Showing posts with label U.N. Human Rights Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.N. Human Rights Council. Show all posts

DPRK Daily Oct. 16 - The Special Rapporteur’s Report on Human Rights in North Korea


Visiting North Korea, The Hermit Kingdom
Huffington Post-Blog. 10/16/12 By Richard Bangs

It's been almost 60 years since the end of the Korean War, and for most of that time Americans had been prohibited from visiting North Korea by its government. For many years, I canvassed any contact I could ferret about securing visitation, but all for naught.

Until this year.

I rendezvous with 23 friends in Beijing and the first indication that we are about to fall off the map is when a plastic bag is circulated at the airport before we board the Air Koryo flight. We deposit our cell phones and books about our destination, which are not allowed in the DPRK. We are, however, permitted to bring cameras (with lenses less than 200 mms), laptops, Kindles and iPads, as long as they don't have activated GPS. Credit cards can't be used for internet access, or to buy anything. Even with cash, there is no public internet access in-country. We are abandoning ourselves to the journey.

On board the Russian-built Tupolev Tu-204 instead of Muzak we are soothed by the national anthem, the newspaper distributed is the Pyongyang Times (in English), and on the video monitors are dramatic recreations of World War II, as well as a tourist video that evokes Disney documentaries from the 1950s. Immigration and customs are easy, faster than most first-world airports, and they do not stamp our passports, so you just have to take my word that we were there.

We're greeted by guides Mr. Lee and Miss Lee (no relation), who usher us onto a Chinese made luxury bus called King Long, where we roll down spotless extra-wide streets by willow trees and tall apartment buildings, past heroic posters and photos of Kim Il-sung, the country's founding leader, and his son Kim Jong-il, who died in December 2011, leaving his third son, 29-year-old Kim Jong-un in charge. We drive through the Arch of Triumph (larger than the Paris version), and into downtown Pyongyang, the capital. Along the way Mr. Lee, shares, in enunciation occasionally untidy, some information...the country has 24 million people; 3 million in the capital. It is 80% covered by mountains. From 1905-1945 it was brutally occupied by the Japanese. The Korean War (known as the Fatherland Liberation War by the DPRK) lasted from 1950-53, and during that time there were 400,000 people in Pyongyang, and the Americans dropped 400,000 bombs on the city.

We cross a bridge to an island in the Taedong River, and pull up to the 47-story Yanggakdo International Hotel, with 1000 rooms, a revolving restaurant on top, a lobby bar with Taedonggang, a very good beer, and room television with five channels of North Korean programming, and one featuring the BBC.

As the day bleeds to night we head to the Rŭngrado May First Stadium, largest in the world by capacity. We park by a Niagara-sized dancing colored fountain to which Steve Wynn could only aspire, walk past a line of Mercedes, BMWs, and Hummers, up the steps to prime seats (where Madeleine Albright once sat) at the Arirang Mass Games. The Games (there is no competition, just spectacle) are a jaw-dropping 90-minute gymnastic extravaganza, with meticulously choreographed dancers, acrobats, trapeze artists, giant puppets, and huge mosaic pictures created by more than 30,000 sharply disciplined school children holding up colored cards, as though in bleachers at the world's biggest football game. The London Guardian calls the Mass Games "the greatest, strangest, most awe-inspiring political spectacle on earth."

The Guinness Book says there is nothing like it in the universe. One hundred thousand performers in every candy color of the spectrum cavort, whirl, leap and caper in perfectly choreographed unison. A thousand Cirque du Soleils. Ten thousand Busby Berkeleys. It all makes the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics look like the opening of the London Olympics. Finally, we pour from the stadium, past the vendors selling posters, DVDs and memorabilia, exhausted and in overstimulated wonderment.

As the sun finds us the morning next we head back to the airport, during the world's quietest rush hour. One estimate is there are fewer than 30,000 vehicles in the whole of the country. We pass seven cars, several hundred single-gear bicycles, and perhaps a thousand pedestrians, hunched forward as though carrying invisible sacks, walking the edges of the streets. There are no fat people in this parade...all look fit, clean and healthy.

There is no commercial air service to where we are headed (and no Lonely Planet Guide), so we have chartered an Antonov 24, during which the hostess levels her epicanthic eyes and shares she wants to practice her English with us. Good thing, too, as I notice the sign at the Emergency Exit: "In case of stepped out of cabin, attract handle."

Ninety minutes later we land at Samjiyon, near the "sacred mountain of the revolution," Mt. Paektu. At 8898 feet, it is Korea's highest peak, and legend has it is where Korea's first founder, the mythical Tangun, is said to have descended 5,000 years ago.

The drive from the airstrip to the base of the mountain is an ecologist's dream, pre-industrial, rice fields cultivated by hand, lush, green landscapes, clear streams, and unlogged forests of white birches. As we rise in elevation, the trees shrink into the soil, until we are in a moonscape, slopes of stones like discolored bone, the flanks of the stirring volcano, Paektu (white topped mountain). This is the sublime hill, the most celebrated in North Korea, and we chevron to the summit in our Chinese bus. From the caldera rim we can look down to a beautiful blue crater lake, a sapphire in the hands of the volcano, and across the lip... to Manchuria. There we see Chinese tourists waving back at us. This is also the spot where Kim Il-sung (Dear Leader) and his son Kim Jong-il (Great Leader) stood, with backs to the caldera, looking commandingly at the camera, offering up enlightenment and guidance. The image is recreated in vivid posters all over the country, so it is a delight to be here, like visiting the setting of an epic film.

There is a gondola that carries visitors down to Lake Chonji, Heaven Lake, alongside a steep stairway. It's five Euro each for the ride, but I'm tempted by the exercise, and 40 minutes later meet the group by the frigid water. When Kim Jong-il died, it is said the ice on the lake cracked "so loud, it seemed to shake the Heavens and the Earth."

We take some photos, walk the verge of the lake, and then ready for the gondola ride back the rim. But the cables aren't moving. The power has gone off, and nothing moves, even us. The prospect of climbing up is too grim for many in our group, including one woman who has shrapnel in her leg from a recent visit to Syria. So, as tempers and temperatures rise, and I consider what it would take to carry someone on my back, the power lurches back on, and the gondolas open their doors for the ride to heaven.

The afternoon presents a personal surprise... we drive to The Secret Camp, where Kim Jong-il, our guides tell us, was born in Japanese-occupied Korea on February 16, 1942. His birth was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow across the sky over the mountain, and a new star in the heavens. The simple log cabin (with roebuck deer hooves as door handles) of this auspicious birth stands near a stream called Sobek, spilling from its eponymous mountain. It turns out Sobek means "small mountain" (compared to Paektu).

Sobek is the name of the adventure travel company I founded quite a few years ago, but it was christened after the crocodile god of the Nile, not a waterway named for a mini-me mountain. Nonetheless, our hosts are excited with the coincidence; I am honored just the same. We take the night at the cavernous Baegaebong Hotel, which could be the set for The Shinning, though we are the only guests. Nearby are the wide and scenic Rimyongsu Falls, spouting gemlike from a basaltic cliff, and there is a ski slope next door. But this is fall, so the assumption is we are off season, or tourism hasn't lived up to expectations yet.

The next day is triumphal, the morning enormous as the sky. We visit the Revolutionary Regional Museum, fronted by ectype Siberian tigers, which still roam these mountains, and are traditional symbols of a unified Korea. Inside, the displays celebrate the North Korean victories over Japan and America, including a video of such shown on Toshiba monitor using Windows XP.

Then off to the Samjiyon Grand Monument, featuring a giant bronze statue of a young, stiff-backed Kim Il-sung in military regimentals, flanked by squads of oversized soldiers, back-dropped by Samji Lake, dotted like snowflakes with egrets. Revolutionary music plays from discreetly placed speakers. I am urged to buy a bouquet of flowers to lay at the base, and then we all line up, sans hats, and make a respectful bow. Photos are allowed, but only of the entire statue from the front, not parts or backsides.

After lunch (the food is always hearty, plentiful, and includes meat of some sort, always kimchi, soup, rice, potatoes and beer, but never dog, which is a summer dish), we make a 40-minute charter flight to the Orang airport, not far from the border with Russia, landing next to a line of MiG-21s. From there we drive three hours to Mount Chilbo, "Seven Treasures," a national park, and applicant for UNESCO World Heritage status. Along the way we pass tobacco and corn fields, cabbage patches, trips of goats, and lines of oxcarts carrying goods somewhere. We first stop beneath a 200-year-old chestnut tree at the Kaesimsa Buddhist temple ("America bombed the churches and Buddhist temples," Mr. Lee tells us, "but they missed this one."). It was built in 826, and serves today as a repository for important Buddhist sculptures, paintings, and scriptures. The monk has us gather in the temple, below images of flying apsaras, where he taps a gourd and chants. He says he prays for our good health and happiness, and that we will contribute to the peace of the world. Then he suggests we contribute to the donation jar.

It's a short hike to Inner Chilbo, an astonishing vista of wind and water sculpted turrets, buttes, mesas, masts, cathedrals and temples, a stunning combination of Yosemite, Bryce and Zion National Parks. Mr. Lee, in a North Face jacket and Prospect running shoes, plucks some pine mushrooms off the path, and shares them with the group, saying these are delicacies in Japan, sometimes selling for $100 a stem.

After a few short hikes, we bus into a box canyon, and check into the closest thing North Korea has to an eco-lodge, the Outer Chilbo Hotel. The accommodations are spartan (plastic buckets filled with washing water outside the doors), but the setting--high cliffs on three sides, wooded grounds, a clear singing creek -- is something apropos to an Aman Resort, and may yet someday be.

The day next, as the light struggles into the canyons, we hike to the Sungson Pavilion, a high platform that affords 360 degree views of Outer Chilbo, grand vistas of the serrated mountains and sheer cliffs that encase the park. We can see our eco-lodge from here, which has a miniature appearance, like something carved by hand and set down out of scale at the base of the mountains. The vantage collapses perspective, creating an illusion of both proximity and depth, as though the hospitality below could be reached in a moment, or not at all.

And then we unwind the highlands, and trundle to Sea Chilbo, a last sigh of igneous rock that decants into the East Sea of Korea (Sea of Japan on most Western maps). The coastal village through which we pass is dripping with squid, hanging like ornaments form rooftops, clothes lines, and every exposed surface of houses that look as though they grew out of the ground. The permeating perfume is eau de cephalopod. Past the electronic fences (to keen potential invaders out), on a wide beach, a long white table cloth is spread, and we settle down to a picnic feast of fresh calamari, crab, yellow corvina, anchovies, seaweed, and beer, just before a bruise of clouds fills the space between earth and sky, and the rain sets in.

The dirt road to Chongjin is lined with magnolias (in the north of North Korea we experience almost no pavement), and a richness of no billboards or advertising of any sort. We pass hundreds of soldiers, part of a million man army, in olive drab striding the highway; tractors that look like Mater from the Cars movies; and smoke-billowing trucks, which have furnaces on the flatbeds where wood is fed for fuel. At dusk the countryside becomes subdued; shadows soften the hillsides, and there is a blending of lines and folds. It's dark as we wheel into the steel and shipbuilding town, generously lit with streaks of neon (Hong Kong without the brands). We stop at the Fisherman's Club, which is playing a video of launching rockets and enthusiastically clapping crowds as we order up Lithuanian vodka and something called "Eternal Youth Liquor," which has a viper curled up inside the bottle, like a monster tequila worm.

We stagger into the Chongjin Hotel, past a pair of Kenwood speakers playing a stringed version of "Age of Aquarius," stumble up the stairs beneath a poster of "The Immortal Flower, Kimjongilia," a hybrid red begonia designed to bloom every year on Kim Jong-il's birthday, and into rooms where the bathtubs are considerately pre-filled with water to use to flush the non-flushing Toto toilets.

Motivational marshal music cracks the day. We can't leave the hotel compound (some power-walk the driveway for exercise, looking like guests at the Hanoi Hilton), but several of us gather at the gate and watch the beginnings of the day. The street is being swept, folks are walking and biking to work in their shiny synthetic suits, children are being hustled to school, and a woman in a balcony across the way is videotaping us as we photograph her.

North Korea's got talent. The highlight of the day is a visit to a primary school, where a troupe of red lip-sticked, costumed children between ages 4 and 6 sing, dance and play instruments as though maestros. They play guitars, drums, a Casio organ, and a gayageum, the traditional Korean zither-like string instrument, with one outstanding student plucking as though Ravi Shankar.

With the long tapers of afternoon light we are back in Pyongyang, and on the way to the hotel pass the first billboard we've seen, featuring The Peace Car, a handsome SUV the result of a joint-venture between Pyonghwa Motors of Seoul, a company owned by the late Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, and a North Korean government-owned corporation that also works on nuclear procurement. Several of the slick vehicles are lined up in the hotel parking lot, alongside Mercedes, BMWs and the occasional Volga.

In the sweet liquid light of morning, after a breakfast of scrambled eggs, toast, potato chips and instant coffee, noshed to the tune of "Those Were the Days, My Friend," (it is originally a Russian song, called "Dorogoi dlinnoyu") we set out to tour Pyongyang, a city that could be called Edifice Rex, for its complex of outsized compensation monuments. We take the lift (five Euros each) up the 560-foot tall Juche Tower, named for Kim Il-sung's blended philosophy of self-reliance, nationalism, and Marxism-Leninism. We wander the base of a 98-foot-high statue of the holy trinity -- a man with a hammer, one with a sickle, and one with a writing brush (a "working intellectual"). We parade through the city's largest public space, Kim Il-sung Square, akin to Red Square or Tiananmen, featuring giant portraits of President Kim Il-sung, as well as Marx and Lenin. We bow again and place flowers at another giant bronze statue of the Great Leader, president for life even in death. We pay homage to the Tower to Eternal Life, with its stone inscription: "The Great Leader, Comrade Kim Il-sung, Will Always Be With Us." We admire huge statues in front of the Art Museum of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il blazing some battlefield on horseback, and two weddings taking place near the hooves. And we pass scores of impressive, oversized buildings, from the library to museums to the notorious 105-story, pyramid-shaped Ryugyong Hotel, the dominant skyline feature, unfinished more than 20 years after construction began (it seems, from some angles, to list a bit, like the Tower of Pisa).

The metro, deepest in the world, seems designed to withstand a nuclear attack. If it were much deeper it would come out in the South Atlantic Ocean near Argentina, its antipode. The stations are named after themes and characteristics from the revolution, and we take a five stop run from Glory Station (festooned with chandelier lights that look like celebratory fireworks) to Triumph Station, lined with socialist-realist mosaics and murals.

And we finish the day with a step down to the Taedong River and onto the USS Pueblo, or as the North Koreans say without variation, "the armed American spy ship, Pueblo." It's a rusty bucket at this point, 43 years after the incident, and the guides, in navy togs, show us the crypto room packed with teletypes and ancient communications gear, the .50-caliber machine gun on the bow, the bullet holes from the North Korean sub chaser, and the spot where a US sailor was hit and died. We watch a short video featuring Lyndon Johnson alternatively threatening and claiming the ship a fishing vessel (not true), and then his apology, which allowed the release of the 82 crew members exactly 11 months after they were captured.

The final day of the trip we head south, to the DMZ, the 2.5-mile-wide swath near the 38th parallel that separates North and South Korea, a border so tense it could squeeze the breath out of stones. The paved road is wide and flat, seeming to stretch the length of the world. It is big enough to land an aircraft in an emergency. And scattered every few miles are 'tank traps," concrete pillars that can be pushed over to ensnare an armored vehicle heading north. We pass through several military checkpoints along the way, but never with incident.

Once at the DMZ we are ushered into Panmunjom, the Joint Security Area where the armistice was signed July 27, 1953, ending a war in which almost 900,000 soldiers died (including 37,000 Americans) -- and more than two million civilians were killed or wounded.

"We were victorious," the guide, who wears three stars on his shoulder, shares, and adds: "We have very powerful weapons. Though you in America are very far away, you are not safe... but don't be nervous."

Then he points out a display case with an ax and photos of an incident in 1976 when two American soldiers tried to cut down an obstructing tree on the wrong side of the line, and were dispatched by the North Koreans.

We step single file through several gates, and our guide points out a flagpole 52 stories high, heaving a 600-pound red, white, and blue North Korean flag; beyond is the South Korean version, not nearly as high. Birds and torn clouds and cigarette smoke cross between the two, and little else.

At the white dividing line, cutting through the center of three blue negotiation huts, we can look across the barbed wire to our doppelgangers, tourists snapping pictures of us snapping shots of them. We're not allowed to shout, but I make a small wave, and my mirror image waves back.
On the way back we stop at the Royal Tomb of King Kongmin, a 14th-century mausoleum with twin burial mounds, looking like giant stone gumdrops, surrounded by statues of grinning animals from the Chinese zodiac. Inside are the remains of Kongmin, 31st king of the Koryo Dynasty (918-1392), and his wife, the Mongolian princess Queen Noguk.

Miss Lee, exquisite in high heels and frilly blouse, dark eyes quiet as a pond, points to a mountain across from the tomb, and says it is called "Oh My God." She then tells the story about the place. When Kongmin's wife died, he hired geomancers to find the perfect spot for her tomb. Upset when everyone failed, he ordered that the next to try would be given anything desired with success; with failure, he would be killed immediately. When one young geomancer told him to review a spot in the mountains, Kongmin told advisors that if he waved his handkerchief they should execute the geomancer.

Kongmin climbed up to review the site. Upon reaching the top, exhausted and sweaty, he dabbed his brow with his handkerchief, while pronouncing the place perfect. When he found that the geomancer had been executed because of his mistaken handkerchief wave, he exclaimed "Oh, my God!"

Before heading back to Pyongyang our guides take us shopping at a souvenir stop in Kaesong, North Korea's southernmost city, and the ancient capital of Koryo, the first unified state on the Korean Peninsula.

Outside we're greeted by young women in bright traditional tent-shaped dresses. The glass door sports a "DHL Service Available" sign, and inside is a cornucopia of temptations, from statuary to stamps, oil paintings to jade to silks to pottery, to stacks of books by The Great Leader and Dear Leader, to ginseng to cold Coca Cola. I can't resist a series of dinner placemats of North Koreans bayonetting Americans with the saying "Let's kill the U.S. Imperialists."
Our guides throughout have been warm, welcoming, gracious, informative, funny and friendly.

On the last night, sharing a beer at the lobby bar, when asked, they insist there is no prostitution in North Korea, no use of illegal drugs, no homosexuality, no homeless, no illiteracy, and no litter. Everything is clean. There is universal health care and education. It's a perfect society, flawless as a new coin. And it's the same jewel box presented when I visited the People's Republic of China under Mao Tse-tung in 1976.


Human Rights Roundup: The Special Rapporteur’s Report
by Stephan Haggard        | April 10th, 2012

North Korea is one of ten countries with a “country mandate” under the UN Human Rights Council’s “special procedures.” As a result, it has a Special Rapporteur to monitor human rights. (Several other countries have “independent experts”; the other countries operating under these special procedures are Cambodia, Ivory Coast, Haiti, Iran, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and the Palestinian occupied territories.) The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was first established by the Commission on Human Rights in 2004, under resolution 2004/13. Since then, it has been extended annually and has just been extended again.

As Roberta Cohen notes in a very useful overview at 38North, hope about establishing a multilateral dialogue with North Korea springs eternal. Don’t hold your breath.

In August 2010, Marzuki Darusman, a former Indonesian attorney general, succeeded Vitit Muntarbhorn of Thailand as Special Rapporteur. As Cohen notes, he was selected in part because his government had friendly relations with North Korea and there might have been hope for a breakthrough. None has been forthcoming.

The most recent Special Rapporteur report, released in February, does not pull any punches; it can be found here. In general, it is a dreary recitation of the country’s human rights problems but with several twists; in particular, the report notes that the situation may have deteriorated because of the food situation and new controls on the border.

A few highlights that caught our eye:
  • The Special Rapporteur is blunt about the underlying sources of the country’s food problems. While noting the obligation to provide humanitarian assistance, the report notes “the importance of meeting the food shortfall by ensuring that an adequate quantity of food of good quality is available through additional imports by the Government…” The report also notes that “the primary obligation to feed people lies with the State, which must take all measures necessary to rectify existing flaws in the production and distribution system that have contributed for the shortage of food” and “calls on the Government to allocate more resources to agriculture rather than to its military sector.”
  • The report provides a good overview of the deficiencies in judicial process, but also highlights a development that we note in Witness to Transformation as well: the 2007 “reform” of the criminal code. The report is worth quoting at length:
  • “On 19 December 2007, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea adopted a unique form of law, referred to as an “addendum to the Criminal Code for ordinary crimes”, which has gone largely unnoticed by the international community. The addendum is a very significant legislative act, given that was formally adopted by the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly as a Government directive….The addendum comprises a total of 23 articles, of which 16 stipulate the death penalty for a number of crimes, including smuggling and dealing in narcotics, seizing State property, currency counterfeiting and illicitly selling State resources. With the adoption of the addendum, the total number of crimes that carry the death penalty in the country stands at 22. Furthermore, the addendum contains a number of vague expressions, such as “the gravest cases” or “extremely serious cases”, which leave room for arbitrary decisions by the authorities. The addendum permits the application of capital punishment for various crimes as long as the authorities are able to establish that the crime in question was “extremely serious” and falls under one of the 16 listed crimes.”
  • The Special Rapporteur’s report underlines concerns about the refoulement of asylum-seekers, although not mentioning China by name. It notes reports that border controls were tightened in 2011, making access to international protection more difficult, as well as “shoot to kill” orders against those attempting to flee the country.

The DPRK has been completely uncooperative with the special procedures. While Darusman has made official trips to South Korea and Japan to gather information, the North Koreans continue to reject any dealings with the Special Rapporteur process and no Special Rapporteur has visited the country. Nor has North Korea cooperated with any of the “thematic mandates” dealing with particular issues, such as treatment of prisoners.

The North Korean response to the report contains its usually flowery language (“the ‘Special Rapporteur’… is none other than a marionette running here and there, representing the ill-minded purposes of string-pullers such as the United States, Japan and the States members of the European Union”).

But the North Korean response does contain one interesting detail. The North Koreans note that in 2001 they had entered into a bilateral dialogue with the European Union on human rights that was progressing. They claim this process was derailed by the turn to the UNCHR special procedures. Given the difficulties of the US, Japan and the ROK being involved on this issue, and Chinese indifference, could Europe have a future role in this regard?

We are skeptical it would have much effect. As we noted in Witness to Transformation, the North Koreans reject the UNHCR special procedures because they target North Korea. The North Koreans have cooperated with the UN’s Universal Periodic Review conducted under the aegis of the UN Human Rights Council because it is universal. North Korea showed up for its first review in 2009-10. Member states made 167 recommendations. About a third were rejected out of hand, but to our knowledge the government has not addressed a single one of the others that it offered to take under advisement.

The UN’s North Korean Human Rights page—including all relevant documents—can be found here. The US has a special envoy for human rights in North Korea, currently Ambassador Bob King. The last US special envoy report came out in 2009 and can be found here. And again, Roberta Cohen’s overview provides more detail and is worth reading.


Sources: The Special Rapporteur’s Report on Human Rights in North Korea
by Stephan Haggard        | October 16th, 2012

North Korea is one of a handful of autocracies that fall under a Special Rapporteur mandate with respect to its human rights record. The mandate was adopted by the UN Human Rights Commission in 2004, and has been extended annually since. Each year, the Special Rapporteur submits two reports, one to the Human Rights Council and one to the General Assembly.

The current report to the UNGA—issued last month and the first such report since the ascendance of Kim Jong Un—focuses on freedom of opinion and expression; the Criminal Procedure Code; the case of Oh Kil Nam and his family; the situation of asylum seekers and trafficking of persons and the economic situation in the country.

A few highlights—or low points—of the report:
  • The Special Rapporteur reports frequently drill down into features of the legal system that grant extraordinary discretion to prosecutors and curtail due process. Among those noted in this report are a number of measures that are illegal, but not clearly defined:
    • “For instance, the Criminal Code prescribes punishments, mainly in the form of hard labor, for a person who “plunders” the property of the State (see art. 90), occupies a property of the State by “deception” (see art. 92), “defrauds” the State or a social cooperative organization (see art. 92) or “hinders” the normal management of the economy [...] of State property (see art. 136). However, nowhere in the Criminal Code are terms such as plunder, deception, defraud or hinders defined.”
    • Officials and managers are technically liable for outcomes that may be beyond their control. For instance, article 143 calls for punishment by labor for up to two years if an inspector fails to inspect or repair equipment that leads to damage or stoppage of production of any goods.
    • Article 233 of the Criminal Code still permits up to five years of hard labour for anyone “illegally” crossing a border of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, despite the fact that the restraints on cross-border movement are in violation of the fundamental right to leave any country, including one’s own.
    • The report provides a good overview of the strange case of Oh Kil Nam, a South Korean who was lured to North Korea with promises of a stable job and medical care for his wife Shin Sook Ja, but who were then pressed into service for the regime to turn other South Koreans (both as a broadcaster on “the Voice of National Salvation” aimed at the ROK and as a recruiter in Germany). When Oh defected, his family was held hostage and purportedly interned in Yodok. His wife was subsequently reported to have died and Mr. Oh was informed that his children wanted nothing to do with him. In an example of how the UN system can be fruitfully involved in spotlighting and airing the abuses of guilt by association, the the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has sought information on the fate of Ms. Shin and her children and protested their detention, which is contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
    • The report highlights the myriad ways in which the ongoing economic crisis in the country in and of itself constitutes a violation of a number of basic human rights conventions. These include the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, rights which have been used by dictators to justify authoritarian rule.
    • The Special Rapporteur continues to emphasize the rights of asylum seekers, and makes several points we have repeated ad nauseum:
      • “The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that while some persons flee the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea due to persecution, others leave for economic reasons. Whatever their motivation, it is pertinent to provide all individuals with protection. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951, founded on the principle of non-refoulement for refugees, defines a refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of origin due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership in a social group. Persons leaving a country for reasons of economic hardship may be entitled to refugee status if they have been compelled to leave the country due to discriminatory economic and political policies by the Government.”
      • Moreover, the report makes an argument which we think carries even greater force: that “individuals who flee the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea due to economic hardship may also be refugees sur place. Refugees sur place may not fit the definition of persons who are refugees when they leave their country, but become refugees subsequently because of a valid fear of persecution upon their return, due to their membership in one of the specified categories. People from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who leave their country for economic reasons can thus become refugees sur place if they have valid fears of persecution upon return.”

For realists, these efforts to remind North Korea and the international community of its legal obligations may seem quaint. We disagree, and heartily endorse them. Sovereignty claims are frequently the cloak of rogues; it is always worthwhile to have an international ombudsman paid to make that point.

One odd thing about the report are its citations–or lack thereof.  Material from the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea is used abundantly but never acknowledged explicitly. Likewise my colleague Marcus Noland’s estimates of North Korean inflation are reproduced, attributed to “sources”–plural.  I never knew Noland had multiple personality disorder.

UN Human Rights Council should investigate into the conflict in Sri Lanka


Revisiting Sri Lanka's bloody war
MARZUKI DARUSMAN, STEVEN RATNER and YASMIN SOOKA , IHT , March 3, 2012 Saturday

ABSTRACT
The U.N. Human Rights Council should create an investigative body to get at the truth of the conflict's final stages.

FULL TEXT
Even as attention is riveted on the bloodshed in Syria, another conflict, far more deadly, is belatedly attracting the notice it deserves.
Beginning this week, the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva has returned to an issue that has haunted it since 2009 - the bloody finish to Sri Lanka's civil war. That conflict ended on a stretch of beach in the country's northeast, as the remaining fighters of the Tamil Tigers and tens of thousands of traumatized civilians were surrounded by and surrendered to the Sri Lankan Army.
Sri Lankans and many abroad rejoiced at the defeat of a force that had routinely deployed terrorist tactics. But even as the government's military campaign was under way, it became clear that the cost in civilian lives from its attacks on the Tigers was enormous. Right after the war, the Human Rights Council, to the shock of many observers, passed a resolution praising Sri Lanka's conduct of the war. Sri Lanka's president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, promised Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the time that he would address the question of accountability for violations against civilians.
When, a year later, the government had done nothing to carry out Rajapaksa's commitment, the secretary general asked the three of us to study the allegations of atrocities during the last stages of the war and Sri Lanka's response. In our report, we found credible evidence that both sides had systematically flouted the laws of war, leading to as many as 40,000 deaths - many multiples more than caused by the strife in Libya or Syria.
The bulk of that total was attributable to deliberate, indiscriminate, or disproportionate governmental attacks on civilians, through massive shelling and aerial bombardment, including on clearly marked hospitals.
Rather than tackling these allegations head-on through a truth commission or criminal investigations, Sri Lanka created a ''Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission,'' whose mandate, composition and methods all cast serious doubt on its willingness to uncover what really happened in those fateful months.
When the commission issued its final report last November, it ignored or played down our report's conclusions and characterized civilian deaths as stemming from the army's response to Tamil Tiger shelling or cross-fire - as sporadic, exceptional and mostly inevitable in the heat of battle.
When it came time to proposing next steps for the government, it called for investigations by the same entities - the army and the attorney general - who have a track record of ignoring governmental abuses for decades.
The report had some welcome elements, too. It recognized some of the root causes of the war, as well as the responsibility of both the government and Tigers for civilian casualties. And it endorsed our view that Sri Lanka had a duty to provide truth, justice and reparations to victims; release detainees; and protect the state's besieged journalists.
Yet the fact is that numerous recommendations of prior commissions of inquiry have not been implemented by the government.
The Human Rights Council's members are currently looking at a draft resolution, circulating at the initiative of the United States, to demand action from Sri Lanka on uncovering the truth and achieving some real accountability. The United States deserves a great deal of credit for trying to get the council to move on this issue. It is time for the council to correct its embarrassing decision from 2009.
Yet such a demand is not enough. Given Sri Lanka's unwillingness to take concrete steps, the best way to get to the truth is for the council to create an independent investigative body to determine the facts and identify those responsible, as we recommended in our report.
For Sri Lanka to experience a true peace, rather than simply the peace of the victor, truth and accountability are essential. This is the lesson from states as varied as South Africa, Sierra Leone and Argentina. The lack of much outside interest in the bloodshed while it happened cannot be an excuse for continuing to ignore the situation. The international community must now assume its duty to ensure that Sri Lanka fulfills its responsibilities to all its people and to the rest of the world.

NOTES: is a former attorney-general of Indonesia. Steven Ratneris a law professor at the University of Michigan. Yasmin Sookais the executive director of the Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa.

Reforming the United Nations: Lessons Learned

United Nations, Human Rights, Global Change, Democracy Promotion, International Relations

Ted Piccone, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

In testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ted Piccone discusses how constructive U.S. engagement at the United Nations serves U.S. interests in international peace, security and democracy. Piccone focuses on key issues of human rights and UN reform, outlining how the United States can best influence outcomes that support its fundamental goals.

My name is Ted Piccone. I am a senior fellow and deputy director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, a think tank devoted for nearly a century to independent research and analysis on public policy issues. The views expressed in this testimony are my own and do not represent any official position of Brookings.

For today’s hearing, I would like to focus my comments on the key question of whether U.S. engagement at the United Nations, especially on issues of human rights, is worth continuing and how we can best influence outcomes that support our fundamental goals of advancing international peace, security, democracy and human rights, a longstanding bipartisan tradition.

I come to this question from nearly two decades of experience as a senior foreign policy advisor in the Clinton administration, as a leader of a nongovernmental organization promoting international cooperation for democracy and human rights, and as a researcher studying the international community’s role in protecting human rights at the local level. Since 2003, I have been deeply engaged in examining what role the United States and other governments play in promoting human rights and democracy internationally, particularly through the United Nations and the Community of Democracies. Most recently, I completed an 18-month study last October on the contribution of the UN’s independent experts on human rights to protecting universal values at the national level.

As a student of international organizations, my first rather obvious observation is to note that the United Nations is an instrument of its member states which ultimately control its actions. Therefore, when we talk of the “United Nations,” I try to distinguish between actions controlled by individual sovereign governments, acting alone or collectively, and decisions taken by the UN bureaucracy. As we know, it is the member states that in the end make the place operate as it does. This leads one to recognize quickly that the institution is limited in what it can do and is imperfect. It can certainly, however, be made better. I applaud the Committee for its efforts to consider how best to do that.

I appreciate the frustration that Members of Congress feel toward the United Nations given our longstanding support and investment in its work and the shared desire to ensure our tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently. I also recognize that governments often have competing interests and therefore must engage in the hard labor of negotiation and compromise to get anything done. In such an environment, the United States doesn’t always get its way. But more often than not, with the right style of leadership, it has a proven track record of leading the institution toward effective results that improve the lives of millions of people around the world. As one measure of how the UN serves U.S. interests, I would point to the UN’s role in reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. I can think of no better way to honor our troops’ sacrifice than to ensure that we leave behind effective institutions that will help these societies to heal and move toward a healthier future. The United Nations helps us do that and at a cost much less than if we had to do it alone. Our contribution to the United Nations amounts to only one-tenth of one percent of the federal budget. Given all that the United Nations does around the world to feed people, support elections, keep the peace and shelter refugees, that is a good return for the dollar.

I also want to note at the outset that, according to various polls, the United Nations is viewed favorably by publics in most countries around the world, including by the American people. This means the United Nations can serve as a respected global platform for a range of activities that serve U.S. interests, from peacekeeping and counterterrorism activities, to humanitarian assistance, development projects and human rights promotion. It gives us access and influence we would not necessarily have if we acted alone and helps us share the burden of maintaining international peace in ways that are of direct benefit to the U.S. taxpayer.

You are familiar with the data on the cost efficiencies of UN peacekeeping operations, such as the GAO study that shows it would have cost the United States eight times as much as it cost the UN to respond to the earthquake disaster in Haiti last year. Let me give a similar example from the field of democracy promotion, a topic of particular interest at the moment. In 2005, with the leadership of President Bush, the United States succeeded in establishing a new UN Democracy Fund to support civil society’s efforts to build democracy and promote human rights at the grassroots level. In the first five years of operation, the United States’ cumulative contribution of $33.3 million has leveraged an additional $88 million in donations from a wide variety of countries such as India, Qatar, Sweden, Japan, Korea, Romania, Ecuador and Israel. Among other things, this fund has made grants of nearly $19 million to civil society groups throughout the Arab world for projects to promote women’s rights in Egypt and Yemen, youth empowerment in Lebanon and Jordan and parliamentarian capacity in Bahrain. This is precisely the kind of value added the UN can provide that serves our interests in fostering credible democratic transitions in that part of the world.

The UN Human Rights System

Ever since Eleanor Roosevelt led the campaign for adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has been instrumental in translating those rights into practice. Despite years of ideological rifts and Cold War polemics, the international community, with U.S. leadership, has built a solid foundation for elaborating universal norms, monitoring behavior, assisting victims and holding abusers accountable. While the Human Rights Council is the principal political forum for considering these issues, this system goes far beyond the debating halls in Geneva and is increasingly being mainstreamed throughout the UN.

Condemning bad human rights behavior by states is important to do. But when evaluating the performance of the Human Rights Council, I encourage the Committee to look beyond the traditional condemnatory resolutions to what the United Nations does to promote human rights more broadly and around the globe. For example, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the 20-plus field offices that serve as human rights experts on the ground and more than thirty additional human rights advisers and representatives to peacekeeping missions and country teams, the nine treaty bodies and implementing committees that monitor violations and take testimony from victims, the 41 independent experts mandated by the Human Rights Council to investigate rights abuses and prod states to correct them, the voluntary funds that provide direct support to victims of torture and slavery, the international criminal tribunals – these all serve as reinforcing building blocks for a global support system that seeks to prevent violations, protect victims, hold violators to account, and help states respect and implement international norms. These activities all serve the UN’s core mission of defending universal rights in accordance with its Charter, a point reinforced by leaders at the World Summit in 2005, and should not be dismissed as “indirect activities” that can be spun off from the core budget and subject to the vagaries of voluntary funding.

Human rights as the third pillar of the UN system, which great Americans like Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie helped create, is, in fact, starved for support. According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the proportion of the overall UN regular budget devoted to human rights is just 2.8% of the total 2010-11 biennium budget. While this level is actually higher than five years ago, we are still trying to do human rights on the cheap. The results, not surprisingly, fall way short of addressing meeting current needs. Given the bipartisan consensus on the importance of promoting democracy and human rights to our national security, and the high value that victims of abuse place on the direct assistance the UN system provides to them, we should actually be trying to increase our investments in these cost-effective instruments, rather than trying to weaken them.

The Human Rights Council

I now want to turn the Committee’s attention to the Human Rights Council and try to analyze, despite its many imperfections, what works and doesn’t work and why U.S. engagement makes a difference for human rights defenders and victims who count on us to play a leadership role. I want to be clear I do not look at the Council with rose-colored glasses – a lot that goes on in Geneva is downright offensive. But I feel strongly that to abandon the field to adversaries like Cuba, Algeria and China would be an unconscionable act of betrayal of victims around the world who depend on the UN, and U.S. leadership, for their protection.

As I watched the General Assembly’s negotiations to create the Council in 2005 and 2006, it was hard to understand why the United States took a combative approach of isolating itself from the bargaining table rather than shaping a better outcome. It even went so far as to support a guaranteed seat for the five permanent Security Council members despite China’s and Russia’s dubious human rights credentials. After voting with just three other states against the final resolution, the United States chose to withdraw from the Council in its critical formative years, leaving a vacuum that was quickly filled by such countries as Musharaff’s Pakistan and Mubarak’s Egypt. Israel was left without a traditional ally as it faced five special sessions while the United States was absent. Since the United States joined the Council in June 2009, Israel has been the subject of only one special session.

Reducing the disproportionate focus on Israel is just one example of the impact that constructive U.S. engagement has had in turning things around. The Obama Administration has rolled up its sleeves and worked overtime to put in place an effective diplomatic strategy that has led to greater country scrutiny. Most notably, U.S. leadership helped pave the way for the consensus resolution condemning Muammar el-Gaddafi’s actions and demanding Libya be removed from the Council, an unprecedented step of condemnation. This is the kind of tangible progress that can only be achieved by direct engagement in the hand-to-hand diplomatic contest taking place in Geneva. The lesson learned is clear – cutting and running only allows our adversaries more room to control the results while direct participation protects and advances our interests and those of our allies.

Membership

According to the resolution establishing the Council, it is to be composed of states that uphold the highest standards of human rights; candidates are to make commitments demonstrating how they contribute to this goal and are then elected by the General Assembly through regional slates. A member committing gross and systematic violations of human rights may be removed from the Council upon a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly. States may serve for a maximum of six years before rotating off, meaning that governments like Cuba, China and Pakistan no longer have a semi-permanent seat as they did in the past.

While much attention is paid to the unfortunate fact that states that routinely violate human rights are elected to the Council, there is another, more positive side of the story that often gets missed. In every case when regional slates have been competitive, i.e., more candidates than open slots, rights-abusing candidates have lost. Competitive slates led to defeats of Venezuela (2006), Iran (2006), Belarus (2007), Sri Lanka (2008) and Azerbaijan (2009). And thanks to a vigorous but quiet U.S. campaign, Iran was forced to withdraw as a candidate for election to the Council in 2010. I know from personal experience of working with human rights advocates in those countries and knocking on doors at UN missions in New York that this is an effective tool for holding governments accountable to their obligations to uphold human rights. It is critical that the United States remain engaged in this effort to enlist states with better rights records to run for a seat and to defeat states with bad records. It is also essential that competitive slates become the norm.

While it helps to keep some of these governments off the Council, there are still too many members of the Council that seek to weaken the UN’s human rights mechanisms in the name of protecting national sovereignty. One way to address this problem, in addition to more competitive slates, is to lean on the surprisingly high number of democratic states that do not carry their weight at the Council. Governments like Indonesia, India, South Africa, Brazil and the Philippines routinely vote in ways that undermine country scrutiny, weaken norms or threaten the independence of the Special Procedures. Getting these states to use their voice and vote at the UN in more constructive ways should be a key priority for the United States which has close relations with these governments and the unique leadership prowess to build these necessary cross regional coalitions. We can best pressure these states if we are working from within the Council. It would also be helpful if Congress could weigh in directly with their counterparts in these countries to remind them of their obligations as members of the Council to uphold the highest standards of human rights.

I can think of no more powerful tool for cleaning up the Council, however, than the unprecedented action the General Assembly took this week to expel Libya from the Council. This is a historic step, a shot across the bow of those states that believe they can get away with killing innocent civilians and still maintain their reputation in the international community. The support from states like Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan may herald a break in the rigid bloc voting in the Organization of Islamic Conference and the African Union against country scrutiny. As more states transition away from autocratic rule, it will be important that they become good citizens on other issues as well, both at the Human Rights Council and in other international institutions.

Country Scrutiny

Engagement by the United States as an active member of the Council since July 2009 has reversed a growing tendency to avoid country-specific scrutiny, despite the clear language of the Council’s mandate to address specific situations, including responding to human rights emergencies. Most recently, the Council quickly convened a special session to address the Libyan government’s attacks on civilians which resulted in the unprecedented recommendation that Libya be suspended from membership, a step the General Assembly quickly adopted by consensus just this Tuesday. In addition, the Council has taken up special scrutiny of urgent situations in Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea and Kyrgyzstan with strong U.S. endorsement. The United States also led efforts to ensure that Sudan stay on the Council’s agenda, despite Khartoum’s intense efforts to block scrutiny, and pushed hard for and won renewed mandates to monitor ongoing problems in North Korea, Burma, and Cambodia.

This work continues. As we speak, U.S. diplomats are working hard to get the Council to adopt a resolution establishing a Special Rapporteur to investigate human rights violations in Iran, as well as a Commission of Inquiry for abuses committed by the military regime in Burma. In pursuing these initiatives, the United States is reaching out beyond its traditional allies in Europe to other regional players like Zambia, Ghana, Argentina and Chile to build the cross-regional coalition needed to get the Council to act. When the votes are not there, the United States has adopted other creative techniques, like the joint statement by 55 countries criticizing the deplorable human rights abuses in Iran on the anniversary of the stolen 2009 election, or the special dialogue after the summer 2010 mass rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to discuss ways to prevent future sexual violence. These results were made possible because the United States has a seat at the table and uses it effectively.

It is worth noting that the Council’s work to monitor the behavior of member states occurs not just in special sessions and condemnatory resolutions but through other mechanisms on the Council’s agenda during the year. The Special Procedures, a collection of independent experts charged by the Council to monitor and report on a variety of human rights issues, carry out country visits that allow in-depth scrutiny of specific problem areas including torture, extrajudicial executions and violence against women. The Universal Periodic Review, a new mechanism created with the establishment of the Council, allows a systematic review of every single UN member state, something that was impossible under the old Commission.

Special Procedures

A critical yet underappreciated tool of the Human Rights Council are the independent experts, collectively known as the Special Procedures, who are appointed to investigate human rights issues and make recommendations for correcting problems. Based on an 18-month study of how these mechanisms work, I was able to demonstrate the factors that result in their direct and tangible impact at the national level. The influence of these experts derives from a combination of their independence as unpaid specialists serving in their personal capacity and their mandate from a high UN body, granting them special access to the highest levels of government and a unique vehicle for victims to be heard. Their country visits help human rights defenders mobilize advocacy, give voice to victims, call attention to problems and remedies, and influence state behavior. If we care about what the frontline activists on the ground say they need from the UN, then we should care about preserving these experts’ independence and providing the resources they need to do their work.

The main hurdle the Council’s experts face as they go about the hard work of spotlighting human rights problems is the lack of state cooperation in allowing country visits and responding to appeals to address specific cases. They also face increasing pressure from certain member states to constrain and intimidate them. As a member of the Council, the United States has played a key role in successfully pushing back against these attempts. As a proven resource and catalyst for advancing human rights, the Special Procedures deserve greater resources than they currently receive -- approximately $280,000 per mandate or only seven percent of total OHCHR spending.

My report on the Special Procedures, entitled Catalysts for Rights: The Unique Contribution of the UN’s Independent Experts, contains much more detail on the unique contribution this mechanism makes to protecting human rights around the world and includes recommendations for strengthening them further. I request that it be entered in the official record of this hearing.

Universal Periodic Review

A new feature of the Council is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which by the end of 2011 will have examined the human rights record of every member of the United Nations, including states like China, Cuba, and Iran, which had managed to evade scrutiny for years. While some of the reviews have no doubt been marred by a lack of real criticism by some member states, the United States has actively contributed with constructive and pointed criticism of states under review. Another positive feature of UPR is that it gives citizens an unprecedented opportunity to press their governments for change in an international forum that is now webcast around the world. Civil society groups provide frank and public input to the process, creating an unprecedented open record for debate. As one leading human rights defender from Nigeria told me, the UPR process has opened the doors to direct dialogue with the government on human rights issues for the first time ever. Activists from Colombia acknowledge that the UPR process has elevated human rights on the government’s agenda, an observation I heard in Indonesia and Morocco as well. The United States has led by example by using its UPR to reach out to civil and human rights groups around the country.

Some argue that the United States should not be subject to review by states that systematically violate their own citizens’ human rights. This logic is a disservice to our proud tradition of seeking an ever more perfect union, one which is open to criticism by others and with a long record of steady improvements in respect for rights. We should be proud of that record and continue to lead the world by example.

Promoting and Defending Human Rights Norms

The Human Rights Council is an important forum for promoting international norms for human rights, a tradition begun under the previous Commission through the negotiation of a series of international treaties that define standards and create mechanisms to enforce them. By the same token, without effective engagement by the United States and other rights-respecting countries, it can be used by rights abusers to weaken human rights norms in theory and practice.

In this regard, there has been growing alarm around the world about attempts by some states to stifle the rise of independent civil society and erode international standards. In response, the United States led the charge in September 2010 to win approval for a new UN monitor for freedom of association and assembly. Effective U.S. diplomacy obtained the mandate with broad, cross-regional support and despite objections from countries such as Cuba and China.

Effective U.S. diplomacy has also helped to blunt efforts to challenge freedom of expression by creating a global anti-blasphemy law under the rubric of “defamation of religions.” Before we joined the Council, these efforts were picking up steam; now it is uncertain that the sponsors can secure the votes to pass a defamation resolution in the Council. A committee set up to consider the creation of new blasphemy norms has been indefinitely postponed due to opposition led by Washington. In addition, the United States championed the establishment of a new working group of independent experts to prevent discrimination against women.

Focus on Israel

The Human Rights Council has a structural bias against Israel by having an open-ended item on its agenda on Israel’s occupation of Palestine, and many of its resolutions have unfairly criticized its actions without demanding similar scrutiny of violations by other actors like Hamas in Gaza. The United States works hard to defend Israel against such bias, often standing alone with its ally in UN debates in Geneva and New York, a prospect that would be more difficult if it were to withdraw from the body.

It is not logical, however, to jump from that bias to the conclusion that the United States should disengage from either the Council in particular or the UN in general. Indeed, Israel itself has not jumped to that conclusion. Rather, Israel is actively engaged throughout the UN system and that engagement has increased in recent years. Just last week, Israel was a co-sponsor of the resolution that the Human Rights Council adopted on Libya, and it has co-sponsored a number of other resolutions on both country-specific and thematic issues. It routinely participates in debates and dialogues on a range of issues at the Council and recently, with U.S. support, joined JUSCANZ, a consultative group of like-minded states. Israel also is active on a whole array of other issues from peacekeeping to development, serving on numerous UN bodies and committees including the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to name just a few. Just recently, Israel decided to accede to UN Women, the new UN entity on gender equality and empowerment of women, and pledged close to a million dollars in dues.

Conclusion

As we know from the long history of our leadership at the United Nations, our hands-on engagement in all facets of the institution serves our interests, creates jobs at home, multiplies our leverage and spreads the cost of international peace and security to more countries. As we also know from more recent experience, the style of our leadership matters as much as the substance. When we throw up our hands and walk away in frustration, or expect exceptional treatment like withholding dues until reforms are instituted, we gain no friends, lose leverage with our allies, set bad precedents that could be used against us, and cede the floor to our adversaries. Instead, we should use our considerable influence as the world’s leading power, our strong voice and vote, as well as our veto in the Security Council, to prod other states to take action for reform or block bad decisions. We gain much more by using our leadership to cajole and persuade than by bullying and walking away.

In the short five years since the Council was created, we have seen two styles of U.S. leadership at play. One approach involved sitting on our hands and giving up, leaving human rights victims to fend for themselves and watching hard fought gains slip away. The other approach is to carry out a full court press to turn the tide against autocracy and toward freedom. We will not always win, and progress will be slow. To honor those Americans who have sacrificed for freedom, we must stay in the fight and continue to demand respect for the universal values we call our own.