After
North Korea
Launches, UNSC
Meets 11 am
Super Bowl
Sunday, Spin
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, February
6, updated
-- North
Korea launched
a rocket, a
month after
the Security
Council
tersely
condemned the
last test, and
less than an
hour before a
US Republican
debate in New
Hampshire. On
February 5,
even a
Permanent Five
member of the
Security
Council said
it had yet to
receive any
draft
resolution
about the
test. So what
will the UN
Security
Council do
now?
Update 10:20
pm: The UNSC
Presidency
tells Inner
City Press, it
"Is confirmed
the emergency
meeting of the
Security
Council
tomorrow at 11
am on North
Korea."
This came
after the
French mission
told Reuters
it wasn't yet
confirmed,
giving rise to
a question
related to
Reuters spin
of the DR
Congo Grou p
of Experts
report's two
paragraphs on
Rwanda and
Burundi.
French PR
Delattre,
despite the
urging on
FranceDiplo,
is still not
on Twitter,
walked away
(politely)
from Press
questions on
Burundi and
the Syrian
Kurds (Vine
here). The
French UN
spokesman who
threw Inner
City Press out
of the Press
Briefing Room,
as for the
past five
days, didn't
answer. Watch
this site.
What
about UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon? Last
time he met
with his
senior
advisers --
all male --
then issued a
statement.
Then on
February 5 he
told a UNA-UK
audience in
London how
important
gender
empowerment
has been to
him.
If Ban
is in fact
running for
President in
South Korea,
how will this
help him? And
any shadow
over the US
Super Bowl?
Any (early)
question in
the GOP
debate? We'll
be following
this.
Back on
January 6 after
North Korea
announced it
had tested a
hydrogen bomb,
at the UN a
Security
Council
meeting was
called for 11
am. Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon read a
statement at
the UNSC
stakeout at
10:30 am,
taking no
question as
usual.
After 1
pm, Security
Council
President for
January Elbio
Rosselli of
Uruguay
emerged and
read out a
Press
Statement
below. Japan's
Ambassador
Motohide
Yoshikawa
spoke, and
Inner City
Press asked
him of Ban's
moves to visit
DPRK. He
replied that
if such a trip
emphasized UN
resolutions
including on
human rights,
it could be
useful. Video
here. But
what WAS Ban's
trip going to
be about?
Earlier, UNTV
fed out B-roll
of Ban meeting
with his
advisers --
Kim Won-soo
and Jeff
Feltman
formerly of
the US State
Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a
previously
scheduled
(also “no
questions”)
appearance
that Inner
City Press and
the Free UN
Coalition for
Access
critiqued
here.
Russia's
Ambassador
Churkin on his
way into the
Security
Council at 11
am said, “Cool
heads, cool
heads.” The
UK's Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Peter Wilson
spoke (Periscope
video
here), as
did Japan's
Permanent
Representative.
Back on
December 10,
2015, for
Human Rights
Day there was
a UN Security
Council
meeting about
human rights
in North
Korea. This
comes as UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
canceled a
November 25
visit to Western
Sahara
because he
thought he
could go to
North Korea,
which still
hasn't
happened.
After
the meeting on
December 10,
Inner City
Press asked UK
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Peter Wilson,
and then High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Zeid al
Hussein, about
a Ban Ki-moon
trip.
The UK's
Wilson said
his country
would like to
see dialogue.
When Inner
City Press
asked Zeid if
he'd discussed
Ban's trip
with him, Zeid
said no.
So on
December 11,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's Deputy
Spokesperson
Farhan Haq, transcript here:
Inner City
Press: At the
stakeout after
yesterday's
meeting on the
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea, the
question arose
to Prince Zeid
whether he had
discussed with
the
Secretary-General,
the
Secretary-General's
possible trip
to DPRK in
terms of a
human rights
component to
it. And
he seemed to
indicate that
the two had
not discussed
it.
What I wanted
to ask you is,
one, is that
the
case?
And two, what
is the place,
what would be
the place of
human rights
in not…
obviously the
trip hasn't
taken place
yet, but in
terms of
clearly he has
said that
negotiations
are under way
and I saw Mr.
Kim quoted to
that effect,
what is the
place of human
rights in such
a trip?
Deputy
Spokesman:
Human rights
has a place in
all of the
Secretary-General's
travels and it
would do so in
this case as
well.
Regarding
specifics,
that will have
to wait until
when a trip is
arranged, and
there's
nothing
further to say
about
that.
We've been
trying to make
preparations
when it's
feasible, but
there's
nothing
further to
announce at
this point.
Have a good
weekend,
everyone.
One is left
wondering what
would be the
agenda of a
Ban trip to
North Korea -
and what the
US, which
sponsored the
December 10
meeting,
thinks of such
a trip. While
it is
difficult to
get a USUN
answer to the
question,
other
ambassadors
have told
Inner City
Press that
Japan is
against such a
Ban trip.
We'll have
more on this.
On
December 10,
there was a
vote on
whether to
hold the
meeting at
all.
On the
way in,
Venezuela's
Ambassador
said he was
against the
meeting;
China's Deputy
merely smiled.
Inside,
after a speech
by China
demanding a
vote, and a
Samanatha
Power speech,
the vote was
held: the nine
requesters in
favor, four
against
(including
Russia), and
two
abstentions
(including
Nigeria).
Soon it
was said Japan
and South
Korea - but
not North
Korea - would
participate in
the meeting,
and OHCHR Zeid
and USg
Feltman would
brief. Feltman's
briefing is
online here.
Zeid, as
fast
transcribed by
InnerCityPro
(OHCHR will
have full
text) said:
"The abduction
of foreign
nationals,
forced
disappearences,
and a litany
of other
violations
have not been
halted or
reversed by
the government
of the DPRK.
There is no
accountability
and no
independent
judiciary.
Millions of
peole in the
DPRK are
denied basic
rights. They
are not
allowed to
move freely or
speak about
injustices,
they are not
allowed to
follow their
faith, they
are denied
access to
information.
The commission
of inquiry
describes the
appalling
nature of the
political
prison camps
where people,
including
children, have
been starved,
tortured,
raped.
Hundreds of
thousands have
died in these
camps…they are
believed to
contain 80,000
to 120,000
prisoners.
The report
said that “the
gravity, scale
and nature of
the human
rights
violations
reveal a state
that does not
have any
parallel in
the
contemporary
world.” The
new office in
Seoul has
begun
collecting
testimony from
people who
have left the
DPRK and
deepening
evidence.
During my
visit I met
defectors, men
and women, and
their personal
experiences
were
harrowing. My
concern over
the threats
issued by DPRK
and media
against the
office in
Seoul—it is
wholly
unacceptable
to issue
threats
against a UN
office.
3 types of
allegations :
victims and
witnesses
spoke to
severe
treatment of
detainees – no
access to
lawyers,
inhuman
conditions,
torture during
interrogation.
Food
insecurity is
an ongoing
concern. The
systemic
failure of the
distribution
system hasn’t
been
addressed.
Women in the
DPRK are
subject to
violence and
discrimination,
and there’s a
lack of
awareness that
such violence
is
unacceptable.
Restrictions
on movements
across the
border with
china had a
negative
impact on
women, and
augmented risk
of detention
for those who
try to cross
border.
The family
reunions were
a welcome
development
and should be
regularized.
We’re
organizing a
workshop on
the human
rights
implications
of separation
of families.
Most have
reached an
advanced age.
Those selected
for previous
reunions have
no possibility
of maintaining
contacts.
The matter of
international
abductions is
a cause of
very grave
concern. The
establishment
of a special
investigation
committee in
the DPRK was
positive but
no info has
been provided
since then on
results. The
fate of
abductees must
be
established.
OHCHR
organized
consultations
on human
rights and
abductions,
followed by a
visit to
Japan.
This year the
GA may call on
the SC to take
action by
referring the
matter to the
ICC which I
believe to be
essential. Any
call must go
hand in hand
with dialogue
with
government of
DPRK. My
office has
continued to
engage with
authorities.
There are
signs that the
governemnt is
making
tentative
efforts to
engage, and I
welcome the
invitation to
visit the
country. My
office is
engaged with
the office to
explore
modalities.
The systemic
failings
heighten
international
anxieties.
More must be
done to ensure
respect. I
thank you."
It is a
serious issue,
but there are
questions
about the
staging. The
UN called it
an "urgent"
meeting,
below, when it
was well known
for five days.
Two defectors
were bought to
speak - but in
the private
clubhouse of a
Correspondents
Association.
Surreally,
this UN
Corruption
Association
was the venue
on December 10
for two North
Korea
witnesses,
Grace Jo and
Jung Gwang II,
whose handlers
instead of
booking the UN
press briefing
room which any
member state
can do, put
them behind
the closed
doors of UNCA.
Since UNCA
under Pioli
engages in
censorship,
here,
perhaps it was
not only
ironic but
appropriate.
The new
Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
founded by two
defectors from
the
increasingly
corrupt UNCA,
pursued the
question of
why
information
about the
North Korea
UNSC meeting
was withheld
from the press
and public.
UNCA said
nothing, took
defectors
behind closed
doors.
As of 8
am, the day's
UN Journal
does not list
it; nor does
the UN Media
Alert nor the
Security
Council's
online Program
of Work. The
last of these
may explain
it: after the
Council's
closed door
meetings on
Western Sahara
(listed) and
Turkey on
December 8,
Russian
Ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
told the press
that the US
should have
disclosed the
intended North
Korea meeting
when
formulating
its Program of
Work for
December, when
the US is
President.
Inner
City Press has
checked with
another
Security
Council
delegation,
which said it
is a good
argument, but
not enough to
"stop" the
meeting. But
enough to have
the meeting
UNlisted, even
six and a half
hours before?
The UN
has an
archaic,
anti-public
game under
which "Arria
formula"
meetings of
the Security
Council are
not listed in
the UN
Journal,
sometimes not
even on the
blue signs
outside the
meeting. The
Free UN
Coalition for
Access thinks
that sending
diplomatic
signals by
withholding
information
from the
public is not
what the UN,
ostensibly
about "We the
Peoples,"
should be
about. We'll
hare more on
this.
Update: at
10:30 am, the
UN sent out
this: "URGENT
Message from
the President
of the
Security
Council
The President
of the
Security
Council wishes
to inform the
members of the
Council that a
public meeting
in connection
with the
agenda item
“The situation
in the
Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea” will be
convened today
at 2.30 p.m. "
But it
was no
surprise - it
was known
since December
5, and
December 8.
Then this was
(mis)
added:
“02:15pm
LIVE
Stakeout 2nd
floor outside
the Security
Council
Chamber:
10:00am
LIVE
Security
Council 7575
meeting:
Briefing: the
situation in
the Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea”
10 am?
This is what
happens when
the ball is
hidden...
It is
(well) explained
online,
without
excusing the
UN Media Alert
misleading
(and UNTV
mis-timing) --
" The UN
Journal for
the day the
Council
convened to
take up the
situation in
the DPRK
contained no
notice of a
Council
meeting on
that topic
(Journal No.
2014/244).
This also had
been the case
when the
Council held
the formal
meeting on 15
September 2006
at which the
procedural
vote on the
agenda item
relating to
Myanmar was
put to a vote
(Journal No.
2006/178).
In contrast,
Journal No.
2005/142 did
contain a
notice of the
meeting at
which the
procedural
vote on the
agenda item
relating to
human
settlements
issues in
Zimbabwe was
put to a
vote.
This is
explained by
the fact that
between the
2005 notice in
the Journal
and the lack
of notice in
2006 and 2014,
the Council
had adopted
its Note by
the President,
S/2006/507.
Paragraph 1 of
that Note (and
of the
subsequent
Note
S/2010/507)
states:
“The
provisional
agenda for
formal
meetings of
the Council
should be
included in
the Journal of
the United
Nations
provided that
it has been
approved in
informal
consultations”.
Notice for the
2006 and 2014
meetings
therefore
could not be
included in
the Journal
because the
Council
members had
been unable to
reach
consensus
beforehand." [Link]
But why
did the UN
Media Alert
not list this
known meeting?
FUNCA will
pursue.
For more than
a month there
have been
rumors, stoked
in some cases
by the UN,
that Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon may
visit North
Korea.
To some
it seemed
strange, right
after the UN's
Third
Committee
enacted a
resolution
about human
rights in
North Korea.
What that
country might
gain from a
high level UN
visit might be
clear --
showing that
the resolution
didn't mean
much -- and
some surmise
that the
Korean
Peninsula is
increasingly
Ban's focus.
But what would
be in it, from
a Ban-to-DPRK
visit, for the
resolution's
proponents?
On
December 3 the
Spokesperson
for the U.S.
Mission to the
UN Hagar
Chemali issued
a statement
that “last
year in
December the
UN Security
Council
convened for
the first time
in history to
discuss the
human rights
in the
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea (DPRK).
Today, Chile,
France,
Jordan,
Lithuania,
Malaysia, New
Zealand,
Spain, the
United
Kingdom, and
the United
States have
requested
another
meeting of the
Security
Council to
examine
conditions in
DPRK and their
effects on
international
peace and
security. As
President of
the Security
Council for
the month of
December, the
United States
will now work
quickly to
schedule this
meeting. We
will provide
additional
details as
soon as we
have them.”
Now,
again from Ms.
Chemali, this:
"We intend to
convene the
Security
Council
meeting on the
situation in
the DPRK on
Thursday,
December 10 at
2:30 PM. We
are currently
working with
the
Secretariat to
explore the
availability
of senior
briefers from
DPA and OHCHR.
We will update
on briefers as
soon as we
have more
details."
In the
US Mission's
December 3
statement,
Ambassador
Samantha Power
said: “A year
ago, the
Security
Council met
for the first
time on the
widespread and
systematic
human rights
violations
being
committed by
the North
Korean
government.
Having placed
the issue on
the Security
Council’s
agenda last
year, we
believe it is
critical for
the Council to
continue to
shine a light
on the abuses
in North Korea
and speak
regularly
about the
DPRK’s human
rights
situation –
and what we
can do to
change it –
for as long as
the crimes
committed
there
persist.”
For now we can
say, this
would seem to
make a Ban
Ki-moon visit
to DPRK (even)
less likely,
at last in
December. And
in January,
when Uruguay
is set to be
UN Security
Council
president?
Watch this
site.
Back on
November 17
when Ri Hung
Sik,
Ambassador
at-large of
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korean, held a
press
conference at
the North
Korean
mission, he
said that he
had heard
nothing,
nothing at
all, about UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
visiting North
Korea, which
Yonhap
ascribed to a
senior UN
source.
Even 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 is
putting
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
rumours 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
issued 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.
, 
