The last worst place on Earth

May 18, 2005 2:15 PM

Two new pieces from the San Diego Union-Tribune chronicle the dire conditions in North Korea, the last worst place on Earth: "The suffering of the North Korean people does not benefit from the drama that attends well-publicized human rights crises such as Iraq and Darfur. Even when hunger and starvation killed as many as 2 million North Koreans in the mid-1990s, the world took little notice. And the greater toll is the continuing long-term day-to-day grinding down of the hearts, minds and souls of all North Korean people."
posted by jenleigh (21 comments total)

Well, there's not really much we can do about it.
posted by delmoi at 2:17 PM on May 18, 2005

I read somewhere that the average lifespan of North Koreans is 50 years. That means few, if any, remember life any other way.
posted by Kellydamnit at 2:21 PM on May 18, 2005

Actualy things have been getting a lot worse over there, especialy after the Soviet Union fell.
posted by delmoi at 2:29 PM on May 18, 2005

This of course comes as a backdrop to the stalled talks. I didn't realize N.K. had 8 nukes??

Not to take anything away from the circumstances faced by citizens and prisoners in N.K. but those articles are not seemingly based on new info if I read them right. And the 2nd one cites nothing by way of sources. I'm just critiqueing the layout and journalistic quality here. They are followed by an actual editorial of course. But they just 'feel' a bit strange tacked together like that. *shrug* Maybe it's just me. Sad state of affairs all around for sure.
posted by peacay at 3:08 PM on May 18, 2005

Well, there's not really much we can do about it.

Spreading awareness of the problem is the first step. Granted, I have no idea what the second and third steps are, but more people aware of the problem means more people trying to do something.
posted by salad spork at 3:20 PM on May 18, 2005

Hey, I actually know that paper's editor! Two steps closer to Kevin Bacon.

Everything I've read about North Korea suggests the real catalyst for the worsening conditions has been Kim Jong Il taking control after his father, not the fall of the Soviet Union.

And although I hate to stand in anyone's way when they're bad-mouthing Kim Jong Il, I'd point out that almost all of the truly ghoulish details repeated in those articles come from refugees, who may (as we learned from Iraq) be more interested in fomenting intervention by the international community than accurately portraying conditions.
posted by iron chef morimoto at 3:30 PM on May 18, 2005

I think it's ok to give them the benefit of the doubt.
posted by Witty at 3:45 PM on May 18, 2005

Granted, I have no idea what the second and third steps are

2) ?

3) Profits!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:03 PM on May 18, 2005

Kim Jong Il is an easy guy to laugh at - as long as you don't live in missile range. The North Korean News Agency is always a hoot, too. How about U. S. Move for Military Supremacy in Asia-Pacific Blasted for example? ;-)) Or Central House for Working-class Education Draws Endless Stream of Visitors? :-))
I find something warming and sincere about their propaganda. It's total, full-on, content-free, one-sided propaganda, and you know it, and they know it, and there's no attempt to hide it. Imagine what a mindf**k it'd be if they were as slick as Fox News! They could have "critical" reports that criticize how little the Dear Leader spends on defence, and "fair and balanced" debates between one guy who wants to kill himself for the Dear Leader, and some other guy who thinks that's insufficiently patriotic ... I wonder how long before Rupert Murdoch sets up a NK operation?!
posted by cleardawn at 4:07 PM on May 18, 2005

Here is a link to an Economist story from 2002 where they actually visited the country for the story (on capitalism mind you).
posted by sety at 4:25 PM on May 18, 2005

Nice post. Very sad.
posted by bardic at 4:28 PM on May 18, 2005

Yes, things got bad without Soviet Union support, but North Korea is such a worthless parasite regime that unlike other USSR addicted regimes, it simply couldn't exist without becoming an international criminal regime. Cuba - bad as it would seem to be - at least became self sufficient in food production now and learned the value of allowing tourism.
posted by zaelic at 4:53 PM on May 18, 2005

Well, there's not really much we can do about it.

I, for one, am going to cup my hands around my mouth, face northwest, and loudly "booo". All are welcome to join.
posted by billysumday at 4:55 PM on May 18, 2005

After all, a couple million dead people and 20 million more hopeless is always good for a laugh, right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:34 PM on May 18, 2005

Stav, do you reckon there'll still be an East Asia by the time I've learned enough Putonghua to get around the mainland?
posted by jfuller at 6:05 PM on May 18, 2005

I'm hoping so.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:09 PM on May 18, 2005

This is an account by an American (I think) grad student studying in South Korea who gets the chance to briefly visit North Korea. The absurdity of it all is hilarious in an almost Brazil-like way, or at least it would be if people weren't actually suffering and dying. It's pretty interesting.
posted by deafmute at 7:54 PM on May 18, 2005

stavros: After a certain level of atrocity, people tend to act silly about it. To quote Eddie Izzard, "Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can't even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that's murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that's what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can't deal with it, you know? Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, 'Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning! I can't even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: 'Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death, lunch; death, death, death - afternoon tea - death, death, death - quick shower…'"
posted by abcde at 8:04 PM on May 18, 2005

... an international criminal regime. Cuba - bad as it would seem to be...

Am I reading that correctly? Cuba as an international bad guy? You'd have to explain that one to me.

(If you're merely talking "in rough shape," I'd have to agree. It'd sure help if trade sanctions were lifted.)
posted by five fresh fish at 9:37 PM on May 18, 2005

You're right abcde, of course. I was just being snarky.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:18 PM on May 18, 2005

5Fish: No, Cuba is not IMHO the bad guy, but it is given the Pariah treatment as such by the US ( not "the West") much as is North Korea. Actually, more so. The renewed sanctions reflect the US' ownn version of Kim Il Jong rationality.
posted by zaelic at 12:30 AM on May 19, 2005