U.N. General Assembly Condemns North Korea for “Systemic, Widespread, and Grave” of Human Rights Violations

South Korea voted for and was one of 53 co-sponsors. The vote was 96 for, 19 against, with 65 abstentions:

The resolution goes on to list torture, the absence of due process in law, use of the death penalty, collective punishment, strict restrictions on freedom of movement, thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy and equal access to information, the treatment of returned refugees, violations of economic, social and cultural rights, human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, children and the disabled among others as areas of serious concern, before also criticizing the North Korean government’s ongoing refusal to accept the mandate of the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the North Korean human rights situation or to solve issues related to abductions. [Daily NK, Chris Green]

“Inhuman conditions of detention” are also mentioned. And at long last, China finally comes in for some well-deserved criticism, at least implicitly:

The article related to the treatment of refugees is notable for its criticism of China, in addition to North Korea itself. Expressing its concern that the “situation of refugees and asylum-seekers expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and sanctions imposed on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad” is very serious, “leading to punishments of internment, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty,” the resolution calls on North Korea’s neighbors to “treat those who seek refuge humanely” and urges compliance with 1951 and 1967 UN documents relating to the status of refugees, something which China has hitherto failed to do.

The pdf of the actual resolution a friend sent to me won’t open. I’ll be interested in seeing whether China is mentioned by name. I’ve posted a summary of the floor debate below the fold. North Korea will also come up for periodic review before the U.N. Human Rights Council, something that promises to be equally inconsequential.

Background on Third Committee consideration of the Resolution on North Korea:

The Committee first turned to the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/64/L.35), introduced by the representative of Sweden.

The draft would have the Assembly express serious concern at persistent and continuing reports of torture and inhuman treatment, including inhuman conditions of detention, public executions, and extrajudicial and arbitrary detention. It would express concern at the absence of due process and rule of law, including lack of guarantees for fair trial, lack of an independent judiciary, and the imposition of the death penalty for political and religious reasons. That concern would also extend to the practice of collective punishments, and the existence of a large number of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour.

By other terms, the Assembly would express concern at limitations imposed on every person wishing to move freely within the country and travel abroad, including the punishment of those who leave or try to leave the country without permission, or their families, as well as punishment of persons who are returned. It would express concern at the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers expelled or returned to the country, and sanctions imposed on citizens who have been repatriated from abroad, leading to punishments of internment, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty. In that regard, the Assembly would urge all States to respect the fundamental principle of non-refoulement, to treat those who seek refuge humanely, and to ensure unhindered access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and her Office.

The text would have the Assembly express concern at all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy and equal access to information. Restrictions were achieved through such means as the persecution of individuals — and their families — who exercise their freedom of opinion and expression. Concern is expressed, as well, over violations of economic, social and cultural rights that had led to severe malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardships, particularly for persons belonging to particularly exposed groups, such as women, children and the elderly. It would express concern at the subjection of women to human smuggling and forced abortions.

Noting the vulnerable situation faced by returned or repatriated children, street children, children with disabilities, children whose parents are detained, children living in detention and institutions, and children in conflict with the law, the Assembly would — by the text — express continuing reports of violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children. It would express concern over continuing reports of human rights violations against persons with disabilities, especially on the use of collective camps and of coercive measures that target the rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children.

Further by the text, it would express concern over violations of workers’ rights, including the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, the right to strike as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the prohibition of the economic exploitation of children and of any harmful or hazardous work of children as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The text would have the Assembly express concern at the continued refusal of the Government to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or to extend cooperation to him, despite the renewal of the mandate by the Human Rights Council in its resolutions 7/15 and 10/16.

The Assembly would, by further provisions, reiterate its very serious concern at unresolved questions relating to abductions of nationals of other countries, and strongly calls on the Government to resolve those questions. The Government would be strongly urged to respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to put an end to the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights. It would be strongly urged to address the issue of impunity, to tackle the root causes leading to refugee outflows, and to prosecute those who exploit refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims.

The Assembly would also strongly urge the Government to engage in technical cooperation activities in the field of human rights with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office, as pursued by the High Commissioner in recent years, and in the Universal Periodic Review by the Human Rights Council. It would also be strongly urged to engage in cooperation with the International Labour Organization (ILO) with a view to significantly improving workers’ rights.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he categorically rejected the draft resolution, which was being tabled by the European Union and Japan in strong opposition from a majority of Member States for targeting only developing countries on a selective basis. The draft was nothing more than “a document of political conspiracy” to put “a unanimous veil” on a United States-led campaign to obliterate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The European Union had been tabling such a resolution since 2003, ever since the United States raised nuclear issues against his country. The European Union had no record of dealing with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with its own view. That being the case, it had devised an anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resolution with Japan — the criminal State against humanity. Their ulterior motive was to isolate his country.

The human rights record of the United States, which was responsible, among other things, for killing of civilians, and Japan, which was responsible for crimes against humanity, should be called into question, he said. The resolution was the height of hypocrisy and arrogance. Talking of human rights situations in other countries while putting their own problems on the shelf was an example of double standards. No matter how desperate they were to obliterate the State and social system of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it would be futile to expect any outcome from the resolution. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would remain invincible forever, to develop its system of people-centred socialism. His country would call for a vote on the draft resolution, and expressed hope that all States who stood against politicization, selectivity and double standards would render their support to, and solidarity with, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by opposing the draft.

Japan’s representative said his country believed that human rights should be addressed through dialogue, while remaining aware of the historical, religious, cultural and other such differences among States. However, the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was an exceptional case: the adoption of the draft was needed to protect the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the people detained there, such as abducted Japanese citizens. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Government continued to refuse to engage in dialogue with the Special Rapporteur or the Human Rights Commissioner. It continued to restrict food assistance from international organizations and denied its citizens the right to food. It rejected calls by the General Assembly to end human rights violations. He reiterated that the draft addressed the rights of all people, including those of abductees from Japan and other countries. Since every Government was responsible for protecting the rights of its own citizens, Japan would like to urge the return of Japanese abductees in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Also, he added the Universal Periodic Review was important for examining situations in all Member States, and as a member of the Human Rights Council, Japan would contribute to the effective functioning of the Council. But, it was not true that country-specific situations could only be dealt with by the Council. Under the Universal Periodic Review process, countries were only reviewed once every four years. Further, the Council had a limited membership, while all States were represented by the General Assembly. In the event of widespread violations, both the Human Rights Council and the Third Committee could address human rights issues within their respective mandates. Japan tabled the resolution in the belief that the human rights situation of the people in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must be addressed, as should the return of abductees. He called on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take measures to improve its human rights situation.

The CHAIR noted that a recorded vote had been requested.