[Cankor] Report #231

[cankor at cankor.ca]

Dear subscriber,

Welcome to issue #231 of the CanKor Report. This will be the last issue for 
the year 2005. We wish you health and happiness during this holiday season 
and hope for a peaceful development on the Korean Peninsula in the New Year.

The CanKor team.

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

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

CanKor # 231

Friday, 23 December 2005
*************************************************

The UN World Food Programme's chief executive returns from Pyongyang saying 
that the DPRK wishes the WFP to stay. At a press conference in Beijing, 
James Morris nevertheless admits that the organization would require up to a 
month of thinking before deciding whether or not to accept the DPRK's 
conditions. CanKor reproduces excerpts of a transcript of his remarks.

A group of experts urges the USA to use so-called "cooperative threat 
reduction" programmes in current efforts to end the Korean nuclear crisis. 
Washington used CTRs in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union to 
contain the threat from weapons held by its successor states.

ROK "game censors" block the sale in South Korea of video games demonizing 
North Koreans as diabolical villains. Gamers say American video game makers 
are out of step with changes in South Korean attitudes.

The sixtieth United Nations General Assembly passes a resolution on DPRK 
human rights by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 21 against, with 60 
abstentions. This week's FOCUS, "Turning up the heat on human rights," 
assembles several views in the debate: excerpts of the UN report that 
includes summaries of DPRK, Japan and Vietnam interventions, as well as the 
full list of how member states voted; the text of the DPRK representative's 
statement explaining their vote on the resolution; an article describing how 
the US-financed human rights conference -- which took place in Seoul just 
prior to the UN vote -- placed a particular burden on the ROK government, 
which once again abstained from the vote.
*************************************************

Contents:
1.   "THEY WANT US TO STAY" -- WFP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
     Original to CanKor

2.   COOPERATIVELY REDUCING THE DPRK NUCLEAR THREAT
     http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051216-010403-5539r

3.   ROK OBJECTS TO DPR KOREANS AS VIDEO-GAME VILLAINS
     http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/arts/07game.html?ex=1134622800&en=4f9ea9427609f480&ei=5070

FOCUS: Turning up the heat on human rights
4.   DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION AT UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
     http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10437.doc.htm

5.   DPRK EXPLAINS ITS VOTE ON HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION
     Original to CanKor

6.   DPRK ABUSES HIGHLIGHTED AT HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE
     http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051208-071458-7440r

QUIDNUNC: Readers ask and respond to common and uncommon questions
*************************************************

1.   "THEY WANT US TO STAY" -- WFP EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
     James Morris, Beijing, 15 December 2005.

[The following are excerpts of a transcript of remarks made by James Morris, 
the Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme, at a press conference 
in Beijing, following his visit to the DPRK to negotiate the terms of a 
continued WFP presence in the country. -- CanKor.]

(...) I just completed 2 days in DPRK. We had cordial meetings. I met with 
the president of People's Assembly, the Agriculture Minister, the Foreign 
Minister, spent a considerable amount of time with the Vice Foreign 
Minister. I visited with lots of other people talking about our work. We've 
been working in North Korea for 10 years. We were brought in at a time of 
famine in the country. We've invested 1.7 billion dollars in North Korea 
over the last 10 years.

The government there has concluded that it no longer needs emergency 
humanitarian assistance. They would say with the additional bilateral help 
they have from China and South Korea, with their own improvement in crop 
production this year, that they essentially have the food they need to 
respond to emergency issues. They've asked the humanitarian community to 
complete its work by the end of the month -- the end of this year. But they 
asked at least the World Food Programme to consider staying on and shifting 
our work from an emergency response approach to one of development. My own 
view is that last year we provided food for 6.4 million people: 2.7 million 
children; 300,000 women who were pregnant or nursing; probably 1 million 
people in food-for-work kinds of activities -- building roads, storage 
facilities, irrigation systems -- simple irrigation systems. In my view that 
is development. When you invest in a child to prepare him or her for the 
future, when you invest in a mother to give birth to a healthy child, that's 
development. As is the food-for-work investing in infrastructure.

We had long conversations in North Korea with their leaders about what our 
work together would look like, going forward. They have concerns about the 
number of international staff we would have there, they have concerns about 
our high standard for monitoring and watching our work to make sure that 
food made available by donors all over the world to feed the most vulnerable 
people in North Korea actually gets to those who need it most...

Its clear they want us to stay, and we want to stay. But we have to be able 
to stay in a context that will give us a chance to be successful, and to 
continue our focus on the most vulnerable, usually women and children, the 
poorest people, the most at-risk people. And then continue our work as it 
relates to food-for-work that pursues the development of basic 
infrastructure -- most often agriculture-related. We have about 20 countries 
around the world that have been helping us over the years. We have wonderful 
group of UN colleagues: the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA.

We had good conversations with them about how we work together and the 
rationale for us staying or not staying. We've got to give some careful 
thought to this over the next 2, 3 or 4 weeks... The issues are tough. We 
now have to take some time to think it through and make good decision. But 
our focus will be on the wellbeing of those who are risk, who are 
vulnerable, who are undernourished, who need help. We work very hard at 
separating the humanitarian agenda from the political agenda. We are not 
there to be engaged in any of the political issues that are on the table 
today. Our focus is to see that people don't starve, that their livelihoods 
are protected, and that food is available where it's a factor in healthcare 
and education, especially for women and children.
*************************************************

2.   COOPERATIVELY REDUCING THE DPRK NUCLEAR THREAT
     United Press International, Washington, 16 December 2005.

A nuclear arms reduction programme between the United States and Russia 
could be applied to North Korea's nuclear weapons, according to a new 
report. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 
cooperation with the Carnegie Endowment Friday issued the report on 
"cooperative threat reduction" (CTR) and North Korea.

Joel Wit of CSIS said a CTR programme "would enhance the chances of a 
peaceful settlement by adding incentives to North Korea in the context of 
the six party talks." The Nunn-Lugar programme with Russia provided 
financial and technical assistance in dismantling nuclear programmes and 
redirecting the scientists and resources involved in them. The report 
recommends a multilateral approach to such a programme with North Korea so 
that the Russian experience could be deployed.

Leon Sigal of the Social Science Research Council said the dismantlement of 
North Korean nuclear weapons requires reciprocal steps from the US 
government: "Unless the United States is playing, North Korea won't play."

A CTR programme could offer a controlled process for that to take place with 
assistance tightly linked to cooperative steps from North Korea. The report 
also addressed how to deal with North Korea's chemical and biological 
weapons programmes.
*************************************************

3.   ROK OBJECTS TO DPR KOREANS AS VIDEO-GAME VILLAINS
     by James Brooke (with Lee Su Hyun), New York Times, 7 December 2005

With their digital population starving, North Korea's civilian leaders cut 
military spending, triggering a military coup by a "General Jung." The 
renegade general then threatens the South with conventional and nuclear 
weapons. Ghost Recon 2, designed for Xbox players, is one of a host of new 
video games in which the virtual bad guys are North Koreans. But if the 
Korea Media Rating Board has its way, the game boxes will be stamped "Banned 
in Korea."

While American game designers see North Koreans as diabolical enemies, South 
Korean game censors say they see North Koreans as wayward cousins. Unhappy 
that North Koreans are replacing Nazis and cold war Soviets as all-purpose 
bad guys in electronic battle games, the Korea Media Rating Board, appointed 
by the president of South Korea, is putting out the word to foreign game 
makers: check with us before you pay for a translation.

So far, South Korea's official game censors have blocked the sale here of 
three games involving fiendish North Koreans: Ghost Recon 2, Tom Clancy's 
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (both Ubisoft) and Mercenaries: Playgrounds of 
Destruction (LucasArts). What game players in American living rooms may see 
as exotic battlefields, Koreans call home.

"Korea continues to have society members who experienced the Korean War, 
families that are separated," said Lee Chan Gyeong, a member of the rating 
board. "If you export cultural products such as movies, you have to 
understand the culture of that country."

The effort to censor games that demonize North Koreans is a reflection of 
how powerful a cultural force online gaming has become in South Korea, a 
nation that calls itself the most wired in the world. Almost 75 percent of 
households here have high-speed Internet access, and 17 million South 
Koreans, or 35 percent of the population, play games online. In recent 
years, the industry's revenues have grown by 25 percent a year, reaching 
$1.2 billion last year. Polls indicate that South Koreans under 40 spend 
more time online than watching television. At a PC Bang, as a number of 
Internet cafes here are called, several gamers agreed recently with the 
restrictions. Im Boo Gil, a 21-year-old college student who was at a game 
console, said of the blocked games, "In South Korea, such games won't be 
popular these days -- North Korea is no longer our main enemy."

In the summer of 1950, North Korean tanks rolled into South Korea in a 
surprise attack. A ceasefire ended the Korean War in 1953, and for the next 
four decades, South Koreans viewed the North as a major foe. But now, many 
South Koreans say, American video game makers are out of step with the 
changes in attitude.

"The most popular movie in Korea right now is 'Welcome to DongMakGol,' a 
story about how North and South Koreans get together and tease the major 
powers," said Lim Sung Ae, 21, a student of Korean history at Yonsei 
University, who was also playing a game at PC Bang.

Indeed, five of the six top-grossing domestic movies since 2000 have 
revolved around North-South themes and all five portray the North Korean 
characters as human beings, rather than as evil caricatures.

"People want to make peace on the Korean peninsula, so North Korea is not 
seen as an enemy for the South Korean people," said Hannah Kim, 25, an 
office worker in Seoul. "In one way North Korea is our adversary. In another 
way, it is our partner for the future. Americans are trying to find an 
imaginary enemy. Before it was the Soviet Union." (...)

Giving Ghost Recon 2 a thumbs down, a North Korean newspaper warned American 
video game players last year: "This may be just a game to them now, but it 
will not be a game for them later. In war, they will only face miserable 
defeat and gruesome deaths."

A negative review of Ghost Recon 2 also came from Mr. Lee, the rating board 
member and president of an academy here that teaches game building. Speaking 
of Ghost Recon 2's setting -- war erupts on the Korean peninsula -- Mr. Lee 
said, "That is a theme that is very sensitive for our people," in 
explanation of the rating board's decision to veto Ghost Recon 2. "North 
Korea's criticism of the game did not have anything to do with our review," 
he said. "Ghost Recon 2 assumes that North Korea has nuclear weapons at a 
time when we are unable to verify their possession of nuclear weapons," he 
added. "If we were to allow distribution, the users might perceive an unreal 
opinion, one that is unfavourable in an international setting."

Last March, the Korea Media Rating Board rejected Microsoft's application 
for Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. Why? In the game, "war erupts on the Korean 
peninsula and Seoul becomes a sea of fire," Mr. Lee said. "That is a 
scenario based on the American way of thinking."

But "sea of fire" is a favourite expression of the North Korean media, made 
notorious in 1994 when a North Korean general, unhappy with the direction of 
nuclear talks with the United States, threatened to turn Seoul into a sea of 
fire. NK News, an American-based Web site (www.nk-news.net/index.php) offers 
a searchable database of North Korean propaganda. A five-second search finds 
that North Korean media have used "sea of fire" 18 times since June 1997, 
variously threatening Seoul, Tokyo, Washington and American bases in South 
Korea.

"Well, it's true that somebody said that in North Korea," said Kim Kyu-Sik, 
PC Online game director for the Korea Media Rating Board, when asked why the 
phrase "sea of fire" would be associated with Americans. (...)

But South Korea's censorship of games that involve North Korea's army and 
its nuclear arsenal seems to reflect a growing recognition in Asia that 
video games are a powerful tool for transmitting political values to young 
men who spend little time learning about current events from newspapers, 
television or Web sites. China, for example, is encouraging its young people 
to crush Japan digitally. In December, PowerNet Technology, a Chinese gaming 
company, is to release Anti-Japan War Online, a historical game that it 
developed with financial assistance from the China Communist Youth League. 
In the game, players can assume any of 17 Chinese roles -- farmer, worker, 
guerrilla or Communist soldier -- and battle Japanese Imperial Army soldiers 
who occupied China from 1937 to 1945. Players cannot take the roles of the 
Japanese. (...)
*************************************************

FOCUS: Turning up the heat on human rights

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

4.   DPRK HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION AT UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
     United Nations, New York, 16 December 2005

[The Sixtieth General Assembly Plenary in New York passed a series of human 
rights resolutions (document A/60/509/Add.3), including resolution IV on the 
situation of human rights in the DPRK. The following are excerpts of a 
report made available by the UN Department of Public Information. --  
CanKor.]

(...) Addendum of the Committee's report on human rights questions contains 
six draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special 
rapporteurs and representatives. (...)

Draft resolution IV on the situation of human rights in the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea would have the Assembly express its serious 
concern at the Government's refusal to cooperate with or recognize the 
mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. It 
would also express serious concern over continuing reports of widespread 
human rights violations, including torture, public executions, arbitrary 
detention, the absence of due process, the imposition of the death penalty 
for political reasons, the large number of prison camps and the extensive 
use of forced labour.

Further, the Assembly would express serious concern over severe sanctions 
imposed on citizens repatriated from abroad, as well as severe restrictions 
on the freedom of religion, expression, and assembly. Additionally, it would 
express serious concerns about limitations imposed on the free movement of 
people within the country and abroad, continued violation of the human 
rights of women through trafficking for prostitution or forced marriage, 
forced abortions and infanticide of children of repatriated mothers, and 
unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners.

Further, the Assembly would express its concern that the Government has not 
engaged in technical cooperation activities with the OHCHR. It would express 
its deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, in 
particular the prevalence of infant malnutrition. The Assembly would urge 
the Government to ensure that humanitarian organizations, particularly the 
World Food Programme (WFP), have safe and unimpeded access to all parts of 
the country. (...)

SIN SONG CHOL (DPRK) speaking before the vote, said his delegation 
categorically rejected the draft resolution on the human rights situation in 
his country. The text had been tabled by the European Union as a part of a 
"political plot" against his country by the United States and its allies. 
Indeed, the text had been tabled by States the Democratic People's Republic 
of Korea considered the "kingpins" of human rights violations, including the 
United States, Japan and the United Kingdom, on behalf of the European 
Union. (...)

[For the full text of the intervention, see below. -- CanKor.]

Vote on Human Rights in Democratic People's Republic of Korea:
The draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea (document A/60/509/Add.3-IV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 88 in 
favour to 21 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, 
Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, 
Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated 
States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, 
Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, 
Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, 
New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, 
Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and 
Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, 
Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Against:
Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, 
Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, 
Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, 
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:
Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, 
Barbados, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, 
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Jordan, 
Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, 
Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of 
Korea, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri 
Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, 
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, 
Zambia.

Absent:
Armenia, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, 
Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, 
Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Oman, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and 
Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland.

TOSHIRO OZAWA (Japan) speaking after the vote said his delegation had made a 
statement in Committee on the matter, but was nevertheless disturbed by 
false allegations and unhelpful comments made by that delegation earlier. 
Japan hoped that the DPRK took seriously that the Assembly had just adopted 
the text, and hoped, as well, that it would cooperate with the United 
Nations human rights officials dealing with the situation in that country.

PHAM HAI ANH (Viet Nam) said his delegation had voted against the draft on 
human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as it shared the 
position of many that the text was politicized and did not take into account 
the principles of State sovereignty and integrity. At the same time, Viet 
Nam rejected all acts of abduction.

Speaking in exercise of the right or reply, Mr. SIN (DPRK), said that his 
delegation believed that instead of seeking support for questions that had 
already been decided and wasting the Assembly's time, it would be more 
appropriate for Japan to seek a better understanding of the outstanding 
issues between the two Governments. The earlier statements of the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea had been based on facts and reports from citizens 
on the boarder between China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 
He would urge Japan to look very seriously at its past crimes, as well as 
the crimes it was currently committing on the border between China and his 
country.
*************************************************

5.   DPRK EXPLAINS ITS VOTE ON HUMAN RIGHTS RESOLUTION
     Press Release, DPRK Permanent Mission to the UN, 16 December 2005.

[The following statement was read at the 60th UN General Assembly before the 
vote on a DPRK human rights resolution. -- CanKor.]

Mr. President,
The Delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically 
rejects the draft resolution IV entitled "Situation of human rights in the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea", tabled by the EU as political plots 
against the DPRK by the USA and its allies. The Delegation of the DPRK 
questions the legitimacy of the draft resolution as follows:

First, the Delegation of the DPRK draws the attention of the member states 
to the fact that the draft resolution was tabled by the kingpins of human 
rights violations, namely, the US, Japan and the UK on behalf of the EU.

As for the US, it is criminal state, historically living on war and 
massacre. At this moment, the US, having occupied sovereign states by force, 
is indiscriminately killing innocent peoples by using chemical weapons such 
as white phosphorus without hesitation. The US is routinely kidnapping 
innocent peoples on pretence of terror suspect, torturing them in secret 
prisons. Now, the President, Vice-president, Secretary of State and other 
high officials of the Administration are all claiming legitimacy of torture 
in defiance of international law.

As for Japan, it is war-criminal state of the Second World War, who has not 
settled the crimes against humanity committed in the past 20th century, but 
is embellishing them and pushing forward with preparations to repeat the 
criminal history. Now, Japan, having "abduction" clause included in the 
draft resolution, is demanding countries of Asia and Africa support it. The 
"abduction" issue what Japan is talking is incidents happened by chance in 
the circumstances of hostile relations between the DPRK-Japan in 1970's, and 
has been resolved during Prime Minister Koizumi's visit to Pyongyang. The 
problem here is that the conservative hard liners continue to use it 
politically.

However, Japan's abduction of Korean people has not settled at all. During 
the 40 year occupation of Korea, Japan mobilized by force or by abduction 
8.4 million people for the military service, forced labour at coal mines and 
for Japanese army sex slaves, and Japan has not given up to now any 
information of their fates and whereabouts. Even today, Japan continues 
engaging in criminal acts of abducting the DPRK citizens. In this regard, I 
am going to announce incidents of Japan's abduction of the DPRK citizens, 
which are not known to the international community up to now. Japan is 
sending various NGO's to the DPRK-China border areas, and they are engaged 
in the secret operations of luring and abducting Japanese Korean citizens to 
take them to Japanese islands. Some of the Japanese NGO members were 
arrested by the Chinese Public Security authorities for their illegal 
activities and expelled. I would like to recall that at the DPRK-Japan 
normalization talks held in Beijing in early November this year, we raised 
this issue to the Japanese side, and demanded that our citizens abducted to 
Japan be sent back to the DPRK.

The United Kingdom grew fat on hundreds years of colonial exploitation and 
massacre. Today, the UK is a zealous junior collaborator of the US in its 
aggression against sovereign states and violation of international law and 
human rights under the slogan of war on terror. In this regard, the 
Delegation of the DPRK makes it clear that the EU is none other than 
hypocrite, although it poses as human rights champion. It is cowardly and 
hypocritical for the EU to cry for human rights in small and weak countries, 
while turning away from horrible human rights violations by the US and the 
UK.

In conclusion, the Delegation of the DPRK raises the following question: 
What, on earth, are justice and fairness and legitimacy, when kingpins of 
human rights violations are free to use strength to blame other countries 
for human right issues?

Second, human rights are used as means for political purposes against the 
DPRK. The US, UK and Japan are pursuing the purpose of overthrowing our 
social system by using human right issues together with the nuclear issue. 
The US has enacted "North Korean Human Right Act", and is investing 
24million dollars on "North Korean human rights" every year. And innumerable 
bogus human rights organizations of the US, Japan, south Korea and European 
countries are engaging in subversive operations against the DPRK to get paid 
from this fund. In this regard, I once again highlight the fact that the 
draft resolution has been based on false informations fabricated by these 
bogus NGO's. The anti-DPRK maneuverings by the US and Japan by using human 
right issues are themselves violations of human rights and international 
law.

Third, the EU's resolution damages the authority and credibility of the UN. 
The US, UK and Japan are pressing hard the developing countries to change 
their positions in support of the draft resolution. At the Third Committee, 
many of the Asian and African countries voted against or abstained on the 
EU's draft resolution from the principled position against politicization, 
double standard and selectivity of human right issues. The US, UK and Japan 
were alarmed by the result of the vote, and stepped up pressure on those 
countries to change their positions. We feel particularly sick of Japan's 
desperate campaign to force its will on other countries by using its 
economic influence.

All these facts and realities eloquently prove that the draft resolution, 
even if it is adopted by majority support, would not carry the lofty 
authority and legitimacy of the resolution of General Assembly of the United 
Nations.

Mr. President,
The DPRK is a country of small territory and population, while the US, UK, 
Japan and EU are big powers boasting of military and economic strengths. The 
people of the DPRK are highly proud that they firmly safeguard their 
sovereignty against the pressure of the united forces of the US, UK, Japan 
and EU, and are resolved to defend and further develop the people-centered 
superior system which they have chosen with their own hands.
Thank you.
*************************************************

6.   DPRK ABUSES HIGHLIGHTED AT HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE
     by Jong-Heon Lee, UPI, Seoul, 8 December 2005.

Some 1,000 human rights experts, activists and North Korean defectors 
gathered in Seoul for a high-profile conference to highlight humanitarian 
conditions in the communist country. The largest-ever human rights 
conference in South Korea posed a burden on the Seoul government, which has 
maintained a low-key stance toward human rights abuse in North Korea for 
fear of creating friction with Pyongyang. Outside the conference venue, 
North Korea sympathizers staged a rally to criticize the US-backed human 
rights forum as a move to further isolate the embattled communist state.

The three-day meeting, "Seoul Summit: Promoting Human Rights in North 
Korea," was organized by South Korean human rights groups and Freedom House, 
a pro-democracy organization partially funded by the US government.

The Seoul meeting was the second conference on North Korean human rights 
following the first in Washington in July. The next one is scheduled for 
March in Brussels.

At the opening of the forum at a Seoul hotel, participants criticized North 
Korean leader Kim Jong Il as the worst violator of human rights in the 
world, and called for more international efforts to enhance human rights 
conditions and freedom in North Korea.

"This forum will bring opportunities to awaken 23 million North Korean 
citizens suffering from the worst kind of human rights abuses of their 
rights in addition to dealing a blow to the dictatorship of Kim Jong Il and 
bring power and courage to South Korea's efforts to protect democracy," said 
Hwang Jang Yop, the highest-ranking North Korean ever to defect to Seoul. 
"Now is the time to act boldly to defend the human rights rather than just 
discuss ways to do so."

He was the chief architect of the North's ruling ideology of "juche" 
(self-reliance or self-identity) and played a pivotal role in training Kim 
Jong Il who took power after the death of his father, Kim Il Sung, in 1994. 
He was former secretary of the North's ruling Workers' Party until his 
defection in 1997.

Suzanne Scholte, the head of the US-based North Korea Freedom Coalition, 
called for concerted diplomatic efforts to press China to stop the 
repatriation of North Koreans who cross the border to seek asylum.

"Because the government of China has continued to repatriate North Korean 
refugees and ignored international agreements it has signed, we need to put 
pressure on them in every possible way," she said in a keynote speech.

Seoul-based human rights groups say more than 100,000 North Korean 
asylum-seekers are believed to be hiding in China and Russia in hopes of 
reaching South Korea for resettlement. China recently intensified its 
crackdown on North Korean asylum-seekers holing up in its territory, human 
rights activists said. China, a close ally of Pyongyang, considers the North 
Korean escapees to be illegal immigrants and is bound by treaty to send back 
those who flee across their border with the North. Repatriated 
asylum-seekers often face torture, imprisonment and sometimes execution, 
according to defectors. Scholte also accused Seoul and Washington of 
ignoring the humanitarian plight facing North Koreans.

"Ignoring the human rights issue as South Korea has done, and making it a 
secondary issue as America has done is a betrayal of everything we stand for 
as free people," she said.

But the Seoul government is reluctant to raise human rights. Unification 
Minister Chung Dong-young and Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon turned down 
invitations from forum organizers. South Korea abstained from voting on a UN 
General Assembly resolution to condemn North Korea for human rights abuses 
last month.

Jay Lefkowitz, the US special envoy for North Korean human rights, told 
Seoul's Deputy Foreign Minister for Policy Planning Chun Young-woo the human 
rights situation in the North was a "very immediate issue." In response, 
however, Chun said Seoul "shares the same objective" with the United States 
over human rights, but his government has "flexibility in the ways and means 
that we employ to achieve the same objective," noting peace and stability 
were more important. On Friday, Lefkowitz plans to unveil US policy 
guidelines to improve human rights in the North at the conference. Japan's 
newly appointed envoy on North Korean human rights, Fumiko Saiga, also 
joined the forum.

Out of the conference, South Korean pro-unification and anti-US civic groups 
issued a joint statement to oppose the human rights forum raising questions 
about Washington's "hidden political motives."  The groups claimed in a news 
conference it was "yet another violation to human rights to push for a 
collapse of one's regime citing human rights improvement." They vowed to 
stage a rally in front of the US embassy in Seoul to protest Washington's 
"hostile" North Korea policy.
*************************************************

QUIDNUNC
In this section of CanKor, we invite readers to send questions, answers, or 
responses. Answers should be under 150 words and may be edited for space.
*************************************************

HOW MANY NORTH KOREAN REFUGEE-DEFECTORS ARE THERE IN SOUTH KOREA?

South Korea has consistently maintained a policy to accommodate all North 
Korean refugees who have found safe haven abroad by permitting them to 
resettle in South Korea. The South Korean government also provides necessary 
cooperation, if the refugees wish to remain in another country, to avoid the 
forcible repatriation to North Korea against their will.
In the past 50 years, South Korea has resettled more than 7,100 North Korean 
refugees, an average of 20 persons per year between 1954 and 1997 (878 
total), but at an accelerating rate since then: 72 in 1998, 148 in 1999, 312 
in 2000, 583 in 2001, 1,141 in 2002, 1,281 in 2003, 1,894 in 2004, and 882 
to date in 2005, with an expectation of a total refugee population of 10,000 
by the end of 2006.

Rep. Edolphus Towns, New York, US House of Representatives
*************************************************

WHAT NOW?

Can I travel to North Korea?

[Answers should be e-mailed to: editor at CanKor.ca]
*************************************************

End CanKor # 231

*************************************************
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, Danielle Goldfinger; Web developer: David Seguin. Please 
visit our website at: www.CanKor.ca
*************************************************