The fact that China does NOT try to help get these people out of their own country into other countries, and even blocks them from finding such avenues, tends to support my theory.

A grand deal needs to be worked out, one that takes the financial heat off of China, finds suitable and humane facilities for the NK refugees (Korea spends hundreds of millions of dollars already for the 5000 it has already taken in, and it is swamped), and gets China to end its catch-and-return policy.

China so far has been unwilling to entertain any such deal.

As for China, look. I agree that ROK is very generous to the NK refugees who are lucky enough to get there. My US Cuban analogy was to show you that US, like you said, do not go around the world demanding that Cuban refugees be given asylum into US—which SK do time to time with NK refugees. United States regularly turn back Cuban refugees on the highseas, which is a statement of fact. Had there been ocean between China and North Korea, and the Chinese regularly detained NK refugees in the Chinese equivalent of a Guatanamo Bay and sent them back to Pyong Yang to be killed, who would say what? People would say, “tough luck!”

Even in the SK example, every year something like 1500 NK refugees make it to SK. But let’s just “up” that estimation and say a round 2,000. 2000 is about 2 average US highschool class bodies. So essentially, SK houses 2,000, which is pretty small number of people per year. Now, you probably know this better than me, but Hanawon has massive problems. I will probably be villified for saying this, but it’s a statement of fact to say that most NK refugees have a very very very difficult time adjusting to life in the free world.

The reason why I say this is because, you said to me that I, “put the cart before the horse.” I don’t think you are being honest when you say that you think ROK and the international community would really absorb all these refugees or that they would provide some sort of compensation. I don’t think you are being completely honest when you fail to admit that ROK, US, and Japan has been less than robust in it’s diplomatic panderings to China to release these NK refugees. And I think that you might be purposefully blinding yourself to the fact that these other nations, just really don’t want to accept the refugees that China is kicking out.

To say, “I think international community should help China out if it allows NK refugees asylum” is a very differnt thing from saying, “Internation community WILL help China according to binding diplomatic agreements.” How can you claim putting cart before horse, when the Chinese have this very question to answer? When they allow 1000 NK refugees to go to ROK, obviously that will encourage more refugees to come to China. How many of these people will the international community support? This isn’t a case of cart before horse.

I think you may be confusing the two different types of North Koreans we hear about. There are the NKs who make it into the diplomatic missions, spend some time there, and then when China sufficiently saves face, they get sent to a third country on their way to South Korea.

Yes, China lets them through eventually, although they get huffy about it. It is also an important thing to note that they ACTIVELY try to prevent DPRK citizens from making it into the foreign missions. They have even gone so far as to dragging NKs out of the Japanese and South Korean missions, and even BEAT DOWN South Korean diplomats who tried to block this.

But then there is the second type. The type that has crossed over and is hoping for a chance to leave to another country, but who cannot make it to the missions because they will likely be caught. They live in hiding, in fear of their lives, as the Chinese police make regular and serious round-ups of people like them to send back to North Korea. As per agreement.

They are stuck in limbo. They don’t want to stay in China (and they are not welcome there by the authorities) but if they go back they will likely die. Maybe their family members will also die.

These are the people who are most at risk, and they are the face of the majority of the refugees trying to leave, not the ones who have made it to the diplomatic missions and then were sent out of China.

Since so much of the part of China closest to Korea is so heavily Korean anyway, it’s not that hard to blend in, when necessary. But without knowledge of Chinese, without proper papers, etc., that blending in lasts only so long. To get by, many of the people end up in situations where their very lives are in the hands of unscrupulous people. There is a lot of sexual violence that goes on. Some women end up marrying people to get paperwork that will allow them to stay. Anything to avoiding being sent back to North Korea and a likely death, if not by torture or execution then by starvation at the hands of a government that uses food as a tool of suppression and loyalty.

These marriages and other things would not happen if the Chinese would allow the NKs refugee status, thus allowing them to leave China or to stay in China with legal papers. China, by refusing to acknowledge the NKs as refugees and instead rounding them up and sending them back, creates the problem of having hundreds of thousands of “illegal aliens” desperately hiding within its borders.

My point is, this is not the nice and neat situation you hear about where one, two, ten, or two hundred NKs sought asylum at an embassy, consulate, or diplomatic school or cultural center somewhere. It’s much more vile than that, and China is a willing accomplice by the path it has chosen in the face of international criticism by human rights groups.

Back when Clinton decided to end the yearly ritual of arguing about China’s human rights when deciding to renew China’s MFN status, I thought the decision (condemned by many Dems but supported by most Republicans) was somewhat sound, as long as pressure was applied in other areas. But it hasn’t been. We (the United States, where I happen to be a citizen and regular voter) are unabashedly China’s economic sponsor.is being less than responsible far as HR is concerned.What a nice little euphemism for China’s human rights abuses. It almost makes them Beijing sound like wayward children instead of organizers of torture and death.I?€™m just saying thta China doesn?€™t deserve to be singled out.Really? The leader of the communist world and one of our number-one trading partners does not deserve to be singled out when they willingly do things that violate international human rights norms?I think that you keep on skirting the issue, including the two links you gave me. If China gives true asylum to NK refugees, would the international community really support the resettlement of these refugees outside China?If China were to really set up refugee resettlement camps, I would say they deserve a lot of financial support for that, but that is NOT the issue here. They are rounding up people in hiding (hiding for fear of being sent to their deaths) not because of the financial costs of those people hiding and working in secret but because of an agreement with North Korea, plain and simple.

All they would have to do is stop blocking NK refugees from leaving.

Let’s take the example of NK refugees tryiing to make a run for the diplomatic missions in Beijing and Shenyang. If these people were to make it to the US embassy, the Japanese school, or the South Korean consulate, after some political backroom stuff involving South Korean promises to face-savingly (for Beijing) send them to a third country, they end up in South Korea. In other words, out of China and no longer affecting the Chinese economy in any way.

Yet the PRC authorities work hard to block such things. They heavily guard the areas around the missions, and they have even invaded the Japanes and South Korean missions, dragging out NK refugees once they were already in the mission and, in the case of the South Korean mission in 2002, beating down the South Korean diplomats (on South Korean diplomatic territory) who tried to prevent them from dragging out the NK refugees.

No, this is not about cost, it’s about political arrangement with NK.Furthermore, would the international community give various kinds of compensation for the economic/social/political duress it will be in for creating refugee camps? I don?€™t really see people jumping up and down for to allow NK refugees to settle in their homelands.If there really were to be such camps, I think there would definitely be a need for money to be put into it. But you are putting the cart before the horse: Beijing right now would never allow NK refugee camps in its own territory, nor would it allow NK refugees to be allowed to pass through PRC on the way to, say, Mongolia or Russia. That’s the problem: it’s a political deal with Pyongyang, not economic concerns, that are leading China to do what it does.Right now, you are insisting that China take the full hit on this all by herself.No. If China really changed its policies, I would not insist they take the full hit. I’m not even so sure that they are taking a hit now, since even the refugees in hiding are generating economic activity in China.

What I am insisting China do is end their agreement with Pyongyang to send refugees back to certain torture and possible death (it is certain death in the sense that they know many will die, they just don’t know which ones).To put it another way, US policy towards Cuban refugees isn?€™t so differnet from ROK?€™s policy towards NK. The differnce is that ROK, at least legally, views NK refugees as SK citizens.That’s a huge difference. The United States does not go to other countries where Cubans are n diplomatic missions and work to get them to come to the United States. I’m not sure if the U.S. has a subsidy system for Cuban refugees like the South has for NKs.I don?€™t really expect US to treat NK refugees any different from how US treats Darfur refugees?€“which is to say, when push comes to shove, we really don?€™t really give a damn about these people.Well, thanks to Brownback’s law, I’m not so sure.

But the situations are not so equivalent as you suggest. The U.S. is the the main traing partner of China, not so with Sudan (interestingly, China is the #1 importer of Sudan’s goods–a whopping 64.3%, while Japan is #2 at 13%), therefore the U.S. has some influence, if not a moral obligation to do something.But I don?€™t single out the US, because there is a whole hosts of nations that is doing far far FAR less.Far less than who on what? Far less on the North Korean issue? The U.S., South Korea, and Japan all deserve kudos for food aid, but so far the Brownback bill is mere words on paper: something must be done to push the cogs into motion.Your data on trade figures, doesn?€™t tell me much. Because, it seems that by quoting trade figures, you are suggesting that we (US) have a responsibiility to threaten China with trade sanctions over HR issues.It means that as their economic sponsor, we have a moral responsibility to question our heavy involvement with that country.I think this is counter productive. In fact, I don?€™t even think I should be going into the details why I think this, because I feel that should be perfectly obvious.Ah, the copout response when pesky moral issues get in the way of economic argument.

Actually, VW, I did hint already that government sanction may not be the answer. I think individual and corporate action would be more effective. The political relationship needs to remain open, even if it includes harsh rebukes. This is why I support an individual and corporate boycott of Beijing 2008 unless China changes these policies.I do feel that we, you and I, care deeply about this issue, and I do think, on a personal level, you must be a great person. But again, I wouldn?€™t ask of China what I wouldn?€™t ask from US, Japan, Russia, and least of all, ROK.This is something all should be doing, but te U.S. should be on the forefront, given its whoppingly overwhelming economic relationship.

I also think it’s very telling how the criticism of South Korean engagement with NK is so strong, when the United States has such a strong economic relationship with North Korea’s willing accomplice (and Japan has a strong relationship with both), and virtually everyone is silent.

It’s even more disturbing that people are talking up nuclear or conventional strikes that would kill an awful lot of innocent NKs, SKs, Japanese, etc., when the solution to regime change is pressuing China to change some fundamental policies toward Pyongyang.I think we are in full agreement that Marmot?€™s comment section is full of mostly peole who have a very black and white view of ROK foreign policy. A point, that I try not to dwell on, since for them, their perspective ROK foregin policy is often colored by their personal anti-american/anti-foreigner experiences they had in SK.I thank Senator Brownback for the NKHRA, but telling China what to do without creating incentives for it to do so, seems narrow minded to me.That’s because I don’t think you are fully appreciating the extent of China’s complicity, or their reasons.Everyone wants to use the threat of punitive measure to get what they want. Where?€™s the carrot?I agree. There should be more carrots.BTW, I still don?€™t know any NK refugees living in the States due to the NKHRA. Only NK refugees I am aware of residing in Japan are the Jenkin?€™s family.The thousands of regugees are almost all in South Korea, receiving tens of thousands of dollars each in subsidies. Ironically, South Korea is singled out for doing too little.

My contention is that China’s economic sponsors (i.e., its major trading partners) have to put pressure on them to do this, because they aren’t doing it themselves. Willingly doing business with someone who you know is regularly and routinely rounding people up to be sent away to be slaughtered is a morally questionable position to say the least. In fact, the United States and Japan are doing the very thing that so many on this list are accusing South Korea of doing: putting money before the lives of North Koreans (and the Japanese are doing this on the same two fronts that the South Koreans are).Why isn?€™t ROK taking the lead in publicly raising the issue while appealing to US for support?That’s a very fair question, but I think the answer lies in two things.

First, South Korea carries nowhere near the clout of the United States. The U.S. takes in ONE-FOURTH of all of China’s exports, far more than any other country. It is the United States that is first among Beijing’s economic sponsors.

Second, what clout South Korea does have (which is some) is already used on getting Beijing to let North Korean refugees who are in diplomatic missions go to a “third country” before they move on to South Korea. There have been over 5000 North Korean refugees since the 1950s, the vast majority of them since 2000, during the Kim DJ and Roh administrations. Each of those requires a diplomatic dance by Beijing, who knows they can’t extract the NK refugee from the foreign mission (though they’ve tried) but also wants to show Pyongyang that they’re taking their deal seriously. So anyway, that’s where a lot of South Korea’s political capital is spent, even under the Roh administration.This is something the entire West could get behind and it should be the leading issue of public debate in current ROK politics.I think a lot of Roh’s and Chung’s antics are making people think twice about electing a home-grown leftist in the future, but foreign affairs and North Korean issues are not the only thing on the political plate here. There’s also political corruption, taxes, skyrocketing real estate, educational issues, pollution, environmental issues.It?€™s too late for million of North Koreans, but the problem isn?€™t going to go away. Quiet diplomacy assuring the PRC that no US troops would ever take up a permanent status in DPRK might begin to wear away at Chinese rock-like resistance to the idea.I agree, but I also know that that is being done.It depends on how much the senior Chinese leadership really believes in their own Communist ideolgy and their fraternal ?€œsolidarity?€? with DPRK; this has got to be decreasing with every year that passes.China has turned into an economic wild, wild west, but that doesn’t mean that the Communist leadership is any less ideological. If anything, they may see a need to bolster their ideology, not loosen it. Think of the difference between lay Catholics and the two most recent Catholic priests when it comes to issues like birth control, homosexuality, etc.

Make no mistake, the Beijing leadership is communist, and they see little wrong with breaking a few eggs to make a state-stability omelette. What’s happening in North Korea is, to a high degree, acceptable to them.

And that is why we have to question our uncritical economic sponsorship of Beijing.

Noone here is denying that China has awful human rights record and China is being less than responsible far as HR is concerned. I’m just saying thta China doesn’t deserve to be singled out.

I think that you keep on skirting the issue, including the two links you gave me. If China gives true asylum to NK refugees, would the international community really support the resettlement of these refugees outside China? Furthermore, would the international community give various kinds of compensation for the economic/social/political duress it will be in for creating refugee camps? I don’t really see people jumping up and down for to allow NK refugees to settle in their homelands. Right now, you are insisting that China take the full hit on this all by herself.

To put it another way, US policy towards Cuban refugees isn’t so differnet from ROK’s policy towards NK. The differnce is that ROK, at least legally, views NK refugees as SK citizens. I don’t really expect US to treat NK refugees any different from how US treats Darfur refugees–which is to say, when push comes to shove, we really don’t really give a damn about these people. But I don’t single out the US, because there is a whole hosts of nations that is doing far far FAR less.

Your data on trade figures, doesn’t tell me much. Because, it seems that by quoting trade figures, you are suggesting that we (US) have a responsibiility to threaten China with trade sanctions over HR issues. I think this is counter productive. In fact, I don’t even think I should be going into the details why I think this, because I feel that should be perfectly obvious.

I do feel that we, you and I, care deeply about this issue, and I do think, on a personal level, you must be a great person. But again, I wouldn’t ask of China what I wouldn’t ask from US, Japan, Russia, and least of all, ROK.

I think we are in full agreement that Marmot’s comment section is full of mostly peole who have a very black and white view of ROK foreign policy. A point, that I try not to dwell on, since for them, their perspective ROK foregin policy is often colored by their personal anti-american/anti-foreigner experiences they had in SK.

I thank Senator Brownback for the NKHRA, but telling China what to do without creating incentives for it to do so, seems narrow minded to me. Everyone wants to use the threat of punitive measure to get what they want. Where’s the carrot? BTW, I still don’t know any NK refugees living in the States due to the NKHRA. Only NK refugees I am aware of residing in Japan are the Jenkin’s family.

$133 billion worth of Chinese goods going to the U.S.

The PRC and the ROK have a lips-and-teeth relationship, you say? Well, if the U.S. is buying one-fourth of China’s goods, five times the amount South Korea is, then what is that relationship? The PRC and the USA are like di-k-and-mouth?

[I'm not saying that the US is to blame here, just that there are a few countries, including the U.S. and Japan with as close a relationship to China, and that those countries are just as culpable in doing nothing because they put their dollars ahead of human rights, such that this constant bashing of South Korea, while ignoring the bigger issue, is wrongheaded and counterproductive.]

My main point stands IMO. I have seen some commentators (Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard) who have made the point that they think US aid is there waiting to be tapped for assistance to DPRK refugees in China, along the lines of the extensive UN supervision of refugee camps so common elsewhere in the world.

You may say that PRC will never permit something like this but that doesn’t mean the attempt shouldn’t be made. Why isn’t ROK taking the lead in publicly raising the issue while appealing to US for support? This is something the entire West could get behind and it should be the leading issue of public debate in current ROK politics.

It’s too late for million of North Koreans, but the problem isn’t going to go away. Quiet diplomacy assuring the PRC that no US troops would ever take up a permanent status in DPRK might begin to wear away at Chinese rock-like resistance to the idea. It depends on how much the senior Chinese leadership really believes in their own Communist ideolgy and their fraternal “solidarity” with DPRK; this has got to be decreasing with every year that passes.

If we are going to couch this horrific tragedy in American terms, then perhaps the most appropriate thing would be the rounding up of “illegals” from Central American states in the 1980s who might be visited by death squads upon their return. But Mexico? Give me a break!

Virtual Wonderer, I’m sorry, but you are full of shit on this. You say, “The problem is that ultimately noone gives a damn about refugees,” just after you offered excuse after excuse why the democratic world really shouldn’t do anything about China. Look up Human Rights Watch and see what they have to say about it. Or check out what Republican Senator Sam Brownback has to say about it.

The problem is that noone gives a damn about refugees: the problem is that most everyone is willing to blindly ignore China’s role in this because it would force them to make tough decisions. You apparently are among them.

And that kinda boils down the story a bit doesn’t it? So far, from time to time, China allowed a small number of NK refugees defect to SK. If China were to create refugee camps, where do you think will be their final destination? It’s not going to be ROK, I think at this point, it’s pretty clear that the ROK feels that NK refugees are personae non gratae. In the Patriot Act generation, I kinda doubt US would want to harbor some of them especially when mixed in with the regular refugees, you will inevitably get some spys and terrorists. Japan probably feels about the same.

You can say, “your point is moot, as ultimately China does not want the DPRK to collapse by allowing all these refugees to go to another country.” But I think that all the major nations, US, Japan,and the ROK sort of doesn’t use it as a bargaining position to coax the Chinese to allow more of the refugees free.

Let’s say Japan tomorrow offered asylum to 10,000 NK refugees and offered China one thousand US dollars per refugee deliverd, I wonder if China really would turn something like that down. Of course, what philanthropic nation on earth would offer such generous offer is another question.

Refugee problem can be solved if the ROK hanchongryun brigade started to throw some molotov cocktail demanding that NK refugees given ROK asylum immediately. China may not want NK to collapse, but there is no reason for China to support the inevitalbe historical loser that is the DPRK at the cost of losing the inevitable winner of the unification, ROK. But currently ROK and China are like lips and teeth.

The problem isn’t China. The problem is that ultimately noone gives a damn about refugees. Doesn’t matter if they are Koreans or Sudanese…