[Column] New strategy for North Korean human rights

Yoon Yeo-sang
The author is head of the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights.

The most connotative word used to describe the human rights situation in North Korea is “gloomy.” The word is used when the current situation is extremely bad and there is almost no possibility of improvement in the future. Since issuing a North Korea human rights resolution in 2003, the United Nations has been playing a leading role to improve the gloomy human rights situation in the North. Since the conferences of the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2003 and General Assembly in 2005, the United Nations has adopted strong resolutions demanding the improvement of human rights situation in North Korea for 20 consecutive years.

Especially, the United Nations Human Rights Council’s 47 member countries unanimously agreed to start the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Human Rights in the North on March 21, 2013. Differently from other COIs, the one dedicated to North Korea was agreed to unanimously at the United Nations for the first time. The commission was composed of three human rights experts and Chairman Michael Kirby, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia. The commission issued a mission to the members to spend one year to investigate and make a report on specific human rights violations regarding nine particular issues, including violations of the right to food, violations associated with prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, violations of the right to life and enforced disappearances, including abductions of nationals of other countries.

The commission released its report on Feb. 7, 2014. It was the first outcome of inquiry directly done by the UN on the North’s human rights situation. It is, by far, considered the most reliable and trustworthy report in the international community. It not only surveyed the rights situation in the North, but also offered recommendations to the North Korean authority and international community on improvements. The commission concluded that the North Korean authority had committed extensive, organized and grave violations of human rights, and the violations are serious enough to be tried by the International Criminal Court as crimes against humanity. The report also made it clear that North Korea was responsible of specific offenses of inhumane crimes.

Although the report did not specify the name of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, it made clear that the supreme ruler of the country is responsible for the crimes. The report urged that the supreme ruler and other responsible people be referred to the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity and called on the international community to respond to the situation and exercise Responsibility to Protect (R2P) for the North Korean people.

R2P states that countries have a fundamental responsibility to protect their citizens. If they fail to do so, that responsibility falls on the international community. R2P was a concept adopted after the global community failed to respond to the massive ethnic cleansing and genocides which took place during the civil war in Rwanda and the Kosovo war.

The establishment, operation and report publication of the COI marked a turning point for the international community to shift its attentions from nuclear and missile programs to human rights issues. And yet, actual improvements were rarely made, despite the UN’s efforts. North Korean authorities appeared to have taken some actions by introducing rights protection clauses and making some improvements, but they are far from the expectations of the international community. Without a change in the perception of the North Korean authorities, which put higher priority on the safety of the regime over the protection of individuals’ rights, it is impossible to expect a dramatic change in the situation.

Even during the 1990s, when North Korea experienced massive starvation due to food shortages, it ignored the international community’s concerns and support and instead obsessed with developing nuclear weapons and missiles. As a result, the North’s isolation became more serious. Deaths from starvation were recently reported in Kaesong city, Hwanghae Province.

The Moon Jae-in administration had faced criticisms from the international community by having forcibly and secretly repatriated two young fishermen who had defected from the North, introducing a ban on sending leaflets to the North, oppressing activist groups promoting North Korean human rights, and disabling the North Korea Human Rights Act. Because of the North’s inhumane and regressive attitude and the South Korean government’s uncooperative attitude, countries that have led activities to improve the rights situation in the North, such as the United States and Europe, felt exhausted.

The Yoon Suk Yeol administration promised to normalize the North Korea Human Rights Act and come up with practical measures to improve the rights situation in North Korea. We need a new strategy to improve North Korean human rights amid the advancing nuclear and missile capabilities of the North and international sanctions.

Just as Pyongyang uses its nuclear and missile programs to promote regime security, South Korea and the international community must use human rights to promote the safety of the North Korean people. We must clearly remember that the COI recommended 10 years ago that not only the North Korean authorities but also the international community take responsibility for protecting the North Koreans’ human rights.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.