askchapo

I'm by no means an expert but some factors to consider are that there's a very extensive economic sanctions regime in place against the DPRK.

What that looks like on the ground is that there's very little oil because it's hard to import, meaning that there are few cars and a heavy reliance upon mass transit and electricity instead (e.g. trolleybuses).

It also means that they don't have as much access to things like cutting edge medical technology.

For farming, as manufacturing modern agrochemicals is often very energy intensive and reliant upon oil (do we even use the term petrochemicals? Lol. It feels like all of our chemicals are derived from oil these days...), they tend to be much more low-input chemical-wise and this affects yield as well as the environment (e.g. less chemical runoff in the waterways, all things being equal.)

There's the focus on militarisation of the DPRK in the western media and this is a response to the Korean war and the very obvious attempts to destabilise and destroy their political system. Their recent advances in nuclear arms and ICBM technology has given them a degree of breathing room as it's a pretty well established fact that this creates military deterrence that was otherwise being maintained through a very strong focus on a conventional military with a large financial investment in that. These days it's not as high a priority to have such a strong army, for example, and they don't need as much artillery aimed at Seoul to feel some degree of security knowing that nuclear missiles are going to fulfil the same purpose. (Am I cribbing my notes from Stephen Gowans here? You bet I am!) I would expect to see the DPRK gradually scaling down their investment in conventional military and reorienting their economic priorities towards infrastructure and other civilian purposes but I'd expect to see just as much military pageantry because they won't want to expose their flank to the rest of the world unnecessarily. This means we should see better outcomes for the average citizen of the DPRK.

The west is preoccupied with the notion of Potemkin village narratives in the media. Everyone and their dog will point out how some building with no lights on is proof that an entire residential block is just for show or how the passengers on trains in the DPRK all appear to be actors or whatever. This is largely nonsense and a product of westerner tourists coming down with diagnosable cases of Main Character Syndrome and I wouldn't give much credence to these stories. I mean, I've been hearing that China is on the cusp of collapsing for about 25 years now and that it's going to happen within this year for real this time so I'm a bit reticent towards sensationalism in the media. When the media focus on the DPRK, one of the biggest names is Yeonmi Park who talks absolute rubbish. Plenty of what she says is either absurd, contrary to basic science, or easily fact-checked and disproven. Often her stories are not even internally-consistent.

She claimed that she was so propagandised that she didn't recognise that Kim Jong-Un was fat. Like, she couldn't conceptually grasp that he was fat. Not that she wasn't allowed to talk about it or that there was propaganda explaining why but that she would look at a picture of him and she would be unable to see it.

I mean, come on...

Obviously there's the famous Joe Rogan interview where she said that there was one train that ran in the DPRK (completely false), that it would only come once a month (again, completely false), and that people would often have to get off the train and push it (I'm sorry, what??). This is directly after saying that people would hang around the train station starving to death and there would be children who were so starved that all their organs fell out (???) and that rats would eat the corpses of victims of starvation and that people starving at the train station would hunt the rats for food.

If that were true we would have satellite images of it. If that were true people wouldn't stand around starving to death at a train station, they'd be hunting and foraging elsewhere. If everyone was starving so badly then nobody would have the strength to walk, let alone to push a train (which is an absurd amount of weight to try and push regardless of how well nourished you and your fellow passengers are).

I have to admit that I don't follow Yeonmi Park's appearances in the media closely but if she's the leading voice in the western media for what things are like in the DPRK and, at least to my knowledge, no journalist has confronted her about her inconsistencies, her outright fabrications, and her ridiculous claims let alone challenged her on any of them then I'd say that it's a safe bet that the standard for journalism on the DPRK is abysmally low and it should be regarded with deep skepticism.

There are other things like how there's an effective blockade on people from the DPRK leaving to go to other countries. This is something which was passed by the UN Security Council as a part of sanctions on the country, although the received wisdom is usually that it's the DPRK government who imposes this on its citizens.

Same goes for starvation or lack of food. If you look at Security Council resolutions (not that I expect people to do this but...) you'll find the US pushing for outrageous sanctions on things like oil and food imports and you'll have China threatening to veto the resolution because this would cause destabilisation of the DPRK due to the measures being so extremely punitive, meaning that often before the final resolution passes it gets watered down enough that the average citizen of the DPRK isn't facing abject starvation conditions but only because China is curtailing the US' designs. I'd need to dig back into old resolutions to get a clear picture of this but there was the Deng Xiaoping era onwards where China pivoted and began playing ball with the west, in a dramatic departure from the Mao era, and they were not nearly as strong militarily, politically, or economically so I would venture a guess that China being firmer in its negotiations at the Security Council with regards to stuff like the DPRK is a relatively recent shift. But basically any country which is cut off from the rest of the world's agriculture is only one environmental disaster away from starvation. Modern agricultural practices ameliorate this to a certain extent but if your country is cut off from them as well then you're in a precarious position.

But yeah, it's extremely hard to distinguish fact from fiction when it comes to the DPRK and you're not alone in feeling that way. My default position for anything about the DPRK is false until proven true and to be wary of the interpretation of the facts, for example what I mentioned above where it's a function of the UN Security Council resolution that prevents DPRK citizens from travelling abroad rather than some cynical plot by the DPRK government to control the movement of its citizens.