Never again. This is what the world said when the Nazis sought to relegate the Jewish people to the condition of lesser beings. They used “terror, discrimination, and extermination in concentration camps to achieve its ends.”
Never again. This what the world said about the “terrible scourge of humanity” that was South African Apartheid when it fell.
Never again. This is what the world said upon being “shocked… by the cruelty of the Khmer Rouge” and the subsequent discovery of the killing fields.
Michael Kirby’s message was clear during his opening remarks at the presentation of the Commission of Inquiry’s findings during the investigation to allegations of widespread human right’s abuses in North Korea in front of the UN Human Rights Council. The world can no longer “afford to remain oblivious” to crimes against humanity nor “impotent” to prevent and stop them.
During his ten minute speech, Kirby described what the report called “systematic, widespread and grave violations occurring in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” These crimes are committed with impunity, he said, because they “arise from policies established at the highest level of the State.” In other words, these crimes are in accordance with the State policy of North Korea.
“The gravity, scale, duration, and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world,” Kirby added. “What is important is how the international community acts on the report,” he stated.
Kirby went on to describe North Korea as a place where human rights, dignity and humanity of the people are controlled, denied and annihilated.
Kirby challenged everyone to not believe the contents of the report blindly, but to read for themselves the “testimony of hundreds of witnesses” who gave testimony to mass extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, rape, forced abortion, and other sexual violence. The testimony of these witnesses is not only in the COI report, but also can be heard “on the Internet – the same Internet that billions on our planet now use, but access to which is denied to the ordinary people of the DPRK.” The North Korean government not only blocks its citizens from using the Internet, but also from listening to foreign broadcasts on the radio, watching foreign programs on TV.
Kirby further describes testimonies of state-sponsored “discrimination and classification of people; persecution on religious, racial and gender grounds; the forcible transfer of populations; the enforced disappearance of person; human trafficking… and the denial of food and needless death by starvation.”
In preempting his critics for failing to collect any firsthand evidence from inside North Korea, Kirby noted that all efforts to “initiate dialogue” and cooperation were rejected by North Korea every time the COI reached out “and offered to come without preconditions.” Kirby said that all offers to “go to Pyongyang and answer questions” were ignored and all contact had been “rebuffed.”
Kirby then called on all members of the United Nations to address the suffering of all North Koreans, challenged the DPRK to respect the human rights of its citizens and stated that “only through dialogue and cooperation the crimes… and gross human rights violations… can be addressed, then start that dialogue now. Commence that cooperation immediately.” He called on North Korea to “immediately release, without condition, [all] citizens… convicted of offences that were political in nature,” including those who did not receive a fair trial and those who were tortured. He asked for the prioritization of fighting hunger over propaganda and to allow humanitarian assistance in accordance with humanitarian principles. North Korea routinely does not allow of the humanitarian aid it receives, which goes against international requirements.
Kirby also urged China to respect the principle of non-refoulement and “to abstain from forcibly repatriating any person” from North Korea. He also urged all members of the international community “to accept their responsibility to protect and to implement all recommendations contained” in the COI’s report, including referring matters to the ICC.
Kirby concluded his opening remarks by stating that the world is now informed and “will judge us by our response.” The floor was then given to representatives from the DPRK and other nations to respond.
As Kirby alluded to in his opening remarks, North Korean ambassador to the UN So Se Pyon condemned the report calling it “confrontational.” He stated the United States and other “hostile forces” fabricated the COI as “an attempt to defame the dignified image of the DPRK.” So also claimed the report was report was politically motivated and an effort to eliminate the DPRK’s social system on the pretext of protecting human rights.
So said the testimonies in the report were fabricated by defectors whose identities are ambiguous and criminals who escaped North Korea. It is a crime to try to leave North Korea and is considered an act against the State.
So tied the report to other “fabrications” spread before the outbreak of US wars in the Middle East and the Balkans. So did not specify which reports he was speaking of, however.
So went on to call for the United States to be investigated for human rights abuses through their “ceaseless invasions, interference, and plundering in many parts of the world.”
China was also dismissive of the report, saying the COI “contravenes” to the principal of constructive dialogue and cooperation and did not contribute to improving the humanitarian situation or to maintaining peace. The delegation did not elaborate on how the report degraded these goals. The Chinese delegation also questioned whether the report could be considered credible given the lack of firsthand evidence. The Chinese ambassador did not address the fact that the DPRK refused every effort by the COI to engage in communication.
China also echoed the North Korean claims the report was highly politicized and “divorced from reality,” though did not go into detail on how or why it was politicized. The Chinese delegation also objected to what it called “unfounded accusations” of violating non-refoulement, claiming the Koreans who entered China had done so illegally, breaching China’s laws, and were not refugees but economic migrants.
The delegation of EU supported the recommendations and called for a close of all political camps. EU ambassador Mariangela Zappia expressed regret that the DPRK government refused to cooperate with the COI. The EU delegation also voiced concern by the report’s findings, stating they may amount to crimes against humanity. Ms. Zappia stated it was imperative that those responsible not be allowed to act with impunity and called on the DPRK to close all prison camps in which “unspeakable atrocities are being committed on a systematic basis” and asked all states involved to respect the principle of non-refoulement, which forbids a contracting state of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocols from returning a refugee to the country from which the refugee is fleeing.
The majority of the speakers aligned with the EU’s position, calling the report “highly disturbing” and expressed regret at the lack of cooperation exhibited by the DPRK during the COI’s investigation. Austria said there are “no more excuses for inaction” and added that all mechanisms must be used to bring accountability. Estonia called the allegations in the report a “shock to the conscious of humanity. Poland also stated the need to take steps to enable accountability while Romania called for further monitoring and documentation of human rights violations.
While Chile, Argentina, and Vietnam mostly aligned with the EU’s position, both delegations mentioned the importance of not using food as a weapon or means to impose pressure, a clear allusion to the suspension of 240,000 metric tons of food aid by the United States after North Korea’s rocket launch in February of 2012.
Some delegations, including Iran, Laos and Syria, objected to the resolutions and said that country specific mandates breached objectivity and neutrality. All objectors cited political motivation behind the report, though none stated what those political motivations were. Venezuela called the report “biased and interventionist” and said that country specific mandates had double standards. Cuba called the COI a “media circus” while Myanmar called it “counter-productive” to conducive dialogue. All dissenting voices called for the United Nations to continue the use of the Universal Period Review (UPR), a process involving a periodic review of human rights in all 193 member nations.
One common theme under all delegations regardless of whether or not they supported the COI report and its findings is that constructive dialogue is essential to improving human rights in the interest of peace and stability.
The North Korean delegation walked out of the hearing as Japan was speaking. The Japanese delegation ceded the floor to Shigeo Iizuka, head of the Japanese Association of Families of Victims Kidnapped by North Korea. Mr. Iizuka was seconds into speaking of his sister, who was abducted by North Korea from Japan in 1978. “She pleaded desperately to be returned to Japan for the sake of her infant children,” Mr Iizuka told the council. So then interrupted, calling for a point of order, asking for clarification if Mr. Iizuka’s testimony was “interactive dialogue on the report of the CoI or not.”
Once confirmed, So then asked if Iizuka was a representative of the Japanese government. After President Ella stated that Mr. Iizuka had been accredited by the Japanese delegation to speak, So stood up and walked out.
Speakers from NGOs were also granted an opportunity to speak. Human Rights Watch (HRW) described the DPRK “a government that has relentless abused the rights of its citizens… affecting generations of North Koreans.” The HRW delegation went on to say that the United Nations can no longer act as if the nuclear threat is the only issue the UN needs to deal with in North Korea.
The delegation for Jubilee Campaign challenged the notion of state sovereignty being a justification for “doing little or nothing.” Sovereignty, the delegation said, was not created to enslave people but to “serve the dignity and security of people.”
Shin Dong Hyuk, a North Korean defector born in a prison camp, also spoke. He talked of witnessing the public execution of his Mother and brother at the age of 14. He compared the conditions in North Korean prison camps to that of Nazi concentration camps.
In Kirby’s concluding remarks, he slammed the North Korean delegation’s accusations of the CoI being influenced by hostile forces. “I want to make it absolutely clear, now,” he said, “that in no way did any country or any representative of any country endeavor to interfere with the independence of the Commission of Inquiry.”
Kirby also noted that no answer was given from the DPRK delegation, but instead only talk of other wars and events. “There is singularly no answer to the detailed questions raised by the report of the Commission of Inquiry,” he said.
Kirby mentioned again that the testimony allowed the CoI to “jump the border” into North Korea and that the testimony is freely available to be viewed for people to reach their own conclusion “whether… [witnesses] are brave and honorable people or whether they are parties to a chicanery to reduce the distinguished reputation of the DPRK.”
In response to the ambassador of China’s remarks “that it was impartial to have an impartial report” due to the CoI not being allowed access to North Korea, Kirby noted that around the world, an inquiry cannot be stopped “from discharging its mandate” when the subject of the inquiry walks out and refuse to participate. He reiterated the testimony is available to the whole world to judge whether the testimony, findings, and recommendations are credible.
Kirby also points out that China is a party to the Refugee Convention and Protocol which binds them to “obligations under the higher law of the international community” which China has accepted. He asked China to reconsider the findings and conclusions presented in the CoI’s report.
Kirby praised the ambassador of Australia’s emphasis on continued dialogue and bilateral discussions with the DPRK, a point mentioned by a number of delegations, saying that “one doesn’t simply because of finding grave crimes against humanity cut off the dialogue. Dialogue must continue at all times.”
Kirby said that the CoI did not support economic sanctions that affected the ordinary citizens of North Korea and also agreed that food and humanitarian aid not be used as a weapon but noted that the DPRK refused to allow monitoring, which is a “standard international requirement.”
In response to Cuba’s remarks that there should be no country specific mandates, Kirby said that “you cannot have a situation… where a country can simply opt out of cooperation with the United Nations.”
Kirby rejected emphatically that the CoI was politically motivated, exclaiming with visible annoyance that it was a “farcical suggestion” that after being a judge for 35 years in Australia he would suddenly get himself into a politically motivated situation.
In response to the “media circus” comment, Kirby declared that if “the free speech and free press of the world, which is exhibiting interest in the issues of North Korea, then it’s the free speech that has to be accepted… there is no such free speech in North Korea,” he added, calling free speech an “antidote to ignorance.”
When answering the delegation of Romania’s question regarding the standard of proof, Kirby said “it was the standard of proof of what a reasonable person, acting on reasonable grounds, would believe to have been established.” He notes there was plenty of corroborating testimony, including corroboration through people who did not know each other and had never met one another as well as through satellite images and official reports of the DPRK.
Throughout the investigation, many witnesses stated that they loved North Korea, they just wanted North Korea to conform to the basic civilized standards of international society, rules laid out in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
