North Korean Human Rights expert interview 2

As for our second interview in this series of featuring North Korean human rights experts, we introduce a dialogue with Professor Cheong Tae-wook from Inha University. With his legal philosophical approach, Mr. Cheong has researched the issue of North Korean human rights and the Korean peninsula peace study extensively, whereas he formerly worked as a citizen journalist for 'ohmynews'. The contemporary North Korean human rights debate is characterized by the poverty of philosophical thoughts and this underscores the significance of his law-philosophical study.

The following interview conducted in last March was translated into English from Korean by Grace Kim.

Many perspectives and approaches exist in dealing with the issue of North Korean human rights. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Today, North Korean human rights issue is politicized as a way to pressure or change the regime; however, this violates the spirit of human rights and in my opinion is not a right way of promoting human rights. There is no question that North Korea has some egregious human rights violations, but at this moment the most urgent thing we need to do is stopping such politicization of North Korean human rights.

In your article 'North Korean law and order & the conception of human rights', you analyzed the north korean perspective on human rights by using the concepts of "liberalism" and "constitutionalism". What effects do you think North Korean law has had on its human rights?

Law in North Korea has been neglected. Though it is necessary that politics and law are in complementary relationship, politics in North Korea tends to prevail over law, leading to the limits of weakening of individuality and autonomy of human rights. Nothing can be irrelevant to politics, but what we need for North Korea right now is recognition that not only does human rights exist for politics, but also that politics can serve human rights.

The current North Korean legal system has severe limits because it has no legacy of liberalism that rose over a long period of trial and error. Liberalism is neither the end nor the perfect but　I think having liberal experience and understanding is critical to move forward. Moreover, as human rights and law are at the heart of liberalism. Prior liberal experience is helpful to human rights promotion. North Korea may study liberalistic rule of law and develop it into a new model to meet the reality and ideology of North Korea.

Before we rush to pinpoint the egregious and dismal human rights situation in North Korea, we must acknowledge that there is still no understanding in the country about liberal human rights that we in liberal democracies take for granted. Right now, in other words, we need to facilitate mutual exchange and communication between two Koreas to help North Korea discern this importance.

What is the significance of legal reforms on promoting North Korean human rights?

Changing law is a function of politics. In other words, any constructive change in North Korean law must be accompanied by corresponding change in politics. That premise is important to remember.

As I mentioned before about the need of liberal experience, political ideology is also necessary. Politics in North Korea is stuck in ancient era. In other words, all the ideals that contradict the utopian national ideology with an absolute standard of right and wrong are denounced. There is little, if any, chance of change in constitutionalism in this kind of politics. This is precisely why it is important to have a prior liberalistic experience. Liberalistic politics is not predicated upon the perfect ideal. Instead, liberalism is predicated on its imperfect flaws.

How do you define North Korea as a country?

Many divergent interpretations exist on the definition of North Korea: socialist state, guerrilla unit state, theater state, Japan's imperialistic state, Chosun's confucian socialist country. All these terms are partial attempts to define North Korea though they may all contain some degree of truth. At any rate, I think that North Korea is only one brand of socialism. The Western socialism was the result of its competition with liberalism, while North Korean socialism is void of any such elements of democratic tradition. North Korea, while experiencing the rule of Chosun and Japan's militarism, adopted socialism without its prior liberal tradition, resulting in a unique kind of socialism,  Confucianism became salient North Korea, and as  in Chosun's monarchism and Japan's Tenno system the role of an individual leader becomes more prominent, resulting in a unique notion of a family state.

If so, what does it mean to examine North Korea from the perspective of legal-philosophical perspective?

It means that we need to examine North Korea at macro-level with philosophical background knowledge. When we talk about North Korea today, North Korea is commonly seen as rogue state. This only attests to the presence of prejudice and lack of philosophical insight on our part. North Korea is a country of socialist revolution. Within the five years of independence from Japanese occupation, North Korea established its own revolutionized country though North Korea's subsequent attempt to spread its socialism to the south of the peninsula failed. North Korea to this date believes that without the U.S. intervention, socialist revolution in the entire Korean peninsula would have been possible. North Korea is still stuck in that kind of paradigm. North Korea failed to make any constructive and substantial progress because the country is still stuck in socialist and democratic revolution. This is because North Korea has continuously been at war with the U.S., being antagonistic against the U.S. since the Korean War. This precisely underscores the vitality not only of examining North Korean contemporary politics but also examining the origin of the North Korean regime.

It seems that there is an urgent need that we help North Korea discard its paradigm.

If the U.S. stops insisting on North Korea's regime change, North Korea would have more latitude to reflect upon itself. In other words, only after the U.S. stops imposing its ulterior political agenda upon North Korea can North Korea be embraced.  Of course, this is entirely my opinion.

What are your thoughts on the current approach of international community towards the problem of North Korean human rights?

It is not atypical that international community sees it has a stake in bettering North Korean human rights crisis. I hope that such steady interests from international institutions and NGOs continue on and that the international community pushes for principles, avoiding politicization. But we should be weary of those efforts promoted by the U.S. state department or even those by the United Nations. Failing to understand North Korea's history and its political context can lead to a politically perilous outcome. If the U.S. appoints a special envoy on North Korea`s human rights problem, it can very well be perceived as tainted simply by association. This also includes the U.N. political appointments.

For instance, the recent controversy over keeping country-specific special rapporteur system at the UN Human Rights Council demonstrates the vitality of understanding the context in which the policy was originated. At the beginning, Vitit Muntarbhorn appeared to have no deep understanding of security matters encompassing the Korean peninsula and history of the Korean war. Lack of impartialism and balance can backfire.

Your article suggests that when we prod North Korea to improve its human rights situation, we can demand North Korea to comply with its own domestic rule of law or even international treaties the country has signed. Do you mind further elaborating?

well, that is only at an initial stage. I suggested a two-pronged approach one of which is following through what North Korea is already acknowledging. However, reality is very different from words. Hence, we can urge North Korea to faithfully implement those that it proclaimed and already established.

I think North Korea faces a dilemma of its own. In some respects, North Korea wants reforms but it is severly stripped off of its capacity.

That is why we need to be steadfast at maintaining a dialogue with North Korea telling North Korea that we can help while pinpointing the flaws. In the book, I depicted this as 'Collaborative Humanitarian Intervention.'

Some argue that human rights crisis should not be restricted to North Korea, but encompass South Korea as well, considering both North and South Korean human rights violations from the perspective of the Korean peninsula. Others however emphasize the urgency of North Korean human rights violations. What do you think about this?

In a long term, it should not be only about North Korean human rights issue. The end goal is achieving an upward equalization in human rights standards between two Koreas. In other words, even if we point out the problems with North Korean human rights, we cannot overlook the problems South Korea confronts. It is wrongful to raise North Korean human rights problems while turning blind eyes to the very problems we have in South Korea.