korean unification studies

South Korea abstained from a vote to adopt a draft resolution at the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee, which condemned human rights abuses in North Korea.

A draft resolution entitled Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document n0760137.pdf) would have the Assembly express its very serious concern at continuing reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in this country, including:  torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers; severe restrictions on the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association; limitations imposed on the free movement of every person within the country, as well as on travel abroad; and violations of economic, social and cultural rights that have led to severe malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardships.  Very serious concern at unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners in the form of enforced disappearance would be reiterated.  The Assembly would express deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in this country.  The Government would be strongly urged to fully respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Attached below is the details of the vote and statements both for and against the draft resolution, from the UN website:

The Committee then began to take action on the draft resolution entitled Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/62/L.37/Rev.1):

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said her regional group and Japan had submitted the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to call attention to the serious situation in that country, despite calls by the General Assembly and OHCHR for the Government to end its widespread violations of human rights.  According to reliable sources, such violations included the systematic practice of torture and degrading punishment, among others.  People were being imprisoned for religious reasons, or were punished for trying to leave the country.

She said the text would express concern at the economic situation leading to severe malnutrition among children, women and the elderly, and violation of workers’ rights, among other issues.  It would call on the Government to extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in that country, to engage in technical cooperation activities in the field of human rights with OHCHR, and to give United Nations agencies and humanitarian actors the access necessary to allow them to carry out their mandates.  It would also call on the Government to resolve the question of foreign abductees, which was an issue of international concern.

She said the European Union had tried to engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in negotiations on the text, only to be refused.  Nevertheless, she thought the resulting text was balanced.  Indeed, a new preambular paragraph would also welcome the intra-Korean summit and recent progress in recent Six-Party Talks.

The General Assembly must not be silent on the plight of the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and all States interested in promoting human rights should vote in favour of the resolution.

The representative of Japan said no Government should neglect its responsibility to protect and promote human rights.  In the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the abduction of foreigners was also a serious concern.  Last year and the year before, the Assembly had called on that country to improve its human rights situation, but it had failed to take steps towards that end. Based on that, Japan and other co-sponsors had decided to submit the draft resolution currently before the Committee.  He appealed to all delegations to support that text, saying the international community should send a clear message to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to persuade it to work constructively with the various United Nations human rights mechanisms.  Addressing the abduction of foreigners, he said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must respond to requests made in the resolution by allowing the abductees to return to Japan and other countries of origin. 

He added that the Third Committee and the Assembly played an important role as the sole universal body within the United Nations charged with human rights issues.  The Human Rights Council had not completed its institution-building process, and the Universal Periodic Review was only set to begin next year.  Furthermore, the Council would only be able to address the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in two years’ time.  There should be no lacuna in the human rights regime; it was incumbent on all Member States to extend support to those whose rights were being violated by supporting the draft resolution.  He hoped the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would heed its message.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he categorically rejected the draft resolution, which was full of false information and was being pursued for a sinister political purpose.  It could not be justified, in any case, since it was a part of a plot that had nothing to do with human rights:  the ultimate goal sought by the United States and the European Union was to eliminate his country’s ideas and system.  The draft was characterized by politicization, selectivity and the double standards that were prevalent in the field of human rights.  It was no secret that the United States and the West used their resolutions as a way to impose their values on other countries.

He said the European Union had made no mention of human rights violations caused by the invasion of Iraq and its attendant massacre of civilians, not to mention the suppression of Koreans in Japan, and that of minorities in many Western countries.  Indeed, the resolution exposed the two-faced, hypocritical nature of the European Union, and it was a miscalculation on their part to expect any changes in his country’s socialist system.

He asked that a recorded vote be held on the draft resolution, and hoped the justice-loving countries would vote against it.

In a general statement before the vote, the representative of Costa Rica said he disapproved of the deplorable human rights situation in several countries, and called on all involved to respond positively.  But, as he had reaffirmed in previous years, such issues should be addressed by the Human Rights Council.  The Third Committee had only recently adopted an institutional building package for the Council, which would help make it into the best forum for such discussions.  Since he believed that the Human Rights Council should be given a chance to live up to the functions for which it was created, he called on all Members to abstain from the vote.

The representative of Ecuador said the international community was right to be vigilant about stamping out human rights violations in all countries.  But equally important, countries must ensure a non-selective and depoliticized analysis of all cases of violations.  She said she would abstain from acting on all country-specific resolutions before the Third Committee, since, following the recent adoption of the Periodic Review mechanism, the Human Rights Council was the only body with the competence to take up such issues.  That body would use that mechanism to evaluate the human rights situation in Ecuador in April 2008, the second country slated for evaluation. She underscored the fact that her Government fully supported that mechanism. She also supported the urgent consideration of specific countries at extraordinary sessions of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The representative of Nepal said his delegation supported concerns expressed in the draft resolution, particularly those on the abduction of foreigners, and therefore called upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to resolve those concerns.  Nepal would abstain, however, as a matter of principle; the resolution approved the previous week on institution-building at the Human Rights Council sought to address the matter of country-specific resolutions.  Nepal would abstain from all country-specific resolutions.

The representative of Belarus, in an explanation of vote before the vote, said his country consistently opposed the practice of considering politicized country-specific resolutions.  The Human Rights Council should carry out a study of the human rights situation in a Member State.  No State could be released from its responsibility for violating human rights, but such violations had to be examined in a civilized manner, with no group of countries imposing their views.  Belarus would therefore vote against the draft.

The representative of Egypt said her delegation rejected selectivity, double standards and the politicization of human rights.  It would vote against all country-specific resolutions, including the current one.  Egypt supported the position taken by the Non-Aligned Movement, and believed that consideration of human rights should be based on cooperation, not confrontation, through the Human Rights Council.  When human rights were being evaluated, historic specificities and ethnic composition –- a reflection of human diversity, which should be a factor that brings societies together — should be taken into account.  Egypt would vote against the draft on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The representative of Venezuela said her delegation, too, would vote against the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as it opposed selective practices applied by some countries to suit their political purposes.  Such drafts were instruments to promote underhanded political interests and strategic confrontation.  Moreover, no genuine interest in assisting victims of human rights violations was being expressed.  Governments which tabled such resolutions had committed human rights violations themselves, and no such resolutions had been presented against them; that was an example of the use of double standards in addressing human rights issues.

The representative of Malaysia aligned his delegation with the statement made by Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. He said his country had a principled position against country-specific resolutions and would be voting against the text.  Such a position, however, was not to be interpreted as meaning that Malaysia accepted gross violations of human rights.

The Committee then approved the resolution by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 23 against, with 60 abstentions.  (recorded-votes.pdf) as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against:  Algeria, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Mongolia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tunisia, Zambia.

Making an explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Viet Namsaid his delegation had voted against the text, in line with its opposition to country-specific resolutions.  Viet Nam’s position was to encourage dialogue and cooperation.  All acts of abduction, however, were opposed by his country.

The representative of India condemned the abduction of nationals of one country by another.

The representative of Colombia said his country had suffered the harmful consequences of abductions perpetrated by criminal organizations.  It therefore rejected abduction in all its forms, and expressed solidarity with victims of abductions and their families anywhere in the world.  It moreover called for the unconditional release of abducted persons.

The representative of China said her delegation was always opposed to the use of country-specific resolutions to exert pressure on developing countries, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which had been taking positive measures to improve the livelihood of its people.  She hoped the differences on human rights could be resolved through dialogue and cooperation.

The representative of Algeria said her delegation had voted against the resolution, as it would against all country-specific resolutions.  Such texts perpetuated a climate of confrontation that was detrimental to human rights.  The Human Rights Council had established a Universal Periodic Review mechanism that had just been approved by the Third Committee in the framework of the Council’s institution-building.  That mechanism was the only appropriate one for examining human rights, as the goal of such work was to promote human rights rather than confrontation.

The representative of Indonesia said his delegation was convinced that progress could only be achieved through dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual respect.  In the case of the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the lack of concrete dialogue between the initiators of the draft resolution and that country was regrettable.  Past resolutions had failed to bring about significant changes.  Indonesia had voted against the draft.  There was a need to start exploring ways to engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on human rights, on a basis of mutual respect; meanwhile, that country should adhere to the undertakings it had signed up to in international instruments.  It should pay attention to legitimate concerns expressed by the international community about the situation on the ground, including unresolved questions about the abduction of foreigners.  Indonesia was willing to cooperate with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on human rights through bilateral and multilateral channels.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation’s vote against the draft had been based on its position vis-à-vis selectivity and double standards.  The text had been a further example of selectivity, manipulation and double standards.

The representative of Guatemala said country-specific resolutions were useful in cases where the gravity of a situation merited attention, and as a complement to the work of the Human Rights Council.  Guatemala supported a better balance, as well as objectivity, in the consideration of human rights, both in the Human Rights Council and in the Assembly.  The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was a tool to evaluate the human rights situation in all countries.  The criteria for submission of a country-specific resolution had not been met in the cases of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belarus and Iran, and therefore Guatemala would abstain from voting on those draft resolutions.

The representative of Brazil said her delegation strongly supported the consolidation of the Human Rights Council as the main United Nations body for promoting and protecting human rights.  However, the lack of cooperation on the part of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the Human Rights Council was disquieting; that warranted a clear message from the Third Committee.  Brazil had thus voted in favour of the draft.  It encouraged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to resume dialogue with bodies and mechanisms of the Council, and to make concrete progress towards improving its human rights situation.

More information on UN work with regards to human rights in North Korea can be found on the dedicated DPRK page at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.