UNITED
NATIONS,
November 26 --
What was
behind UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
on-again
off-again
talks of
visiting North
Korea? On
November 26,
outgoing UN
Special
Rapporteur
Marzuki
Darusman said
he'd "had an
opportunity to
meet with
youths – three
from the ROK
and three
originally
from the DPRK
– and listen
to their views
of unification
and possible
accountability
for serious
human rights
violations in
the DPRK. I
welcome the
fact that that
young people,
as key actors
in a potential
future
unification
process, are
actively
engaging in
these issues.”
Maybe
that's the
generation to
work on it.
Inner City
Press has
reported on
Ban Ki-moon's
twists and
turns, from Ri
Hung Sik,
Ambassador
at-large of
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea, on
November 17
saying that
he'd heard
nothing about
Ban visiting
Pyongyang, to
Ban's
ambiguous and
coy statement
since, only to
South Korean
media.
Now
we've reported
this: sources
exclusively
tell Inner
City Press
that Ban WAS
planning to go
to North Korea
between
November 23
and 26, but
that the leak
of the
information
proved to be a
problem. The
sources say
that while the
timing might
have made
sense to Ban,
once leaked it
did not make
sense to
largely
anti-DPRK
powers he
listens to.
What
would be the
message to go
to North Korea
just days
after the UN
General
Assembly's
Third
Committee
condemned the
country's
human rights
record and
urged the
Security
Council to
make a
referral to
the
International
Criminal Court,
now in light
of what
Darusman has
said?
The
benefit to
North Korea
would be to
show that as
they've
argued, the
resolution is
without merit,
and they still
get courted.
But those who
sponsored and
supported the
resolution
would not
favor such a
trip. And so
it has not
happened.
And the
moment may
have passed.
Not only
because Ban
now goes to
the
Commonwealth
meeting in
Malta and then
to COP21 in
Paris -- but
also because
the timing
that worked
for North
Korea on
November 23
will no longer
be the case as
time goes on.
The US is the
president of
the UN
Security
Council in
December, and
there's talk
of a North
Korea human
rights
session. By
January, would
DPRK still be
inviting Ban?
Watch this
site.
Ban
issued a
statement on
the death of
former South
Korea
president Kim
Young-sam -
while not
having issued
such a
statement on
the recent
death of
Helmut
Schmidt.
Then Ban went
to sign the
condolence
book for Kim
Young-sam at
the South
Korea mission
on November 23
-- unlike his
visit to the
French mission
to sign the
condolence
book there,
NOT in his
public
schedule - and
had an
interchange
described as
with South
Korean
reporters. Who
invited them
there? Who
informed them?
Inner City
Press for the
Free
UN Coalition
for Access
asked, video
here, transcript here:
Inner City
Press: I
noticed the
readout you
put out,
belated, I
guess, partial
transcript of
the
Secretary-General’s
comments at
the South
Korean
mission, if
I’m
correct.
I wanted to
ask, I guess
it’s kind of a
procedural
question.
It seems like
recently he
went to sign
the condolence
book at the
French
Mission.
It was put in
his schedule,
trying to
cover
this.
Like, why
wasn’t this in
his public
schedule, and
how did the
journalists
who were there
know to be
there?
Spokesman:
This was… the
Secretary-General
was… added
this at the
last
minute.
We did not
invite other
journalists to
attend.
I think you
would have to
ask the
Mission of the
Republic of
Korea.
Inner City
Press /
FUNCA:
Just to know
going forward,
generally, if
you know about
such a visit,
you put it in
the public
schedule or
try to inform
journalists?
Spokesman:
We try to do
as much as we
can ahead of
time.
But obviously,
the
Secretary-General
was
traveling.
He basically
landed, went
home, changed,
and went to
the
mission.
So this was…
Inner City
Press:
Does this mean
a visit to
DPRK
(Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea) is now
closer?
What are the
issues being
negotiated or
discussed?
Spokesman:
Well, I would…
I think you
have… I think
the
Secretary-General
was very clear
in what he
said. We
translated the
comments from
Korean.
He’s obviously
in
discussions.
Details are
still being
worked out as
to the trip,
and when we’re
ready to
announce it,
he will
announce it or
I will
announce it.
On November
24, Ban's
office issued
this for wider
consumption:
Partial
transcript of
remarks by the
Secretary-General
to press
following his
signing of a
condolence
book at the
Permanent
Mission of the
Republic of
Korea
Q: [inaudible
question on
potential
visit to the
Korean
peninsula]
SG: …As one
national of
the Republic
of Korea, I
have often
stated, as you
well know, my
willingness to
play any role
if there was
an
opportunity,
including
through a
visit to North
Korea, to
promote peace
and
reconciliation
between the
South and
North Koreas,
and reduce
tensions. The
relations and
political
situation
between the
Republic of
Korea and the
Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea (DPRK)
had not been
conducive, but
recently DPRK
Foreign
Minister Ri Su
Yong visited
the UN
Headquarters
twice,
providing
opportunities
for us to
meet, and it
is a fact that
we discussed
the role of
the
Secretary-General
in this
regard.
Recently, on
this, there
has been a bit
of a positive
signal from
the DPRK, and
we are at the
moment
coordinating
when would be
the best time
to visit the
DPRK, but so
far nothing
has been
decided. Once
the decision
is made, I
will inform
the reporters,
and proceed
with the visit
to the DPRK. I
am sure there
are many
things you are
curious about
the issue, but
I must say
that it takes
time to
advance work,
and since
there are many
sensitive
issues at
play, so I
request that
you follow the
situation with
patience.
Q: The
citizens of
Korea are very
interested,
and they want
to know when
this visit
would
approximately
take place.
SG: That is
something I
cannot respond
at the moment,
but I will say
that we will
make the
effort to do
so at the
earliest
possible date.
Back on
November 17
when when
asked a
leading
question about
a hypothetical
Ban trip, Ri
Hung Sik said
Ban's UN would
have to
improve its
relations with
DPRK. Inner
City Press put
the audio
online here,
and embedded
below.
Inner
City Press ran
back to the UN
and asked
Ban's
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric, transcript here:
Inner City
Press: here
was just a
press
conference at
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea (DPRK)
mission, and
there their
minister, Ri
Hung Sik,
asked about
the
Secretary-General's
possible
reported trip,
said he's
heard nothing
about it at
all and that
there are many
rumors on the
internet.
He also said
that this
South Korean
national
security law
that makes it
illegal for
South Korean
citizens to
speak
positively of
the DPRK…
that's how he
described it…
should be
looked at by
the UN.
So I wanted to
know, what is
the
Secretary-General's
view of that
law? And
if that's an
accurate
description,
is he bound by
it?
Spokesman:
I'm not aware
of the
law. As
far as Ban
Ki-moon, he is
the
Secretary-General
of the United
Nations and is
doing his duty
as such.
But why did
Team Ban play
it so coy on
Yonhap's
report? Now
late on
November 17,
the UN has
issues this
more specific
denial:
"In response
to questions
asked about a
report from
Xinhua and the
Korean Central
News Agency
stating that
the
Secretary-General
would be
travelling to
the Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea next
week, the
Spokesman had
the following
to say: The
Secretary-General
will not be
travelling to
the DPRK next
week. He will
be in New York
most of the
week and then
travel to
Malta for the
Commonwealth
Summit. From
there, he will
go to directly
to Paris to
attend CoP21.
The
Secretary-General
has repeatedly
said that he
is willing to
play any
constructive
role,
including
traveling to
the DPRK, in
an effort to
work for
peace,
stability and
dialogue on
the Korean
Peninsula."
Before
Inner City
Press left the
DPRK mission
on November
17, it asked
Ri Hung Sik
for his view
of UN Special
Rapporteur
Marzuki
Darusman and
when or if UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Prince
Zeid will
visit North
Korea.
Of
Darusman, Ri
Hung Sik said
he met him
only once, and
that it seems
Darusman does
not speak his
own words, or
think his own
thoughts. Of
Zeid, he said
the discussion
is of
technical
cooperation,
but no date
was given. Video here.
During the
press
conference,
Reuters
asserted that
they had been
no vote on
last year's
DPRK human
rights
resolution. Ri
Hung Sik said
Reuters was
wrong, and it
was. Then even
though it had
earlier cut in
with a
follow-up
questions,
Reuters cut
off another
correspondent
trying to ask
a follow-up
about Qatar,
on which Ri
Hung Sik cast
some blame.
There was no
question, as
at a prior
DPRK press
conference,
about Donald
Trump.
Back on
October 28
when Darusman
held a press
conference
about the
DPRK, Inner
City Press
asked him to
comment on the
recent
Intercept
report
that the US
Pentagon used
an NGO to spy
in North
Korea. Would
the UN Special
Rapporteur
advise member
states,
particularly
those
concerned
about human
rights in
DPRK, not to
use NGOs to
spy? Video
here.
Well,
no. In fact,
Darusman said
that such
spying might
be justified.
Video here.
Inner City
Press asked
him about
DPRK's
allegation
that its
sailors in the
Mudubong ship
detained in
Mexico were
suffering
human rights
violations.
Darusman
answered, but
it was not
clear.
Inner City
Press: Do you
have any
recommendations
to the
international
community in
terms of
whether it’s
good practice
to use NGOs to
collect
intelligence?
And, the
Mission here
brought up the
alleged
detention of
their sailors
on the Mu Du
Bong, have you
looked into
this?
Darusman: On
the first
part, I’ve
seen the news
report on that
but I have not
really looked
into that at
this point.
The nature of
the problem is
very specific.
It has to do
with a case of
what is being
reported in
the media. I
hesitate to
comment too
far and I
would perhaps
seek further
clarification
on this issue
by contacting
parties that
would be
knowledgeable
about this. I
wouldn’t want
to speculate
on the truth
of untruth.
But this again
brings up the
whole
dimension of
the North
Korea
problematic,
and this is
that, it is
such an
isolated
society, where
information is
at a high
premium, and
ways and means
need to be
sought to
gather
information to
get a picture
of what is
happening
there. I can
understand
that these
things could
happen. But to
what extent
the details
are the way
they are.
On the second
issue,
treatment,
certainly this
is part of the
mandate of
rapporteur, to
look at the
well being of
the North
Korean people
either inside
or outside the
country. I
will certainly
be looking
into this and
planning out
further what
is the state
of this
matter, and
this sort of
merges into
the bigger
picture of
mistreatment
of NK workers
in other
regions of the
world,
including the
Middle East
and Russia.
, 
