Volume 11 Number 1 Spring 1999
The improvement of the human rights situation in North Korean has been considered almost impossible, especially since Pyong-yang deny that human rights problems actually exist in North Korea. However, it is important to point out to the North that death by starvation and suffering caused by epidemic diseases due to lack of basic medicines, are also human rights issues, as it deprives people of their right to a comfortable existence.
North Korea claims that their system, the so-called 'Our Way of Socialism' is superior to that of capitalism in the perspective of 'the right to life.' According to their claim, the state guarantees a comfortable existence for the people through free education and medical services, as well as full employment. Furthermore, they point out the fact that in socialist countries, the guarantee of economic and social security is considered paramount, while liberal societies emphasize the freedoms of conscience, thought, religion, expression, and movement.
Despite their claims however, in North Korea, there is discrimination in almost every walk of life including education, medical services, and employment, which is based on family background and the degree of loyalty to the regime. This policy is in direct conflict with the concept of 'natural rights of man,' and so-called equal opportunity.
We have a tendency to think that the human rights policy only includes the ability to criticize or bring political pressure to bear on a government. However, we seldom consider that food aid from the international community and from South Korea can be used as a means of pressure over North Korea. Food aid is one of the means by which to protect 'the basic human right to life' of the North Korean people. On the other hand, if food aid were part of a hostile strategy against North Korea, North Korea would not have accepted it. However, since North Korea has accepted the food aid, it should also try to meet demands from the international community to improve universal human rights.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
Human rights in North Korea has been raised as a major issue in the international community, especially in the United Nations and in non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The United Nations Human Rights Sub-Committee (UNHRC) adopted "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in 1998, as it had in 1997. In the Declaration of Human Rights for 1998, the sub-committee included recommendations for dealing with the problem of North Korean human rights in the general meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
When the UNHRC raises the North Korean human rights issue, North Korea will be severely criticized on the human rights issue as much as for suspected nuclear facilities or missiles. Heretofore, North Korea has been excluded from the list of countries that have infringed upon human rights, but this is not to say that North Korea was not culpable. Rather, it had prevented international organizations from gaining access to information concerning the human rights issue in North Korea.
Currently, however, the NGOs for human rights have accumulated considerable information and material regarding the human rights issue in North Korea, and have begun to work actively. In the "Evaluation Report of World Human Rights Conditions for the Year 1997-1998" published in November 1998, the Freedom House, an international human rights activists's group, classified North Korea as one of the worst countries in terms of human rights violations, along with Iraq, Cuba, and Sudan.
The fact that the international community is raising the human rights issue in North Korea in the midst of the financial crisis, is very similar to what took place during the Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and the Helsinki Treaty, when negotiations on human rights between East and West Germany were actively under way in the 1970s. At that time West Germany did not side with other European countries, putting pressures on East Germany, but instead, proposed a secret pact; if East Germany would release political criminals, in return West Germany would extend financial support in order to alleviate the East German financial crisis. In other words, West Germany pursued reconciliation and cooperation at the same time, by providing East Germany not only with the opportunity to improve its human rights record on its own, but the chance to gain some relief from its financial crisis as well.
While North Korea is critical of the East Germany-West Germany exchanges that led to the collapse of socialism, it is, however, experimenting with some pragmatic exchanges, even though it has not altered its principle policy on South Korea. The facts that it asked South Korea to provide food and fertilizer, allowed South Korean private enterprise to conduct the Mt. Kumgang tour operations, and issued invitation letters to South Korean individuals to reunite with separated family members, herald a change in the attitude of North Korea.
The North Korean shift toward pragmatism and the presentation of the North Korean human rights issue before the international community, indicates that the atmosphere for negotiation of human rights between South and North Korea has become more cooperative. Thus, in its implementation of 'the sunshine policy,' Seoul should consider not only the issue of reconciliation with Pyongyang but also the improvement of human rights of the starving North Korean people.
The Kim Dae-jung government seems to be implementing 'the sunshine policy' with the hard-liners of the North Korean regime as the only targets. If the South Korean government considers North Koreans who are of low social status as a target of the sunshine policy, a controversy over the target will be useless. As 'the sunshine policy' is an appeasing and comprehensive policy to the North Korean regime, it should help North Koreans who lack the most basic of human rights.
AND "SOCIALIST HUMAN RIGHTS"1)
Based on how we define the concept of human rights, the rationale and the scope of human rights activity differs. For example, it is very difficult to apply "the International Stipulation for the Civil and Political Rights" (Stipulation B) to a government which restricts individual liberty as a matter of course in order to deal with problems such as clothing, food, and housing shortages.
The goal of socialism is to guarantee the basic needs for human life, as the state provides the clothing, food, and housing. Thus, socialist countries maintain that "the International Stipulation for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights" (Stipulation A) not only carries more weight, but that this stipulation is a true guarantee of human rights. Moreover, they claim that it is through collectivism that the North Korean government realizes its goal, the guarantee of human rights, and that individuals should be subject to the principles of collectivism. That is to say, North Korea argues that the sacrifice of the individual for the group does not violate human rights.
However, the concept of human rights in the Western camp presupposes various rights for human beings according to their will, regardless of economic conditions, i.e., inherent human rights. There-fore, whatever role the state plays, everyone has rights, not granted by the state, but which are inherent and absolute. The natural rights of man, the concept set forth by philosophers of modern natural law, is so powerful that it served as a catalyst to subvert the monarchy system.
It has been noted that the concept of human rights which until now was seen only as a goal of liberal democracy, served as a catalyst in the collapse of the Eastern Communist countries along with the SALT I and II, the Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe and the Helsinki Treaty. As a result, it is clear that human rights can be seen as a bargaining chip in international affairs along with political and military issues.
The first step in a human rights policy toward North Korea is to induce it to conduct dialogues for the purpose of sharing ideas regarding universal human rights, with the outcome being to sign international human rights treaties. The next step would be to negotiate with North Korea according to the international treaties and international organizations in which North Korea has participated. Since the concept of human rights is an integral part of political ideology and fundamental values of the regime, applying a democratic human rights policy to a socialist regime, can be compared with an attack without gunfire. In other words, the human rights policy of democracy can serve as a strategy to bring about a collapse of the regime from within. However, there will be major difficulties in applying the strategy, because North Korea already understands how instrumental the human rights stipulations of the Helsinki Treaty were in the collapse of Eastern European countries during the Cold War era.
Until now, North Korean 'anti-universalism' has left the South Korean government and scholars feeling helpless to solve the human rights issues in North Korea since the regime maintains that free education and medical service based upon 'Our Way of Socialism,' guarantees a much better standard of living than human rights based on capitalism, even though it is known that the North Korean government discriminates against many by distributing social benefits according to the loyalty classification policy. In sum, it has been believed that unless the North Korean government could agree to the concept of the natural rights of man, making human rights a global issue in dealings with North Korea would seem almost pointless.
We can categorize the North Korean human rights issues into three parts: first, humanitarian problems, such as denial of opportunities for the separated family members to meet and the detention of South Korean soldiers and kidnapped civilians; second, inhumane policies over the society, such as illegal imprisonment of political prisoners, public execution of criminals, restrictions of movement and travel; suppression of freedom of thought, conscience and political expression; repatriation of detainees; and last, structural issues directly related to the basic ruling ideology and the system of government in North Korea, such as the loyalty-classification system, the judicial system, and the election system.
The first category, humanitarian issues, which is related to South Korea, can be raised as an issue when the South-North dialogue begins. Moreover, there is a distinct possibility that it will be dealt with in the four-party peace talks now in progress. The second category is the universal human rights issues which can be more effectively raised by the United Nations or by other NGOs rather than by the South Korean government. The third category, involving the governmental system, is very difficult to approach, because it is directly related with the fundamental core of the North Korean political regime.
The pain of the separated families has become even more apparent since the Mt. Kumgang tours began. It has been reported that some tourists have gone to North Korea, and finding that their parents had already passed away, performed the sacrificial rites for them. Such stories tell us that the meeting of separated family members is an urgent humanitarian issue. The case on the Korean peninsula is a unique tragedy, where 10 million family members are separated, deprived of a fundamental sense of family affection. It is hoped that the meetings and the reunions are realized before the death of all of the members of the first generation.
The South Korean government and the Korean Red Cross have dealt with reunion as a purely humanitarian issue, but North Korea, which has considered it as politically motivated, has avoided discussing it. Realizing that meetings between people of the South and the North would bring foreign ideas into North Korea and that such ideas could be a threat to a closed regime like North Korea, Pyongyang will inevitably consider the reunion as a serious political issue.
The issue of South Korean soldiers detained in North Korea has now been included as a part of the 'separated family' issue. While the Department of Defense in South Korea, estimates the number of South Korean prisoners at 19,000 persons, North Korea has denied their existence, arguing that there are no longer detainees, only citizens who do not wish to return to the South.
However, according to the testimony of Jo Chang-ho and Yang Soon-yong, former prisoners of war (POW) who escaped from North Korea, South Korean POWs are currently detained in isolated locations under the most terrible conditions, such as at Aoji mine. Therefore, we can easily assume that South Korean POWs are classified as members of the hostile class, and subject to inhumane and unfair treatment by the North Korean government.
What is more, North Korea is responsible for the kidnapping of 3,745 persons including fishermen working on the open sea, and teachers and ministers working abroad. Although most have been returned, 447 persons are still being detained. While some have appeared on North Korean television broadcasts, saying that they had voluntarily come to North Korea, their statements are hardly credible, since there is a good possibility that they were forced to make false statements. Even if those who were kidnapped, leaving behind families and a social foothold in South Korea, had decided to stay in North Korea because they were attracted by North Korea's appeasement policies such as guarantees for a bright future, it seems likely that they were deceived by North Korea. Therefore the kidnapped citizens should be rescued according to the wishes of their South Korean family members.
The major ongoing issue raised by Western advanced countries regarding dictatorial regimes in undeveloped countries or Communist countries, concerns individual liberties and rights. Such rights cannot be violated for any reason; including political ideology, regime, or the needs of the state. The comprehensive treaty between the Eastern and Western camps has expressed that universal and natural human rights are the same for all, regardless of religion or cultural difference. In fact, now, even China is favorably considering the human rights criteria adopted by the United States administration. Nevertheless, Pyongyang still holds fast to its own socialism, and denying the concept of universal human rights.
It has only been in recent years that the North Korean regime's inhumane oppression of political defectors was revealed to the outside world. In the mid-1980s, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch/Asia began investigations, revealing the actual plight of North Korean political prisoners. They report that there are 10 concentration camps for political prisoners located in the remote hinterlands of Ham-kyung province, where 150~200 thousand people are living in caves, isolated from the outside world and suffering from the effects of forced labor and meager rations of food.
One of the defectors from North Korea testified that in October 1986, a group of political prisoners in Camp No.12, protesting inhumane conditions, raided the community where the guards's families lived, killing hundreds. In response, North Korean authorities dispatched a battalion which slaughtered 5,000 civilians including participants in the uprising. It is important to substantiate such allegations, therefore investigations must be conducted by international organizations, regardless of how much time has passed. According to the generally-accepted interpretation of international law, there is no statute of limitations in cases that involve genocide.
Another defector has testified that public executions of criminals began after the death of Kim Il-sung in 1995. That testimony is reflected by the January 1997 Amnesty International publication, the Special Report on North Korean Public Executions. According to the report, at least 23 people were executed publicly between the years 1970 and 1992, indicating that North Korea commonly carries out such executions.
Liberalist human rights such as freedom of movement, travel and choice of employment are rare in North Korea. Social status determines one's right to reside in Pyongyang, the capital city of North Korea, and even the particular location of the residence is often determined by the state. Furthermore, North Koreans cannot leave their area of residence without a travel permit, and such permits are extremely rare. Indeed, it is almost impossible for any person other than Workers' Party cadre members or government officials to travel abroad.
North Korea considers defectors who flee to third countries such as China and Russia as traitors, and thus they are tracked down by North Korean agents, arrested, and coercively repatriated. On the other hand, in 1997, Russia signed a treaty on the mutual travel between Russia and North Korea, deleting a clause restricting the repatriation of North Koreans and their departure for a third country. As a result, the North Korean defectors in Russia now have the opportunity to seek refugee status through the United Nations Higher Commissioner for Refugees.
However, China still maintains the treaty on mutual extradition of Chinese and North Korean criminals, signed in 1960, and adopted in the administrative cross-border pact of 1986, which stipulates China's cooperation with North Korea in order to extradite defectors. Therefore, diplomatic efforts must be made through the United Nations or international organizations, to endow North Korean defectors with refugee status, so that those who escape from an inhumane regime and are hiding in surrounding countries can receive the protection of international law.
"The classification system of residents' origin" (by family background and by the degree of loyalty to the regime) epitomizes the North Korean regime. Indeed, North Korea has conducted investigations of all residents' origins several times since the establishment of government. The most commonly-recognized system is known as 'The Three Classes and 51 Sub-Classes,' (see table 1) a report which required three years (1967-1970) to complete. Based upon a prior 'Resident Re-Registration' the current process classifies the political and social status of every resident, with North Korean authorities thoroughly investigated members of three successive generations, up to and including all of the second cousins in both the mother's family and the wife's family.
Based on the investigation, the entire North Korean population has been classified into categories termed 'nucleus'(28%), 'unstable'(45%), and 'hostile'(27%). It is further sub-divided into 51 sub-classes. This is more discriminatory than almost any system in history, including that in feudal times. In 1988, Human Rights Watch/Asia and the Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee introduced evidence of the North Korean classification system of residents' origin in detail, in the report, Human Rights in North Korea. Similarly, The Ministry of Unification in South Korea, released a report based upon the testimony of defectors.
Since the distribution of all benefits that North Korean residents receive from the state, including education, job opportunities, and medical services is based on the loyalty classification policy, this system must be considered a fundamental human rights violation. This type of classification impacts more than a citizen's social standing, because in socialist countries, especially in North Korea, the state takes control of every aspect of individual daily life. For instance, some defectors testified that in the process of evaluating qualifications for college entrance, the degree of loyalty and family background carries more weight than an outstanding scholastic record. If educational opportunity depends upon political origin, despite the free education system, it not only discounts individual efforts and creativity, but it results in the deprivation of basic human rights.
North Korea has embarked on a propaganda campaign, called, 'Kwangpok (extensive magnanimity) Politics of Kim Jong-il' embracing a new goal to include every resident in the regime, regardless of their social origins. The 'Kwangpok Politics' is closely related to the slight modification of 'the Strategy of a United Front Line.' However, the politics can hardly ameliorate the human rights violations embodied in the loyalty classification policy.
There is also a serious problem involving human rights protection in the North Korean judicial system. Since the department of justice is under the supervision of the supreme power of Kim Jong-il, impartial criminal prosecution and judgment is impossible. One of the characteristics of district criminal law in North Korea is to disregard the principles of statutory crime, and thus, North Korean criminal law does not stipulate the details of criminal law. That is to say, arbitrary interpretation of the law is possible in North Korea, and as long as this kind of system exists, it will be extremely difficult to bring about the improvement of human rights in North Korea.
The North Korean electoral system also goes against universal suffrage and the right to vote. Recording the 'ayes' and 'noes' in a vote on the candidate whom the Workers' Party supports, is not for the purpose of suffrage but rather to demonstrate the political mobilization of the people. Freedom to vote on a choice of candidates is impossible, because of the social and political organism, 'the Juche Idea' (the ideology of self-reliance). The concept of elections according to the western definition does not exist in the ruling system of the Juche Idea, In reality, as demonstrated by Kim Jong-il's succession to General Secretary of the Workers' Party and chairman of the National Defense Commission, the formal election system has disappeared, and supreme political activity in North Korea is accomplished through a recommendation procedure.
EUROPE AND THE TWO GERMANYS
Until recently, the prevalent notion has been that it would be un-realistic to think that one of two hostile countries with different political ideologies and regimes such as North and South Korea, could make suggestions to the other on the matter of improving the situation of human rights. Yet, as evidenced in the SALT treaties, the CSCE, and the Helsinki Treaty, security cooperation and disarmament between the U.S. and USSR, West Europe and the Eastern Communist countries, as well as negotiations for human rights improvement has been successfully carried out, and this serves as a vital empirical lesson for South and North Korea. Another valuable example is seen in the fact that West Germany carried out a political prisoner exchange policy through the European Security Cooperation system, in order to overcome the divided situation.
It is an astonishing fact that in 1954, it was not the Western camp, but Vyacheslav M. Molotov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the USSR, who proposed the Conference on Security Cooperation in Europe, later the Helsinki Treaty. Once it was proposed by a Communist country, the West accepted it and it led to further improvement in human rights. Extending this illustration to the case of South and North Korea, while it will be difficult for North Korea to accept any proposals from the South, it may be possible for South Korea to channel North Korea's demands in a mutually beneficial direction.
The USSR supported the CSCE, in order to drive the U.S. out of Europe, to gain recognition of the two Germanys and to guarantee the viability of the Eastern Communist bloc. The USSR had every intention of maintaining the status quo, i.e., the divisions between Eastern and Western Europe, and a guarantee of the inviolability of borders from a regional security treaty, while still gaining the benefits of economic exchanges with the West.
The West for its part, strongly advocated accepting the human rights concept in the CSCE structure. Meanwhile the USSR considered the demands of the West regarding human rights guarantees as a rather trifling matter, compared with their own goal to gain the recognition of the Eastern bloc, formed through Communist occupation of European countries during World War II. Eventually, the CSCE stabilized the Cold-War order with the conclusion of the Helsinki Treaty. The interests of both East and West were met with the recognition of the Communist bloc in Europe and the human rights guarantee proposed by the West. In short, we can summarize as follows: while Communist countries erected formidable barriers, the West injected a catalyst, namely, human rights, which broke down those barriers from the inside.
The Helsinki Treaty comprises four chapters. In the first chapter, there are "Ten Principal Declarations of the Signatories." The seventh of those principals includes a clear statement concerning liberalist human rights guarantees.
There is a historical evaluation that human rights clauses in the Helsinki Treaty served as a catalyst to expedite German unification and the eventual collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Communist countries. Yet, the human rights clauses were not accepted by the Communist countries from the beginning. At first, the Eastern Communist countries were strongly against the liberalist human rights, and it seemed that it would be impossible to create a common definition of the concept of human rights. At the Madrid Conference (November 1980~September 1983), held to carry out the treaty, the negotiations on human rights area did not make much progress, however, the humanitarian issues reached considerable agreement. Thus, the exchanges and the contact between the East and the West were increased and freedom of movement was guaranteed. Those contributed to d¢¥etente and to alleviating tension between the East and West.
At the Vienna Conference (November 1986~January 1989), the third meeting for implementation of the Helsinki Treaty, the concepts of liberalist and socialist human rights were agreed upon. The USSR, faced with a financial crisis caused by burdensome military costs, proposed negotiations for disarmament of nuclear and chemical weapons, and the West, sensing the anxiety of the USSR over the financial situation, continued to press for the inclusion of clauses on human rights improvements. At the same time, it was difficult for the USSR to evade pressure from the press in the international community since the entire contents of the meeting were exposed to public scrutiny. Although there were some closed meetings to discuss specific issues concerning East and West Germany, the final proposals for the fulfillment of the Helsinki Treaty were concluded through publicized meetings.
Based on the success in Helsinky, it would be useful to open up future South and North Korean conferences to the public, and to allow the mass media to broadcast the conference live. Traditionally, inter-Korean dialogues have been mostly closed, but now it is necessary to re-examine the efficacy of closed meetings. While we once kept meetings secret in order to allow North Korea to save face and to promote candid dialogue, now it is time for us to consider opening some of the meetings to the public.
Under the CSCE agreement, the civilian exchanges between the two Germanys were guaranteed regardless of any changes in the political situation, thus giving the West German unification policy greater momentum. East Germany could no longer curtail the freedom of movement nor prohibit free access to the air waves. In reality, it was the free transmission of communications over the air and the civilian exchanges that collapsed the Berlin Wall and played a major role in ultimately bringing about political unification.
In analyzing the negotiation process, it should be remembered that when West Germany raised the human rights issue directly, East Germany at first reacted negatively. Then, West Germany proposed secret negotiations which included financial rewards for East Germany. At the same time, international organizations and regional security cooperative committees were pressuring East Germany on its human rights record. As a result, during the Cold War period, the West German government invested a huge amount of money to release 33,755 political prisoners from East Germany, and reunited 250,000 separated families. It can be concluded that West Germany's human rights policies, such as the secret meetings for the release of East German political prisoners and the reunion of the separated families, played an important role in softening the East German regime.
Moreover, it is highly significant that the human rights statement introduced by the West in the treaty with the Eastern Communist countries, worked as a bridgehead for an attack on the underpinnings of the Communist regime. It proved that a human rights policy has the capability to destroy a closed regime.
The human rights policies of the free world embody a very powerful, even destructive capability over socialist regimes. We can see that proof in the past relations between the U.S. and the USSR, as well as with East and West Germany, once so hostile during the Cold War. Indeed, while the human rights issue is inferior to military power in the perspective of physical destructive capability, the human rights issue is more efficient in that it works like a catalyst to break down not only the regime's ideology, but its insular nature as well.
There are several steps in dealing with our human rights policy toward North Korea. First of all, it would be difficult, certainly, to reach an agreement regarding the human rights concept. Given the fact alone, that direct dialogue between South and North Korea has been cut off, the human rights issue in the four-party peace talks is still considered of little importance. Furthermore, since the issue on the suspected Kumchang-ri underground nuclear facilities and missiles has become an urgent issue, the human rights concern naturally has been set aside.
Nevertheless, we must prepare a policy on human rights so that it can be implemented at any time. A short-term task would be humanitarian civilian exchanges. Beginning in 1999, we should immediately establish the guidelines to carry out meetings and reunions of the separated families, as well as repatriation of South Korean soldiers and the kidnapped detainees. Those issues should be dealt with in the South and North Korean dialogues; however, since North Korea has been avoiding discussion on those issues, we should appeal to public opinion through the UN or NGOs, thereby prompting the attention of the world.
First, a general report on the human rights issue in North Korea should be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Committee where South Korea has the right to speak as a member. Furthermore, a feasibility study should be undertaken to investigate human rights conditions in North Korea, by appointing a human rights special commissioner from the United Nations.
We should work out some ways to utilize the influence of certain organizations among the NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch/Asia and Amnesty International, since Amnesty International, in particular, deals with individual human rights issues. After the South Korean government conducts official examinations of the testimony of North Korean defectors and the returned South Korean soldiers, the documentation should be submitted to those organizations. We should also raise the issue of the personal danger to family members of North Korean defectors, in order to take preemptive measures against possible human rights violations. For example, although there is no proof, it can easily be assumed that the wife and children of Hwang Jang-yup, a North Korean defector, and once one of the highest-ranking officers, are in personal danger under the North Korean regime. Therefore, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch/Asia should be asked to protect the human rights of Hwang's family.
There is a strong possibility that efforts will attract positive attention from the international community, because the meeting of separated family members, including defectors, is a purely humanitarian issue. The time has come to urge the UN and the NGOs to pay serious attention to the issue and to devise effective measures to arouse public opinion in the international community.
While these humanitarian issues are short-term tasks, there are other traditional liberalist human rights issues, which are mid-term or long-term tasks. Those are freedom of thought; conscience; expression; political expression, and of movement and travel. As the four-party peace talks proceed, we need support from the United States and China to deal with this, since South Korea has limited ability to solve these issues. Only after North Korea accepts the universal concept of human rights, will there be a basis for negotiation. Thus, first of all, we have to focus on implementing the international human rights treaty in which North Korea had previously been involved. Moreover, we need to make consistent diplomatic efforts to enlist North Korea in signing the treaties which it has not yet joined.
If the Northeast Asia Regional Security Conference which South Korean government proposed to Japan and China, is successfully established, we can induce an agreement on political and security issues and human rights improvement through it, which North Korea may agree to. In much the same way that East and West Germany carried out the Helsinki Treaty under the CSCE, it is better for South Korea to persuade North Korea to follow a universally-stipulated treaty, adopted by a regional security conference rather than directly demanding.
Since the classification system, the judicial system and elections are delicate issues affecting the survival of the North Korean regime, those issues can be raised as a final step.
Now, the South Korean government and civil activist groups ought to recognize the importance of a human rights policy toward North Korea, and actively work to carry it out. South Korea's underestimation of its effectiveness and indifference is due to its ignorance of the history of world human rights policy. Although North Korea has not immediately reacted to human rights issues, raising them constantly in the international community is not a wasted effort. It is hoped that the cumulative effect of these efforts will ultimately result in improved human rights in North Korea.
- In an effort to simply the terminology for the different norms and rules concerning 'human rights' in the Western Democratic camp and in the Eastern Communist camp during the Cold War era, the paper uses the terms 'Liberalist' and 'Socialist'.
* The original article was published in Shindonga, the monthly magazine of The Dong-a Ilbo, in January 1999.