north korea human rights essay

Stanford University

“What Did You Do as We Were Dying?”: The Urgency of Addressing North Korean Human Rights

• Gi-Wook Shin

This essay originally appeared in Korean on January 27 in Sindonga (New East Asia), Korea’s oldest monthly magazine (established 1931), as part of a monthly column, "Shin’s Reflections on Korea ." Translated by Raymond Ha. A PDF version of this essay is also available to download.

During the Moon Jae-In administration, many of my American friends and colleagues were puzzled and disappointed by a strange contradiction. The former pro-democracy activists—who had fought for democracy and human rights in South Korea—had entered the Blue House, only to turn a blind eye to serious human rights abuses in the North. In particular, the Moon administration punished activists who sent leaflet balloons across the border and forcibly repatriated two North Korean fishermen who had been detained in South Korean waters. It not only cut the budget for providing resettlement assistance to North Korean escapees, but also stopped co-sponsoring United Nations (UN) resolutions that expressed concern about the human rights situation in North Korea. My friends, including individuals who had supported South Korea’s pro-democracy movement decades ago, asked me to explain this perplexing state of affairs. I had no clear answer.

A Gross Overstepping of Authority

On April 15, 2021, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a congressional hearing on “civil and political rights in the Republic of Korea.” [1] The speakers expressed their concern about worrying trends in South Korea’s democracy. In his opening remarks, Rep. Chris Smith, the co-chair of the commission, stated that “the power that had been given [to] the Moon Administration, including a supermajority in the National Assembly, has led to a gross overstepping of authority.” He observed that “in addition to passing laws which restrict freedom of expression, we have seen politicization of prosecutorial powers. . . and the harassment of civil society organizations, particularly those engaged on North Korea issues.” [2] Expressing his disappointment at the Moon administration’s North Korea policy, Smith twice referred to my 2020 analysis of South Korea’s “democratic decay” published in the Journal of Democracy . [3]

Rep. James McGovern, the other co-chair of the Tom Lantos Commission, noted in his remarks that “international human rights law provides guidance on what is and is not acceptable when it comes to restricting freedom of expression for security reasons.” [4] This hearing had echoes of U.S. congressional hearings in the 1970s, when there was criticism of South Korea’s authoritarian practices.

South Korea’s progressives, including those who served in the Moon administration, may respond that criticizing North Korea for its human rights practices infringes upon Pyongyang’s sovereignty. They may argue that emphasizing human rights will worsen inter-Korean relations and make it even more difficult to address the security threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles. This argument may appear to have some face validity, since Pyongyang has responded to criticisms of its human rights record with fiercely hostile rhetoric. The same progressives, however, did not regard it as an encroachment upon South Korea’s sovereignty when the U.S. government and American civil society criticized Seoul for its human rights violations during the 1970s and 80s. In fact, they sought support from various actors in America and welcomed external pressure upon South Korea’s authoritarian governments during their fight for democracy.

We must ask ourselves whether the Moon administration achieved durable progress in inter-Korean relations or on denuclearizing North Korea by sidelining human rights. There is no empirical evidence to support the assertion that raising human rights will damage inter-Korean relations or complicate negotiations surrounding North Korea’s nuclear program. While there are valid concerns about how Pyongyang may react, it is also true that past efforts have failed to achieve progress on nuclear weapons or human rights. Both the Moon and Trump administrations sidelined human rights in their summit diplomacy with Kim Jong-Un, and their efforts came to naught. They compromised their principles, but to what end?

This is not to say that raising human rights issues would certainly have yielded tangible progress in improving inter-Korean relations or dismantling Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons. Rather, I like to point out that there is no reason or evidence to believe that there is an obvious link between raising human rights in a sustained, principled manner and the success or failure of diplomatic engagements with Pyongyang. The arguments given by South Korea’s progressives are not sufficient to justify neglecting human rights concerns when addressing North Korea. Furthermore, criticizing another country’s human rights practices is not seen as an unacceptable violation of state sovereignty. The international community regards such discussions on human rights as a legitimate form of diplomatic engagement.

The Error of Zero-Sum Thinking

The abject state of human rights in North Korea is not a matter of debate. In addition to the operation of political prison camps and the imposition of draconian restrictions on the freedoms of thought, expression, and movement, the country suffers from a severe food crisis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s September 2022 International Food Security Assessment estimated that close to 70% of the country’s population was “food insecure.” [5] The border closure imposed due to the COVID -19 pandemic has resulted in a sharp decline in trade with China, which plays a vital role in North Korea’s economy. By all indications, the people of North Korea are likely to be in dire straits. James Heenan , the head of the UN Human Rights Office in Seoul, stated in December 2022 that the human rights situation in North Korea is a “black box” due to difficulties in obtaining information as a result of COVID -19 border controls. [6] Freedom House’s 2022 report gave North Korea 0 points out of 40 in political rights, and 3 out of 60 in civil liberties, resulting in a total score of 3 out of 100. Only South Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan have lower scores. [7]

Nonetheless, Pyongyang continues to pour an enormous amount of resources into developing nuclear weapons and advanced missile capabilities. According to South Korean government estimates, North Korea spent over $2 million on launching 71 missiles in 2022. This was enough to buy over 500,000 tons of rice, which could provide sufficient food for North Korea’s population for 46 days. The same amount would also have made up for over 60% of North Korea’s estimated food shortfall of 800,000 tons in 2023. [8] In its single-minded pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, the North Korean regime has shown utter disregard for the human rights of its population.

The details of North Korea’s human rights record are available for anyone to see in the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on North Korean human rights, as well as the U.S. State Department’s annual country reports on human rights practices. [9] In particular, a 2014 report published by the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on North Korean human rights found that “systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, its institutions and officials.” Moreover, the COI concluded that “in many instances, the violations of human rights found by the commission constitute crimes against humanity.” [10]

North Korea’s headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is inextricably tied the human rights situation in the country. When allocating available resources, Pyongyang prioritizes the strengthening of its military capabilities. The health, well-being, and human rights of the population are of peripheral concern. An array of international sanctions imposed against the regime may constrain its budget, but it will pass on the cost to the population, further worsening their suffering. In addition, there can be no meaningful solution to security issues without improving the human rights situation. A government that values military strength over the welfare of its people will not hesitate to use force against other countries.

The North Korean nuclear problem, inter-Korean relations, and human rights issues are closely intertwined, which necessitates a comprehensive approach to North Korea policy. Ignoring human rights does not make it easier to achieve progress on security issues. Victor Cha refers to this as the “error of zero-sum thinking about human rights and U.S. denuclearization policy.” [11] There is an urgent need to formulate a holistic approach that can foster mutually beneficial engagements between Pyongyang, Seoul, and Washington. Reflecting upon the shortcomings of past U.S. policy toward North Korea, Cha notes that marginalizing human rights has not yielded any meaningful progress on the nuclear problem. He argues that it is first necessary to craft a comprehensive strategy that fosters positive-sum dynamics between security issues and human rights. This strategy will then provide a road map for future negotiations by specifying the standards and principles that should be observed.

Avoiding Demonization and Politicization

To generate positive-sum dynamics between human rights and security issues, it is important to refrain from demonizing North Korea. Taking a moralistic approach along the lines of the Bush administration’s “axis of evil” will do little to improve the human rights situation in North Korea. The purpose of raising human rights issues must not be to tarnish the North Korean leader’s reputation or to weaken the regime. As Ambassador Robert King, the former U.S. special envoy on North Korean human rights issues, stressed during a recent interview with Sindonga , human rights should not be weaponized for political purposes. [12] The world must call upon North Korea to improve its human rights record as a responsible member of the international community. If Pyongyang shows a willingness to engage, other countries should be ready to assist.

North Korea usually responds with aggressive rhetoric to criticisms of its human rights record, but it has taken tangible steps to engage on certain occasions. Even as it denounced the February 2014 report of the UN COI, North Korea sent its foreign minister to speak at the UN General Assembly in September for the first time in 15 years. In October, Jang Il-Hun, North Korea’s deputy permanent representative to the UN in New York, participated in a seminar at the Council on Foreign Relations to discuss North Korean human rights. [13] Even though it forcefully denies the international community’s criticism, North Korea appears to have realized that it cannot simply sweep the issue under the rug. Some argue that North Korea’s limited engagements on human rights are empty political gestures to divert attention. Nonetheless, North Korea also understands that it must improve its human rights record if it hopes to establish diplomatic relations with the United States.

Instead of using human rights as a cudgel to demonize North Korea, it is vital to identify specific issues where it may be willing to cooperate. So far, it has refused to engage on issues that could undermine regime stability, such as closing political prison camps, ending torture, and guaranteeing freedom of the press. On the other hand, it has shown an interest in discussing issues that do not pose an immediate political threat, such as improving the situations of women, children, and persons with disabilities. By seeking avenues for dialogue and cooperation, the international community can try to achieve slow but tangible progress on improving the human rights situation in North Korea.

We must also avoid the temptation to politicize human rights. Recall, for instance, the early days of the Trump administration. As tensions with North Korea flared, the Trump administration used human rights as a political tool to amplify negative attitudes toward Pyongyang. In addition to inviting North Korean escapees to the White House, Trump spent over 10% of his 2018 State of the Union address discussing North Korea, focusing specifically on human rights. He said that “no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in North Korea.” [14] However, as he began to hold summit meetings with Kim Jong-un to discuss the nuclear issue, human rights disappeared from the agenda. The Trump administration used human rights as a means to a political end, while the summit meetings in Singapore and Hanoi were all show and no results.

The Moon administration made the same mistake, only in a different form. As noted above, it ignored the human rights issue out of political considerations. It sought to improve inter-Korean relations above all else, despite concerns that it was neglecting human rights in doing so. It criminalized the act of sending leaflet balloons across the demilitarized zone (DMZ), and it forcibly repatriated two North Korean fishermen through the Joint Security Area at Panmunjom. The latter decision, which continues to generate controversy in South Korea, would have remained secret if reporters had not taken a picture of a text message sent to a National Security Council official. [15] The two fishermen were not given the right to legal representation and were denied due process. Moreover, the decision violated South Korea’s Constitution, which recognizes North Korean escapees as citizens. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states in article 2 that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind.” It adds that “no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.” [16] However, the Moon administration was driven by its political goals in deciding to forcibly repatriate the two individuals.

A Universal Issue that Demands Bipartisan Support

North Korea’s human rights situation may be especially dire, but human rights violations are certainly not confined to its borders. They took place under South Korea’s authoritarian regimes in the past, and serious violations are committed today in countries such as China, Russia, and Myanmar. Liberal democracies, including the United States and the United Kingdom, also have shortcomings in their human rights record. In its preamble, the UDHR proclaims that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” [17]

Human rights is a universal issue. The Yoon Suk-Yeol administration has declared its support for liberal democratic values, and it should approach the North Korean human rights issue as part of its value-based diplomacy. Moreover, it should not set preconditions for humanitarian assistance. As stipulated in article 8 of South Korea’s North Korean Human Rights Act, enacted in 2016, humanitarian assistance to North Korea must “be delivered transparently in accordance with internationally recognized delivery standards,” and it must “be provided preferentially for vulnerable social groups, such as pregnant women and infants.” [18]

Even in an era of extreme polarization in American politics, there is a robust and genuine bipartisan consensus on North Korean human rights. As noted above, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission is co-chaired by a Democrat and a Republican. The U.S. North Korean Human Rights Act, enacted in 2004, was last reauthorized in 2018 with unanimous support in the House and the Senate. This law generated momentum for Japan (2006) and South Korea (2016) to pass their own legislation on North Korean human rights.

In South Korea, however, the issue continues to be heavily politicized and polarized. Progressives tend to minimize the issue or neglect it altogether, while conservatives are usually vocal about drawing attention to the human rights situation in North Korea. Instead of approaching the issue from the standpoint of universal values, discussions about North Korean human rights are mired in partisan political divisions. Working toward a bipartisan consensus on North Korean human rights would be a worthy goal. Furthermore, there must be greater efforts to listen to and incorporate the voices and opinions of North Korean escapees who have resettled in South Korea.

The Yoon administration has taken encouraging steps. Last summer, President Yoon appointed Professor Lee Shin-wha of Korea University as the ambassador-at-large for North Korean human rights, a position that had been vacant since September 2017. South Korea has also resumed its co-sponsorship of UN resolutions on the state of human rights in North Korea. However, the North Korean Human Rights Foundation, which was supposed to have been created pursuant to the 2016 North Korean Human Rights Act, remains stuck on the ground. [19] This foundation should be launched as soon as possible, and the government should also enhance resettlement assistance to North Korean escapees.

Lastly, it goes without saying that there should be bipartisan cooperation to secure the release of six South Korean citizens who are currently detained in North Korea. On February 7, Jung Pak, the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, met with family members of the detained citizens in Seoul in a joint meeting with Ambassador Lee Shin-wha. [20] South Korea’s National Assembly should also play its part to draw attention to the issue.

Multilateral and Bilateral Approaches

South Korea should fully utilize the institutions of the UN in addressing North Korean human rights. Pyongyang is highly sensitive to human rights criticisms issued by individual countries, but it has shown some willingness to engage with the UN’s human rights mechanisms. This is because it wants to be recognized as a legitimate member of the international community. North Korea has participated in the Universal Periodic Review, in which all UN member states are subject to a review of their human rights record every four and a half years. In 2017, it permitted a visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities. Most recently, in 2021, it submitted its Voluntary National Review, which assesses its progress in implementing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. [21] By working with and through international institutions, South Korea can increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of its efforts to address the human rights situation in North Korea. It can also sidestep direct criticism from Pyongyang.

Cooperation with the United States is also vital. During its first two years, the Biden administration did not take significant steps to draw attention to North Korea’s human rights. This stood in sharp contrast to the administration’s vocal condemnation of human rights violations in China, as well as Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine. On January 23, the White House finally appointed Julie Turner—the director of the Office of East Asia and the Pacific in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor—as the nominee for the special envoy on North Korean human rights. This position, created by the U.S. North Korean Human Rights Act, had remained vacant since Ambassador King stepped down in January 2017. This could indicate that the Biden administration is moving toward a more proactive approach on human rights issues in North Korea.

I have previously characterized the Biden administration’s North Korea policy as one of “strategic neglect.” North Korea is seen as a hot potato, and there is a prevailing tendency in Washington to avoid touching the problem altogether. [22] Ambassador Sung Kim is serving as the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, and he is serving as the U.S. special representative for North Korea in essentially a part-time capacity. Jung Pak has been coordinating relevant policy issues in the State Department, but there has not been a visible shift in North Korea policy, with the exception of her recent visit to Seoul to meet with family members of South Korean citizens detained in North Korea. There are many high-level officials in the Biden administration’s foreign policy and national security team with prior experience of North Korea issues, and they understand that diplomatic engagements with Pyongyang are unlikely to yield meaningful results. North Korea’s barrage of missile tests is intended, in part, to draw the attention of the United States, but the response from Washington has been lukewarm.

In line with Victor Cha’s recommendations, Seoul should work closely with Washington to craft a comprehensive strategy that fosters positive-sum dynamics between human rights and nuclear issues. Last month, there were reports that Seoul was “pushing for the resumption of bilateral consultations with the United States on the North Korean human rights problem.” [23] Ambassador Lee Shin-wha is a highly capable expert with a deep understanding of both the UN and the United States, and she will be able to play an important role in these efforts. Congress should move quickly to confirm Julie Turner as her counterpart, so that they can formulate and implement a bilateral strategy to address human rights issues in North Korea.

Lastly, Seoul should work with Beijing on these issues. China has serious human rights issues of its own, including the situation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. It is also directly implicated in North Korean human rights issues. Despite requests from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Beijing continues to forcibly repatriate North Korean escapees who are arrested in China. Available testimony suggests that many escapees who are returned in this manner end up being imprisoned in political prison camps or executed. In his memoir, Patterns of Impunity , Ambassador Robert King notes that he urged Chinese officials on multiple occasions to recognize North Korean escapees as refugees. This would enable their safe passage to South Korea. His requests were denied, however.

As a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, China is obligated under international law to not forcibly repatriate individuals with “a well-founded fear of being persecuted” upon return. [24] Despite this obligation, China claims that North Korean escapees are economic migrants and continues to forcibly repatriate them. Traffickers in the Sino-North Korean border area abuse this fear of repatriation to coerce female North Korean escapees into forced marriages with Chinese men in rural villages, or to sell them into prostitution. Beijing has turned a blind eye to these criminal activities. In its 2022 Trafficking in Persons Report , the U.S. State Department classified both China and North Korea as Tier 3 countries. This means that they have failed to meet basic standards for combating human trafficking, and have not made meaningful efforts to improve their policies. [25]

Highlighting China’s complicity in human rights abuses in North Korea will draw diplomatic protests from Beijing, but it could be an effective strategy for Seoul to redirect Washington’s attention to North Korea. Although the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has taken up much of Washington’s bandwidth, China remains at the top of the Biden administration’s foreign policy agenda. In doing so, however, South Korea must take care to avoid politicizing the issue.

A Korean Problem, Neglected in Korea

During my time at UCLA in the mid-1990s, a friend put me in touch with the North American Coalition for Human Rights in Korea. This group had worked to promote human rights and democracy in South Korea for nearly two decades since 1975, at the height of the autocratic Yusin Era under Park Chung-Hee. [26] Now that South Korea had become a democracy, the group had decided to conclude its activities.

I was asked if I might be able to put their archive of internal documents to good use, and I immediately agreed. As a Korean who had lived through this era, I felt a sense of responsibility to preserve these documents. Furthermore, as a researcher of social movements, I was excited by the prospect of obtaining these materials. The materials arrived in 34 large boxes, and I had the chance to view the contents of every box before the library staff began to organize them. Because of their historic importance, these materials were compiled into a special collection—the Archival Collection on Democracy and Unification in Korea. I have advised doctoral students who analyzed these materials in their dissertations.

As I sifted through the documents, I found letters that were sent to the White House, calling upon the United States to play its part in improving the human rights situation in South Korea. I came across crumpled pieces of paper that had been smuggled out of Gwangju in May 1980, with urgent handwritten notes that sought to tell the outside world about what was happening to the pro-democracy protests in that city. These were living, breathing documents that vividly told the story of South Korea’s pro-democracy movement in the 1970s and 80s.

I am deeply ashamed to admit that I had been unaware until then of just how many Americans had worked tirelessly for the cause of human rights and democracy in South Korea. Many Koreans believed that the United States had unflinchingly supported South Korea’s authoritarian governments, and I too had been influenced by that current of thought. In those boxes, I also discovered letters from pro-democracy activists in South Korea, expressing their gratitude for the support of American citizens and civic groups. It is perhaps the memories of reading such letters that heightened my discomfort and disappointment at witnessing how South Korea’s progressives neglect North Korean human rights.

Last October, I met Representative Chris Smith at a conference in Washington. He told me that if he had the opportunity to visit North Korea and meet Kim Jong-Un, he would not hesitate to bring up human rights. He also brought up human rights during a meeting with Premier Li Peng in Beijing, though he will no longer have the opportunity to do so, as Smith has been sanctioned by the Chinese government and barred from entering China ever again. I was deeply moved by his steadfast and sincere commitment to human rights.

There is much interest in North Korean human rights among college students in the United States. Student groups, including those at Stanford, hold regular events and conferences to raise awareness of what is happening in North Korea and to call for action. I have heard students ask why K-pop artists are silent on North Korean human rights, even as K-pop fans are raising their voices in support of causes like the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar. This is the unfortunate reality of North Korean human rights today. There is great concern and interest in the rest of the world, but it is politicized or ignored in South Korea.

A Historic Responsibility for Koreans

In an essay comparing East Germany and North Korea that he contributed to the book The North Korean Conundrum , Sean King argues that South Korea should take a principled position even if policies to improve the human rights situation in North Korea are unlikely to achieve tangible results. “South Korea can nonetheless stand on principle so as to at least help make even a few North Koreans’ lives better,” he writes, “and to also lay down a marker for other governments as to how they should approach Pyongyang.” Moreover, “when reunification comes, hopefully under Seoul’s rule,” he stresses that “North Koreans will know that they were not forgotten when the country was divided.” [27]

Just as South Koreans expressed their gratitude to Americans who fought for their human rights, I have no doubt that the North Korean people feel the same way toward South Korea and the international community’s efforts to promote their human rights, even if they cannot—at present—write letters to the outside world. The late Reverend Yoon Hyun, who founded the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights in 1996 after spending decades fighting for human rights and democracy in South Korea, said he was driven by a haunting question. “What will we say when, after reunification, 200,000 political prisoners and their families ask us: what did you do as we were dying?” [28]

As North Korea will likely continue its provocative missile launches, most attention will be focused on security issues. Nevertheless, the Yoon administration must persevere in its efforts to improve the human rights of the North Korean people, and the Democratic Party of Korea should not repeat its past mistakes by politicizing or neglecting the issue. North Korean human rights is more than just a political problem or a national security objective. The citizens of the Republic of Korea have a historic responsibility and a collective moral obligation to address the suffering of their brethren in the North.

[1] Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, “Civil and Political Rights in the Republic of Korea: Implications for Human Rights on the Peninsula,” April 15, 2021, https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/events/hearings/civil-and-political-rights-republic-korea-implications-human-rights-peninsula-0

[2] Rep. Christopher H. Smith, “Opening Remarks,” April 15, 2021, https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/Opening%20Remarks_SKorea_CHS_Final.pdf .

[3] Gi-Wook Shin, “South Korea’s Democratic Decay,” Journal of Democracy 31, no. 3 (2020): 100–14, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/south-koreas-democratic-decay/ .

[4] This comment was made in relation to the so-called anti-leaflet law that was passed by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea during the Moon administration. One of the primary justifications for the law given by its proponents was that launching leaflet balloons across the border could prompt an armed response from North Korea, thereby endangering the security of South Koreans living near the border. See Rep. James P. McGovern, “Opening Remarks,” https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/Opening%20Remarks_SKorea_JPM_Final.pdf .

[5] Yacob A. Zereyesus et al., International Food Security Assessment, 2022-32 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2022), 56, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=104707 .

[6] This office, established pursuant to a recommendation by the UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korean human rights, monitors human rights in North Korea. For further details on Heenan’s remarks, see “U.N. Agency Head Says N. Korea’s Human Rights Situation in ‘Black Box’,” Yonhap News , December 6, 2022, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20221206008700325 .

[7] Freedom in the World 2022: The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule (Washington, D.C.: Freedom House, 2022), https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world .

[8] Park Soo-Yoon, “North Korea Spent 46 Days’ Worth of Food on Firing Missiles, With Reports of Starvation Deaths in Hamgyong Province” [in Korean], Yonhap News , December 19, 2022, https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20221219095700504 .

[9] For the UN reports, see “Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,” UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-dprk ; for country reports, see “2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: North Korea,” U.S. Department of State, https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/north-korea/ .

[10] United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea , UN Doc. A/HRC/25/63 (2014), para. 80, https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-idprk/commission-inquiryon-h-rin-dprk

[11] Victor Cha, “The Error of Zero-Sum Thinking about Human Rights and U.S. Denuclearization Policy,” in The North Korean Conundrum: Balancing Human Rights and Nuclear Security , eds. Robert R. King and Gi-Wook Shin (Stanford: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, 2022), 157–78.

[12] Soo-Kyung Kim, “An Interview with Former Special Envoy Robert King” [in Korean], Sindonga , December 30, 2022, https://shindonga.donga.com/3/home/13/3842527/1 .

[13] “Ambassador Jang Il Hun on Human Rights in North Korea,” Council on Foreign Relations , October 20, 2014, https://www.cfr.org/event/ambassador-jang-il-hun-human-rights-north-korea .

[14] Robert R. King, “North Korean Human Rights in the 2018 and 2019 State of the Union Addresses—What a Difference a Year Makes,” Center for Strategic and International Studies , February 7, 2019, https://www.csis.org/analysis/north-korean-human-rights-2018-and-2019-state-union-addresses-what-difference-year-makes .

[15] Kim Joon-Young, “Ministry of Unification Issues Statement on Forcible Repatriation after Text Message is Caught on Camera” [in Korean], JoongAng Ilbo , November 8, 2019, https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/23627798 .

[16] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

[17] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

[18] Korea Law Information Center, “North Korean Human Rights Act,” https://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=181623&viewCls=engLsInfoR#0000 .

[19] The Democratic Party of Korea has persistently failed to appoint its allocated quota of five individuals to the foundation’s board of directors, and the Ministry of Unification has spent nearly $2 million on office rent and personnel costs to no avail. See Oh Soo-Jeong, “North Korean Human Rights Foundation Idle for Six Years, Nearly $2 million Spent on Rent Alone” [in Korean], NoCut News , October 6, 2022, https://www.nocutnews.co.kr/news/5828493 .

[20] “U.S. to Continue Efforts to Free S. Koreans Detained by N. Korea: Washington Official,” Yonhap News , February 7, 2023, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20230207009400325 .

[21] Government of the People’s Republic of North Korea, “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Voluntary National Review On the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda,” https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/282482021_VNR_Report_DPRK.pdf .

[22] Kim Namseok, “A Resurgence of Democracy? A Conversation with Francis Fukuyama on the Challenges of a Changing Global Order,” trans. Raymond Ha, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, January 12, 2023, https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/resurgence-democracy .

[23] “S. Korea Seeks Formal Consultations with U.S., EU on NK Human Rights,” Yonhap News , January 15, 2023, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20230115001200325 .

[24] Roberta Cohen, “Legal Grounds for Protection of North Korean Refugees,” Brookings Institution, September 13, 2010, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/legal-grounds-for-protection-of-north-korean-refugees/ .

[25] U.S. Department of State, 2022 Trafficking in Persons Report , https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-trafficking-in-persons-report/ .

[26] This era is named after the Yusin Constitution, which went into force in 1972 and codified authoritarian rule under Park Chung-Hee. It marked some of the most oppressive years of dictatorial rule in South Korea.

[27] Sean King, “Germany’s Lessons for Korea,” in The North Korean Conundrum: Balancing Human Rights and Nuclear Security , eds. Robert R. King and Gi-Wook Shin (Stanford: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, 2022), 203.

[28] “About the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights” [in Korean], Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights,  https://www.nkhr.or.kr/nkhr-소개/북한인권시민연합-소개/?ckattempt=1 .

DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION OF THIS ESSAY

• Download Now

Refocusing on the North Korean Human Rights Crisis

How to solve the north korean conundrum: the role of human rights in policy toward the dprk, it’s time for k-pop stars to speak out on human rights.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

North Koreans Under ‘Reign of Fear,’ Starved and Forced to Work, U.N. Hears

At a Security Council meeting, officials gave harrowing accounts of rights abuses in North Korea. But global divisions were clear: Russia denounced the discussion, and China questioned its validity.

By Amanda E. Newman

The United Nations Security Council on Thursday took up North Korea’s human rights record for the first time in six years, with officials painting a grim picture of extreme hunger, forced labor and medicine shortages in the country.

The United States, which holds the rotating monthly presidency of the council, had sought the meeting along with Albania and Japan.

In addition to reports from U.N. officials, delegates at the meeting heard testimony from Ilhyeok Kim, a North Korean who had fled with his family to South Korea. He described being forced to work as a child and growing up under a “reign of fear.”

“The government turns our blood and sweat into a luxurious life for the leadership and missiles that blast our hard work into the sky,” he said.

Predictably, news of the U.N. meeting did not go down well in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, where the government on Tuesday criticized the American-led discussion as “despicable,” saying that the only purpose of the meeting was to help Washington achieve its geopolitical goals.

The discussion also emphasized the current divides among world powers. The Russian delegate denounced the meeting, calling it “propaganda,” and China’s representative accused the council of overstepping its purview.

Those comments contrasted with the dire situation outlined by U.N. officials. Volker Türk, the bloc’s high commissioner for human rights, said that policies introduced by Pyongyang ostensibly to contain the spread of Covid-19 had grown ever more extensive and repressive, even as cases had waned.

Rarely had North Korea “been more painfully closed to the outside world than it is today,” Mr. Türk said, adding that North Koreans were becoming “increasingly desperate,” and that fears of state surveillance, arrest and interrogation had increased.

As economic conditions worsened, Mr. Türk said, forced labor for little or no pay — including putting children to work in some cases — was used to maintain key sectors of the economy. He said that many rights violations stemmed directly from the country’s militarization.

“The widespread use of forced labor — including labor in political prison camps, forced use of schoolchildren to collect harvests, the requirement for families to undertake labor and provide a quota of goods to the government, and confiscation of wages from overseas workers — all support the military apparatus of the state and its ability to build weapons,” he said.

He noted that while North Koreans had suffered poverty and repression before, “currently they appear to be suffering both.”

“Given the limits of state-run economic institutions,” he added, “many people appear to be facing extreme hunger as well as acute shortages of medication.”

Elizabeth Salmón, a Peruvian legal scholar and the U.N.’s special rapporteur on rights in North Korea, said women and girls in the country had been detained in inhumane conditions and subjected to torture, forced labor and gender-based violence. Female escapees who have been forcibly repatriated were subjected to invasive body searches, she said.

“The preparation for any possible peacemaking process needs to include women as decision makers, and this process needs to start now,” she added.

While many Western countries at the meeting said that they were appalled by the allegations of abuse, Russia and China took aim at the council instead.

Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador, called the meeting a “provocation” and “a shameless attempt” by the United States and other Western countries “to use the council to advance their own self-serving politicized agenda.”

Geng Shuang, the Chinese ambassador to the U.N., took a different tack, arguing that human rights issues were beyond the scope of the council’s mission because the conditions in North Korea did not “pose a threat to international peace and security.”

But Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. envoy, said that she was inspired by Mr. Kim’s bravery and that Thursday’s meeting was long overdue.

“We must give voice to the voiceless,” she said.

Despite the vivid portrayals of the suffering in North Korea, there was no agreement to take any action and no mention of Pvt. Travis T. King , the American soldier who fled across the inter-Korean border into North Korea in July.

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

Increasing Information Access for the North Korean People

Accelerating knowledge sharing can help facilitate a positive transformation of North Korea.

Monday, April 15, 2024 / By: Sokeel Park

Publication Type: Analysis

This essay is part of a series,  Pursuing Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea , that explores how the United States and South Korea can peacefully coexist with a nuclear North Korea. 

In recent years, North Korea has become more repressive, more impoverished and more allergic to the outside world. Already turning inward after the failure of diplomatic efforts in 2019, the North Korean government isolated itself further amid the global COVID-19 pandemic. North Korea has learned to operate, and Kim Jong Un has learned to rule, with greater levels of self-isolation than aggressive international sanctions regimes could ever hope to impose. Given North Korea’s current mode of rejecting even humanitarian assistance and its recent turn toward Russia, the chances for diplomatic breakthroughs with Pyongyang look like a wishful long-term hope at best.

The longstanding mistrust between the United States and North Korea and the intractability of the denuclearization stalemate mean that the United States should take a long-term approach that manages and ameliorates security concerns on all sides but also facilitates a positive transformation of North Korea through increased information access for the North Korean people. This can be done, in some ways, through the consensual exchange of information within initiatives and mechanisms that parts of the North Korean government have previously demonstrated an interest in , and in other ways that do not rely on the North Korean government’s acquiescence. Ultimately, such a positive transformation of North Korea will help improve security on the peninsula and in the region in a sustainable way.

How to Increase Information Access for the North Korean People

The U.S. and South Korean governments and civil society accelerating information access for the North Korean people need not be framed as a significant new act of hostility toward the North Korean government or aimed at ending the regime, and it need not disrupt security goals or undermine other potential areas of cooperation. The North Korean government already has a maximalist narrative and assumption of adversarial cultural policies targeted at it by the U.S. and South Korean governments, but historically has only reacted aggressively to what it sees as overt and hostile information campaigns such as publicized balloon launches and loudspeakers at the demilitarized zone.

Increased public diplomacy efforts to share knowledge with the North Korean people can occur and will be more effective without fanfare or even immediate visibility. Also, these efforts should proceed in partnership with the North Korean people rather than being imposed on them, and should cover broad information areas rather than focusing on disparaging the North Korean leadership. It can be an inflection point in meaningful assistance to the North Korean people in a long-term process of shaping their government’s operating environment toward international norms, where their more extreme ideologies and problematic security policies lose their utility. 

For the past 20 years, many North Koreans have engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with the North Korean authorities, using various methods and technologies such as smuggled SD cards and laptops to access illicit news, media and knowledge. When North Koreans have been winning this game, they have increased their resilience to the government’s denial of information and methodical distribution of misinformation, which is crucial to the government’s carefully curated legitimacy and ideologies.

Greater awareness of the relative wealth of the outside world and the internal reasons for North Korea’s poverty can raise the people’s aspirations and build pressure on the government to not just promise but also deliver on improving the economy. The more people know about other countries and the less they fear the United States, South Korea and the chance of being subjugated by ill-willed outsiders, the less useful their government’s threat narrative will be, and the less justified their national security orientation and investment in missiles and nuclear weapons will become. And the more North Koreans understand the basic rights and government accountability achieved by people in neighboring countries, the more they will resent and push back on their own government’s abuse of power and draconian restrictions.

Ultimately, initiatives that challenge the North Korean government’s control over information can help constrain its more aggressive narratives and policy options, push it to be more economy-oriented, improve human rights and help it develop into a less problematic member of the international community. 

Countering the North Korean Government’s Control

In recent years, North Korean defectors have described a nascent community of anti-censorship hackers within the country. Young, tech-savvy North Koreans are using new methods and programs to disable restrictions imposed by the government on North Korean mobile operating systems and are applying anti-forensics tools on computers in order to overcome government-mandated locks and surveillance. North Korea’s December 2020 Reactionary Ideology and Culture Rejection Law , which made it a punishable offense to “illegally install operating system programs on other people’s mobile phones,” suggests that the North Korean government is seeking to counter these efforts.

The international community should give such North Koreans more security by developing digital hygiene kits comprised of anti-surveillance and anti-censorship tools tailored to North Korean technologies and risk environments. This area tends to fall in a blind spot for technologists working on information freedom globally, as they are focused on users with at least some internet access. Savvy North Koreans are already using off-the-shelf tools downloaded in China and smuggled into sharing networks inside the country to overcome government surveillance and censorship. New and adapted tools tailored to the North Korean environment would be more secure, easier to use by a wider range of North Koreans and would increase people’s sense of safety despite crackdowns, while empowering them to protect themselves from detection and punishment when accessing, creating, storing and sharing media that the government wants to deny them.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT can also play a role. The challenge for North Koreans is that their computers, even networked ones, are isolated from the global internet. But in the fast-moving world of AI, researchers have already shown that it is possible to locally run a ChatGPT-like Large Language Model (LLM) offline on an entry-level personal computer. Imagine North Koreans being able to engage a South Korean LLM in an offline, secure conversation where they can ask a progressive series of questions and receive natural responses on anything they might be curious to discuss (ranging from innocuous topics to potentially subversive ones). 

There is currently a small network of North Korean defectors, activists, researchers and technologists working on this challenge. This is an area where South Korean researchers and technologists have traditionally seen little reward and therefore had very low involvement, and they need to be encouraged by funders and governments to step up. The benefits of co-location and shared language with many defectors and activists working in this space would make a significant contribution to these efforts.

Establishing Toeholds in North Korean Society through Exchanges

The United States and the international community should also make sure they do not obstruct initiatives that can empower change. People-to-people exchanges, such as in sports , music , science and academia, can provide valuable opportunities for North Koreans to travel and learn about other cultures and systems. Likewise, foreigner visits to North Korea can help broaden interest and understanding and dispel misconceptions created by narrow media coverage.

Currently, U.S. restrictions on U.S. citizen travel to North Korea, limitations on North Korean visits to the United States and restrictions on certain transactions between Americans and North Koreans hinder people-to-people interactions between the two countries. North Korea’s own limits on travel abroad and foreign visits compound the situation. The U.S. government should ensure that it is only the North Korean government that denies these opportunities. Efforts to deny visas or interactions to further isolate or increase pressure on North Korea over security concerns would be ineffective, reinforce Pyongyang’s worst instincts and impede precious opportunities for some North Koreans to gain some freedoms even for a short time.

Similarly, if the United States and North Korea can reach any interim deal that includes sanctions relief with snapback provisions in return for progress on arms controls, sanctions against North Koreans living and working overseas should be revised first. Even with these sanctions, North Koreans continue to work abroad, particularly in China and Russia. But if these sanctions are adjusted, North Koreans could work in a broader range of countries, their visa situations could be regularized and there could be a push for better compliance with International Labour Organization standards and improvements in conditions and share of pay. Rather than denying opportunities that many North Koreans compete for and pay bribes to get, the international community should work to ensure that North Korean laborers experience protection of their rights abroad and understand that this is what they are entitled to as humans.

As the above examples illustrate, North Koreans can gain an increased understanding of new ideas and the outside world through both “normal” activities that are mutually beneficial and agreed upon, as well as through unilateral efforts at public diplomacy that support the North Korean people’s access to knowledge without the acquiescence of the North Korean government.

North Korean Refugees as Agents of Change

North Korean refugees themselves can also help accelerate positive informational and economic changes. Although the flow of refugees almost dried up during the pandemic, the number of arrivals in South Korea is ticking upwards again since the end of China’s “Zero Covid” restrictions. North Korean defectors provide crucial insights, awareness and advocacy about their country and collaborate on tailored information and technology solutions for the North Korean people, which helps North Koreans understand the outside world. In addition, North Korean defectors directly send money and information to relatives and friends still inside North Korea. The remittances provide much-needed food and medicine as well as seed capital, sometimes extended through grassroots microlending, for entrepreneurial activities that accelerate bottom-up marketization and increase the North Korean people’s agency and aspirations.

It is therefore important that the international community protects and assists North Korean refugees and ensures that as many as possible can find safe passage to resettlement countries. The more successful North Korean defectors are in their resettlement, the more effective they can be as partners and agents of change on this issue. In this regard, there should also be increased investment in tailored capacity-building programs to give resettled North Koreans new skills, greater success in their new lives and more potential to contribute to change in their homeland.

Conclusion: Take Heart

There is significant potential for international civil society to play a role in reforming North Korea. In South Korea, young people are increasingly disinterested in North Korea as the ninth decade of a divided peninsula approaches, and the vision of a reunified Korea inevitably resonates less and less. This presents a challenge because reunification, despite Kim Jong Un’s recent about-face , is still the South Korean and U.S. governments’ stated goal and remains the dominant framework for thinking about future change and solutions for North Korea. However, if civil society organizations and governments can engage young South Koreans on North Korea in a people-centric, non-politicized way without focusing on reunification, they can tap into latent reservoirs of interest and support for the people with shared language and heritage who live just a few mountains to the north.

Furthermore, if there is growing and visible interest and engagement on this issue among North and South Korean-born youth in Seoul, there is significant potential for transnational solidarity and growing regional and global support, especially among young people who are increasingly interested in all things Korean. This is crucial both for stimulating governments and other actors to be more proactive, but also to increase mutual learning and cooperation between civil society organizations working for change in authoritarian countries in East Asia and around the world.

Mobilizing resources for initiatives designed to empower the North Korean people and the changes that have been slow burning for two decades isn’t just for bleeding hearts; it is the best strategy available for promoting progress and peace on the Korean Peninsula and in the region.

Sokeel Park is the South Korea country director for Liberty in North Korea, an international nongovernmental organization working with North Korean defectors for change in North Korea.

Related Publications

It’s Time to Resolve the Korean War

Monday, April 1, 2024

By: Dan Leaf

The greatest challenge to peaceful coexistence between North Korea and the United States is the technical state of war between the two countries. The United States and the Soviet Union may have been at ideological loggerheads, used proxies in regional conflicts and come close to direct superpower blows — but they were not in a state of war. Resolution of the Korean War should be set as a stated U.S. policy objective. This is a necessary Step Zero on the road to peaceful coexistence with North Korea today and could reduce the risk of deliberate or accidental conflict, nuclear or otherwise.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

Three Conditions for Successful Engagement with North Korea

Monday, March 25, 2024

By: Mark Tokola

The September 13, 2023, meeting between Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un in Russia’s Amur Oblast marked a significant crippling of the decades-long U.S. pressure-based approach toward North Korea. The strategy of isolating and pressuring North Korea through United Nations Security Council resolutions to compel its nuclear disarmament in exchange for providing normalized relations, economic aid and sanctions relief may or may not ever have been a winning strategy, but now is no longer viable. The strategy required cooperation among the United States, South Korea, China and Russia, but this now seems a distant prospect.

Building Trust through Health Cooperation with North Korea

Monday, March 18, 2024

By: Kee B. Park

The United States needs to address the existing trust deficit with North Korea if it wants to coexist peacefully with that country. Trust building through health cooperation may be the least contentious way politically and the most likely to succeed. However, engagement on health and humanitarian assistance with North Korea, like security negotiations, has been undermined by geopolitics.

Climate Change as a Path to Engagement with North Korea

Monday, March 11, 2024

By: Troy Stangarone

Since North Korea broke off talks with the United States after their 2019 meeting in Stockholm, progress in engaging Pyongyang on its nuclear weapons and other issues has stalled. The pandemic likely played a significant role in cooling engagement, but Pyongyang’s growing relationship with Russia has further reduced its incentives to engage with the United States.

Fighting for Freedom: U.S. and South Korea Seek Solutions for North Korean Human Rights Issues

S outh Korea and the United States held the 2nd Korea-U.S. Consultation on North Korean Human Rights Issues to explore ways to cooperate in promoting strategic human rights in North Korea.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced, “Chun Young Hee, Director of the Peace Diplomacy Planning Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explored ways to cooperate on North Korean human rights issues with Julie Turner, U.S. State Department Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights in Washington, DC, USA, on the 15th (local time).”

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, various related agencies participated in this meeting for broad discussions. The South Korean side was accompanied by the Ministry of Unification and the Ministry of Justice, and the U.S. side was attended by the National Security Council (NSC) and the Department of Defense.

Both sides agreed that North Korea’s obsession with nuclear and missile development has led to the violation of the fundamental rights of North Korean residents and worsened the human rights situation. Therefore, the international community has decided to continue efforts to clarify the responsibility for the oppression of human rights by the North Korean regime and to improve access to information for North Korean residents.

Read more: Scholz in China: A Diplomatic Move to Address Trade Disputes and Ukraine Crisis

In particular, they again discussed ways to cooperate in resolving the issue of abductees, detainees, and prisoners of war agreed upon at the Korea-U.S. summit in April last year and the Korea-U.S.-Japan summit in August of the same year. They also decided to continue urging North Korea to comply with international human rights norms and faithfully implement the U.N. North Korean Human Rights Resolution and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) recommendations.

Editor's Pick

• Xi Jinping Sends a Congratulatory Message to Russian President Vladimir Putin
• China Warns Korea Against Taiwan’s Participation in Democracy Summit
• China’s State-Run Media Strongly Criticizes ‘Summit for Democracy’
• North Korea Conducts Super-Large MRL Firing Drill, Kim Jong Un Supervises

Director Chun emphasized that “we need to raise our voices to demand the abolition of North Korea’s unfair and excessive control measures, such as the Anti-Reactionary Thought and Culture Rejection Law, to bridge the information gap between North Korea and the outside world.”

Moreover, he added, “Our government has designated July 14 as the Day of North Korean Defectors and is making efforts to support the settlement of defectors,” and “we are also enhancing protection and support for defectors abroad.”

Special Envoy Turner said, “The priorities of both countries for improving human rights in North Korea are largely similar,” and “Let’s continue to closely coordinate Korea-U.S. concrete measures for the substantial improvement of North Korean human rights.”

Meanwhile, after a six-year hiatus, the Korea-U.S. Consultation on North Korean Human Rights Issues was relaunched in November last year. Based on this meeting, both countries plan to push for the next meeting in the second half of this year.

Most Viewed in ViewusGlobal

• North Korea Breaks Silence on South Korean Election: A Crushing Defeat for Yoon Suk Yeol
• Seattle Mayor Makes Historic Visit to Seoul, Strengthening Ties
• LE SSERAFIM’s ‘Smart’ and ‘Easy’ Show Unfading Popularity on Spotify

North Korea Human Rights Violations

North Korea is one of the most mysterious countries in the world due to its relative reclusiveness from world affairs, but behind this veneer lies a history of horrifying and disgusting abuse of human rights. The country, formed in 1948 in the wake of the Korean War, is ruled by the communist Kim regime, which holds an iron grip on the country. As of now the country is headed by its third ruler, Kim Jong-un, since its creation. Although the country routinely denies any sort of involvement in human right abuses, thousands of testimonies and evidence say otherwise.

The Kim regime still rules the country today and may rule into the foreseeable future. North Korea’s creation and communist ideals stem from the Cold War , primarily the Proxy War between North and South Korea, backed by the USSR and USA respectively. The respective influences on the two countries during the temporary occupation after WWII created the radical split that would divide Korea at the 38th parallel, otherwise known as the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone).

As the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) is mostly pro-communism due to its Soviet influence, the country has since developed a government that mimics the totalitarian control of the USSR. Although there were many human rights abuses following the Korean War , there is no definite date or time when the abuses started. What is known is that their constant abuses of human rights to further their own power and to keep themselves in power is nothing new.

In 1948, the North Korean Constitution was created, bearing striking resemblances to the Soviet Union’s constitution. It is the result of the occupation of North Korea after WWII and the liberation from Japan. Unfortunately, the ruling system of the USSR is to have a totalitarian ruler be in control of the nation. This led to North Korea to install the Kim il-Sung Constitution in 1998, which ensured Sung’s power and name him the “Eternal President”. The propaganda in North Korea is so entrenched that it praises itself in its own constitution. wikiwand. com, Constitution)

An additional constitution created recently in 2012, known as the Kim il-Sung Kim Jong-un constitution, further solidifies the Kim regime’s power and glorifies North Korea by declaring itself a nuclear-armed state. Similar to the aforementioned Kim il-Sung Constitution, its rhetoric serves as propaganda to raise the morale of North Korean denizens. Policies such as Juche and Songun are also effective measures that the government has employed to keep control.

The ideology of juche, the official religion of the DPRK, states that its constituents can control their own destinies, but must be guided by their deity, a member of the Kim regime. (patheos. com) Songun, the military-first policy of the state, glorifies the army and instills a sense of national pride at the expense of civilians. (“North Korea’s Military-First Policy”, Vorontsov) More recently, dictator Kim Jong-un has taken measures to eliminate his political enemies and maintain control of the state.

In 2013, Jang Sung-thaek, uncle of Kim Jong-un, was executed his vehement criticisms against the current North Korean government. (“North Korean Leader’s Uncle Executed”, BBC) Victims include any dissenters, defectors and Christians, who are the minority religion and are persecuted for their practices. Women are also affected as a byproduct of the One Child Policy, since there is a market for North Korean girls tricked into crossing the border by their guides and sold many times until they meet their new husband. (Kirkpatrick 79-80)

The execution of Sung-thaek is not an isolated coincidence; any political dissent is quashed by the totalitarian regime. Political enemies of the state face the risk of being arrested and sent to a reeducation camp, or executed as a warning to others. As a method of preventing resistance, the policy of collective punishment (“Liberty in North Korea”, The People’s Challenges) dictates that up to three generations of the family of a known enemy of the state can also be subjected to the same punishments unless one of the current leader of North Korea is one of them.

The same applies to defectors attempting to flee to another country. Although North Korea is largely secular, the minority of Christians in the country is heavily persecuted. For instance, any signs of religion can lead to immediate persecution. (Shim, Gale) (“Remembering”, Evans) Punishment includes being placed into one of the infamous re-education camps, where prisoners endure brutal punishment and even face execution. Prisoners face starving to death if they become injured and are unable to fulfill their production quotas. “Life in North Korea’s Yodok Prison Camp”, Kwang-il)

Furthermore, North Korea has faced heavy criticisms and judgement on the treatment of its people, although not from internal sources. There is absolutely next to no resistance in the country, mostly out of fear of being punished and similar factors. The only support system is an underground network of Christian communities that transports defectors out of North Korea. (Kirkpatrick 41) Any form of resistance is immediately crushed by the regime. This is a stark contrast compared to external responses, which are much greater.

Many outside groups, such as Liberty in North Korea (LNK), opposes the regime and assists refugees from the country through the smuggling contraband items and sending of American currency. (libertyinnorthkorea. org) The UN has repeatedly placed sanctions on the country and has condemned many of their human right violations, though it has not undertaken significant action outside of this. (Shim, Gale) China opposes North Korean refugees, however, it has supported a few, mostly high ranking North Korean defectors such as Hwang Jang-yop. Kirkpatrick 66-72)

The incidents occurring in North Korea are reminiscent of other themes seen in other countries throughout history. North Korea displays many tactics and ideologies similar to that of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. Like other totalitarian governments, it is reliant on terror, media censorship, heavy indoctrination, and other authoritarian practices. The DPRK also seeks to instill nationalism in its citizens, a trait shared by fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany .

In addition, North Korea has an abysmal human rights record; nearly all of the rights laid out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been withheld or violated in North Korea. (Human Right Watch) Some of these rights include the right of opinion and expression, freedom of the press , and natural rights amongst others. The media is so tightly controlled by the North Korean regime to the point that at least forty North Korean journalists have been sent to prison for misspelling a senior officer’s name or questioning the official version of North Korean history. Kirkpatrick 276)

Unfortunately, there is no aftermath that can be defined in the context of North Korea. Although the country shows increasing instability with many high ranking officials defecting (“North Korea”, CNN), it’s clear that the Kim regime will continue their reign of power for years to come. Although, as stated before, in absence of an aftermath, the North Korean people still suffer under the oppressive government. Basic needs are cast aside to further expand North Korea’s Nuclear Missile program. “How North Korea Starved Its People”, Francis) Many people still live in poverty, and even if they do not, their actions are still heavily restricted.

The documentary The Secret State showed the struggle that many North Koreans face in their day to day lives. Poverty runs rampant in the country, with over 75% of people in the country unable to get food. Everyday activities in America, such as filming, can be considered treason in North Korea. The documentary also shows many rights that have been violated, which goes to show no matter what class one may be.

Citizens could potentially be punished if they didn’t show enough emotion during important events , like Kim Jong-il’s funeral. It was a struggle to show the most emotion to avoid execution. The documentary even details the dangerous operation of smuggling, a dangerous practice that could result in severe punishment or execution if caught. To demonstrate prosperity and wealth, the North Korean government constructs fake department stores filled to the brim with food and living necessities imported from foreign nations.

The aim of these department stores is to show off the wealth and surplus of the North Korean government on North Korean national TV. However, there is no functional use for them, as none of the items are on sale for the citizens. The group’s final thoughts are that the lives of North Korean citizens are deeply indoctrinated and brainwashed, and it would be very difficult and chaotic to uproot this and reconstrue new principles that would fit better with Western ideals.

Opposition must be both external and internal if the people can successfully overthrow the government. The current state of North Korean society illustrates how the UN has failed to make peace and promote human rights. It also shows the extent of the power of international awareness and its limits. Actions against the North Korean government seem ineffective (like the sanctions), but it has been having a negative effect on the economy. However, the economic downturn has ironically caused widespread poverty and made more North Koreans suffer.

The regime of the DPRK and its human rights violations is important to know because it is an incredibly longstanding legacy of the Cold War and how many of the brutalities during that time period still manifest themselves in the North Korean regime, especially with North Korea’s numerous human rights violations. It is also vital to learn about it so that the atrocities committed by the North Korean State are not repeated in other countries. Even more so, it is important to learn from the actions of North Korea, as a brighter future must be ensured and preventive actions must be undertaken so that a regime like this one shall never rise again.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

• Rafael Trujillo In Julia Alvarezs In The Time Of The Butterflies Essay
• Essay on Sethe In Beloved
• North Korea Authoritarianism
• MIS Project Essay Examples
• Hot Conflict in the Cold War: The Korean War
• The Korean War
• Korean unification Essay Examples
• The Outbreak of the Korean War
• History of the Korean Broadcasting
• Dissent In North Korea By George Orwell
• North Korean Human Rights Violations
• North Korea Hermit Kingdom

Home / Essay Samples / World / North Korea / North Korea: Human Rights Abuse

North Korea: Human Rights Abuse

• Category: Government , World
• Topic: Civil Rights Violation , North Korea

Pages: 2 (730 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

India Essays

Tokyo Essays

Vietnam Essays

North Korea Essays

Russia Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->