In DPRK, Release of Bae & Miller As UN General Assembly Draft on ICC Referral Will Face Amendments - And Pass?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 8 -- The US announced that the Democratic People Republic of Korea on November 8 released U.S. citizens Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller, held for two years and seven months, respectively.

  The US State Department said "We also want to thank our international partners, especially our Protecting Power, the Government of Sweden, for their tireless efforts to help secure the freedom of Mr. Bae and Mr. Miller. The Department of State reiterates our strong recommendation against all travel by U.S. citizens to the DPRK."

  This comes amid talk that the proposed referral of North Korean human rights to the UN Security Council for follow-on referral to the International Criminal Court might be traded away for a visit. Some are opposing the ICC language on other grounds, Inner City Press has learned.

   Some non-aligned countries have told the resolution's co-sponsors the European Union and Japan that they do not favor the language on the ICC, nor on the Responsibility to Protect, these sources exclusively tell Inner City Press.

  More recently Inner City Press has heard from sources not sponsoring the resolution that an amendment will be offered to strip out the ICC and other language, but may not pass. And now?

  Meanwhile, the Security Council's president for November Gary Quinlan of Australia indicated on November 4 that some of his colleagues in the Council -- certainly not all - think the Security Council can directly consider the question of referring North Korea to the ICC. Is the position based on guessing there would not be a veto? Or to work around a loss of momentum in the General Assembly's Third Committee? We'll continue on this.

  The draft in Operative Paragraph 7

"Encourages the Security Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take appropriate action, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to the International Criminal Court; and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity."

  The drafters note that this language is "BASED ON OP 7 HRC25/25+ OP10 68/182 SYRIA INT. CRIM. JUSTICE MECH. REFERRAL."

  The draft also "expresses its very deep concern at the precarious  humanitarian  situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food." UN humanitarian official John Ging recently told the press how under-funded the UN's aid appeal for DPRK is.

  A US' September 23 event was at the Waldorf Astoria. The speakers were the US' Robert King, then John Kerry, then an articulate escapee, the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan and finally UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Zeid if it was he who brought the blue UN flag to the event which was not in the UN and did not play by the UN rules of "right of reply." He laughed, graciously. The bombing in Syria had begun only the night before.

  Back on August 25 when North Korean deputy ambassador Ri Tong Il held a UN press conference inside the UN, he described his government's August 18 letter to the UN Security Council requesting an emergency meeting about the US - South Korean joint military exercises, Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

  On August 20, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's first letter arose in Security Council consultations.As Inner City Press reported that day, the Council's president for August Mark Lyall Grant of the UK said that China had raised the issue of the letter, asking for other members' views. He said no further action or consideration of the letter is expected.

   After Ri Tong Il on August 25 said no response had been received, Inner City Press asked him if, beyond what Lyall Grant said at the stakeout, a formal letter should have been sent.

  Citing a US military web site which lists 10 other countries involved in UFJ, including the UK and France, Inner City Press what about the other countries in the joint military exercises, are they just a fig leaf?

  Ri Tong Il answered the second question first saying that the US never gives troup numbers, and that every time the US is talking about troops, under pretext of exercise they bring in nuclear weapons, aircraft carrier George Washington, B52, Tomahawk missiles. And they have all related weapons. And now concerning number of troops, over half a million. You can see, they are ready to move at any time. With full capacity. Plus, over 40,000 civilian population of South Korea. This is a full scale war exercise and the word ewcercise is not proper one. They are fully ready since they have been holding them annually.

 On the letter(s), Ri Tong Il said concerning the response from the UNSC, we in the name of the Permanent Repressentative presented a formal request addressed to His Excellency Grant, and in established practice of protocol whatever answer should be addressed to us. They’re not showing any respect even for the protocol. They should reply.

  Inner City Press immediately asked the UK Mission to the UN, whose spokesperson Iona Thomas quickly replied, "On the letter, it is my understanding that there is no requirement to respond to such requests in writing.  As the Ambassador said at the stakeout on Wednesday, there was no support in the Council for discussing the issue."

  Perhaps burying the lead on August 25 Ri Tong Il said, "The entire army of DPRK is closely watching. DPRK will conduce the most powerful pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US since the US openly decleared it would use so-called tailored deterrents. As long as the US exposes its intention to remove the government of Pyongyang, the DPRK responds the same way by making out conter-actions on a regular basis."

  Back on August 1, Inner City Press asked Ri Tong Il if he had asked for the letter to be formally circulated, or would North Korea take it to the General Assembly?

  Ri Tong Il replied that it is not a question of approaching individual countries, but a formal request to the Security Council. Inner City Press inquired with the mission of Rwanda, July's president, and got a copy of the letter and the response that there was no consensus for holding the requested emergency meeting. Inner City Press has put the letter online here.

  Also, at the bottom of this page is a fast transcript of the press conference, by Inner City Press & the Free UN Coalition for Access.

Inner City Press also asked Ri Tong Il for an update on his mission's announcement thirteen months ago that it sought the end of the so-called “UN Command” in South Korea. Ri Tong Il said his country remains opposed to it:

On UN command, the DPRK is consistently insisting on the dismantling of UN Command in South Korea. This is a UN body but not under the direction of the UN, it is not under the approval of its budget. If you look at the inside nature, 100 percent US troops. This is a typical example of position of power by the US. It should be dismantled. And we are raising it to the UN on a regular basis.

  Later on August 1 Inner City Press asked Stephane Dujarric, the spokesman for Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, if Ban has received North Korea's letter complaining about the Seth Rogen film “The Interview.” (Inner City Press has commented on the letter, here.). Dujarric said the letter has been received, but Ban has no response.

  Ban, of course, was South Korea's foreign minister. His c.v. or biography, including for a recent op-ed about Haiti(where the UN brought cholera and then has dodged accountability), states that Ban previously served as “Director of the UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau.” 

 Other iterations say he was director of the “UN’s International Organizations and Treaties Bureau in South Korea, Seoul” (here). So was that really a UN (or “UN's”) agency? Or is is like the UN Command? Watch this site.

Footnote: In Ri Tong Il's press conference, the UN Correspondents Association demanded the first question, and gave it to a representative of a media from Japan - another representative of which took a second question, before other media got even one. While both are genial, this is how UNCA, a/k/a the UN's Censorship Alliance, works.

The new Free UN Coalition for Access is opposed to any set-asides or automatic first questions. Also, despite the continued censorship of the question, the Free UN Coalition for Access believes that at a minimum the UN should disclose “in kind” (or gift) private jet travel for Ban Ki-moon paid for by a state. We'll have more on this.Watch this site.

   

At UN, North Korea Deputy Slams US, Trilateral Meeting in DC, UNSC Arria Formula Meeting on DPRK; On Censors

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 4 -- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea's deputy ambassador to the UN Ri Tong Il held his second press conference in less than two weeks on April 4, slamming US military drills and "provocation."

  Inner City Press asked two rounds of questions (see below), the first on the upcoming April 7 trilateral meeting of the US, Japan and South Korea in Washington, the second about a UN Security Council "Arria formula" meeting on North Korea human rights tentatively scheduled for April 17.

  Ri Tong Il said the trilateral meeting is about the US wanting a military alliance, a continued military presence in the region.  On the Arria formula meeting, he said to wait and see -- then added that if the US steps over the "red line," they know what will happen. Do they? And where is the line?

  US envoy Robert King, Ri Tong Il said, is not be allowed into the DPRK, therefore his requests about prisoner Kenneth Bae will not be considered. Asked of drones, Ri Tong Il spoke of US drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In his opening statement he spoke of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and said the US should "go through punishment."

  The 11 am press conference was only announced at 10:35 am. When Ri Tong Il entered, there were few journalists in the room. He waited five minutes then began. 

 He called on Inner City Press / the new Free UN Coalition for Access for the first question. Since the old UN Correspondents Associations so-called "Holy Seat" was empty and no attempt had been made to brand the press conference as UNCA (become the UN's Censorship Alliance), Inner City Press did not mention FUNCA, said only, thanks.

  But then a questioner from Reuters, whose bureau chief has engaged in outright censorship by mis-citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act tocon Google into banning one of his "on the record" anti-Press complaints to the UN from Google's Search, told Ri Tong Il, Thank you on behalf of UNCA. 

  So while it should not have been necessary, FUNCA thanks Ri Tong Il, to counter this branding by the UN Censorship Alliance, whose board tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN and has had no reforms.

   Back on March 27, two days after the Democratic People's Republic of Korea fired medium range missiles toward Japan, the UN Security Council held a meeting at the request of the US.

  Afterward Council president for March Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg read out "elements to the press" that all members agreed the launch was a violation, and that consultations would continue. Video here.

  Inner City Press asked if a Presidential Statement or Press Statement was envisioned, but Lucas did not expand. Inner City Press asked her, and then South Korean's Permanent Representative, if they thought the launch's timing was related to the trilateral meeting held in The Hague between Japan, South Korea and the US.

  Lucas said it did not come up; the South Korean PR said that whatever North Korea's motives, the launch was a violation. Then it was over.

  During the meeting, a North Korean diplomat sat on a couch further down the second floor. Another diplomat spoke with him there, then returned, into the Council then out in the so-called Turkish Lounge. We hope to have more on this.

   On March 26, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq was asked by Inner City Press if Ban had any comments on the launch.. Video here.

  Haq said, You'll recall after the firing of short range missiles, on March 17... the Secretary General emphasized the need for DPRK to refrain for provocative acts. 

  But even three hours later as a UN Security Council meeting began, on the Golan Heights, there was no UN Secretariat comment yet. (Later one was emailed out: in response to questions.) French Ambassador Gerard Araudbreezed into the 3 pm meeting at 3:22 and said there might be a Council statement, he wasn't sure.

  The night before, Inner City Press asked Luxembourg, as UN Security Council president for March, if any meeting was in the works. Their mission quickly replied, "@innercitypress we are aware of reports, no UNSC meeting foreseen for the moment."

  And on March 26 she said nothing for that day; if tomorrow, she said let's see if there is a request.

  In Washington, US State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf said on March 25: 

North Korea launched two No Dong medium-range ballistic missiles from near its west coast on March 26 (local time). Both flew in an easterly direction over North Korea’s land mass and impacted in the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. government information. It does not appear that North Korea issued any maritime notifications providing warning of the launches.

We are closely monitoring the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Coming on the heels of the DPRK’s March 3 and February 27 Scud launches, these March 26 launches of medium-range No Dong ballistic missiles represent a troubling and provocative escalation that the United States takes very seriously.

Launches using ballistic missile technology are a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1718, 1874, and 2094. Resolutions 1718 and 1874 require North Korea to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and to re-establish a moratorium on missile launches. Resolutions 1874 and 2094 further require the DPRK to stop conducting any launches using ballistic missile technology.

We are closely coordinating with our allies and partners, including in the UN Security Council, to take the appropriate measures in response to this latest provocation and to address the threat to global security posed by the DPRK’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

We urge North Korea to exercise restraint and refrain from further threatening actions.

    Was the March 24 press conference one of threats? The DPRK deputyrecounted a litany of ways the US has thrown "cold water" on attempts at reconciliation on the Korean peninsula, adding the the US needs an enemy in the region to justify its military presence.

  Inner City Press, after thanking Ri Tong Il for this briefing on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, asked him to comment on the trilateral Japan - South Korea - US meeting planned for March 24 in The Hague, and on last week's announcement that DPRK will resume "high level" talks with Japan. Video here from Minute 29:57.

  After saying, "I know you," Ri Tong Il told Inner City Press to "ask them" the first question. On the second, he cited the 2002 Joint Declaration in Pyongyang with Japan -- here -- adding that "past crimes" must be addressed.

  After his opening statement he'd said he could only take a couple of questions. Pamela Falk of CBS grabbed the first one for the United Nations Correspondents Association, and promptly asked two questions.  And so it goes at the UN.

  Back on January 24, DPRK's then Permanent Representative Sin Son Ho held a press conference.  He read a five-page statement entitled "It Is the Invariable Stand of the DPRK to Improve the Inter-Korean Relations and Achieve National Reconciliation and Unity."

  When he was finished he took three questions. He called on Inner City Press second, and when asked, "Will you answer the first one?" said he would take them in a bunch. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, he was thanked for the briefing, and prospectively for answers. But it was not to be.

  Inner City Press asked if the inter-family reunions he referred to would go forward even if the South Korean - US military exercises set for February do. Inner City Press asked asked, as it has the UN, about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's January 2 call to President Park of South Korea, on which the UN refused to give a read-out. (FUNCA has protested this.)

  But Sin Son Ho said that the answers would be found in his statement -- no Ban there -- or on KNCA, state media. Might they know what Ban and Park discussed, and why?

 South Korean president Park Geun-hye went public on January 2 about a call her office said was initiated to her by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. 

  Ban "discussed the situation in North Korea, regional tensions over Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to a controversial war shrine and other issues of common interest, her office said."

  What were these other "issues of common interest"?  More than four hours after Park's office went public about the call, the UN through Ban's spokespeople or otherwise, has provided no information. This is a pattern.

  As 2013 ended at the UN, the question arose why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's statement on tensions between Japan and Ban's native South Korea (and China) was given to regional media before the Press which had formally asked a question, and why Ban's spokesperson has been deflecting questions since.

The answer, proposed exclusively to Inner City Press by well-placed sources in South Korea, involves Ban Ki-moon being in a poll for the country's 2017 presidential election, as a candidate of incumbent Park's faction of the ruling Saenuri party. Click here for story on that polling, in Korean.

Last week, Inner City Press asked Ban's two top spokespeople:

"on South Sudan, in light of the SG's response at his last stakeout, please provide his / the UN's response to the subsequent report that

'The Korean side is now accusing the Japanese of politically using the emergency faced by Korean troops in South Sudan, with one unnamed official saying that the Abe government’s linking of the ammo supply to its 'active pacifism' initiative was a 'clear political provocation.' Another unnamed official said Korea had told the Japanese to handle this quietly out of fear that the locals would turn hostile and attack Korean troops if word got out that they’d received ammo, but the Japanese were instead turning this into a big story. Korean government officials are also saying that they intend to return all the ammo to Japan once Korean ammo arrives from Korea, despite the fact that the Japanese said they could keep it.'"

But the spokesperson, Martin Nesirky and Farhan Haq, never answered this question, or even acknowledged receiving it. 

  While later a "Note to Correspondent" about Ban's position was sent out, and Inner City Press reported on it, it turned out that the very same Ban position had been given out to regional media 13 hours before. This practice is being opposed in 2014 by the Free UN Coalition for Access, whatever the motives of the practice.

  But here, as also illuminated by Ban spokesperson Nesirky's push-back at questions from Chinese media on December 30, and December 31 responding to Inner City Press' factual question about whether UNMISS had been contacted by the South Koreans before the South Koreans contacted Japan (and also about UNMISS' relationship with the American military or bullet-holders), there may be more.

  December 31 Q&A video here, and embedded below.

The theory, made composite from Inner City Press' South Korean sources, goes like this:

"South Korean peace keepers receive artillery fire from hostile forces -> SK field commanders immediately request ammunition shipment from Japanese peace keepers in the vicinity -> Japanese cabinet convenes an emergency meeting to approve the shipment -> shipment goes to SK -> upon media scrutiny (as this could mark a landmark shift in Japan's overseas defense activity), SK denies making a direct request to Japan and claims that it was made through UN (UNMISS) -> Japan refutes and even releases a clip from video conf between SK and JP units to prove its point -> UN supports SK's claim -> SK explains that the decision was made by field commanders... To put it succinctly [according to this theory]: Ban is potentially giving political cover for the Park administration by insisting on UN's role in the process."

So why didn't Ban's spokesperson answer Inner City Press' initial written question last week, or Inner City Press' in-person December 31 question? Such stonewalling only gives rise to more questions, or as here, theories. Or, when will it and the other so far ignored questions be answered? Watch this site.

Footnote: as context for most other than Chinese media on December 30 not pursuing this, consider that the insider United Nations Correspondents Association has accepted a large Samsung television, which was being installed on December 31. 

 UNCA's 2013 and 2014 president Pamela Falk claimed that the TV does not involve any mission. But even the UN, when asked by Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access, admitted that the TV equipment went from Samsung to South Korea's Mission to the UN to the UN and then to UNCA: it involved the South Korean mission and government. We'll have more on this.  
[January 2 update, and e-mail from "UNCA Office, here.]

Update: after 5:50 pm on New Years Eve the UN provided the responses below, which we publish just after 6 pm on December 31:

Subject: Your questions at noon on South Sudan
From: UN Spokesperson - Do Not Reply [at] un.org
Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:52 PM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com

Regarding your question at noon today on Pariang, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has provided the following information from the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS):

As of 31 December, UNMISS has 120 troops in its base in Pariang. The Mission reports it has no evidence that Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) elements are involved in the conflict in South Sudan.

On your question on the provision of ammunition to the South Korean engineering corps in UNMISS, this was a bilateral arrangement between two Member States. We suggest you direct your question to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea. In terms of the UNMISS role, the Mission transported the ammunition to the South Korean troops in Bor. The US is a troop contributor to UNMISS; it contributes five military personnel to the Mission.