By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 15 --
Three weeks
after the US
hosted an
event about
human rights
in the
Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea on
September 23,
without
inviting North
Korean
diplomats, the
DPRK on
October 15
produced its
own draft
resolution on
human rights,
for the UN
Third
Committee.
The DPRK draft's
seventh
operative
paragraph, out
of eight,
"Requests
the Secretary
General of the
UN and
relevant UN
human rights
mechanism to
make unbiased
reassessment
of the human
rights
situation of
the DPRK, in
the spirit of
the UNGA
resolutions
66/157, 68/100
and other
relevant
resolutions
and in view of
the report of
the
Association of
Human Rights
Studies of the
DPRK and the
objective
facts."
That report is
also mentioned
in the initial
paragraphs:
5.
Noting the
talks between
the DPRK and
Japan to
resolve the
outstanding
issues held in
May 2014,
which resulted
in the
Stockholm
agreement,
6.
Hoping that
the positive
changes taking
place on the
Korean
Peninsula
including the
DPRK’s
proposals to
improve
inter-Korean
relations,
agreed
arrangement of
reunion of
separated
families and
relatives, and
participation
of the DPRK’s
team in the
17th
contribute to
reconciliation
and
cooperation
between the
north and the
south,
7. Recognizing
that the
report of the
Association of
Human Rights
Studies of the
DPRK on the
human rights
policy and
mechanism in
the DPRK
released on 13
September 2014
contributes to
improved
understanding
of the member
states
That report
was presented
by DPRK when
it held its
own event in
the UN on
October 7:
Briefing
on the report
of the
Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea
Association
for Human
Rights
Studies
(organized by
the Permanent
Mission of the
Democratic
People’s
Republic of
Korea) From
11:00 to
12:15, in
Conference
Room 6.
There, most of
the questions
were asked by
Japanese
media. From
the DPRK's
opening
statement,
Inner City
Press has
transcribed
and published
portions here.
The US'
September 23
event was at
the Waldorf
Astoria. The
speakers were
the US' Robert
King, then John
Kerry,
then an
articulate
escapee, the
foreign
ministers of
South Korea
and Japan and
finally UN
High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights Prince
Zeid of
Jordan.
Afterward
Inner City
Press asked
Zeid if it was
he who brought
the blue UN
flag to the
event which
was not in the
UN and did not
play by the UN
rules of
"right of
reply." He
laughed,
graciously.
The bombing
in Syria had
begun only the
night before.
Back on August
25 when North
Korean deputy
ambassador Ri
Tong Il held a
UN press
conference
inside the UN,
he described
his
government's
August 18
letter to the
UN Security
Council
requesting an
emergency
meeting about
the US - South
Korean joint
military
exercises,
Ulchi Freedom
Guardian.
On August 20,
the Democratic
People's
Republic of
Korea's first
letter arose
in Security
Council
consultations.
As
Inner City
Press reported
that day, the
Council's
president for
August Mark
Lyall Grant of
the UK said
that China had
raised the
issue of the
letter, asking
for other
members'
views. He said
no further
action or
consideration
of the letter
is expected.
After Ri Tong
Il on August
25 said no
response had
been received,
Inner City
Press asked
him if, beyond
what Lyall
Grant said at
the stakeout,
a formal
letter should
have been
sent.
Citing a US
military web
site which
lists 10 other
countries
involved in
UFJ, including
the UK and
France, Inner
City Press
what about the
other
countries in
the joint
military
exercises, are
they just a
fig leaf?
Ri Tong Il
answered the
second
question first
saying that
the US never
gives troup
numbers, and
that every
time the US is
talking about
troops, under
pretext of
exercise they
bring in
nuclear
weapons,
aircraft
carrier George
Washington,
B52, Tomahawk
missiles. And
they have all
related
weapons. And
now concerning
number of
troops, over
half a
million. You
can see, they
are ready to
move at any
time. With
full capacity.
Plus, over
40,000
civilian
population of
South Korea.
This is a full
scale war
exercise and
the word
ewcercise is
not proper
one. They are
fully ready
since they
have been
holding them
annually.
On the
letter(s), Ri
Tong Il said
concerning the
response from
the UNSC, we
in the name of
the Permanent
Repressentative
presented a
formal request
addressed to
His Excellency
Grant, and in
established
practice of
protocol
whatever
answer should
be addressed
to us. They’re
not showing
any respect
even for the
protocol. They
should reply.
Inner City
Press
immediately
asked the UK
Mission to the
UN, whose
spokesperson
Iona Thomas
quickly
replied, "On
the letter, it
is my
understanding
that there is
no requirement
to respond to
such requests
in
writing.
As the
Ambassador
said at the
stakeout on
Wednesday,
there was no
support in the
Council for
discussing the
issue."
Perhaps
burying the
lead on August
25 Ri Tong Il
said, "The
entire army of
DPRK is
closely
watching. DPRK
will conduce
the most
powerful
pre-emptive
nuclear strike
against the US
since the US
openly
decleared it
would use
so-called
tailored
deterrents. As
long as the US
exposes its
intention to
remove the
government of
Pyongyang, the
DPRK responds
the same way
by making out
conter-actions
on a regular
basis."
Back
on August 1,
Inner City
Press asked Ri
Tong Il if he
had asked for
the letter to
be formally
circulated, or
would North
Korea take it
to the General
Assembly?
Ri
Tong Il
replied that
it is not a
question of
approaching
individual
countries, but
a formal
request to the
Security
Council. Inner
City Press
inquired with
the mission of
Rwanda, July's
president, and
got a copy of
the letter and
the response
that there was
no consensus
for holding
the requested
emergency
meeting. Inner
City Press has
put
the letter
online here.
Also, at the
bottom of this
page is a fast
transcript of
the press
conference, by
Inner City
Press &
the Free UN
Coalition for
Access.
Inner
City Press
also asked Ri
Tong Il for an
update on his
mission's announcement
thirteen
months ago
that it sought
the end of the
so-called “UN
Command” in
South Korea.
Ri Tong Il
said his
country
remains
opposed to it:
On UN
command, the
DPRK is
consistently
insisting on
the
dismantling of
UN Command in
South Korea.
This is a UN
body but not
under the
direction of
the UN, it is
not under the
approval of
its budget. If
you look at
the inside
nature, 100
percent US
troops. This
is a typical
example of
position of
power by the
US. It should
be dismantled.
And we are
raising it to
the UN on a
regular basis.
Later
on August 1
Inner City
Press asked
Stephane
Dujarric, the
spokesman for
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, if
Ban has
received North
Korea's letter
complaining
about the Seth
Rogen film
“The
Interview.”
(Inner City
Press has commented
on the letter,
here.).
Dujarric said
the letter has
been received,
but Ban has no
response.
Ban,
of course, was
South Korea's
foreign
minister. His
c.v. or biography,
including
for a recent
op-ed about
Haiti
(where the UN
brought
cholera and then
has dodged
accountability),
states that
Ban previously
served as
“Director of
the UN’s
International
Organizations
and Treaties
Bureau.”
Other
iterations
say he was
director of
the “UN’s
International
Organizations
and Treaties
Bureau in
South Korea,
Seoul” (here).
So was that
really a UN
(or “UN's”)
agency? Or is
is like the UN
Command? Watch
this site.
Footnote:
In
Ri Tong Il's
press
conference,
the UN
Correspondents
Association
demanded the
first
question, and
gave it to a
representative
of a media
from Japan -
another
representative
of which took
a second
question,
before other
media got even
one. While
both are
genial, this
is how UNCA, a/k/a
the
UN's
Censorship
Alliance,
works.
The
new Free
UN Coalition
for Access
is opposed to
any set-asides
or automatic
first
questions.
Also, despite
the continued
censorship
of the
question,
the Free UN
Coalition for
Access
believes that
at a minimum
the UN
should
disclose “in
kind” (or
gift) private
jet travel for
Ban Ki-moon
paid for by a
state.
We'll have
more on this. Watch
this site.
, 
