[Global NK Interview] South Korea's Efforts to Improve North Korean Human Rights

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OK9fyLVE6U

Professor Lee Woo-young of the University of North Korean Studies points out that discussions on North Korean human rights have become subservient to polarized domestic political debates, failing to significantly contribute to improving the actual human rights of North Korean residents. He emphasizes that for South Korea to enhance its sincerity and persuasiveness in efforts to resolve North Korean human rights issues, human rights reports must go beyond mere criticism of the North Korean regime and include objective analyses of changes in the human rights situation. He also urges the government to clarify the priority of human rights issues in its North Korea policy.

■ Lee Woo-young, Professor at the University of North Korean Studies.

■ Produced and Edited by: Park Ji-soo, EAI Research Fellow

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

The issue of North Korean human rights, not just recent developments, has always been a fundamental and persistent topic among various discussions and issues related to North Korea. Therefore, I find it difficult to agree that it has only recently become more prominent. Rather, the level and tone of discussions on North Korean human rights have continuously evolved.

However, as is often said, the biggest problem is that human rights, not just in North Korea but universally, are a fundamental value that modern society strives for. It is an ultimate value, and in principle, there is no room for debate on this matter. The real issue has been that when the qualifier 'North Korean' is attached to human rights, the discussion deviates from universal and global historical discourse. This has been the biggest problem so far. It has become subservient to political stances, which are secondary values to the improvement of human rights. Consequently, in a sense, it has been detached from improving North Korean human rights.

The situation of North Korean human rights has changed, to varying degrees, due to internal North Korean factors, such as political and economic conditions, or external factors including international relations, and North Korea policies of the US and South Korea. However, changes in the human rights situation itself have been relatively slow. From the perspective of differing ideological stances, as I mentioned, the premise itself is the ultimate goal, and because it has been discussed separately, human rights have been discussed based on one's own policy stance, ideological orientation, or views on inter-Korean relations or unification. Realistically, in what is called our conservative camp, the improvement of North Korean human rights has been discussed as a means to criticize the North Korean regime, thus emphasizing more provocative aspects. Conversely, the progressive camp, while pursuing coexistence and peace with the North Korean regime, has emphasized justifications such as these, leading to a tendency to downplay or intentionally avoid discussing the issue itself. In this regard, there have been differences in the level, frequency, and emphasis. The conservative camp has tended to focus on political rights among various aspects of human rights, while the progressive camp has focused more on economic and social rights. Therefore, while it is a consequence of being swayed by ideological premises, it also emphasizes only the aspects that align with their political stances and are more advantageous, rather than the inherent value and complexity of human rights.

In essence, both sides have focused on fragmented aspects of human rights rather than a comprehensive view, limiting the issue to raising problems concerning North Korean human rights. In a liberal democracy and pluralistic society like ours, I fundamentally view the existence of diverse positions and opinions on any issue as positive. Regarding the issue of North Korean human rights, the problem is not the difference in positions itself, but rather the fact that these positions are being swayed by political stances, which has undermined the positive aspect of discussion stemming from diversity. This is regrettable.

In terms of the human rights report, it is naturally something that had to be done according to the law. Fundamentally, I believe the content itself is very coolly and well-organized. There are pros and cons to the structure and so on, but because it was written very coolly and cautiously, it can be persuasive in itself. It attempted to organize based on facts as much as possible, minimizing emotional fluctuations, and there was an effort not to deviate from that. While this might be unsatisfactory to some readers, it can be seen as enhancing the report's credibility.

However, my fundamental concern is this: although it had to be done due to legal requirements, there is already an existing human rights report that has been consistently produced by the Ministry of Unification. Does it make a difference if it's produced by the Ministry of Unification? Rather, wouldn't it be better for the South Korean government to consistently develop a single, credible, and representative North Korean human rights report, whether produced by the Ministry of Unification or the Korea Institute for National Unification, as both are state organizations? While it may be unavoidable due to a separate law, I do not believe that having the Ministry of Unification produce it would necessarily make it more persuasive.

In terms of content and structure, there is not much difference either. Whether academically or politically, efforts to enhance these aspects are needed. Simply producing another report, or having the government directly take the lead, does not mean there is more interest in North Korean human rights. Therefore, I believe we need to further discuss who will produce North Korean human rights reports in the long term, to what extent, who will be the主体 (subject/entity), and which entity would be more persuasive. This is a fundamental thought I have.

In terms of content, as I mentioned, the fact that there is little difference from existing white papers is both an advantage and a disadvantage. At first glance, it looks so similar that one might wonder if it was simply copied and pasted. The problem with this is that there should be more emphasis on changes in the situation. Instead of constantly repeating that things are bad, we need to see how specific aspects have worsened and how they have improved. As I've been saying, it should more clearly demonstrate that the goal is to improve human rights. Otherwise, discussions on human rights, as I mentioned earlier, are always perceived as being created to criticize North Korea and by the state for the purpose of criticism. To achieve this, the report needs to be more detailed, including analyses of why these situations have occurred. Only then can the effort to genuinely improve North Korean human rights by the government or public sector be demonstrated. However, I feel that the current report is quite weak in its persuasiveness. Whether it's this report or the previous ones, the lack of detail is evident. Ultimately, although I want to believe it wasn't the intention, we need to objectively assess whether it's due to the intention or the lack of persuasive analysis. Moving forward, future reports should take these factors into account. Fundamentally, I believe we must discuss the regime. As I mentioned earlier, because it is a fundamental value that our society and humanity should strive for, any regime and policy that agrees with this should be continuously pointed out. However, I believe that improving human rights, in particular, cannot be justified simply by saying 'I talked about it.' The most important measure is whether it leads to actual improvement. Criticism or support should be based on the extent to which it can be improved and its effectiveness, not just on whether it was discussed. However, sometimes the debate revolves around whether it was discussed or not. In reality, although North Korean human rights remain a problem, if we consider that North Korea has made some efforts, albeit superficial, to improve them, it seems that North Korea assesses whether the speaker is sincere.

In terms of content, as I mentioned, it is both an advantage and a disadvantage that there is no significant difference from previous white papers. At first glance, they are so similar that one might wonder if they were simply copied and pasted. This presents a problem because the report should address changes in the situation more thoroughly. Instead of repeatedly stating that things are bad, it should examine which aspects have worsened and which have improved. As I have been emphasizing, it needs to be clearer that the purpose is to improve human rights. If this is not evident, discussions about human rights often revert to...

When there is high distrust towards the speaker, I believe any policy, regardless of its nature, will be ineffective. If the speaker's sincerity or persuasiveness is not considered, I believe such policies are meaningless. Therefore, regardless of the policy pursued, it is crucial to analyze and consider the effectiveness of past South Korean human rights policies towards North Korea, not just those of the previous Moon Jae-in administration, but those of the past several decades. Furthermore, there is a need to develop North Korea human rights policies based on this analysis. It is not an issue that can be excused by simply saying, 'The previous administration didn't do it, but I did.' If there is a genuine desire and clear will to improve human rights, the government's policies themselves need to move away from political contention. Moreover, if South Korea's current approach lacks persuasiveness for North Korea, the government should take the lead, provide backup, or work through international organizations. It is necessary to focus on partners, whether they are China, the US, or Japan, that can indirectly influence North Korea regarding human rights improvements, if they are more effective.

Therefore, I believe it is crucial to devise立体 (three-dimensional) and constructive policies through a critical review and reflection on existing policies, rather than focusing on specific regimes. When this is achieved, it will be persuasive both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the framing of the human rights issue within North Korea policy and unification policy is crucial. For instance, should human rights be prioritized over inter-Korean relations, even if it means sacrificing them? These aspects need to be clarified and reflected in the basic direction of policy. Discussions should proceed with these points addressed; otherwise, they become unproductive arguments. If, in various situations, we acknowledge that the current situation in North Korea is urgent and important, and decide to prioritize it, then constructive debates can follow, even if there are other issues. However, if this is not discussed and left vague, while asserting the importance of human rights and stating that 'we are only focusing on human rights,' the debate becomes impossible and devolves into unproductive ideological arguments.

If we say, 'Inter-Korean relations have improved,' then constructive debates can ensue. But without discussing that, and leaving it ambiguous, while claiming human rights are important and that 'we are only focusing on human rights,' the debate becomes impossible and devolves into unproductive ideological arguments.

Therefore, I believe it is crucial to devise立体 (three-dimensional) and constructive policies through a critical review and reflection on existing policies, rather than focusing on specific regimes. When this is achieved, it will be persuasive both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the framing of the human rights issue within North Korea policy and unification policy is crucial. For instance, should human rights be prioritized over inter-Korean relations, even if it means sacrificing them? These aspects need to be clarified and reflected in the basic direction of policy. Discussions should proceed with these points addressed; otherwise, they become unproductive arguments. If, in various situations, we acknowledge that the current situation in North Korea is urgent and important, and decide to prioritize it, then constructive debates can follow, even if there are other issues. However, if this is not discussed and left vague, while asserting the importance of human rights and stating that 'we are only focusing on human rights,' the debate becomes impossible and devolves into unproductive ideological arguments.

If we say, 'Inter-Korean relations have improved,' then constructive debates can ensue. But without discussing that, and leaving it ambiguous, while claiming human rights are important and that 'we are only focusing on human rights,' the debate becomes impossible and devolves into unproductive ideological arguments.

Therefore, I believe it is crucial to devise立体 (three-dimensional) and constructive policies through a critical review and reflection on existing policies, rather than focusing on specific regimes. When this is achieved, it will be persuasive both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the framing of the human rights issue within North Korea policy and unification policy is crucial. For instance, should human rights be prioritized over inter-Korean relations, even if it means sacrificing them? These aspects need to be clarified and reflected in the basic direction of policy. Discussions should proceed with these points addressed; otherwise, they become unproductive arguments. If, in various situations, we acknowledge that the current situation in North Korea is urgent and important, and decide to prioritize it, then constructive debates can follow, even if there are other issues. However, if this is not discussed and left vague, while asserting the importance of human rights and stating that 'we are only focusing on human rights,' the debate becomes impossible and devolves into unproductive ideological arguments.