Pyongyang, November 28 (KCNA) -- The DPRK Association for Human Rights
Studies released the following detailed report on Friday:
A draconian anti-DPRK "resolution" on the human rights aimed at
seriously hurting its dignity was railroaded through the Third Committee
of the 69th UN General Assembly on Nov. 18.
The U.S. and other forces hostile to the DPRK fabricated the
"resolution" peppered with misinformation malignantly abusing its
genuine human rights policy and, not content with this, even asserted
that the DPRK's "human rights issue" should be referred to the
International Criminal Court.
This was the most vivid expression of the U.S. hostile policy
towards the DPRK as it was a hostile action against it, a product of the
U.S. strategy to bring down the socialist system centered on the
popular masses under the pretext of human rights.
Such hostile actions of the U.S. and its followers are naturally
compelling the army and people of the DPRK to launch the toughest
counteraction to cope with them.
Under the present grave situation where the human rights issue is at
the crossroads of sincere cooperation or war, the DPRK Association for
Human Rights Studies releases a detailed report to lay bare the secret
behind such political fraud as the anti-DPRK "human rights resolution"
which has no relevance with the protection and promotion of genuine
human rights and clarify the responsibility for the ensuing
consequences.
DPRK's Policy and Efforts for International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
It is the consistent political stand of the DPRK to make sustained
efforts to protect and promote the genuine human rights and positively
promote the international cooperation in this field.
The DPRK government has encouraged and developed the international
exchange and dialogue in the field of human rights since long ago.
To cite a few examples, a delegation of Amnesty International
visited the DPRK twice in April-May, 1991 and in April-May, 1995. It met
with law-enforcement officials and prisoners and visited reform
institutions and detention rooms, etc.
The reform institution visited by the delegation was just the same
as the one where U.S. citizen Pae Jun Ho served the term of hard labor
from May 2013 to November 2014.
In May-June, 1995, members of the International Association against Torture visited the DPRK and witnessed its reality.
In July, 1995, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and
her party visited our country and were briefed on the DPRK government's
policy and measures for combating the violence against women and learned
about the reality.
Human rights issue has been included in the agenda of the regular
political dialogue between the DPRK and EU since the DPRK-EU highest
level meeting in May 2001.
In September 2001 the delegation of Parliamentarians from different
political parties of France visited a reform institution and met with
its inmates and officials concerned in the DPRK and learned about its
reality.
In May 2002, the head of the division for East Asia at the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Germany visited the DPRK and met those who had
served their terms in prisons to understand the legal system in the
DPRK.
EU, however, made a U turn in its stand of dialogue with no reason
all of a sudden in April 2003 when the international cooperation was
making progress in the field of human rights, and sponsored together
with Japan a "resolution" on human rights situation in the DPRK, the
first of its kind, and rammed it through the 59th meeting of the then UN
Commission on Human Rights.
This was a follow-up politically-motivated hostile act of EU in the
wake of the Bush administration's labeling of the DPRK an "axis of
evil," reneging on the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework.
This scuttled the DPRK-EU human rights dialogue. Since then EU
introduced anti-DPRK "human rights resolutions" to UN every year,
blocking any cooperation with EU which has followed one-sided policy of
confrontation.
However, the DPRK has not ceased its efforts to promote the multilateral cooperation in the field of human rights.
The DPRK government submitted the second report on the
implementation of International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights in November, 2003 and took a sincere part in its
examination.
It submitted its second report on the implementation of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child in June, 2004 and participated in
its examination.
It presented its first report on the implementation of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women in July, 2005 and took part in its examination.
It submitted its third and fourth reports on the implementation of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in January, 2009 and
participated in their examination.
The DPRK took part in the first-cycle of the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) under the UN Human Rights Council in December, 2009 and the
second-cycle of UPR in May, 2014.
The DPRK signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on July 3, 2013.
It signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child
Pornography in September 9, 2014 and ratified it in November.
The DPRK government has made these efforts under the serious
situation where the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK has escalated
to the field of human rights.
For example, the U.S. passed "North Korean Human Rights Act" through
its Congress in July, 2004, legalizing its interference in the internal
affairs of the DPRK and its scenario to bring down its social system
under the pretext of "human rights protection".
The keynote of this act is to air 12-hour Korean language
broadcasting a day for the purpose of creating discontent with the DPRK
government among its inhabitants under the signboard of promoting human
rights, democracy and market economy in it, smuggle transistors capable
of listening to its programs, lure its people to defect from their
country, emigrate or take refuge in the U.S. and give financial and
material support for doing so, etc.
The U.S. is spending tens of millions of U.S. dollars every year to
implement the "North Korean Human Rights Act" which forces different
international organizations and neighboring countries to get involved in
it.
Even recently when the U.S. and its allies laid bare their attempt
to introduce the "human rights resolution" seriously hurting the dignity
of the DPRK to the UN General Assembly this year, the DPRK government
made ceaseless efforts for dialogue and cooperation in the field of
human rights.
Under the situation where the human rights situation in the DPRK was
seriously misrepresented due to the persistent plots of the hostile
forces, the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies released a report
on Sept. 13, 2014 for the purpose of clarifying truth and helping the
international community understand it.
The report was warmly welcomed by the international community and it
was registered and circulated as the UN General Assembly, UNSC and UN
Human Rights Council's official documents for making a comprehensive and
objective clarification of the human rights situation in the DPRK where
the people became its master.
The DPRK Foreign Ministry in September 2014 declared its readiness
to have dialogue over the human rights issue with Germany, UK and other
European countries and on Sept. 17 formally expressed its intention to
receive technical assistance if the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights provides it.
On Oct. 17 the DPRK formally invited the special representative for human rights of EU to visit the country.
On October 27 the roving ambassador of the Foreign Ministry of the
DPRK met the "Special Rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in
the DPRK in New York for the first time and expressed such good will and
magnanimity as saying that the DPRK would allow his visit to it if he
is sincerely interested in the settlement of the human rights issue.
Some EU countries understood and positively affirmed the DPRK's
broadminded efforts and called upon EU to opt for cooperation with the
DPRK. However, EU under the pressure of the U.S. finally took the road
of confrontation by joining in adopting the "resolution." By doing so,
they closed the door of dialogue including human rights dialogue and
exchange and cooperation by themselves.
2. Falsity and Reactionary Nature of the Anti-DPRK "Resolution on Human Rights"
The hypocrisy of the "resolution" lies, above all, in that it is
based on the "report" of the Commission of Inquiry (CI) on the situation
of human rights in the DPRK, a collection of lies and fabrications
called "testimonies" made by a handful of "defectors from north Korea"
who fled it after committing crimes here or were abducted.
For a decade the U.S. has prodded EU and Japan into ratcheting up
pressure on the DPRK in the international arena including the UN and
finally cooked up the Commission of Inquiry on the situation of human
rights in the DPRK.
CI is a plot-breeding body whose political nature is clear from the background against which it was established.
An anti-DPRK "resolution" on establishing CI was adopted at the UN
Human Rights Council in Geneva in March, 2013. It was the time when the
DPRK-U.S. standoff was evermore acute due to the sanctions slapped by
the U.S. against the DPRK in the wake of its successful satellite launch
on Dec. 12, 2012 and the third nuclear test on Feb. 12, 2013.
The U.S. launched a new offensive of pressure upon the DPRK over its
human rights issue, aware that it is hard to bring down its social
system by sanctions only.
CI made up of three persons was reported to have worked out a
"report" in which it allegedly made an overall "judgment and estimation"
of the human rights situation of a country and made even a
"recommendation" in a matter of less than a year. This itself raises a
serious problem in view of scientific accuracy and credibility.
The "report" claims that CI members met about 300 "witnesses" in
different countries. But among them there was not a single citizen of
the DPRK and none of the members of CI has ever visited our country.
The countries which members of CI claimed visited were such
countries as the U.S. and Japan hostile to the DPRK and those persons
whom they insisted they met were either citizens of hostile countries or
"defectors from north Korea" under the control of the south Korean
authorities.
From the outset CI hostile to the DPRK in its nature had no
intention to visit it. From its inception CI declared that it would
conduct its inquiry mainly on the basis of testimonies made by
"defectors from north Korea" and satellite photos.
Chairman of CI Michael Kirby in an interview with Australian
broadcasting service on May 7, 2013 said there were a series of press
reports about human rights abuses in north Korea but there was a lack of
ground to confirm them.
The "report" failed to publish the names of most of "defectors from the north" who made testimonies.
CI made such poor excuse that "confidential interviews" were held to
prevent their families from being hurt, a very serious flaw in a
document of an international body.
For example, the "report" claimed on the basis of "statement" made
by "defector from the north" Sin Tong Hyok that there is a "camp for
political prisoners" in the DPRK and "unethical crimes" are committed
there. Why did it not feel "worry" about Sin's father living in the DPRK
at a time when it opened Sin's name. Maybe Sin is such bete noire who
discarded human ethics so completely as having no worry about his real
father that he made a false "testimony" that his father was dead.
A video clip was posted on website "By Our Nation"
(www.uriminzokkiri.com) to prove false name, career and testimony made
by Sin.
Even the author who released a book dealing with Sin's "Story about
defection from the north" admitted that recently Sin told a lie about
the reason for the punishment of his mother.
The book is the fictional novel that "touched" U.S. Secretary of
State Kerry so strongly and sparked off his unusual antipathy toward the
present social system in the DPRK.
Whoever has visited the DPRK even once, a man or woman from the
West, is not ignorant of the human rights situation in the DPRK.
An Italian lawmaker who witnessed the reality of the DPRK in an
interview with Italian Broadcasting Service 24 stated that what Sin Tong
Hyok, defector from north Korea, said at a press conference is a lie to
get some money and the book based on his lie is on sale, declaring he
would not buy such book.
A journalist of Ireland on Oct. 29, 2014 in an article dedicated to
the internet magazine The Diplomat said that Pak Yon Mi, 21-year old
girl who defected from north Korea, spoke about "the serious human
rights situation" in north Korea in tears at the World Youth Summit held
in Dublin early in October and BBC, Al Jazeera, Daily Mail and other
media gave wide publicity to it, but not a few critics claimed what she
said was contrary to the truth, expressing skepticism about her speech.
Swiss businessman Felix Abt who had worked in north Korea for seven
years till 2009 asserted that most of the stories told by those
defectors from the north were not confirmed and clearly hyped or they
were sheer lies.
Denying the claim made by Pak Yon Mi, comparing Dublin Canal with a
river in the area where she had lived, that she saw dead bodies afloat
over the river every morning, Abt refuted her story by saying he had
been to north Korea many times but had never seen dead bodies, showing a
picture of children in north Korea wading in rivers with joy.
Challenging the assertion of Ri Kwang Chol, defector from the north,
who said there is no physically disabled person in north Korea due to
infanticide, Abt recalled that Pyongyang dispatched disabled players to
the Paralymic Games held in Inchon, south Korea.
Michael Bassett, who served the U.S. forces as an expert for north
Korea in the Demilitarized Zone on the Korean Peninsula for years, said
that the story made by Pak Yon Mi, defector from the north, was a sheer
lie, that Pak described the human rights situation in north Korea as a
"massacre", prompted by her intention to create a great sensation and
that such anti-DPRK organizations in south Korea as "Freedom Factory"
were behind her. Bassett, referring to the fact that Pak Yon Mi sent him
an article refuting his story, ridiculed that her English was too
perfect though she was a foreigner.
A researcher of the French Institute for International Strategic
Affairs in an interview with the French paper La Croix on Feb. 19, 2014
said that the UN "human rights report" on north Korea is a biased and
unscientific report and an unscientific document worked out on the basis
of testimonies made by "victims" of the north Korean regime only
without confirmation of information through visits to north Korea. In
the light of the case in which a satellite photo of a nuclear test of
north Korea several years ago was opened to public and proved to be
false later, even the satellite photo showing a "management office" of
north Korea is hard to believe, and a biased "report" based on rumors or
public opinion on the "human rights" of north Korea should not be
worked out but attention should be paid to more objective and scientific
information, the researcher held.
A vice-president of the Party for Free Motherland of Brazil
contributed a statement to the paper Ora Du Pob under the title "A
servant of Obama faked up a Nazi report against the DPRK" on Feb. 19,
2014. It said:
"Michael Kirby's basic mission is to fabricate evidence as required
by Washington, make persistent and old big lies of monopoly reptile
media meeting the U.S. interests sound plausible, spread lies about
the DPRK and participate in the international cooperation steered by the
U.S. against the DPRK.
Michael Kirby had never visited Pyongyang, met and talked with
representatives of the DPRK government. Following without any
consideration the theory of the Nazis that if one repeats lies many
times, everybody will believe in them, he was only invited many times to
visit Seoul where all structures were made to provide 'evidence'
necessary for working out the false 'UN report' having 372 pages through
interview with persons in Seoul and several 'defectors from the
north'."
The reactionary nature of the present "resolution" lies in that it
serves as a tool for inciting confrontation, not cooperation, and a war,
not peace.
The above-said "resolution" is designed to secure a justification
for armed intervention by branding the DPRK as a "tundra of human
rights" in the arena of the UN.
History clearly remembers the Yugoslav war which the U.S. ignited
under the pretext of "protection of human rights and minority" in 1999.
The gravity of the "resolution" lies in that a dangerous precedent
is made to politicize and internationalize the human rights issue of an
individual country and use it for overthrowing the social system of that
country.
3. The EU bereft of "independence"
The history of the UN knows no such document as the "report of the
CI" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK which was fabricated in
clumsy and hasty manner.
The EU, too, must be aware of the fact that the "report" has a lot of flaws and requires at least a verification.
The DPRK offered an opportunity for the verification under the
situation where there are two conflicting reports thanks to the
publication of the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies' report
fully reflecting the DPRK's policy on human rights, human rights regime
and the reality of the people's enjoyment of human rights.
This was the reason why we consented to the visit of the UN "Special
Rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK and the
special representative for human rights of EU and proposed the
resumption of the human rights dialogue with EU on our initiative.
But EU said that it discussed the matter within it but a country in
the EU opposed it and decided to pass the resolution because of
opposition from the U.S. and Japan outside EU and proposed dialogue
later.
Those countries opposed it were precisely the ones that have not
recognized the state sovereignty of the DPRK where the people are fully
guaranteed human rights.
The UN "special rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in the
DPRK said at the contact with the DPRK on October 27, 2014 that he would
propose EU to delete the issue of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) from the "resolution" but a few days later he made a U turn in his
stand and insisted that the DPRK's "human rights issue" should be
referred to the ICC and his visit to the DPRK be realized.
This is little short of having negotiations with the DPRK while leveling a gun at it.
As shown by the 20 odd-year-long history of the course of dealing
with the nuclear issue, it is the stand of the DPRK never to have any
dialogue under pressure but to recognize and approach the dialogue based
on equality only.
The behavior shown by EU this time makes us think once again of the "independence" oft-repeated by it.
Some years ago, the prime minister of a member state of EU earned an
ill-fame as a poodle of the U.S. but today EU has itself created a
strong impression that it is just a poodle of the U.S.
How can proper dialogue and negotiations be held with a party bereft of reason and its own principle?
Witnessing the shape of EU bereft of "independence," we cannot but
question whether the DPRK's relations with EU have any meaning.
4. Extreme Partiality of UN
The course of the forcible passage of the "resolution" clearly
proved that the UN has turned into a theatre of rampage, where
everything is decided by the high-handed and arbitrary practices and
dollar bag of the U.S., quite contrary to the principle of equal
sovereignty specified in its Charter, and the fate of the individual
countries might be adversely affected in a moment if they are weak.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, with this year's UN
General Assembly at hand, had contacts and dialogue on human rights
issue with more than 150 UN member states, except for some die-hard
hostile countries.
Most of the member states the DPRK got in touch with were skeptical
about the "CI report" and admitted that the document was politicized.
While doing so, not a few countries noted that they cannot but take the
stand of abstaining from or not participating in the voting for "the
resolution" as the U.S., Japan and others threatened them to suspend
their economic aid and loan while putting so strong political pressure
on them. They asked the DPRK side to regard this as their support and
solidarity with the DPRK.
There were many such countries in Asia and Africa, in particular.
Who is opposed to having dialogue on human rights, in actuality, was brought to light during the recent UN General Assembly.
On Sept. 23 the U.S. announced that "high-level event on human
rights of north Korea" would be held in New York on sidelines of the
69th UN General Assembly.
Prompted by the desire to set right the wrong opinion and view on
the "human rights issue" in the DPRK and help its participants know
truth, the DPRK expressed its will to participate in the meeting in the
capacity of the party concerned and proposed this to the U.S. side.
The U.S. side said it would give an answer later, after thinking
about it for a long while, but refused the DPRK side's participation in
the meeting under the absurd pretext that it was "not appropriate" at a
time when the meeting was imminent.
By origin, it is a practice and procedural regulation to invite the
party concerned with the agenda item to be discussed at UN meetings and
all other international meetings.
But it was evident that the U.S., holding a meeting concerned with
the DPRK only, had no willingness to agree with the participation of the
DPRK, the party concerned, or held the meeting in the backlane in a bid
to hatch a plot from the outset.
Are such country and its servants entitled to talk about human rights dialogue ?
Not a few countries asked for understanding that they voted for the
"resolution" not because they were concerned for the human rights issue
but because the U.S. and Japan threatened them to halt economic aid.
This fully revealed what extent the U.S. highhanded and arbitrary
practices have reached in the UN.
As a Western personage said, the UN is now becoming an arena where
99 percent of its member nations sacrifice themselves for one percent of
its membership.
We do not want anyone's "recognition" as regards the human rights
issue and, moreover, do not feel the need to read the face of others at
all.
What our people like and what conforms with their requirements and interests is precisely our human rights standards.
The recent farce orchestrated at the UN is a shameless political
chicanery to put down justice with injustice and conceal truth with lies
and the height of brazenfaced burlesque to deceive the world people
with intrigues and fabrications.
The U.S. and its followers are trying hard to bring down the
man-centred socialist system chosen by the Korean people, the cradle
which they regard dearer than their own lives. This is lashing them into
great fury.
Growing stronger are the voices calling for dealing merciless
sledge-hammer blows at those who hurt even the dignity of the supreme
leadership of the DPRK fully representing its people, which cannot be
bartered for anything.
The DPRK will make every possible effort to shatter all "human
rights" rackets kicked up by the U.S. and other hostile forces and
defend the socialist system where the people are masters and their
genuine human rights are guaranteed on the highest level. -0-
