Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts

October 15, 2021

IN TIMES OF FOOD SCARCITY IN NORTH KOREA, FOOD-DEPRIVED POLITICAL PRISONERS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

By Roberta Cohen

Edited by Raymond Ha, HRNK Director of Operations & Research


NOTE FROM HRNK: This essay draws attention to the risks facing political prisoners as the food situation in North Korea worsens. Restrictions imposed by North Korea in response to Covid-19 have resulted in the withdrawal of most, if not all, international humanitarian staff from the country. As humanitarian aid to North Korea resumes, special attention should be paid to reaching the most vulnerable group in that country—those who are detained in political prison camps. Now is the time to plan steps that could be taken to better protect vulnerable populations in North Korea, who face serious risks due to lack of access to adequate food and medical care. This essay is based on an affidavit prepared by the author for the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and International Bar Association’s forthcoming Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity in North Korean Detention Centers.


According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, North Korea is facing a severe food shortfall—a gap of at least 860,000 tons of food, which corresponds to two months’ supply.[i] In ordinary times, more than 40 percent of North Korea’s population is food insecure, but conditions at present are said to be more dire. Damaging floods and the government’s Covid-19 restrictions have exacerbated the food shortage. International aid agencies have been prevented from operating and cross-border trading has been curtailed. State media openly speaks of a food crisis.

In such conditions, the most food-deprived persons in the country should be identified and prioritized. But in North Korea, the government has created a food-deprived group isolated from the rest of the population: political prisoners. They are undoubtedly the first to be denied food when commodities are scarce and the last to receive food when it is available. In July 2021, the UN Secretary-General warned the international community that “there are risks that the food situation for detainees has worsened, as the food situation has become more acute for the general population.”[ii]

The UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on human rights in North Korea described the near starvation of prisoners in North Korea as a form of governmental “control and punishment” in its 2014 report.[iii] The most in danger during times of crisis are those held in political prison camps (kwan-li-so). A North Korean official told the former German Ambassador that “people are only being sent there to die.”[iv] However, those held in long-term re-education through labor camps (kyo-hwa-so) and short-term detention facilities are also at risk, especially now that Covid-19 restrictions prevent families and friends from bringing food packages.

A total of 80,000 to 120,000 political prisoners are reported to be incarcerated in North Korea, with some sources estimating upwards of 200,000. In most cases, they are charged with ‘offenses’ that are not considered criminal in other countries: trying to leave the country without permission; trying to join relatives in South Korea or having a family member who does; listening to foreign news broadcasts; watching foreign movies and copying foreign speech and clothing; questioning or complaining about government policies, or having a family member who did; being caught up on the wrong side of a factional political dispute; possessing a Bible or organizing a Christian service; and more. During the pandemic, North Koreans who question or fail to adhere to official quarantine measures are reported to be placed in labor camps for challenging Party policy.[v] In some cases, entire families of prisoners, including children, have been incarcerated on the basis of guilt-by-association (yeon-jwa-je).

Deaths in detention are known to be high. The UN COI estimated in 2014 that hundreds of thousands of prisoners perished over the past five decades from a combination of deliberate starvation, illnesses, forced labor, torture, and other brutality. It defined their deaths as “extermination,” which “can be carried out by imprisoning a large number of people and withholding the necessities of life so that mass deaths ensue.”[vi]

With few exceptions, it has long been accepted practice for donors and aid agencies to refrain from requesting access to political prisoners, because of the political sensitivity of the issue and the fear of jeopardizing access to other vulnerable populations. Political prisoners, however, are undoubtedly the most vulnerable group in North Korea.


ON THE DENIAL OF ADEQUATE FOOD TO POLITICAL PRISONERS

In the case of political prison camps (kwan-li-so) as well as long-term re-education through labor camps (kyo-hwa-so), the UN COI presented extensive evidence of the denial of adequate food to those detained. The COI also found evidence of limited access to food at short-term detention facilities.[vii] In recent years, additional corroborating information has emerged regarding these short-term facilities. This information, presented below, shows how adequate food has been consistently denied from the time of arrest through interrogation and then in early short-term detention. Typically, prisoners detained in such facilities are held up to two years, at which point they may be released or transferred to long-term detention facilities.

The following documentation attests to the inadequate food in short-term detention facilities:

  1. Interviews in 2019 and 2020 by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) with 25 former prisoners held in short-term facilities spanning a twenty-three year period (1996–2019) in the provinces of North Hamgyong, South Hamgyong, North Pyongan, South Pyongan, and Ryanggang.[viii] The short-term facilities include: a) police interrogation/detention centers (An-jeon-bu ku-ryu-jang or ku-ryu-so); b) police stations (An-jeon-bu bo-an-so and bun-ju-so); c) Ministry of State Security (hereafter MSS) interrogation/detention centers (Bo-wi-bu ku-ryu-jang); d) short-term labor detention facilities (jip-kyul-so); and e) mobile forced labor brigades (ro-dong-dan-ryeon-dae).
  2. Reports authored by David Hawk, a leading expert on North Korea’s prison camps and detention facilities, including The Hidden Gulag[ix] and The Parallel Gulag,[x] published by HRNK in 2012 and 2017 respectively.
  3. The 2020 report of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Human Rights Violations against Women Detained in the DPRK, based on 100 interviews of women detained between 2009 and 2019 (many in short-term detention facilities) after being forcibly repatriated from China.[xi]
  4. The 2017 White Paper on North Korean Human Rights of the Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB), which compiled more than 500 cases of violations of the right to food in short-term detention facilities and found these violations to be “prevalent” throughout the country. [xii]
  5. Information obtained over the past decade by the author from meetings with former North Korean prisoners, prison guards, and government officials, as well as officials and experts from other Asian countries, North America, and Europe. 


LACK OF SUFFICIENT FOOD IN SHORT-TERM DETENTION FACILITIES

Witness after witness described the below-subsistence food rations provided at the short-term detention facilities run by the Ministry of Social Security (the police),[xiii] the Ministry of State Security (responsible for political crimes), or both in collaboration. Indeed, the diet provided over a period of two decades across different facilities constitutes a dangerously small fraction of minimal dietary requirements for average adults.[xiv]

Of course, during the great famine of the mid-1990s and subsequent periods of food scarcity, the state had little to provide prisoners. But even during periods when food was available, the authorities distributed substandard amounts to persons in detention centers, especially to those being punished on political grounds. 

The following quotes from the testimonies of former prisoners describe their daily diets in short-term facilities, spanning a nineteen-year period:

a) 2000: “small amounts of boiled mashed corn and salty radish leaf soup” (labor detention facility in Chongjin)[xv]

b) 2001: “corn soup made of whole grain unpeeled corn, amounting to three or four spoonfuls” (MSS facility in Onsong)[xvi]

c) 2002–3:“raw corn which had no nutritional value...not even peeled off or cleansed” (MSS facility in Onsong)[xvii]

d) 2005: “about 20 pieces [kernels] of corn” (labor detention facility in Chongjin)[xviii]

e) 2008: “only corn noodles about 2 kilograms for 200 people” (MSS facility in Hyesan)[xix]

f) 2009: “we really could only eat mice and corn pieces” (mobile labor brigade in Sinuiju)[xx]

g) 2010: “a small cup of boiled rice, about 150 grams per meal. Soup was made of dried cabbage and salt” (short-term detention facility in North Pyongan Province)[xxi]

h) 2011:“50 grains [of corn] at each meal...I counted the grains”(unnamed MSS short-term labor facility)[xxii]

i) 2012: “200 to 300 grains of corn three times a day” (unnamed MSS interrogation center)[xxiii]

j) 2012/13: primarily “corn that they couldn’t throw away that even the dogs did not want” (labor detention facility in Hyesan)[xxiv]

k) 2014: “five tiny rotten potatoes per meal” (unnamed police interrogation center)[xxv]

l) 2015: “five spoonfuls...boiled leftovers...three times a day” (MSS detention facility in North Hamgyong Province)[xxvi]

m) 2016: “a handful of corn per meal” three times a day (unnamed MSS detention center)[xxvii]

n) 2017: “50 grains of corn per meal” (unnamed police interrogation center)[xxviii]

o) 2019 (solitary confinement): “about 150 grams of food every day. I did not receive water” (held for one month and ten days at police facility in Onsong)[xxix]

p) 2019: 150 grams three times a day (MSS and police facilities in Onsong)[xxx]

“I think they willfully made people starve in detention,” said one former prisoner to HRNK about his time at a mobile labor brigade in Hoeryong, North Hamgyong Province in 2001.[xxxi] Others echoed the same sentiment: “I have...witnessed many people in the detention centers [Musan, Chongjin, Hyesan, Onsong, Pyeongsong] die of starvation even though the state has food that could be distributed”(2004–5).[xxxii] Another former prisoner said that insufficient food “led to cases of starvation among the detainees” at a mobile labor brigade in Hoeryong in 2011.[xxxiii] The UN OHCHR’S 2020 report described a “consistent pattern” of “grossly inadequate” food for women prisoners in both short-term and long-term facilities.[xxxiv]

Because constant and severe hunger was the daily predicament of many prisoners in these facilities, prisoners ate grass and other plants to survive, according to a former prisoner at a labor detention center in South Sinuiju in 2000.[xxxv] Prisoners caught and ate mice at other facilities, but in many short-term detention facilities, especially overcrowded buildings, prisoners lacked access to the outside and could not even forage for grass, insects, or rodents.[xxxvi]


Role of Families in Preventing Prisoner Starvation: One of the reasons prisoners incarcerated in long-term re-education through labor camps and short-term facilities have been able to survive is because their families and friends are able to bring food packages. (This is not the case in the political prison camps, which are operated by the MSS.) However, the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020 and 2021 has barred families and friends from visiting these facilities, and the food situation for prisoners has become even more precarious.

Prior to the pandemic, there were difficulties in providing food packages to prisoners. Families could remain uninformed for months about the whereabouts of their loved ones, especially while they were in interrogation. Once family members found out the location of the detention facility, they often had to bribe guards to ensure that the food package was safely delivered. Sometimes, the guards stole or ate part of the food or sold it in the market. Visits could also be denied on an arbitrary basis.[xxxvii] The UN OHCHR’s 2020 report points out that not all detainees received packages from their families, since not all were close by or had the capacity to do so. Prisoners who did not receive packages remained “vulnerable to malnutrition.”[xxxviii]

When families were allowed to bring food, former prisoners acknowledged that the health of detainees typically improved. “Most of us survived only because of families and friends bringing food for us and if not, prisoners died from severe malnutrition and ultimately starvation, combined with constant hard work,” according to a former prisoner at a mobile labor brigade in 2011.[xxxix] When family members were allowed to bring food “twice a week,” as was the case at a police detention facility in Onsong in 2019, conditions “got better,” said a former prisoner. However, from April 2019 until the prisoner’s escape in July, prison authorities stopped these visits without providing a reason, and prisoners began to become malnourished.[xl]

For those who were subject to hard labor for up to 10 or more hours a day, food was essential but not often provided. “Even when we were forced to do very hard labor,” the guards “barely provided food” (mobile labor brigade in Hoeryong, 2011).[xli] The combination of inadequate food with forced labor added to the likelihood that prisoners would fall ill. “I was hungry all the time,” said a former prisoner at an MSS facility in Hyesan, Ryanggang Province in 2012–13. “[W]e received only very limited food...[while] we were made to do hard labor, including working on cleaning the railroads.”[xlii]

Nor was clean water made regularly available. The UN OHCHR’s 2020 report recommended that North Korea make “drinking water available to every prisoner whenever she needs it.”[xliii]


THE USE OF FOOD TO SICKEN AND PUNISH PRISONERS

Many detainees testified that the food provided by the state sickened them. At one MSS interrogation facility in 2017, a former prisoner testified: “Meals were carried in a bucket and the bucket was never cleaned and smelled terrible...I was unable to eat it.”[xliv] At many other detention facilities and over many years, different detainees repeatedly called the food provided by the state “rotten,” “inedible,” and causing “bad side effects.” “The only food that we were given was essentially waste...animal feed,” which caused many prisoners to suffer from diarrhea and other sicknesses such as enteritis, an inflammation of the small intestine commonly caused by food or drink contaminated with microbes (e.g., Chongjin MSS facility in 2001, Hyesan MSS facility in 2008).[xlv]

At an MSS facility in Hyesan in 2008, a former prisoner spoke of “at least two people in my cell who died from diarrhea or enteritis...I witnessed their deaths, and the prison authorities did nothing to help them.”[xlvi] At an MSS facility in Onsong, “a number of the detainees suffered from enteritis and starved to death” (2002–3).[xlvii] This was also the case at multiple detention centers in North Hamgyong and Ryanggang provinces in 2004–5, where a former prisoner witnessed “many” detainees becoming ill. “I witnessed a large number of people die as a result.”[xlviii] Another former prisoner who suffered from an inflamed gall bladder received no medical help (police detention center in Hoeryong, 2009).[xlix]

Food was regularly used as a weapon of punishment and control. Some former detainees reported “having to drink dirty, contaminated water as collective punishment” (2004).[l] Others reported “not being allowed to receive the dinner meal” as a form of punishment (mobile labor brigade in Chongjin, 2008).[li] At a police interrogation/detention center in 2014, one former detainee stated, “I was starved on a few occasions...the MSS wanted to punish and pressure me, and therefore they did not allow me to get the meals [brought by family members].”[lii] During interrogation, especially for cases concerning political crimes, “starvation” was “deliberately imposed on suspects to increase the pressure on them to confess and to incriminate other persons.”[liii]

Sometimes, food was withheld from certain categories of prisoners as punishment. For example, pregnant women, especially those impregnated by Chinese ‘husbands,’ were reportedly denied food and water at a labor detention facility in Nongpo (Chongjin) in 1999.[liv] At a mobile labor brigade in Hoeryong, “some young male detainees” were singled out and “treated so badly when it [came] to food” (2001)[lv], while at an MSS facility in Chongjin, Christian prisoners “were treated very badly, with many beatings and little food” (2001).[lvi] The teenage daughter of Christian missionaries at a police station in Hyesan was “not given food for almost two weeks” during interrogation (2004).[lvii] According to another former prisoner, “The authorities aimed to hurt those who did not support the regime and/or belonged to the ‘wrong’ social class” (mobile labor brigade in Chongjin, 2003).[lviii] In 2010, female prisoners who had been forcibly repatriated from China were told by prison guards that they were “traitors who deserved to die,” so they received little food and did not have access to medical treatment (police detention facility in South Hamgyong Province).[lix]

Detainees who stole food to survive, especially while working on farms, were punished severely. Guards at an MSS facility in Onsong were reported to have executed “dozens” for eating oxen (beef) in 2000,[lx] while at a short-term labor detention facility in Chongjin in 2002, a former detainee said that “I have…seen individuals executed for stealing a pig.”[lxi] In 2010, at a short-term detention facility in Ryanggang Province, a prisoner secretly ate uncooked rice while doing farm work, and “they put pebbles in my mouth and sealed it with adhesive tape, and they made me work” without food.[lxii]

When prisoners became so sick that they were in need of hospitalization, the authorities sometimes sent prisoners home. In some cases, families had to bribe the authorities or doctors to allow the sick prisoner to return home.[lxiii] Clearly, prison authorities had neither the willingness nor the capacity to treat prisoners who became extremely sick, even though the insufficient food they provided—combined with the “lack of health care” and hard labor—had caused prisoners’ health to deteriorate.[lxiv] In many instances, the bodies of detainees who died from starvation (and other causes) were thrown into unmarked graves.


THE TOLL ON PRISONERS’ HEALTH

Inadequate food regularly jeopardized prisoners’ health, in many cases causing inflammation of body organs, as described above. The UN OHCHR also found that the “grossly inadequate quantity and poor quality of food,” fed to women prisoners “led to high levels of malnutrition…and the interruption of their menstrual cycles” (2009–19).[lxv] Both male and female detainees who were held in short-term detention facilities for months lost considerable weight, making them weak and vulnerable to malnutrition and disease, including enteritis and tuberculosis.[lxvi]

Some prisoners described themselves as being reduced to “skin and bones.” Whether at an MSS facility in Hyesan (2008), an MSS facility in Musan (2003), or a labor detention facility in Chongjin (2002), prisoners spoke of how the denial of adequate food reduced their bodies to skeletons. “I weighed only 32 kilograms [70.5 pounds],” recalled one former prisoner.[lxvii] Another individual, who “lost half his body weight” after three months in detention at an MSS facility in Sinuiju, collapsed from malnutrition and beatings and was sent home to die (2003).[lxviii]


Impact of Food Deprivation on Children: It is well known that detained children are subjected to acute suffering, in part because they “ha[ve] no funds with them” with which to secure additional food by bribing guards. For example, at a mobile labor brigade in Chongjin, there were “many deaths of children from malnutrition or starvation” (2003).[lxix] At an MSS facility in Musan in that same year, “almost all of the children were suffering from malnutrition, with a number of them dying from starvation.”[lxx]

In 2003–4, at a labor detention facility in Hyesan, “more than 10 children died of starvation.... Other children survived but were suffering from extreme hunger and malnutrition.”[lxxi] At an MSS facility in Sinuiju in 2008–9, “hunger and starvation were rampant, particularly for children. Many children and young people were emaciated.”[lxxii] Considering that one in five non-incarcerated North Korean children suffer from stunted growth, one can only imagine the impact on incarcerated children when deliberately denied food in detention facilities. Further, it is almost certain that this deprivation also causes lasting emotional harm and irreversible intellectual deficits, in addition to the long-term physical impact on these children.


DEATHS IN DETENTION

There is no question that inadequate food—either alone or in combination with forced labor, beatings, and lack of medicine and adequate healthcare—have resulted in deaths over the past twenty years. Thousands of North Korean detainees are estimated to die each year from the combination of starvation, beatings, labor exhaustion, lack of medicine, and disease.

The UN COI’s report found that in short-term detention facilities, “many die from starvation, disease or injuries sustained during beatings and work accidents.”[lxxiii] The UN OHCHR’s report on women prisoners (2009–19) found that “The deprivation of food was at times so severe that detainees reportedly starved to death.”[lxxiv]

Testimony regarding deaths in specific short-term facilities can be found in the following:

a) The UN COI’s report: for example, “After a month or two of imprisonment,” where prisoners were given starvation rations, “a lot of inmates died” (labor training facility in Hamheung).[lxxv]

b) Witness testimonies quoted in HRNK reports (2000–2009): [lxxvi]

  1. “I witnessed many deaths due to starvation and unlivable conditions, around 35 individuals died in the Bo-wi-bu [MSS] that I know of due to starvation” (MSS facility in Onsong, 2000).
  2. “There was at least one person dying every day from malnutrition - it was like an epidemic” (labor detention facility in Chongjin, 2003).
  3. “Approximately 2,000 die...each year...We were told to keep track of how many prisoners died.... Of the 2,000 deaths each year, I knew a number of these individuals.... Some of the inmates died of starvation or malnutrition” (former prisoner-turned-prison administrator at mobile labor brigade in Chungsan, 2003–5).
  4. “I saw a number of people die of starvation.... Starvation and extreme hunger were rampant in the facility” (mobile labor brigade in Pyeongsong, 2005).
  5. Detainees “often suffer from starvation. I witnessed many detainees die” (at detention centers in Onsong, Chongjin, and Orang, 2004–5).
  6. “I saw people die continuously. These deaths often resulted from malnutrition and untreated diseases” (mobile labor brigade in Musan, 1997, 2004, 2009).
Prisoners continued to suffer from health problems after being released. Many former prisoners who managed to escape to South Korea continued to suffer from worms, gastrointestinal problems, and other ailments. One individual who was provided little food during detention in 2009 said six years later, “I caught tuberculosis [then] and have to take medicine now” and “My daughter still has a problem in her heart” (North Pyongan Province police labor detention facility).[lxxvii] Not surprisingly, enduring psychological damage from trauma during detention also is common. “Since my release from the Kilju bo-an-so (police station) I have suffered from considerable mental and physical trauma which continues to this day” (2013).[lxxviii]


PLACING THE ISSUE OF STARVATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS ON THE INTERNATIONAL AGENDA

In response to the increasing reports of starvation of North Korea’s prisoners, annual UN General Assembly resolutions have begun to list political prisoners in North Korea as a vulnerable group “suffering chronic and acute malnutrition”[lxxix] and have called for the entry of international humanitarian organizations to North Korea’s “detention facilities.”[lxxx]

North Korea itself informed the UN in 2019 that it accepted the recommendation put forward by the government of Ireland at the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) that the DPRK:

grant immediate free and unimpeded access to international humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to the most vulnerable groups, including prisoners [emphasis added].”[lxxxi]

Donors, UN agencies, and NGOs have nevertheless mostly refrained from requesting access to prisoners so as not to antagonize the North Korean government and possibly undermine aid going to other vulnerable groups. Human rights specialists, for their part, have cautioned that North Korea’s acceptance will doubtless not apply to prisoners in the political prison camps, whose existence the government denies,[lxxxii] and that a “Potemkin village”-type prison could be erected. However, the DPRK’s acceptance of the recommendation does offer an entry point for donors, UN agencies, and NGOs to request access to long-term re-education through labor camps and short-term detention facilities.

North Korea should realize that it is in its own interest to allow humanitarian groups to treat prisoners with tuberculosis and other diseases, because this could benefit the wider community.[lxxxiii] Gaining entry to and vaccinating prisoners against Covid-19 would also yield benefits for the broader population. In 2020, an NGO informed a U.S. Institute of Peace audience that the North Korean government had negotiated an MOU with an unnamed NGO to allow it access to prisoners with health problems.[lxxxiv] The MOU had been negotiated prior to the U.S.-DPRK summit in Singapore, according to the NGO representative, but the DPRK pulled back when diplomatic tensions increased again.

Surely it is time for donors, international agencies, and NGOs to develop a joint strategy that prioritizes the goal of reaching the most acute cases of hunger and disease in North Korea, which are found in its prison camps and detention facilities. Not only would this reinforce international humanitarian standards – e.g., reaching the most vulnerable and providing aid without discrimination, but a joint initiative would also help protect individual agencies from government retaliation. The UN COI, moreover, has warned that subjecting detainees to food denial on a systematic and widespread basis could constitute a crime against humanity, for which North Korea could be held accountable in an international criminal tribunal.[lxxxv] Aid agencies, particularly those whose operations are visibly close to detention facilities, may be seen as complicit if they knowingly turn their heads away.

Precedents exist in other countries for bringing assistance to prisoners, spearheaded by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the World Health Organization (WHO). These precedents should be studied and built upon, with the goal of applying them to the DPRK.

The UN’s Strategic Framework for the DPRK (2017–21), which governs the operations of UN agencies in the country, could be helpful. It affirms that the UN has a role in providing support to the DPRK in meeting its human rights commitments under the UPR. It therefore puts the UN in a position to offer its support to the North Korean government to help implement its acceptance of humanitarian entry to prisons, as noted above. The Strategic Framework also provides that the UN may offer support to North Korea in technical cooperation and training in international standards. With support from headquarters and donors, the UN Resident Coordinator in North Korea could feasibly bring onto the international humanitarian agenda the plight of incarcerated North Koreans who are badly in need of food and medical care.

An episode in the ICRC’s history may be instructive. In 1989, the widely acclaimed organization decided to look back some fifty years to understand why it had provided so little help to those incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. What its evaluators found was that ICRC staff and officials at the time feared that such advocacy could jeopardize their assistance to other groups, in particular POWs for whom they had a specific responsibility, and possibly undermine their relationship with the government. Overall, they had failed to grasp the extraordinariness of the situation. Today, the ICRC views this oversight as “the worst defeat” in its history.[lxxxvi]

The international humanitarian and development community owes it to long-suffering prisoners in North Korea and also to the integrity of their own missions to bring closer the human rights and humanitarian goals that lie at the foundation of their work.



ENDNOTES



[i] FAO Crop Prospects and Food Situation, July 2021, p. 5, at http://www.fao.org/3/cb5603en/cb5603en.pdf.
[ii] UN General Assembly, “Report of the Secretary-General: Situation of human rights in the DPRK,” A/76/242, 28 July 2021, para. 16.
[iii] UN Commission of Inquiry, Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the DPRK, A/HRC/25/CRP.1, 7 February 2014, para. 681 [hereafter UN COI report].
[iv] Thomas Schaefer, From Kim Jong Il to Kim Jong Un: How the Hardliners Prevailed (2021), p. 68.
[v] Mun Dong-Hui, “Violators of North Korea’s quarantine protocols sent to ‘total control zones,’” NK News, August 12, 2021; and “North Korea to Impose Hard Labor Sentences for Covid-19 Gathering Violations,” Radio Free Asia, August 11, 2021.
[vi] UN COI report, para. 1041.
[vii] UN COI report, paras. 1068, 1170, 1171.
[viii] U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, fifty testimonies taken in 2019–20 [unpublished, hereafter HRNK 2020].
[ix] David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag (Washington, DC: U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 2012) [hereafter Hawk, Hidden Gulag].
[x] David Hawk, The Parallel Gulag (Washington, DC: U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 2017) [hereafter Hawk, Parallel Gulag, 2017].
[xi] Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Violations against Women Detained in the DPRK, July 2020, at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26127&LangID=E [hereafter OHCHR 2020].
[xii] Database Center for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB), 2017 White Paper on North Korean Human Rights [hereafter NKDB 2017], p. 353.
[xiii] The Ministry of Social Security was formerly known as the Ministry of People's Security. See Jeongmin Kim, "North Korea likely renames Ministry of People's Security," NK News, June 3, 2020, at https://www.nknews.org/2020/06/north-korea-likely-renames-ministry-of-peoples-security/?t=1591178315505. See also "평양종합병원건설장으로 달려오는 마음," Ryugyong, June 2, 2020, at https://kcnawatch.org/newstream/1591084868-679913493/%ED%8F%89%EC%96%91%EC%A2%85%ED%95%A9%EB%B3%91%EC%9B%90%EA%B1%B4%EC%84%A4%EC%9E%A5%EC%9C%BC%EB%A1%9C-%EB%8B%AC%EB%A0%A4%EC%98%A4%EB%8A%94-%EB%A7%88%EC%9D%8C/.
[xiv] Human Rights Watch, A Matter of Survival (2006), Appendix, p. 35; and UN COI report, paras. 539 and 804 (and note 1200).
[xv] Hawk, Hidden Gulag, p. 141.
[xvi] HRNK, 2020.
[xvii] HRNK, 2020.
[xviii] HRNK, 2020.
[xix] HRNK, 2020.
[xx] HRNK, 2020.
[xxi] NKDB 2017, p. 353.
[xxii] OHCHR 2020, Annex 2, VI.
[xxiii] OHCHR 2020, Annex 2, VI.
[xxiv] HRNK, 2020.
[xxv] OHCHR 2020, Annex 2, VI.
[xxvi] NKDB 2017, p. 357. 
[xxvii] OHCHR 2020, para. 39.
[xxviii] OHCHR 2020, Annex 2, VI.
[xxix] HRNK, 2020.
[xxx] HRNK, 2020.
[xxxi] HRNK, 2020.
[xxxii] HRNK, 2020.
[xxxiii] HRNK, 2020.
[xxxiv] OHCHR 2020.
[xxxv] Hawk, Hidden Gulag, p. 124.
[xxxvi] Hawk, Parallel Gulag, pp. 12–13.
[xxxvii] NKDB 2017, pp. 346–8.
[xxxviii] OHCHR 2020.
[xxxix] HRNK, 2020.
[xl] HRNK, 2020.
[xli] HRNK, 2020.
[xlii] HRNK, 2020.
[xliii] OHCHR 2020, para. 85.
[xliv] OHCHR 2020, Annex 2, VI.
[xlv] HRNK, 2020.
[xlvi] HRNK, 2020.
[xlvii] HRNK, 2020.
[xlviii] HRNK, 2020.
[xlix] HRNK, 2020.
[l] Hawk, Hidden Gulag, p. 135.
[li] HRNK, 2020.
[lii] OHCHR 2020, Annex 2, VII.
[liii] UN Commission of Inquiry, Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the DPRK, A/HRC/25/63, 7 February 2014, para. 58.
[liv] Hawk, Hidden Gulag, p. 138.
[lv] HRNK, 2020.
[lvi] HRNK, 2020.
[lvii] HRNK, 2020.
[lviii] HRNK, 2020.
[lix] NKDB 2017, pp. 356–7.
[lx] HRNK, 2020.
[lxi] HRNK, 2020.
[lxii] NKDB 2017, p. 354. 
[lxiii] HRNK, 2020; and Hawk, Hidden Gulag.
[lxiv] OHCHR 2020.
[lxv] OHCHR 2020.
[lxvi] OHCHR 2020.
[lxvii] HRNK, 2020.
[lxviii] Hawk, Hidden Gulag, p. 127.
[lxix] HRNK, 2020.
[lxx] HRNK, 2020.
[lxxi] HRNK, 2020.
[lxxii] HRNK, 2020.
[lxxiii] UN COI report, para. 822.
[lxxiv] OHCHR 2020, para. 40.
[lxxv] UN COI report, para. 822.
[lxxvi] HRNK, 2020.
[lxxvii] NKDB 2017, p. 353.
[lxxviii] HRNK, 2020.
[lxxix] See UN General Assembly Resolution on Situation of human rights in the DPRK, A/C.3/70/L.35, 30 October 2015, para. 4. 
[lxxx] See UN General Assembly Resolution on Situation of human rights in the DPRK, A/C.3/73/L.40, 31 October 2018, paras. 2(vi), 5, 16 (m).
[lxxxi] UN Human Rights Council, Recommendation 126.58, Report of the Working Group on the UPR: DPRK, A/HRC/42/10, 25 June 2019.
[lxxxii] David Hawk, Human Rights in the DPRK: The Role of the United Nations (Washington, DC: U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 2021), p. 93. 
[lxxxiii] World Health Organization, at http://www.who.int/tb/challenges/prisons/en/; and http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/prisons-and- health/who-health-in-prisons-programme-hipp; and see Daniel Wertz, “A Chance for Progress in North Korean Human Rights,” The Diplomat, November 11, 2014.
[lxxxiv] Daniel Jasper, “Lost Generation: Health and Human Rights of North Korea’s Children,” Panel, U.S. Institute of Peace, January 31, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqTbbSg3re4.
[lxxxv] UN COI report, paras. 1068, 1170, 1171.
[lxxxvi] Edward Cody, “Study says Red Cross did too little to help Jews in WWII,” Washington Post, February 17, 1989, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/02/17/study-says-red-cross-did-too-little-to-help-jews-in-wwii/85c70ae0-2bd5-421f-95c9-f7a57ac5f5a5/.

March 03, 2021

HRNK Letter to His Excellency Tomás Ojea Quintana

January 10, 2021

His Excellency Tomás Ojea Quintana
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)


Dear Mr. Quintana,

Thank you for your invitation to answer two questions on progress in accountability for human rights violations in the DPRK, aimed to inform your upcoming March 2021 report to the 46th Human Rights Council session.

The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) is the leading US-based bipartisan, non-governmental organization in the field of North Korean human rights research and advocacy. Since our inception in 2001, HRNK has published 47 reports, investigating the DPRK’s vast system of imprisonment, including political prison camps as well as vulnerable groups, especially women, children, and people in detention. HRNK has held UN consultative status since April 2018. Ever since, we have been proactively representing civil society in the UN process. By participating in the Universal Periodic Review, by organizing online and in-person international conferences and seminars and meetings with Permanent Missions, UN agencies and offices in Geneva, New York City, and Seoul, HRNK has been disseminating the findings and recommendations put forth in our reports.

All HRNK reports and report summaries are available on our website: https://hrnk.org/publications/hrnk-publications.php.

We are honored to share our views relating to the two questions you pose to stakeholders.

 

1. What progress and limitations do you see on accountability issues in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea seven years after the COI report, and how do you envisage the way forward?

On Progress:

The establishment of the OHCHR Office in Seoul, in June 2015 was the direct result of a recommendation made by the COI. For five and a half years, the Seoul Office has played an important role in the documentation process aimed to inform future accountability processes. While executing its mission, the Seoul Office has extensively interacted with CSOs based in the Republic of Korea and other countries, including HRNK.

Since the February 2014 UN COI report, annual resolutions on the human rights situation in the DPRK of both HRC and UNGA have included language condemning the “long-standing

and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights” committed in the DPRK, including those violations that, according to the COI, amount to crimes against humanity. UNGA resolutions have encouraged the UNSC to “continue its consideration of the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action to ensure accountability,” including referral of the human rights situation in the DPRK to the ICC. UNGA resolutions also recommended to the UNSC to consider targeted sanctions against those deemed most responsible for acts the COI found to amount to crimes against humanity.

The UNSC held an Arria Formula Meeting on human rights in the DPRK in April 2014. Subsequently, the UNSC took up the human rights situation in the DPRK as a formal agenda item in December 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. That outcome has not been replicated in 2018, 2019 or 2020.

Building on the COI report, HRC and UNGA resolutions on human rights in the DPRK and the UNSC taking up the issue as a formal agenda item have maintained pressure on the DPRK, kept the issue in focus and galvanized civil society worldwide.

On Limitations:

The perennial obstacle to efforts to address human rights and accountability in North Korea is that political, security, and military issues end up outcompeting and sidelining human rights.

UNSC referral of DPRK crimes against humanity to the ICC is unlikely, due to almost certain opposition by one, if not two P5 members.

On the Way Forward:

HRC and UNGA resolutions on the human rights situation in the DPRK must continue to include strong language on both DPRK crimes against humanity and the need for accountability, including ICC referral.

UNSC failure to take up DPRK human rights as a formal agenda item for three years in a row has given the impression of withdrawal from the high ground the UN and the international community once held on this issue. Moreover, this “withdrawal” roughly coincided with several rounds of US and ROK “summit diplomacy” with the DPRK, giving the impression that human rights was sidelined for the sake of addressing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. We would welcome it as a very positive development if the UNSC resumed taking up DPRK human rights as a formal agenda item.

UNSC resolutions establishing a DPRK sanctions regime have aimed to prevent the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. UNSC resolutions have never comprised a human rights-based rationale.

There is a need for UNSC resolutions to address DPRK crimes against humanity and other severe human rights violations, although that would be possible only while turning the DPRK human rights issue into a substantive, rather than procedural issue, subject to a potential P5 member veto.

Despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of a potential P5 veto, seeking UNSC referral of the DPRK to the ICC will continue to pressure the DPRK to consider addressing and improving its human rights situation.

Given the difficulty of the ICC referral route, UN member states could consider alternative accountability mechanisms, with the support of CSOs worldwide.

Although not necessarily within the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur or within the scope of his reporting to the HRC, the role of CSOs, in particular CSOs holding consultative status with ECOSOC, could be emphasized. Under circumstances where the UN’s accountability efforts appear to have somehow stagnated, CSOs can strive to maintain the COI’s momentum.

One such example would be a documentation project HRNK is carrying out in collaboration with the International Bar Association (IBA). Once international travel is again possible, HRNK and IBA will conduct a hearing/mock trial in Seoul, based on the joint documentation project, and involving most respected international jurists and judges.

2. What are your views on the approach that should be taken to ensure that the obligation to respect human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including on accountability measures and ending impunity, and the need for the establishment of peace on the Korean Peninsula are fulfilled?


Peace and human rights can never be mutually exclusive. “Saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights” are enshrined together in the Preamble to the UN Charter. The Korean Peninsula is no exception.

Nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and military tensions aside, human rights and human security are closely intertwined. Efforts must be undertaken to persuade the DPRK that neither humanitarian, nor development assistance can be divorced from human rights.

The COI recommended that “the United Nations Secretariat and agencies should urgently adopt and implement a common ‘Rights up Front’ strategy to ensure that all engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea effectively takes into account, and addresses, human rights concerns,” including those concerns collected in the COI report.

As emphasized by the COI, the adoption of a “Rights up Front” approach would help prevent “the recurrence or continuation of crimes against humanity” in the DPRK.

A Human Rights up Front (HRuF) approach to disbursing humanitarian assistance to the DPRK continues to be imperative. There are certainly extraordinary difficulties facing UN humanitarian agencies involved in the DPRK, in particular pertaining to access. COVID-19-related restrictions in the DPRK have exacerbated such difficulties. With only a couple of UN international workers left in-country, conducting humanitarian operations is nearly impossible.

Nevertheless, the situation created by COVID restrictions in the DPRK may provide the opportunity of a reset in the disbursement of humanitarian assistance by UN agencies. Such a reset may include the fundamental building blocks of an actual HRuF strategy, beginning with requesting access to the most vulnerable groups affected by precarious health care, water and sanitation and hygiene as well as natural disasters, including women, children, and people in detention.

The path to peace on the Korean Peninsula would hit a dead end in the absence of measures to prevent the recurrence of crimes against humanity in the DPRK. UN agencies and UN member states must seek access to detention facilities in the DPRK, in particular to political prison camps, whose existence the DPRK denies, despite thorough documentation via satellite imagery and escapee testimony. Recognizing the UN Special Rapporteur and allowing Mr. Quintana unconditional and unfettered access inside the country would help initiate a human rights-centered trust-building process with the DPRK.

As emphasized by HRNK author David Hawk in an upcoming report, UN accountability mechanisms—applying international criminal law to the DPRK—have constituted the sole approach which has led the DPRK to make some changes to its human rights policies, however small or insignificant. For example, after the COI report, the DPRK responded with a shift in its UPR policy, “accepting” and “rejecting” recommendations for the first time. Naturally, such moves could be purely tactical, and their importance should not be exaggerated.

Ultimately, peace on the Korean Peninsula would be peace between Koreans living in the South and in the North, including both victims and perpetrators. In order to prepare for peace on the Korean peninsula, the documentation process by the Seoul Office must continue. To end impunity, while engagement aimed at peace process on the Korean peninsula may continue, efforts at the HRC, UNGA, and possibly the UNSC must not relent.


Respectfully submitted,

Greg Scarlatoiu
Executive Director

December 09, 2020

Human Rights Violations, Deception, and Nuclear Weapons: The Pillars of Kim Regime Survival

The North Korean Regime Denies Its Population Fundamental Human Rights and Deceives the World with Fake Human Rights Propaganda

(An Essay Marking the 72nd anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)


By Kim Myong, HRNK Contributor


Edited by Greg Scarlatoiu, HRNK Executive Director



In 1948, the year when a dictatorship was established in North Korea to serve one-man rule by the Kim family, humanity witnessed the proclamation of a landmark document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which aimed to end slavery and promote respect for the fundamental rights, freedoms, and equality of all people and nations.[1]


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was founded on the common understanding of the international community that human rights are the basis of justice and peace, and that the respect and promotion of human dignity and rights should be placed at the center of all the endeavors by member states of the then three-year-old United Nations, in order to maintain international peace and security, and to develop friendly relations and cooperation among nations.

Although the Declaration had no legal binding power, it became the most translated United Nations document that is available in more than 550 languages and dialects today. Furthermore, it formed the basis for all the human rights treaties and instruments of the United Nations.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Starting from Article 1, recognizing fundamental human rights to freedom and equality, the Declaration contains 30 articles covering freedoms and basic rights that human beings should be guaranteed not only as individuals, but also as citizens, in all areas of human life, including politics, economics, society, and culture.

It has a very special meaning to me, who was born in North Korea, known as a living hell and human rights wasteland, to spend most of my lifespan there without realizing what my rights were.

I feel deeply compassionate for my fellow countrymen in the North, who are still suffering from the tyranny and oppression of dictator Kim Jong-un under the glorified “people-centered” regime. And my heart pounds faster, filled with hatred for the Kim family and a handful of North Korea’s ruling group, who have degraded their population into slavery, to reign above the law, enjoying absolute power and wealth.

There will be no regime on this planet that says they neglect the dignity and rights of their people. That’s because in modern times, the international community brands such regimes as the most savage and does not allow them the space to exist on Earth.

The fact that the United Nations, which had only 58 members at the time the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, has grown to become the world's largest intergovernmental organization with 193 member states today, and that the vast majority of them have acceded to major international human rights instruments, reflects this reality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Ratification status of the key United Nations Human Rights Treaties among 193 members as of December 3, 2020 (Unit: Percentage)

Source: Official database of the United Nations Treaty Collection, Status of Treaties, available at:


However, a country cannot appraise itself as a human rights advocate just because it has acceded to any of the international human rights instruments and reflected their spirit in the national constitution or laws. Freedoms and rights are not simply meant to exist on paper only. They are to be implemented, exercised, enforced, protected, and lived in real life.



North Korea's Songbun Degrades Its Population into Modern Slavery with All Serving the Regime’s Master[2]


“No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” 

- Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 

Every human being is entitled to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, gender, language, religion, political opinion, ethnic or social origin, property, or other status. The approach, based on equal entitlement to rights and freedoms at birth, is a prerequisite to effectively guaranteeing human rights and freedoms to everyone.

Kim Il-sung, revered as the founder of modern North Korea, named his country the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. By doing so, he wrapped his product up in colorful words, such as democracy and people, as if this were a people-centered democratic republic based on the separation of powers. In addition, Article 8 of North Korea’s Constitution states that its social system is people-centered, and the working people are the masters of all things, while everything in society serves them.

However, the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which I experienced in real life from my parents’ generation, has never been democratic or people-centered. This country is literally the most repressive modern slave state in the world, where 25 million slaves live under various rankings and levels of oppression. Their only Master is the Kim family.

North Koreans come into the world with the status of slaves bound to their Master and deprived of human dignity, freedom and rights, and they are destined to serve their Master until the end of their lives. On the contrary, any member of the Kim family is enjoying a privileged fate as Master of millions of slaves during their lifetime and from one generation to the next.

The modern slavery system in North Korea is maintained through Songbun (the social classification system), somehow similar to the caste system in India. Songbun divides people into different classes using a set of criteria, including loyalty to the Master, and creates inequality of opportunities among all people, as a means of inducing their loyalty to the Master.[3] All North Koreans, upon their birth, inherit a Songbun classification from their parents, and it is almost impossible to change it once it is assigned. They are bound to live a life predetermined by their individual Songbun.

Reality in North Korea shows that if someone has “good” parents, he or she is given access to opportunities for better food, education, employment, health care, and pretty much everything else. On the contrary, if someone has “bad” parents, he or she is denied the same access to opportunities.

On the hierarchical class ladder that exists in North Korea, there is barely any ascension in class status, but decline is often swift. In other words, the family of a coal miner is destined to work in coal mines from generation to generation, and those born from a family branded as “traitor to the nation,” “enemy of the state,” or “enemy of the people” cannot erase this stigma until they die, even if they worked hard for the Kim family for their entire lifetime. On the other hand, even if someone starts his or her career with relatively good Songbun, he or she risks a decline in status if a “mistake” is made, or even if the person is just suspected of having made a “mistake.”

North Korean propaganda brands its system as a “Community of Common Destiny” in which the leader and the people are united, but this is nothing more than lip service to hide the existing Master-slave relationship.


The Destiny of 25 Million Individuals is Overshadowed by the Great Leader's “Supreme Dignity”

In North Korea, which has remained a dictatorship centered on one man’s absolute power for the past seven and half decades, there only exists the “supreme dignity” of the great leader, who is idolized to the level of God, at the expense of all individuals’ dignity.

The “supreme dignity” of the great leader is inviolable and immortal.

The thoughts and words of the great leader become national policies and guidelines that should be implemented by the whole country and the people. Each and every action by the leader becomes a model to follow.

If anyone disagrees or challenges the “supreme dignity” in one way or another, this is considered a felony. The person under suspicion is immediately accused of anti-party and counter-revolutionary attitudes or activities.

The great leader approves and makes decisions on every national matter, but never takes responsibility for failures. If things go well, this is the result of his wise leadership, but if things go wrong, this is the result of some “anti-party and counter-revolutionary” elements who infiltrated the revolutionary units.

These are two typical examples among many others: (1) When 3 million people starved to death in the mid-1990s during the “Arduous March”, So Gwan-hee, the secretary in charge of agriculture in the Korean Workers’ Party, was executed for “spying for the Americans” and “failing to implement the Party’s agricultural policy guidelines”; and (2) Following the abysmal failure of the currency reform carried out in late 2009, Pak Nam-ki, secretary in charge of economic planning in the Korean Workers’ Party, was executed as a “traitor to the nation.”

At the time, the North Korean people who were mobilized to witness these executions and those who were unofficially debriefed by witnesses were petrified by the hypocrisy and cruelty of the Kim family.

The great leader and his family monopolize all the precious wealth and resources available in the country as a result of the blood, sweat, and tears of the working population. The great leader and his family are the only ones who can enjoy all conceivable freedoms, rights, and a super-luxurious life. In sharp and dark contrast, the average North Korean works hard 365 days a year and gets nothing in return.

Indeed, everything happening in North Korea, the way its oppressive system works, is in and by itself a perpetual chain of human rights violations.


Escaping North Korea is a Fundamental Human Right, Not Treason

North Korea is the worst human rights abuser in the 21st century. They trample upon the dignity, values, freedoms, and rights of the people in order to eternally preserve the hereditary dictatorship of the Kim family.

As such, it is fairly natural for the people to escape this living hell and resettle in the Free World in search of human dignity, freedom, and new life.

The international community has confirmed that the North Koreans who escaped from the country for fear of political persecution, because of human rights violations and economic hardship, are refugees in accordance with the United Nations Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and requested all governments to accept and protect them.[4]

But, the Kim family, who has ruled the country for so long just to fail to feed the people, is blaming the escapees and labeling them as “traitors” and “scumbags,” instead of making apologies. This is another anti-human and wicked act that shall forever live in infamy.

Still, many North Korean escapees who could not join the Free World go through tremendous hardships in China and its neighboring countries, with no official identity or legal status. Extremely vulnerable, they are subjected to human trafficking, kidnapping, and sexual exploitation. If caught by the local police, they are forcibly repatriated to North Korea’s Kim regime to be tortured, imprisoned, and even sentenced to death.

Many of those who have succeeded in resettling in the Free World have managed to upgrade their status to work as doctors, professors, businessmen, or members of the South Korean National Assembly. They were not even treated as human beings in the human rights wasteland of North Korea.

No matter how harshly the North Korean regime criticizes and blames them, they are convinced that they have made a good decision by abandoning the hellish North Korean system and joining the Free World.

Words uttered by a free human being should count. Words uttered by North Korean escapees must count.

The Kim family and the North Korean regime have no right to blame the escapees, as they are the ones who are forcing their countrymen to be separated from their beloved family members, relatives, and close friends and to leave their home country for a new place to live. Before cursing anyone else, they should first look back and reflect on their own human rights situation and try to fix it as soon as possible.


Human Rights Violations in North Korea Must Stop Immediately

Human rights violations are a tool of survival for the Kim family. Human rights violations safeguard their supreme privilege and secure their hereditary rule. Human rights violations, human rights deception, and nuclear weapons constitute the pillars of regime survival, supporting the Kim family’s long-standing dictatorship in North Korea.

The situation of human rights abuses and violations by the North Korean regime was spotlighted on the international stage after North Korea was admitted to the United Nations in 1991.

Despite its attempt to remain hidden behind the disguise of a “normal state” after its admission to the United Nations, North Korea has failed so far to erase its well-deserved stigma as the world's most repressive state.

In order to disguise itself as a human rights advocate, North Korea showed symbolic gestures by subscribing to a few international human rights conventions and sporadically submitting some implementation of reports thereof (see Annex 1).

However, as the Russian proverb has it, “you can’t hide an awl in a bag.” Or, as the Gospel of Luke 8:17 puts it, “For there is nothing secret that would not be revealed, nor hidden, that would not become known and would not be revealed.”

The international community has been condemning in the strongest terms the systematic, widespread, and gross crimes against humanity committed by the North Korean regime, urging North Korea’s leadership to improve the human rights situation, at regular annual meetings of the United Nations Human Rights Council as well as the General Assembly and its Third Committee (see Annex 2).

The 2014 Report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a landmark document, which exposed to the world human rights abuses and violations as well as crimes against humanity committed systematically and consistently over a long period of time by the North Korean regime. The report was based on direct statements from victims and witnesses, and on an investigation conducted by renowned international experts.[5]


In the earlier days of the adoption of North Korea human rights resolutions, many countries opposed or abstained in consideration of bilateral relations with North Korea. However, as time went on, more and more countries changed their position, favoring the resolutions. For the past few years, the resolutions were adopted by consensus (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Adoption status of the resolutions on the human rights situation in North Korea in the United Nations General Assembly, 2005–2019 (Unit: Number of votes)

Source: Official database of the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, available at: https://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html


However, the North Korean government continues to ignore the repeated requests of the international community and the recommendations to improve the country’s human rights situation.

Human rights constitute a universal value, regardless of the nature of one’s social system.

The requests of the international community are not an “attempt of hostile forces to destroy the ideological position and stifle the regime of the Republic", as North Korea claims. Rather, the requests reflect the unanimous voice of all nations. As far as the citizens of South Korea are concerned, “the people in North Korea are not just ‘anybody’ to us,” as a South Korean ambassador once said at a United Nations Security Council meeting.

No regime or political system can survive without ultimately guaranteeing the basic rights to life and subsistence to each and every citizen. Any regime that governs its people through tyranny, by force of arms and fear, cannot last forever, and will be doomed to failure.

The North Korean regime must respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights treaties as demanded by the nations of the world. The North Korean regime must engage with the United Nations and the international community to improve the dire human rights situation without delay.


Annex 1: Accession of North Korea to the United Nations Human Rights Treaties and their Optional Protocols

Name of treaties/optional protocols

Signature

Ratification

Implementation report submission

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD, 1966)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR, 1966)

9/14/1981

1984, 2002

Optional Protocol (2008)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR, 1966)

9/14/1981

1984, 2000

Optional Protocol (1966, providing for a right to individual petition)

Second Optional Protocol (CCPR-OP2-DP, 1989, promoting the abolition of the death penalty)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1979)

2/27/2001

2002, 2016

Optional Protocol (1999)

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, 1984)

Optional Protocol (CAT-OP, 2002)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989)

8/23/1990

9/21/1990

1996, 2002, 2007, 2016

Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (CRC-OP-AC, 2000)

Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (CRC-OP-SC, 2000)

9/9/2014

11/10/2014

Optional Protocol on a communications procedure (2011)

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW, 1990)

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD, 2006)

7/3/2013

12/6/2016

2018

Optional Protocol (2006)

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CED, 2006)

Source: Official database of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies, available athttps://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=47&Lang=EN



Annex 2: Resolutions adopted by the United Nations on the situation of human rights in North Korea

Year

Resolution Code

Date of adoption

Organization

Modality of adoption

2003

E/CN.4/RES/2003/10

4/16/2003

UN Commission on Human Rights

Vote: 28 in favor; 10 against; 14 abstentions

2004

E/CN.4/RES/2004/13

4/15/2004

UN Commission on Human Rights

Vote: 29-8-16

 

2005

E/CN.4/RES/2005/11

4/14/2005

UN Commission on Human Rights

Vote: 13-9-14

A/C.3/60/L.48

11/17/2005

UN Third Committee

Vote: 84-22-62

A/RES/60/173

12/16/2005

UN General Assembly

Vote: 88-21-60

2006

A/C.3/61/L.37

11/17/2006

UN Third Committee

Vote: 91-21-60

A/RES/61/174

12/19/2006

UN General Assembly

Vote: 99-21-56

2007

A/C.3/62/L.37

11/20/2007

UN Third Committee

Vote: 97-23-60

A/RES/62/167

12/18/2007

UN General Assembly

Vote: 101-22-59

2008

A/HRC/RES/7/15

3/27/2008

UN Human Rights Council

Vote: 22-7-18

A/C.3/63/L.26

11/21/2008

UN Third Committee

Vote: 95-24-62

A/RES/63/190

12/18/2008

UN General Assembly

Vote: 94-22-63

2009

A/HRC/RES/10/16

3/26/2009

UN Human Rights Council

Vote: 26-6-15

A/C.3/64/L.35

11/19/2009

UN Third Committee

Vote: 97-19-65

A/RES/64/175

12/18/2009

UN General Assembly

Vote: 99-20-63

2010

A/HRC/13/L.13

3/25/2010

UN Human Rights Council

Vote: 28-5-13

A/C.3/65/L.47

11/18/2010

UN Third Committee

Vote: 100-18-60

A/RES/65/225

12/21/2010

UN General Assembly

Vote: 106-20-57

2011

A/HRC/16/L.3

3/24/2011

UN Human Rights Council

Vote: 30-3-11

A/C.3/66/L.54

11/21/2011

UN Third Committee

Vote: 112-16-55

A/RES/66/174

12/19/2011

UN General Assembly

Vote: 123-16-51

2012

A/HRC/19/L.29

3/22/2012

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/67/L.50

11/27/2012

UN Third Committee

By consensus

A/RES/67/181

12/20/2012

UN General Assembly

By consensus

2013

A/HRC/22/L.19

3/21/2013

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/68/L.56

11/19/2013

UN Third Committee

By consensus

A/RES/68/183

12/18/2013

UN General Assembly

By consensus

2014

A/HRC/25/L.17

3/28/2014

UN Human Rights Council

Vote: 30-6-11

A/C.3/69/L.28

11/18/2014

UN Third Committee

Vote: 111-19-55

A/RES/69/188

12/18/2014

UN General Assembly

Vote: 116-20-53

2015

A/HRC/28/L.18

3/27/2015

UN Human Rights Council

Vote: 27-6-14

A/C.3/70/L.35

11/19/2015

UN Third Committee

Vote: 112-19-50

A/RES/70/172

12/17/2015

UN General Assembly

Vote: 119-19-48

2016

A/HRC/31/L.25

3/23/2016

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/71/L.23

11/15/2016

UN Third Committee

By consensus

A/RES/71/202

12/19/2016

UN General Assembly

By consensus

2017

A/HRC/34/L.23

3/24/2017

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/72/L.40

11/14/2017

UN Third Committee

By consensus

A/RES/72/188

12/19/2011

UN General Assembly

By consensus

2018

A/HRC/37/L.29

3/23/2018

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/73/L.40

11/15/2018

UN Third Committee

By consensus

A/RES/73/180

12/17/2018

UN General Assembly

By consensus

2019

A/HRC/40/L.18

3/22/2019

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/74/L.26

11/14/2019

UN Third Committee

By consensus

A/RES/74/166

12/18/2019

UN General Assembly

By consensus

2020

A/HRC/43/L.17

6/22/2020

UN Human Rights Council

By consensus

A/C.3/75/L.30

11/18/2020

UN Third Committee

By consensus


Source: Official database of the United Nations meetings, available at:

https://www.un.org/en/sections/documents/general-assembly-resolutions/index.html

https://www.un.org/en/ga/third/75/documentation.shtml

https://www.un.org/en/ga/third/archives.shtml

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Pages/RegularSessions.aspx

 



[1] The full text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the resources can be accessed from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/UDHRIndex.aspx

[2] Songbun is a unique “social classification” system in North Korea.

[3] Robert Collins (2010). “Marked for Life: Songbun - North Kore’s Social Classification System”, the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Washington DC, United States. Available at:

https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/HRNK_Songbun_Web.pdf

[4] The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, available at:

https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/1951-refugee-convention.html

[5] Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the DPRK (A/HRC/25/63), available at:

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx