If you haven’t been to the UN Cemetery in Busan it is definitely worth checking out as it is the only cemetery with UN servicemembers buried together:
Hundreds of Korean War veterans around the world offered a moment of silence on Wednesday, turning to face the direction of Busan where the fallen U.N. soldiers killed during the war are buried.
In the South Korean port city, 40 veterans from 11 countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Turkey attended the ceremony that began at 11 a.m. in the United Nations Memorial Cemetery (UNMCK).
The Turn Toward Busan ceremony, arranged by the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, was simultaneously observed in Canada, New Zealand and the Philippines. The ceremony was held in some 40 cities of the 21 nations that fought together to safeguard freedom decades ago.
The cemetery is the only place in the world where fallen U.N. servicemen are buried. According to the ministry, 40,670 servicemen of the 21 U.N. allied nations were killed during the conflict, with 104,280 wounded and 4,116 missing. A total of 23,000 U.N. servicemen were laid to rest at UNMCK. [Korea Times]
It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. The Chinese have so much invested in these South China Sea islands I just don’t see them backing down even if the UN court rules against them. The domestic political blowback would be too much with accusations of the Chinese government backing down to foreigners. The UN court though could legitimize the freedom of navigation patrols which are currently being executed by the US Navy. The ruling is supposed to be released sometime in 2016:
The Hague (AFP) – An international tribunal ruled Thursday it had the power to hear a case brought by the Philippines over disputed islands in the South China Sea, in a move likely to trigger fury in Beijing.
Manila has insisted the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the Philippines and China have both ratified, should be used to resolve the bitter territorial row over isolated reefs and islets, which has triggered growing international alarm.
But China has refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing the Permanent Court of Arbitration — which is more than a century old and based in The Hague — had no jurisdiction over the case.
“Reviewing the claims submitted by the Philippines, the tribunal has rejected the argument” by China that the “dispute is actually about sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and therefore beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction,” the court said in a statement.
Instead, the court ruled the case reflects “disputes between the two states concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention” — something which falls within its remit.
China insists it has sovereign rights to nearly all of the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which about a third of all the world’s traded oil passes.
The disputed waters — claimed in part by Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Brunei — have also become the stage for a tussle for regional dominance between Beijing and Washington, the world’s two largest economic and military powers.
Following a stand-off between Chinese ships and the weak Filipino Navy in 2012, China took control of a rich fishing ground called Scarborough Shoal that is within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. [Associated Press]
These are just words on the part of the Chinese leader which are important, but I am more interested to see what action they would take in response to the next North Korean provocation:
In an apparent warning to North Korea, Chinese President Xi Jinping said Friday he opposes any action that violates U.N. Security Council resolutions as he and President Barack Obama reaffirmed their commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Xi made the remark during a joint press conference after summit talks with Obama at the White House as concerns have grown that North Korea could launch a long-range rocket or conduct a nuclear test next month in violation of U.N. resolutions.
“We reaffirm our commitment to realize the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful way and we oppose any action that might cause tension in the Korean peninsula or violate U.N. Security Council resolutions,” Xi said.
Xi did not mention North Korea by name, but it was pretty clear that he was referring to Pyongyang.
It is highly unusual for a Chinese leader to publicly issue such a warning, given that Beijing has been reluctant to criticize North Korea and has usually urged all sides to exercise calm and restraint when it comes to tensions on the Korean Peninsula.”
Xi also said that a 2005 agreement on North Korea’s denuclearizations and U.N. resolutions should be “implemented in full and all relevant parties should work together to firmly advance the denuclearization process of the Korean peninsula and maintain peace and stability so as to achieve enduring peace and stability in Northeast Asia.” [Yonhap]
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]
A U.S.-organized event on North Korea’s human rights briefly turned into chaos at the U.N. on Thursday as North Korean diplomats insisted on reading a statement of protest, amid shouts from defectors, and then stormed out.
The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, tried to quiet the diplomats at the event that featured more than 20 defectors. She called North Korea’s statements “totally self-discrediting.”
The North Korean diplomats did not comment as they left the chamber after diplomat Ri Song Chol read out a statement in protest of the event, even as North Korean defectors stood and shouted in their faces.
Nuclear-armed North Korea has been on the defensive ever since a groundbreaking U.N. commission of inquiry detailed vast rights abuses there. North Korea has repeatedly referred to defectors who cooperated in the inquiry “human scum.”
Defectors stood up and shouted in Korean as Power and others called for calm and a U.N. security team assembled. An observer who speaks Korean said the shouts included “Shut up!” ”Free North Korea!” ”Down with Kim Jong Un!” and “Even animals know to wait their turn.” [Associated Press]
I wonder if the Iranians were using this shipment as a way to test US willingness to strike a deal?
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, right, welcomes North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Su Yong, for a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014
North Korea supplied several shipments of missile components to Iran during recent nuclear talks and the transfers appear to violate United Nations sanctions on both countries, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations.
Critics of the U.S.-led nuclear framework agreement reached in Switzerland earlier this month have said one major deficiency of the accord is its failure to address Iran’s missile program, considered a key nuclear delivery system for the Islamist regime. [The Washington Free Beachon]
You can read the rest at the link, but if the Iranians saw that the US was allowing this ship to travel to Iran unmolested then that may have been a sign to the regime that the US was eager to cut a deal and overlook obvious sanctions violations. Anyone else have any other theories on the timing of this shipment?
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]
