[Cankor] Report #228

[cankor at cankor.ca]

Dear subscriber,

Welcome to issue #228 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 # 228

Friday, 25 November 2005
*************************************************

The board of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) 
agrees to terminate construction of two nuclear power reactors in the DPRK. 
A final decision awaits examination of legal and financial matters. KEDO 
itself will continue to function, since proponents argue that the 
organization's experience in working with DPR Korean officials could prove 
valuable in implementing any decisions reached at the Six-Party talks.

In this week's CanKor OPINION section, UK Member of the EU Parliament Glyn 
Ford contends that "defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory" during the 
first phase of the fifth round of Six-Party Talks. He blames sabotage by US 
neocons who forced US negotiators once again to play hardball. CanKor also 
includes the text of the Chairman's Statement read by Chinese delegation 
head Wu Dawei at the closing ceremony.

The CanKor FOCUS this week's examines "Human Rights, the United Nations and 
the DPRK," as the fallout spreads from a resolution passed by a divided UN 
General Assembly committee expressing "serious concern" about reports of 
human rights violations in the DPRK. Following the EU's introduction of the 
resolution, European NGOs operating in the DPRK have been ordered to wrap up 
their programming and leave the country by year's end. Only three NGOs 
according to the latest information obtained by CanKor (and contrary to the 
article in this issue) are to remain: Sweden's PMU Interlife, the Australian 
group Korea Maranatha Enterprise Development Ltd., and the Canadian 
organization Global Aid Network (misnamed as Global Action Network in the 
article). All three are faith-based organizations. A DPRK Foreign Ministry 
Statement reacting to the UN human rights resolution is reprinted in full.

Oddly enough, while the EU resolution is debated at the UN General Assembly, 
a United Nations legal delegation visits Pyongyang -- invited by the DPRK --  
in order to conduct a seminar on treaty law and practice (including 
obligations, termination and breaches of treaties), statelessness and 
refugee issues. On the UN delegation is the Senior Liaison Officer from the 
office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a 
remarkable event that seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the major 
media.
*************************************************

Contents:
1.  KEDO AGREES TO END NUCLEAR PROJECT IN DPRK
    http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200511/23/200511232217044679900090309031.html

FOCUS: Human Rights, the United Nations and the DPRK
2.  UN LEGAL TEAM VISITS DPRK CONDUCTS SEMINAR ON REFUGEES
    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/l3097.doc.htm
3.  UN PANEL CONCERNED ABOUT REPORTED RIGHTS ABUSE
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20051117-1700-un- 
northkorea.html
4.  DPRK EXPELS EUROPEAN AID GROUPS
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1319432
5.  DPRK REFUTES ANTI-DPRK "RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE"
    Direct from the DPRK Permanent Mission to the United Nations

OPINION:
6.  NEOCONS ABSCONDED WITH ROUND FIVE
    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20051123lf.htm
7.  CHAIR'S STATEMENT OF FIRST PHASE OF 5TH ROUND OF TALKS
    http://english.people.com.cn/200511/11/eng20051111_220630.html

QUIDNUNC: How big is the DPR Korean People's Army?
*************************************************

1.  KEDO AGREES TO END NUCLEAR PROJECT IN DPRK
    Joong Ang Ilbo, 24 November 2005

The board of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, meeting 
in New York on Monday and Tuesday, reportedly agreed to terminate its 
construction work in North Korea on two nuclear power reactors. The project, 
on which work started in 1997, has been idle for the past two years because 
of North Korea's renewed nuclear weapons development work. A caretaker force 
of about 120 people still works at the site. The details of the board 
action, however, are not entirely clear.

The US board member, Joseph DiTrani, told the Associated Press after the 
meeting that his Korean, Japanese and European colleagues on the board had 
agreed to the "termination of the reactor project in the North," but Kim 
Young-mok, the Korean deputy executive director of the organization, said 
that no final decision had been reached. Other comments from both men 
suggested that there were legal and financial matters that had to be 
untangled; Mr. DiTrani said the board would meet again before the end of the 
month to address them. Seoul has provided most of the funding for the 
project, and reportedly has already poured more than $1.1 billion into the 
work.

The decision apparently did not include the closing of the organization 
itself; some proponents of the organization have argued that its experience 
in working with North Korean officials could prove valuable in other ways, 
perhaps in implementing any decisions reached at the six-party talks on 
North Korean nuclear matters.
*************************************************

FOCUS: Human Rights, the United Nations and the DPRK

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

2.  UN LEGAL TEAM VISITS DPRK CONDUCTS SEMINAR ON REFUGEES
    UN Press Release, 18 November 2005

A United Nations legal delegation visited Pyongyang from 16 to 18 November 
at the invitation of the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea to conduct a seminar on treaty law and practice, statelessness and 
refugees issues. Questions such as obligations under treaties, termination 
of treaties and breaches of treaty obligations were discussed.

The delegation was led by Palitha Kohona, Chief, Treaty Section's Office of 
Legal Affairs (OLA), who was accompanied by Christoph Bierwirth, Senior 
Liaison Officer, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
(UNHCR), Geneva. The seminar was held at the Peoples Cultural Palace, 
Pyongyang. The participants were from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the 
Interior and the Environment and other Government departments and academia.

This was the first time that such a United Nations legal delegation had been 
invited to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. This initiative 
followed on the participation of a number of the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea delegates at a training programme on treaty law and 
practice conducted in New York by the Treaty Section. Subsequent discussions 
between the Permanent Mission and the Legal Office resulted in this 
groundbreaking development. The OLA hopes that this mission will be followed 
by further legal contacts between the United Nations and the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea.

Commenting on the seminar, Nicolas Michel, Under-Secretary-General and 
United Nations Legal Counsel, said that "capacity-building is essential for 
a better understanding and implementation of international law", and added, 
"My Office was pleased to be able to favourably respond to the request for 
assistance made by the Government of the DPRK."
*************************************************

3.  UN PANEL CONCERNED ABOUT RIGHTS ABUSE REPORTS
    by Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press, 17 November 2005

A divided UN General Assembly committee approved a resolution Thursday 
expressing "serious concern" about reports of widespread human rights 
violations in North Korea.

The vote on the resolution, sponsored by the European Union, was 84 in 
favour, 22 against, and 62 abstentions, a reflection of the deep split in 
the world body over the broad issue of human rights and the narrower one of 
how to tackle abuses. It is expected to be sent to the General Assembly for 
a final vote.

The resolution sparked heated debate in the assembly committee that deals 
with social and humanitarian issues, partly because it was the first time 
that a resolution on human rights in North Korea was introduced in the 
General Assembly. Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, who introduced 
the resolution on behalf of the EU, noted that in the past such resolutions 
were put before the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. But he said this 
year, because of the lack of improvement in North Korea's human rights 
record, the EU asked the General Assembly to take up the issue.

The resolution, which has 40 co-sponsors, expresses "serious concern" about 
the "continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of 
human rights" in North Korea, including torture, public executions, imposing 
the death penalty for political reasons and extensive use of forced labour. 
It also cited the treatment of North Koreans who are repatriated from other 
countries, saying they face internment, torture and other punishments, 
including the death penalty. The resolution also expressed "serious concern" 
over North Korea's refusal to allow a UN human rights investigator into the 
country.

Following the EU's introduction of the resolution, North Korea last week 
ordered non-governmental European aid groups to leave the country. The order 
covers at least 11 of the 12 foreign non-governmental organizations in the 
isolated North, which has struggled for a decade with severe food shortages. 
The groups affected are running health, sanitation, forestry and other 
programs.

Jones Parry said it would be "very regrettable" if the groups were forced to 
leave. The order for the NGOs to wind up operations by Dec. 31 comes as the 
World Food Program is scrambling to preserve its access to North Korea 
following a government request for the UN agency to end its food aid program 
this year and switch to economic development assistance.

The resolution expresses "deep concern at the precarious humanitarian 
situation in the country, in particular the prevalence of infant 
malnutrition, which still affects the physical and mental development of a 
significant percentage of children."

It urges North Korea to ensure unimpeded access to all parts of the country 
for humanitarian organizations, NGOs, and UN agencies, especially the World 
Food Program.

Before Thursday's vote, North Korea's representative rejected the draft, 
accusing the EU and the United States of misusing human rights issues for 
political purposes against small and weak developing countries. The diplomat 
said the resolution was based on false information and was evidence that the 
EU was trying to interfere in North Korea's internal affairs and promote 
regime change.

Pyongyang's opposition was backed by 21 other countries including Russia, 
China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Myanmar, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Many 
objected to the General Assembly targeting individual countries with 
resolutions about human rights violations. That is a key issue in the 
ongoing efforts to revamp the UN human rights machinery.
*************************************************

4.  DPRK EXPELS EUROPEAN AID GROUPS
    by Joe McDonald; Associated Press, 16 November 2005

North Korea has ordered non-governmental European aid groups to leave the 
country after the European Union submitted a UN resolution criticizing 
Pyongyang's human rights record, aid workers said Wednesday. The order 
covers at least 11 of the 12 foreign non-governmental organizations in the 
isolated North, which has struggled for a decade with severe food shortages. 
The groups affected are running health, sanitation, forestry and other 
programs. The NGOs have been asked to wind up their operations by Dec. 31, 
said Padraig O'Ruairc, the Pyongyang coordinator for Concern, an Irish 
humanitarian group.

"They have several months to exit the country in the new year," he said.

Other groups ordered to leave include Britain's Save the Children, the 
French groups Handicap International and Premier Urgence and Sweden's PMU 
Interlife, according to aid workers. The order comes as the World Food 
Program also is scrambling to preserve its access to North Korea following a 
government request for the UN agency to wind up its food aid program this 
year and switch to economic development assistance.

North Korea issued the order last week after the EU submitted a UN 
resolution expressing "serious concern" about reports of torture by the 
Stalinist dictatorship and its restrictions on religion, travel and other 
activities. It calls on the North, one of the world's most secretive 
societies, to cooperate with UN human rights investigators. News reports 
said the UN General Assembly is expected to vote on the resolution in coming 
weeks.

"The decision of the government was taken because of the resolution signed 
by the European Union member states on the human rights situation in North 
Korea," said Marcelo Garcia, the country coordinator for the Italian group 
CESVI. The government announced the decision Nov. 9 to an EU delegation that 
visited Pyongyang to discuss aid plans, Garcia said. He said European 
diplomats discussed the matter with North Korean officials, concluded there 
was "no possibility for discussion" and told aid groups to prepare to leave. 
The order affects all groups that receive money from the EU or one of its 25 
member governments.

"All NGOs in the country are working with European funds," Garcia said.

Only one non-governmental group working in North Korea isn't European - the 
Canadian branch of Global Action Network, a religious charity. Its status 
wasn't clear. Phone calls to its Pyongyang office on Wednesday weren't 
answered. (...)

The WFP and nongovernment groups repeatedly have pressed Pyongyang for 
greater access to the country, in part to be able to reassure donors that 
aid wasn't being diverted to its large military or to reward supporters of 
the ruling party. More recently, the North has told the WFP to switch from 
food aid to development aid, saying it could feed its people with its own 
harvests plus aid from China and South Korea. The WFP says its timeline for 
that change is too rapid and could leave thousands of people hungry. Its 
director is due to visit Pyongyang next month to try to persuade the regime 
to let food shipments continue.

The expulsion order forced CESVI to stop repairs on a water system in 
Ambyon, a town north of Pyongyang, Garcia said. He said nobody in North 
Korea could take over the work, because his group was barred from hiring 
North Korean technicians. Concern's four foreign workers in North Korea run 
health care programs, renovate water systems and supply fertilizer and 
technical advice to tree nurseries, O'Ruairc said.

"Our position will be that we would like to remain in the country," he said. 
"The government has been very courteous and good to us to date. But the 
decision is really out of our hands."
*************************************************

5.  DPRK REFUTES ANTI-DPRK "RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE"
    Press Release No 47, DPRK Permanent Mission to the UN, 22 November 2005

A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement Monday in 
connection with the fact that a "resolution on human rights situation" in 
the DPRK was adopted in a coercive manner at the third committee of the UN 
General Assembly on Nov. 17. The statement says:

The resolution is peppered with sheer lies aimed to negate the advantages of 
the man-centered Korean style socialist system, tarnish its international 
image and attain the ridiculous purpose of "regime change" in it.

That's why the majority countries of the world have taken issue with the 
sinister purpose sought by the resolution from the outset, a document 
clearly indicating politicization, selectivity and double standards 
concerning the human rights issue.

This was clearly evidenced by the results of the voting in which the 
majority countries voted against or abstained from voting or stayed away 
from it. We strongly denounce the US and the EU for using the discussion on 
the human rights issue for attaining their sinister purposes of opposing 
developing countries, those anti-US independent countries and categorically 
oppose and reject the resolution as an illegal document mocking at and 
violating the inviolable sovereignty of the DPRK.

The US was chiefly to blame for the adoption of such anti-DPRK resolution. 
Finding it difficult to force the DPRK to scrap "its nuclear program first" 
and thus disarm itself, the present US administration with inveterate enmity 
toward the DPRK has put spurs to its moves to realize the absurd attempt at 
a "regime change" under the signboard of "human rights". It has malignantly 
slandered the DPRK by staging such farce as publishing "report on human 
rights performance" every year. It has spent tens of millions of US dollars 
for a smear campaign against the DPRK after adopting even the "North Korean 
Human Rights Act" in 2004.

It defined the act as a "framework for pressurizing the system in the DPRK 
in two ways i.e. over the nuclear and human rights issues" and worked out a 
strategy for bringing down its system under the pretext of protecting 
defectors from north Korea. This has already entered the phase of full-scale 
effectuation.

What was mentioned in the resolution is no more than sheer fabrications 
deliberately made by undesirable NGOs on the basis of misinformation to get 
meager rewards from the US. Just before voting for the resolution the Bush 
administration launched a big anti-DPRK human rights campaign by setting in 
motion CNN and other media in the country. As if it were not enough with 
this, the US has worked hard to build up force for a "regime change" inside 
the DPRK, openly clamoring that the US would stand by north Koreans when 
they rise up in demand of freedom.

The resolution is, therefore, no more than a politically-motivated document 
faked up by the US to paint its human rights offensive as a "unanimous 
message of the international community" in a bid to realize a "regime 
change" in the DPRK.

The US is, however, gravely mistaken. Neither slander nor calumny against 
the Korean-style socialist system can ever do any harm to it as it was 
chosen by the Korean people themselves and defended by them at the cost of 
their lives. Noisier racket of outside hostile forces against the DPRK over 
its "human rights issue" would only reinforce their faith and will for 
socialism. The Korean people have already keenly realized that human rights 
precisely represent the state power through their bitter past and life 
experience. So they are fully determined not to tolerate any attempt to 
bring down the socialist system, their life and soul.

It is the biggest misfortune and shame for humankind today to see the 
world's biggest human rights abuser painting itself as a "human rights 
judge." It is a stark fact recognized by itself and other countries that the 
US is the world's worst human rights abuser. It is by no means fortuitous 
that many Americans including high-ranking officials deplore the fact that 
their country tops the world's list of murder cases, saying that political 
rights and freedom and freedom of speech, thinking and expression are in the 
grip of a crisis.

The Iraqi crisis has clearly proved that the US is a typical human rights 
abuser. The Iraqi war is recorded with state-sponsored terrorism and hideous 
human rights abuses as it has seriously abused human rights with 
ultra-modern war means and medieval methods involved. The US dropped 
depleted uranium shells and chemical weapons and other weapons of mass 
destruction upon the heads of civilians under the pretext of 
"anti-terrorism" in Iraq. GIs are torturing prisoners in a medieval manner 
at secret prisons it set up in different countries of the world at the 
instruction of the US authorities. These crimes put even the Nazi junta into 
the shade The US, therefore, is not entitled to say anything about "human 
rights performance" in any other countries from the moral and legal points 
of view. Had the EU countries been interested in the human rights issue so 
much and so willing to handle it in the international arena, they should 
have taken issue with the US hideous human rights abuse, to begin with.

However, UK and some other EU countries selected only the human rights 
performances in developing countries as targets of their accusations, while 
uttering not a word about the US human rights abuses. We can not but 
question the true aim sought by them; whether they need this resolution, 
truly prompted by their will to promote human rights or they require this as 
a smokescreen to cover up their on-going and past human rights abuses.

What draws our attention is the fact that such countries as UK and Japan 
that took the lead in sponsoring the anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" 
have become rich at the cost of the blood and sweat shed by the people of 
many countries which they invaded and colonized in the last century. It was 
none other than UK which participated in the unjust Iraqi war, killing 
innocent civilians and reducing the sovereign state to debris even in this 
new century. It is again UK that caused terrorist incidents to break out in 
the heart of its capital that killed citizens in cold blood. Violent racism, 
xenophobia, discrimination against minority nationalities and immigrants and 
police brutality arouse big apprehension even within UK as well as among the 
international community.

As for Japan, it is a war criminal state unqualified to become a responsible 
member of the international community, to say nothing of its right to 
discuss human rights issues. Japan has become the target of bitter 
resentment and denunciation of the international community because it has 
beautified its past history of aggression and justified visits to the 
"Yasukuni Shrine" by its politicians including the chief executive, far from 
apologizing for the hideous crimes it has committed against humanity even 
today.

Such being a hard fact, these countries, ignorant of how the world views 
them, have served the US prompted by their inveterate servility towards 
America for years. This is a height of folly. They seem to regard themselves 
as suzerain states even in the 21st century.

We are also compelled to point fingers at those countries that co-sponsored 
the resolution and supported it. Those countries that got involved in the 
adoption of the resolution away from their principle at the US instigation 
and under its pressure and manipulation should not expect any reward for 
such behaviour. The US is by no means such honest country they deem to be.

Those countries that have infringed upon the interests of other countries in 
the foolish hope of meeting their immediate interests will have to deeply 
regret their behaviour. The resolution helped us to clearly realize the 
nature of the humanitarian aid advertised by the US and the EU and convinced 
us once again that the DPRK took the just and timely measure not to receive 
humanitarian aid any longer. The US and its allies in the resolution accused 
the DPRK of taking such measure. This made it clear that they behaved so not 
out of their concern about human rights but to use aid as leverage for 
spying on what's really going on in the DPRK and lay a springboard from 
which to realize a "regime change" in it.

Recently we have decided to conclude international humanitarian aid as the 
food situation in the country has markedly improved. We considered it to be 
beneficial for lessening the burden of the international community. Strange 
enough, such countries as the US and Japan that had worked persistently to 
obstruct aid projects for the DPRK by raising political conditionalities 
when it was in the dire need of humanitarian aid are describing its measure 
as violation of human rights.

The prevailing situation compelled us to take action to bring the 
humanitarian aid to an end. The US, UK and major EU forces that sponsored 
the resolution reduced even humanitarian aid organizations as well as the 
DPRK to victims. The recent adoption of the resolution spearheaded by the US 
and the EU convinced us once again that it is stark reality in the 
international arena dealing with human rights issues that any crime 
committed by the strong is considered as a good conduct but even a good 
conduct by the weak is regarded as an evil deed and that accordingly, if one 
is to protect human rights one should have state power among other things 
and powerful deterrent to defend its state power.

We regard the recent human rights resolution no more than barking of a dog 
at the moon.

The Korean people will hold the banner of Songun higher to defend the 
precious socialist system and bolster up the deterrent for self-defense a 
thousand times under any circumstance and situation.
*************************************************

OPINION

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

6.  NEOCONS ABSCONDED WITH ROUND FIVE OF SIX-PARTY TALKS
    by Glyn Ford, Japan Times, 23 November 2005

The six-party talks, which initially began in August 2003 to resolve the 
nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, reconvened in Beijing on Nov. 9, then 
adjourned three days later inconclusively. Defeat was snatched from the jaws 
of victory.

In September, at the end of the fourth round of the talks -- involving 
China, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan and Russia -- there 
appeared to be a breakthrough, as North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear 
development program in exchange for US promises to rule out preemptive 
military action against it or attempts to promote regime change, and to 
provide a package of energy assistance and development aid to kick-start the 
economy.

The problem now is implementation, as US neocons have once again played 
hardball and sabotaged the whole operation. US financial sanctions and 
pressure on a Macau bank to end its dealings with Pyongyang were perceived 
as "spoiling the atmosphere" of the talks. Meanwhile, Washington and 
Pyongyang sparred over financial penalties and whether to negotiate a 
nuclear freeze or focus on full disarmament.

The meeting had been forecast by many as the final round of the Korean 
Peninsula nuclear standoff. It failed to resolve even basic procedural 
issues, such as setting up working groups to tackle technical problems 
pertaining to inspections and other matters.

Back in 1994, the Framework Agreement between US President Bill Clinton and 
North Korean leader Kim Il Sung offered Pyongyang two 
proliferation-resistant light-water reactors (LWRs) by 2003 in exchange for 
freezing and ultimately dismantling their Russian-designed 
graphite-moderated reactors, capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

In the interim North Korea was to get 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) 
per year, and the US was to lift a 50-year-old embargo and begin the 
normalization of relations. The US never delivered. The embargo was not 
lifted; relations were not normalized. HFO was delivered fitfully, and three 
months before the LWRs were due to come on stream -- construction was 
running a decade late -- the US conveniently "discovered" that the North had 
an illicit highly enriched uranium program.

Although North Korea never had the special materials or the capability to 
produce the quantity and quality of electricity required for a serious 
program, the allegations served their purpose. Construction of the LWRs was 
immediately suspended and HFO deliveries stopped. The inevitable result was 
the unfreezing of North Korea's nuclear program and a dash for 
nuclear-weapons development.

In the meantime, the US invasion of Iraq demonstrated that the danger for a 
poor country was in not having weapons of mass destruction -- not the other 
way around. In Japan, it provided a useful impetus for reform of its 
US-imposed "peace" constitution and for US deployment of its theater 
missile-defense system, ostensibly to protect Japan from North Korea. In 
actuality, it has threatened to force a nuclear arms race with China.

North Korea's offensive threat is close to zero. Its annual military budget 
is less than 0.4 percent of that of the US, Japan and South Korea combined. 
But a nuclear North Korea sets a dangerous precedent that can only encourage 
nuclear proliferation. Global security demands that it step back from the 
brink.

Under enormous pressure from friends and foes, North Korea essentially 
conceded in August, but now the US wants to renege on the basic agreement. 
It's a pincer movement with three prongs:

*** There will be no civil nuclear power as expected -- only electricity fed 
in from South Korea, where the off-switch will be firmly in hand.

*** The Korean Energy Development Organization (KEDO), which had been 
responsible for LWR construction, is being formally terminated at US 
insistence. Two KEDO executive board members, South Korea and the European 
Union, wanted the organization to continue just in case there was a need for 
its expertise. Japan sits on the US side of the fence.

*** The EU has tabled, and Japan has co-signed, a UN General Assembly 
resolution -- a red flag before the North Korean bull -- condemning North 
Korea for its human-rights record. No one can be under any illusions that, 
on the basis of international norms, there are serious human-rights 
violations in North Korea. Grave causes for concern include re-education 
camps, the treatment of those returning from illegal travel to China and 
abductions of 13 Japanese citizens.

Yet the EU, after a visit by the Troika of the President in Office of the 
Council -- Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, EU officials Javier Solana 
and Chris Patten -- had not only obtained a moratorium on missile testing, 
but a human rights dialogue with the North.

Modeled on the EU's human-rights dialogue with China, the EU was the first 
and only body to have such a formal mechanism for discussion. Although the 
first two meetings went slowly, perceptible progress had been made on 
providing information. Then, without the knowledge of the European 
Commission let alone the North Koreans, the French bounced through the 
Council of Ministers a condemnatory resolution. As a result, dialogue was 
abandoned by the North Koreans.

As the German philosopher Nietzsche once wrote, "Madness is rare in 
individuals, but common in parties, groups and organizations." This year the 
Catch-22 argument was that we must have a resolution because there was no 
dialogue. Forgotten was the fact that there was no dialogue because we had 
had a resolution. Now they are playing into the hands of those promoting 
preemptive deterrence.

The neocons are confident that they have painted the North Koreans into a 
corner -- no nuclear power, the end of KEDO and a UN human-rights 
condemnation. If, as a result, a resounding no emanates from the North in 
Beijing, then the US can move regime change back to the top of its agenda.

Yet there are hints that the US just might be suckered. South Korea's 
President Roh Moo Hyun wants peaceful coexistence and development for both 
the South and the North. Even though the use of US nuclear technology to 
satisfy North Korea's demand for electricity is no longer an option, there 
may be a third way.

Russia would be delighted to get the business to provide a 
proliferation-resistant nuclear reactor. It would also suit China's 
strategic concerns. So, if North Korea accepts the unacceptable in Beijing 
later this month, then it may well be that the multilateral talks were a 
smoke screen for off-the-record bilateral deals.
*************************************************

7.  CHAIR'S STATEMENT OF FIRST PHASE OF 5TH ROUND OF TALKS
    Chairman's Statement, China Daily, 11 November 2005

The First Session of the Fifth Round of the Six-Party Talks was held in 
Beijing from November 9th to 11th, 2005. The Parties conducted serious, 
pragmatic and constructive discussions and put forward proposals on how to 
implement the Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks.

The Parties reaffirmed that they would fully implement the Joint Statement 
in line with the principle of "commitment for commitment, action for 
action", so as to realize the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean 
Peninsula at an early date and contribute to lasting peace and stability of 
the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia.

The Parties emphasized that they are willing to comprehensively implement 
the Joint Statement through confidence building, carry out all commitments 
in different areas, commence and conclude the process in a timely and 
coordinated manner and achieve balanced interests and win-win result through 
cooperation.

The Parties agreed to formulate concrete plans, measures and steps to 
fulfill the Joint Statement in accordance with the afore-mentioned spirit. 
The Parties agreed to hold the Second Session of the Fifth Round of 
Six-Party Talks at the earliest possible date.
*************************************************

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 BIG IS THE DPR KOREAN PEOPLE'S ARMY?

No Western observer can say for sure, but the North Korean army is huge. 
Some estimates range as high as 1,200,000 personnel in army, navy and air 
force. Backing them are another 7,450,000 reservists. If these numbers are 
true, the Korean People's Army (KPA) is the fifth largest land force in the 
world behind the PRC, the USA, Russia and India.

In comparison, South Korea has 690,000 soldiers, marines, sailors and 
airmen. US forces in Korea (USFK) number 35,000 soldiers and airmen. Backing 
them are the US forces in Japan (USFJ), which number 60,000 marines, 
soldiers, airmen and sailors.

[Answer taken from Kenneth Quinones, "Understanding North Korea," Alpha 
Books, p. 19]
*************************************************

WHAT NOW?

How many North Korean refugees are in China?

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

End CanKor # 228

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