March 29, 2013

Young, Reckless Leaders: History Repeats Itself in North Korea


By Hyun In-ae, HRNK Resident Fellow
Edited by Rosa Park and Matthew Parsons
Translated by Gyeore Lee and Yongsun Jin

Hyun In-ae is Resident Fellow, Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK). Ms. Hyun graduated from Kim Il-sung University with a degree in philosophy. A former professor of philosophy in North Korea, she is currently Assistant Representative of the Seoul-based NK Intellectual Solidarity (NKIS).

Since North Korea threatened to launch what it called a “preemptive nuclear strike” against South Korea, the international community has been extremely concerned. However, South Korea, the target of North Korea’s provocations, is actually quieter than expected. Despite the stock market‘s momentary fluctuation, it has stabilized and there are no reports of terrified citizens stockpiling ramen noodles. On the other hand, it is reported in North Korea that cars drive with camouflage netting on top, and people worry about the possibility of a nuclear strike on Pyongyang. Many North Koreans fear that war could break out again at any moment.

I can’t help but recall the year 1976, when the circumstances were not much different. Back then, I was an undergraduate taking a field trip to Mt. Baek-du1 that was deemed a mandatory component of the university’s liberal arts curriculum. For the program, students explore the revolutionary battlefields against Japanese imperialism in Yanggang Province to experience the past lives and exploits of the guerrilla units. When we reached the campsite in Hyesan, a visiting university administrator called the names of eight of our classmates, and then took them away. We all wondered: Why were they taken back? Some speculated that they had been called to the colors, or that they may have been expelled from school. We were confused. However, I didn’t have enough energy to think about it any longer because I was exhausted due to the harrowing 40 km daily march, in addition to having to prepare my own meals. Thus, I completed the field trip without much additional thought and returned to downtown Hyesan. To my surprise, the streets were dark at night due to blackouts, and cars drove with tree branches and camouflage netting on top. The scene was reminiscent of war films. It turned out that we were on the brink of war because of the axe murder incident2  in the Joint Security Area (JSA) in Panmunjom3.

Upon my return to Pyongyang, I learned that the classmates whom the instructor recalled were not summoned for war, but were expelled from school. According to the songbun social classification system, their ancestries were “bad.” Moreover, professors born in South Korea were also expelled and banished to the countryside4.  The situation at that time was chaotic because many citizens were being expelled to rural areas. Authorities officially reported that this migration to the countryside was in preparation for war. What was going on? Many undergraduates volunteered for military service and joined the army.

At the time, I did not know what was happening. Over time, I realized that the scene I had witnessed was just one fragment of history: Kim Jong-il’s ascension to the throne.

Kim Jong-un began his succession just as Kim Jong-il had. These days, North Korea bears many similarities to the North Korea I experienced in the mid to late 1970s. The “150-Day Battle” and “100-Day Battle” mass mobilization campaigns of 2009 reminded me of the “70-Day Battle” in the 1970s5.  Kim Jong-un’s interest in gymnastics mirrors Kim Jong-il’s interest in literature and the performing arts. Recent meetings of party cell secretaries were Kim Jong-un’s “reloaded” version of Kim Jong-il’s Party activists’ training. Also, Three-Revolution Team Movement rallies have been recently held; it is well known that the Three-Revolution Team Movement played a crucial role as Kim Jong-il’s political base. Kim Jong-il’s appearance at the 35th anniversary of the party’s founding was a tremendous event; likewise, Kim Jong-un also held a Party delegates’ conference.

History repeats itself: Kim Jong-un is not a creative man—he is a mere imitator of his father.

Military provocations are Kim Jong-un’s best crafted imitations. One of Kim Jong-il’s most serious military provocations was the axe murder incident of August 1976 in Panmunjom. Some analysts attribute this provocation to one commander’s attempt to gain attention. However, this is a misjudgment denoting failure to grasp the true nature of the North Korean system. In North Korea, all power is concentrated in the top leadership, especially in the suryung, the leader. When one is perceived as going astray, the punishment is merciless. Due to the situation, North Koreans in uniform often miss opportunities to engage in problem solving, waiting for orders to be passed on down the chain of command. Therefore, it is absurd to think that the axe murder incident could have occurred because of one commander’s emotional outburst. An incident of this gravity would have been possible only if orders were issued from above. The incident was certainly planned by the central authorities and Kim Jong-il. At that time, rumors circulated that Kim Jong-il did this without reporting to Kim Il-sung, who criticized his son and took steps to deal with the aftermath of the incident.

Right after the incident in Panmunjom, U.S. and ROK forces mounted Operation Bunyan6.  Two and a half hours later, KPA General Han Ju-kyong delivered to the UNC a letter handwritten by Kim Il-sung expressing regret for the axe killings. This was the first apology from North Korea in the 23 years that had passed since the 1953 armistice.

Extreme action is often a symptom of immaturity. Kim Il-sung decided to start the Korean War as soon as he gained power even though he was only in his thirties. Similarly, Kim Jong-il planned the axe murders in his thirties due to his great ambition to prove himself. Kim Jong-un is even younger. He has boldly provoked South Korea over and over again, pushing ahead with the sinking of the Cheonan7,  the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island8,   nuclear tests, ballistic missile launches, and threats of preemptive nuclear strikes. His two predecessors did not provoke South Korea as frequently.

Kim Il-sung might have learned a bitter lesson from the devastating war provoked by his immaturity. Could Kim Il-sung’s deft handling of the axe murders and the nuclear crisis of the early 1990s be the result of these harsh lessons? Kim Il-sung seemed to understand and respect the might of the United States. Even Kim Jong-Il experienced the war, even though he was young9.  In addition, for more than two decades, while he was preparing to assume power, Kim Il-sung was right beside him10.

In contrast, Kim Jong-un has never experienced war. He is young, reckless and aggressive. North Korea is in dire straits today, less prepared for war than it once was. Nevertheless, Kim Jong-un is overly confident after having masterminded the attacks on the ROKS Cheonan and Yeonpyeong Island. Additionally, there is no Kim Il-sung-like figure next to him.

Misconception and miscalculation have often led to war. This could include misconceptions about the enemy’s military abilities and hostility towards neighboring countries. What sort of misconceptions does Kim Jong-un have now? Responses by the international community should urge Kim Jong-un to correct his misconceptions, engage in self-reflection and exercise self-restraint.

Notes:
1. Mt. Baekdu is a landmark of Korean culture and history. Legend has it that the mountain is the very point of origin of ancient Korea.
2. The axe murder incident occurred in the Joint Security Area (JSA) between the two Koreas. Two U.S. servicemen, Captain Bonifas and Lieutenant Barrett were killed, and several others wounded when they were brutally attacked by about 35 KPA soldiers while attempting to trim trees blocking the view between a United Nations Command (UNC) check point and an observation post.
3. The Joint Security Area (JSA) is located in the de-militarized zone (DMZ) on the 38th parallel between North Korea and South Korea. In this area alone, soldiers of both the North and the South stand facing one another. The JSA is a landmark for historic diplomatic negotiations, particularly the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement.
4. Being relocated from Pyongyang to the countryside is an indicator of social demotion because of the conditions in the countryside. Pyongyang is the capital city, where amenities exist and at least some of the people’s needs are met. In the countryside, conditions are more severe than in any major city. The people are merely struggling to survive, and continue to live on the brink of starvation.
5. These mass mobilization campaigns were in response to the goals set forth by North Korea’s leadership towards the accomplishment of a “strong and prosperous” nation by the April 15, 2012 centennial celebration of Kim Il-sung’s birthday.
6. Operation Bunyan, a massive show of force by U.S. and ROK troops ensured that the tree left standing after the axe murder incident was removed.
7. The sinking of the Cheonan ship occurred on March 26, 2010 in the Yellow Sea. An international investigation revealed that the sinking was the result of a North Korean torpedo fired from a submarine. There were forty casualties in this attack.
8. The North Korean artillery fire at Yeonpyeong Island occurred on November 23, 2010. South Korea responded by firing back and this event is considered the most serious conflict between the two Koreas post-Korean War. There were four casualties and nineteen people were injured.
9. Kim Jong-il was 9-10 years old (his date of birth is still disputed) when the Korean War broke out in 1950 and ended in 1953.
10. Kim Jong-il did not become the ruler of North Korea until his father’s death. However, the power transfer began in the 1970s, giving him more than a decade to establish control. He was established as the “Dear Leader” in 1980.
Categories:

March 22, 2013

North Korea Faces Heightened Human Rights Scrutiny

By Roberta Cohen
Originally posted on 38 North on March 21, 2013.


On March 21, 2013 the United Nations Human Rights Council, a body of 47 states, adopted by consensus a resolution to establish a commission of inquiry (COI) into North Korea’s “systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights.” The commission is to be composed of three experts who will intensively investigate for a period of one year the human rights violations perpetrated by North Korea’s government with a view to ensuring “full accountability, in particular where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity” [emphasis added].

The establishment of the commission reflects long overdue recognition that a human rights ‘emergency’ exists in North Korea. Commissions of inquiry at the United Nations have mainly been directed at situations like Syria, Darfur or Libya where conflicts, atrocities and destruction are clearly visible and in the headlines. Adding North Korea to the list suggests a new look at what a human rights crisis might be. In contrast to other situations, North Korea has always managed to hide its crimes. Most prison camps are in remote mountain areas, access to the country is barred to human rights groups, and rigid internal controls make it impossible for anyone who does manage to visit to talk with North Koreans about human rights. Indeed, the lack of access and the UN’s inability to form an “independent diagnosis” of the situation has long contributed to the reluctance of its senior officials to speak out strongly about North Korea. Even the US State Department’s human rights report for 2011, published in 2012, contained the caveat that no one can “assess fully human rights conditions or confirm reported abuses” in North Korea.

The change in attitude also reflects an international willingness to move beyond mere censure in addressing North Korea’s human rights violations. For more than eight years, the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council have adopted annual resolutions expressing “very serious concern” at North Korea’s systematic, widespread and grave violations. Now, the international community is viewing North Korea’s violations as possible crimes against humanity for which North Korean leaders could be held accountable. Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, declared for the first time in 2013 that North Korea’s “rampant” violations “may amount to crimes against humanity.” And in his report to the Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, Marzuki Darusman, identified nine specific areas where North Korea might be committing crimes against humanity. These include: food policies leading to starvation; prison camps; arbitrary detention; the use of torture and inhuman treatment; enforced disappearances and abductions; policies of discrimination; and violations of freedom of expression and movement, and of the right to life through executions and extensive use of the death penalty.

According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, crimes against humanity are among the most severe human rights violations, constituting one of the four core international crimes (in addition to war crimes, genocide and the crime of aggression). Murder, enslavement, unlawful imprisonment, torture, sexual violence and disappearance are considered crimes against humanity when they are perpetrated as part of “a widespread or systematic attack” against the civilian population.

Since 2006, non-governmental organizations have argued that North Korea’s human rights violations constitute crimes against humanity. Now for the first time, senior UN officials and many governments are beginning to view North Korea’s violations as possible international crimes as well.

Testimony of Former Prisoners

One reason for the change in attitude is the testimony of prison camp survivors. Among the 25,000 North Koreans who have made their way to South Korea over the past decade, hundreds have been former prisoners and have come forward to give their accounts. Published and well disseminated in the West, they have created a stir. One of the first was The Aquariums of Pyongyang by Kang Chol Hwan and Pierre Rigoulot which described former prisoner Kang’s 10 year experience in a camp. Published in France in 2000, the account is credited with having influenced the French government to press the UN Commission on Human Rights (predecessor to the Human Rights Council) to adopt its first resolution on human rights in North Korea in 2003. The following year, after President Bush read the book and met with Kang, the US gave its strong support to the establishment of a UN special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea.

Drawing on the testimony of prison camp survivors, David Hawk wrote the first in depth study of the prison labor camp system in 2003, Hidden Gulag, published by the Washington-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. The updated version in 2012 contained the accounts of 60 former prisoners and prison guards. Most instructive was that the accumulated accounts began to corroborate one another, giving them a ‘factual’ basis even though there was no direct access to the country or its prisons. And the testimonies were reinforced by satellite imagery from Google Earth and by prisoners’ drawings, making them far more difficult to dismiss. As a result, North Korea’s denial of the camps and dismissal of victims’ accounts as the “unfounded” falsehoods of defectors seeking to betray their country increasingly failed to persuade.

The book Escape from Camp 14 by Washington Post reporter Blaine Harden attracted extensive publicity in 2012 and is said to have encouraged officials inside the UN to press for the commission of inquiry. Navi Pillay was reportedly moved when she met with Shin Dong Hyuk, the subject of the book, and another survivor. In simple but powerful prose, the book describes the experiences of Shin who was born in the camps and who has been going from country to country with the book, now translated into a number of languages, to tell what was done to him by the prison camp system.

By speaking out, North Korea’s former prisoners regularly put themselves at risk and also may jeopardize their family members, colleagues and friends left behind. (Both Shin and Kang have enlisted the help of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to assist them in finding out information about their father and sister, respectively.) To reduce the number of North Koreans telling their stories, Pyongyang has been intensely cracking down at its border with China to prevent North Koreans’ departure for the South. The total number of North Koreans who have reached South Korea in 2012 was 1,509, about half the number from the year before. But North Koreans continue to come forward, using their only weapon against the regime—information.

Patience Wears Thin

Another reason for the commission of inquiry is that the international community reached a limit in its patience for tolerating North Korea’s failure to cooperate with the UN in the human rights area. For ten years the High Commissioner for Human Rights has tried to establish a dialogue with the North Korean government and develop technical cooperation agreements—an arrangement the Office has with more than 50 governments. But year after year, Pyongyang failed to cooperate. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon even instructed his Special Envoy to Pyongyang in 2010 to urge North Korea to cooperate with the High Commissioner. But by 2013, High Commissioner Pillay announced, “I don’t think the world should stand by and see this kind of situation, which is not improving at all.” “For years now,” she said, “the Government of DPRK has persistently refused to cooperate with successive Special Rapporteurs…or with my Office.” She waited, she said until after Kim Jong Un took over from his father in 2011, but when no reforms were forthcoming, she decided to take a “firmer step.” UN General Assembly resolutions similarly expressed concern with North Korea’s failure to cooperate with the High Commissioner, the Special Rapporteur and the UN’s Universal Periodic Review of North Korea. The UN, it can be said, reached a tipping point, perhaps abetted by North Korea’s rocket and nuclear tests and continued provocative threats.

Although North Korea has claimed that the commission of inquiry is part of a “political plot” of “hostile forces, it is noteworthy that those in the forefront of the UN system in support of the commission are not Westerners. High Commissioner Pillay, the senior most UN official to publicly call for the commission, is a South African of Indian origin. Marzuki Darusman, the Special Rapporteur, who issued the 2012 report which served as the foundation for the call, was the former Attorney General of Indonesia. He built on the work of his predecessor, Thai law Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn, in telling the Human Rights Council that “the violations in the DPRK have reached a critical mass,” and that “many, if not all, of the nine patterns of violation, identified in my present report, may amount to crimes against humanity.” Although North Korea calls the material on which the report is based “faked,”  the report issued by Darusman is well documented, lawyerly and based on considerable research, as could be seen from the annexes to the text.

Other parts of the UN human rights system have joined in to express support for the commission of inquiry. Drawn from countries like Argentina, Senegal and South Africa, the UN’s independent experts on torture, arbitrary detention, disappearances and extrajudicial executions issued a joint statement together with Darusman endorsing an international inquiry. This joint action on behalf of the commission occurred after the rapporteurs received no response from North Korea to a query they made about the prison labor system.

Most significantly, governmental support has increased for bringing North Koreato account. When the UN General Assembly first adopted a resolution on North Korea’s human rights situation in 2005, 88 states voted for the resolution. By 2011, the number of states supporting the resolution had gone up to 123. In 2012, the 193-member General Assembly adopted the resolution by consensus, that is, without a vote, with states like China, Cuba and Venezuela comprising a minority who disassociated themselves from the text after its adoption. Last year, the Human Rights Council also adopted its annual human rights resolution onNorth Korea by consensus, suggesting the development of a greater unanimity aboutNorth Korea’s human rights record. At this session, the resolution creating a commission of inquiry was adopted by consensus.

Another strong player which North Korea must reckon with is an NGO coalition of more than 40 organizations. In 2011, the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity (ICNK) in North Korea was formed. ICNK has lobbied governments, published opeds, and worked the corridors at the UN to press for the creation of a commission of inquiry. Although NGOs can be competitive and even undercut each other’s work, the more than 40 groups that have banded together have shown remarkable unity and effectiveness. The coalition includes the major international human rights NGOs as well as groups from a variety of Asian and other countries. It is now heavily invested in the success of the commission’s work.

Indeed, a worldwide effort will be needed to help bring forward information to the commission so that it can produce the best and most well documented report. The Council’s resolution calls upon UN specialized agencies, regional bodies, UN rapporteurs, experts and NGOs to cooperate with the commission. But governments should be expected to cooperate as well, in particular to provide relevant information, sometimes on a confidential basis, including satellite information that might be more precise than what is currently available to NGOs.

An Overall Strategy

The commission of inquiry should not be seen as an end in itself but rather as part of a larger strategy to promote human rights inNorth Korea. A strategic plan should be developed and led by the Secretary-General together with the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It should have definite goals like achieving a dialogue with North Korea; disseminating to its schools, government offices and institutions Korean translations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; gaining international access to the penal labor camps; bringing an end to the prison system and forced labor; and allowing freedom of movement for North Koreans across borders. A strategic plan would bring together the myriad UN offices and agencies involved with North Korea, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Development Program, the International Labor Organization, the UN Department of Public Information, UNESCO, the World Food Program and other humanitarian organizations so that the entire system can be tapped and work together. Humanitarian groups in particular should be consulted about causes of starvation in the country and access to those in need. They should be reminded that “the most vulnerable” in the population include the 100,000 to 200,000 political prisoners held in camps on starvation rations. In sum, a comprehensive strategy needs to be developed.

The New Human Rights Landscape

Admittedly, heightened international scrutiny of North Korea’s human rights record may have little impact on the ground in the short term. It is likely North Korea will continue to defy efforts by the UN to establish dialogue and technical assistance programs. It may even crack down harder against its population and those seeking to flee across the border. But over the longer term, the growing number of states, including those from developing countries, as well as UN officials, experts and NGOs arrayed against North Koreabecause of its human rights record may give some North Koreans pause, especially since efforts will be made by UN officials to identify individuals and institutions to hold accountable in future. Moreover, the states which North Korea might turn to for talks and aid will be influenced as well. The United States, for example, long has separated its human rights concerns from its political and nuclear relationships with North Korea, but it also has felt pressured by the strong publicity coming out about the human rights situation. Glyn Davies, the Special Representative for North Korea Policy told the Senate on March 7, 2013, that “U.S.-DPRK relations cannot fundamentally improve without sustained improvement in inter-Korean relations and human rights” [emphasis added]. This perhaps suggests the beginnings of a more integrated policy on the part of theUS for dealing with North Korea. It is to be hoped that the idea will spread to other countries as well.

Even North Korea’s principal ally China is reported to be growing uncomfortable with the regime’s provocations and excesses. Although China has remained for the most part steadfast in its support of North Korea, North Korean officials can themselves read in the press that questions are arising in China about its policies in support of North Korea. One article even pointed to public concerns in China about its own labor camps and whether they should be closed.

It is not easy to predict when change will come. It was not foreseen that the Berlin Wall would fall when it did, that the Soviet Union would collapse, and that reforms would take place in Arab countries. But bringing down the information wall around North Korea and exposing its crimes against humanity may in time lead to change.
Categories:

March 21, 2013

ICNK Welcomes the Establishment of a UN Commission of Inquiry

HRNK has been a member of the International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK) since October 2011. Together with ICNK partners, HRNK has been actively involved in efforts to establish a UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korean Human Rights. HRNK was also the first organization to propose the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, in our 2006 report "Failure to Protect."


(Tokyo, March 22, 2013) - The International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK) today welcomes the establishment of a special, three-person UN Commission of Inquiry to examine rights abuses in North Korea by the UN Human Rights Council at its 22nd session.

The ICNK has campaigned since its founding to see the establishment of such a commission of inquiry (COI).  This is a historical step towards ensuring accountability for human rights abuses in North Korea. The COI will give all the victims of human rights abuses in North Korea an opportunity to ensure their voices, and their experiences, reach decision-makers in the UN and the international arena.  In this way, the COI will serve as an entry point to ensure that North Korea’s human rights record – and the issue of accountability for those abuses -- will be increasingly placed at the core of the international community’s approach vis-à-vis North Korea. For families of foreign nationals abducted and forced to North Korea, the Commission will offer an opportunity to demand the return of their loved ones.

The ICNK believes that the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, with the leadership of the current UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, represents a critical turning point in international efforts to promote and improve North Korean human rights. The UN will appoint two additional independent experts of significant stature to join Darusman in carrying out an in-depth investigation of egregious human rights violations committed by the North Korean government.

The ICNK in particular would like to express our great appreciation for Japan’s commitment to promoting the creation of this commission of inquiry.  Japan played a crucial early role in persuading other key countries, including member states of the EU, South Korea, and the USA to support creation of the commission.  A number of EU member states also played leading roles in making this commission a reality.  As the sponsors of the resolution noted in Geneva during passage of the DPRK resolution establishing the commission, North Korea’s regime will now be under greater pressure than ever to account for its extensive human rights violations.

As defined by the resolution on North Korea, the Commission of Inquiry will have a mandate to “investigate all systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”  The resolution made particular note of “the use of torture and labour camps against political prisoners and repatriated citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and “the unresolved questions of international concern relating to abductions of nationals of other states.” The resolution empowers the commission to undertake a one-year investigation into the “violation of the right to food, the violations associated with prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary detention, discrimination, violations of freedom of expression, violations of the right to life, violations of freedom of movement, and enforced disappearances, including in the form of abductions of nationals of other states, with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity.”

The commission will report to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, and will be tasked to examine the issue of accountability for any crimes against humanity and other rights violations it finds.

The persisting deterioration of the human rights violation in the DPRK and the systematic non-cooperation of North Korea with the UN human rights mechanisms – including a refusal to acknowledge or cooperate with the UN special rapporteur, or recognize UN resolutions on North Korean human rights – make the setting up of this new mechanism particularly timely.

Part of the problem is not only the seriousness of the violations but the lack of information about them. The COI is expected to provide more detailed figures showing the number of prisoners who are still in the political camps and the number of persons who have been released. By collecting the testimonies of victims, their families, survivors and witnesses and gathering all other available information, the Commission should  produce a highly  authoritative account on the patterns of abuse in North Korea that can inform further future actions towards accountability.

The Commission’s work will represent an important step forward in the legal analysis on the abuses committed by the North Korean Government, looking at both institutional and personal accountability, in particular if evidence is gathered which proves that crimes against humanity have been committed in the DPRK.

The ICNK firmly believe that the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry represents a great opportunity to initiate a process aiming not only at the promotion but also at the protection of human rights in North Korea, and we sincerely look forward to working with the commissioners as the COI undertakes its important work.

For comment from ICNK members:
Seoul: Eunkyoung Kwon, Open Radio for North Korea & Secretariat to the Coalition (Korean, English): +82-17-508-8815 (mobile); or kekyoung@gmail.com

Tokyo: Kanae Doi, Human Rights Watch (Japanese, English): 03-5282-5162;
090-2301-4372 (mobile); or doik@hrw.org

London: Benedict Rogers, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (English): +44-7919-
030575; or ben@csw.org.uk

Bangkok: Phil Robertson, Human Rights Watch (English, Thai): +66-85-060-8406
(mobile); or robertp@hrw.org

Paris: Arthur Manet/ Audrey Couprie, International Federation for Human Rights
(French, English, Spanish, Portuguese) + 33-6-7228-4294; +33-6-4805-9157

Members and supporters of the Coalition include:
Advocates International Global Council
Amnesty International
Asia Justice and Rights
Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances
Asian Human Rights & Humanity Association of Japan
Burma Partnership (Thailand)
Christian Lawyers Association for Paraguay
Christian Solidarity Worldwide
Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (USA)
Conectas (Brazil)
Council for Human Rights in North Korea (Canada)
Freedom House (USA)
Free NK Gulag (ROK)
Free North Korea Radio (ROK)
Han Voice (Canada)
HH Katacombs (ROK)
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Without Frontiers (Belgium)
Inter-American Federation of Christian Lawyers
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
COMJAN (Investigation Commission on Missing Japanese Probably
Related to North Korea)(Japan)
Japanese Lawyers Association for Abduction and Other Human
Rights Issues in North Korea
Jubilee Campaign (USA)
Justice for North Korea (ROK)
Kontras (Indonesia)
Liberty in North Korea - LiNK (USA)
Life Funds for North Korean Refugees (Japan)
Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights (ROK)
NK Intellectual Solidarity (ROK)
No Fence (Japan)
North Korea Freedom Coalition
Odhikar (Bangladesh)
Open North Korea (ROK)
People In Need (Czech Republic)
PSALT NK (Prayer Service Action Love Truth for North Korea)
The Simon Wiesenthal Center (USA)
The Society to Help Returnees to North Korea (Japan)
Students Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea (ROK)
World Without Genocide (USA)
Young Defectors' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (ROK)
Yuki Akimoto, Burmainfo (Japan)
Tomoharu Ebihara
David Hawk, Visiting Scholar, Columbia University, Institute for the Study of Human Rights, and author of Hidden Gulag
Ken Kato, Director, Human Rights in Asia (Japan)
Tomoyuki Kawazoe, Representative, Kanagawa Association for The
Rescue of Japanese Kidnapped by North Korea / Member,
Reporters Without Borders
Suzanne Scholte, Seoul Peace Prize Recipient & Defense Forum Foundation (USA)
Dr. Norbert Vollertsen
Categories:

HRNK hacked in broader South Korea cyberattack

The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) website was hacked on March 20th as part of a broader, suspected North Korean cyberattack targeting South Korean banks and news stations.

"Hacked Bye Hitman007::::The Kingdom of morocco" 
South Korea: Chinese Address Source Of Attack 
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A Chinese Internet address was the source of a cyberattack on one company hit in a massive network shutdown that affected 32,000 computers at six banks and media companies in South Korea, initial findings indicated Thursday.
It's too early to assign blame — Internet addresses can easily be manipulated and the investigation could take weeks — but suspicion for Wednesday's shutdown quickly fell on North Korea, which has threatened Seoul and Washington with attack in recent days because of anger over U.N. sanctions imposed for its Feb. 12 nuclear test.
South Korean regulators said they believe the attacks came from a "single organization," but they've still not finished investigating what happened at the other companies.
Experts say hackers often attack via computers in other countries to hide their identities. South Korea has previously accused North Korean hackers of using Chinese addresses to infect their networks.
(Read more
Source: NPR, Twin Cities 
Website of North Korea human rights group also hacked
The website of a U.S. group focused on human rights in North Korea was hacked at the same time as a cyberattack on South Korean targets on Wednesday.
Only the website was affected and 'Hitman 007-Kingdom of Morocco' was superimposed on a photo of a political prison camp in North Korea, usually posted on the website, said Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) in Washington, D.C.
Publications, biodata of the committee's board and staff, and other relevant information were also taken down from the website, and replaced with a "Hitman 007" poster, Scarlatoiu said via email on Wednesday.
[...]
HRNK said it has not identified the source of the attack on its website yet. "We have been able to restore our website, but are still working on changing the coding, and will be unable to post new content for a while," Scarlatoiu said. "We will also do our best to retrieve server logs and pinpoint the origin of the attack."
The attacks, however, occurred the day before the UN Human Rights Council votes on a resolution to establish a Commission of Inquiry on North Korean Human Rights, leading Scarlatoiu to conjecture that it would "not be unreasonable to assume that the entity that originated the attack could have been related to North Korea."
HRNK was the first organization to propose the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry in its 2006 report, called 'Failure to Protect,' he said.
The group has been targeted recently through several email attempts. "These were carefully crafted messages, drafted in fairly decent English, looking almost legit," Scarlatoiu said. "It was all about opening attachments, and fortunately we knew better than doing just that."
 (Read more)
 Source: IDG News Service
Initial investigation links Chinese address to SKorea cyberattack; experts suspect North Korea
SEOUL, South Korea — Investigators have traced a coordinated cyberattack that paralyzed tens of thousands of computers at six South Korean banks and media companies to a Chinese Internet Protocol address, but it was still unclear who orchestrated the attack, authorities in Seoul said Thursday.
The discovery did not erase suspicions that North Korea was to blame. An IP address can provide an important clue as to the location of an Internet-connected computer but can easily be manipulated by hackers operating anywhere in the world. The investigation into Wednesday’s attack could take weeks.
By Thursday, only one of the six targets, Shinhan Bank, was back online and operating regularly. It could be next week before the other companies have fully recovered.
North Korea has threatened Seoul and Washington in recent days over U.N. sanctions imposed for its Feb. 12 nuclear test, and over ongoing U.S.-South Korean military drills. It also threatened revenge after blaming Seoul and Washington for an Internet shutdown that disrupted its own network last week.
(Read more
Source: Washington Post
South Korea: Chinese address source of attack 
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA (AP) - Investigators have traced a coordinated cyberattack that paralyzed tens of thousands of computers at six South Korean banks and media companies to a Chinese Internet Protocol address, authorities in Seoul said Thursday.
IP addresses, which are unique to each computer connected to the Internet, can easily be manipulated by hackers operating anywhere in the world, and the investigation into who was actually behind Wednesday’s attack and whether they were in China could take weeks. Suspicion for the simultaneous shutdown is still focused on North Korea, which has threatened Seoul and Washington in recent days over U.N. sanctions imposed for its Feb. 12 nuclear test and is accused of waging similar cyberattacks over the past four years.
The cyberattack did not affect the government or military, and there were no immediate reports that customers’ bank records were compromised. But it disabled scores of cash machines across the country, disrupting commerce in this tech-savvy, Internet-dependent country, and renewed questions about South Korea’s Internet security and vulnerability to hackers. 
(Read more
Source: Washington Times 
 U.S.-based civic group on N. Korea under cyberattack
WASHINGTON, March 20 (Yonhap) -- A major U.S. civilian organization campaigning to improve North Korea's human rights record has come under cyberattack, an official said Wednesday amid reports that hackers shut down the computer networks of several South Korean broadcasters and banks.
"The website of the Washington, D.C.-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) has been hacked by an entity calling itself 'Hitman 007-Kingdom of Morocco,'" said Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the group. "Publications, together with other documents and key components of our web presence, have been taken out."
Scarlatoiu said his organization is not sure yet whether it was part of the massive cyberattack conducted primarily against South Korean targets.
He noted, however, the cyberattack on HRNK happened the day before the U.N. Human Rights Council votes on the resolution calling for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on North Korean Human Rights.
(Read more
Source: Yonhap, Federation of Arab News Agencies 

Categories:

March 08, 2013

Press Release: HRNK Calls Attention to the Plight of North Korean Women on International Women’s Day 2013


PRESS RELEASE

Friday, March 08, 2013

The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK), a non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C., calls attention to the plight of North Korean women this March 8, International Women’s Day 2013. Although many women around the world will celebrate their progress in achieving greater rights, North Korean women continue to suffer from serious and systematic human rights violations even though North Korea is a party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

According to HRNK’s 2012 report Hidden Gulag Second Edition by David Hawk, 150,000 to 200,000 political prisoners are being held in North Korea’s vast system of unlawful imprisonment. Based on testimony by former prisoners and guards, the report established that sexual relations between young men and women prisoners not sanctioned by camp authorities are prohibited, and young women who become pregnant are severely punished, and often disappear. The report states that “grossly inadequate food rations and forced labor under harsh conditions inevitably lead to sexual exploitation of young women vulnerable to offers of additional food or less arduous work.” North Korean women refugees forcibly repatriated by China in violation of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees— to which China is a party—are subjected to the most demeaning, inhumane and brutal mistreatment while detained in North Korea. Pregnant women, including the victims of trafficking, are subjected to racially motivated forced abortions and infanticide if the North Korean authorities suspect they have been impregnated by Han Chinese men.

Women outside North Korea’s political prison camps have experienced discrimination, and have had to bear the brunt of the struggle to survive amidst North Korea’s catastrophic economic circumstances and perennial food shortages. Ms. Hyun In-ae, a former North Korean and current HRNK resident fellow, said: “After escaping from North Korea and going out into the world, I realized that I had a really hard life, especially as a woman in North Korea. However, North Korean women accepted that kind of difficult life as inevitable, and they have been suffering for many decades now. Despite this situation, North Korean authorities and official propaganda still claim that the happiest woman in the world is the North Korean woman. This is a great tragedy for the women of North Korea.”

HRNK’s 2009 report Lives for Sale by Lee Hae-young addressed the plight of North Korean women attempting to flee into China. According to the report, women represent the majority of North Koreans who desperately cross the border seeking opportunities to improve their lives and the lives of their families. But instead, many “become victims of traffickers and victims of men in China who paid traffickers to purchase a North Korean wife.” They also become vulnerable to deportation by China, which refuses to recognize them as potential refugees.

Although most, if not all, of these women should qualify as refugees sur place because of the persecution they will face if deported to their home country, China continues to claim they are illegal economic migrants, in direct violation of its international obligations.

HRNK Co-chair Roberta Cohen observed: "The forced return of North Korean women refugees by China and their harsh punishment in North Korea underscores the need for far greater international attention to protecting their fundamental rights, personal security and human dignity. Governments, UN bodies and agencies must call China to account for putting so many North Korean women into jeopardy. North Korea must be called to account by any UN commission of inquiry set up to investigate the Kim family’s crimes.”

Established in 2001 by a distinguished group of foreign policy and human rights specialists, HRNK seeks to draw attention to human rights conditions in North Korea by publishing well-documented reports and papers, convening conferences, testifying at national and international fora, and seeking creative ways to end the isolation of the North Korean people.

The reports The Hidden Gulag Second Edition and Lives for Sale are available on HRNK’s website: HRNK.ORG.

Contact: Greg Scarlatoiu, executive.director@hrnk.org; 202-499-7973
   

Categories: ,

March 07, 2013

U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing: “North Korea’s Criminal Activities: Financing the Regime”

Date: March 5, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. 
Location: 2172 House Rayburn Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Reporter: Grace Choi, HRNK Research Intern

(HRNK REPORT: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE HFAC HEARING)

MAIN POINTS:
The U.S. government must take a more proactive and comprehensive approach in its policy towards North Korea. North Korea’s illicit activities (counterfeiting, drug trafficking, selling of nuclear weapons materials, etc.) are funding the regime’s provocations and nuclear missile program. The U.S. must crack down on North Korea’s illicit activities with strict financial sanctions (similar to the Banco Delta Asia case) coupled with a discussion about North Korea’s continuous gross violation of human rights. The U.S. government needs further cooperation from China, and it needs to consider imposing financial penalties on countries and businesses directly investing in North Korean businesses related to the nuclear and missile programs. The United States should expand the definition of illicit activities to include luxury goods and fake goods. 

Expert Witnesses:

David Asher, Ph.D.
Non-Resident Senior Fellow
Center for a New American Security
(Former Senior Adviser, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Coordinator, North Korea Working Group, U.S. Department of State)

Sung-Yoon Lee, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor in Korean Studies
The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Tufts University

The Honorable Joseph R. DeTrani
President
Intelligence and National Security Alliance
(Former Director, National Counter Proliferation Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence)

Present at the Hearing:
Chairman Royce
Representative Engel
Representative Holding
Representative Meng
Representative Frankel
Representative Gabbard
Representative Sherman
Representative Deutch
Representative Chabot
Representative Messer
Representative Brooks
Representative Ros-Lehtinen
Representative Weber
Representative Meadows
Representative Castro
Representative Rohrabacher
Representative Connolly
Representative Bera
Representative DeSantis
Representative Lowenthal
Representative Faleomavaega

Introduction: 
Rep. Royce
North Korea’s February 12, 2013 nuclear test is its 3rd and strongest test to date that followed December’s launch of a 3-stage intercontinental missile. There has been a history of broken promises with North Korea. Since the 1994 agreed framework, NK has continued to violate the agreements it had entered, three nuclear tests later. Therefore, the United States must find a better alternative response. We cannot have a failed approach, because this is potentially disastrous.

North Korea’s illicit activities, such as the counterfeiting of U.S. $100 bills, are funding its missile and nuclear developments. Why is the country called the “Soprano State?” In 2007, U.S.-imposed sanctions on North Korea for laundering  money through Banco Delta Asia in Macau isolated the North Korean regime. It is important to examine how best to pressure North Korea’s ruling elite by systematically precluding its access to hard currency, rather than just relying on Beijing to do more. The United States must pursue and disrupt the Kim Jong-un regime’s illicit activities.

Rep. Engel, Ranking Member
Pyongyang poses a national security threat. North Korea (NK) engages in a wide range of illicit activities to support its illicit missile technology, including drugs and counterfeit money. NK exercises criminal sovereignty and violates international law and the domestic laws of other countries, with no regard for the international legal order. He hopes China will finally understand “it must do more in its role.” NK is a rogue state collaborating with rogue states such as Iran.

Dr. David Asher’s remarks:
There is a need for a fundamental and comprehensive approach to address this NK threat. NK’s global and regional threat will go from bad to worse (with its sophisticated missile force) since the probability it will export nuclear missiles to Iran is high. NK can acquire 21 nuclear weapons by the end of 2016 in addition to the 10-12 weapons it currently has. NK does need weapons as the young leader, Kim Jong-un, takes power and solidifies his position in North Korea. Iran needs enriched uranium and weapons, which North Korea can provide. On 9/1/2012, Iran and NK signed an agreement similar to the one with Syria.

The U.S. must organize a global, comprehensive targeting of Pyongyang’s foreign currency producing apparatus, interfere and sabotage the nuclear missile program, and needs to target Kim’s lifeline, including overseas bank accounts, especially in China, which provides direct access to money for North Korea’s illicit activities. There needs to be a top-down effort and an initiative similar to the one Dr. Asher was involved with under the Bush Administration.

Dr. Sung-Yoon Lee’s remarks:
North Korea is engaged in a systemic contest for pan-Korean legitimacy. NK cannot win against South Korea’s thriving economy so North Korea is engaged in nuclear blackmail. This is a necessary condition for its self-preservation. North Korea is “uniquely unique.”

NK’s defense spending is great relative to its national income. Pyongyang will not change its nuclear program unless the United States provides pressure, since NK is so dependent on its illicit activities to sustain its regime. The Treasury Department can apply this measure to 3rd country business partners, banks, and those financing North Korea’s shadowy economy.

The United States should expand the designation of prohibitive activity, such as luxury goods, lethal military equipment, and the perpetrations of crimes against humanity—such measures will debilitate the credible threat. Congress should pass a bill that gives investigative power to the Treasury to crack down on suspicious activity and clamp down on North Korea’s crimes against humanity. The U.S. should freeze North Korea’s assets.
Linking crimes against humanity and illicit activities combined with UN sanctions can be potent and effective on North Korea.

Ambassador DeTrani’s remarks:
On June 2003, NK pulled out of the NPT. U.S. mentioned to NK the U.S. is looking at NK’s denuclearization, human rights violations and its illicit activities (such as counterfeiting pharmaceuticals and U.S. dollar bills). On September 19, 2005, there was a joint statement committing NK to comprehensive and verifiable denuclearization in exchange for security assurances and normalization contingent upon stopping their illicit activities and transparency regarding its human rights record.

Based on 3.11 of the Patriot Act, involvement with money laundering could make one a target, and that made NK very upset. Banco Delta Asia provided a model, but unfortunately NK received its money ($25 million) back after proving it was in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. However, four missile launches and three nuclear tests took place afterwards. In addition to addressing the human rights violations and UN sanctions in North Korea, North Korea’s illicit activities have to go to the wayside. The sanctions are biting, and NK is responding to it. The sanctions need to bite more significantly and should have more impact as we move further in response to the recent nuclear test.

There are two paths: 1) the present path, which is to impose further sanctions and make North Korea more of a pariah state or 2) NK should become a more legitimate nation-state by getting its economy back in shape through comprehensible, verifiable denuclearization, transparency and progress on the human rights issues, and the elimination of its illicit activities.

Questions in Response to the Expert Witnesses Testimonies:
Impact on Freezing Assets/Financial Sanctions North Korea
  • Prof. Lee:
    • Freeze assets to impact the regime’s financial lifelines, in a way similar to what happened in the Banco Delta Asia case.
    • NK is uniquely vulnerable to targeted financial sanctions because the regime is so dependent on these revenue streams. Therefore, this action would achieve secondary and tertiary effects along with the psychological threat. Prolonged sanctions will create an existential threat to North Korea.
  • Dr. Asher: Illicit and criminal activities represent up to one-third of the regime’s total trade. NK’s financial lifelines are centered outside of NK, in SE Asia, Austria, Macau, which are places the U.S. could get to. 
  • Amb. DeTrani:
    • Anyone dealing with the North Koreans should suffer sanctions-induced consequences.
    • Financial sanctions will have a significant effect on the NK leadership.
China’s role:
  • Amb. DeTrani: Should include a dialogue with Pyongyang.
  • Dr. Lee
    • Chinese Workers’ Party will never give up on the Korean Workers’ Party.
    • China won’t destabilize NK on its own initiative, so the United States will have to do so.
Does NK desire six-party talks or bilateral talks?
  • Amb. DeTrani: NK prefers bilateral talks with the United States over six-party talks
NK and Iran:
  • Dr. Asher: 
    • NK has a proven track record of exporting nuclear material. 
    • NK should not have been removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
NK and Middle East/Rep Ros-Lehthenin, Middle East Chair
NK uses denuclearization talks as a bargaining chip, but never follows through because the Kims have always failed to respect their international engagements. It was the Bush Administration’s inability to see through this evil trick. North Korea is perfecting its nuclear capability and supports Iran and Syria. There is an Iran, NK, and Syria counter-proliferation act. The U.S. needs to impose NK Sanctions.

Another source of aid to NK is China—will China agree to meaningful measures against NK? How can the United States convince China to stop protecting NK? Need a comprehensive response? In regards to Dr. Lee’s recommendations on Treasury, can it be done through an Executive Order or action through Congress? Executive Orders 13382 and 13551 were signed by President Bush and President Obama. How do we exercise political will on NK?

Representative Faleomavaega
  • Is cultural diplomacy between the US and NK effective as seen in Dennis Rodman’s visit to NK?
  • Doesn’t believe any more sanctions will be helpful. The US owes China a lot—how can financial sanctions work? It seems hypocritical that US and permanent UN Sec Council members can keep nuclear weapons, but ask other countries to get rid of theirs.
Representative Chabot, Chair of Pacific Asia Committee
Executive Orders 13382 and 13551 were signed by Presidents Bush and Obama. What is the most effective way for China to work with the international community while also protecting its borders?
  • Dr. Lee: If China is given reasons to lose money, then it will be the most effective in gaining China’s attention rather than diplomatic action.
How important are the illicit/criminal activities in supporting the regime’s finances?
  • Dr. Asher: Cocaine/drug trafficking is part of the illicit activities NK is engaged in. Financial sanctions do truly help address the criminal activities.
Representative Sherman, Ranking member, Anti-Terrorism
  • There are similarities in NK and Iran, but striking differences too in intentions. Iran bombed a Jewish community center and NK wants luxury goods, such as scotch. 
  • How much money does North Korea make from illicit activities?
  • All panelists:  About $40 billion in total, but no one can be absolutely sure.
  • NK’s money comes from the following:
    • Military and nuclear exports
    • Kaesong industrial complex ($20 million)
    • Illicit activities (goods listed, including mislabeled ones)
    • Subsidies from China (over a $1billion of goods per year)
    • Precious metals from NK—a verification mechanism can be created
    • Aid to NK
Representative Marino
What countries and businesses within those countries do business directly and indirectly with North Korea? What do we do business with them?
  • Amb. DeTrani: China does trade and investment. The European Union in the past had some business, but not anymore. 
What ramifications will the US face in taking actions against NK and other countries involved with NK businesses?
  • Dr. Asher: There was no blow back in China from Banco Delta Asia in the past.
Representative Frankel
What’s the end game? What do we want to accomplish?
  • Dr. Asher: The complete and verifiable denuclearization of North Korea and getting rid of the WMDs.
  • Dr. Lee: Encourage and take action on the single free Korean state.  Have pragmatic policymakers for permanent peace on the Korean peninsula and deliver NK souls from the crimes against humanity.
  • Amb. DeTrani: The comprehensive denuclearization, and afterwards, unified peninsula.
Representative Weber
How do we give Treasury investigative authority?
  • Dr. Lee: The US should pass a bill that allows for the designation of prohibited activities, including actions regarding NK’s purchase of luxury goods, sales of military equipment and actions that further preclude crimes against humanity in North Korea. The bill should require the Treasury Department to take action and investigate the illicit activities and those tied to NK’s crimes against humanity.
Representative Gabbard, HI
What is the current estimate that NK could have a nuclear warhead that could strike the United States?
  • Amb. DeTrani: NK is a long way from having this capability.
  • Dr. Lee: NK’s end game is a single Korea under its own terms.
Representative Rohrabacher
Rep Rohrabacher is against donating to the NKs; we are being treated like “idiots” by the enemy. How much has the US donated to NK in total?
  • Dr. Lee: The US donated a little over $1 billion over the years.
Representative Meng
How can the new President Park help to reducing nuclear missile threats? Do you see Kim Jong-un (KJU) deviating from his father’s policies?
  • Dr. Asher: KJU is not the eldest and not in a strong position of power.
  • Dr. Lee: There is a misperception of NK that the NK regime merely reacts, but NK is a very proactive party; NK will provoke in a strategic way, since NK is not suicidal,but very keen on self-preservation. NK will continue provocations no matter how nice or strong we may seem to be towards the regime. We need to pursue a principled approach. The dynamics within the leadership is extremely opaque, but KJU made some important personnel decisions during his leadership. We’ve seen KJU’s playbook, and further dissensions will lead to further reactions. KJU has been cracking down on the North Korean/Chinese border. Fewer North Korean defectors have escaped NK since the power transition, which indicates KJU is even more repressive than his father.
Representative DeSantis
With respect to KJU and his recent decisions, has he solidified his power since he first came in?
  • Dr. Lee: There is a misperception that there are conflicting views between the military and the NK leadership. The Kim family made sure the Korean Worker’s Party controls the military. NK has borrowed this model from Chairman Mao.
Can there be disgruntlement and opposition to the leadership?
  • Dr. Lee: NK has gulags and they are very sensitive to the outside bringing attention to the human rights violations. 50% of defectors from NK coming across the border of the South have learned about the South.
Representative Deutch
There is little coverage of the fact that NK is the worst human rights violator in the world, which was unfortunately discussed by US media outlets during Dennis Rodman’s visit to North Korea. How do we change the narrative on North Korea so that the human rights discussion is at the forefront of all discussions? What can the UN do to help in the naming and shaming?
  • Dr. Lee: According to the Rome Statute on Crimes against Humanity, NK violates all crimes against humanity—except apartheid, as it is a homogenous state. There are details of gulags from many North Korean defectors, and an especially sad account from the only North Korean born in a political prison camp who escaped.
In response to Professor Lee and Representative Deutch’s discussion on understanding the human rights violations in North Korea, Chairman Royce strongly recommended to Representatives and the audience Shin Dong Hyuk’s book, “Escape From Camp 14.”

Representative Messer
Dennis Rodman’s visit to NK was trivializing the importance of the illicit activities and human rights violations. What is the current South Korean public sentiment regarding North Korea?
  • Dr. Lee: SK’s perception to NK has changed in the wake of NK’s two attacks in 2010 (the sinking of the Cheonan and the Yeongpyeong Island shelling). However, South Korea does not want to intensify problems on the Korean peninsula because of their comfortable stable life. The SK government should make North Korean human rights a higher priority issue. NK responded back harshly to ROK’s President Park Geun Hye’s remarks on the human rights violations in North Korea, which shows NK is sensitive to this.
Representative Connolly
Should we bring attention to NK? With China’s pragmatism and its continued support of the pariah regime, isn’t NK a liability rather than Chinese asset or buffer?
  • Dr. Lee: China will view NK more as a liability.
  • Amb. DeTrani: Agrees that China is seeing more that NK is a liability in the aftermath of the recent nuclear test and missile launch.
  • Dr. Asher: We must have more information. We need to change Chinese behavior to change North Korean behavior.  
Representative Bera
Are there folks in NK’s inner circle that are sympathetic to nuclear non-proliferation?
  • Amb. DeTrani: There are not sympathizers per se, but some in the leadership have been exposed to the outside world, and realize that NK needs to be moving in that direction, which is significant.
How do we unequivocally make sure that Iran doesn’t acquire nuclear technology from NK? Also, while making sure North Korea doesn’t sell nuclear tech to Iran, how can we know how China will respond to this?
  • Dr. Asher: Chinese businesses involved with NK entities need to be held accountable. The US needs to hold China to their actions, not their intentions.
  • Amb. De Trani: Currently, there is a robust and rich dialogue between the United States and China about non-proliferation and North Korea’s behavior. Hopefully more traction will take place.
Representative Faleomavaega’s Clarification on previous points: 
Not the U.S., but the whole concept of non-proliferation is hypocritical for members of the UN Security Council, including the United States. He commends President Obama is his attempt to lessen the number of nuclear weapons. He was criticizing the hypocrisy of the concept and not the United States, his country. Dennis Rodman does not represent President Obama or the U.S. government.


Categories:

March 05, 2013

Chinese Reactions to the Three North Korean Nuclear Tests: 2006, 2009, and 2013


By Xiaocheng Ziang, HRNK Intern
School of International Service, American University

HRNK intern Xiaocheng Ziang was tasked to conduct research on primary sources reflecting Chinese official and media reactions to the North Korean nuclear tests conducted in October 2006, May 2009 and February 2013, and to provide accurate translations of the terminology used. The research indicates that the Chinese reaction to the first test in October 2006 was the strongest. Chinese reactions to the recent February 2013 test were not more forceful than before. The findings of that research are summarized below.

I. Statements by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  • "Prevent" rather than "oppose" proliferation of nuclear weapons. The word "prevent" might mean China will offer to do some concrete actions as a response to the DPRK's behavior rather than just verbally "oppose" the launches.
  • The recurring statement, "China will continue to make unremitting efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region," was not used in 2013. Some experts believe the absence of this statement means that China will no longer tolerate the DPRK's aggressive behavior. It is possible that China will take actions to prevent the DPRK's nuclear program.

The following three statements detail the differences in word-usage:

1. October 9, 2006: First Test
  • The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to the nuclear test by the DPRK.
  • The DPRK flagrantly conducted the test.
  • China strongly demands the DPRK to live up to its commitment to the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, stop any activity that may worsen the situation, and return to the Six-Party Talks.
  • It has been the firm, unshakable and consistent stance of the Chinese government to realize the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and oppose proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  • The Chinese government calls for a calm response from all concerned parties and urges them to keep to a peaceful resolution of the issue through consultations and dialogues.
  • China will continue to make unremitting efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region.
2. May 25, 2009: Second Test
  •  The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to the nuclear test by the DPRK.
  • The DPRK disregarded/ignored无视opposition by the international community.
  • China strongly demands the DPRK to live up to its commitment to denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, stop any activity that may worsen the situation, and return to the Six-Party Talks.
  • China opposes the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  • China will continue to make unremitting efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Northeast Asia region.
3. Feb. 12th, 2013: Third Test
  • The Chinese government is resolutely opposed to the nuclear test by the DPRK.
  • Regardless of opposition by the international community.
  • Prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  • China strongly urges the DPRK

II. Top Leaders’ Reactions: Presidents and Foreign Ministers

China's reactions to the third test included phone calls to the U.S., ROK, as well as a call to the DPRK ambassador. The previous two nuclear tests only involved two of the three actions.

1. October 9, 2006: First Test
  • Chinese President Hu Jintao spoke over the telephone with U.S. President George W. Bush, stating China’s viewpoint and requiring the DPRK to no longer take aggressive actions that might further aggravate the situation.
  • Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing talked over the telephone with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, exchanging views on the latest development of the situation on the Korean peninsula. Li reiterated China's solemn and just position on the issue as announced in the Foreign Ministry's statement.
2. May 25, 2009: Second Test
  • China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called in DPRK Ambassador to China Choe Jin-su, voicing strong protest.
  • Vice President Xi Jingping expressed strong criticism when meeting with Director Lee Sung-hui of the ROK Ministry of Defense.
  • Zhen Zhili, Vice Chairman of the People's Assembly, canceled a planned official visit to North Korea.
3. February 12, 2013: Third Test
  • February 12th: Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi calls in the DPRK ambassador Ji Jae-ryong, lodging official criticism and opposition to the test. Yang says that China is discontent and strongly against the third test. Yang also requests the DPRK to stop any actions that might result in a deterioration of the situation.
  • February 12th: Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi speaks over the telephone with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in the evening, exchanging views on the latest test. Yang reiterated China's solemn and just position on the issue, calling for a resolution to be sought under the Six-Party Talks.
  • February 13th: Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi speaks over the telephone with ROK Foreign Minister Kim, exchanging views on the Korean Peninsula.
  • February 14th: Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi speaks over the telephone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, exchanging views on the DPRK nuclear test and the Korean peninsula.
III. Press Conferences

1. October 12, 2006: First Test
  •  Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao at the routine press conference: (1) International community should not "punish" North Korea. (Punishment is not the goal, which means China opposes sanctions  & does not think sanctions will work.) (2) Chinese aid to North Korea will not be influenced since it is meant to improve the livelihoods of North Koreans.
2. Second Test
  • No information about the press conference on the second test. There were no routine press conferences during the Chinese New Year holiday From February the 10th to February the 25th, 2013.
3. February 18, 2013: Third Test (First Press Conference after the New Year)
  •  On the new UNSC sanctions on North Korea: China is willing to talk with the UNSC, ROK, and U.S. on nuclear issues in the DPRK. There is NO direct response on whether China will support U.N. sanctions or not.

IV. Media

1. May 25, 2009: Second Test
  •  High-level communication between China and the DPRK pauses for a short time.
  • 2009 marks the 60th anniversary of China-DPRK relations, however, China is unwilling to hold any celebrations at this point.
  • China highlights control over    exporting to North Korea after the second nuclear test.
  • China is strongly discontent with the DPRK's second test and also expresses concerns about radiation influence on the Northeastern residents in China.
  • China is said to rethink its foreign policy on the DPRK.
  • June 13, 2009 People’s Daily: China supports the UNSC's response to the DPRK's second test. 
  • Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang says "sanctions" are not the goal, and political and foreign policy methods are the only ways to solve the problem.
2. February 12, 2013: Third Test
  •  Due to special editions during the Chinese New Year, People’s Daily did not publish any commentary on North Korea, but two days later on the 14th, it listed criticism from different countries on the third page.
  • February 19, 2013 People's Daily: United States makes use of the DPRK’s third test. Ren Weidong, junior researcher at China Institute of Contemporary International Relations published an editorial article claiming that the United States created public panic about the DPRK’s third test.


Categories: ,

March 01, 2013

The North Korean Human Rights Conundrum: Why a UN Commission of Inquiry?

By Andrea Torjussen, HRNK Research Intern

In his February 1st report to the Human Rights Council, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in North Korea Marzuki Darusman stated that the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) was the first organization to recommend the establishment of a United Nations Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on North Korean human rights in its 2006 Report, “Failure to Protect: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in North Korea”.  The Human Rights Council is soon going to cast a vote on the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations in North Korea. The Council will be in session from the end of February to the end of March, and a simple majority vote by at least 24 out of 47 member states is needed to establish an investigative mechanism.1  The questions that may need to be addressed include: Why would a Commission of Inquiry on North Korean human rights be important? Would a Commission of Inquiry be more effective than other available mechanisms, such as Special Procedures? What difference is a Commission of Inquiry going to make in terms of improving the human rights situation in North Korea?

A UN Commission of Inquiry is an in-depth investigation into violations of human rights, and independent eminent persons appointed by the UN should carry out such investigations.  The primary responsibility of a UN Commission of Inquiry is to establish the facts and investigate allegations of human rights abuses. On the one hand, if abuses are confirmed, the Commission can help make recommendations on how to respond to the violations. A UN Commission of Inquiry can highlight severe human rights violations perpetrated by a state, and help push for accountability. On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that the primary responsibility to investigate allegations of human rights abuses and bring those responsible to justice lies with the national authorities, and it is when a state fails to do so that an International Commission of Inquiry should be established.2

Why is a Commission of Inquiry on North Korean human rights necessary? A memo drafted by Human Rights Watch entitled “Q & A on a United Nations Commission of Inquiry on North Korea” presents the reasons why such a mandate should be established. First of all, the human rights situation in North Korea is one of the worst in the world. The abuses are so widespread and systematic that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stands in a category of its own. UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman has also expressed his concerns about the new leadership of North Korea. Kim Jong-un has practically stated that his first, second and third priorities will be to strengthen the military and implicitly downgrade economic, social and cultural rights. Given such stated priorities, it is reasonable to assume, however unfortunate that may be, that the suffering of the North Korean people will continue, and likely even get worse.3

Another important reason for the establishment of a CoI is that for almost a decade the North Korean government has refused to comply with repeated appeals from the United Nations and other organizations to improve the human rights situation in the country. The government of North Korea has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the UN, rejected resolutions of the Human Rights Council, denied all abuse reported during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, and ceased its UPR reporting in 2004.4  The UN needs to react; such egregious human rights violations are unacceptable.

On the other hand, the UN has had a Special Rapporteur on North Korean Human Rights since 2004. Before 2004, North Korea did report under the Universal Periodic Review on a couple of occasions; North Korea has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why should a Commission of Inquiry be necessary? The Special Rapporteur provides the UN with regular reports on the human rights situation in the country and can provide recommendations.5  However, the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry would create an opportunity to conduct a more detailed investigation and to elevate the profile of human rights compared to other critical issues pertaining to North Korea. The Special Rapporteur operates based on limited resources, and he requested in his latest report a “more detailed mechanism of inquiry”. A Commission of Inquiry may elicit more resources, attention and commitment to a detailed investigation on human rights in North Korea.

The last question that needs to be addressed is: How would a Commission of Inquiry on North Korea function? North Korea has a track record of refusing to comply or cooperate with UN human rights agencies and other organizations. The country has not recognized the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and it is not likely that it will cooperate with a Commission of Inquiry. It is important to remember that both access and cooperation are important for an investigation of this sort, and the results of such an investigation should ideally trigger some follow-up at the national level.  While such expectations would certainly be unrealistic under the current North Korean leadership and circumstances, the Commission will still be able to carry out the investigation. Significant evidence can be collected by interviewing the more than 30,000 North Korean escapees currently living in South Korea and other countries—some of them former political prison camp detainees, former guards, or even former employees of internal security agencies tasked to run North Korea’s vast gulag system— and by cross-checking the information they provide using satellite photos of such unlawful detention facilities.

A Commission of Inquiry on North Korea would give a voice to these victims, would symbolize a greater international effort to help the people of North Korea, and would create a platform where information from NGO’s worldwide could be gathered, further analyzed and disseminated.

Notes:
1. Human Rights Watch. 
2. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. 
3. Human Rights Watch.
4. Human Rights Watch. 
5. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.
Categories: