Embassies of western countries in the global south are dens of spies and centers for fomenting subversive activity against the host state. US embassies are especially dangerous - the US embassy in Iraq for instance pretty much runs the country and is basically a big military base - and not far behind are UK, French and German ones. All that their “diplomats” do is blackmail and threaten other countries’ officials to do what they want, and if they still don’t obey they will create and prop up opposition groups to remove the un-cooperative government. They should be treated by global south countries no differently than western NGOs and western media, which are also dangerous and hostile to independent global south governments - as a profound threat to sovereignty and national security.
So what’s takes the place of an embassy for the case of the population?
Or are you suggesting that no citizen in the global north or south will ever need a visa, wish to immigrate/emigrate, study internationally, preform business of any sort, pay taxes overseas, renew documents, get a work visa, or any of the hundreds of functions of an embassy???
Also the DPRK still allows foreign embassies, they funnily enough have a Swedish embassy in Pyongyang.
Also all those things you say that governments can do has already been done since the beginning of time with or without an embassy. I’m not saying they don’t do shitty things, but do you really think the CIA is going to implode if all embassies ceased to exist?
I think it’s worth noting that the burning of the embassy was not due to Sweden’s inappropriate relationship with global south countries and was rather due to the offense caused by these actions
How would you know the inner workings of embassies in the DPRK? You know absolutely nothing about how those apparti work and are simply spouting lines that sound nice because they align with what you want to believe, not what you know in reality.
Also what workarounds? Are you telling me that the average citizen in Guatemala, the US, South Africa, Iraq, Australia, China, or France has the ability to somehow work around the problems your disaster of a situation would create in the same manner that an International Intelligence Agency would???
Please detail how this plan would end in anything other then a disaster for everyone involved???
You do realize that there was a time for before embassies correct? And that embassies were created to avoid the long list of problems that exist when one of them doesn’t exist?
Also the legitimate functions far outweigh your ideas of spies and saboteurs, and they can be mitigated without the elimination of a vital service that would directly negatively impact the regular citizenry of nations.
Embassies of western countries in the global south are dens of spies and centers for fomenting subversive activity against the host state. US embassies are especially dangerous - the US embassy in Iraq for instance pretty much runs the country and is basically a big military base - and not far behind are UK, French and German ones. All that their “diplomats” do is blackmail and threaten other countries’ officials to do what they want, and if they still don’t obey they will create and prop up opposition groups to remove the un-cooperative government. They should be treated by global south countries no differently than western NGOs and western media, which are also dangerous and hostile to independent global south governments - as a profound threat to sovereignty and national security.
So what’s takes the place of an embassy for the case of the population?
Or are you suggesting that no citizen in the global north or south will ever need a visa, wish to immigrate/emigrate, study internationally, preform business of any sort, pay taxes overseas, renew documents, get a work visa, or any of the hundreds of functions of an embassy???
Also the DPRK still allows foreign embassies, they funnily enough have a Swedish embassy in Pyongyang.
Also all those things you say that governments can do has already been done since the beginning of time with or without an embassy. I’m not saying they don’t do shitty things, but do you really think the CIA is going to implode if all embassies ceased to exist?
deleted by creator
I think it’s worth noting that the burning of the embassy was not due to Sweden’s inappropriate relationship with global south countries and was rather due to the offense caused by these actions
deleted by creator
How would you know the inner workings of embassies in the DPRK? You know absolutely nothing about how those apparti work and are simply spouting lines that sound nice because they align with what you want to believe, not what you know in reality.
Also what workarounds? Are you telling me that the average citizen in Guatemala, the US, South Africa, Iraq, Australia, China, or France has the ability to somehow work around the problems your disaster of a situation would create in the same manner that an International Intelligence Agency would???
Please detail how this plan would end in anything other then a disaster for everyone involved???
You do realize that there was a time for before embassies correct? And that embassies were created to avoid the long list of problems that exist when one of them doesn’t exist?
Also the legitimate functions far outweigh your ideas of spies and saboteurs, and they can be mitigated without the elimination of a vital service that would directly negatively impact the regular citizenry of nations.