Confrontation at the United Nations: North Korea Challenges Obama’s 'Hostile Policy”'Against the DPRK
Ronda Hauben
On Monday February 16, North Korea’s Ambassador to the UN, Jang Il Hun, held a press conference with several journalists who cover the UN. It was a holiday in NY and the UN headquarters buildings were closed for the American President’s Day.The press conference was held at the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Mission to the United Nations in New York. At the press conference the Ambassador explained that not only was February 16 a holiday in the US in honor of American presidents but it was also the date that his country celebrates the birthday of their great leader Kim Jung Il.
The Ambassador said that the press conference had been called to make public the positions of the DPRK on the so called “Conference on North Korean Human Rights: the Road Ahead”, to be held the next day in Washington by the governments of the US and South Korea. He explained that this conference was part of the US government’s hostile policy toward the DPRK, a political policy that the US had pursued for almost 70 years since the division of Korea. The US, he pointed out, was responsible for the division of Korea.
The Washington conference was intended to mark the first year anniversary of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s COI Report, a report Ambassador Jang said was fabricated, based on false testimony of witnesses, many of whom remained anonymous.
Ambassador Jang said that the DPRK had complained about the conference to the US government and asked that the US cancel it. This request had been made through the contact in the US State Department, which is the channel for communication between the DPRK and the US. The US and DPRK do not have formal diplomatic relations. In the event that the US refused to cancel the conference, Ambassador Jang explained that DPRK asked to ”take part in the conference as the party concerned.”
The response from the US government, reported Ambassador Jang, was that the conference was being held by private organizations and as it was not a government event, the US government could not cancel it. Nor was it possible for the US government to invite the DPRK to attend. Ambassador Jang reminded journalists that the US government had held a conference during the Opening of the UN General Assembly which took place this past September. When the DPRK requested to attend, the US government refused the request. (1) Hence to claim that the US government was not responsible for denying the DPRK the right to attend a conference about DPRK Human Rights that the US government held was clearly a false claim.
The Washington conference was held on February 17 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). An article in the Korea Times newspaper on February 10 had reported that “South Korea and the United States” would “host a conference on Feb. 17 in commemoration of the first anniversary of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry (COI) report on North Korea’s state-perpetrated human rights violations.”
The article explained that Seoul’s Yonsei Center for Human Liberty along with three other think tanks and human rights institutions in the U.S. would organize the conference. (2) Given that a number of speakers at the conference were current or previous government officials, and the role that several of the speakers played in promoting a hostile policy toward the DPRK on behalf of the US, South Korean or other similar government entities, US government claims that the meeting was not sponsored by government entities could only raise serious questions about the accuracy of such a claim. Clearly the conference was supported by the US government, and speakers with a record of hostility toward the DPRK and tacit or vocal support for regime change were, it appeared, those who were included in the program.
The agenda of the program was devoid of speakers with diverse views on what would be an appropriate course of action toward building friendly relations between the US and the DPRK. While it was noted that the DPRK had sought to negotiate over the human rights issue before the UN General Assembly resolution on the issue had been passed in December, one could only wonder how negotiation had been rejected, yet the parties involved in the conference claimed they sought to improve the human rights situation in the DPRK.
Notable was the fact that by rejecting any US government policy of negotiation with the DPRK, speakers at the conference appeared to be intent on seeking not improvement of human rights in the DPRK but regime change. Discussing how to use UN channels and processes to bring about this end, however is contrary to the obligations of the charter of the UN. Thus language used in several of the talks at conference substituted the threat of referral of officials of the DPRK to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as the weapon in place of overt discussion of regime change.
On December 22, the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, Ivan Simonovic had held a stakeout for journalists after he had presented a report to the UN Security Council about alleged human rights abuses by the DPRK. At the stakeout a journalist asked if Mr. Simonovic had confidence in the evidence against the DPRK. His response was that this was an area where he had “mixed feelings.” That the COI report was not “what can be used in a court of law.”(3)
One focus of those pursuing a hostile policy against the DPRK is the creation of an office sponsored by the UN in Seoul, South Korea to gather so called evidence against the DPRK.
The claims against the DPRK, many of which are based on so called anonymous witnesses, have raised serious questions about reliability. One of the most publicized stories by a defector who has been public in his accusations against the DPRK, has been acknowledged by the defector to be a false story.
In January, Shin Dong-hyuk acknowledged that he had falsified a number of claims that he had made about his experiences in the DPRK. These claims about the DPRK were the subject of a book by Blaine Harden which has been widely promoted and translated into a number of different languages. Harden acknowledges the central role that Shin played in promoting human rights complaints about the DPRK. Harden writes(4):
“Shin had become the single most famous witness to North Korea’s cruelty to its own people. He posed for photographs with the American secretary of state, received numerous human rights awards, and traveled the world to appear on television news programs like 60 Minutes. His story helped launch an unprecedented United Nations inquiry that accused North Korea’s leaders of crimes against humanity.”
After Shin Dong-hyuk acknowledged that he gave false testimony, the DPRK sent a letter to the UN Secretary General and the Security Council to draw their attention to this development.
The letter from the DPRK referring to this acknowledgement by Sin Tong Hyok (aka Shin Dong-hyuk), explained(5):
“(I)t cannot be overlooked that John Kerry, US Secretary of State and other American politicians, not content with resorting to their desperate anti-DPRK policy, have misled the world public sentiment and cheated the international community with scandalous misinformation by bringing Sin Tong Hyok to make a false testimony in the anti-DPRK ‘human rights campaign’ although they were well aware of his true nature.”
CONTINUE READING.....