At
UN,
Korean Themes of Seoul G-20 & Ban 2d Term, DPRK Human Rights
Meeting: Transcripts
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 22 -- The theme at the UN on Friday was Korea,
Korea, both North and the South.
Alongside
a
festival of Korean food in the soon to close Delegates' Dining Room
-- the shinsunro spicy seafood soup was particularly good -- and a UN
Day concert by a Korean symphony, South Korean UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon addressed a closed meeting of member states about the
upcoming G-20 meeting in Seoul.
Sources
tell Inner
City Press that statements of support for a second term for Ban are
being solicited to be unveiled in Seoul at the G-20, as they were not
at the General Debate last month in New York.
Across
the hallway
of the UN's North Lawn Building in Conference Room 1, North Korea was
the topic of a Third Committee of the GA, on human rights. Numerous
western speakers urged North Korea, formally the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, to allow a visit by the Special Rapporteur on
human rights in that country, Marzuki Darusman.
Darusman,
who is
simultaneously the chairman of Ban Ki-moon's strangely silent
advisory panel on accountability for war crimes in Sri Lanka,
recounted how he has tried to get permission to visit the country.
At
the end, North
Korea's Deputy Permanent Representative asked for the “right to
reply.” The Committee's chairman, the Permanent Representative of
Cameroon, said this was an interactive session with no right to
reply. A statement, then, the North Korean said.
Transcripts,
by Friends on Inner City Press, are below.
He
said his
country had in the past allowed “Amnesty International, NGO's and
the European Union” to visit the DPRK. But, he said, as soon as his
country dropped out of the NPT nuclear non proliferation treaty, a
resolution on human rights was introduced. We cannot accept it, he
said.
The
North Korean
took particularly exception to Japan, bringing up “forced
conscriptions” in World War II and what he called broken promises.
Team Ban meets DPRK, shinsunro and G-20 endorsements
not shown
On the issue
of abductions of Japanese citizens, he said, a
nationwide search had been conducted.
Japan
asked for the
floor and said that only five of 17 had been returned, and there
might be more. This seemed a strangely narrow response to what North
Korea said, that the whole human rights focus on North Korea was just
“political.”
The
Cameroonian
chair ended the session with what he said were African proverbs,
about a star lighting up the darkest night. (There is also the
proverb about the UN translators stopping work at 6 pm).
Across
the hall,
the closed door meeting with Ban Ki-moon continued. Why was it
closed? Swiss sources tell Inner City Press that the Swiss office of
President of the GA Joseph Deiss said it was the G-20 which asked to
close the meeting to the Press.
On
Ban's way out,
he and his chief of staff chatted amiably with Sri Lanka's Ambassador
Palitha Kohona. The North Korean DPR was nowhere to be seen. But the
Korean symphony was about to play.
Transcriptions
by
Friends on Inner City Press:
Statement
by
the DPRK: Pak Tok Hun, Deputy Ambassador
We
neither
recognize nor accept the mandates of the special rapporteur
appointed by the anti-DPRK resolution of EU and Japan adopted
annually at the UN Human Rights for, nor to speak of the resolution.
This is our principled position. … The resolution is a document of
political plot fabricated by hostile forces in their attempt to
isolate and stifle our system. Also, the report of special rapporteur
is nothing more than a tool used to serve this purpose. The European
Union had various contacts and dialogue in the field of human rights
including official human rights talks with our country since 2001.
However, upon the withdrawal of our country from the nonproliferation
treaty in January 2003, EU surprisingly initiated and forcibly
enforced the adoption of its first resolution on the DPRK without any
prior notice or consultation with us at 59th session of the UN
Commission on Human Rights in April 2003, this roughly 2 and a half
months after our withdrawal from the NPT, in conspiracy with the
United States in Japan, and they have been continuing to do so in the
UN human rights mechanisms each year. If they have no ulterior
motives of the DPRK, there would be no reason whatsoever to choose to
initiate the confrontation resolution renouncing the human rights
dialogue and contacts with us which had been in good progress. The
purpose is clear: the promotion and protection of human rights is
only in words. In reality, what they pursue is to change the ideology
and system of our country. It is up to the Korean people themselves
what ideals and system they choose. Mr. Chairman, we will in future
to further consolidate and develop our socialist system for promotion
and protection of human rights in keeping with the aspiration of our
people and the ability of our country.
Statement
by
the United States: Robert King, Special Envoy for North Korea
Human Rights Issues
[congratulates
new
special rapporteur] We hope the gov of the DPRK will recognize
the special rapporteur’s mandate, grant him access to the country,
and work with him to improve human rights in the DPRK. It was
unfortunate that the previous special rapporteur was not permitted to
visit the country. ...
The
people
of the DPRK continue to suffer from human rights abuses.
Moreover, the November 2009 currency revaluation and subsequent
clampdown on markets greatly restricted the population's ability to
provide for their own basic needs. We would ask the new special
rapporteur for his thoughts no what more the international community
can do to help the people provide for themselves and what more the
donor community can do to make sure resources reach the most
vulnerable parts of the population. The United States is particularly
concerned about the plight of North Korean refugees and asylum
seekers. We call on the DPRK to end the punishment and imprisonment
of returned asylum seekers and their families. Improving conditions
in the country requires an innovative and collaborative approach. [We
are interested in the special rapporteur's] insights into how
countries can cooperate to advance human rights issues in the DPRK.
The
United
States values the universal periodic review process and was
encouraged by the DPRK’s active participation in the Dec 2009
review. We note the DPRK’s willingness to consider 117
recommendations from the international community but we were
discouraged by the DPRK's refusal to identify those recommendations
that they were willing to consider. The US would be interested in the
special rapporteur's insight into how the UPR can be better utilized
to improve human rights in the DPRK. The US looks forward to working
with you on this important mandate.
Statement
by
the Republic of Korea: Kim Soo-Gwon, Minister Counsellor
…
[congratulates
special
rapporteur] Unfortunately, however, the task of carrying out
the mandate has never been easy, and we are concerned to note that
the expertise and experience of the previous special rapporteur were
not utilized to the full extent. Korean government shares the deep
concern with international community over the continuing reports of
grave and systematic violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the DPRK. We are also disappointed at the refusal of the
DPRK to accept any of the recommendations made in the UPR by the HRC
in Dec 2009. Against this backdrop, we believe that the role of the
special rapporteur assumes all the more importance as a facilitator
in promoting cooperation between the country concerned and the
international community. In this regard we welcome the special
rapporteur’s proposed approach based on dialogue and cooperation
with the DPRK. My delegation believes cooperation is important in
protection of human rights, but here lies our gravest concern. The
persistent refusal of the country to cooperate with the international
community, in particular the refusal to recognize the mandate of the
special rapporteur and to allow him to visit the country. In this
regard, firstly my delegation would like to hear the special
rapporteur’s thoughts on how he would address the issue of access
to the country in question. Secondly, ... his approach could start
with humanitarian direction without diminishing the human rights
dimension, we would be grateful if he could further elaborate on
that.
Let
me
conclude by saying that we very much look forward to the future
work of the special rapporteur. It is our sincere hope that his
cooperative approach will bear fruit and contribute to the advances
in the promotion and protection of human rights in the DPRK. We call
on the DPRK to respond in good faith to the special rapporteur’s
call for cooperation. I would like to take the opportunity to assure
my government's full cooperation to the special rapporteur in the
fulfillment of his challenging mandate in the future.
Statement
by
Japan: Kazuo Kodama, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
…
Japan
attaches importance to the role of the special rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the DPRK. ... Japan will extend its
maximum possible cooperation to the special rapporteur for his
activities to perform his mandate. It is very clear that serious
violations of human rights in the DPRK still remain. We are deeply
concerned by the action of the DPRK to protect the right to life, as
well as its strict restrictions on the civil and political rights of
its people. The issue of abduction of Japanese citizens by the DPRK
also remains unresolved. In August 2008, the DPRK
and
Japan
agreed on the overall objectives and concrete modalities of the
investigation on the abduction issue. However, the DPRK has not
translated the agreement into concrete action to date. While we heard
the clear statements by the DPRK at the Third Committee of the UN
General Assembly in November 2008 that it was ready to launch a
reinvestigation into the abduction issue, no concrete actions have
been taken by the DPRK.
As
PM
Khan stated at the 65th Session of the General Assembly last
month, if the DPRK takes constructive and sincere steps such as
implementing its agreement with Japan, Japan is ready to respond in
kind. To date, the DPRK has never granted access to the special
rapporteur to the country and the direct dialogue between the DPRK
and the special rapporteur has yet to be realized. We expect your
concrete efforts would result in a concrete outcome to improve the
situation of human rights in the DPRK by taking an approach of
constructive dialogue with DPRK, as the special rapporteur himself
emphasized in the conclusion of his report.
…
In
you recent report, you mentioned that you will submit your first
report to the HRC in March next year, and your approach will start
with humanitarian direction without in any way diminishing the human
rights direction. I would like to know how you contemplate to
translate such an approach into concrete ideas or action.
Statement
by
the European Union: Peter Schwaiger, DPR European Union Delegation
…
EU
remains seriously concerned about the current situation in the DPRK
which continues to command international attention. The prevailing
grave violations and alarming lack of a broad range of human rights
are described in detail in the report of the Secretary-General. The
situation was thoroughly discussed in the Universal Periodic Review
in Dec 2009 and the Human Rights Council in March 2010. We regret
that severe restrictions on political rights and fundamental freedoms
and alarming situation in prisons and detention centers, allegations
of extrajudicial execution and torture, forced labor, criminal
sanctions imposed on people trying to leave the country, the absence
of an independent judiciary and of institutions to protect human
rights, as well as multiple violations of social, economic, and
cultural life, continue to dominate the reports on the DPRK. The
European Union also notes with concern that despite some limited
improvements regarding the delivery of humanitarian assistance and
the activities of UN agencies in DPRK, the Secretary-General
describes an urgent need for the DPRK to take immediate steps to
ensure the enjoyment of the right to food, water, sanitation, health,
and to allocate greater budgetary support to that end. We are also
alarmed with the continuing lack of cooperation with international
mechanisms. We encourage the DPRK to ratify further international
human rights treaties and urgent the government to cooperate fully
with the special rapporteur and other special proecdures. It is with
this in mind that we will present a draft resolution on DPRK during
the 65th UNGA to draw attention once again to this grave situation
and to urge the government of DPRK to address outstanding issues as a
matter of urgency. ...
China:
Counsellor
Dan Zhang
The
Chinese
delegation wishes to thank Mr. Darusman for his presentation.
China always stands for dealing with human rights issues through
contructive dialogue and cooperation, and opposes passing
country-specific human rights resolutions or establishing
country-specific human rights mechanisms. Criticism and pressure
cannot impact positively on a human rights situation; on the
contrary, it causes unnecessary confrontation. We hope the
international community will take a more practical and constructive
approach and focus more on the challenge of economic and social
development currently facing the DPRK, provide it with effective
humanitarian assistance. We hope the rapporteur will play a positive
role of promotion in this regard.
We
have
noted the special rapporteur indicates in his report that he
will carry out his work in constructive cooperation instead of
confrontation. We hope he will effectively carry out these
principles, make effective, balanced assessment of the human rights
situation in the DPRK, and make more efforts in favor of promoting
the economic and social development in DPRK and stability on the
Korean peninsula.
Mr.
Chairman,
the Chinese government, always in accordance with domestic
law and international law and humanitarian principles, to cautiously
deal with the illegal cross border people, immigrant who cross the
border, we carried out positive and active cooperation with the
parties concerned.
The
practice
of the Chinese government is in line with the parties
concerned. It also wins the universal understanding of the
international community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Darusman
Thank
you...
I'd
like
to express my appreciation for the deep concern that has been
voiced, but at the same time the goodwill that prevails out there to
see that the mandate is able to be discharged in accordance with the
resolution. As I mentioned, I was able to assume the task of special
rapporteur only in August 2010, and therefore, having assumed the
task in a very short period, will have to ask you to bear with me in
that perhaps a substantive report will only be able to be submitted
in March, after possibly visiting the area and hoping of course to be
able also to access to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
In
order
not to keep this session in the dark as to the issue, whether
or not it will be possible to visit the country, may I just inform
the assembly early on that an early gesture from the Special
Rapporteur was to communicate with the permanent mission of the DPRK
in Geneva, and to seek a meeting with the permanent mission there. At
the same time, subsequently, also to seek the possibility of entry in
the DPRK. I had written two submissions. One was to meet with the
DPRK mission in Geneva. That was responded in a way that made it not
possible at that time to meet with the mission in Geneva. I also
submitted a request early on to the government of the DPRK to be able
to enter the country. At this point, I have not been able to receive
a favorable decision on this matter. I''m informing the assembly here
on the facts early on, so that we go out from an existing situation,
and I will certainly hope to be able to seek alternative ways to
communicate further with the government of the DPRK.
Now,
if
you allow me I will just touch, perhaps merge some of the
questions here into one or two issues that have come up in question
time. One relates to the approach that I would seek to adopt. I had
earlier mentioned that the signs of involvement of the DPRK in the
work of several UN entitites which have implemented humanitarian
programs in the country has intensified in the last period, and
secondly that the DPRK had also been participating in the UPR. And
this perhaps contrasts with the situation previously. And in that
sense, it is my hope that these signs would constitute an opening of
a possible approach which would be engaging, much more intensively,
the involvement of the DPRK government in the discharge of this
mandate. I continue to hope that this possibility is open, and that
by stating the overall approach of the special rapporteur, in terms
of the cooperative and dialogue approach, appeal to the DPRK to be
able to engage with the special rapporteur in the discharge of its
mandate.
Now,
with
regards to the humanitarian approach as I have indicated in my
full report, it is clear that humanitarian issues may not be a
substitute to the implementation of human rights as a whole. Although
I certainly recognize that humanitarian rights constitute an integral
part of the overall human rights and ideal, the intention to consdier
humanitarian approiach would be not to substitute the human rights
approach, but to align the humanitarian approach with the case of the
past years. I might note, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, that my
predecessor Mr. Muntarbhorn, who had assumed the mandate for 5 years,
had been prevented from entering the country, and therefore it will
be my intention to aside from recognizing that there are ongoing
issues of human rights, it is of utmost importance that communication
be established to make it possible for the mandate holder to
discharge his duties. Communication with the government of the DPRK.
And that will perhaps initially be the focus of the special
rapporteur in endeavoring as much as possible to engage the
willingness of the DPRK government to engage with the special
rapporteur.
I
certainly
take the comments of the UK that it is not easy to verify
information if the special rapporteur is not allowed to enter the
country. And therefore I do take this opportunity to recognize that
indirect approaches will also be necessary, through third coutnries
to congvey the intention of the special rapporteur to convey to the
government of the DPRK his intention to conduct a dialogue approach
with the DPRK.
At
the
end, as I mentioned in my statement, I would seek your
understanding that I will not be in a position to comment on any
substantive issues until I have been able to conduct a visit and
assess the situation, that will appear in my report next year.
Response
by
DPRK: Pak Tok Hun
I
closely
followed some of the statements and comments made by the
Western countries, US, UK, EU in particular. But I cannot agree with
their assertion considering the human rights situation in my country.
In my country, we don't have such a serious what they call systematic
human rights violations in my country. Some delegations ask us, if
there is none, why don't you accept the special rapporteur? Since
they discriminate my country, we cannot accept that request.
As
I
told the committee, this is not the issue of human rights. We had
very close contacts and cooperation with the UN human rights bodies
in the past. We invited internationals, we invited special rapporteur
on violence against women of United Nations, we invited many
delegations including the NGO delegation, against torture. We invited
the European Union to come to my country to visit the prisons and
meet the prisoners there. And we had constant and regular contacts
and dialogue with the European Union. We regularly met with with the
Ambassadors of European Union countries in our capital. We had, as I
told you, we had an official human rights dialogue in the context of
high level political talks. I had the privilege to participate in the
human rights talks with the EU in the past 2 years which began in
2001. But that human rights dialogues, contacts with the EU, lasted
only one and a half years. As I told you ... after withdrawing from
the NPT, in just 2 months, the EU surprisingly and secretly, without
contacting us, without any prior information, they railroaded a
resolution against my country. What do they want? Do they still want
dialogue and contact with us? This is not human rights issue. This is
a political issue, a serious political issue. That's why we cannot
accept, we cannot accept that resolution. We cannot accept their
request to allow the visit. We used to visit, we used to allow many
people, but since the resolution we cannot. This is our principled
position.
Second,
concerning
the abduction issue, as I told you a few days earlier, we
did our best to solve this issue. I hope many of the delegations
would have a correct understanding of this issue. Abduction issue,
little more than 10 Japanese citizens. As the Japanese delegate said,
yes we had agreed with Japan that we would reinvestigate, as Japanese
request us to, abduction issue in our country. Japan also agreed with
us that they would take some measures if we do that, so we informed
Japan we create national investigation of abductees, the missing
persons from Japan. We informed the Japanese authorities the results
of the investigation. We returned all those alive to Japan with their
children. And then Japan asks us to reinvestigate. We said, we
organized the investigation. Japan agreed that if we informed them
the organization of the investigation, they would take measures to
lift the sanctions against my country. But what Japan did? Instead,
reinforced the sanctions against my country. We did what we can, so
far. But Japan has done nothing, only created obstacles. I don't know
how long Japan will say what they said today. It took over 60 years
for Japan to acknowledge the forced draft of 8.1 million Koreans, but
they haven't recognized the responsibility for that, nor to speak of
redress. I wonder how many decades it will take more for Japan to
sincerely recognize the legal, moral responsibility for the crimes
against humanity committed in Korea as well as many Asian countries.
Response
by
Japan: Kazuo Kodama
...
I
think what I just heard from the DPRK on the very important issue
of the human rights, which includes the Japanese citizens, and also
the DPRK to date, let me just share the factual, the information,
because I think it's vitally relevant to the future of the work of
the special rapporteur. ... At present, out of the 17 Japanese
citizen nationals recognized by the government of Japan as having
been abducted by the DPRK, only 5 have returned home and the DPRK has
yet to provide a satisfactory explanation to the fates of the
remaining 12. There are other cases of disappearances where we cannot
rule out the possibility of abduction. ... In the Japan-DPRK
working-level consultations held in August 2008, both sides agreed on
the overall objectives and concrete modalities of the comprehensive
investigation on this issue. We believe the DPRK should move forward
on making good on this promise by establishing an authorized
investigation committee and commencing the investigation without
delay. What is essential here is action, in keeping to the agreement
reached. ... We sincerely hope and would like to urge the DPRK
government to establish and authorize and investigation committee and
commence the investigation without delay
Response
by
DPRK: Pak Tok Hun
Japan
mentioned
about these 17 missing persons. We have already informed
them, there are only 13, and we informed them all the information
about the fate of those 13. According to reports in Japan, those
Japanese who they said were abducted by my country appeared in Japan
already. How can you explain that? How can you insist that still we
abducted them? Second, you told us that, as we agreed in the 2008
agreement, we have already informed you, I told you, the organization
of official investigation team. That's what we had to do. That's our
responsibility. We organized, we informed the Japanese. But what
Japanese had to do? They had to take some measures, in particular,
lifting measures to life sanctions against my country. They did
nothing. They did nothing so far. I wish Japan would see the reality
clearly and not lie to this international community. We have already
told you many times, if Japan raise any more questions, okay, we will
answer all the questions, and we will do our part, we will do our
best for the improvement of relations. But unless there is no
[liquidation?] of its past against Korea, there is no such good
relations between our two countries. I wish Japan to do its best for
Japan to redress, sincerely think and apologize, redress the past.
That's the only way for Japan to appear with clean face. I thank you.
, 
