Laura Ling & Euna Lee: Reckless Endangerment?

I liked this comment on OFK so much that I decided to re-post it here:

Sonagi said,

June 25, 2009 @ 11:31 am

They did a brave thing IF they had a clear goal of getting new and important information and weren’t just looking to get some footage and IF they weren’t carrying sensitive information like recordings of interviews with refugees and their helpers.

A missing concern is the footage/documentation that Euna Lee and Laura Ling might have carried into North Korea.  This could lead authorities to the locations of trafficking victims and the activists who help them.

Reckless endangerment.  Why?  Repatriated refugees actually face concentration camps.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Whether they were “lured” into North Korea is a moot point for me.  If they were indeed reporting on North Korean victims of trafficking in China, they should have been nowhere near the border. Yet, they crossed a conspicuously identifiable border, presumably on their own volition.  This move was reckless and unnecessary, risking their own lives and the lives of the aforementioned countless refugees and the underground networks they belong to.

As an afterthought, the North Korean judicial system is a joke.  There is no legitimate reason for the continued imprisonment of the two American citizens save the obvious political motivation.  My prediction is that the North Korean regime will not release them until they extort some kind of concession (their dream: removal of sanctions)…which is what a political bargaining chip is.  Why would they give these gems away without a fight?  US officials have repeatedly stated that it will not pay any sort of ransom for their release.  It’s going to be a long haul.

In any case, Lee and Ling are reportedly not in the worst of North Korea’s prisons.  Refugees are.

Also, I just wanted to put this out there.  Obama doesn’t have the most solid record, you know, acting on behalf of his constituents.  There’s a lot more attention being paid to this case, but it just speaks volumes about the moral fiber of the campaign.  From this blog’s inaugural post:

We didn’t have to wait for Obama to have his 100 days in office to judge where he stood on human rights issues.  On January 28, 2005, he and members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation signed a letter stating that they would “NOT support the removal of [North Korea] from the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism” until North Korea came clean about Kim Dong Shik, a pastor who aided North Korean refugees in China and was abducted into North Korea.  On the campaign trail, Obama supported Christopher Kim-Jong-Hill/Condi/Bush’s removal of North Korea from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick…You’re Glib

I’d like to unleash Tom Cruise on Nick Kristof:

I’m kidding of course — I’m a fan of Nick Kristof…sometimes.  I’m ambivalent about his most recent posting.  He adequately addresses the egregious human rights situation in North Korea, as well as the vague conditions of the capture of the two American journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling.

On the other hand, Kristof makes some very…well, stupid observations:

Another possibility, which I incline to, is that Laura and Euna may have been sold to North Korea by a local guide. If the guide said that it was safe to cross, or that they were still on Chinese territory, they would have believed him….A couple of years ago, I set up an interview with a trafficker in that border area, but then backed out when he demanded money; the traffickers may realize that the people to demand money from aren’t the journalists but the North Korean officials. And at a time of crisis, when it is undergoing a leadership transition and a confrontation with the West, North Korea would probably pay well for a few extra bargaining chips in the form of American journalists.

A case of reverse-trafficking?  Highly unlikely.  Great, you’ve been to the North Korean border a couple of times.  That doesn’t give you legitimacy on the subject matter.  Do your research.

Why would traffickers risk revealing their identity to North Korean officials?  Do you know what happens to forcibly repatriated North Korean women who become pregnant with half-Chinese babies?  Torso’s are beaten to induce miscarriages, gruesome forced abortions, etc.  North Korea probably regards traffickers as co-conspirators in adulterating the purity of the Korean race…maybe that’s why we hear accounts of traffickers being punished in North Korea.

Then there’s the problem of North Korea proliferating ballistic missile and nuclear technologies:

The problem is that a North Korean freighter is now steaming on the high seas, apparently to Burma, and reputedly carrying weapons. The U.S. should stop it and search it or turn it back, since Burma obviously won’t, but that could easily lead to bullets flying — either at sea or in an incident at the DMZ, or both. If there is such an incident, North Korea may be less likely to release Laura and Euna for the time being.

Well put, Mr. Kristof.  Insightful and compelling.  Is he on the payroll of some other news corporation?

The Dark Side of the Nuclear Force

Melanie Kirkpatrick, a gem of the WSJ editorial board, writes:

In the epilogue to “The Aquariums of Pyongyang,” his 2000 book about growing up in the infamous Yodok prison camp, Kang Chol-Hwan expresses his anger at the world’s indifference to the human-rights abuses in the North. “We’re told that this debate would be better left until another day,” he writes. “But by then we’ll all be dead.”

I pray Ms. Lee and Ms. Ling will come home soon. But if the Americans’ ordeal raises international awareness of the horrors of North Korea’s gulag, it will not have been in vain.

I have written this before, but such mentions are sentimental at best.  As far as I can tell there is no substantial national discussion on North Korea policy, specifically on how to incorporate human rights improvements in North Korea into overall policy.  Kirkpatrick’s hope is that the situation of Lee and Ling would help raise awareness and consequently public pressure for such a policy discussion to take place.

I am ambivalent about this.  While I am thrilled at growing public support and awareness of North Korea’s crimes against humanity, the lack of support amongst Koreans gives me no hope.  Bear with me and my loose analogy: imagine if there were another Jewish Holocaust (which is not too far fetched with anti-Semitism becoming commonplace).  If American Jews and Israel were relatively silent about the deaths of millions of Jews, would governments around the world really see a political cost in not acting?

The best among us, and by that I mean those who have an unparalleled vast and nuanced knowledge of events surrounding North Korea, have made the leap from a priori notions of and faith in diplomacy to recognition of empirical evidence.  They have concluded that there is an immutable correlation between how a country treats its own citizens and how it treats its neighbors, which has devastating consequences when you consider that that country is on the road to acquiring “fully operational” nuclear weapons.

Joshua Stanton of One Free Korea writes:

Brownback’s point, which was lost in the conventional narrative, was that we ignore any pathology capable of such evils at our own peril. Recently, it has become vogue not to speak of peril to the soul and the values of our nation, except perhaps in defense of Khalid Sheik Mohammad. As Hill put it, “Each country, including our own, needs to improve its human rights record.” In the event this logic has some appeal to you, it should be clear enough that ignoring these atrocities has brought us no closer to realizing our dispassionate security interests, either. Each offer of reasonable compromise we extend, each new North Korean demand to which we accede, seems only to make its regime more cruel and belligerent (The Weekly Standard).

Inexplicably, this is an unpopular and unsavory argument to put forth — history has shown that these voices were ignored until it was too late to stop the past century’s genocides and, in the case of North Korea, nuclear proliferation/bombs going off.

Of Kings and Client States

Almost two weeks ago, Anne Applebaum speculated that China is maintaining the survival of its client state so that China could the US’s response to various security situations.

During all the years of the Six Party Talks, North Korea denied that it had a HEU (highly enriched uranium) program…even though for example: 1) documents NK submitted had traces of HEU on them 2) NK’s connections to AQ Khan, or centrifuges, which brings to light why Western intelligence agencies still have not been allowed to interrogate Khan.

Now, North Korea has finally come out of the closet and announced that it would start weaponizing plutonium in response to the recently passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874.  As you may recall, China limited the scope of UNSCR 1718 by not allowing any mention of Chapter VII provisions, meaning  that no U.N. member state would be obligated to actually implement the resolution.  China played this card again with UNSCR 1874.

Since it’s almost a certainty that North Korea would react with revamped belligerence to any U.N. Security Council statement or resolution condemning North Korea’s ballistic missile and underground nuclear tests, it fuels fire Applebaum’s thoughts on China’s motivations.  Anyone, especially China, could predict Pyongyang’s response to a toothless U.N. General Assembly or Security Council resolution.

Why not include language that invokes Chapter VII?  Why not actually pass a resolution with some teeth?

It almost seems like Beijing wants Pyongyang to raise regional tensions with additional tests…

I Hate Traffick (Part 3): Money Funnels Through Tunnels

So you made a sizable investment in our missiles, but how do you avoid those Zionist Bastards and Imperialist Pigs from bombing your missile storage facilities (Which reminds me: this guy never fails to crack me up.  The only entity more ridiculous is KCNA)?  Well we at North Korea Exports are offering a new storage system that would perfectly complement your illicit activities.  Just listen to the testimonials from some of our satisfied clients: Burma and Lebanon!

Image of the North Korean regime getting cozy with its pariah-counterparts.  [Insert some inappropriate sexual connotations with the Nicholas Gurewitch cartoon.]

Yale Global published a two-part series authored by Bertil Lintner on North Korean economic activities around the world.  Part I focuses on North Korea exporting tunnel technology and (the sometimes implied) cheap labor to go with it.

Beirut sources suggest that it is more likely that Hezbollah has used North Korean designs and blueprints given to them by their Syrian or Iranian allies – both of whom are close to the North Koreans. (Both Iran and Syria have acquired missile technology from North Korea, and what was believed to be a secret nuclear reactor in Syria built with North Korean help was destroyed by the Israeli air force in September 2007.) Either way, North Korean expertise in tunneling has become a valuable commodity for export. And Pyongyang is flexible about the method of payment as long as it helps the international pariah regime.

The last sentence fuels a suspicion of mine.  Flexible payment options: cash, trading weapons technologies, who knows?  Sanctions may have the unintended consequence of pushing illicit activities even more underground than they already are, rendering them practically untraceable in the absence of bank statements and a paper trail.

In Part II, Lintner details the origins and some unsavory activities of the various North Korean restaurants set up all over SouthEast Asia and China.

Now with North Korea conducting a second nuclear test and firing off missiles, Washington has raised the possibility of the re-listing of North Korea as a state that supports terrorism. If that were to happen, many private companies would become hesitant to deal with Pyongyang and its enterprises for fear of being blacklisted by the US Treasury.

I think Lintner overestimates the effects of re-listing North Korea to the terrorism list.  After all, these restaurants and cheap, contracted labor were set up and operated when North Korea was on the list the first time around.  True, international pressure may be greater now with the second nuclear test and ongoing missile tests, but I doubt that would stop private companies in Thailand, the Middle East, Eastern Europe from doing business with North Korea.

Lastly, I’m glad the restaurants are closing down:

With its various money-making enterprises coming unstuck, Pyongyang is increasingly under pressure. The worldwide financial crisis has already put North Korea in a tight corner. There was never anything to suggest that the money earned by North Korea’s economic ventures abroad were to be used for social development at home, or to be spent on basic necessities such as putting food on the tables of the country’s undernourished people. Now, there won’t even be food for sale to South Korean tourists in the region.

Those poor South Korean tourists.  Apart from the obvious cash subsidy one gives to the regime by frequenting one of these restaurants, the idea of the restaurants creeps me out.  First, these women probably can’t leave the confines of the building, lest their families back in North Korea might be sent to labor camps.  Second, it speaks highly of the character of South Korean tourists that while their brethren are starving, the tourists can find some entertainment and joie de vivre in the god awful catastrophe that is North Korea.

I Hate Traffick (Part 2)

There is a flurry of editorials now that the two American journalists have been sentenced to 12 years of reform through hard labor – they will presumably be sent to one of North Korea’s gulags.  One thing the editorials have in common, as the great Teddy Roosevelt said, is that they serve as ineffective and sentimental outlets for those involved.  In other words, they serve to cleanse the consciences of the editorial boards…in the absence of sustained coverage and any realistic pushes for a change in the status quo.

The New York Times editorial board makes some rather flimsy and overly-simplistic recommendations:

We hope the Obama administration is vigorously working the few diplomatic levers available. It should urge China, North Korea’s main food and fuel supplier, to speak up for the two journalists and send an American envoy to make the case directly in Pyongyang. Failing to free them would only worsen relations with President Obama, who came into office committed to reviving negotiations, and add to growing calls in Washington — and around the world — for tougher sanctions.

WSJ recommends placing North Korea back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, claiming that imprisoning the two American journalists and its provocative stances (not to forget proliferation) are terrorism.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday — before yesterday’s sentencing — that the U.S. would consider putting North Korea back on the list of terror-sponsoring nations. That would recognize the North for what it is — a regime that imprisons innocents and is a threat to peace in Asia.

What’s the point?  The US can enforce sanctions with or without the terrorism list – placing North Korea back on the list would be largely symbolic and the consequence would be to piss off the NK regime even more (we’re already doing that in a number of ways with the aforementioned sanctions, South Korea’s implementations of PSI, etc.).  This would be an unnecessary move because we don’t need another impediment to possible future denuclearization talks.  Additionally,would we be willing to take NK off the list again to further “progress?”  I don’t have to remind you what that would do to weaken the legitimacy of the list and American influence in the region/world.

The Washington Post offers the only editorial that makes a mention of what Euna Lee and Laura Ling were reporting about – North Korean refugees and victims of trafficking:

But no ransom of economic aid or political concessions should be given. Instead, the administration should find ways to squeeze the regime financially — as the Bush administration did at one time — and press China to support substantial U.N. sanctions or use its considerable bilateral leverage over Pyongyang. One good way for Beijing to send a message would be to relax controls along the border and invite international aid workers to assist the desperate women and other refugees whom Ms. Lee and Ms. Ling were investigating. Mr. Kim could not endure such a policy for long.

This is an unrealistic recommendation.  It fails to recognize Beijing’s national interest in sustaining the existence of its client state.

One qualm I have with the human rights industry is its blindness in recognizing that no amount of pressure can alter Beijing’s policy of support towards dictatorships (Sudanese oil, Burmese jewels/natural gas, North Korean coal…not to mention military posturing for increased global influence and domination).  Kristof should have recognized this by now vis-a-vis Darfur.

We must operate under the assumption that China will not change its policy on refugees to be more humane.  However, the same policy recommendations have been argued for years: that China should not forcibly repatriate the approximately 300,000 North Korean refugees, should set some protections for the North Korean trafficking victims, should allow the stateless half-Chinese, half-N. Korean children to have Chinese citizenship.

While I have the utmost respect for the work of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, the committee just recently released a report, Lives for Sale, with the same tired, ineffective, unrealistic policy recommendations.

North Koreans deserve more from us.

Image from The Chosun Ilbo.

*Update*

I mulled this over for a bit: the US could only put NK back on the terrorism list for proliferation concerns.  The two American journalists who are presumably in concentration camps now could not be the reason that NK would be placed back on the list.  Why?  Because the Obama administration did an about face on detention of foreign nationals at Bagram…and Congressional refusal to accept the consequences of shutting down Gitmo.  If Obama followed through on his campaign promises to stop torture and do right by “terrorism suspects,” then maybe the US would have the moral stance to denounce the abduction of innocent people.

I’m not saying that Laura Ling and Euna Lee are on the same level as inmates at Gitmo and Bagram (though some inmates could quite possibly be innocent of whatever crimes they’re accused of).  I’m merely pointing out the inconsistency of a US argument of unlawful detentions.

I Hate Traffick (Part 1)

Nicolas Levi writes in the Daily NK:

North Korea has dispatched dozens of construction workers to Poland, sending them to sites in several cities mainly in the northwest of the country. The total number working in Poland is currently more than fifty. They live under the strict control of Polish-speaking North Korean supervisors.

….

The problem in Poland, as for many of the countries where the North Koreans are to be found, is that there are no legal restrictions or minimum wages, so as long as the North Koreans have work permits there is nothing more their host government can or need do.

Levi goes on to make the case that the unfair labor standards, harsh conditions, and the “peculiar” distribution of wages North Koreans face should be considered a form of human trafficking under EU law.

He’s wrong about the Czech Republic though.  In mid-2007, the Czech Government announced that it would not extend or issue any new work visas to North Koreans.  So in theory, there should be no North Korean laborers in the Czech Republic.  But who knows for sure unless you’re there?

Still, Bertil Lintner raises a good point:

But if they are no longer wanted in the Czech Republic, there are many other countries willing to hire North Koreans – and, as long as Pyongyang needs foreign currency, the export of labor is also likely to continue.

Personally, I am all for prioritizing those who are relatively accessible, specifically refugees.  These North Korean laborers might as well be in North Korea – their families are held in de facto ransom.  A miniscule percentage of laborers do make it out of the labor camps, but many stay for the “privelege” of serving in a foreign land.

Lastly, it’s important to not dismiss or relavitize the situation of North Korean laborers in foreign territories, as was the case with the now EPIC FAIL of the Kaesong Industrial Complex.  First, I would invite anyone who does dismiss to spend some time in the very same working conditions.  Second, just because it is “better than starving in North Korea” does not justify the exploitation and perhaps coercion of fellow human beings.