 |
This coming March, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea (hereafter COI) will present the findings of its eight-month investigation in a final report to the UN Human Rights Council. The COI is the first international investigation to target North Korean human rights issues in a comprehensive manner, and one that has offered the international community much greater insight than ever before into a country that many are prohibited from entering.
Long before the formation of the COI, a number of South Korean advocacy groups were advised by international organizations to present their case to the UN and other international bodies in an attempt to drive the process forward. Consequently, in September 2011, 45 such groups and other individuals from around the world congregated at Meiji University in Tokyo, where they agreed to found the International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea (ICNK), which then began to push for greater international attention to be focused on North Korean human rights abuses.
Daily NK spoke with veteran activist and founding ICNK member Kwon Eun Kyoung to find out more.
Public hearings have been held in South Korea, Japan, England and the United States. What progress has the COI made in publishing its final report?
Currently the investigative committee is analyzing the information gathered during the public hearings. In the meantime though, Jang Song Taek has been executed. We still cannot directly meet with high ranking North Koreans to verify this, so we are relying on inside sources to gauge the current climate inside the country.
The committee has been made aware of past incidents of a similar nature; there have been executions of other high-ranking people like Jang, raising the possibility that more human rights abuses of this nature could occur.
There has also been supplementary information provided in areas where explanation was lacking, particularly with regard to incidents of abuse in the North and past investigations by South Korean groups. It is helpful that clarification is sought in reports made by such groups, in addition to defector testimony.
For instance, in order to confirm whether North Korea indeed violates the right to a free media, former North Korean reporters were questioned. These findings were then conveyed to the COI. Other inquires have also been made in relation to the abduction of South Koreans, and they are passed on as well.
Can you talk about your experiences working with both South Korean and international North Korean human rights organizations to establish the COI?
First of all, this has been an opportunity for me to better understand how the United Nations works. We were previously unaware what a “COI” even was. It was suggested by international groups that we try to work the committee as a way to solve the issue of North Korea human rights.
Various organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) have all turned to the UN to resolve human rights issues in a number of countries in the past. So we knew that there were strategies and methods that could broach the North Korean human rights issue on a deeper level. We believe that if South Korean groups could work together with their international counterparts, there would be a diversified platform from which to solve the issue. As a result, the inaugural ICNK meeting was held in Tokyo in September 2011.
What was behind the decision to hold the inaugural meeting in Japan?
The 45 international rights groups and individuals in attendance have distinct characteristics. Although all grapple with the North Korean human rights issue, Japan has the highest number of victims outside of Korea. Moreover, Japan drafted the UN Human Rights Council resolution which was imperative for the founding of the COI. It was also a strategic move because (the movement) requires the support of Japanese NGOs and the Japanese government. At the time, we naturally believed that the South Korean government would pledge their full support.
Can you elaborate on South Korea’s hesitation in supporting the COI?
In March 2013 the decision was made to establish the COI pending a resolution from the UN Human Rights Council. If the resolution was to be passed, all UN member states would have to agree. Japan and the EU had already submitted a draft proposing the establishment of a North Korean Human Rights Committee at the end of 2012, but other countries were waiting to see how South Korea would respond.
In the meantime, Navi Pillav, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for the establishment of the COI, but there was still no word from the South Korean government. France, the UK and the United States said they would consent if South Korea would just indicate their position. Everyone was waiting for South Korea.
At the time South Korea was undergoing a leadership change, and the previous government and the new government were carefully watching one another.
We believed that the South Korean government would not be of assistance at this critical time. So we decided to gather written letters from defectors, and more than one hundred letters from intellectuals, and we submitted them to the government. We also asked that they support us non-publicly. State representatives told us they personally supported what we were doing, but even so, there was a delay of more than a month and a half before any support was pledged. Eventually, it was only after the United States said they would support it that the South Koreans came on board.
It is disheartening that the South Korean government lacks consistency in its policy toward North Korea. They say that the regime will change in future but they can’t support it, and they can’t take action. It’s regrettable that they drag their feet on the issue.
In any case, the resolution to establish the COI was eventually passed in March without a vote, as all member states of the UN Human Rights Committee were in agreement.
What comes next after the COI presents its final report in March?
The completion of the final report is currently underway. What emerges from the final report is the most important thing. We hope that the report, which outlines nine categories of human rights abuses as posited by the UN Special Rapporteur on North Korean Human Rights, will prompt legal action against the North for their crimes against humanity. The perpetrators must face legal consequences for their crimes, and the report must include recommendations that the Security Council work to solve the issue.
However, the outlook for punishing the violators at the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains bleak since Russia and China are permanent members of the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, the report carries a certain degree of authority to push for legal action against these human rights abusers.
But North Korea denies the allegations of human rights abuses.
The violators of human rights abuses in North Korea will ultimately face punishment at the ICC. But for now, our key priority is to put pressure on the North Korean government. If international organizations and institutions investigate the exact nature of the political prison camps inside North Korea and take action, the regime will be forced to take notice.
There are North Korean representatives at the UN who report home what is being said about the country, and what countries are involved in measures against them. The North Korean authorities are well aware what is going on, and this is putting pressure on them.
On a diplomatic level, it could be said that North Korea only really deals with China and may not show any interest. However, they also they have to form diplomatic relations with countries in Africa, Southeast Asia and Europe, and this could be a concern for them. If North Korea can no longer avoid the international gaze, instances of human rights abuses could gradually taper off.
Has there been any change in the North as the result of the COI?
Not yet. North Korea mostly ignores the issue of human rights when raised by UN institutions. But it flinched at the international sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council after their nuclear test. The North Korean authorities assert that these sanctions from the international community are part of an “anti-communist plot.”
Although the UN Security Council has passed the human rights resolution and backed the opening of an international criminal tribunal, we are unable to capture the violators and subject them to trial. North Korea is not a signatory to the Rome Statute; therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes, which is most unfortunate.
Are South Korean civic organizations set to play a more important role in investigating human rights abuses in North Korea?
In this field of activism, campaigns are organized alongside international groups and international lobbies are underway. Nevertheless, there are instances where the international community cannot do anything because of the lack of substantiating evidence.
The ICNK consists of a number of groups from around the world, who are all able to upload photo and video evidence online of human rights abuses in Syria, Libya, Northern Africa, Sudan and Pakistan.
The human rights abuses they depict are nowhere near as serious as those of North Korea. But international news media overlooks this part of the world because the only evidence is defector testimony and reports. International investigative teams cannot approach North Korea itself, so the scale of the abuses cannot be gauged. The final report of the COI is important here, as it can be used in future campaigns.
In this field, it is extremely important that the North Korean human rights movement has this foundation of support of an investigative body that is affiliated with the UN, an organization that holds the public’s confidence. Finally, whether through direct or indirect means, evidence of human rights abuses must continue to be gathered.
What is your take on the tendency in South Korea to overlook human rights issues in favor of other political goals?
It will take a long time to solve the human rights issue in North Korea. However, merely dreaming about it won’t help. Would there be an improvement if the issue of political prison camps were raised at inter-Korean working-level meetings? There is no direct channel (for discussion), so we must turn to the international community. The very existence of the Ministry of Unification depends on the maintenance of ties with the North. This channel would be lost at the first mention of human rights. As a result, NGOs must work harder to pick up the slack.
