don't think to the part that involves "If we push the button Pyongyang will evaporate in the counterattack."

      - Trump does realize this as well but would prefer to be able to take NK himself instead of letting it fall to China should something go wrong.

      The Orange Toddler doesn't realize much of anything, least of all what role NK actually plays in Asia. If it doesn't say "Trump" on the side of it or directly involve his glorification he doesn't know, doesn't care, and thinks he's doing a better job than anyone else could possibly hope do with it. When trying to figure out what Trump would do, ask yourself "what would a five year old do?" You'll never go wrong with that, as he has the intellect and temperament of a typical young child.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Saturday September 30, @07:26PM (4 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30, @07:26PM (#575351) Homepage Journal

        When trying to figure out what Trump would do, ask yourself "what would a five year old do?" You'll never go wrong with that, as he has the intellect and temperament of a typical young child.

        When trying to figure out what Trump would do, ask yourself "what would a five year old who has not been adequately socialized and has not even a semblance of compassion do?" You'll never go wrong with that, as he has the intellect and temperament of an atypical young child.

        FTFY.

        --
        The eyes are the windows to the soul.
        Sunglasses are the window shades.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nekomata on Saturday September 30, @08:25PM (3 children)

          by nekomata (5432) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30, @08:25PM (#575367)

          To you (and the parent), I don't get how you can come to the conclusion that Trump is stupid. Do you think making billions and becoming the president of the United States does not require intellect? Require skill? Do you believe the way he portraits himself in public view is genuine? I'm not arguing that he can't be a psychopath or whatever, but stupid?

          Is this a case of "I dislike him so much that I'm not willing to even consider anything that does not agree with my emotional stance"? Or do you, by analysis of what he (and the likes of Kim) have achieved, have come to a conclusion based on actual data?

          Intelligence does not exclusively exist in academia, you can be quite 'rough around the edges', have no manners, little knowledge and still be intelligent. But please do not assume I'm a supporter of either person, I'm just looking at this and finding 'the happenings' to be quite entertaining, as well as fascinating.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:43PM (#575376)

            You are assuming those posts were made by someone with an anti-Trump agenda/opinion. It could be a case of associating the opposition with drivel/stupidity.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday September 30, @11:58PM

            by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30, @11:58PM (#575408) Homepage Journal

            To you (and the parent), I don't get how you can come to the conclusion that Trump is stupid.

            Trump "graduated" from an Ivy League college. Keep that in mind, and consider: He utilizes an extremely limited vocabulary which one might be unsurprised to find in someone who has not been well educated. He puts that vocabulary together in ways that are ignorant and clumsy... to be kind. He spells poorly. He doesn't even know which words to write. He wrote that a Chinese seizure of a ship was "unpresidented", for instance; another, he wrote that he was "honered to serve." But there are more indicators than his inability to use English well. He doesn't deal with intelligence reports, requiring a bulleted, trivialized summary instead. He is unable to control his behavior, or his remarks. He lies, and he lies when he's going to get caught within minutes. His remarks are replete with verbal tics ("believe me", "trust me", "this is the very best", etc.) that any intelligent person who wasn't actually drug- or psychosis-addled would eliminate at least as soon as they were pointed out, and likely sooner, since they are unmistakable tells that lies are incoming.

            I won't even count the damage the things he endorses will do to the environment, and so directly impact his children, and their children. Perhaps he doesn't like his children. I'm totally on board with that. I don't like them either, at least the adult ones.

            Do you think making billions and becoming the president of the United States does not require intellect? Require skill?

            Well, that's two questions. To the first, making billions: Money makes more money, and particularly if you're playing with it during a real-estate boom. Trump started out with (at least) seven figures from his father, contacts all across the wealthy, accountants, and so forth. Pretty much anyone can earn under those circumstances. It's getting the start that's so difficult. Trump was given his start. So yes, you can do it if you're not smart.

            To the second, becoming president: Yes, you can definitely do it if you're not smart. Trump's not even the first to do so recently. Bush II did it just a few elections ago, and that man is anything but smart. Winning an election is essentially a process of convincing voters. To that end, the party, the campaign planners, the co-conspiratorsworkers, the donors, the rich people behind the scenes, they all facilitate the election. The candidate postures and preens, and the voters do whatever they want (and sometimes, the electoral college then does what the plurality of voters didn't want, as we saw with Trump's election.)

            Intelligence does not exclusively exist in academia, you can be quite 'rough around the edges', have no manners, little knowledge and still be intelligent.

            This is true. However, Trump is not a person who came up rough. He came up through the formal education system (he went to Fordham University, a Jesuit school in the Bronx, for two years, then transferred to the University of Pennsylvania from which he boughtobtained a bachelor's degree), and he came up surrounded by other rich folk. None of that rubbed off on him in any detectable way – his use of language is grade school level, and a lousy grade school at that. He acts the buffoon at every turn. Hence, I conclude without much doubt at all that he is, most likely, a buffoon.

            I would also point out that you can skip the entire school process – as I did - and end up with a reasonable command of the English language. That, I dare venture, might be an indicator of intelligence. Perhaps. :)

            There's more. A lot more, actually. But those are some of the high points as I see them.

            --
            The eyes are the windows to the soul.
            Sunglasses are the window shades.
          • (Score: 1) by rylyeh on Sunday October 01, @06:53AM

            by rylyeh (6726) Subscriber Badge <{kadath} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday October 01, @06:53AM (#575492)

            "Get me! - Roger Stone" Roger Stone was the #1 political campaign adviser to Drumpf, and the one who got him elected. It's on Netflix.

            Check it out. You'll understand why Drumpf had nothing to do with his 'victory' over the popular vote.

            Also this bankrupt ass*ole had to go to Russia to find creditors, 'cause he defaulted on every lender in the western world that lent to him. Hence the Balalaika (Russian - if you don't know the reference) 'strings' attached.

            --
            don’t tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn’t raise nor buy—
    • (Score: 3, Disagree) by fyngyrz on Saturday September 30, @07:22PM (5 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30, @07:22PM (#575348) Homepage Journal

      Kim isn't insane

      Pretty sure he is.

      or at least not stupid

      No, pretty sure he is.

      All he has to do is look south to see the enormous political and social success that comes from embracing the values he's so busily repressing in North Korea. We know he's taken the look. We also know he's not learned anything sane from looking.

      Kim's as mad as a hatter, and far more dangerous.

      --
      The eyes are the windows to the soul.
      Sunglasses are the window shades.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:20PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:20PM (#575364)

        Some people think shrieking women, men in drag, and abortion are "enormous political and social successes". Other people have different opinions. Just because someone has different priorities to you, doesn't mean they're insane and/or stupid.

        I feel that you lack empathy.

        • (Score: 1) by rylyeh on Sunday October 01, @06:56AM

          by rylyeh (6726) Subscriber Badge <{kadath} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday October 01, @06:56AM (#575493)

          So which of those 'ideas' examples you used are insane or stupid?

          --
          don’t tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn’t raise nor buy—
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by nekomata on Saturday September 30, @08:28PM

        by nekomata (5432) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 30, @08:28PM (#575368)

        No, Kim is acting quite rationally I think. Given his position, my action would probably be similiar. Strengthen your position, make sure you can't be easily dethroned (at least from external forces), give you a position of power in negotiations. How is this insane?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @02:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @02:00AM (#575444)

        > All he has to do is look south to see the enormous political and social success that comes from embracing the values he's so busily repressing in North Korea.

        To the south, the guy who was running Samsung is doing 5 years in prison. [soylentnews.org] Britannica says [britannica.com]

        Chaebol involvement in politics has fostered corruption, including the bribing of prominent South Korean politicians such as former presidents Chun Doo-Hwan and Roh Tae-Woo during their terms in office. The payments made to them were estimated in the hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars, and both men were later tried and convicted on corruption charges.

        It goes on with other, similar instances. The South Korean economy, as that article reveals, is dominated by a few monopolistic, family-owned companies. Kim Jong-un, it seems to me, is unlikely to be charged with corruption or anything else. Meanwhile, former South Korean political and business leaders are imprisoned. His personal situation is better than theirs.

        In 1950, North Korea attracted (earned, if you like) the enmity of the United States, which has persisted. North Korea is shunned by other countries too. Even China has agreed to restrict trade. Were North Korea to adopt a capitalistic economy, it might still be shunned. If the rest of the world adopted a friendly stance toward the North Koreans, it would still be backward, at least at first. Infrastructure and educational attainment would be lacking.

        Were a decision made to emulate South Korea as much as possible, it would be radical change. It would certainly mean massive disruption. Were Kim Jong-un to retain the autocratic power he now has, the perception would be that the change was incomplete or a sham. Were he to step down or share power, he might be held to account for what he's done. The punishment could be harsher than a five-year imprisonment.

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday October 01, @01:54PM

        by legont (4179) on Sunday October 01, @01:54PM (#575552)

        Kim, like his father and grandfather, shows no signs of being suicidal: he wants his virgins in the here and now, not hereafter. His principal concern, other than maintaining domestic control, is regime preservation against U.S. pressure. Nuclear weapons are the best means to ensure that he does not suffer the fates of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghaddafi and other foreign dictators who ran afoul of Washington. Creating a nuclear deterrent is Pyongyang’s preferred tool to prevent America from destroying the DPRK—at least assuming the president is as rational as the Supreme Leader.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/president-trump-compliments-kim-jong-un-makes-case_us_59cfcf9ee4b034ae778d4b01 [huffingtonpost.com]

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday September 30, @07:48PM

      by zocalo (302) on Saturday September 30, @07:48PM (#575358)
      I'll believe it when I see it too, but this does seem like China is finally getting serious about the DPRK's nuclear ambitions for whatever reason, unless it's just a sham and it'll essentially be business as usual behind closed doors and even more shell companies. I guess they've figured out that having a buffer zone might not be all that beneficial if the DPRK provokes a war on their doorstep, or China has to deal with the mountain over DPRK's nuclear test site collapsing and sending any fallout drifting over China's industrial heartland on the prevailing winds. Scuppering the DPRK's nuclear ambitions would let them keep their buffer zone and remove a good deal of the threat.

      The timing is interesting though - only a short while after the USS Jimmy Carter returned to port flying a pirate flag - which makes me wonder if my speculation [soylentnews.org] in the discussion of that story might not have been too wide of the mark.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @02:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @02:15AM (#575449)

      I wonder if the threat of nuclear war is really something they consider realistic (I don't)

      I think China fears Trump’s actions may include using nuclear weapons. Even if the weapons don’t directly affect China the fallout will be waiting for China was the Earth rotates, and the flood of refugees will also include many with radiation sickness and those who may be “hot”.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday October 01, @02:49AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 01, @02:49AM (#575457) Journal

      This seems to be quite serious, not the lip service I would have expected from China. Basically China has zero interest in weakening NK, it's their buffer zone, it keeps USA in check etc. I wonder if the threat of nuclear war is really something they consider realistic (I don't) or if this is just a ruse and will behind the scenes change nothing. Now, I don't like NK but I very much like keeping USA in check. A balance of power, even if this includes Russia and China, is still much preferable to a USA monoculture (I'm not an US citizen obv. ;))

      Keep in mind that this "balance of power" creates incredible suffering for the Korean people (obviously, the North Koreans, but also the South Koreans). My view is that it is not worth that price for a slight check on US power. Let us also keep in mind that a more powerful united Korea would provide a check (perhaps even a stronger check) as well on US power and would check Chinese and Japanese power too (that it would provide a check to Chinese power is I think the primary reason that Korea is not united).

      Sorry, the US is not that credible a threat to justify this. I'll also note that ad hoc balances of power like this have a tendency to suddenly go away. It is not wise to rely on them.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:24PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:24PM (#575350)

    China is putting on the show of pressuring Norks, enough so that the Nork envoy went to Russia for support.

    But it's barely more than a show. Doesn't change the geopolitics reality - Norks are the buffer state against USFK stationed in the S. Korea, and a useful irritant/bargaining chip against the US. Russia is aiming to gain the same leverage against the US with Norks.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:53PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @07:53PM (#575360)

      Maybe you should read some Chinese and other Asian news regarding current and recent events. China has basically supported NK for decades. They have done so, because China would lose face after having rescued NK from the US in the Korean War (technically not a war though, right?)

      However, from China's point of view, NK has acted like spoiled, petulant children almost from the beginning of China's support. China stands to lose more face by supporting NK, than they lose if they quietly withdraw support. NK starting WWIII would be a Very Bad Thing from everyone's perspective. The elder Kim was somewhat predictable. This younger Kim is less predictable - and far less respectful of his Chinese patrons.

      China will almost certainly lose face and standing on the world stage, no matter what their bastard stepchild does. But, they'll lose less face, if they have withdrawn support for the bastard.

      It's almost a year ago now, that China stopped purchasing coal from NK. Coal was a major source of revenue, and China was the primary purchaser. Partly due to pressure from the world community, and partly due to China's own judgement, that support was withdrawn. The petulant child has been acting out more than usual, partly due to that withdrawal of support.

      As time passes, one of two things will happen. Ultimately, the NK government will begin to act more responsibly, OR, China will oversee the destruction of that government.

      Remember, this is China. This nation is one of the longest lived nations on earth, with history and traditions that go back 5000 years or more. They play the long-term game. China, unlike western governments and corporations, is able to think and plan decades ahead. They have contingencies for North Korea.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:28PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:28PM (#575369)

        This nation is one of the longest lived nations on earth, with history and traditions that go back 5000 years or more.

        Patently bullshit, as China has unified and fractured multiple times throughout history. The current Chinese nation as we know it is less than 100 years old.
        You could say pretty much the same thing about Europe.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @12:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @12:54AM (#575432)

          Two words.

          Dark. Ages.

          European nations have no thousands-of-years continuity. Europe does little better than nations of "The Dark Continent".

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @01:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @01:01AM (#575433)

          Note that no one said anything about "government". The country, the people, have existed for thousands of years.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, @08:32PM (#575371)

        Save your breadth - I am a Korean keeping abreast of Korean and other Asian media. And I bet I am good bit more familiar with the Chinese history than you.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @02:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01, @02:13PM (#575555)

    Kim is surrounded by a circle of friends.
    Any resources the flow into NK go to this circle and then flow outward to the rest of the country.

    Lowering the quantity of resources flowing into NK hurts the folks at the outer edges first, not Kim.

    If China wants to get the attention of the center of the circle,
          then perhaps instead of steadily turning down the flow a little for a long time,
        they could try turning off all of the flow for a short time.

    That means Internet, power, gas, trains, all trade and cash flows.
      Everything for a day, a week, or more, and see what happens.

(1)