 |
||||||||
|
North Korean Human Rights: a view from South Korea
Discussion at English Peace Study Group (EPS) of March 30, 2006
Participants:
Kim Kyong-mi, Coordinator North Korean Human Rights CNPK
Lim Ho-Jong, International Coordinator, CNPK-North Korean Refugees
Bae Yun-Gu, Student and member English Peace Study Group (EPS)
Liesbeth Leplae, Student GSIS SNU and member EPS
Lindsay, international intern CNPK
In South Korea, the human rights issue used to be monopolized by right wing parties and organizations in the realm of anti-communism while ‘sunshine policy’ was the ‘religion’ of the leftwing. Sunshine policy is mainly about enhancing economic development and peace and from that human rights would naturally follow, so leftwing was hesitant to criticize North Korea for its human rights record because of fear of loosing the relationship with the North.
Nowadays there is a tendency for right and left to move towards each other. Some right wing organizations start to realize they cannot wait for the regime to collapse, it might be too costly and restrictive measures only don’t really work. They also realize there is a difference between North Korean regime and North Korean people. In leftwing circles, people start to recognize only ‘carrots’ is not enough. You need a ‘stick’ too. Doubts are raised about unconditional aid and voices arise to rethink sunshine policy. Left wing has started now to voice their opinion on North Korean human rights as well. However, for the government (now leftwing oriented), it is still difficult to voice opinion on North Korean human rights. One of the possible causes is the striking indifference from South Korean people who don’t want to deal with the North Korean problem. More awareness in South Korean society could provide the South Korean government with more motivations to step up in the field of human rights.
But in all this carrot and stick approach, one needs to be extremely careful and extremely patient. First of all, a better understanding of North Korean thinking and the actual human rights situation is necessary. Instead of competition, there is momentum for left and right to cooperate. In CNPK for example (traditionally more a leftwing organization that nowadays tries to be balanced in the field of human rights in North Korea) there are plans for a survey of North Korean defectors in China (if funds can be found). Even though some of the rightwing NGOs have conducted interviews with defectors, there is still a lack of systematic and critical research. Too often people are too emotional involved and political intentions lie behind human rights advocacy. Therefore, more neutral and systematic research is needed to measure the situation in North Korea. Few people have access to North Korea, but it would be helpful to supplement systematic research with findings and experiences of people in North Korea.
It is not undeniable that the absence of peace is a great impediment to a stable and secure North Korea. The nuclear crisis needs to be solved in order for human rights in North Korea can have a chance. Many of the human rights violations are ‘justified’ by the argument of national security and military spending, needed to give an answer to perceived security threats, contribute to violations of economic and social and other human rights. In addition to this human rights and human security are two interconnected concepts that are reinforcing to each other. A multi-level approach is suggested. Reducing security threats is a first step.
Another important factor in the analysis of North Korean human rights is the distinction between systemic human rights violations and human rights violations by power-abuse by low-level officials. It is a two level game. Systemic human rights violations are the violations that are there because of the regime or the system in North Korea (for example the existence of prison-camps). However, there are many human rights violations that are due to bad behavior by lower officials (for example: rape of women in prison-camps or for food) that go unpunished because of the absence of the rule of law but where Pyongyang officials have little to do with. A different approach is needed for each of these subsets of violations.
To have the Korean government change itself a mere carrot-stick approach is not enough cause, as one said on a conference of the National Human Rights Commission in South Korea, what with carrots and sticks if the mule doesn’t know where he’s going. Indeed, one that observes North Korean government closely knows the main issue for North Korean government is that they want to show they are in control. That is why dialogues are difficult with the North. The key is thus to make North Korea think it is their idea to change and that they are in control. Let North Koreans make their society for themselves. Training programs for North Korean officials are a good way in that direction. The European Union has been organizing quite a few of such programs, though it is the fear that after the resolution the number of such programs will be reduced. South Koreans do understand the position of the EU. From the country strategy paper on DPRK, we learned that EU had many impressive intentions towards engagement, training, conditional aid, but from the practice in time, North Koreans have disappointed them so many times. Dialogues were left without result (as the Irish ambassador to Korea once told me: it is like talking to a brick wall), aid was refused and NGOs not allowed in. However, we hope that EU does not give up on engaging North Koreans, especially not now when there are signs North Korea might be changing again in a better direction and when economy is a little bit better after some reforms. Of course change takes time and this is a long-term perspective.
As for the short-term perspective there are some urgent matters to act upon. One of those issues we think is important is the status of North Korean defectors in China. Nowadays, the policy of China towards North Korean defectors is slowly changing but legally nothing has been provided yet for their protection. Theoretically North Korean refugees are political refugees because there is a profound fear for persecution when they go back. The principle of non-refoulement should be respected. At the same time it is important that China keeps good relations and leverage on North Korea. Maybe an alternative and creative system can be set up especially for the North Korean refugees. EU could play a role here in pressuring Chinese government in being a responsible global stakeholder in the momentum of the Olympic games.
Despite signs of economic recovery, food aid and sanitation projects are still necessary to resolve short-term problems. Aid, however, should never be unconditional. It is a learning process for North Korea, so conditions should be set to make of North Korea a responsible government.
In the whole of Northeast Asia, challenges in the field of human rights ask for creative resolutions. From each sector, strategies need to be different. But for human rights one of the important necessities is not to politicize it too much, so viable and creative solutions can be developed through cooperation. This calls upon a human rights regime in Northeast Asia; whereto also the North Korean Human Rights Committee should be invited. In this framework different human rights issues in all of the Northeast Asian countries could be tackled without pointing any fingers to governments or states. For human rights in North Korea, a roadmap to solutions could be developed in such a framework.
Liesbeth Leplae March 30 2006
Discussion at English Peace Study Group (EPS) of March 30, 2006
Participants:
Kim Kyong-mi, Coordinator North Korean Human Rights CNPK
Lim Ho-Jong, International Coordinator, CNPK-North Korean Refugees
Bae Yun-Gu, Student and member English Peace Study Group (EPS)
Liesbeth Leplae, Student GSIS SNU and member EPS
Lindsay, international intern CNPK
In South Korea, the human rights issue used to be monopolized by right wing parties and organizations in the realm of anti-communism while ‘sunshine policy’ was the ‘religion’ of the leftwing. Sunshine policy is mainly about enhancing economic development and peace and from that human rights would naturally follow, so leftwing was hesitant to criticize North Korea for its human rights record because of fear of loosing the relationship with the North.
Nowadays there is a tendency for right and left to move towards each other. Some right wing organizations start to realize they cannot wait for the regime to collapse, it might be too costly and restrictive measures only don’t really work. They also realize there is a difference between North Korean regime and North Korean people. In leftwing circles, people start to recognize only ‘carrots’ is not enough. You need a ‘stick’ too. Doubts are raised about unconditional aid and voices arise to rethink sunshine policy. Left wing has started now to voice their opinion on North Korean human rights as well. However, for the government (now leftwing oriented), it is still difficult to voice opinion on North Korean human rights. One of the possible causes is the striking indifference from South Korean people who don’t want to deal with the North Korean problem. More awareness in South Korean society could provide the South Korean government with more motivations to step up in the field of human rights.
But in all this carrot and stick approach, one needs to be extremely careful and extremely patient. First of all, a better understanding of North Korean thinking and the actual human rights situation is necessary. Instead of competition, there is momentum for left and right to cooperate. In CNPK for example (traditionally more a leftwing organization that nowadays tries to be balanced in the field of human rights in North Korea) there are plans for a survey of North Korean defectors in China (if funds can be found). Even though some of the rightwing NGOs have conducted interviews with defectors, there is still a lack of systematic and critical research. Too often people are too emotional involved and political intentions lie behind human rights advocacy. Therefore, more neutral and systematic research is needed to measure the situation in North Korea. Few people have access to North Korea, but it would be helpful to supplement systematic research with findings and experiences of people in North Korea.
It is not undeniable that the absence of peace is a great impediment to a stable and secure North Korea. The nuclear crisis needs to be solved in order for human rights in North Korea can have a chance. Many of the human rights violations are ‘justified’ by the argument of national security and military spending, needed to give an answer to perceived security threats, contribute to violations of economic and social and other human rights. In addition to this human rights and human security are two interconnected concepts that are reinforcing to each other. A multi-level approach is suggested. Reducing security threats is a first step.
Another important factor in the analysis of North Korean human rights is the distinction between systemic human rights violations and human rights violations by power-abuse by low-level officials. It is a two level game. Systemic human rights violations are the violations that are there because of the regime or the system in North Korea (for example the existence of prison-camps). However, there are many human rights violations that are due to bad behavior by lower officials (for example: rape of women in prison-camps or for food) that go unpunished because of the absence of the rule of law but where Pyongyang officials have little to do with. A different approach is needed for each of these subsets of violations.
To have the Korean government change itself a mere carrot-stick approach is not enough cause, as one said on a conference of the National Human Rights Commission in South Korea, what with carrots and sticks if the mule doesn’t know where he’s going. Indeed, one that observes North Korean government closely knows the main issue for North Korean government is that they want to show they are in control. That is why dialogues are difficult with the North. The key is thus to make North Korea think it is their idea to change and that they are in control. Let North Koreans make their society for themselves. Training programs for North Korean officials are a good way in that direction. The European Union has been organizing quite a few of such programs, though it is the fear that after the resolution the number of such programs will be reduced. South Koreans do understand the position of the EU. From the country strategy paper on DPRK, we learned that EU had many impressive intentions towards engagement, training, conditional aid, but from the practice in time, North Koreans have disappointed them so many times. Dialogues were left without result (as the Irish ambassador to Korea once told me: it is like talking to a brick wall), aid was refused and NGOs not allowed in. However, we hope that EU does not give up on engaging North Koreans, especially not now when there are signs North Korea might be changing again in a better direction and when economy is a little bit better after some reforms. Of course change takes time and this is a long-term perspective.
As for the short-term perspective there are some urgent matters to act upon. One of those issues we think is important is the status of North Korean defectors in China. Nowadays, the policy of China towards North Korean defectors is slowly changing but legally nothing has been provided yet for their protection. Theoretically North Korean refugees are political refugees because there is a profound fear for persecution when they go back. The principle of non-refoulement should be respected. At the same time it is important that China keeps good relations and leverage on North Korea. Maybe an alternative and creative system can be set up especially for the North Korean refugees. EU could play a role here in pressuring Chinese government in being a responsible global stakeholder in the momentum of the Olympic games.
Despite signs of economic recovery, food aid and sanitation projects are still necessary to resolve short-term problems. Aid, however, should never be unconditional. It is a learning process for North Korea, so conditions should be set to make of North Korea a responsible government.
In the whole of Northeast Asia, challenges in the field of human rights ask for creative resolutions. From each sector, strategies need to be different. But for human rights one of the important necessities is not to politicize it too much, so viable and creative solutions can be developed through cooperation. This calls upon a human rights regime in Northeast Asia; whereto also the North Korean Human Rights Committee should be invited. In this framework different human rights issues in all of the Northeast Asian countries could be tackled without pointing any fingers to governments or states. For human rights in North Korea, a roadmap to solutions could be developed in such a framework.
Liesbeth Leplae March 30 2006
