Minutes of the U.N. Debate on Human Rights in North Korea, With Comments

Background:  The North Korean government government has plunged the world into crisis with a weapons buildup paid for at the cost of two million North Koreans who were starved to death.  The world’s most repressive and belligerent regime has finally and narrowly drawn the diffident and non-binding  disapproval of the U.N. General Assembly.  And even this was highly controversial to some.  The quality of the debate is so depressing as to  overpower the quality of the  result, such as it is.

If you wonder why the U.N. can’t articulate consistent moral standards or unite the nations,  read on.  As you do, consider  a few  simple arguments.  If you  presume  that all innocent life  has  equal value,  then it follows that the U.N. should focus  on where the most innocent lives are in danger.  If you believe that there are moral gradations in cruelty and the suffering that it causes, then it follows that the U.N. should focus where suffering is greatest.  If you believe that Article 51  of the U.N. Charter remains in effect, then  it follows that  the U.N. should also draw moral distinctions between  the deliberate mass murder of innocents and defense against the deliberate mass murder of civilians.  If you believe that the U.N. has a role as a global lawgiver, then it follows that it must give its laws with some consistency.  Now,  ask yourself  if this moral and legal logic has swayed the proctors of the Global Test:

Speaking on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/61/L.37), Cuba, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), reaffirmed what that Movement’s heads of State and Government had agreed upon at its recent Summit Conference, namely that exploitation of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations, should be prohibited.  The Movement’s leaders also condemned selectivity and double standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as all attempts to exploit human rights as a pretext for political purposes.  He encouraged all members of the Movement to adhere to those principles when casting their votes on country-specific draft resolutions before the Third Committee.

The representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union had tried to initiate dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regarding the resolution.  Regretfully, those overtures had been rejected.  In the absence of a willingness to engage, the European Union had tried to present as balanced a picture as possible.  It highlighted items welcomed by the Special Rapporteur, including the country’s submission of reports to treaty bodies.

The Special Rapporteur had, however, seen a huge gap between the recognition and the implementation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the representative.  The draft, once again, drew attention to widespread abuse of human rights and the refusal to recognize or cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.  So long as that Government continued to refuse the offers of advice, assistance and capacity-building from the United Nations in the field of human rights, the international community had little choice but to continue drawing attention to the deplorable situation there.  Only by that means could the plight of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea be heard.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that he resolutely opposed and rejected the resolution, which was a political plot of the United States and its satellite countries, as well as an illegal document to debase his country’s sacred sovereignty.  The draft was a typical example of politicization, selectivity and double standards.  It was well known that the United States had enacted a bizarre document entitled the “North Korean Human Rights Act”, subsequently appointed a special envoy on human rights in North Korea and earmarked tens of millions of dollars for the anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea plot every year.

 He said that Japan, which was crazy with inveterate enmity to his country and was ambitious for reinvasion, was perpetrating such ridiculous acts as a bill on North Korean Human Rights and on sanctions, as well as an appointment of an ambassador on human rights, following in the footsteps of the United States, its superior ally.  On the other hand, the European Union had been supporting, on the flank, the anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea racket organized by the United States.  The European Union should understand that its behaviour was not construed, other than as shock troops for the United States.

He said he wished to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the main sponsors of the resolutions were the worst violators of human rights.  They had perpetrated aggressions and slaughtering wars and had cruelly violated the human rights of the people of a number of countries, century after century.  The gravest concern of the world today was the worst human rights violations by the United States and other western countries, rather than the fictitious “human rights issue” of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Those countries had created such situations as the illegal United States invasion of Iraq and the massacre of civilians, the establishment of secret overseas prison camps, inhumane torture and maltreatment of detainees, and extreme discrimination against other races and migrants.

The invasion of Lebanon and the slaughtering of civilians, recently perpetrated by Israel, under the active patronage of the United States were war crimes in utter ignorance of international law and human rights, he continued.  While keeping mum about those evildoings, the European Union selectively focused only on independent countries, such as his own.  He asked whether such a draft resolution, tabled by “hypocrites and double-faces”, reflected the will of the international community.  Human rights, which was not guaranteed by the sovereignty of States, was nothing but empty talk.  Country-specific resolutions were useless and harmful.  They not only politicized United Nations human rights mechanisms, but brought about confrontation and mistrust among Member States and blocked possibilities of dialogue and cooperation between the authorities concerned.

The representative of Japan asked the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to use decent language and expressions against other sovereign countries, including Japan.  The subject under discussion was human rights, and it was important to maintain a dialogue in that area.  He appealed to all delegations present to support the resolution, in order to improve the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The draft’s objective was not to name and shame but to urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work with the United Nations system to improve the human rights of its people.  He called on the country to grant full access to the Special Rapporteur and other human rights mechanisms.  It was vitally important for the international community to show solidarity to that end.

He added that the abduction issue remained unresolved.  Past history could not justify such a clear violation of human rights, which was of concern to the entire international community.  He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respond honestly to inquiries in the matter, admit that its actions violated human rights and allow survivors to return to other countries without delay and surrender those who had perpetrated such injustice.  He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take the resolution seriously and implement its measures.

The representative of Australia said that the consideration of specific serious rights situations was part of the core work of the Third Committee.  Australia was deeply concerned by reports of continued human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including severe restrictions on free movement, forcible repatriation of those who crossed the border, on political and religious association, and on persons with disabilities, who were reportedly incarcerated and maltreated.

Explaining how his delegation would vote, the representative of Sudan said it rejected country-specific resolutions.  Heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit had strongly recommended the creation of the Human Rights Council, which had been subsequently created to strengthen dialogue and to provide technical assistance, as that was the best way to promote human rights.  It was everyone’s hope that the Council would deal with human rights with neutrality and objectivity, without selectivity or politicization.  Countries could not be divided between those that said they had no vices, and the bad ones.  There was not a country in the world without difficulties in human rights.  Sudan would vote against.

The representative of Belarus said his country had consistently opposed country-specific resolutions used for political purposes, such as exerting political pressure on countries that pursued independent internal and external policies.  These had been the real motives of the resolution at hand.  Such resolutions had nothing to do with human rights.  Such counterproductive actions had to be replaced by a different strategic approach.  Such resolutions before the Third Committee undermined efforts, by the international community, to create the Human Rights Council and a mechanism of universal periodic review.  Belarus would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Indonesia expressed regret that the unfortunate situation about country-specific resolutions had once again been faced by the Committee.  There had to be deep reflection on the issue.  Indonesia supported international efforts to improve human rights in all countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but that objective should be pursued through genuine dialogue and cooperation on basis of mutual respect.  Indonesia would be voting against.

The representative of Cuba expressed great doubts about the text, which did not ensure genuine cooperation in human rights and did not aim to implement the principles in the Charter of the United Nations.  It was purely politically motivated, and was thus illegitimate.  It was not based on genuine concerns, and it contradicted the spirit of cooperation, the promotion of which had been sought in the creation of the Human Rights Council.  Cuba would vote against.

The representative of Egypt said her delegation would vote against country-specific resolutions, despite any objective justification that might exist.  Such resolutions endorsed selectivity and helped to politicize human rights issues, applying differing and non-standardized criteria.  Such an approach did not help countries concerned to improve their human rights situation.  Also, the method of presentation of such resolutions, without consultation and objective debate in the General Assembly, ran contrary to efforts to strengthen cooperation in the multilateral framework regarding human rights issues.  She said some countries submitted resolutions in the Committee every year, while at the Human Rights Council they had voted against resolutions aimed at human rights violations in Palestine and other countries.  That gave the impression of selectivity, non-objectivity and politicization of human rights.  Such a situation had to be dealt with, so that a unified way of dealing with human rights questions, in various countries, could be found.  Egypt would be voting against.

The representative of Venezuela said he opposed country-specific resolutions.  He called attention to the fact that the countries that were trying to give lessons to others were violating human rights themselves with great sophistication.  To make progress, the subject must continue to be treated based on frank and open dialogue and not on condemnation.  The Non-Aligned Movement had already reaffirmed that questions of human rights must be dealt with in a global context and with a constructive approach, with objectivity, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and non-selectivity as guiding principles.  His country would vote against the resolution.

The representative of Syria said that the draft was based on a political agenda and not aimed at respecting human rights.  For that reason, she would vote against it.

The Committee then approved the draft, by a vote of 91 in favour to 21  against, with 60 abstentions.  (See annex II.)

The representative of the Republic of Korea said that he had voted for the draft because there was an even greater need to focus on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea following its recent nuclear test.  He shared the international community’s concerns about human rights in the country, but placed a priority on taking practical steps to improve them.  He hoped that the draft would be a first step in that direction and that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would agree to a visit from the Special Rapporteur.  He called on the international community to seek a human rights dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and provide technical assistance with a view to making real progress there.

“Technical assistance” — probably the best euphemism I’ve heard since the “Velvet Jones School of Technology.”  Such as, heart transplants?  Just in case  they hadn’t made it clear enough that John Bolton muscled  them into this,  they again call upon the United States to commence payoff negotiations immediately.  Calls to return abducted ROK citizens or POWs, or to let the Red Cross into Yodok were somehow overlooked.

The representative of Singapore said his country had consistently abstained on such drafts because they were driven by political concerns.  His abstention, however, should not be seen as pronouncing a position on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  He shared others concerns about reports on conditions there.  Singapore was also deeply concerned about the country’s provocative act of testing a nuclear device.  He urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to adhere to the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks.

The representative of Algeria said that she had voted against the draft, because the promotion of human rights came through dialogue and cooperation.  Country-specific resolutions maintained a climate of confrontation, which harmed human rights.

The representative of Viet Nam said that he had voted against the draft in accordance with his country’s opposition to country-specific resolutions.  Human rights should be promoted by means that were free of politicization and selectivity.  Viet Nam was also concerned about issues, such as abduction, which it rejected.

The representative of China said that it was regretful that the Third Committee had again adopted the resolution.  To effectively promote and protect human rights, it was important to strengthen dialogue and cooperation.  China opposed exerting pressure on developing countries through country-specific resolutions.  She expressed the hope that the Third Committee would become a forum for dialogue, not a place to exchange accusations.

The representative of Brazil said that country-specific resolutions were only necessary in situations of immense gravity.  For that reason, he had voted in favour of the current resolution.  He expressed regret at allegations of grave abuse of human rights and a lack of will to develop technical cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and encouraged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage in dialogue and international cooperation.

The representative of Costa Rica said that creation of the Human Rights Council had strengthened consideration of the fundamental issue of human rights.  It was of concern that the Third Committee was dealing in a country-specific way, as it had in past sessions, without giving the new Council an opportunity to take a new approach.  Historically, Costa Rica had supported country-specific resolutions, since that was the United Nations mechanism for that purpose.  The facts in all the country-specific situations under consideration, during the present session, were irrefutable, particularly the issue of kidnappings in the current resolution.  He appealed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to promptly deal with that and other important human rights issues.

He said that a change in the way human rights resolutions were considered was needed.  The Human Rights Council was the mechanism to deal with human rights violations and must be forum to analyse each and every situation brought to the Third Committee.  For that reason, he had abstained on the current resolution and would do so on all such resolutions or those submitted as a direct reprisal.  No country could have a perfect human rights record, so the Council must have the necessary freedom to innovate its working methods.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea expressed deep thanks to those who had supported his country’s position.  His delegation would not regard the resolution as an authentic document of the United Nations and it would not place trust in it.  It was totally rejected, for the reasons given in his first statement.  If a resolution of the Committee was to be respected as authentic, and if it was going to contribute to improving human rights, then it had to take up the matter of stopping the invasion of small and weak countries, and the killing of innocent people, by the United States and other western countries, in the name of democracy and war against terror.

In closing, the DPRK Representative again thanked the Death to Israel Caucus and the Death to America  Caucus for their principled opposition to this Yankee imperialist country-specific resolution.

And in other news, the General Assembly immediately moved on to a religion-specific resolution condemning speech and broadcasts critical of Islam (but not mentioning any other religion)  and any slanderous portrayals associating Islam with a lack of respect for human rights.  The horror.  Where on earth would anyone get an idea like that? 

Late word has it that the General Assembly’s next resolution will  condemn the defamatory  publication of its own minutes.