FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-STM-142-2012
July 10, 2012
A Statement from the
Asian Human Rights Commission
The Presidential
Office announced that the current chairperson of the National Human Rights
Commission of Korea (NHRCK) will be reappointed for three-year tenure
4. Making public
discourse on the issue of human rights in North Korea
In May 2011, the NHRCK made a public announcement that it would receive complaints and investigate human rights violations in North Korea. Accordingly, it received about 80 cases of complaints by North Koreans re-settlers in South Korea. Shortly thereafter, the NHRCK made a policy recommendation to the Prime Minister's office. However, it is reported that the NHRCK made an internal decision a couple of weeks ago to dismiss those complaints due to legal and practical limitations.
When the public announcement was made, many civil society and academic scholars criticised the fact that the NHRCK has neither the power to investigate alleged human rights violations in North Korea nor the clout to make recommendations to the North Korean government. It was not only an abuse of power in accordance with the NHRCK Act itself but the withdrawal of an earlier decision made by the NHRCK in 2006. Moreover, it is reported that the publication overlapped with others publications made by government bodies, such as the Ministry of Reunification. As such, the recommendation to the Prime Minister's Office is nothing new but only the repetition made earlier by other government bodies.
For some, the NHRCK seems to have paid special attention to the issue of human rights in North Korea by ignoring its mandate under the existing law. Interestingly, as far as North Korean human rights issues are concerned, the NHRCK does not have neutral and balanced perspective by taking a rather firm stand. Clearly, it is a different approach to what the NHRCK has been dealing with in terms of the domestic human rights issues narrated above. What makes it different? The fact that the President asked the current chairperson of the NHRCK to pay attention to the human rights issues of the North Korea when the chairperson received a certificate of appointment by the President in July 2009.
Indeed, not taking a side in a controversy is not the work of the NHRCK. Rather, it is important for the NHRCK to take a stand towards the protection and promotion of human rights, which have been universally declared and adopted by the international community. Obviously, taking a stand for the President or for government policy implies that the NHRCK is nothing but another government apparatus under the influence of the President. While the NHRCK announced that it would receive complaints and investigate human rights violations in North Korea, it was fully aware that investigation would not be possible, and the complaints received would be dismissed in accordance with the law. However serious the NHRCK was, it turns out that their actions made a mockery of those who filed a complaint to the NHRCK with a genuine belief that the NHRCK would act ethically and transparently. It was a completely misleading performance.
Above all, the recent news that the current chairperson was thrown out led a local theatre to play a documentary film on the Yongsan case, which caused the death of five protesters and one policeman in early 2009. The fact that he decided not to take up the issue, represents an agony of the people with regard to the performance of the chairperson over the past three years.
If the reappointment is made at the National Assembly, this will indicate that the legislature acknowledges that the NHRCK is no longer independent, but performs its work as per government policy and under the will of President, like other government institutions. It will be the right time for human rights activists and civil society members to declare locally and internationally that the NHRCK plays only an administrative role for the government's policy and has become a state institution whose role it is to silence human rights violations across the country.
In May 2011, the NHRCK made a public announcement that it would receive complaints and investigate human rights violations in North Korea. Accordingly, it received about 80 cases of complaints by North Koreans re-settlers in South Korea. Shortly thereafter, the NHRCK made a policy recommendation to the Prime Minister's office. However, it is reported that the NHRCK made an internal decision a couple of weeks ago to dismiss those complaints due to legal and practical limitations.
When the public announcement was made, many civil society and academic scholars criticised the fact that the NHRCK has neither the power to investigate alleged human rights violations in North Korea nor the clout to make recommendations to the North Korean government. It was not only an abuse of power in accordance with the NHRCK Act itself but the withdrawal of an earlier decision made by the NHRCK in 2006. Moreover, it is reported that the publication overlapped with others publications made by government bodies, such as the Ministry of Reunification. As such, the recommendation to the Prime Minister's Office is nothing new but only the repetition made earlier by other government bodies.
For some, the NHRCK seems to have paid special attention to the issue of human rights in North Korea by ignoring its mandate under the existing law. Interestingly, as far as North Korean human rights issues are concerned, the NHRCK does not have neutral and balanced perspective by taking a rather firm stand. Clearly, it is a different approach to what the NHRCK has been dealing with in terms of the domestic human rights issues narrated above. What makes it different? The fact that the President asked the current chairperson of the NHRCK to pay attention to the human rights issues of the North Korea when the chairperson received a certificate of appointment by the President in July 2009.
Indeed, not taking a side in a controversy is not the work of the NHRCK. Rather, it is important for the NHRCK to take a stand towards the protection and promotion of human rights, which have been universally declared and adopted by the international community. Obviously, taking a stand for the President or for government policy implies that the NHRCK is nothing but another government apparatus under the influence of the President. While the NHRCK announced that it would receive complaints and investigate human rights violations in North Korea, it was fully aware that investigation would not be possible, and the complaints received would be dismissed in accordance with the law. However serious the NHRCK was, it turns out that their actions made a mockery of those who filed a complaint to the NHRCK with a genuine belief that the NHRCK would act ethically and transparently. It was a completely misleading performance.
Above all, the recent news that the current chairperson was thrown out led a local theatre to play a documentary film on the Yongsan case, which caused the death of five protesters and one policeman in early 2009. The fact that he decided not to take up the issue, represents an agony of the people with regard to the performance of the chairperson over the past three years.
If the reappointment is made at the National Assembly, this will indicate that the legislature acknowledges that the NHRCK is no longer independent, but performs its work as per government policy and under the will of President, like other government institutions. It will be the right time for human rights activists and civil society members to declare locally and internationally that the NHRCK plays only an administrative role for the government's policy and has become a state institution whose role it is to silence human rights violations across the country.
