Russia and China voted against it. What is more, Liu Jieyi – the Permanent Representative of China to the UN – underlined that such discussions ‘will do only harm and no good’ – the situation on the Korean peninsula is so complicated that the Security Council should do everything possible to stimulate its stabilization and not to escalate it. Russia also does not believe that the issue of human rights in North Korea should be considered at the level of the UN Security Council.
The meeting was mainly focused on the report of the UN Special Commission on Inquiry of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, published in February, 2014. Many western countries consider it a direct proof of the guilt of the North Korean leadership and demand its criminal prosecution. In this connection, on December 18 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning human rights violation in North Korea and calling upon the Security Council to refer the case to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The resolution was adopted by vast majority: 116 to 20 with 53 abstentions. Although the resolution is non-binding, it urges to bring to justice DPRK citizens involved in crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court, so that Kim Jong-un could also be prosecuted.
Meanwhile, Oh Jung – the Permanent Representative of South Korea to the United Nations – spoke very cautiously about the prospects of referring the human rights violation in North Korea to the International Criminal Court. He said that it was ‘only one of the options’ for future actions.
On December 26, 2014 the DPRK accused the United States of preparing a military intervention into the country under the pretence of human rights protection. According to the Rodong Sinmun newspaper, the US administration is preparing to invade the DPRK under the pretence of human rights violation after ‘methods of political, economic and military pressure on Pyongyang have failed’. The DPRK Ministry of internal affairs also took a tough stance on the matter.
It can be said that as a result the USA-North Korea relations have strained, and the possibility of the DPRK’s new nuclear test has slightly increased. At that Russia and China are likely to veto further implementation of the resolution which thus turns into a tool to grate on Kim Jong-un’s nerves.
In our previous text about human rights and double standards the author made an attempt to compare North Korea with some Muslim States which are traditional allies of the USA. It confused some of the commentators, and caused ‘it is a completely different matter’ discussions. That is why the author decided to draw a couple of other examples.
Take, for example, Thailand. I suppose the readers remember that tourists arriving there are recommended to refrain from gross jokes or insults against the King, which could be followed by a long prison sentence. Moreover, Lese-Majesty Law applies not only to the King himself, but also, for example, to his portraits, towards which it is not recommended to make ‘hateful gestures’. For the same reason it is forbidden to step on the money, since they feature a portrait of the monarch. The situation is not much different from that with the portraits of the DPRK leaders. And, let us note, even explanations are alike: the King is a sacred leader of the nation, and mocking him equals to insulting religious feelings.
Moreover, the Lese-Majesty Law applies to the whole ruling family, and discussions and, moreover, publications in the press on improper actions of a Thai Prince are fraught with unpleasant consequences. If the author is a foreigner, he or she can be invited to Thailand under any pretext and get arrested there. It is also curious that such a strong protection applies even to the history of the ruling dynasty, the criticism of the normative interpretation of which equals to the criticism of the King. However, as you can see, this traditional component is generally regarded as the national cultural features which should be respected, without rubbing the wrong way.
Thailand’s southern provinces, where Islamic terrorists or separatists are active (they are called differently depending on the involvement), are the area of an anti-terrorist operation. Access of foreigners is strongly restricted, and cellular communication is prohibited on the grounds that the calls from cellular phones can be used as a trigger signal for bombs. Terrorism suspects can be detained by special order for up to 30 days without the right to see families and lawyers, and, according to human rights activists, tortures are often used during interrogations. However, since we are talking about Islamic terrorists, such tough measures are seen as justified. Not only in Thailand but also, for example, in the United States. An opinion poll which was conducted by Rasmussen Reports showed that 47% of the US residents supported the use of torture during interrogations of potential terrorists. People who chose that answer explained their decision by the fact that the use of torture has helped the CIA to obtain information from people suspected of terrorism.
Meanwhile, on December 16, 2014 Pyongyang has officially requested the UN Security Council to ‘formally put the issue of felonious tortures on the Security Council agenda, with the aim to discuss this topic as soon as possible, as well as to establish a special commission authorized to conduct a thorough investigation of tortures by the CIA and bring to justice those responsible for that very serious human rights violation’. It is clear that North Korea’s statement went almost unnoticed. A report on the use of tortures in the United States made a stir, but was not followed by resignations or sensational cases. The latter is important, because the previous scandal involving the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo resulted in conviction of average executives, whose actions were interpreted as arbitrariness.
Thus, Ban Ki-moon – the Secretary-General of the United Nations – expressed his concern over the problematic situation over the human rights in the DPRK, and put special emphasis on the frequent application of a supreme penalty in North Korea – the death penalty. It is noted as one the evidence that the DPRK has rejected the recommendation of the Universal Periodic Review of the UN to suspend death penalty. However, there is no data on the number of such death sentences and it is not clear how many people have been executed. Meanwhile, on March 24, 2014 the Egyptian Criminal Court of Al Minya has passed a death penalty sentence on 529 supporters of Muslim Brotherhood association, who were accused of violence that followed the overthrow of the president Mohammed Mursi. Such mass execution (and it wasn’t the only one) somehow did not attract same close attention.
One can also recall mass killings in Mexico. Burial places with dozens of victims are discovered almost every week, but it is traditionally explained by the activity of drug mafia which has practically corrupted government bodies. However, we do not find any discussion of that Mexican issue in the UN and, moreover, there are no demands to bring in the country peacekeeping forces in order to protect ordinary citizens.
The situation over the discussion of human rights in the DPRK highlights a whole range of issues for the author. Either the international community should develop some unified regulation, recognizing the universality of human rights, as a kind of Criminal Code for countries and regimes, but then its rules should be the same for everyone, without any allowances for double standards.
Or the continuation of the existent practice discredits the good purpose and turns any talks about human rights into a means of coming down on a certain regime by accusing it of crimes against humanity. And this, firstly, makes it so that the principle ‘What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox’ becomes an ordinary practice of justifying the rule of force. Secondly, such double standard practice compromises bodies that should be acting as fair arbitrator, and forces to look for alternative ways, thus completely turning the international law into fiction.
Or the international community accepts the idea that there are no universal values and it is necessary to at least take into account national and cultural peculiarities of a country or circumstances which force it to restrict human rights. But then comes a question of whether human rights in that case are a kind of dogma which the West attempts to impose on other cultures without allowances for region features and allows itself to judge who is the violator of human rights and thus subject to punishment, and who is not.
Naturally, here arises a related question: Who will watch the watchmen? If aliens had come to the Earth and had been monitoring the observance of human rights and had been an impartial arbitrator, the humanity would have perceived them as unbiased judges. If the UN was not as it is now, but a truly independent and impartial international institute capable of putting in its place any breaching country regardless of its political power, then the punishment of those who abuse human rights would be regarded as an impartial trial, and not as ‘selective justice’, which leads to the question ‘Who are the judges then?’. Unfortunately, the features of the current situation make it so that everyone turns a blind eye, because one can be punished for human rights abuse only if one has enraged the supreme authority for an utterly different reason, but it is decided to make the reprisal look as justice.
In this connection I would like to quote the statement by the representative of the Foreign Ministry of China, which was made on December 19, 2014: ‘… China has always advocated the elimination of differences in the field of human rights through constructive dialogue and cooperation, and has also deprecated the politicization of human rights issue and the exertion of pressure on other countries under that pretext.
Konstantin Asmolov, candidate of historical sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
