The National Human Rights Commission decided today that it would NOT look into human rights abuses occurring in North Korea (English piece here).
The commission said it could not view North Koreans as “natives,” taking into account domestic and international law and how Seoul lacks effective jurisdiction over the North.
It based its decision on a) North Korea joined the UN as an independent nation; b) Article 4 of the ROK constitution sets fourth the principle of “peaceful unification”; and c) agreements between the two Koreas (including, apparently, the June 15 Joint Declaration) and laws regarding the development of intra-Korean relations define the intra-Korean relationship as a “provisional special relationship of the unification process.”
The National Human Rights Commission Law, however, applies to “citizens of the ROK and foreigners residing within the territory of the ROK,” and the ROK constitution defines the territory of the ROK as the “Korean Peninsula and its islands,” meaning North Koreans could be seen as ROK citizens.
According to Yonhap, this decision had been expected since September, when the commission turned down a petition calling on the North not to carry out the execution of Son Jong-nam, a North Korean citizen.
The commission WOULD look into some matters involving South Koreans, however, including POWs, South Korean abductees, separated families and North Korean defectors.
It should also be noted—oddly enough—that the commission said the government has the duty to work to improve the North Korean human rights situation in solidarity with the international community. It also said, however (and this is where you want to get out your barf bags), that the government needed to make the international community aware that it should deal with the North Korean human rights situation “more wisely” given the special nature of the intra-Korean relationship.
Perhaps even more absurd was a remark by Choi Young-ae, head of the North Korea committee of the National Human RIghts Commission, that the commission was studying a number of plans, including hooking up with the human rights bodies of “states friendly with North Korea” to help improve the situation in that country.
And to think the Chinese and Russian human rights commissions probably never expected to get calls for international assistance.
The committee also called for humanitarian assistance to the North to be continued in a transparent manner.
Of course, the fact that the war in Iraq involves foreigners fighting in a foreign land didn’t stop the National Human Rights Commission from issuing a position statement in 2003 declaring its opposition to the war and calling on the government and National Assembly to work for the human rights of those sacrificed in the war and to approach matters concerning the war based on anti-war, pro-peace and pro-human rights principles.
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, at least they’re being honest. Everybody knows by now that you can take any rhetorical shot you want at the US, since they’re evidently going to stay in Korea for many more decades.
Here’s a development I find to be parallel, one that is occurring within the government of another leading US ally that also has troops stationed in Iraq:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk.....68,00.html
Redefining the parameters of the problem you face is certainly one way to solve it, though I agree that “war on terror” is an awkward term for the Bush administration to keep on using.
It proves only one thing. They’re not interested in Human Rights. They’re only interested in agitating South Korean society, undermine South Korean government, and fostering anti-Americanism.
In other words, that organization is full of North Korean moles.
Interesting that West Germany formally recognized East Germany as a separate and legitimate state in ‘72(something SK has not done for NK) but remained an active advocate for the poor devils stuck in Bautzen prison.
Miniright: the Korean human rights watchdog eater.
True…In few month, they will wear masks and change their color when this org. needs to get budget approval from GNP. And NK human rights will be the priority agenda.
Well..Not in few months ..Only in a year.
montclaire, that’s an excellent point.
“The commission, however, said it will consider some cases involving South Koreans. Human rights issues involving South Korean citizens who are prisoners of war, kidnap victims or people separated from their families will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, the commission said.”
Case by case? How do they deal with North Korea’s past and current policies of segregation and purge of South Korean prisoners of war (deserters) and relatives of South Koreans?
Don’t talk to these Commies; they are animals.
Click on my name and read my recent post about boycotting Samsung and Huyndai products. These Commies will get the message when they see the US hurt them where it hurts most – their pockets.
Who knew?! Once again Korean treating foreigners more kindly than Koreans
I visited Baduk’s site and found..(drum roll)…our old buddy Mahathir_Fan. Poor Baduk! Now he’s stuck with him.
Q: Why do you South Koreans suck up to the North?
A: Because they are our brothers. Korea is one!
Q: So why don’t you care about the gulag up there?
A: Because North Korea is a different country.
If you try to make sense of it you’ll go nuts.
That’s a very tortured definition the NHRC has adopted — basically, they abdicate national sovereignty to the decision of the United Nations to recognize North Korea as a separate state from South Korea. So the UN’s administrative actions are supreme to the Korean Constitution? Interesting indeed.
I’m waiting for the “South Korea Surrenders” headlines.
Brendon, you may be on to something. The timing is quite interesting.
You must log in to post a comment.