The ROK government is making a good point in regards to why North Korea is allowed to remain a member of the United Nations when it does not comply with any of the UN resolutions leveled against the country? I doubt it will go any where, but it is still worth bringing up:
South Korea has officially questioned North Korea’s qualification as a member of the United Nations during a U.N. meeting this week, citing Pyongyang’s repeated violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
South Korea’s U.N. ambassador, Oh Joon, raised the question during a meeting Monday of the U.N. Security Council, saying the North pledged to accept and to uphold the purposes and principles of the U.N. as laid out in its charter when it joined the U.N. in 1991, together with South Korea.
“Twenty-five years ago, the DPRK solemnly pledged to comply with the obligations of the U.N. Charter as a new member, but during the past decade, the DPRK has persistently violated all Security Council resolutions on the DPRK,” Oh said, according to video footage of the meeting. He used the initials for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
“This is not only a direct challenge to the authority of the Security Council, but also a contradiction to both the letter and spirit of the pledge it made. This breach of obligation by the DPRK calls into question its qualification as a member of the United Nations,” he said.
It was the first time the South has taken issue with the North’s U.N. membership. [Yonhap via One Free Korea]
You can read more at the link as well as over at One Free Korea.
Both South Korea and Japan are being criticized in an opinion piece in the USA Today by a UN staffer for not allowing in Syrian and other refugees fleeing violence in the Middle East. However,the article seems to be less a criticism of accepting refugees and more a criticism of Korea not wanting to become a multicultural nation. I just do not see how it is in South Korea or Japan’s interest to accept thousands of refugees who cannot speak the language, will be culturally isolated, and will likely become long term wards of the state? South Korea already has the burden of accepting thousands of refugees from North Korea who have their own problems integrating with South Korean society and the UN thinks refugees from the Middle East would do any better?
Japan and South Korea are like estranged fraternal siblings. Both have more in common than they care to admit: an aging population, abysmal birthrates and gender inequality. Both are in danger of losing their workforces unless they open their doors to migrants and refugees. Yet both face resistance from populations that have long taken pride in their ethnic homogeneity and are wary of the outside world.
Whenever a boat overloaded with refugees turns up on other countries’ shores, there are sighs of relief in Seoul and Tokyo that it is happening elsewhere.
South Korea and Japan are both signatories to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, which obliges them to protect and provide refugees with basic rights and social services. Even so, their records of accepting asylum seekers are appallingly low. Last year, South Korea granted refugee status to 94 asylum seekers — a bump from 57 in 2013 — out of some 2,900 applicants from Asia, Africa and the Middle East (this doesn’t include North Korean defectors, who are considered South Korean citizens by law). [USA Today]
Via a reader tip comes this interesting article over at Gusts of Popular Feeling that discusses a United Nations decision that ruled that South Korea was discriminating against foreign English teacher by requiring them to have HIV tests:
In late 2009 I posted here about a foreign teacher who was refusing to take second HIV test in order to renew her teaching contract at an elementary school in Ulsan. As a result she lost her job and left Korea, and with Benjamin Wagner representing her, complaints were filed with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (which rejected it) and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (which ruled against her. Then in July 2012 it was announced that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had agreed to hear the case, though not a single Korean media outlet chose to report on this despite receiving a press release from a PR firm. Given 90 days to reply, the ROK instead took 9 months to reply, stating that “since 2010, its guidelines on the employment of foreign teachers do not specify that [foreign teachers] have to submit results of HIV/AIDS and drugs tests to have their contracts renewed,” an assertion which I knew personally was not true (and which the Korea Herald looked at here). In 2010 the ROK had in fact officially removed all HIV tests for those registering for residency except for the E-2 visa tests.
In a journal article coauthored by Benjamin Wagner and myself, we asked in the title whether HIV tests were a proxy for racial discrimination, and this week the CERD answered that question: Yes. [Gusts of Popular Feeling]
I recommend reading the whole thing at the link, but unless you are a long time ROK Head you may not remember this issue. It all began in 2005 when English Spectrum-gate occurred. Some foreign English teachers had made some derogatory comments about Korean women on the English Spectrum website that some Korean netizen noticed. It soon exploded within the Korean Internet community who were able to take down the English Spectrum website. This did not stop the Korean netizen fury against what they believed to be unqualified foreign English teachers running around the country taking drugs and molesting Korean women. An Anti-English Spectrum group was formed that actually wanted to provoke incidents with foreigners in certain university areas in order to push them out. The movement against foreign English teachers got so bad it was reported in the LA Times:
ie Eun-woong, volunteer manager of the Seoul-based Anti-English Spectrum
Sometimes, in his off hours, Yie Eun-woong does a bit of investigative work.
He uses the Internet and other means to track personal data and home addresses of foreign English teachers across South Korea.
Then he follows them, often for weeks at a time, staking out their apartments, taking notes on their contacts and habits.
He wants to know whether they’re doing drugs or molesting children.
Yie, a slender 40-year-old who owns a temporary employment agency, says he is only attempting to weed out troublemakers who have no business teaching students in South Korea, or anywhere else.
The volunteer manager of a controversial group known as the Anti-English Spectrum, Yie investigates complaints by South Korean parents, often teaming up with authorities, and turns over information from his efforts for possible prosecution.
Outraged teachers groups call Yie an instigator and a stalker.
Yie waves off the criticism. “It’s not stalking, it’s following,” he said. “There’s no law against that.”
Since its founding in 2005, critics say, Yie’s group has waged an invective-filled nationalistic campaign against the 20,000 foreign-born English teachers in South Korea.
On their website and through fliers, members have spread rumors of a foreign English teacher crime wave. They have alleged that some teachers are knowingly spreading AIDS, speculation that has been reported in the Korean press. [LA Times]
The controversy led the Korean government to order a crackdown against foreign English teachers. The crackdown got so bad I felt compelled to offer my advice to English teachers on how to blend in as a US GI. I have to admit that I did take some pleasure in that since back then expat English teachers used to regularly complain about GIs until they got a dose of how isolated incidents are used by the Korean media to slime an entire population.
The anti-English Spectrum group was eventually able to lobby to get laws passed in 2007 to make it harder to get an E2 visa which is how the HIV testing came about. I would have no problems with more stringent requirements for teaching English in Korea if all teachers were subjected to the same requirements because I am sure there are many of unqualified Korean teachers teaching students in Korea as well.
The UN ruling has been published in the Korea Times:
This is racial discrimination,” an English teacher from Northern Ireland, who refused to be named, said. “Why should only white, American and European people be subject to this? There is an insinuation here that white people are more promiscuous, and more inclined to take drugs than Korean people.
“If you want to protect young students, then you test everybody for drugs and HIV. Not just foreigners.”
Sarah Abendroth, who teaches English in Seoul, agreed saying, “It would be fine if the test is required for both Korean and English teachers.
“A lot of people feel it’s an invasion of privacy and it perpetuates the stereotype of foreigners being ‘loose,'” she noted.
Korea has a history of restricting global trends to abolish discrimination.
It joined the international convention on CERD in 1978.
In its ruling, the U.N. committee called Korea’s HIV testing policy an act of racism.
“The mandatory testing policy limited to foreign English teachers, who are not ethnically Korean, does not appear to be justified on public health grounds or any other grounds, and is a breach of the right to work without distinction of race, color, national or ethnic origin,” it said.
The committee called on the Korean government to grant adequate compensation for the mental and material damages she suffered. It also urged the government to abolish the law that is “discriminatory and an affront to her dignity.” [Korea Times]
What I find probably of the most interest in this ruling is not whether the Korean government will end the HIV testing but whether they will offer compensation to foreign English teachers. That would have to be a hefty bill to offer compensation to every English teacher that was forced to comply with discriminatory laws since 2007. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I have a feeling the law will probably just be quietly removed at some point and no compensation will be offered.
Is it a violation of UN sanctions to carry out a photoshopped missile launch?
South Korea has referred North Korea to a U.N. sanctions committee over its recent test-firing of a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), the foreign ministry said Tuesday.
On May 9, North Korea claimed it successfully carried out an SLBM test underwater, renewing tensions on the Korean Peninsula. If confirmed, the test would be a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions that ban any launch by North Korea that uses ballistic missile technology.
South Korea has sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council’s North Korea Sanctions Committee to ask it to address the issue, according to ministry spokesman Noh Kwang-il.
“Therefore, I understand that there will be consultations within the Security Council’s sanctions committee,” he said during a press briefing. [Yonhap]
Is this the first time that someone from the UN has advocated for the use of near slave labor?:
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday he will visit the inter-Korean industrial complex in North Korea’s border city of Kaesong this week to help ease inter-Korean tensions.
“I reiterate my willingness to do whatever it takes to contribute to improving inter-Korean relations and promoting reconciliation and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” Ban said during a press conference at the World Education Forum in Songdo, west of Seoul.
On Thursday, Ban, a former South Korean foreign minister, will be the first U.N. chief to visit the complex, which has been symbolic of inter-Korean reconciliation since its launch in 2004. He will also be the first U.N. chief to visit North Korea in more than 20 years.
“The Kaesong project is a win-win model for both Koreas,” he said. “It symbolizes a good way to tap the advantages of the Koreas in a complementary manner.” [Yonhap]
Does anyone else see the irony in the Chinese advocating for respecting the sovereignty of other nations?:
February is China’s month to hold the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, a post that rotates monthly among all 15 members (making it a semi-annual position, last held by China in November 2013). Yet China had some lofty goals for this particular stint as president. In particular, China used its position to host a larger debate about the future of the United Nations, and international relations more generally, in the 21st century.
Upon taking over the presidency, China presented a concept paper for a debate that would focus on reconfirming each state’s commitment to the U.N. Charter. The discussion was also intended as a way to kick off the commemoration of the U.N.’s 70th anniversary and “the victory won in the war against fascism.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi chaired the debate, which took place Monday.
Wang’s statements at the debate emphasized China’s view for how the U.N. should function – an important point, as China is determined to revamp international institutions to be more reflective of the 21st century (which, in part, would involve more influence for China and other developing powers). In accordance with that vision, Wang called for adding “new dimensions” to the U.N. Charter to “bring to it new dynamism and vitality.”
Wang also used the floor to argue for China’s vision of international relations, which centers on respect for each country’s “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity” as well as “their choice of development path and social system.” He warned against countries acting unilaterally or going outside the U.N. to impose their will on others. “We should make sure that justice, not hegemony, will prevail in the world,” Wang said. [The Diplomat]
This resolution is highly symbolic since China and Russia would likely veto it at the UN Security Council, but it is still a very high embarrassing resolution for the ruling Kim regime:
A U.N. General Assembly committee on Tuesday passed a highly symbolic resolution calling for referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for human rights violations in a move sure to spark angry protests from the communist nation.
The Third Committee approved the resolution in a 111-19 vote. Fifty-five countries abstained.
The resolution’s overwhelming passage through the committee almost guaranteed its formal adoption at the U.N. General Assembly. It also represented a victory for the West in an intense diplomatic battle at the U.N. against North Korea and other authoritarian regimes sympathetic to Pyongyang.
Earlier Tuesday, the committee rejected a Cuban proposal to remove the call for the North’s referral to the ICC from the resolution.
“The General Assembly decides … to take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible,” the resolution said. [Yonhap]
Looks like the militias groups responsible for the violence in Darfur are sending a message to any countries thinking of sending potential United Nations peacekeepers next year:
Ten African Union soldiers were killed and 50 were missing after armed men launched an assault on an AU base in Darfur, the worst attack on AU troops since they deployed in Sudan’s violent west in 2004.
The AU called it a "deliberate and sustained" assault by some 30 vehicles, which overran and looted the peacekeepers’ camp on Saturday night.
Sudan’s army and Darfur rebel movements initially blamed each other for the strike on the Haskanita base in southeastern Darfur. But one rebel source said the attack was carried out by breakaway rebel forces who wanted a seat at peace talks due to begin on October 27 in Libya. [Opheera McDoom, Reuters]
Back in August with much fanfare it was announced that the UN would send up to 26,000 peacekeepers to Darfur. Everyone patted themselves on the back and called this a great thing. However, if you look at the fine print there is no guarantee that 26,000 peacekeepers will even materialize because UN member countries have to volunteer to send soldiers to Darfur. How many countries are going to volunteer soldiers for the Darfur mission that risk those soldiers being killed? You come, we will kill you, that is the message the militias are sending to potential countries now thinking about sending peacekeepers.
Nations that do end up sending peacekeepers anyway will instead be more concerned about force protection of their own forces than actually securing the population. In the end little will change. Darfur is a perfect example of the weakness of the UN because there is no peace to keep if their was never a fight to establish peace in the first place.
Recently the UN announced that a 26,000 member peacekeeping force had been agreed upon to be deployed to Darfur. Sounds like good news right? Well, not if you start reading the fine print. First of all the force won’t even be on the ground until next year and the ability fill a 26,000 member force is dependent on UN countries volunteering forces to participate in the UN operation. For those not familiar with UN peacekeeping, many of the soldiers involved in UN peacekeeping are not there to actually help the country they are deployed too. They are actually there to collect a paycheck because UN peacekeeping pays better than what they would make in their home country’s military. Thus soldiers from third world nation’s make up the vast majority of UN peacekeepers:
Top Countries Who Provide UN Peacekeepers Pakistan – 10,173 Bangladesh – 9,675 India – 9,471 Nepal – 3,626 Jordan – 3,564 Uruguay – 2,583
Additionally, countries that are host to UN peacekeepers prefer having soldiers from third world nations because they are ineffective. So it is a win-win for everyone involved because the peacekeepers are making a bunch of money while the country they are supposedly providing peacekeeping for is not impacted by their presence, and the UN gets to claim they are doing something and request more funding. UN peacekeeping is often nothing more than a self licking ice cream cone. A self licking ice cream cone is not something that will do anything to help the people in Darfur.
