Opening remarks by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein at a press conference during his mission to the Republic
of Korea
Seoul, 25 June 2015
Good afternoon, and thank you for coming.
This has been my first visit to Asia since becoming High
Commissioner for Human Rights, and the first visit by any High Commissioner to
the Republic of Korea for more than a decade.
It has had two principal purposes: firstly to open an office here to
work on human rights issues in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK), in line with a recommendation made last year by the ground-breaking
Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the DPRK. And secondly to discuss
various human rights issues relating to the Republic of Korea itself.
I would like to thank the Government for hosting our new
office, and also for enabling my visit with such warmth, efficiency and
openness. The Republic of Korea has shown increasing leadership on human rights
on the international stage in recent years, most notably in the Human Rights
Council in Geneva, of which it is currently a member. And this visit has, I
believe, strengthened our already strong relationship in ways I hope will
ultimately bring concrete improvements in the lives of people in both Koreas.
It was encouraging to see the importance given to the
opening of the new office by the Government itself, which was represented by
the Foreign Minister and other senior officials, as well as by the diplomatic
community, media, civil society and the general public.
It is rare that the opening of a small office is such big
news. I believe this reflects the fact that we all fervently want to see the
same thing: a major improvement in the human rights situation in the DPRK. And
while none of us expects a new UN human rights office will dramatically alter
that situation overnight, we do all feel, I think, that it is a significant
step: a breakthrough that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago, and
one that was not even on the far horizon before the Commission of Inquiry took
place and issued its powerful, devastating and extremely influential report in
February 2014.
My predecessor, Navi Pillay, had issued a statement a
year earlier urging the Human Right Council to create an international
Commission of Inquiry. It was an unusual
call for a High Commissioner, because there was no new war, or particular
atrocity, that triggered it. And this was precisely why she made it. The population of the DPRK has been suffering
appalling human rights violations and deprivation for decades, and much of the
outside world was barely aware of what was going on there and focussed only on
the nuclear issue.
In the words of the Commission of Inquiry, “the gravity,
scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any
parallel in the contemporary world.” The
Commissioners did not mince their words, stating unequivocally that a wide
range of crimes against humanity had been committed there, arising from policies
established “at the highest level of State.”
The Commission of Inquiry report had an enormous impact
in the international arena. Because of that report, the victims now have faces
and they have voices. Brave voices revealing heart-rending personal tragedies
produced by systematic cruelty and depravity beyond our darkest imagination. In
addition to the public hearings, the Commission’s report drew on interviews
with more than 240 witnesses and victims who were afraid to speak publicly, but
whose experiences were no less searing, and who provided evidence which, if
taken up by prosecutors, may one day prove vital in a court of law.
Thanks to the Commission of Inquiry, the human rights
situation in the DPRK is now firmly on the international agenda, and is a
regular topic of discussion in all three principal organs of the United Nations
dealing with human rights, namely the Human Rights Council, the General
Assembly and the Security Council. Some of its most important recommendations –
such as a referral by the Security Council of the situation in the DPRK to the
International Criminal Court – have not yet been acted on, but still could be.
But the fact that this UN human rights office in Seoul is now a reality, and
will start fully operating in a month or so, is a sign that the Commission’s
work is starting to bear fruit.
In addition, the Government of the DPRK is reacting.
Sometimes this reaction comes in the form of angry threats. But at the same
time there are signs the DPRK Government is making more effort to at least
engage with some of the issues being raised in the international arena, for
example during the process known as the Universal Periodic Review during which
every State’s human rights record is examined by the other States.
I hope this reaction will continue and mature to a point
where it produces some concrete results. The purpose of our new office is not
just to monitor, report and criticize – though it will do all of those. It is
also to engage with civil society, with refugees and defectors and with
Governments of the region. We will also keep our channels open to the
authorities in the DPRK itself. Engagement is vital. And so is accountability.
These are not opposing forces. They are both essential if a society in as bad a
state as the DPRK is to one day recover and start to prosper.
The people of the DPRK are currently facing the
consequences of what appears to be the worst drought in living memory,
compounded by decades of disastrous agricultural practices and chronic economic
mismanagement. To avert the extremely high risk of famine, the Government must
engage with its neighbours and with humanitarian agencies, and they should
reciprocate with support. The right to food, the right to health, and other
social and economic rights are just as important as civil and political rights
-- even if the latter often garner more attention. Estimates that some 70
percent of the population are food insecure, and more than a quarter of all
children in the DPRK are chronically malnourished, are truly shocking.
Some issues originating in DPRK also directly affect RoK,
and even countries further afield such as Japan, from where at least 881 people
are now believed to have been abducted to DPRK. The terrible suffering of their
families along with hundreds of thousands of other separated families across
the two Koreas remains unresolved: out of the almost 130,000 people who have
actively applied for reunion since the year 2000, a pitifully small number --
less than 2,000 -- have been allowed to meet briefly face-to-face. Tragically,
almost half of those who applied -- some 62,000 -- have since died without ever
seeing, let alone being reunited with, their loved ones from whom they were
separated decades ago.
In stark contrast to the DPRK, the Republic of Korea has
undergone a highly successful transformation since becoming a democracy just
over 30 years ago, rising to become the 13th largest economy in the world. Its
performance on the human rights front has also improved significantly in
parallel with its economic growth. In general, the country’s recent history
makes it one of the world’s most dramatic success stories – an excellent model
for countries in transition to try to emulate.
Like even the most established democracies elsewhere in
the world, the country nevertheless still faces challenges.
Civil society groups whom I met earlier today raised a
number of issues, many of which have also been raised by various UN Treaty
Bodies which periodically monitor the performance of countries that have
ratified international human rights treaties.
One of the most prevalent concerns is the limitations
imposed on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly by the 1948 National
Security Act which is considered by many to be long overdue for reform. The
vague language of Article 7 of the NSA, which refers to “anti-Government
organizations” without defining what this means exactly, has in the past led to
unjust and inappropriate convictions of bona fide human rights defenders and
non-threatening groups – sometimes simply for comments made on social media --
and is likely to continue to do so until it is amended.
In addition, concerns are regularly raised about
restrictions on freedom of expression on line and dissemination of information
of public interest by Government-controlled institutions that use vaguely
defined concepts, such as “harming the public interest” or “false
communication” to block internet content or impose criminal charges. Other
concerns relate to freedom of association, particularly with respect to the
activities of trade unions.
The Republic of Korea lives under constant threat from
its heavily armed neighbour, and has an obligation to protect its citizens.
Finding the balance between honouring the human rights of its citizens and
minimizing threats to their security is difficult, but not impossible, and
amending the NSA is an essential part of that process. The increasing
sophistication of the country’s population means society is easily robust
enough to cope with dissenting voices and contrary views without resorting to
the heavy hand of an ill-defined law. There needs to be a constant
recalibration of security measures to ensure the protection of human rights
while guarding against such threats.
Balancing genuine security needs with the right to
privacy in an age when it is so easy for States to spy on their citizens’ every
movement and communication is another 21st century dilemma facing many
democratic States, and – as in a number of other countries -- there have been
allegations of excessive use of intrusive surveillance, especially of internet
connections and social media, by the National Intelligence Service. Again, it
is essential that laws, and their interpretation and implementation by the
authorities, need to be constantly reappraised to ensure that human rights are
not diminished as technology evolves.
There are also some lacunae in RoK’s legislation
regarding the protection of certain minorities, and especially migrant workers
who continue to be exploited and abused by employers and have little protection
under the law. In this regard, the country would certainly benefit from a
comprehensive anti-discrimination law to provided better and broader
protection.
I have been heartened to see the RoK is looking to
stimulate positive change in the broader region. I was told, for example, about
how the Constitutional Court is reflecting on the need for a regional court of
the type that exists in some other parts of the world. And Korean cities like Gwangju and Seoul are
networking with others nationally and internationally to promote the powerful
concept of “human rights cities.”
I met many distinguished people during this visit,
including of course President Park Geun-hye – whom I was privileged to meet
just an hour or so ago -- and a number of her ministers and other top
Government and State officials. But, in many ways, the three people who
impressed me most were the three women I met yesterday, Kim Bok-dong, Gil Won-ok,
and Lee Yong-soo. Their personal stories
broke through the impersonal nature of the historical arguments about the tens
of thousands of so-called “Comfort Women” forced into sexual slavery by
occupying Japanese forces during World War II.
These women, just young girls at the time, were raped as
many as 15 times on weekdays, and 50 times a day at weekends. For days, months,
and even years on end. As I did the arithmetic in my head, the enormity of what
happened was overwhelming. During their period of sex slavery, some of these
women and girls were raped thousands of times, and many died as a result. And
even after they were liberated, they received no therapy, no support and were
submerged in shame. Many were rejected by their families, some committed
suicide. Others were rendered sterile and most never married or had children.
You can never get over something this horrendous. As Kim
Bok-dong put it: “We still have knots in our hearts.”
The three women I met were so dignified. They greeted me
warmly. They laughed with me. They held my hand. And despite their age, they
had started a campaign, the Butterfly Fund, to help other women around the
world. I find it terribly sad that, despite some significant steps taken by
Japan over the years, the victims of this terrible crime do not feel their
suffering has been adequately and universally recognized. In the final
analysis, it is only the victims who can decide whether enough has been done,
and it was clear from my conversation with them, that these three remarkable
women do not think that is the case. I firmly believe and hope that a
satisfactory solution can be found.
As one of them told me quietly: “I do not want to die
with sorrow in my heart.”
I salute them, and I will never forget them.
Thank you.
ENDS
For more information please contact:
In Geneva: Ravina Shamdasani: +41 22 917 9169 /
rshamdasani@ohchr.org or Cecile Pouilly: +41 22 917 9310 / cpouilly@ohchr.org
In Seoul: Rupert Colville (for the duration of the
mission): SMS +41 79 506 1088 / rcolville@ohchr.org
Learn more about the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights in Seoul, in English and Korean:
Website: seoul.ohchr.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/UnrightsSeoul
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UnrightsSeoul
언론 보도문
자이드 라아드 알 후세인 유엔 인권최고대표 방한 마감 기자회견 인사 말씀
2015년 6월 25일, 서울
안녕하세요, 와주셔서 감사함.
이번 여행은 저의 인권최고대표 부임 이후 첫 아시아 방문이고, 유엔인권최고대표가 10여 년 만에 공식적으로 한국에 온 것임. 두 가지 주요 목적은 먼저 지난 해 사상 최초의 북한인권조사위원회 (Commission of Inquiry)가 제시한 권고사항에 따라 북한 인권문제를 다룰 사무소 개소를 위한 것. 두 번째는 한국 관련 다양한 인권문제를 논의하는 것이었음.
새 사무소를 유치해 주시고 따뜻하고 효율적이며 열린 마음으로 저의 방문을 가능하게 해주신 한국정부에 감사함.
한국은 최근 수년간 국제무대에서 특히 현재 한국도 이사국인 제네바 인권이사회(HRC) 내에서 증가하는 인권 관련 지도력을 보여주었음.
이번 방한이 우리의 이미 밀접한 관계를 더 강화시켰다고 믿고,
궁극적으로 두 한국에서 주민들의 삶을 구체적으로 향상시킬 것을 희망함.
한국정부가 외무장관 등 고위 관리들과 외교관,
언론, 민간단체와 일반 대중이 참석하게 함으로써 개소식에 부여한 중요성을 목도하고 격려를 받았음.
작은 사무소 개소식이 이렇게 큰 뉴스가 되는 경우는 드묾. 저는 이것이 우리 모두 같은 것, 즉 북한 내 인권상황의 괄목할 향상을 간절하게 보기 원하고 있음을 반영한다고 믿음. 또 새 유엔 인권사무소가 하루 아침에 상황을 극적으로 바꾸리라고 기대하는 사람은 없으나 그것이 중요한 단계라고 믿음.
즉 불과 몇 년 전만해도 생각할 수 없었을 돌파구가 되었고 조사위원회(COI)가 만들어져 2014년 2월 강력하고 충격적이며 극도로 영향력 있는 보고서를 제출하기 전까지는 상상조차 못했던 것임을 우리 모두가 느끼고 있음.
제 전임자인 나비 필레이(Navi
Pillay)는 1년 전
HRC에서 국제적인 COI 창립을 촉구하는 성명서를 발표했음. 그것을 유발하는 새로운 전쟁이나 특정 잔혹행위가 없었기 때문에 그것은 이례적인 요청이었고 필레이 여사는 바로 그 때문에 그렇게 했음. 북한 주민들은 수 십 년 동안 가공할 인권침해를 겪어왔으나 대부분 외부 세계는 북한에서 일어나는 일을 인식하지 못하고 핵 문제에만 집중해 왔음.
COI의 표현대로
“이 침해사례들의
심각성, 규모 및 성격은 현대세계에서 비견할 데가 전혀 없는 국가를 보여준다”고 봄. COI 위원들은 완곡한 표현을 쓰지 않았고 국가의 최고수준에서 만들어진 정책들로 광범위한 반 인류 범죄들이 북한에서 자행되었음을 분명히 했음.
COI 보고서는 국제사회에서 엄청난 위력을 발휘했음. 동 보고서 때문에 피해자들은 이제 얼굴이 있고 목소리가 있음. 인간의 극한 상상력을 너머 자행되는 조직적인 잔혹성과 비행(卑行)이 낳는 가슴 아픈 개인적 비극을 폭로하는 용감한 목소리가 나오고 있음.
COI 보고서는 공개청문회 뿐만 아니라 공개발언을 두려워하지만 유사한 경험을 한 피해자240명과의 회견에 바탕을 두고 있음. 그 내용은 언젠가 법정에서 검사들이 활용한다면 중대한 증거를 제공할 것임.
COI 덕분에 북한의 인권상황은 이제 확고한 국제적 안건이 되었고
HRC, 유엔총회, 안보리 등 인권을 다루는 유엔의 모든 주요 기구에서 정규 토론 주제가 되었음.
안보리가 북한 인권상황을 국제사법재판소(ICC)에 회부하라는 등의 보고서의 가장 중요한 권고사항 중 일부는 아직 실행되지 않았지만 아직 실천 가능함.
하지만 유엔서울인권사무소가 현실이 되고
1개월 여 내로 완전한 활동을 개시할 것이라는 사실은 COI의 작업이 열매를 맺기 시작했다는 징표임.
또 북한정부도 반응을 보이고 있음. 어떨 때는 이 반응이 분노의 협박으로 나오고 있음.
그러나 동시에 북한정부는 국제무대에서 제기되는 일부 문제에 대해 최소한의 관심을 보이기 위해 더 많은 노력을 하고 있다는 조짐이 있음.
일례로 각국의 인권기록을 다른 국가가 검토하는 소위 국가별 인권상황 정례 검토
(Universal Periodic Review) 과정에도 관심을 보이고 있음.
이 반응이 계속되어 어떤 구체적 결과를 낳는 순간까지 성숙되기를 바람.
우리 새 사무소의 목적은 감시하고 보고하고 비판하는 것이지만 이 뿐만은 아님.
민간 사회, 난민과 탈북자, 그리고 이 지역 정부들과 소통도 할 것임. 접촉유지는 필수임.
책임소재 규명도 필수임.
이들은 서로 반하는 노력이 아님.
북한 같이 열악한 사회가 언젠가 회복되고 번영을 시작하려면 필수적인 것임.
북한 주민들은 현재 유사이래 최악의 가뭄을 겪으며 수십 년에 걸친 흉작과 만성적 경제 실정에 신음하고 있음.
굶주림의 극한 위험을 피하려면 북한 정부는 이웃국가들과 인도주의 기관들과 접촉해 지원을 받아야 함.
식량, 건강 등 사회 및 경제적인 권리는 더 큰 주목을 받는 민권과 정치적 권리만큼 중요함.
70% 가량의 북한 주민이 식량이 부족하고 모든 아동 중 1/4이 만성적 영양실조라는 추정은 정말 충격적임.
북한에서 나오는 일부 문제는 직접적으로 남한에도 영향을 주고,
일본 같이 지리적으로 떨어져있는 국가에도 영향을 주는 바 최소
881명의 일본인이 북한으로 납치된 것으로 알려짐. 일본 피랍자 가족과 두 한국 사이의 수십만 이산가족들의 고통이 미해결 상태임. 2000년 이후 적극적으로 상봉을 신청한 무려
13만 가족 중 겨우 2천명만 잠시 얼굴을 마주할 수 있었음.
비극적인 사실은 신청자 중 62,000명에 달하는 거의 절반이 상봉은커녕 수십 년 헤어져 있는 사랑하는 가족을 한 번 보지도 못하고 세상을 떠났다는 것임.
북한과 크게 대조적으로 한국은
30여년 전 민주국가가 된 이래로 아주 성공적으로 변모해 세계에서
13번째 경제대국이 됨.
한국의 인권 관련 성적도 경제성장과 나란히 급격 향상되었음. 한국의 최근 역사는 세계에서 가장 극적인 성공담이 되어 다른 전환기 국가들이 부러워하는 모델이 됨.
세계 다른 곳의 가장 오래된 민주국가들과 마찬가지로 한국도 아직 미해결 과제와 마주하고 있음.
오늘 아침 만난 시민단체들은 여러 문제를 제기한 바 많은 문제는 국제 인권 조약들을 비준한 국가들의 성적을 정기적으로 감시하는 여러 유엔 조약기구가 제기하는 문제이기도 함.
가장 일반적인 우려 중 하나는 많은 사람들이 오래 전 개정되었어야 한다고 생각하는
1948년 국가보안법(NSA)에 따른 표현과 집회의 자유 관련 제한조치들임.
보안법 7조의 애매한 표현 중 정확한 의미를 규정하지 않은
“반 정부 조직”은 과거 소셜미디어에 논평을 했다는 이유만으로 선의의 인권옹호자들과 비위협적 단체들이 부당하고 부적절한 처벌을 받도록 했고 개정될 때까지는 계속 그럴 것임.
뿐만 아니라 인터넷 내용을 차단하거나 범죄 혐의를 씌우기 위해 “공익을 해친다”라거나
“잘못된 보도” 같은 애매하게 정의된 개념을 사용하는 정부기관들에 의한 무선 표현의 자유 침해사례와 공익정보의 전파에 대한 우려가 정기적으로 제기되고 있음. 다른 우려는 특히 노조 활동 관련 결사의 자유에 대한 것임
한국은 중무장한 이웃으로부터 상시적인 위협을 받고 살고 있어 주민을 보호할 책임이 있음. 국민의 인권을 존중하고 안보위협을 최소화하는 것 사이의 균형을 맞추는 것은 어렵지만 불가능하지는 않으며 보안법 개정은 그 과정의 필수 부분임. 한국민의 세련된 발전과정은 사회가 잘못된 법에 의존하지 않고 반대 목소리와 다른 견해를 감당할 수 있을 만큼 건강함을 의미함.
그런 위협을 막으면서 인권을 보호하기 위해서는 안보 조치들을 계속 조정해나갈 필요가 있음.
국민들의 모든 움직임과 통신을 국가가 아주 쉽게 염탐할 수 있는 시대에 진정한 안보의 필요성과 사생활의 권리 사이에 균형을 맞추는 것은
21세기 많은 민주국가들이 직면한 또 하나의 딜레마이고,
그래서 많은 다른 나라처럼 한국도 국가정보원이 특히 인터넷 접속과 소셜 미디아를 침범해 감시한다는 혐의를 받아왔음.
여기서도 기술발전에 따라 인권이 침해되지 않도록 관련 법과 그 해석 및 당국의 집행이 계속 재 조정될 필요가 있음.
한국의 일부 소수집단의 보호 관련 법에도 일부 공백이 있는바 특히 이주 노동자들이 사용주들에 의해 계속 착취와 학대를 당하면서 법의 보호를 받지 못하는 현실임. 이런 점에서 더 낫고 광범위한 보호를 제공하는 포괄적인 반 차별법은 한국에 분명히 득이 될 것임.
한국이 더 넓은 지역에서 긍정적인 변화를 이끌어내려고 노력하고 있는 것을 보고 기쁘게 생각해왔음
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar