After North Korea Launches, DPRK Statement Before UNSC Meets 11 am Sunday

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 7 --  North Korea launched a rocket and satellite, a month after the Security Council tersely condemned the last test, and less than an hour before a US Republican debate in New Hampshire.

  Now North Korea, formally the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, has issued this:

"Pyongyang, February 7 (KCNA) -- The DPRK National Aerospace Development Administration on Sunday issued a report on the successful launch of earth observation satellite Kwangmyongsong-4.

The report said: Scientists and technicians of the DPRK National Aerospace Development Administration succeeded in putting the newly developed earth observation satellite Kwangmyongsong-4 into its orbit according to the 2016 plan of the 5-year program for national aerospace development.
Carrier rocket Kwangmyongsong blasted off from the Sohae Space Center in Cholsan County, North Phyongan Province at 09:00 on February 7, Juche 105(2016). The satellite entered its preset orbit at 09:09:46, 9 minutes and 46 seconds after the lift-off. The satellite is going round the polar orbit at 494.6 km perigee altitude and 500 km apogee altitude at the angle of inclination of 97.4 degrees. Its cycle is 94 minutes and 24 seconds.

Installed in Kwangmyongsong-4 are measuring apparatuses and telecommunications apparatuses needed for observing the earth.
The complete success made in the Kwangmyongsong-4 lift-off is the proud fruition of the great Workers' Party of Korea's policy on attaching importance to science and technology and an epochal event in developing the country's science, technology, economy and defense capability by legitimately exercising the right to use space for independent and peaceful purposes.

The fascinating vapor of Juche satellite trailing in the clear and blue sky in spring of February on the threshold of the Day of the Shining Star, the greatest national holiday of Kim Il Sung's Korea, is a gift of most intense loyalty presented by our space scientists and technicians to the great Comrade Kim Jong Un, our dignified party, state and people. The National Aerospace Development Administration of the DPRK will in the future, too, launch more satellites of Juche into the space, true to the great Workers' Party of Korea's policy of attaching importance to science and technology. "

 Some members of the Security Council announced they had requested an emergency meeting for 11 am, on holding of which the Council's President for February confirmed to Inner City Press: "Is confirmed the emergency meeting of the Security Council tomorrow at 11 am on North Korea."

This came as the French mission told Reuters it wasn't yet confirmed, giving rise to a question related to Reuters spin of the DR Congo Grou p of Experts report's two paragraphs on Rwanda and Burundi. French PR Delattre, despite the urging on FranceDiplo, is still not on Twitter, walked away (politely) from Press questions on Burundi and the Syrian Kurds (Vine here). The French UN spokesman who threw Inner City Press out of the Press Briefing Room, as for the past five days, didn't answer. Watch this site.

  What about UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon? Last time he met with his senior advisers -- all male -- then issued a statement. Then on February 5 he told a UNA-UK audience in London how important gender empowerment has been to him.

  If Ban is in fact running for President in South Korea, how will this help him? And any shadow over the US Super Bowl? Any (early) question in the GOP debate? We'll be following this.

Back on January 6 after North Korea announced it had tested a hydrogen bomb, at the UN a Security Council meeting was called for 11 am. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon read a statement at the UNSC stakeout at 10:30 am, taking no question as usual.

 After 1 pm, Security Council President for January Elbio Rosselli of Uruguay emerged and read out a Press Statement below. Japan's Ambassador Motohide Yoshikawa spoke, and Inner City Press asked him of Ban's moves to visit DPRK. He replied that if such a trip emphasized UN resolutions including on human rights, it could be useful. Video here. But what WAS Ban's trip going to be about?

   Earlier, UNTV fed out B-roll of Ban meeting with his advisers -- Kim Won-soo and Jeff Feltman formerly of the US State Department, Vine here -- and Ban canceled a previously scheduled (also “no questions”) appearance that Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access critiqued here.

  Russia's Ambassador Churkin on his way into the Security Council at 11 am said, “Cool heads, cool heads.” The UK's Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson spoke (Periscope video here), as did Japan's Permanent Representative.

Back on December 10, 2015, for Human Rights Day there was a UN Security Council meeting about human rights in North Korea. This comes as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon canceled a November 25 visit to Western Sahara because he thought he could go to North Korea, which still hasn't happened.

 After the meeting on December 10, Inner City Press asked UK Deputy Permanent Representative Peter Wilson, and then High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid al Hussein, about a Ban Ki-moon trip.

The UK's Wilson said his country would like to see dialogue. When Inner City Press asked Zeid if he'd discussed Ban's trip with him, Zeid said no.

 So on December 11, Inner City Press asked Ban's Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, transcript here:

Inner City Press: At the stakeout after yesterday's meeting on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the question arose to Prince Zeid whether he had discussed with the Secretary-General, the Secretary-General's possible trip to DPRK in terms of a human rights component to it.  And he seemed to indicate that the two had not discussed it.

What I wanted to ask you is, one, is that the case?  And two, what is the place, what would be the place of human rights in not… obviously the trip hasn't taken place yet, but in terms of clearly he has said that negotiations are under way and I saw Mr. Kim quoted to that effect, what is the place of human rights in such a trip?

Deputy Spokesman:  Human rights has a place in all of the Secretary-General's travels and it would do so in this case as well.  Regarding specifics, that will have to wait until when a trip is arranged, and there's nothing further to say about that.  We've been trying to make preparations when it's feasible, but there's nothing further to announce at this point. Have a good weekend, everyone.

   One is left wondering what would be the agenda of a Ban trip to North Korea - and what the US, which sponsored the December 10 meeting, thinks of such a trip. While it is difficult to get a USUN answer to the question, other ambassadors have told Inner City Press that Japan is against such a Ban trip. We'll have more on this.

 On December 10, there was a vote on whether to hold the meeting at all.

 On the way in, Venezuela's Ambassador said he was against the meeting; China's Deputy merely smiled.

 Inside, after a speech by China demanding a vote, and a Samanatha Power speech, the vote was held: the nine requesters in favor, four against (including Russia), and two abstentions (including Nigeria).

 Soon it was said Japan and South Korea - but not North Korea - would participate in the meeting, and OHCHR Zeid and USg Feltman would brief. Feltman's briefing is online here.

 Zeid, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro (OHCHR will have full text) said:

"The abduction of foreign nationals, forced disappearences, and a litany of other violations have not been halted or reversed by the government of the DPRK. There is no accountability and no independent judiciary. Millions of peole in the DPRK are denied basic rights. They are not allowed to move freely or speak about injustices, they are not allowed to follow their faith, they are denied access to information. The commission of inquiry describes the appalling nature of the political prison camps where people, including children, have been starved, tortured, raped. Hundreds of thousands have died in these camps…they are believed to contain 80,000 to 120,000 prisoners.

The report said that “the gravity, scale and nature of the human rights violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.” The new office in Seoul has begun collecting testimony from people who have left the DPRK and deepening evidence. During my visit I met defectors, men and women, and their personal experiences were harrowing. My concern over the threats issued by DPRK and media against the office in Seoul—it is wholly unacceptable to issue threats against a UN office.

3 types of allegations : victims and witnesses spoke to severe treatment of detainees – no access to lawyers, inhuman conditions, torture during interrogation. Food insecurity is an ongoing concern. The systemic failure of the distribution system hasn’t been addressed. Women in the DPRK are subject to violence and discrimination, and there’s a lack of awareness that such violence is unacceptable. Restrictions on movements across the border with china had a negative impact on women, and augmented risk of detention for those who try to cross border.

The family reunions were a welcome development and should be regularized. We’re organizing a workshop on the human rights implications of separation of families. Most have reached an advanced age. Those selected for previous reunions have no possibility of maintaining contacts.

The matter of international abductions is a cause of very grave concern. The establishment of a special investigation committee in the DPRK was positive but no info has been provided since then on results. The fate of abductees must be established. OHCHR organized consultations on human rights and abductions, followed by a visit to Japan.

This year the GA may call on the SC to take action by referring the matter to the ICC which I believe to be essential. Any call must go hand in hand with dialogue with government of DPRK. My office has continued to engage with authorities. There are signs that the governemnt is making tentative efforts to engage, and I welcome the invitation to visit the country. My office is engaged with the office to explore modalities. The systemic failings heighten international anxieties. More must be done to ensure respect. I thank you."

 It is a serious issue, but there are questions about the staging. The UN called it an "urgent" meeting, below, when it was well known for five days. Two defectors were bought to speak - but in the private clubhouse of a Correspondents Association.

Surreally, this UN Corruption Association was the venue on December 10 for two North Korea witnesses, Grace Jo and Jung Gwang II, whose handlers instead of booking the UN press briefing room which any member state can do, put them behind the closed doors of UNCA. Since UNCA under Pioli engages in censorship, here, perhaps it was not only ironic but appropriate.

 The new Free UN Coalition for Access, founded by two defectors from the increasingly corrupt UNCA, pursued the question of why information about the North Korea UNSC meeting was withheld from the press and public. UNCA said nothing, took defectors behind closed doors.

  As of 8 am, the day's UN Journal does not list it; nor does the UN Media Alert nor the Security Council's online Program of Work. The last of these may explain it: after the Council's closed door meetings on Western Sahara (listed) and Turkey on December 8, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the press that the US should have disclosed the intended North Korea meeting when formulating its Program of Work for December, when the US is President.

  Inner City Press has checked with another Security Council delegation, which said it is a good argument, but not enough to "stop" the meeting. But enough to have the meeting UNlisted, even six and a half hours before?

  The UN has an archaic, anti-public game under which "Arria formula" meetings of the Security Council are not listed in the UN Journal, sometimes not even on the blue signs outside the meeting. The Free UN Coalition for Access thinks that sending diplomatic signals by withholding information from the public is not what the UN, ostensibly about "We the Peoples," should be about. We'll hare more on this.