Laura Ling and Euna Lee Speak
Here are the paragraphs that answer the biggest question — where were they captured? Jodi had heard they were in North Korea. I had heard that they were in China. I’d assumed that we couldn’t both be right, but as it turns out, we both were:
When we set out, we had no intention of leaving China, but when our guide beckoned for us to follow him beyond the middle of the river, we did, eventually arriving at the riverbank on the North Korean side. He pointed out a small village in the distance where he told us that North Koreans waited in safe houses to be smuggled into China via a well-established network that has escorted tens of thousands across the porous border.
Feeling nervous about where we were, we quickly turned back toward China. Midway across the ice, we heard yelling. We looked back and saw two North Korean soldiers with rifles running toward us. Instinctively, we ran.
We were firmly back inside China when the soldiers apprehended us. Producer Mitch Koss and our guide were both able to outrun the border guards. We were not. We tried with all our might to cling to bushes, ground, anything that would keep us on Chinese soil, but we were no match for the determined soldiers. They violently dragged us back across the ice to North Korea and marched us to a nearby army base, where we were detained. [L.A. Times]
Technically speaking, this might qualify as an international abduction; as it turns out, however, the law isn’t very clear as to whether there is a right of international hot pursuit (the argument weakens in the context of two young women who present no legitimate threat to anyone’s safety). Ling and Lee’s decision to cross the border would be a mitigating factor, except that they should have been released immediately after the circumstances became apparent to Kim Jong Il, and the additional circumstantial evidence that they were lured by a man who must have been a North Korean agent:
In the days before our capture, our guide had seemed cautious and responsible; he was as concerned as we were about protecting our interview subjects and not taking unnecessary risks. That is in part why we made the decision to follow him across the river.
We didn’t spend more than a minute on North Korean soil before turning back, but it is a minute we deeply regret. To this day, we still don’t know if we were lured into a trap. In retrospect, the guide behaved oddly, changing our starting point on the river at the last moment and donning a Chinese police overcoat for the crossing, measures we assumed were security precautions. But it was ultimately our decision to follow him, and we continue to pay for that decision today with dark memories of our captivity.
Ling and Lee claim that they only filmed the face of one defector, in profile. They also claim that they attempted to damage videotapes and swallow papers after their capture. That suggests that they did in fact carry their tapes into North Korea, which is just inexplicable to me, but I do believe they’re sincere when they say this:
At the same time, though, we do not want our story to overshadow the critical plight of these desperate defectors.
Since our release, we have become aware that the situation along the China-North Korea border has become even more challenging for aid groups and that many defectors are going deeper underground. We regret if any of our actions, including the high-profile nature of our confinement, has led to increased scrutiny of activists and North Koreans living along the border. The activists’ work is inspiring, courageous and crucial. [….]
We know that people would like to hear more about our experience in captivity. But what we have shared here is all we are prepared to talk about — the psychological wounds of imprisonment are slow to heal. Instead, we would rather redirect this interest to the story we went to report on, a story about despairing North Korean defectors who flee to China only to find themselves living a different kind of horror. We hope that now, more than ever, the plight of these people and of the aid groups helping them are not forgotten.
So does this change my views? To a degree, yes, although I’m still deeply conflicted about this. The circumstances suggest that they were lured, that their crossing was brief and quickly reconsidered, and that the North Koreans crossed the border to grab them anyway. That doesn’t absolve Ling and Lee of some very poor judgment, which they admit. But their regret for having done what they did seems sincere, and if they briefly forgot whose story they were there to tell, they seem to remember now.
I also have conflicting feelings about this statement they have released. From a purely human standpoint, I sympathize with them, although I still don’t feel they have done an adequate job of telling the story they had set out to tell (but maybe it’s because I feel their original story is one that has been told before via numerous other outlets, including OFK). But I am glad they made they at least made the effort and mentioned it.
What I found most interesting was to hear their take on Chun’s public statements and behavior after their detainment, especially his claim that he warned them not to go near the river, a claim they deny.
With guards right outside the room, we furtively destroyed evidence in our possession by swallowing notes and damaging videotapes. During rigorous, daily interrogation sessions, we took care to protect our sources and interview subjects. We were also extremely careful not to reveal the names of our Chinese and Korean contacts, including Chun. People had put their lives at risk by sharing their stories, and we were determined to do everything in our power to safeguard them.
I’m too cynical to believe this. Human error can and does happen and North Korea’s security forces are, after all, human. But swallowing their notes? These two women must have shivering in fear; I can’t imagine these two, especially Euna Lee, thinking of something like this.
I cannot help but wonder if they, or whoever helped them write this, scoured the many criticisms leveled at them in the blogosphere and in the South Korean press and used this line to ameliorate the anger of people like Joshua Stanton, anger that their idiocy harmed North Korean defectors.
When we set out, we had no intention of leaving China, but when our guide beckoned for us to follow him beyond the middle of the river, we did, eventually arriving at the riverbank on the North Korean side. He pointed out a small village in the distance where he told us that North Koreans waited in safe houses to be smuggled into China via a well-established network that has escorted tens of thousands across the porous border.
Again I’m too cynical. Would they ever admit they intended on entering North Korea illegally?
In researching the story, we sought help from several activists and missionaries who operate in the region. Our main contact was the Seoul-based Rev. Chun Ki-won, a well-known figure in the world of North Korean defectors. Chun and his network have helped smuggle hundreds of North Koreans out of China and into countries — including the U.S. — where they can start new lives. He introduced us to our guide and gave us a cellphone to use in China, telephone numbers to reach his associates and specific instructions on how to contact them. We carefully followed his directions so as to not endanger anyone in this underground world.
Oh, really? Is that why defectors in the South and Chun Ki-won himself said their actions have damaged the underground railroad and pro-defector work? If they were careful, why did he and others later criticize their actions?
We were surprised to learn that Chun spoke with reporters publicly in the immediate aftermath of our arrest. Among other things, Chun claimed that he had warned us not to go to the river. In fact, he was well aware of our plans because he had been communicating with us throughout our time in China, and he never suggested we shouldn’t go. Chun’s public statements prompted members of our families to speak directly with him in Korean, pleading with him to refrain from any further comment that might jeopardize our situation and those of relief organizations working along the border.
They better freaking be telling the truth because if they’re not…
Since our release, we have become aware that the situation along the China-North Korea border has become even more challenging for aid groups and that many defectors are going deeper underground. We regret if any of our actions, including the high-profile nature of our confinement, has led to increased scrutiny of activists and North Koreans living along the border. The activists’ work is inspiring, courageous and crucial.
If? IF???????? Why don’t you apologize for the crackdown conducted by the Chinese police? Why don’t you apologize for the defectors who have most probably been shipped off to the camps you thought you were going to go to?
What did we do that was hostile?
I hear you – but from the DPRK government’s perspective, anything that foreigners do that could put them in a bad light is to them hostile. So technically, they were correct, even if you two are also correct in saying “totalitarian regimes the world over are terrified of exposure.”
I’m glad you two have shown remorse and sympathy for the defectors. But I am not convinced you two were poor little victims.
I agree with HUK. The story sounds like a CYA in response to the valid criticisms of their trip and, more importantly, putting sources at risk. “Only a minute” sounds like the initial partial admission of a child when confronted by their parent with evidence that they did something wrong. It also seems unlikely that, after being arrested, the journalists would be left alone to destroy evidence.
Also sounds like they’ve been coached to deflect criticism by sounding sheepish and noble by pointing out that the big issue is, of course, the plight of the North Korean people.
Not to mention the fact, Watcher, that they say they destroyed the evidence. If the DPRK border patrol guards did not seize everything but the clothes on their backs (and I could see them having been raped by the DPRK police – I hope it didn’t happen but I wouldn’t be shocked if it did) the moment they had them, I’ve got some prime real estate on Neverland I’d like to sell.
Sounds like a “she said, they said” where you have one party who are known to bend the truth here and there (the DPRK) and another whose incentive to CYA is very high (Ling and Lee). Rashomon on the Tumen, anyone?
I guess the linchpin here is either the guide, or Mitch Koss. Unless they speak out, I’m afraid we’ll never know what really happened.
I am the brother-in-law of Laura Ling and have been a big supporter of several organizations doing work to help the North Korean refugees and also to liberate North Korea. I respect all of your opinions and criticisms with regard to all the events which transpired. Rather than engage in a he said – she said, I would like to go on record that my own Mother, Grace E. Song, had personally contacted Rev. Chun immediately after the girls were seized to tell him to stop talking to the media!!
Above all, I have tremendous regret that this has made the situation much more difficult for everyone in this region, but am hopeful that this unfortunate incident will ultimately bring tremendous positive attention and dramatically increased financial support for these dedicated servants who desperately need it!!
Mr. Song, thank you for this comment. I for one do not doubt the veracity of your claim that Mrs. Grace E. Song personally reached out to Reverend Chun Ki-Won to ask him to remain silent.
As a lot of us are upset about what your sister-in-law and Euna Lee did, you may be the best way for us pro-defector, anti-Kim Jong-Il bloggers to contact Ling and Lee. Would you please answer these questions for us or at least forward them to Ling and Lee?
1. Why did they wait so long to make a statement?
2. Why have they never denied entering North Korea, and why did Lisa Ling admit it right away?
3. Did Euna Lee, a ROK-born person who left her native country only in 1995, not suspect that getting that close to DPRK territory was dangerous, as she has been taught as a child that the DPRK was a repressive and brutal regime?
4. How can we know that your sister-in-law and Euna Lee did not prepare this statement , nearly 1 month after their release, after reading or having someone pass on to them the variosu criticisms made by bloggers and other reporters, as well as by former defectors and pro-defector workers?
5. Do you expect us to believe that the North Korean guards who arrested your sister-in-law and Euna Lee did NOT seize their video, notes, cellphones, wallets, extra clothes, etc., upon arrest?
6. Why did your sister-in-law and Euna Lee only NOW make any references to the plight of North Korean defectors? The first statement they made together was that they:
a. thanked those who supported their cause (fair enough)
b. wanted to spend time with their families (understandable)
c. wanted this episode to highlight the plight of imprisoned journalists around the world
On item C, while that is an important cause, do journalists suffer more than North Korean defectors or North Koreans in prison camps? This is why I suspect Ling and Lee are only now at last making references to North Korean human rights. They didn’t care to when they first spoke.
7. And most damning, they said “we regret if any of our actions, including the high-profile nature of our confinement, has led to increased scrutiny of activists and North Koreans living along the border.” IF? If Ling and Lee, as per their statement, know that defectors suffer, they should have known that any footage caught by the DPRK or China would have led to a crackdown. And yet they have the temerity to say “IF?” Is this Euna Lee’s deep Christian faith in action – a conditional apology? And as for your sister-in-law, does she really think North Korean women didn’t suffer as a result of this incident?
Mr. Paul Song, I’m certain your input as a relative of Laura Ling will be valuable, but please note we here are very adamant on this issue, and if Ling and Lee are anything less than honest, they will be shown no mercy – although that’s nothing compared to what defectors faced thanks to their carelessness.
As I commented this morning to Spelunker at the LiberateLaura blog…
Curious what anyone here thinks of this theory:
I go back to the February Chinese intelligence relayed to a (temporarily) detained missionary, e.g. that word along the border line was that North Korea was on the lookout for a “western journalist prize.â€
Assuming Kim Seong-chol is the kind of guy who is plugged in to this sort of info, what if HE at the last minute decided on a whim to lead them to a more chance-of-being-captured spot, and hooted the way smugglers do when communicating, thinking perhaps that could help tip off any sentries to presence of people?
Just another theory until the guide is if-ever heard from, but maybe he turncoated at the last minute…
(Still not sure though how guide putting on a Chinese policeman uniform fits into this theory)
All I can do is say how Laura and Euna have been completely honest in what happened. I do not think it is up to me to try to convince you or others as to what the truth is. I know that Euna and Laura have tremendous peace with what they wrote and will let God be the ultimate judge!
As for your comment:
“Mr. Paul Song, I’m certain your input as a relative of Laura Ling will be valuable, but please note we here are very adamant on this issue, and if Ling and Lee are anything less than honest, they will be shown no mercy – although that’s nothing compared to whatdefectors faced thanks to their carelessness.”
I remain very sorry for this entire incident, but I really do not appreciate your threats!! Who made you the judge and arbiter?!! You can keep your mercy!!
It is sad that we as a society would rather criticize, fight, and threaten one another despite the best of intentions rather than try to work together towards a greater good!!
As for me and my fmaily, we will continue to support the cause at hand including participating in the LiNK Gala on 9/12.
A couple things:
*While I share Incredible Huk’s skepticism, there is no way to verify whether or not they actually took all the precautions they say they did — and I see this op-ed largely as a response to the criticisms and concerns raised by bloggers.
*To be consistent with their claims that they took every conceivable and inconceivable precaution they could, they never actually take responsibility for the crackdown. Rather, they point out a correlation between Chun’s statements to the press and the crackdown.
Why are they essentially shifting the blame onto Chun? Further, am I really expected to believe that the North Korean border guards/agents were really that incompetent to not confiscate all their belongings? But like I said, there’s no realistic way to actually verify this…
*I, too, want to believe that they’re sincere and feel incredibly mortified by the incredible stupidity of following a guide into North Korea. It was also incredibly stupid to go near the border in the first place…and who knows how much of a role Chun had to play in planning an incredibly stupid sojourn to the border. Still, I’m inclined to think that they wanted that sensational story of filming trafficking victims in North Korea. They wanted the CNN interviews as a result of filming an actual trafficking transaction.
Ultimately, continuing to criticize Ling and Lee is a fruitless activity. Their op-ed is a defense against criticism…and it barely raises any awareness and is mostly read by Korea watchers, not the general public. Their actions, if there were any substantial ones, would speak louder (i.e., tirelessly working for North Korean refugees/trafficking victims and perhaps donating all the proceeds/royalties from their book deal).
Let’s move on from this pimple on the butt cheek that is the North Korean human rights crisis.
Mr. Paul Song, while I appreciate your loyalty towards those two women, have you stopped to consider whether you are letting your kin-based bias towards Laura Ling get in the way of thinking whether they may be indeed covering themselves?
I do not mean to denigrate what they underwent, but at the same time, your sister-in-law and Euna Lee are not blameless. They were careless and they should have known better.
Relief workers have stated that they were so clumsy in how they went about things there that their presence was no secret; and, that the Chinese police and the DPRK border patrol had been given word there were US journalists who might have approached the border.
Their actions indubitably harmed the very cause they were trying to help. Why is their apology so conditional?
As for “no mercy,” it is not a threat. It is a statement that we will not be silent and will show our discontent, although of course whatever we do will be legal and we will not in any way harm your sister-in-law or Euna Lee.
Judge and arbiter? God? Since you appeal to God, why, may you please answer us, is Euna Lee so silent since she herself is Korean?
It is sad that we as a society would rather criticize, fight, and threaten one another despite the best of intentions rather than try to work together towards a greater good!!
Why is criticism unwarranted? Your sister-in-law and her colleague committed actions which harmed defectors.
Mr. Paul Song, I am very thankful you are so heavily involved in helping defectors; I myself am looking for ways through which I too can contribute. We all care about the defectors. But do not expect us not to keep a keen eye on this issue. And again, I do thank you deeply for all you’ve done/do for defectors – but once again, just maybe, you’re biased as you are related to one of them.
Thank you NKMatters. I cannot help but think that they took time to go online and to see what was being said about them. They took nearly 4 weeks to come out with this op-ed.
And, as you said with “To be consistent with their claims that they took every conceivable and inconceivable precaution they could, they never actually take responsibility for the crackdown. Rather, they point out a correlation between Chun’s statements to the press and the crackdown” – To Mr Paul Song, if they were really that careful, then they should specify further how “careful” they say they were. And they should not be afraid of facing the consequences of their actions.
I again to back to their feeble conditional apology. They write as if they know so well what defectors are facing, and if that is the case, they should be aware that at least a few defectors were sent back to the DPRK thanks to this incident. Why do they not address THAT in specific language? Are they too embarrassed or ashamed? Or do they perhaps not really think that their actions had such consequences?
This is my final post on this.
I do not think they are blameless at all, but actually showed very poor judgement in following and trusting their guide.
You’ve already said:
“Do you expect us to believe that the North Korean guards who arrested your sister-in-law and Euna Lee did NOT seize their video, notes, cellphones, wallets, extra clothes, etc., upon arrest?”
I know they are being entirely truthful, but it is up to you if you choose to believe what they are saying!
As for Euna, she was very traumatized, especially since she is a native Korean and was able to fully understand everything that went on at all times. I would therefore ask that you give her some time to recover.
I wish you all nothing but the best and hope we can continue to work together to bring an end to all of the injustice and suffering in North Korea and its defectors.
Mr Paul Song,
Thanks one more time. I apologize; I probably allowed my anger at their actions make me conclude you saw them as blameless in part due to the fact you’re related to one of them. We may differ on just why they are blameless, but oh well.
Please understand one thing though. They said they had their notes and cameras when in Pyongyang. I find it a bit hard to believe those materials were not confiscated by the DPRK border police upon their arrest. That is all.
And from a Korean to another (Mr. Song, I’ve looked you up online; you’re Korean as well, right?) – the issue of Euna Lee being a native Korean. What has befuddled me the whole time (this is more of an observation rather than a criticism) is: since she was and is a native Korean, and since she left Korea only in her early 20s, she would’ve undergone anti-communist education in South Korea. She should’ve known better than to get that close to the border with a state her homeland’s schools always taught was evil (and not without reason).
I echo your last phrases.
Correction: “… on just why they are NOT blameless…” is what I meant.
Whatever you may or may not believe of Ling and Lee’s statement, I believe in Mr. Song’s sincerity because his own interest in the human rights of North Koreans predates the captivity of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Fact: Paul Song flew from California to DC to speak at a LiNK fundraiser I also attended two years ago. Lisa Ling sent a recorded message as well.
(I’ll note that privately, several people I trust have questioned some of Rev. Chun’s statements, and I’ll just leave it at that. The point really is this — if we have to choose between slashing at each other and saving lives, what’s it going to be?)
Nobody disputes that Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee exercised some very poor judgment, including Mr. Song, Ms. Ling, and Ms. Lee. It’s indeed likely that lives were jeopardized by it, though I think the enticement of an apparent North Korean agent is a mitigating factor. And if Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee channel this publicity into telling the story of the refugees themselves, they may yet save many lives. There is no undoing what is done, but there is much good that Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee can still do.
Mr. Song, I make this personal plea to you — please tell Laura and Euna to remember the story they went there to tell. China has gotten away with its brutal repatriations policies for so long because our State Department won’t raise it, the U.N. doesn’t care, and no one has been able to attract enough public attention to shame the Chinese into stopping this. Laura and Euna may be the only ones who can change that now. They might still be able to draw enough attention to this issue to save people who were captured in the Durihana raids that followed their arrest.
If there is still time, there isn’t much of it.
Great post, Joshua.
I stand humbled…
My post? Where’s my brilliant post?
I know they are being entirely truthful, but it is up to you if you choose to believe what they are saying!
You were not there, so you don’t KNOW whether or not they are being entirely truthful. Like everyone else, you are choosing whether to believe or disbelieve their account.
Tagging onto Joshua’s great advice, the less they talk about their own experiences and the more they talk about what they learned about the plight of refugees hiding in China, the better for everyone.
Dear Mr. Song,
I echo Joshua’s personal plea on behalf many others as well. Mr. Song, I make this personal plea to you — please tell Laura and Euna to remember the story they went there to tell. China has gotten away with its brutal repatriations policies for so long because our State Department won’t raise it, the U.N. doesn’t care, and no one has been able to attract enough public attention to shame the Chinese into stopping this. Laura and Euna may be the only ones who can change that now. They might still be able to draw enough attention to this issue to save people who were captured in the Durihana raids that followed their arrest.
If there is still time, there isn’t much of it.
“It is sad that we as a society would rather criticize, fight, and threaten one another despite the best of intentions rather than try to work together towards a greater good!!”
Mr. Song,
Good intentions matter, but bad consequences matter even more–especially when those consequences were easily foreseen by all except the hare-brained.
I find it strange that no one here seems to care what the Chinese response to the Ling/Lee editorial is. Gee, what image-conscious country like China would care about something so small as a new allegation that a couple of KPA crossed into their territory to grab two journalists who are friends of the ex-Vice President of the United States? Hint: for the time being at least, mum’s the word.
For what it’s worth…
http://adamcathcart.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/daily-nk-and-currenttv/
In the New York Times story http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/world/asia/03korea.html?_r=1&ref=world we see that Mr Chun “… was distressed that he and the American journalists were now being seen as placing blame on each other for the episode.” He’d like to discuss it with them.
Dr. Song knows Laura and Euna, and he believes them. I don’t know them, but I believe them, too.
Now I’d like to hear from Mitch Koss. Does he still work for Current? Or maybe Laura fired him.
I skipped after about half way through. I don’t care for speculation in any direction.
I’ve also been in favor of giving the benefit of the doubt to the two reporters, because NK is a proven hell-hole of the most despotic type.
Now, with this latest info directly from them, and from safety, I’ll criticize them:
They knew NK. They knew the border area. They knew what could happen and what it could mean.
Yet, they chose to walk to the middle of the river. If they had been detained there, I’d fault them. But they went further. The crossed fully over to the North Korea side.
For what? There was nothing tangible to gain by getting shots of two Western (Asian) reporters standing on ice in the middle of the river. There was nothing to gain by shots of them on NK soil.
They knew being in the border area required hyper vigilance. But they chose against their better instincts to follow their guide’s suggestion to cross the river because he waved….They soon thought better of the idea when he told them why, but it was too late.
What they did was stupid and dangerous – and dangerous for more than themselves.
Other documentaries have been made that close to the border and with guides and refugees who crossed the border to meet with the film makers.
The bottom line is that people who know the deal should never gone past the river bank on the Chinese side…
The two had to endure whatever treatment they got from the North Koreans. They will also have to live with the ignorance of their misjudgment and whatever repercussions it led to for refugees and others along the border. And for likely tighter security in the border region for X amount of time thanks to the publicity they generated.
Here is my conclusion:
Since they are likely to remain journalists – and since they are likely to make a lot of money off their story – and since they are now high profile when it comes to the refugee/NK issue —– I hope they will dedicate a sufficient amount of time and energy in the future to doing positive work in this area…to bring the story of the refugees (not themselves) to the world’s attention.
They probably aren’t going to get back into China themselves, but they can fund and work with journalists who can and want to.
There are also refugees who make it to third nations like Thailand on their way, hopefully, to South Korea. They could do work to portray their plight.
Even closer to home, they could do some quality work with any refugees who have made it to America —- AND ESPECIALLY – on US officials and activists —- portraying how the US has drug its feet for a long time on bringing in NK refugees even though it is a law on the books.
That would be a good documentary to see – including interviews with Congress people on both sides of the issue and former Bush officials in the key departments and interview with current people like Hillary Clinton – who has talked tough on NK before and now is the one person atop the foreign affairs org who could do something about…
In short —- there is much work to do where these two could help redeem themselves for the very ignorant, spur-of-the-moment mistake they made that has cost more people than just themselves…..
I’ve got a longer comment caught in moderation, I guess. Here is the short version:
Totally stupid spur-of-the-moment decision to even cross the river halfway by people who did know better.
Results of stupid decision likely to cost the very people they were trying to help by making the documentary.
Conclusion: Pay it forward.
Make up for it by doing quality work and using their short-term international status to make multiple, recurrent public-knowledge spots on the plight of NK refugees in SK, the US, Thailand, and so on, and work with others who can still get into China to do reporting like they were doing.
China Denies U.S. Reporters Were Seized in China
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/03/world/international-us-korea-north-china.html?ref=world
“China rejected on Thursday claims by two U.S. journalists that they were seized on Chinese territory…”
The Chinese spokeswoman Jiang Yu didn’t explain how she knew that Laura’s and Euna’s claims were false.
Joshua Stanton wrote: “Paul Song flew from California to DC to speak at a LiNK fundraiser I also attended two years ago. Lisa Ling sent a recorded message as well.”
I’d like to understand these human rights rescue organizations better so I wonder if Joshua and interested others couldn’t take a moment to provide a bit of explanation, starting with LiNK.
Just a few questions, not too troublesome I hope:
1. How does one know if LiNK is any better or worse than other rescue organizations (I suppose an oversimplified measure of better is relatively more rescues of N. Korean refugees, their short-term physical safety until resettlement and resettlements for the buck)? I don’t see any performance info/data at LiNK’s website.
2. Why is LiNK seemingly so prominent (Sen. Brownback, for example, will appear at its next gala)? At LiNK’s website the staff are anonymous. How does the group get to be in a position to host lavish-looking galas and attract public officials in the US if its US staff are anonymous?
3. Following from #2, I can understand the need for anonymity for Asia-based staff. But why the US?
4. How is LiNK, a 501c3, funded? It has a donations page for the public and its annual (yes?) gala is probably a big fundraiser, but I assume there are other (quite generous?) sources of funds. If yes, why would these sources chose LiNK over any other group? Or do they fund a variety of groups?
5. What’s LiNK’s connection with Christian-aid organizations, if any?
Lastly, and more generally, who has they most reliable data on no. of refugees (I’ve seen estimates of a few hundred thousand currently in China down to much smaller numbers), how long they stay refugees (or maybe live more or less permanently but furtively in China) and how many flow into S. Korea (or other countries) annually?
Thanks in advance. Look forward to understanding more. If 1 or 2 big publications exist that answer all these questions that would be terrific.
I don’t know if Paul Song will return, but I’d like to know what he thinks about Current TV? No one mentions the people who signed off on this ill-fated story, and who agreed to send rookie Euna Lee on her first field-producing assigment. David Neumann is conspicuous by his silence.
I learned about Ling/Lee right after their sentencing. I really didn’t get into the blogs until a few days before they were released, and it has been interesting to see the blogs that were written over months condensed into a few days. Although I don’t have the passion and knowledge of the issues as most of the posters, I would like to toss in my opinion on these matters.
I have always felt that Current’s silence after the release was not good. I have been taught that when an incident occers, get YOUR version of the truth out first, and then let everyone else respond to it. I don’t know why Current didn’t do this. The place of arrest, the possible culpability of the guide, the possibility of exposure of the refugees and the people they interviewed were all speculated on months before the women got released. Mitch Koss could have filled in Current with every detail that happened up to the capture, including steps taken to insure the safety of the people interviewed (excluding, obviously, what the reporters said they did in North Korea). Current could have issued a statement giving us the facts as they knew it without treading on Ling and Lee’s personal story.
Instead, the news of the orphanages and the refugees and the film came out first.
I found this comment from Mr. Stanton extremely frustrating and sad:
“Someone I trust tells me that Laura Ling and Euna Lee are anguished by the blog posts and news stories going around about this aspect of their story. Obviously, we’d love to hear Ling and Lee’s side of it, but according to my friend, they’re under a great deal of pressure from Current TV (among others) not to talk.”
Why? Why the pressure not to talk from Current? Who are the”others”?
I believe that Current’s silence since the release, and the subsequet situation with the refugees forced the reporters to tell their story much sooner than they would have liked. A compromise was struck, and they wrote and Current and its legal department edited and approved. I found the confirmation of facts and the personal narrative interesting, mystifying and terrifying (drug back to NK. Yikes!), I found the editorial to be a defense of Laura and Euna paper. I also believe they told us a lot of surface information, but the devil is in the details. For example:
“In the early days of our confinement, before we were taken to Pyongyang, we were left for a very brief time with our belongings. With guards right outside the room, we furtively destroyed evidence in our possession by swallowing notes and damaging videotapes.”
I would like to know more detail about how that happened, because that is a hard thing to believe, even though I would like to. After all, the reporters had two guards with them 24/7 in the guest house. How did they try to destroy the tapes? That would be a detail I would like to know.
The problem with the written word is that you cannot hear the voice and the inflection and the tone of the writer. Most of the paper reads pretty flat. I do read some passion in the following statements:
“But it was ultimately our decision to follow him, and we continue to pay for that decision today with dark memories of our captivity.”
“But our experiences pale when compared to the hardship facing so many people living in North Korea or as illegal immigrants in China.”
“the psychological wounds of imprisonment are slow to heal.”
There are other passages, to be sure, but these strike a chord in me the most.
But there remains one question not answered, and probably never will be answered. Laura and Euna: what was promised you on the other side of the border that made you risk your life, the happiness of your family and child, the lives of others who are just trying to escape a horrible situation, your psychological well being for the rest of your life, what was so DAMN important that you had to follow that guide?”
Fairly or unfairly, you will be evaluated the rest of your lives for that one minute you spent in NK.
As Mr. Stanton put himself in their shoes to try and understand why they went over, put yourself in the situation of being dragged, kicking, fighting, screaming (I presume) for help that you know isn’t coming. I can only imagine what that was like for those two women. And I am prettyt sure it was a little rough the next few days. But if anything good comes out of this, it may be the fact that Laura and Euna stuck their big toe into the daily life of North Korean refugees. Perhaps they can later, when they can face the crowd, go to rallys and say this is what I went through, and it is just a taste of what these refuges go through. And we got out because we have powerful friends and the refuges don’t. I hope that is what they do. I hope they live up to this quote:
“Many people have asked about our strength to endure such hardships and uncertainty. But our experiences pale when compared to the hardship facing so many people living in North Korea or as illegal immigrants in China.”
Why was Current silent? “Our families and colleagues back home maintained total silence about our work for two full months, both to minimize the potential impact on sensitive underground work in China and to protect us.”
What was promised to Laura and Euna on the other side of the border? “… our guide… had brought us to the Tumen River to document a well-used trafficking route and chronicle how the smuggling operations worked…he could … show us the no-man’s land along the river, where smugglers pay off guards to move human traffic from one country to another… .” After they crossed, he “pointed out a small village in the distance where he told us that North Koreans waited in safe houses to be smuggled into China … . “
Glans:
For better or worse, an IT exec at Current’s SF office and a Legal Affairs honcho at the L.A. office decided at the very outset (week of March 16th) that it would be best to keep Current silent. Some employees worked behind the scenes, others tweeted-Facebooked discretely. But Current made a great mistake by not posting some sort of brief statement.
As far as what was promised to Laura-Euna, nothing. It was simply a last-minute look-see at the invisible border line.
The silence of Current I am critical of is the silence AFTER the return of the women, not before. I understand the silence and censorship before the release. Everyone did whatever they thought was necessary to secure the release of these women.
As far as what was promised on the other side of the border, in reading the entire piece in context, I don’t think anything was promised to them if they went over to the North Korean side of the border. In their own words “When we set out, we had no intention of leaving China.” To paraphrase the narrative: the guide tried but couldn’t set up interviews, but could show them “no-man’s” land on the border. When they got to the location, which was changed by the guide at the last minute, they kept following him as he beckoned, making a few (wrong) assumptions about the police coat and his verbal signals. He shows them a village and says there are safe houses there, where refugees wait to be smuggled across. At that point, the “we’re f’d” signals kick in and they head back for China, and the rest is history.
Based on what I have read, and please correct me if I am wrong, but this part of the trip was unscheduled. All of the filming was complete. The narrative, while giving many facts, is still very sketchy. Because of the human tragedy to themselves, their families and friends, and the refugees and those involved with them, a completer picture should be presented. Whose idea was it to go to the border? What were they told ahead of time by the guide? Were the North Korean safe houses even discussed? How much videa were they looking to get? Did they need, or did they get approval from Current to make this side trip? Basically, what were all the steps and decisions that led up to that fateful trip across the ice.
As has been well said by others, Ling and Koss are seasoned reporters. Lee was a seasoned editor but well versed in the evils of North Korea. Their research probably included “On the Border”, since it covered the same basic story they were covering, human trafficking in NK and China. A small excerpt from the Chosen Ilbo news team:
http://english.chosun.com/ontheborder/ontheborder1.html
“May 28, 2007, Tenjin, China: The team take the first step. Chinese public security follow the reporters from the airport. We are due to visit the border, and public security and border security take turns tailing us. Public security warn us, “Be careful, we have our eye on you!” We decide to go and live in a border town. After several months, the observation slackens. But in the meantime we are arrested by border security on suspicion of espionage. The same thing happens twice more. We throw the camcorders away and run away only with the tapes. Neighbors in the border town help us escape.”
Apparently the Chinese side isn’t all that safe for reporters either.
As I write this, I become more and more convinced that they were set up and betrayed. They were set up, I believe, by the lure of the story. Would tape of a live transaction give the story more impact? Apparently they believed it would. And I am not going to fault them for this. Everyone wants to do the best job they can, and that means decisions have to be made. The team wanted to make the best story possible, made decisions and assumptions, and chose poorly.