North and South Korea According to the 2009 Trafficking in Persons Report
While I was gone, the U.S. State Department released the 2009 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, revealing few surprises in terms of North Korea’s record on the issue. The DPRK remains a Tier 3 country meaning “the government does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so.
Furthermore, in 2009 “[t]he North Korean government made no significant efforts to prevent human trafficking. It did not acknowledge the existence of human rights problems, including trafficking in persons.
Here’s the link to the DPRK report. (Scroll down.)
All this isn’t surprising but is nonetheless tragic. And what is just as tragic is South Korea’s apathy toward the human rights issue in North Korea.
An interview with Chicago-based human rights worker Mike Kim shows that although Lee Myung Bak has taken a first step toward addressing the long-ignored issue by last year co-sponsoring a U.N. resolution of the DPRK’s human rights violation, there seems to be a lack of interest in the cause in South Korea:
“I get the feeling after having given talks in England, Canada, Japan and the U.S. that South Korea has the lowest interest in human rights,” Kim, 32, said. “I’ve been invited to give talks by three groups in Seoul, all expats. Not one South Korean group has invited me.
In case you were wondering, South Korea was ranked a Tier 1 country, meaning “[t]he Government of the Republic of Korea fully complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. This doesn’t mean, however, that the country is immune to the problem:
The Republic of Korea (ROK) is a source country for the trafficking of women and girls within the country and to the United States (often through Canada and Mexico), Japan, Hong Kong, Guam, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. The ROK is a destination country for women from Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, and other Southeast Asian countries, some of whom are recruited to work on entertainment visas and may be vulnerable to trafficking for sexual exploitation or domestic servitude. Some brokers target poor women and runaways, pay off their debts, and then use this as leverage to force them to work in the commercial sex trade. Labor trafficking is a problem in South Korea, and some employers allegedly withhold the passports and wages of foreign workers, a practice that can be used as a means to subject workers to forced labor. One foreign embassy alleged that some of its citizens sign contracts for employment in their home country, but have their contracts destroyed upon arrival in Korea, where they are forced to work excessively long hours. An increasing challenge for the ROK is the number of women from less developed countries who are recruited for marriage to Korean men through international marriage brokers; limitations on citizenship and anecdotal reports of fraudulent brokers mean some of these women may be vulnerable to trafficking. Some, upon arrival in South Korea, may be subjected to conditions of sexual exploitation, debt bondage, and involuntary servitude. South Korean men reportedly continue to be a source of demand for child sex tourism in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands.
The entire write-up for the ROK can be accessed here. (Scroll down.)
Lies! All lies! The fact that some people betray and abandon the workers’ paradise has absolutely nothing to do with human rights violations!
Or so says Kim Jong Il apologist Christine Ahn.
I nearly launched another fisking, but why bother? After all, I’ve done it before, and I did the same again in greater detail when the Chomskyiste academic type John Feffer made some of the same arguments that hunger in North Korea is America’s fault. What Ahn and Feffer deliberately ignore — and what makes their writing so dishonest and risible — is the North Korean regime’s politically discriminatory denial of food as a deliberate, class-based tool of oppression. As an added benefit for Kim Jong Il, resources that aren’t spent on feeding children are diverted to the regime’s military-industrial complex to terrorize the world, and proliferate to others who do the same.
What Ahn and Feffer deliberately ignore — and what makes their writing so dishonest and risible — is the North Korean regime’s politically discriminatory denial of food as a deliberate, class-based tool of oppression. As an added benefit for Kim Jong Il, resources aren’t spend on feeding children are diverted to the military-industrial complex
Agreed. Surely, societies like the DPRK should be particularly vulnerable to a leftist/Critical-Theory based critique. As someone often perceived as a ‘leftist’, that’s something that pisses me off about other ‘leftists’ — and ‘rightists’ too, come to think of it — they’re so busy taking sides with or against the US government (or whatever) that they can’t tell the wood from the trees.
re: Christine Ahn
I am deeply troubled and confused whenever I try to follow Ahn’s logic. The premise of her argument is that most North Koreans leave the country for economic reasons. Okay, fine. She then concludes that labeling NK as a “human rights abuser” is unfair, there is no legitimate argument for listing NK as a state sponsor of terrorism, and that the US is ultimately responsible for the economic conditions that led to the millions of hunger related deaths and the plight of refugees?
I would buy into this argument if I could conveniently ignore what happens to North Koreans who defect and are forcibly repatriated. And perhaps I could also discount the lack of transparency and diversion of aid to the military that led to groups like Doctors Without Borders to discontinue operations in North Korea. It must also be the US’s fault that North Korea continues to export ballistic missile and nuclear technologies. Yes, we cornered them to these acts of desperation.
re: State Dept TIP Report
“Harsh conditions” in labor camps? I believe that there’s a better word than “harsh” to describe torture, forced abortions, beatings and starvation-level rations.
I don’t know if you take requests but fisk away!! That Ahn article is simply beyond belief. What a bizarre theory she has that because refugees primarily say they are entering China because of starvation instead of political oppresion that this somehow makes the Kim regime better?!? But I suppose with quotes like “North Korea’s exceptional centralized food distribution system and collective spirit, a great many lives were saved” it would be like fisking a KCNA article which is really all this is.
kushibo,
re: underground railroad may equate to trafficking
The line from the report you cited is referring to victims of sexual trafficking – which does not really apply to the underground railroad.
Leading refugees to embassies and consulates of third countries is not trafficking, because refugees voluntarily seek asylum/resettlement. While I’m not denying that some unsavory “brokers” take advantage of this vulnerable population, this does not meet the legal definition of trafficking because refugees are not being coerced or deceived into forced labor.
re: South Koreans don’t care about NKHR
I think you’re being hypersensitive — sure it may be a hypocritical statement from a misplaced sense of self-righteousness. But more importantly, it is a sad fact that there are very few South Korean groups (with struggling finances) that do operate on behalf of North Korea refugees.
It is a fair and objective statement because on the whole, there is a general lack of support and attention from the South Korean public towards North Korean human rights issues.
As for, “Why should I care or do something about North Korean refugees when the South Koreans themselves do nothing?†I think we’ve already witnessed the “dangerous” effects of South Korean apathy. While the current LMB administration is doing a much better job with NKHR, the vacuum of South Korean leadership on these human rights issues has been a significant contributor to the lack of attention and action.
South Koreans do not care about human rights in North Korea to the same extent that Americans do not care about human rights in North Korea. Taken literally, neither is true. But taken as a proportion of the total population of each nation, those who actually care are a small minority. The crucial difference here is that the ROK Constitution provides that North Koreans are ROK citizens.
As for C. Ahn’s views, check out her home institution’s website, the Korea Policy Institute:
http://www.kpolicy.org/
KPI’s mission statement read: “KPI is guided by the premise that a reasonable U.S. policy towards Korea must be supportive of the legitimate desires of the Korean people for peace, sovereignty, reconciliation, and the reunification of Korea.
“Peace, sovereignty, reconciliation, reunification,” as many readers may know, are catchwords of North Koreans and their sympathizers.
Also check out the “Korean American Organizations” linked. I see reflexively leftist organizations and one particularly naughty pro-North Korean group which targets gullible young Korean Americans (college students and those fresh out of college) to do a paid “internship” in NK and propagate the Dear Leader’s charms back home.
As a representative of one of the groups that met with Mike when he was in Toronto, I have to say that apathy towards North Korean issues isn’t necessarily the domain of South Korea. As one of the comments noted, quite a few people we encounter here are first ignorant of the issue. But even when faced with the facts, they nod their heads, telling us to keep up the good work, and walk away. Some folks at the North Korea Research Group at the University of Toronto informally told us that our group was the largest Canadian NGO to be tackling North Korean human rights – and we’re only two years old with a miniscule budget and maybe sixty volunteers. So apathy swings both ways.
But to be fair, I would argue that “apathy” isn’t necessarily the full picture in the ROK – it’s a mixture of both apathy and fatigue. There are a tremendous number of South Koreans who are actively dealing with both the refugee crisis, as well as the humanitarian crisis and have been doing it for years – to loop these South Koreans who risk their lives on a daily basis into an apathetic South Korean public is somewhat unfair, no? In fact, just from anecdotal observation I would say that the vast majority of organizations that are actually on the ground in Southeast Asia, Yanbian and DPRK proper are of South Korean, or South Korean-related origin (such as diaspora churches in North America and beyond). What causes the perception of apathy and fatigue is the rest of the public, who’ve been trying to deal with this issue for at least ten years, and for many the past sixty, just seem to have given up. In fact, one South Korean group we’ve talked to actually look at the renewed interest in this issue among second generation Korean diaspora groups as a way to galvanize this fatigued (and perhaps apathetic) South Korean public.
We do believe that for the most part, the South Korean NGOs have been battling it out single handedly for more than a decade now. Hell, even the South Korean government only started to get with the program with the 2MB administration. The key to any solution to the refugee crisis, as well as the human rights atrocities that abound in the DPRK, is not to rely upon the South Koreans necessarily for leadership – but to internationalize the issue to include as many countries, governments and NGOs as possible. Of course, it’s easier said than done.
But insh’allah, it will be done. 🙂
Kushibo,
NKMatters highlighted the point I was going to make which I’ll just restate briefly here:
An important caveat to your point of view is that South Korea is part of Korea. They consider themselves “brothers” united in blood and culture and geography with Koreans in the North. So, we should expect South Korea to have a much higher percentage of its population focusing on the plight of North Koreans than any other country.
(Also, Americans should care to be more aware about the situation in NK than citizens in most countries for a few reasons – like the fact the US was one of the main players in the division of Korea and thus the establishment of North Korea – and because we have had such long and close military and economic ties to the South.)
On the grad student dismissing the work of Christian groups — eh— typical….
I can still remember listening to a bright grad student, perhaps standing in the same building where you heard the words of wisdom from that other student, asking in huffy manner after listening to a panel discussion on North Korea, “Who are we to say Juche doesn’t work!!!?!!!”
I wish I hadn’t been so dumbstruck that I failed to say something in response….Such ignorance deserves a rebuttal…
Kushibo’s comment also brought back another memory connected to this topic:
I remember taking the time to go to a place in Waikiki to listen to a group of scholars presenting papers on the topic of The Legality of the Japanese Annexation of Korea.
I was much interested in the topic, but I was interested in the fact that the scholars were from Japan, South Korea — and North Korea. Having North Koren scholars in the United States was unusual. Having them discuss Japan’s colonial effort with Japanese scholars was truly unusual.
I was surprised, however, when only two Korean grad students bothered to make the short trip over to the place where the conference was being held. There were a whole lot of Korean students at the university and many were active in the Korean students union, but only 2 guys were interested in seeing and perhaps meeting real North Korean scholars.
usinkorea wrote:
Fair enough about the “brothers” aspect (in fact, I agree that that is a mitigating circumstance).
However, “the higher percentage” is so tremendously lopsided it’s hardly even worth mentioning the contributions of other countries. When I wrote about this in 2006 (the last time I took the time to round up the figures) it was approaching 10,000 to 0. The percentage resettled by countries other than the ROK was not just negligible, it was zero.
Now we have finally seen some, but I believe the number of North Korean refugees taken in is still a fraction of one percent of what all other countries combined have done. Resettlement is costly and the Kim Daejung and Roh Moohyun administrations both expanded their capacity to take in more. The KDJ administration took in more than the other administrations combined, and RMH did the same (more than all others combined including KDJ).
Now this doesn’t mean I’m going to defend the criminal acts of turning back would-be defectors (the boat incident whose name and date during the Roh administration escapes me). The preening Chung Dong-young is still someone who makes me want to throw things at the TV, but the RMH did a lot to resettle refugees when no one else was doing it at all. And that is why I cringe when people talk about how South Korea doesn’t care but the US or UK or whoever really does.
– + – + – + –
South Korea needs to do more. Chiding South Koreans as uncaring vis-Ã -vis the Americans or Japanese or Brits or whoever is immaterial whether it’s true or not. It should be done because it should be done. Getting the message out is important, keeping these stories in the public eye is important, analyzing the changing situation is important, but the only value in proclaiming South Korean apathy is in “shaming” the Korean public to action.
But I don’t know how much that will work when people see that those interested in NKHR are from the part of the South Korean political spectrum that is made up of convenient converts to the cause (i.e., human rights wasn’t so important to them during the days of military rule). And speaking of converts, when I saw Hwang Jang-yop (황장엽) at the human rights seminar in 2005 or 2006, it made my stomach turn, and I know I’m not the only one.
– + – + – + –
The United States needs to do more. Laws were passed in Washington to fund the bringing in of North Korean refugees, so where are they? Since there’s a good chance the regime will be around for a while longer, what’s the plan for the refugees? What will the US do to help the North Koreans — especially women and children — who are being trafficked? Now that we have two administrations in Seoul and Washington (and Tokyo) that are less distrustful of each other, can some sort of synergy be worked out to combat Beijing’s efforts to sweep this under the rug (to put it euphemistically)?
Pointing to South Korea’s supposed apathy is not a plan of action. What should the US do? (Or, for that matter, what should Japan or the EU or other countries do?)
It was also RMH who decided to abstain multiple times from U.N. General Assembly Resolutions that condemned North Korea’s human rights abuses. Yes, the resolutions have no teeth. But how symbolic is it that South Korea ABSTAINED from the vote. This is what an example of what I mean by lack of ROKG leadership on NKHR issues. Thank God, LMB took a different stance, but is still less than proactive.
KDJ/RMH only took in more North Korean defectors than previous administrations, because the great flood of refugees and asylum seekers started after the mid 1990’s famine. One could argue that it was actually KYS that laid down the infrastructure to start dealing with the problem of resettling a large population. In any case, I agree that KDJ/RMH did something for refugees…though resettlement funds were nothing like the funds KDJ gave KJI for his summit or the astronomical costs of Kaesong.
Still, it’s important here not to lump South Korean citizenry/society with what past administrations reluctantly did. You didn’t see protests for the past decade, people out on the streets (in French-style democracy) for their leaders to stop giving unlimited aid to a regime that runs a network of concentration camps, you don’t see thriving budgets for ngo’s who deal with NK human rights and refugee issues, you don’t see a mass of volunteers who want to help recently resettled North Koreans learn about capitalism, pay taxes, put some in savings, etc. We have actually witnessed xenophobia and societal rejection of defectors for their accents and mannerisms. It is generally accepted that the South Korean public doesn’t want them there.
re: resettlement
I am in desperate need of sleep, but I’ll do my best right now to sum up what I know:
A highly publicized case in Shenyang (Shenyang Six) pointed to the fact that some officials were turning away North Korean asylum seekers from US consulates/embassies. This was in 2006. Now, thanks in part to OFK, we have not seen any more of these cases. Still, the perception that one might be turned away from US consulates is a hard one to shake off.
Additionally, resettlement is a lengthy process. Former Special Envoy Lefkowitz worked to remove DHS barriers even after the 2004 NKHR Act was passed. Now, North Koreans still face a lengthier process, relative to other refugee populations, because of DHS encumbrances. This can take years.
EU member states don’t take in many refugees worldwide — they have strict immigration laws and low refugee quotas. So EU member states usually go through the UNHCR, which may not be so good in China. Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention so the UNHCR doesn’t have an official presence there. The Mongolia route is virtually shut down. You get the picture. This can take longer than resettlement in the US.
So it is much more attractive for North Koreans to resettle in South Korea, because 1) the process is so much shorter, months actually 2) then North Koreans are not technically refugees (South Korea’s Constitution). East Asian countries (principally Vietnam, Thailand, China, Laos, Cambodia, Mongolia) don’t have to write exit visas for refugees, don’t have to deal with the UNHCR, but they only have to write visas for South Korean “citizens.” This is an attractive option for these countries because the transfer of North Koreans can be kept very quiet and not alert North Korea that refugees are allowed to escape through their countries (potentially pissing off the North Korean regime…and by extension, China).
To refugees, the South Korean process is speedy and thus the best option, even if they know they’re not wanted. This explains the low amount of resettlement numbers in the US and Europe.
RMH actually did very little to take in more North Koreans. He didn’t expand resettlement facilities (Hanawon) so that South Korea could resettle more refugees at a time — this left refugees to languish in overcrowded detention centers (google North Koreans in Thailand or Vietnam).
As for action for trafficking victims, China will never grant amnesty to trafficking victims (because of the Mutual Assistance Treaty), allow UNHCR access for a number of reasons (most notably, the Chinese claim that these are economic migrants that China has been forcibly repatriating for over a decade), or ever allow UNICEF access to these North Korean orphans and stateless children (half North Korea-half Chinese) in northeast China. The EU and the US can push the Chinese to let UNICEF help these children, but again, I don’t see China budging on this either.
I like this Wolfowitz piece, but I doubt China will budge. Interesting factoid, he floated this idea in January 2008 in the Q&A session of the AEI event where Lefkowitz dared to cross Condi/Hill on North Korea policy. She went berzerk on Lefkowitz after that.
Resettlement is different from public opinion, and I was focusing on public opinion. I agree that it is pitiful that the US has taken in so few North Koreans. But in the US, the society is so largely unconcerned and unknowledgable about NK, even the amount of refugees taken in isn’t connected to its opinion on the North —- it shows how little the US government cares, but the people are so disconnected, the vast majority wouldn’t know what a NK defector was…
But South Koreans are supposed to know and care greatly about people they still think of a “brothers.” American society isn’t remotely close to that which is why South Korean society’s lack of interest is more telling.
But to be clear – if we are talking about what governments have done or haven’t done for North Korean refugees, South Korea has done much more than the US and the level that the US hasn’t done demeans it….
If we are talking about the general feelings of the society, however, its a different story…Americans don’t care, but they also don’t have the same kind of connections that make caring an imperative…