[Special series- part 2] North Korean Human rights

Posted on : 2012-05-21 15:54 KST Modified on : 2012-05-21 15:54 KST
May 18 debate provides forum for progressives and conservatives to trade views on the North

By Kim Kyu-won, staff reporter  
Experts were divided on North Korean human rights. Conservatives said human rights were universal and should not be restricted by any conditions. Progressive experts argued that efforts to improve the North Korean human right situation are unlikely to have any real effect unless consideration is given to inter-Korean relations.
Kim Tae-woo said, “By ‘human rights,’ we are referring to rights and authorities that allow people to live like human beings, universal and absolute rights of humankind.
"I cannot agree to the idea that we should take a country’s situation into account in considering the issue," he continued. "And given the fact that North and South Koreans are the same people, we have the right to demand improvements.
“If we adopt an intrinsic approach to human rights, then there is no way for other countries or international organizations to intervene if there is a mass slaughter such as the ones in the Kosovo or Rwanda,” he added.
Moon Chung-in responded by calling for a three-dimensional approach to the human rights issue. First, he stressed the need to consider the relationship between human rights and peace.
“If Seoul makes an issue of North Korean human rights, Pyongyang will argue that it is violating Article 1 of the North-South Basic Agreement, and inter-Korean relations will become more and more hostile,” he predicted. Article 1 states that each of the two Koreas will respect each other’s unique systems.
Second, Moon said political rights should be distinguished from basic livelihood rights. Moon argued that political human rights restrictions should not result in the neglect of survival rights, including assistance with food, clothing, and shelter for North Koreans.
Third, Moon argued that improvements in human rights and democracy are fundamentally things that a people has to secure for itself.
“The United States has intervened in the human rights and democracy issues of other countries about 150 times since the Second World War, but rarely has been successful,” he said.
“If the North and South Korean governments declare their intention to cooperate and build trust, then it does no good for either inter-Korean relations or real human rights improvements for Seoul to come out vocally on the human rights issue,” he argued.
Yoon Young-kwan agreed with the idea of human rights being a universal value of humankind, but specified two different dimensions. First, he said, human rights are an issue not only of North Koreans but of all people throughout the world being treated equally. Second, the human rights issue is a policy issue concerned with peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as well as a more humane quality of life for North Koreans.
Calling for a “quiet but practical approach,” Yoon said, “We need to broaden contact between North and South through a policy of engagement and establish many links within North Korea if Seoul’s policy on North Korean human rights is to have any real effect.”
Lee Jong-seok called for the human rights issue to be viewed within a broader framework than one of political freedoms.
“The most effective method of improving the North Korean human rights situation would be for North Korean society to open up and move toward a market economy, bringing improvements to North Korean lives and a diversification of society,” he said.
Hankyoreh journalist and former Hankyoreh Peace Research Institute director Kang Tae-ho said, “In terms of domestic politics, the human rights issue has smacked of being a way for conservatives to attack progressives.
"It isn’t right for the Lee Myung-bak administration to talk about North Korean human rights when it has halted food shipments and other humanitarian aid," Kang argued.
Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]