Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-59)
MS NORMA
KANG MUICO
2 APRIL 2008
Q40 Mr. Hamilton: Can you just clarify
one thing? You mentioned that they perhaps do not get the same
rights that the ILO would accord to them, but what about the exploitation
of children and child labour? Does that go on at the Kaesong industrial
complex, and does sex discrimination and sexual harassment still
occur?
Ms Muico: There is not much data
on that, because we are not allowed to go to Kaesong. However,
from the people I spoke to who work on the issue at a peripheral
level, based in Seoul, it seems that there are no cases of child
labour. There may be some cases of sexual harassment, but, again,
we have to bear in mind that the majority of workers in Kaesong
are women, and they[1]
did not seem to think that it was a big issue.
Q41 Sir John Stanley: On the previous
question, raised by Mr. Hamilton, could you tell us whether Amnesty
gives credence to the reports that have appeared in the press
and emanated from defectors, that the North Korean regime has
used political detainees as live human guinea pigs on whom to
test chemicals for use in chemical weapons?
Ms Muico: I do not know how to
put it delicately—
Sir John Stanley: Please put it as frankly
and as indelicately as you wish, madam.
Ms Muico: No, we give no credence
to that. Many NGOs working on human rights for North Koreans would
say that it is not true and that it comes from a very unreliable
source. They know who that source is and he has been very unreliable
in the past.
Q42 Sir Menzies Campbell: On the
same point. We know that there are South Korean managers, but
we have also been told that quite a few of them have been expelled.
Are those South Korean managers suitable sources of information
about conditions in Kaesong?
Ms Muico: Having not been to or
worked in Kaesong, I cannot comment on it that much. However,
from what has been said to me by various South Korean officials,
there seems to be a slight separation between the North Korean
workers and the South Korean company people, although I am not
sure about the officials. They work in the same area, but they
do not interact frequently.
Q43 Ms Stuart: May I take this a
bit further? It relates to abductees. As I understand it, as recently
as 27 March 2008, the BBC reported that North Korea expelled South
Korean managers. There was a kind of movement of labour.
Back in 2002, the North Korean leader Kim
Jong Il admitted that they had abducted 13 Japanese citizens.
I wonder whether you can shed some light, from your experience,
on how the abduction of foreign nationals and the enforced disappearance
of North Koreans relates—what picture would you paint? The
Japanese claim that actually more people were abducted than the
North Koreans are admitting to. What is your assessment?
Ms Muico: The enforced disappearances
carried out by the North Korean Government are the subject of
Amnesty's next report, which will be launched in June. We have
documented the enforced disappearances of various nationals, mainly
South Koreans, but including Japanese, as you said, and North
Koreans, some of whom are now South Korean citizens. There are
also other nationals, but those are the main nationalities.
In the case of the Japanese nationals, the
Japanese Government have been quite tough on North Korea. The
North Korean Government have responded limitedly—but at
least, in some ways, positively—by returning some people
and the remains that were, of course, in dispute. However, the
North Korean Government have said that, as for the South Korean
fishermen—who make up the majority of those whom the North
Korean Government have admitted to—they and the others have
chosen to stay in North Korea. There is no confirmation of that
whatsoever.
It is quite worrying for us that about 80,000
non-combatant South Korean nationals were abducted by North Korea
during the North Korean war from 1950 to 1953, yet the North Korean
Government refuse to acknowledge that they had those people. The
South Korean Government are also unwilling to help in this matter.
So, various people have been abducted for different reasons and,
apart from the Japanese citizens, the North Korean Government
are not willing to do much for them.
Q44 Ms Stuart: The Japanese have
been very tough and seem to have got some results. The South Koreans
are understood to give the matter higher priority. Do you think
that they should be tougher to get results? Is that your read?
Ms Muico: Absolutely.
Q45 Chairman: Let me be clear; when
did the abductions stop? Are we talking about people who are now
50 or 60 years old or even older? Or are there some people who
have been taken more recently?
Ms Muico: People were taken during
the Korean war between 1950 and 1953. We are talking about policemen,
judges, lawyers and teachers. We do not know why they were taken.
We think that they were taken because they served a useful purpose
in rebuilding North Korea.
During the cold war, fishermen and other
people were taken from South Korea. We think that the fishermen
were taken because they were out at sea and, therefore, the North
Korean spies would not have to enter South Korea. The Japanese
were taken during that time. The North Koreans—some of them
South Korean citizens[2]—were
mainly taken in the border areas of China.[3]
Some were undocumented at that time and were trying to help other
North Koreans in the border areas.
Q46 Mr. Illsley: In the past two
years, there was a very high profile case in which a woman was
returned to Japan. Apparently, she had been abducted from a beach
in Japan about 20 or 30 years ago. Is that serious? [Interruption.]
The Japanese lady was returned to Japan from South Korea. She
had been abducted as a young woman from a Japanese beach.
Ms Muico: There were two different
stories.
Mr. Illsley: The story received a huge
amount of publicity at the time.
Ms Muico: I think that there are
two different stories.
Mr. Illsley: I will check on it.
Chairman: Perhaps you can communicate
in writing.
Mr. Illsley: It was on a news programme
on TV.
Ms Muico: Megumi Yokota was the
most famous case. She was taken as she was returning home. The
North Korean Government admitted to taking Megumi and returned
her remains, but then the DNA showed that they were not her remains.
In fact there was multiple DNA.
Chairman: Thank you. May we now move
on? John Horam wanted to ask about food aid.
Q47 Mr. Horam: Yes, may we turn to
the food situation and food aid? We seem to be getting slightly
conflicting stories. Some press reports suggest that this year
is going to be very difficult, but some South Korean NGOs say
that because private barter and markets are better, we will never
see mass starvation again. What is your view?
Ms Muico: I think that from what
people have told us in various sectors, the food situation is
getting worse.
Mr. Horam: Worse?
Ms Muico: Yes, it is worse than
last year. Some tend to exaggerate and say that it could be as
bad as the Arduous March in the early 1990s when there was a famine.
Most NGOs will say that it is not as bad as the famine years,
but that they have used up all of their available stock. What
is worrying is that the North Korean Government have not asked
for fertiliser from the South Korean Government this year. The
planting season is almost over now and the worry is that they
will not have much of a yield this year. The North Koreans have
recently said that they will not ask for aid from South Korea,
which is quite unrealistic. We do not know how bad the situation
will be, but indications are that it will be quite bad.
Q48 Mr. Horam: Is it possible to
use international food aid as some sort of leverage, or are they
just not asking for it because they do not want the lever?
Ms Muico: That is the best case
scenario. Of course, working with the North Korean Government
is difficult at the best of times. What would normally work as
leverage in most countries cannot be guaranteed to work with the
North Koreans. What the South Korean Government should always
do as a policy is to give food aid through the World Food Programme,
so that it can improve its monitoring. The WFP's monitoring is
better than South Korea's, far better. It is not perfect, but
that is a point of departure. You can ask for more monitoring,
more access to a wider area, and in previous years the South Korean
Government have not been doing that. It is difficult to have that
leverage if South Koreans prefer a bilateral agreement with North
Korea.
Q49 Mr. Horam: So do we not know
necessarily what is happening to the food?
Ms Muico: No.
Q50 Mr. Horam: It is not being used
as leverage to improve human rights?
Ms Muico: Not with the past Governments,
in terms of the food aid given by South Korean Governments. The
WFP has been increasing its monitoring process and the access
that it has. That is a work in progress, but because South Korea
gives the most aid it would be in all our interests if it gave
that aid through the WFP.
Chairman: We will move on to some other
questions.
Q51 Mr. Horam: Is it sensible for
the UN to continue pursuing the human rights resolutions when—as
you say—the North Koreans continue to ignore them?
Ms Muico: Yes, because it is still
our best hope, and we need a mandate like Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn's
to monitor the human rights abuses and report back to the Human
Rights Council. His position is important and effective, although
obviously not as effective as we would like, because he does not
have access to North Korea. But a better way of looking at that
is to find parallel ways to improve human rights in North Korea,
along with Professor Vitit's special rapporteur role.
Q52 Mr. Horam: Do you think that
there will be any serious movement until there can be resolution
of the nuclear and other issues with the US?
Ms Muico: Yes. The human rights
issue is not necessarily connected with the nuclear issue. They
are two separate issues. Certainly the North Koreans would be
more apt to talk about nuclear issues than human rights issues.
Q53 Mr. Horam: So they are separate,
distinguishable?
Ms Muico: Absolutely.
Q54 Chairman: The UN human rights
system has changed from the Human Rights Commission to the Human
Rights Council. Has that improved the scrutiny and the pressure
on North Korea or has there been no difference? Given that the
UN representative was not able to visit North Korea in producing
his report, is there practically nothing that has any impact?
Ms Muico: It is too early to say
what the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council is. This is
the first year that the Human Rights Council is reviewing countries
under the universal periodic review, and it is far too early to
say anything about North Korea because it does not get reviewed
until 2009. All the countries backing Vitit Muntarbhorn's position
as special rapporteur and the passing of the resolution in March
is a good sign, and this time South Korea did not abstain from
the vote, it voted in favour of Vitit's position. There is a window
of opportunity there, via South Korea. I think that it will be
far more robust in its position.
Q55 Chairman: Was that before or
after the change of President?
Ms Muico: It was after.
Q56 Chairman: So does that have more
to do with internal South Korean politics?
Ms Muico: Yes.
Q57 Sir John Stanley: What do you
think is the most effective way in which the British Government,
particularly through our embassy in Pyongyang, can further human
rights in the DPRK?
Ms Muico: I have worked with the
British Government on this matter for almost four years and it
has been a very productive relationship. They have passed on a
lot of the things that I have relayed to them. But continuing
their role as the Government that is not the United States works
in their favour. Also, they have maintained a good relationship
but they have also pressed on human rights issues.
It is very difficult to work on human rights
in North Korea. For us it is quite frustrating at times because
progress is so slow. But as a Government—and they are a
Government not a human rights NGO—they can open up the country
by continuing with their educational programmes, their exchanges
and anything that will open the society and the country to other
ways of thinking and to engagement with other countries. It does
not matter if they bring over Government officials in the exchanges.
That is even better. Whatever exchanges you can have with the
country, the UK Government should continue that and continue their
tradition of dialoguing with North Korea. They should never close
the door because they can provide a venue for us to speak. They
can speak on our behalf and they have done so in the past.
Q58 Sir John Stanley: Do you expect
President Lee in the South to adopt any major changes of policy
in pursuing human rights in the North, now that he is in the Blue
House?
Ms Muico: If he stays true to
what he has said about acting in a more principled manner and
pressing for progress to be made on the nuclear issue as well
as on human rights, then I hope he does that. I worry that he
will become so caught up in issues that he will not allow himself
to be a bit more flexible. Yes, as a human rights organisation,
we would want President Lee Myung-bak to go forth and to do more
on human rights, but he must also be aware that if the North Korean
Government go back on their word and make it difficult for the
South Korean Government, and that that in turn gets a negative
reaction from the South Korean Government, it can have a negative
impact on the North Korean people. Those are the people we are
trying to help. Even from a principled stance, he has to be flexible.
Q59 Sir John Stanley: The DPRK regime
initially seemed to have taken a rather hostile stance to President
Lee. What do you think has precipitated that?
Ms Muico: A series of events.
It started from Lee Myung-bak's comments about a more principled
approach on the nuclear issue and on human rights. [4]Then
there was the UN resolution on the special rapporteur's position,[5]
which South Korea voted in favour of. That sparked the expulsion
of the 11 Government officials from Kaesong. North Korea feels
that the South Korean Government will end the sunshine policy
and be more strict about what aid they give to North Korea. Lee
Myung-bak has already said that any humanitarian aid given to
North Korea will be based on progress made on the nuclear talks,
as well as their human rights record.
Chairman: We now have some more questions
about South Korea.
1 Note by witness: The NGOs Back
2
Note by witness: Others undocumented North Korean migrants. Back
3
Note by witness: Or when they were forcibly repatriated
back to North Korea or family members in north Korea of those
who have settled in the South. Back
4
Note by witness: Then South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff
in his confirmation hearing responded that he would hit North's
nuclear sites if North Korea showed signs of attacking the South. Back
5
Note by witness: The mandate was passed. Back
| 
