[Cankor] Report #204

[cankor at cankor.ca]

Dear subscriber,

Welcome to issue #204 of the CanKor Report.

For articles not original to CanKor, direct links are available in the
Contents section, should you wish to consult the originals on the internet.
If the links no longer function, you may refer to the full text articles
appended to the issue.

For back issues, archives and other content, please visit our website:
http://www.cankor.ca

The CanKor team

*************************************************
CANADA-KOREA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SERVICE

CanKor # 204

Tuesday, 26 April 2005

*************************************************



In February and April DPR Koreans celebrate the birthdays of Dear Leader Kim 
Jong Il and Great Leader Kim Il Sung respectively. During the past three 
years, these months have served to focus on another aspect of life in the 
DPRK. Two international events now regularly focus on the human rights 
performance of the DPRK government. This week, CanKor presents a 
full-edition FOCUS on human rights denunciations and counter-denunciations.

February is the month when the US State Department releases its annual 
reports on human rights violations worldwide. We reproduce here the 
introduction to its report on the DPRK, published by the US Bureau of 
Democracy, Human Rights and Labour. This is followed by a reaction from the 
DPRK, in turn denouncing the USA as "a crude violator of human rights and a 
strangler of freedom and democracy."

In April the UN Commission on Human Rights issues a resolution on the 
situation of human rights in the DPRK. We reproduce excerpts of a UN press 
release that gives the gist of the resolution's wording, names all countries 
voting for, against and abstaining, and summarizes interventions by 
representatives of the USA, Japan, the DPRK, China and Cuba. The ROK 
representative explains why his country would once again abstains from the 
vote. A statement by the DPRK Foreign Ministry rejects the resolution as 
politically motivated slander, accusing Britain and Japan of joining US 
"moves to stifle the DPRK."

The ROK's decision to abstain from voting on the resolution for the third 
year in a row is sharply criticized by human rights activists and opposition 
politicians. Spokesmen for the Foreign Ministry and President Roh Moo-hyun's 
Uri Party reply that the best way to improve human rights in the DPRK is to 
help bring about economic transformation.

*************************************************



FOCUS: Human rights denunciations and counter-denunciations

1.        UN COMMISSION ADOPTS TEXT ON DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/01C0DBBA49D9D58BC1256FE4002A7D0C?opendocument

2.        DPRK REJECTS UN HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200504/news04/21.htm#19

3.        ACTIVISTS CRITICIZE ROK'S STANCE ON DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-15-voa27.cfm

4.        US COUNTRY REPORT ON DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41646.htm

5.        DPRK DENOUNCES US REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200504/news04/06.htm#1



FEEDBACK: Letter to the Editor

*************************************************



1.        UN COMMISSION ADOPTS TEXT ON DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS

United Nations Press Release, 14 April 2005



(...) The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted five resolutions 
and one decision on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms 
in any part of the world, including on the situation of human rights in the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. (...)

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.30) on the situation of human rights in the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in 
favour to nine against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its 
deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave 
violations of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 
including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 
punishment, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; 
sanctions on citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea who had 
been repatriated from abroad, such as treating their departure as treason 
leading to punishments of internment, torture, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or the death penalty; continued violation of the human rights and 
fundamental freedoms of women; and that the Government of the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea had not accepted the mandate of the Special 
Rapporteur. It further expressed its deep concern at the precarious 
humanitarian situation in the country, in particular the prevalence of 
infant malnutrition.

The Commission strongly urged the Government of the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea to address these concerns in an open and constructive 
manner, including, among other things, by immediately putting an end to the 
systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights; by accepting the 
mandate of the Special Rapporteur; by adhering to internationally recognized 
labour standards; by cooperating with the United Nations in the field of 
human rights; and by ensuring that humanitarian organizations, including 
non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, in particular 
the World Food Programme, had full, free, safe and unimpeded access to all 
parts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Moreover, the Commission requested the international community to continue 
to urge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to ensure that 
humanitarian assistance, especially food aid, was distributed in accordance 
with humanitarian principles; and requested all relevant special procedures 
of the United Nations human rights mechanisms to examine alleged human 
rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The 
Commission also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for 
a further year.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Costa 
Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Finland, France, Germany, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, 
Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, 
United Kingdom and United States.

Against (9): China, Cuba, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russian 
Federation, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (14): Burkina Faso, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Mauritania, 
Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Swaziland 
and Togo.

SASHA MEHRA (United States), speaking in a general statement, said the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea was one of the worst human rights 
violators in the world. The human rights violations included torture, 
arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial killings. An estimated 150,000 persons 
were held in detention in various camps around the country. The right to 
freedom of movement had been restricted. The delegation of the United States 
was concerned about the continued human rights violations by the regime. The 
efforts to bring the regime to respect international norms had not been 
heeded by the regime. She called the Government of the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea to collaborate with the international community. The 
regime was one of the most repressive regimes in the world.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a general comment, said Japan was 
tabling yet another resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
with the European Union and others, and was not pleased to be doing this, 
quite the contrary, as it would have been far better if it had not had to do 
this. Agenda item 9 should not be overused, but there was no other choice 
when grave human rights violations were taking place, and when the Special 
Rapporteur chosen by the Commission was given no access to the country. The 
proper attitude of the international community was not to let the suffering 
of the people continue. It was the duty of the international community to 
let the country concerned know that the situation could not be ignored, and 
should be improved drastically and immediately. It was hoped all members of 
the Commission shared this view.

RI TCHEUL (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned 
country, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically 
rejected the present draft resolution, which had been fabricated by hostile 
forces and their followers, with the aim of stifling his country. The draft 
represented an extreme manifestation of the politicization, selectivity and 
double standards that had constantly been rejected in the human rights 
sphere. Its fundamental purpose was to overthrow the state system of the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The United States had adopted the 
so-called "North Korean Human Rights Act" in an attempt to stifle the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, using human rights as a pretext, in 
addition to the nuclear issue. The United States had allocated a huge amount 
for its implementation, and was forcing other countries and non-governmental 
organizations to join it. The present draft took sides with the United 
States in its hostile policy, and aimed to interfere in the internal affairs 
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The selectivity and double standards applied to the human rights sphere 
constituted a product of the arbitrariness of western countries, he added. 
Instead of condemning crimes against humanity, such as the illegal invasion 
of Iraq and the civilian massacres there, the Commission had been reduced to 
changing the social systems of independent countries. The targets of the 
"name-and-shame" policy were none other than the developing countries that 
pursued independent policies and had ideals different from those of the 
West.

The ringleaders of this draft's presentation were Japan and the United 
Kingdom, he noted. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had undertaken 
a series of human rights discussions with the United Kingdom, and its 
sincerity had been repaid with betrayal. That country had even put a senior 
official to revealing clumsy and reptilian words and deeds. The United 
Kingdom was hell-bent on overthrowing the state system of the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea. Moreover, it was ridiculous that Japan had 
inserted a provision in the text referring to the abduction case. That 
despicable and frantic behaviour had misled many States to believe that 
Japan had presented the draft on its own. The Japanese behaviour throughout 
the session had given rise to serious concern; Japan had lost its sense of 
direction in the world, and there was no need to give Japan a seat in the 
six-party talks, if they were resumed in the future. The Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea would never tolerate attempts to challenge its social 
system, or to infringe its sovereignty and threaten its right to existence.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, 
said the Commission should be a forum for respect and not for naming and 
shaming. The Government of Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been 
faced with a number of difficulties in the past. However, it had been making 
efforts to improve the situation, which the international community should 
appreciate. The problem of nutrition had been among the areas where the 
Government was making efforts to improve. The tabling of the resolutions 
would not improve the situation. Such a resolution would not add to the 
peninsula's peace and stability. China would vote against draft resolution.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea), speaking in an explanation of the vote 
before the vote, said that last year when the draft resolution on the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea was tabled, the Republic of Korea had 
expressed the hope that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would do 
its utmost to raise the standard of human rights of its people. However, 
very little progress had been made, and there was deep concern for the human 
rights situation in that country. The Government of the Republic of Korea 
had been making strenuous efforts to solve the issue, while taking various 
measures for confidence-building in a mutually harmonious way in order to 
build the relationship between the two countries and build peace and 
prosperity. It was against this background that it had again decided to 
abstain from voting on the draft resolution. In order to bring about 
meaningful improvement in the human rights situation in the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea, it was important for the international community 
to urge the country to improve its situation, but it was equally important 
to provide support for the country to do so. It was firmly believed that 
combined efforts would eventually result in an improved human rights 
situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was hoped that 
the country would make sincere efforts to improve its situation by, among 
other things, improving dialogue and cooperation with various United Nations 
bodies and the international community as a whole.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba would call for a vote, and 
would vote against the present draft. It sufficed to look at the co-sponsors 
of the draft to realize how the Commission was working now. The prosecutors 
of the double standards that plagued the Commission were leading the effort. 
Cuba acknowledged the efforts made by the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea, which had not had one day of rest or peace to rebuild the country 
since its war with the United States. The draft sought solely to bring 
pressure to bear on the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea.

[Report by Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 
rights in the DPRK - 
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/HMYT-6AYLJV?OpenDocument]



*************************************************

2.        DPRK REJECTS UN HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION

Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), 20 April 2005



A "resolution" malignantly slandering the DPRK was adopted at the 61st 
meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights held in Geneva recently. In 
this regard, a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry released a statement 
today declaring that human rights precisely mean national sovereignty and 
the DPRK will take a decisive measure against the continued misuse of the 
human rights issue as leverage for anti-DPRK hostile campaign.

The DPRK will never recognize the "resolution", which groundlessly slandered 
it over the non-existent "human rights issue", and bitterly and 
categorically rejects it as part of the moves of the hostile forces to 
isolate and stifle it, the statement noted, and continued:

Like last year's, the recent "resolution" is peppered with poisonous 
articles and misinformation some dishonest forces of the world community 
have long cooked up to tarnish the image of the system in the DPRK and put 
pressure on it. It has reached the acme of politicization and selectivity.

The "resolution" is chiefly aimed to overthrow the system in the DPRK.

It is well known that the United States has regarded the human rights issue 
as well as the nuclear issue as main leverage to escalate the tension in the 
Korean Peninsula and isolate and stifle the DPRK.

In its annual "report on human rights situation", the US has malignantly 
slandered the DPRK and other countries. Worse still, it adopted even the 
"North Korean Human Rights Act," spending a huge amount of money for its 
anti-DPRK campaign over the human rights issue and plugging its allied 
forces and even non-governmental organizations into the campaign.

The adoption of the recent "resolution", too, was one more sinister hostile 
act perpetrated by Western countries including Britain and Japan, which have 
zealously joined the US in the moves to stifle the DPRK at its instigation.

It is a politically motivated document, a clear indication of the 
high-handed practice of the West keen on applying selectivity and double 
standards in dealing with the human rights issues.

What is urgent for resolving the present world human rights issues is quite 
clear to everyone.

If the UN Commission on Human Rights is to properly discharge its mission, 
it is urgent to focus the debate on the US above all.

The US is chiefly to blame for human rights abuses and crimes against 
humanity as it is beset with poor human rights performances at home and has 
committed massacres of civilians and maltreatment of POWs in such illegal 
wars of aggression as the Iraqi war. Such being hard facts, the recent 
meeting mentioned no word about the US, the world's worst violator of human 
rights. It only attacked those progressive countries which have 
independently advanced contrary to the ideology of the West.

This eloquently proves that the commission allegedly handling human rights 
issues in the international arena has miserably played into the hands of 
those forces seeking a sinister political purpose in the human rights issue.

The recent adoption of the "resolution" once again proved the truth that the 
human rights precisely mean national sovereignty. For anyone to talk about 
national sovereignty and dignity without any strength to protect oneself is 
nothing but an empty talk. We are convinced of this through our past history 
and our practice today. The DPRK has invariably maintained the principle of 
reacting with the toughest stand to anyone who dares slander and provoke it.

Those countries which took the lead in seeking the adoption of the 
"resolution" hostile to the DPRK should clearly understand this and act with 
discretion. In particular, we will certainly force Japan to pay for having 
brought the already settled "abduction issue" to Geneva for its inclusion in 
the "resolution" and kicked up an anti-DPRK racket.

Japan has not yet made any apology and compensation for the hideous crimes 
perpetrated against humanity in the past. It is, therefore, not qualified to 
be a leading member of the international community of good virtue and faith, 
much less having the face to talk about the human rights issue.

The man-centered socialism in the DPRK under which man is regarded as dearer 
than anything else and everything is made to serve him is happy home to its 
people as it provides them with genuine freedom and rights.

The US and its allied hostile forces should know that their despicable 
anti-DPRK human rights racket is as foolish an act as trying to sweep the 
sea with a broom. Such act will only harden the determination of the army 
and people of the DPRK to protect their ideology and system at the cost of 
their lives.

*************************************************



3.        ACTIVISTS CRITICIZE ROK'S STANCE ON DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS

By Kurt Achin, Voice of America (VOA), 15 April 2005



Human rights activists are sharply criticizing South Korea's decision to 
abstain from a United Nations vote on North Korean human rights. The UN vote 
sheds light on a key philosophical divide in South Korea about dealing with 
the North.

South Korea has abstained for the third year in a row from voting on a 
United Nations resolution criticizing North Korea on its human rights 
performance. Officials in Seoul say the government declined to vote because 
of the special nature of the North-South relationship, and wants to avoid 
provoking authorities in Pyongyang.

The resolution, put forward by the European Union, expresses "deep concern" 
about reports of "grave and widespread" abuses in North Korea, including 
torture, imprisonment without trial, human trafficking, and forced 
abortions. It passed Thursday by 30 votes to nine in Geneva.

Conservative lawmaker Kim Moon-soo is a vocal critic of Seoul's policy on 
North Korean human rights. He calls the decision to abstain from the vote 
"shameful and regrettable."

Mr. Kim says North Koreans, who according to the constitution are 
automatically citizens of South Korea, deserve better from leaders in Seoul.

South Korea's dominant Uri party, to which President Roh Moo-hyun belongs, 
embraces a policy of engagement and reconciliation with the North. Uri 
members say the best path to improving North Korean human rights is to bring 
about gradual economic transformation in the impoverished country.

Gang Il-huh, of South Korea's Foreign Ministry, says the government has 
learned from previous unsuccessful strategies of confrontation with its 
Stalinist neighbour. Mr. Gang says the unique relationship between the two 
Koreas makes cooperation the best form of leverage for bringing about change 
in the North.

Benjamin Yoon of the Seoul group the Citizen's Alliance for North Korean 
Human Rights says South Korea should be part of the international momentum 
building on the issue. He points out that the European Union and several 
other governments have taken the initiative to push the North to improve its 
treatment of its people. Mr. Yoon says North Korea would have no reason to 
criticize Seoul for backing the resolution within the framework of the UN 
Human Rights Commission.

North Korean defector Park Gwang Il is even more outspoken in criticizing 
Seoul's policy.  In an emotional public appearance recently, Mr. Park asked 
whether North Koreans should simply continue to die while South Korea 
supports the government of the North's leader, Kim Jong Il. He says he 
cannot understand the true nature of the South Korean government.

This is the third time that the 53-member Human Rights Commission has 
addressed North Korea's abuses. This year's resolution includes reappointing 
Thai law professor Vitit Muntarbhorn as the UN special rapporteur on the 
issue.

North Korea rejects Professor Vitit's mandate and has refused him access to 
the country. If that does not change in the year ahead, human rights 
activists say they hope the UN Security Council or General Assembly will act 
on the matter.

*************************************************



4.        US COUNTRY REPORT ON DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, 28 February 2005



The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) is a 
dictatorship under the absolute rule of Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of 
the Korean Workers' Party (KWP). In 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly 
reconfirmed Kim as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and 
designated that position the "highest office of state." Kim's father, the 
late Kim Il Sung, was declared "eternal president." The titular head of 
state is Kim Yong Nam, the President of the Presidium of the Supreme 
People's Assembly. Elections for the 687-member Assembly were held in August 
2003. Only the KWP and two small satellite parties participated. The 
elections were not free. The Kim family remained the object of an intense 
personality cult, and the regime continued to cling to "juche," an ideology 
of extreme self-reliance, even though the population was dependent on 
international aid for survival. The judiciary is not independent.

The country is one of the world's most militarized societies. The Korean 
People's Army (KPA) continued to overshadow the KWP as Kim Jong Il's chief 
instrument for making and implementing policy. The KPA is the primary 
organization responsible for external security. A large military reserve 
force and several quasi-military organizations, including the Worker-Peasant 
Red Guards and the People's Security Force, assist it. In addition, an 
omnipresent internal security apparatus includes the Ministry of Public 
Security (MPS), the State Security Department, and the KWP. Members of the 
security forces have committed numerous serious human rights abuses.

The country's traditional highly centralized and tightly controlled economy 
has broken down under the stress of chronic shortages of food and fuel. 
Citizens increasingly have sought employment in the informal economy. Most 
citizens must supplement limited amounts of government-subsidized rations 
with food purchased in markets. Heavy military spending, estimated at 
between one-quarter and one-third of gross domestic product, has constrained 
and skewed economic development. The country has not taken the steps towards 
transparency that would make it eligible for membership in international 
financial institutions. Its poor credit rating, stemming from default on its 
foreign debt, sharply limited the amount of funds it was able to borrow 
commercially. Despite significant inflows of international assistance over 
the past decade, harsh economic and political conditions have caused tens of 
thousands of persons to flee the country. To stabilize the economy, in July 
2002, the Government launched an economic reform that raised wages and 
prices, devalued the currency, and gave managers more decision-making 
authority. These changes sparked a dramatic rise in inflation and a 
quickening of commercial activity but failed to re-energize industrial 
growth. The Government permitted an increase in the number of private 
vendors to compensate for the contraction of food supplied through the 
public distribution system. Corruption appears to be a growing problem as 
economic controls loosen.

The Government's human rights record remained extremely poor, and it 
continued to commit numerous serious abuses. Citizens did not have the right 
to change their government. There continued to be reports of extrajudicial 
killings, disappearances, and arbitrary detention, including of many persons 
held as political prisoners. Prison conditions were harsh and 
life-threatening, and torture reportedly was common. Pregnant female 
prisoners reportedly underwent forced abortions, and in other cases babies 
reportedly were killed upon birth in prisons. The constitutional provisions 
for an independent judiciary and fair trials were not implemented in 
practice.

The regime subjected citizens to rigid controls over many aspects of their 
lives. In April, the Supreme People's Assembly enacted a new Penal Code. 
According to the new Penal Code, capital punishment applied only to 
"serious" or "grave" cases of four "anti-state" and "anti-nation" crimes. 
Citizens were denied freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and 
association; all forms of cultural and media activities were under the tight 
control of the KWP. Little outside information reached the general 
population except that which was approved and disseminated by the 
Government. The Government restricted freedom of religion, citizens' 
movement, and worker rights.

In April, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) called for the 
appointment of Special Rapporteur Vitit Muntarbhorn to examine the human 
rights conditions in the country, but he was not allowed to visit the 
country to carry out his mandate. Although the country accepted meetings 
with European Union (EU) and UN officials on human rights issues, the 
Government maintained that most international human rights norms, 
particularly individual rights, were illegitimate, alien, and subversive to 
the goals of the State and Party. There were widespread reports of 
trafficking in women and girls among refugees and workers crossing the 
border into China. Only government-controlled labour unions are permitted. 
(...)

*************************************************



5.        DPRK DENOUNCES US REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), 5 April 2005



Some days ago, the US State Department slandered the DPRK again in its 
"2004-2005 report on US efforts for human rights and democracy." In this 
regard, Rodong Sinmun Tuesday in a signed commentary says: The US dared talk 
this or that about issues of "human rights" and "democracy" in the DPRK, 
falsifying truth. This is an unbearable insult to the Korean people, an 
outrageous interference in their internal affairs and a blatant challenge to 
justice.

The US is the most repressive society in the world. Citing concrete facts to 
prove that the US has mercilessly cracked down upon and arrested all forms 
of socio-political activities of the people by fascistizing its ruling 
system and inhumanely abused and punished prisoners in various parts of the 
world, the commentary goes on:

The US is a crude violator of human rights and a strangler of freedom and 
democracy. The ulterior aim sought by the US in vociferating about the 
"improvement of human rights and democracy" is to realize its ambition for 
world domination and its immediate purpose is to bring down the anti-US 
independent countries. In a word, the US seeks to tarnish the image of the 
above-said countries and isolate them internationally under the pretexts of 
the issues of "human rights" and "democracy" and instigate the 
counterrevolutionary elements to stoke the social confusion and discontent 
in a bid to force those countries to change their regimes.

The spearhead of its operation is directed to the DPRK. Much upset by the 
might of the DPRK, the Bush forces even adopted the "North Korean Human 
Rights Act" aimed at "overturning its regime" in a bid to escalate their 
criminal human rights offensive against the DPRK The US should abandon its 
shameless sinister intention to overthrow the anti-US independent countries 
and achieve its ambition for world domination under the signboard of the 
"improvement of human rights and democracy."

*************************************************



Letter to the Editor



*************************************************



Dear CanKor,



The editorial opinion expressed in the following portion of your summary 
(CanKor #203), "this year's resolution for the first time features a demand 
for the return of abductees, confirming to the DPRK that the Commission's 
concerns are more political than humanitarian." is not substantiated by the 
selection you have chosen to highlight: "UNCHR PASSES DPRK RIGHTS 
RESOLUTION; ROK ABSTAINS, Chosun Ilbo, 14 April 2005."

I would have preferred to see an article from KCNA that indeed makes the 
argument that the inclusion of the abductee issue shows that the 
Commission's approach is more political than humanitarian. Also, would such 
a statement by the DPRK suggest that the concerns highlighted in prior years 
are--at the very least--somehow more legitimate than the abductee issue, or 
might we expect that the DPRK would reject any criticism or sanction of its 
practices by the international community?



Regards,

Scott Snyder

*************************************************



End CanKor # 204



*************************************************

CanKor is an electronic information service for readers interested in the 
issues of peace and security on the Korean peninsula, published by 
Weingartner Consulting. Financial support is received from the Canadian 
International Development Agency (CIDA). Views expressed on the CanKor 
website or weekly digest are those of the respective authors, and do not 
necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of CanKor, CIDA or 
Weingartner Consulting. CanKor accepts no liability for inaccuracies, errors 
or omissions.  Copyright of all items listed or reprinted rests with the 
original publishers.  CanKor provides links to originals when available. To 
subscribe or unsubscribe, and for all other communication, please address 
the CanKor editorial team by e-mail at editor at CanKor.ca. Editor: Erich 
Weingartner; Managing Editor: Miranda Weingartner; Research: Marion Current, 
Ilene Solomon; Web developer: David Seguin. Please visit our website at: 
www.CanKor.ca

*************************************************