Return to *North Korean Studies*
by Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights
|
|
North and South Korea:Cooperation and Conflicts
Intercultural Institute of
California (IIC)
|
United Nations Press Release, 14 April 2005
(...) The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted five resolutions
and one decision on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms
in any part of the world, including on the situation of human rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. (...)
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.30) on the situation of human rights in the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in
favour to nine against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its
deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave
violations of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention;
sanctions on citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea who had
been repatriated from abroad, such as treating their departure as treason
leading to punishments of internment, torture, inhuman or degrading
treatment or the death penalty; continued violation of the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of women; and that the Government of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea had not accepted the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur. It further expressed its deep concern at the precarious
humanitarian situation in the country, in particular the prevalence of
infant malnutrition.
The Commission strongly urged the Government of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea to address these concerns in an open and constructive
manner, including, among other things, by immediately putting an end to the
systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights; by accepting the
mandate of the Special Rapporteur; by adhering to internationally recognized
labour standards; by cooperating with the United Nations in the field of
human rights; and by ensuring that humanitarian organizations, including
non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, in particular
the World Food Programme, had full, free, safe and unimpeded access to all
parts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Moreover, the Commission requested the international community to continue
to urge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure that
humanitarian assistance, especially food aid, was distributed in accordance
with humanitarian principles; and requested all relevant special procedures
of the United Nations human rights mechanisms to examine alleged human
rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The
Commission also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for
a further year.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (30): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Costa
Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Finland, France, Germany,
Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico,
Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Ukraine,
United Kingdom and United States.
Against (9): China, Cuba, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russian
Federation, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (14): Burkina Faso, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Mauritania,
Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Swaziland
and Togo.
SASHA MEHRA (United States), speaking in a general statement, said the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea was one of the worst human rights
violators in the world. The human rights violations included torture,
arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial killings. An estimated 150,000 persons
were held in detention in various camps around the country. The right to
freedom of movement had been restricted. The delegation of the United States
was concerned about the continued human rights violations by the regime. The
efforts to bring the regime to respect international norms had not been
heeded by the regime. She called the Government of the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea to collaborate with the international community. The
regime was one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a general comment, said Japan was
tabling yet another resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
with the European Union and others, and was not pleased to be doing this,
quite the contrary, as it would have been far better if it had not had to do
this. Agenda item 9 should not be overused, but there was no other choice
when grave human rights violations were taking place, and when the Special
Rapporteur chosen by the Commission was given no access to the country. The
proper attitude of the international community was not to let the suffering
of the people continue. It was the duty of the international community to
let the country concerned know that the situation could not be ignored, and
should be improved drastically and immediately. It was hoped all members of
the Commission shared this view.
RI TCHEUL (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned
country, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically
rejected the present draft resolution, which had been fabricated by hostile
forces and their followers, with the aim of stifling his country. The draft
represented an extreme manifestation of the politicization, selectivity and
double standards that had constantly been rejected in the human rights
sphere. Its fundamental purpose was to overthrow the state system of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The United States had adopted the
so-called "North Korean Human Rights Act" in an attempt to stifle
the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, using human rights as a pretext, in
addition to the nuclear issue. The United States had allocated a huge amount
for its implementation, and was forcing other countries and non-governmental
organizations to join it. The present draft took sides with the United
States in its hostile policy, and aimed to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The selectivity and double standards applied to the human rights sphere
constituted a product of the arbitrariness of western countries, he added.
Instead of condemning crimes against humanity, such as the illegal invasion
of Iraq and the civilian massacres there, the Commission had been reduced to
changing the social systems of independent countries. The targets of the
"name-and-shame" policy were none other than the developing
countries that
pursued independent policies and had ideals different from those of the
West.
The ringleaders of this draft's presentation were Japan and the United
Kingdom, he noted. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had undertaken
a series of human rights discussions with the United Kingdom, and its
sincerity had been repaid with betrayal. That country had even put a senior
official to revealing clumsy and reptilian words and deeds. The United
Kingdom was hell-bent on overthrowing the state system of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea. Moreover, it was ridiculous that Japan had
inserted a provision in the text referring to the abduction case. That
despicable and frantic behaviour had misled many States to believe that
Japan had presented the draft on its own. The Japanese behaviour throughout
the session had given rise to serious concern; Japan had lost its sense of
direction in the world, and there was no need to give Japan a seat in the
six-party talks, if they were resumed in the future. The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea would never tolerate attempts to challenge its social
system, or to infringe its sovereignty and threaten its right to existence.
SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote,
said the Commission should be a forum for respect and not for naming and
shaming. The Government of Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been
faced with a number of difficulties in the past. However, it had been making
efforts to improve the situation, which the international community should
appreciate. The problem of nutrition had been among the areas where the
Government was making efforts to improve. The tabling of the resolutions
would not improve the situation. Such a resolution would not add to the
peninsula's peace and stability. China would vote against draft resolution.
HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea), speaking in an explanation of the vote
before the vote, said that last year when the draft resolution on the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea was tabled, the Republic of Korea had
expressed the hope that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would do
its utmost to raise the standard of human rights of its people. However,
very little progress had been made, and there was deep concern for the human
rights situation in that country. The Government of the Republic of Korea
had been making strenuous efforts to solve the issue, while taking various
measures for confidence-building in a mutually harmonious way in order to
build the relationship between the two countries and build peace and
prosperity. It was against this background that it had again decided to
abstain from voting on the draft resolution. In order to bring about
meaningful improvement in the human rights situation in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, it was important for the international community
to urge the country to improve its situation, but it was equally important
to provide support for the country to do so. It was firmly believed that
combined efforts would eventually result in an improved human rights
situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was hoped that
the country would make sincere efforts to improve its situation by, among
other things, improving dialogue and cooperation with various United Nations
bodies and the international community as a whole.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba would call for a vote, and
would vote against the present draft. It sufficed to look at the co-sponsors
of the draft to realize how the Commission was working now. The prosecutors
of the double standards that plagued the Commission were leading the effort.
Cuba acknowledged the efforts made by the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, which had not had one day of rest or peace to rebuild the country
since its war with the United States. The draft sought solely to bring
pressure to bear on the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea.
Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), 20 April 2005
A "resolution" malignantly slandering the DPRK was adopted at the
61st
meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva recently. In
this regard, a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry released a statement
today declaring that human rights precisely mean national sovereignty and
the DPRK will take a decisive measure against the continued misuse of the
human rights issue as leverage for anti-DPRK hostile campaign.
The DPRK will never recognize the "resolution", which groundlessly
slandered
it over the non-existent "human rights issue", and bitterly and
categorically rejects it as part of the moves of the hostile forces to
isolate and stifle it, the statement noted, and continued:
Like last year's, the recent "resolution" is peppered with poisonous
articles and misinformation some dishonest forces of the world community
have long cooked up to tarnish the image of the system in the DPRK and put
pressure on it. It has reached the acme of politicization and selectivity.
The "resolution" is chiefly aimed to overthrow the system in the
DPRK.
It is well known that the United States has regarded the human rights issue
as well as the nuclear issue as main leverage to escalate the tension in the
Korean Peninsula and isolate and stifle the DPRK.
In its annual "report on human rights situation", the US has
malignantly
slandered the DPRK and other countries. Worse still, it adopted even the
"North Korean Human Rights Act," spending a huge amount of money for
its
anti-DPRK campaign over the human rights issue and plugging its allied
forces and even non-governmental organizations into the campaign.
The adoption of the recent "resolution", too, was one more sinister
hostile
act perpetrated by Western countries including Britain and Japan, which have
zealously joined the US in the moves to stifle the DPRK at its instigation.
It is a politically motivated document, a clear indication of the
high-handed practice of the West keen on applying selectivity and double
standards in dealing with the human rights issues.
What is urgent for resolving the present world human rights issues is quite
clear to everyone.
If the UN Commission on Human Rights is to properly discharge its mission,
it is urgent to focus the debate on the US above all.
The US is chiefly to blame for human rights abuses and crimes against
humanity as it is beset with poor human rights performances at home and has
committed massacres of civilians and maltreatment of POWs in such illegal
wars of aggression as the Iraqi war. Such being hard facts, the recent
meeting mentioned no word about the US, the world's worst violator of human
rights. It only attacked those progressive countries which have
independently advanced contrary to the ideology of the West.
This eloquently proves that the commission allegedly handling human rights
issues in the international arena has miserably played into the hands of
those forces seeking a sinister political purpose in the human rights issue.
The recent adoption of the "resolution" once again proved the truth
that the
human rights precisely mean national sovereignty. For anyone to talk about
national sovereignty and dignity without any strength to protect oneself is
nothing but an empty talk. We are convinced of this through our past history
and our practice today. The DPRK has invariably maintained the principle of
reacting with the toughest stand to anyone who dares slander and provoke it.
Those countries which took the lead in seeking the adoption of the
"resolution" hostile to the DPRK should clearly understand this and
act with
discretion. In particular, we will certainly force Japan to pay for having
brought the already settled "abduction issue" to Geneva for its
inclusion in
the "resolution" and kicked up an anti-DPRK racket.
Japan has not yet made any apology and compensation for the hideous crimes
perpetrated against humanity in the past. It is, therefore, not qualified to
be a leading member of the international community of good virtue and faith,
much less having the face to talk about the human rights issue.
The man-centered socialism in the DPRK under which man is regarded as dearer
than anything else and everything is made to serve him is happy home to its
people as it provides them with genuine freedom and rights.
The US and its allied hostile forces should know that their despicable
anti-DPRK human rights racket is as foolish an act as trying to sweep the
sea with a broom. Such act will only harden the determination of the army
and people of the DPRK to protect their ideology and system at the cost of
their lives.
By Kurt Achin, Voice of America (VOA), 15 April 2005
Human rights activists are sharply criticizing South Korea's decision to
abstain from a United Nations vote on North Korean human rights. The UN vote
sheds light on a key philosophical divide in South Korea about dealing with
the North.
South Korea has abstained for the third year in a row from voting on a
United Nations resolution criticizing North Korea on its human rights
performance. Officials in Seoul say the government declined to vote because
of the special nature of the North-South relationship, and wants to avoid
provoking authorities in Pyongyang.
The resolution, put forward by the European Union, expresses "deep
concern"
about reports of "grave and widespread" abuses in North Korea,
including
torture, imprisonment without trial, human trafficking, and forced
abortions. It passed Thursday by 30 votes to nine in Geneva.
Conservative lawmaker Kim Moon-soo is a vocal critic of Seoul's policy on
North Korean human rights. He calls the decision to abstain from the vote
"shameful and regrettable."
Mr. Kim says North Koreans, who according to the constitution are
automatically citizens of South Korea, deserve better from leaders in Seoul.
South Korea's dominant Uri party, to which President Roh Moo-hyun belongs,
embraces a policy of engagement and reconciliation with the North. Uri
members say the best path to improving North Korean human rights is to bring
about gradual economic transformation in the impoverished country.
Gang Il-huh, of South Korea's Foreign Ministry, says the government has
learned from previous unsuccessful strategies of confrontation with its
Stalinist neighbour. Mr. Gang says the unique relationship between the two
Koreas makes cooperation the best form of leverage for bringing about change
in the North.
Benjamin Yoon of the Seoul group the Citizen's Alliance for North Korean
Human Rights says South Korea should be part of the international momentum
building on the issue. He points out that the European Union and several
other governments have taken the initiative to push the North to improve its
treatment of its people. Mr. Yoon says North Korea would have no reason to
criticize Seoul for backing the resolution within the framework of the UN
Human Rights Commission.
North Korean defector Park Gwang Il is even more outspoken in criticizing
Seoul's policy. In an emotional public appearance recently, Mr. Park asked
whether North Koreans should simply continue to die while South Korea
supports the government of the North's leader, Kim Jong Il. He says he
cannot understand the true nature of the South Korean government.
This is the third time that the 53-member Human Rights Commission has
addressed North Korea's abuses. This year's resolution includes reappointing
Thai law professor Vitit Muntarbhorn as the UN special rapporteur on the
issue.
North Korea rejects Professor Vitit's mandate and has refused him access to
the country. If that does not change in the year ahead, human rights
activists say they hope the UN Security Council or General Assembly will act
on the matter.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, 28 February 2005
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) is a
dictatorship under the absolute rule of Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of
the Korean Workers' Party (KWP). In 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly
reconfirmed Kim as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and
designated that position the "highest office of state." Kim's
father, the
late Kim Il Sung, was declared "eternal president." The titular head
of
state is Kim Yong Nam, the President of the Presidium of the Supreme
People's Assembly. Elections for the 687-member Assembly were held in August
2003. Only the KWP and two small satellite parties participated. The
elections were not free. The Kim family remained the object of an intense
personality cult, and the regime continued to cling to "juche," an
ideology
of extreme self-reliance, even though the population was dependent on
international aid for survival. The judiciary is not independent.
The country is one of the world's most militarized societies. The Korean
People's Army (KPA) continued to overshadow the KWP as Kim Jong Il's chief
instrument for making and implementing policy. The KPA is the primary
organization responsible for external security. A large military reserve
force and several quasi-military organizations, including the Worker-Peasant
Red Guards and the People's Security Force, assist it. In addition, an
omnipresent internal security apparatus includes the Ministry of Public
Security (MPS), the State Security Department, and the KWP. Members of the
security forces have committed numerous serious human rights abuses.
The country's traditional highly centralized and tightly controlled economy
has broken down under the stress of chronic shortages of food and fuel.
Citizens increasingly have sought employment in the informal economy. Most
citizens must supplement limited amounts of government-subsidized rations
with food purchased in markets. Heavy military spending, estimated at
between one-quarter and one-third of gross domestic product, has constrained
and skewed economic development. The country has not taken the steps towards
transparency that would make it eligible for membership in international
financial institutions. Its poor credit rating, stemming from default on its
foreign debt, sharply limited the amount of funds it was able to borrow
commercially. Despite significant inflows of international assistance over
the past decade, harsh economic and political conditions have caused tens of
thousands of persons to flee the country. To stabilize the economy, in July
2002, the Government launched an economic reform that raised wages and
prices, devalued the currency, and gave managers more decision-making
authority. These changes sparked a dramatic rise in inflation and a
quickening of commercial activity but failed to re-energize industrial
growth. The Government permitted an increase in the number of private
vendors to compensate for the contraction of food supplied through the
public distribution system. Corruption appears to be a growing problem as
economic controls loosen.
The Government's human rights record remained extremely poor, and it
continued to commit numerous serious abuses. Citizens did not have the right
to change their government. There continued to be reports of extrajudicial
killings, disappearances, and arbitrary detention, including of many persons
held as political prisoners. Prison conditions were harsh and
life-threatening, and torture reportedly was common. Pregnant female
prisoners reportedly underwent forced abortions, and in other cases babies
reportedly were killed upon birth in prisons. The constitutional provisions
for an independent judiciary and fair trials were not implemented in
practice.
The regime subjected citizens to rigid controls over many aspects of their
lives. In April, the Supreme People's Assembly enacted a new Penal Code.
According to the new Penal Code, capital punishment applied only to
"serious" or "grave" cases of four "anti-state"
and "anti-nation" crimes.
Citizens were denied freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and
association; all forms of cultural and media activities were under the tight
control of the KWP. Little outside information reached the general
population except that which was approved and disseminated by the
Government. The Government restricted freedom of religion, citizens'
movement, and worker rights.
In April, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) called for the
appointment of Special Rapporteur Vitit Muntarbhorn to examine the human
rights conditions in the country, but he was not allowed to visit the
country to carry out his mandate. Although the country accepted meetings
with European Union (EU) and UN officials on human rights issues, the
Government maintained that most international human rights norms,
particularly individual rights, were illegitimate, alien, and subversive to
the goals of the State and Party. There were widespread reports of
trafficking in women and girls among refugees and workers crossing the
border into China. Only government-controlled labour unions are permitted.
(...)
Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), 5 April 2005
Some days ago, the US State Department slandered the DPRK again in its
"2004-2005 report on US efforts for human rights and democracy." In
this
regard, Rodong Sinmun Tuesday in a signed commentary says: The US dared talk
this or that about issues of "human rights" and
"democracy" in the DPRK,
falsifying truth. This is an unbearable insult to the Korean people, an
outrageous interference in their internal affairs and a blatant challenge to
justice.
The US is the most repressive society in the world. Citing concrete facts to
prove that the US has mercilessly cracked down upon and arrested all forms
of socio-political activities of the people by fascistizing its ruling
system and inhumanely abused and punished prisoners in various parts of the
world, the commentary goes on:
The US is a crude violator of human rights and a strangler of freedom and
democracy. The ulterior aim sought by the US in vociferating about the
"improvement of human rights and democracy" is to realize its
ambition for
world domination and its immediate purpose is to bring down the anti-US
independent countries. In a word, the US seeks to tarnish the image of the
above-said countries and isolate them internationally under the pretexts of
the issues of "human rights" and "democracy" and instigate
the
counterrevolutionary elements to stoke the social confusion and discontent
in a bid to force those countries to change their regimes.
The spearhead of its operation is directed to the DPRK. Much upset by the
might of the DPRK, the Bush forces even adopted the "North Korean Human
Rights Act" aimed at "overturning its regime" in a bid to
escalate their
criminal human rights offensive against the DPRK The US should abandon its
shameless sinister intention to overthrow the anti-US independent countries
and achieve its ambition for world domination under the signboard of the
"improvement of human rights and democracy."
ARCHIVE: