Today’s General Assembly vote is about the people of North Korea, and the relevance of the U.N. itself (Update: UNGA approves, 111-19-55)

Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.  – Voltaire

It now seems that the U.N. General Assembly’s vote on a North Korea human rights resolution is to take place this very day. Because of Justice Kirby’s report — and because of what so many survivors have told us, at the risk of their lives — no one can ever again say, “I did not know.” Unlike the bystanders of previous generations, we are free to speak, and to act.

The draft resolution itself mostly states what has been obvious for years to anyone who has paid attention. It is strong in many regards, but conspicuously weak in failing to note North Korea’s denial of the right to food, where the influence of the World Food Program in weakening the draft is obvious. Nor did Pyongyang need any external encouragement to punish “human traffickers,” who are now the only way out of North Korea for its most desperate people. But it is still the best text we’re likely to see for a very long time. You can read it here.

In the short term, there is reason for optimism about the resolution’s prospects. According to a South Korean Foreign Ministry official, “It is highly likely that it will be passed by an overwhelming (margin).” A Cuban-backed effort to water down the text and remove language calling for a referral to the International Criminal Court appears to be failing, and although Cuba may attempt more parliamentary maneuvers today, it’s unlikely that those will do more than delay a vote temporarily. North Korea’s so-called charm offensive has offended many, but charmed few. Members of the Commission of Inquiry have called on member states to keep the ICC referral language — the language that scares Kim Jong Un the most — in the text. Last week, for example, Marzuki Darusman said this at a human rights forum in Seoul:

“I believe those responsible for human rights violations in North Korea should be held accountable for their actions,” Darusman said at the 4th Chaillot Human Rights Forum in Seoul on Thursday. “We must take the proper steps to ensure referral of North Korea’s human rights situation to the ICC [International Criminal Court].” [Daily NK]

South Korea is also standing on the right side of history, for a change:

In the same session, Lee Jung Hoon, South Korea’s Human Rights Ambassador, commented on North Korea’s invitation to Darusman for an in-country visit in exchange fir the scrapping of the ICC referral, stating, “[International society] has fallen into the trap of the North Korean nuclear and security issue many times in the past.” He noted that while the North’s invitation ostensibly appears as a reasonable option, “in the end, it would only bring us back to square one.”

“We cannot repeat the same mistake,” he pointed out. “North Korea’s strong reaction to matters concerning its human rights is a good sign: it proves this issue to be its Achilles heel. North Korea has showed signs of implementing related measures, and I see them as a clear opportunity to impose change there.” [Daily NK]

Lee may be South Korea’s strongest voice on this issue. At a congressional hearing in June, he handed out copies of a report by the law firm Hogan Lovells arguing that Pyongyang may be guilty of genocide, a finding that not even the Commission of Inquiry itself made.

Remarks of even more potential consequence came from Hyun Kyung-dae, Executive Vice Chair of the National Unification Advisory Council, who called an improvement in human rights in the North a step toward reunification and “the installation of a democratic government.” Hyun said that under President Park Geun-Hye, Seoul had finally abandoned its “half-hearted” attitude about human rights in the North. I’m not so sure about that myself, but this is encouraging:

“For two Koreas to usher in an era of democracy, human rights, and prosperity together, improvement of human rights in North Korea is an essential condition that surely needs to be fulfilled,” he said. “In addition, I think unification is the ultimate solution to the North Korean nuclear and human rights issues.” [Yonhap]

There is less reason for optimism in the medium term. China continues to hint that it will veto any resolution worth passing in the Security Council, saying that nations should not “‘politicize’ the issue of North Korea’s human rights record.” Robert King, the U.S. Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, after insisting that there was absolutely, positively no quid-pro-quo for the recent release of U.S. hostages from North Korea, wobbled on where the General Assembly resolution should go after it passed:

King agreed to the importance of passing the resolution at the Third Committee and the U.N. General Assembly. It would be a “useful thing” to put the North Korean human rights issue on the list of agenda items at the Security Council, he said. He was cautious, however, about whether the 15-member council will have to put it to vote immediately, citing the possibility of a failure to get approval. [Yonhap]

Fortunately, the Obama Administration is under strong domestic pressure to press the Security Council to vote on a referral to the International Criminal Court, regardless of China’s intentions.

A vote by the U.N. Security Council to refer North Korea to the court could be blocked by China or Russia. Nevertheless, the Obama administration should press for one — and dare Beijing or Moscow to shield a regime that, according to the U.N. investigation, is subjecting 80,000 to 120,000 political prisoners to horrific treatment. If pressure on human rights explains North Korea’s recent actions, that is another reason to step it up. [Editorial, Washington Post]

What would an ICC referral really do in the unlikely event it is allowed to happen? By itself, not much. Kim Jong Un hasn’t left North Korea since his ascension to the throne. Absent regime collapse, his trial is unlikely. But the publicity attendant to the indictment will have important secondary effects. Actions at the U.N. will certainly increase political support for U.S. and other national sanctions, but how, exactly? That depends on what the U.N. does next.

If the U.N. Security Council ultimately follows the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation, refers North Korea’s leaders to the International Criminal Court, and imposes targeted sanctions on North Korean human rights violators, then the U.S., as a member state, would be obligated to implement those sanctions. The President could do much of this implementation through executive orders under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, an authority that presidents of both parties have used in similar circumstances without controversy. Ordinarily, that would satisfy Congress, but after years of weak sanctions enforcement by the Obama Administration, Congress — especially the new Congress — may not be willing to stand aside and trust the President to do this without the structure of legislation.

On the other hand, if the Chinese veto the Security Council resolution, Congress is much more likely to react strongly, conclude that we’ve exhausted our options at the U.N., force the President’s hand, and pass a much tougher sanctions bill. The bill we’d likely see in that circumstance would be much less deferential to China’s interests. The real problem is getting this administration (or the next one) to enforce those sanctions strictly, and to make a diplomatic priority of getting China, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and other nations to do the same.

The House’s unopposed, bipartisan passage of H.R. 1771, the imminent Republican takeover of the Senate, and demands by the media for tougher action will make it politically costly for the Obama Administration to fail to push for a Security Council resolution, or to refrain from imposing national sanctions against North Korea in the event of a Security Council veto. An administration facing challenges on so many other foreign policy issues will not want to expend its depleted political capital on this one. The administration won’t push hard at the U.N., but it will push, and will find it difficult to give in to China and support a watered-down text.

So the world’s civilized nations are now on a collision course with those who are determined to frustrate the U.N.’s work to end the very sorts of crimes the U.N. was founded to banish from the Earth. Today could be the first of several existential moments for the U.N., moments that will forever be dispositive of its relevance. How ironic it would be if the U.N. flunked its destiny on this issue, while nominally led by a Korean General Secretary. That would certainly secure Ban Ki Moon’s place in history.

~   ~   ~

Update: The General Assembly voted down the Cuban amendment and passed the resolution, with 111 voting for, 19 against, and 55 abstentions:

China and Russia, longtime supporters of the North Korean government, voted against the resolution. (A separate draft text tabled by Cuba, without key passages endorsing the Commission of Inquiry report and recommending debate in the Security Council, was defeated by a vote of 40 to 77, with 50 abstentions).

While the resolution passed overwhelmingly, several countries that are members of the International Criminal Court, including Senegal, Bangladesh, and Nicaragua, abstained on the vote. North Korea had made recent diplomatic overtures seemingly to try to affect the vote, such as by offering for the first time to engage with the UN human rights rapporteur on North Korea and participating in the Universal Periodic Review process at the UN Human Rights Council. [Human Rights Watch]