[imText1]Freedom House Conference on North Korea
Natan Sharansky, a former Soviet dissident, Israeli politician, and author of “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror,” addressed the first of three Freedom House conferences on freedom for North Koreans on July 19. Sharansky recently met with President Bush in the White House, and his book is said to have influenced the President’s political philosophy. Sharansky’s address to the conference lasted for approximately 20 minutes. It was followed by a joint question-and-answer session with Kang Chul Hwan, author of “The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag.” Kang also met with President Bush at the White House recently, for 40 minutes on June 15.
Sharansky was introduced by Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy. Gershman’s introduction contained two significant statements: first, that “a dissident movement in North Korea will come in [due] time;” and second, that “people with the moral clarity to see evil . . . can bring about its final demise.
Address by Natan Sharansky
Like Kang, Sharansky is a physically tiny man, just five-foot-three, but welded onto a ferrous framework–a will and a voice on the scale of the Magnitogorsk Iron Works. Sharansky’s accent is no less grandiose; he can be difficult to understand at times. His voice and tenor are forceful, yet Sharansky’s intellect is deft and incisive, though more evident when he’s debating than when he’s lecturing. Sharansky had devoured Kang’s book and thought through the similarities and differences of the Soviet terror system to that of North Korea. Despite his admission that the North Korean system is far harsher than what he himself had experienced, he came prepared to apply the lessons of his own experiences to North Korea.
The speech itself was mostly a condensation of Sharansky’s book, which I’d venture most of those in the crowd had already read. I strongly recommend you read it, too (less so for the last third of it, which mostly deals with internal Israeli politics). The main themes were these:
Democracy is for everyone.
Sharansky drew on the example of those who one said, “There will be no democracy in Japan,” where thousands of years of civilization had produced no democratic experience. Likewise, he rejects the idea that democracy cannot take root in the Arab world, or in Korea. To Sharansky, democracy is the natural condition of societies. “You can’t give people a little bit of freedom. When you’ve experienced freedom, you never want to go back.” He recalls finding common cause with Christians and even Ukrainian nationalists in prison–the latter not being known for their affection for Jews (in his book, he describes how one made him a prayer shawl that Sharansky still treasures).
What distinguishes “Fear societies” and “free societies.”
Sharansky applies the now-famous “town square test.” If you can go to the town square to criticize the state without fear of persecution, the society is free.
How people survive in fear societies.
Sharansky classifies those living in fear societies into three general groups: true believers, dissenters, and doublethinkers (a term borrowed from Orwell). Dissenters differ from doublethinkers in that they dare oppose the regime openly. Sharansky noted the unlikeliness that North Korea contains any dissenters today; those who oppose the regime must take refuge in doublethink. He recalls the moment he first became a doublethinker when Stalin died in March 1953, when Sharansky was just five years old. At the time, Stalin was gearing up the state’s purge machinery for a mass deportation of Soviet Jews to Siberia (more here), starting with the same critical broadsides in Pravda that had preceded so many other purges before. Sharansky’s grandfather pulled him aside and whispered that he should go to school and cry like all the other children, but that inside, he should remember that they had all been saved by a miracle. Sharansky noted the unlikeliness that North Korea contains any dissenters today, but that the growth of doublethink is fastest in the most repressive societies like North Korea’s.
How “fear societies” maintain power.
First, through terror–the containment of dissent and the persecution of suspected doublethinkers. Of the latter, Sharansky cited Kang’s description of hiding under layers of blankets to listen to South Korean radio. Second, by creating external enemies toward which they divert popular resentment. Third, by obtaining aid from those same enemies (Sharansky may be speaking of communism’s unique economic inefficiencies; China, having abandoned communism, seeks trade on favorable terms instead). Such a strategy requires mobilizing disaffected people for a sacred struggle against an enemy, even as the regime tries to mobilize its suffering people for a sacred struggle against the foreign “enemies” who are feeding them. A regime wishing to do this must control the free flow of information.
On the importance of moral clarity.
There are people who would make “any compromise to avoid war.” Sharansky sees this as a false choice. “We can’t send troops all over the world.” “Dictatorships have strong militaries, but they are always weak from the inside” because of the extraordinary expenditure of energy required to maintain internal control. This brought Sharansky back to the power of radio and its potential for awakening dissent, and the importance of free societies using radio to tell dissenters and doublethinkers that the free world stands with them. That requires moral clarity and the willingness to link aid to demands for political liberalization. Here, Sharansky credited Reagan by name for demanding human rights concessions from the Soviets, and denounced the South Korean government for giving trade and aid without demanding liberalization or transparency as conditions. Separately, Sharansky remembers:
In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s “provocation” quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth – a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.
Spreading democracy makes the world safer.
“To stay in power, a democratic leader must please his people. In a fear society, the leader must simply keep control.” One way they do this is to “mobilize people for a sacred struggle against an [external] enemy.” Thus, “dictators need to sustain tension with the outside world while getting support from the free world.” Sharansky sees dictatorships as feeding conflict for the sake of their own survival. He contrasts this with free societies, whose populations are inherently opposed to war. “Freedom,” declared Sharansky, “is the best guarantor of stability,” which was one of the big applause lines of his speech.
On North Korea.
Had Sharansky not corrected his geography a moment later, the day’s headline could have been, “Sharansky Calls for Regime Change in South Korea.” He also called on the United States and South Korea to link assistance to North Korea with political liberalization.
Q&A Session With Senator Sam Brownback
Sharansky’s speech was followed by a question-and-answer session moderated by Senator Sam Brownback, who can fairly be called North Korea’s most dangerous enemy in the U.S. Congress.
Q (Brownback to Sharansky). Tell us your impressions on reading The Aquariums of Pyongyang.
A. Although we speak of different languages and cultures, the methods of terror are the same, and thus, the methods of getting rid of the regimes are the same. We must stop appeasing dictators and force them to adjust to our philosophy [applause].
Q [for Kang, You met the President of the U.S just before with your book, The Aquariums of Pyongyang…].
It was a great honor recently to interview the President of the United States. When I escaped North Korea, I had a dream that I could be the voice of the North Korean people. In this, I received no help from the South Korean government. They never did anything to help me. They did not even participate in the three U.N. resolutions condemning North Korea’s human rights abuses. They are like Lee Won-Yong who sold Korea to Japan. I have read Natan Sharansky’s book [the Korean edition was just released]. Those living in terror regimes must have courage in their hearts. Those in free societies must exercise moral discernment. The Sunshine Policy has produced nothing after eight years. North Korea still commits eggregious human rights violations, and continues to build nuclear weapons. It is time to correct it. I respect activists who fought for democracy in South Korea, activists like Kim Moon Soo.* Thank you for fighting for human rights in North Korea.
[* Kim Moon Soo is a GNP member of the Korean National Assembly who spent three years in prison for pro-democracy activities as a labor leader in the 1980s. He attended the Freedom House conference and is now an activist for human rights in North Korea. Regrettably, I had to decline an invitation to dinner with him because I’m supposed to be on leave, and my family needs to see more of me these days.]
Q (by Brownback, for Sharansky). What did dissidents do to bring down the Soviet regime?
A. We were in a constant struggle with them. We got no news from the outside, but we could tell what effect we were having because of the KGB questions, and the care they took to bring me back from death during my hunger strikes. Our greatest day was when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” We were knocking on the walls to communicate the message to each other. I also remember that Ronald Reagan said that he was not interested in friendship with the Soviet Union. Finally, someone was speaking the truth. Finally, someone had shown moral clarity.
Q. Are we speaking with sufficient clarity on North Korea?
A. No. The policy thus far has been mostly appeasement. We have taken the position that we have to deal with the nuclear issues first. Even the policy of South Korea has lacked moral clarity. A strong moral position is best for us, and best for the world.
Q. And for the North Korean people?
A. No doubt. It’s what the North Korean people need. It is racism to believe that there are people who like to be tortured [applause].
Q (for Kang). Can you give us one vignette that summarizes your experience in North Korea?
A. [Kang never really responded, but instead related:] I was sent to prison [at age nine] because of some offense by my grandfather. In North Korea, the policy is to root out class enemies for three generations. In the gulags, there are two levels of security–“controlled” areas [from which no one ever leaves], and “revolutionary” areas, such as the one where we were. North Korea’s gulags serve two purposes–controlling opposition, and getting work from people. Hitler had his Auschwitz with its gas chambers. North Korea doesn’t have this*, but has executed 200,000 to 300,000 people in its camps. In the 21st Century, we are still witnessing such gulags as those run by Hitler.
[* Obviously, there have been reports of gas chambers in North Korea. The U.S. Congress may soon hold hearings on this very question. Did Kang mean to suggest that the reports are false, or that the North Korean gas chambers simply don’t match the scale of those in the Nazi camps. Indeed, the evidence is that they operate on a far, far smaller scale. I will see if I can clarify this.]
Q. What are the most effective things we can advocate to bring change to North Korea?
A. The North Korean regime is using its nuclear weapons as a form of blackmail. The nuclear focus keeps us from getting to the heart of the issue, the nature of the North Korean regime. Our aid to North Korea should be conditioned on human rights conditions there.
Q (for Sharansky). This is being broadcast live into North Korea. Ambassador Mark Palmer, who was the force behind the ADVANCE Democracy Act [my first-hand report of its announcement here], tells us that we should not negotiate with evil, but that instead, we should confront it. What can we do in that regard?
A. We must speak with the dissidents and show everyone whose side Americans are on. This is true whether we are talking about Iran, Syria, or North Korea. One million Lebanese are free today because of this. President Bush’s meeting with Kang Chul Hwan may have been the reason the North Koreans suddenly to negotiate again. We must encourage double-thinkers to become dissidents. As with Helsinki, we should link human rights to our code of ethics for engagement.
Q. Would you call what has happened in North Korea a genocide?
A. With a regime that starves its own people, I would not be surprised [my own thoughts on the question here]. China, which repatriates North Koreans back to these conditions, uses the excuse that it has no room for all of these people. For a country with, what–a billion people?–this is nothing but a demographic pretext. These people are being sent back to certain death.
Q. Should we call it a genocide?
A. Yes, but it’s not enough to call it a genocide. We must treat it as one [enthusiastic applause].
Q. (to Kang). Some defectors have told us that North Koreans no longer look up to Kim Jong Il. Is that true?
A. It is true. The people think one thing and say another [here, Kang rephrased the ideas in Sharansky’s book] until it is safe for them to be more honest. When the terror is lifted, criticism can emerge into the open.
Q. How can we communicate with them?
A. One way is to do so through China. Some may believe that China is an ally of North Korea, but actually, it’s a threat. Through China, North Koreans can see South Korean soap operas and get access to foreign ideas and learn how people on the outside live. Another way is through broadcasting, such as by KBS or Radio Free Asia. We should also drop more radios to the people.
