NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA TALK BUT NOT ABOUT NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES OR HUMAN RIGHTS

Shin Dong-kyuk is the only man known to have been born and to escape from a North Korean prison known as Camp 14. A memoir detailing Shin Dong-hyuk’s life, “Escape from Camp 14” was published in English last year and recently hit the bookshelves in South Korea this month.

The unflinching account from a defector revealed how he picked corn kernels out of cow manure to eat as he competed with his family for food at one of North Korea’s notorious prison camps. He was also forced to watch his mother’s hanging and his brother’s execution.

He was born in a “total control zone” where prison authorities wield complete power and where guards beat children to death with no hesitation. His account put a human face on the abuses in North Korean prison camps, a brutal system which has survived twice as long as Stalin’s Soviet gulags and much longer than the Nazi concentration camps.

In March 2013, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva agreed to examine what it called “grave, widespread and systematic” violations of human rights in North Korea, including the use of prison camps.

South Korea, for its part does not avoid its share of international condemnation. Margaret Sekaggya, the U.N. special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, concluded a 10-day visit to South Korea on Friday by offering some harsh criticism for the country’s treatment of activists, who she said are subjected to harassment, physical violence, intimidation and unlawful surveillance due to their criticism of government policies. Ms. Sekaggya said that South Korea does not meet international standards in several areas, including the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association and labor rights, even though the country’s constitution guarantees them.

North and South Korean officials meet in Seoul on Wednesday and Thursday for their first high-level dialogue in six years. The meeting will be the first dialogue at a senior level since Kim Jong Un took power after the death of his father, Kim Jong-il in 2011.

The two Koreas agreed that in the talks in Seoul they would discuss reopening their joint industrial complex, as well as resuming cross-border tours and the Red Cross programs of reunions for families separated by the 1950-53 Korean War. The industrial complex in the North Korean border town of Kaesong and cross-border tours to the Diamond Mountain resort in southeastern North Korea had been two of the best-known symbols of South Korea’s past efforts to use economic cooperation to encourage the North to open up.

Prominently absent in the agenda for the Korean talks was any direct mention of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, or any discussion on the known human right abuses taking place in North and South Korea. Under Mr. Kim, North Korea has declared that it is no longer interested in talks on ending its nuclear weapons program, and its ruling Workers’ Party adopted a national strategy of reviving the country’s moribund economy while continuing to expand its nuclear arsenal. Regarding human rights abuses, officials from both countries deny any wrongdoing.

Dialogue at any level marks a positive sign in the countries’ recent history, which has seen North Korean nuclear tests and long-range rocket launches and “military exercises” by the South. However, given the importance of subjects such as the danger of nuclear weapons and the infringement on human rights by both countries, it is hoped that these talks are only the beginning of further discussions between the neighboring countries, which would ultimately include input from other interested parties and nongovernmental agencies.

 

The Syrian Conflict and the International Community: To Do Something or to Do Nothing, that is the Question

Violence in Syria has escalated into what has been labeled a civil war. According to the UN more than 60,000 people, mostly civilians, have died since the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime began in March 2011. The government of Bashar al-Assad, which is increasingly losing territory to rebel fighters, blames “terrorists” and “armed gangs” for the unrest, while the opposition and other nations have accused Assad’s forces of crimes against humanity.

To provide some background on the conflict it is important to know that Syria is a country of 21 million people with a Sunni Muslim majority (74%) and significant minorities of Alawites – the Shia heterodox sect to which Mr Assad belongs – and Christians. Mr. Assad has concentrated power in the hands of his family and other Alawites. The family of President Assad has been in power since his father, Hafez, took over in a coup in 1970.  Under Mr. Assad’s rule, critics have been imprisoned, domestic media has been tightly controlled, and economic policies have often benefited the elite. The country’s human rights record is among the worst in the world.

Pro-democracy protests erupted in March 2011 after the arrest and torture of a group of teenagers who had painted revolutionary slogans on their school’s walls in the southern city of Deraa. Security forces opened fire during a march against the arrests, killing four. The next day, the authorities shot at mourners at the victims’ funerals, killing another person. People thereafter began publicly demanding the overthrow of Mr. Assad in a way that had not previously occurred.

The Assad regime first reacted with a combination of minor concessions. It ended the 48-year-long state of emergency and introduced a new constitution. However, the authorities continued to use violence, besieging opposition strongholds. The UN became involved and instituted a ceasefire, which soon was violated by both sides. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Arab League envoy, Kofi Annan, have demanded an end to violence and have called for stronger international action, but China and Russia oppose sanctions and military intervention.

Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. -Arab League special envoy for Syria, told the Security Council this week that Syria had plunged into “unprecedented levels of horror.” He told the UN Security Council it had to act now to halt the carnage epitomized by the killing of at least 78 young men, who were found shot with a single bullet and dumped in a river in the battlefront city of Aleppo. Syria “is breaking up before everyone’s eyes,” Brahimi told the council’s 15 ambassadors. “Only the international community can help, and first and foremost the Security Council.”

The United States and European council members blame Russia, a staunch ally and key arms supplier for Assad’s government, and China for the Council’s inaction on the conflict. Moscow and Beijing have vetoed three resolutions condemning Assad and reject the idea of sanctioning his government. Iran’s support to the Assad regime has mapped Syria even further into the international context. The question of international engagement must be considered.

The international community, via the UN Security Council could pass a resolution to set up a transitional government to attempt an end to the bloodshed. International Syria mediator Lakhdar Brahimi said last week he could not move forward with a peace plan unless it was backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution and he warned that a ceasefire would only hold if it was overseen by a peacekeeping mission.

While Russia, China, and the rest of the world make up their mind about what to do about the Syrian conflict, Assad’s regime continues to commit crimes against humanity. On the other hand, given the experience in Egypt some say that perhaps it is better to let the Syrians to figure out their fate without arming the insurgents.

I suggest the following questions for reflection; do we do nothing when we know innocent people continue to die? Can the world afford another unstable “democracy” in the Middle East? Is this a precursor of a new cold war with Russia and China on one side and western allies on the other?

 

The Death Penalty: Does the Punishment Ever Fit the Crime?

“Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”

Albert Camus—”Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death” (1956).

Lindsay June Sandifor, a 56-year-old British woman caught smuggling blocks of cocaine in her suitcase has been sentenced to death in Indonesia. Even though prosecutors in Bali had asked for a 15-year sentence, the panel of judges handed down the death penalty. Ms. Sandifor was arrested last May after she was found to have blocks of cocaine weighing 4.7 kilograms (10.4 pounds) in her suitcase when she arrived on the island of Bali.

At the trial, the grandmother from Gloucestershire, England, said she was smuggling the drugs to protect her son. She said one of her co-accused had threatened to kill him if she did not comply. However Indonesian police said she was at the centre of a drugs importing ring involving three other Britons and an Indian who have also been arrested.

Southeast Asian governments impose the toughest drug sanctions on the planet and many impose the death penalty for individuals convicted of drug trafficking. The death penalty for drug cases has received a great deal of criticism from people who think that the penalty does not fit the crime and amounts to a disproportionate sanction.

Meanwhile, in India, the clamor for death sentences for the culprits of the brutal Delhi gang rape, which resulted in the death of a 23-year-old victim and the severe beating of her male companion, grows stronger. The head of India’s rights panel this past Tuesday said death penalty in any case is against the universal declaration of human rights. “[The] death penalty in any case is against universal declaration of human rights,” National Human Rights Commission chairman KG Balakrishnan said. However, it seems by most accounts that a vast majority of the Indian people want the death penalty imposed on the assailants.

According to Amnesty International, the trend internationally is unmistakably moving toward abolition. Use of the death penalty worldwide has continued to shrink, and use of the death penalty has also been increasingly curtailed in international law. Since 1990, an average of three countries each year have abolished the death penalty, and today over two-thirds of the world’s nations have ended capital punishment in law or practice.

Clearly, there is ever more recognition that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime, and that the imposition of such a penalty is very costly to democratic governments that must provide for procedural due process protections in its imposition.  But, are there crimes that deserve the death penalty? Can we as a society agree as to what crimes deserve the penalty of death? If governments cannot reach a consensus on what crimes deserve the death penalty, should the death penalty be abolished?

 

Tragedy in a Bus: Let’s Work for a New Year of Greater Human Rights’ Protection for Women Around the World

It is sad that this first post of the year is about the brutal killing of a young woman in New Delhi. However, a saying attributed to Buddha states that: “[t]here are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.” We better start recognizing fairly quickly the obvious truth that we, as a society are failing women, and that we have a moral and legal obligation to do better.

As the world knows, on Dec. 16, a 23-year-old woman and her male friend were returning home after watching a movie at a mall in southwest Delhi. After they boarded what seemed to be a passenger bus, the six men inside gang-raped and tortured the woman so brutally that her intestines were destroyed. The attackers also severely beat up the woman’s friend and threw them both from the vehicle, leaving her near death, and her friend with severe injuries. On Saturday morning, 13 days after she was brutalized, she died of multiple organ failure.

Shortly after the attack, tens of thousands of people took to the streets and faced down police officers, tear gas and water cannons to express their outrage. It was the most vocal protest against sexual assault and rape in India to date, and it set off nationwide demonstrations. The protesters took to the streets outraged about the lack of legal protection for women’s rights in the largest democracy in the world.

Although India has laws against rape; seats reserved for women in buses, female officers; and special police help lines, these measures have proven ineffective in the face of a patriarchal and misogynistic culture. It is a culture that believes that the worst aspect of rape is the defilement of the victim, who will no longer be able to find a man to marry her, and where the solution is often for the victim to marry the rapist. The rapists are obviously at fault in these cases, but those who blame women who are victims of rape, or do nothing to protect them, are accomplices in the victimization.

In 2012, of the more than 600 rape cases reported in Delhi, only one led to a conviction. Police officers, politicians, diplomats, heads of States, and regular people in the street who turn the other way are contributing to the problem.  Victims often believe they will not receive justice, and that they will be shunned if they report the rape; and the lack of convictions for rape support their belief. Rapists do not fear the consequences of their actions, because often their actions carry no consequences.

The volume of protests in public and in the media has made clear that the attack was a turning point and hopefully this horrendous tragedy will lead to more stringent laws that protect women. In Geneva, Navi Pillay, the U.N. Commissioner on Human Rights, called Monday for fundamental change in India: “Let us hope that 2013 will be the year the tide is turned on violence against women in India and all women can walk free without fear. … The public is demanding a transformation in systems that discriminate against women to a culture that respects the dignity of women in law and practice,” said Pillay.

I call for fundamental change not just in India but also everywhere in the world in the protection and respect for the victims of rape and other gender violence. I hope that this tragedy will be a catalyst for change in women rights around that world and that what the victim of this horrible crime had to endure serves to prevent further suffering for other women.

 

OUR CHILDREN, NOUS ENFANTS, NUESTROS NIÑOS, NOSSOS FILHOS, הילדים שלנו, BIZIM ÇOCUKLAR, NASZE DZIECI, أطفالنا, UNSERE KINDER, I NOSTRI FIGLI, VÅRE BARN, ANAK-ANAK KITA, DÁR LEANAÍ, TIMOUN NOU, 我々の子供たち,NOSTRES FILLS, GURE SEME-ALABEK, FËMIJËT TANË, Τα παιδιά μας, ONS KINDERS, NAŠA DJECA, NAŠE DĖTI, VORES BØRN, NIAJ INFANOJ, MEIE LAPSED, , Наши дети, ATING MGA ANK NOSOS FILLOS, ANAK-ANAK KITA, 我们的孩子, DÁR LEANAÍ

The Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force on September 2, 1990, and today it is the most widely ratified international human rights law treaty in existence. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by 193 nations.

And yet:

-20 children killed at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut (2012).

-32 children killed in artillery barrage in Syria (2012).

-92 children killed on Island of Utoya, Norway (2011).

-1,629 children killed in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in Gaza (2000-present).

-29,000 children dead from starvation in Somalia (2011).

-864,000 children dead from Malaria in Africa (2011).

We can do better for our children.

We should do better for our children.

We must do better for our children.

Stiffer gun control laws? Greater mental health awareness and support for children and their families? International pressure to achieve peace in war ridden countries? New policies on drug distribution for developing countries? Food equity and greater sharing of resources?

Let’s start thinking, discussing and doing what we can to create a better world for our children.

Burning the Koran, Globalization and its impact on Human Rights

Rimsha Masih – a Pakistani Christian girl believed to be 11 to 14 years old was arrested early August and accused of having committed blasphemy by burning pages of the Koran, an offense punishable by death under Pakistan’s laws. Not long after her arrest it was published that the girl was known to have a mental disability.

Masih’s arrest in August on blasphemy charges prompted international concern. The case has highlighted tensions between Pakistan’s Muslim and Christian communities, and since Masih’s arrest, Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws have come under heavy criticism. Protests against the treatment of Masih took place around the world in matter of hours after her arrest. In an unprecedented move, Masih was granted bail on Friday, days after police detained a Muslim cleric on suspicion of planting evidence to frame her.

Globalization and the extraordinary speed of information has made possible that we hear about human rights violations around the world, and that we feel connection to people and events that were previously unknown to us. Perhaps the fact that Masih’s case was heavily publicized played a role in the Judge’s determination to release her on bail. Perhaps the fact that the eyes of the world are fixed on the Pakistani Judge and its government will benefit her case.

If so, is globalization generally beneficial to the enjoyment of human rights?

Before answering in the affirmative consider the argument sometimes made that globalization is turning the world into a global market dominated and steered by the most powerful economic and political agents to maintain power and advantage at the expense of the most disenfranchised.

What do you think?