Human rights and nuclear talks

By Tong Kim

The human rights situation in North Korea has been an important component of U.S. policy toward the DPRK. However, the issue was never raised in conjunction with the North's nuclear and missile programs. The reason is simple. The human rights issue is separate from the enormous challenge of denuclearization, and raising it would complicate nuclear negotiations, creating obstacles to efforts towards progress.

Yet, in separate talks from the nuclear issue, the United States has tried to engage the North on a number of sensitive issues of concern that were deemed as hurdles in the path to a normalized relationship with the DPRK and a durable peace agreement. These issues included abuses of human rights in the North, missile exports, terrorism sponsorship, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and human trafficking. North Korea has never admitted its involvement in any of these categories, except for missile deals.

North Korea does not accept the universalism of international human rights as defined by the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and subsequent treaties on human rights. The DPRK has argued that the human rights situation of a given country is a product of its history, culture, traditions and customs. Therefore, it argues, it should not be subject to universal standards.

The North claims that its system of government was a choice of its people, and it denies the practice of human rights abuses. It invokes its sovereignty to reject any foreign inquiry into human rights conditions as interference in its internal affairs. There has been a great multitude of reports showing gross human rights violations in North Korea, including annual reports by the U.S. State Department, resolutions by the UN General Assembly, and various special reports by private institutes.

Perhaps, The Report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on North Korean human rights, published by the UN Human Rights Council in 2014, was the most comprehensive landmark report, detailing the strongest accusations against the DPRK's systemic violations of human rights. The report was largely based on the testimonies of defectors who experienced such abuses.

The COI concluded, "crimes against humanity have been committed" by North Korea, recommending its referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the UN Security Council did not vote for it. North Korea reacted to the report, by calling it "lies and fabrications generated under orders of the United States," blasting the COI as "a political chicanery … cooked up by the U.S. and its allies . . . with inveterate repugnancy and hostility towards the DPRK."

However, the report attracted world attention to the seriousness of the North Korean abuses, which Pyongyang could not ignore. The regime waged an international campaign to discredit the grounds of accusations in the report. Nevertheless, around this time, the DPRK acceded to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The DPRK is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that commits signatories to respect the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and rights to due process and a fair trial. Limits on Pyongyang's commitment to these rights are structurally inherent to the political system of the regime, which relies on the control of its population.

Pressure for the DPRK to observe international human rights standards may have some positive impact only to the extent of the regime's concern over international condemnation. But pressure will not bring about a fundamental change in policy to improve the conditions of human rights there. For now, the right to life and the right to food may come first for the regime that is struggling to survive the COVID-19 pandemic and a shrinking economy.

Last week, a new South Korean law banning the dissemination of leaflets to North Korea raised a question of restriction on the freedom of expression as prescribed in the U.N. treaties on human rights. Proponents of the law defended it in terms of the right to life and safety for over one million people who live in the area of leaflet operations. There is nothing wrong with them admitting frankly that they do not want to anger the North Koreans via the leaflets, for the sake of their peace initiative.

While the North Korean human rights issue is important, it should be dealt with as a separate issue from that of denuclearization at an exclusive venue such as the U.N. Human Rights Council or in the forum of other advocacy organizations. Ultimately, the human rights problem may take longer to resolve than the nuclear issue.

Tong Kim (tong.kim8@yahoo.com) is a visiting professor with the University of North Korean Studies, a visiting scholar with Korea University, a fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, and a columnist for The Korea Times.