Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Sept. 27th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Today is September 27, 2012, and this is the 47th meeting of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. We are studying the human rights situation in North Korea.

Today we have three witnesses with us from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They are Graham Shantz, director general of the North Asia bureau; Alain Gendron, director of the Northeast Asia division; and Rebecca Netley, deputy director of the human rights and governance policy division.

Just to refresh the memories of those who were here before and to remind those who are new to our subcommittee, we have one-hour meetings, so time is of the essence. We usually have excellent presentations and not enough time to get out all the questions and to get the fulsome answers that we would want.

We'll have our presenters give their presentations. Based on how much time is left, I will remind you of how much time is available for our questions. If we are respectful of the times—and remember, the time includes questions and answers, so let them do the talking—then we'll be able to have everybody go around and get an equal amount of time. I'll let you know how much time is available for each round of questions.

That being said, I turn now to our witnesses.

I invite you to begin your testimony. Thank you.

[Graham Shantz, Director General, North Asia Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to discuss the current human rights situation in North Korea.

As you no doubt know, North Korea has been the source of many concerns to our government and to Canadians. Canada is troubled by its aggressive and belligerent behaviour, its role as a nuclear proliferator and the human rights situation, among others.

As stated by Minister Baird last year, “Canada has not—and will not—hesitate to oppose the combative and provocative actions of the North Korean regime. We urge its leaders to implement real reforms and live up to their international obligations....”

There have been numerous reports of arbitrary detentions, public executions, the use of torture, reports of forced abortions in labour camps, the application of collective punishment, cruel treatment of repatriated asylum seekers, and the indefinite holding of political prisoners. The lack of freedom, including the lack of freedom of religion, is absolutely deplorable.

The Government of Canada is an unfailing champion of the cause of North Korean human rights and takes every opportunity to support international action on this issue, whether it is at the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, or in other multilateral fora. The plight of ordinary North Koreans, who suffer from continuing food shortages under a reckless regime, is well known. It is regrettable that a country unable to properly feed its own people would spend so much of its resources on weapons.

As a means to express its deep concern related to the attacks perpetrated by North Korea, and also to address the deplorable humanitarian situation in North Korea and respond to the systematic abuse of the population, Canada adopted a controlled engagement policy in October of 2010. Under this policy, official bilateral contact with the North Korean government is limited to subjects concerning, first, regional security concerns; second, the human rights and humanitarian situation in North Korea; third, inter-Korean relations; and finally, consular issues. It is in this spirit that Canada has not yet accredited its ambassador to North Korea.

In August 2011, the Government of Canada invoked the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, to impose additional sanctions against North Korea. The SEMA prohibits trade, investments, financial services and the transfer of technology between Canada and North Korea. These sanctions are meant to target the government, not the people.

Canada has taken a clear and firm position on the human rights situation in North Korea. The Canadian government has consistently raised concerns both domestically and in the international arena, and will continue to do so.

As mentioned in Minister Baird's address to the UN General Assembly last year, Canada temporarily boycotted the Conference on Disarmament to protest North Korea's term as president, given the regime acting as a major proliferator of nuclear weapons and its non-compliance with its disarmament obligations.

Canada also enforces existing UN sanctions adopted by the Security Council. The first, Resolution 1718, was adopted in 2006 in response to a claim by Pyongyang that it conducted a test of a nuclear weapon. Resolution 1718 prevents a range of goods from entering or leaving North Korea and imposes an asset freeze and travel ban on persons related to the nuclear weapon program.

The second, Resolution 1874, was adopted in 2009 in similar circumstances. It tightened the measures in the previous resolution. Canada welcomed the adoption of this resolution, as it demonstrated the strong and united response of the international community to North Korea's unacceptable actions. Resolution 1874 condemned in the strongest terms North Korea's nuclear test and demanded that the country immediately and fully comply with its obligations under previous UN Security Council resolutions.

Canada has been vocal in condemning the actions of this rogue regime. Between 2009 and 2012, there have been over twenty ministerial statements or references in the ministers' speeches on this situation.

On September 17, 2012, the minister issued a statement condemning the political prison camps in North Korea and requested information on the fate of Ms. Shin and her two daughters, as stipulated in the government response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Mr. Chair, in the interest of time I will hand over to my colleague to make some comments on a commission of inquiry, which I believe is the issue at hand for your committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That's correct. Thank you.

[Rebecca Netley, Deputy Director, Human Rights and Governance Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Shantz has indicated, Canada strongly condemns the human rights situation in North Korea. With respect to the multilateral human rights front, Canada co-sponsors and is actively engaged, working for stronger language, in both the resolution at the UN General Assembly and the resolution at the Human Rights Council on North Korea's human rights violations.

Canada also maintains a dialogue with like-minded countries, including with the United States and South Korea, on multilateral human rights issues with respect to North Korea and engages with these partners in preparing for the resolutions at the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.

I understand we are here today to consider the question of a commission of inquiry. Commissions of inquiry, as members likely know, are generally used in the context of the rapid onset of gross and systematic violations, such as the situations in Libya, Darfur, and currently Syria. The mandates vary, but commissions of inquiry often have a fact-finding mandate along with a mandate to make preliminary determinations as to whether violations of human rights or humanitarian law have occurred.

Commissions of inquiry are usually established by the UN Security Council or by the Human Rights Council through resolutions, which are often very controversial and divisive and which generate vote calls.

It has also been possible in rare circumstances for the UN Secretary-General to establish a COI under his own auspices, but this has normally been at the request of the state of concern.

Generally speaking, however, there are concerns regarding the utility of a commission of inquiry in the context of the North Korean situation. It is not clear what additional information would surface that has not already been flagged by the current special rapporteur for the human rights situation in North Korea, Marzuki Darusman. North Korea would not grant access to a commission of inquiry, making it very difficult for the commission to have contact with victims and witnesses. This would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the commission of inquiry.

There are also concerns regarding whether or not, should a request for a commission of inquiry be sought in any one of the bodies, the request would be successful in the resulting votes that would be required. This makes the situation even more challenging.

By way of an alternative to a commission of inquiry, there is currently work being done by Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman on a comprehensive report likely to be tabled at the March session of the Human Rights Council. It is expected to be very comprehensive and to respond to some of the issues that were raised by the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea in some of the work they have done over the last year in arguing for a commission of inquiry. We understand that this report will include a specific focus on arbitrary detention; enforced and involuntary disappearances; torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; and executions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Is there any further commentary or are we ready to go to the questions?

Thank you very much.

You've made very good time. We have 45 minutes. There are six people who want to ask questions, so that gives us seven minutes each if we're all pretty good about it.

Let's go to Mr. Sweet to start.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

I think what I'll do is try to get some background before my other colleagues get to direct questions regarding a commission of inquiry and what that may mean.

I would like to ask this right off. You mentioned that the rapporteur has not had access inside North Korea and yet you mentioned that the report was comprehensive. I think that was the word you used. Help me. Of course the report hasn't been tabled or published, but how could it possibly be comprehensive without any access inside the country?

[Rebecca Netley]

As we understand, this report will be different from other reports that the special rapporteur has issued to date in that it will involve consideration of all of those issues that I listed: the arbitrary detention; the forced and involuntary disappearances; torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; and executions. In that sense, it will be more expansive than the reports the special rapporteur has produced to date. This is the difference.

This is why the term “comprehensive” has been applied to this report and why it has been differentiated from the previous reports that the special rapporteur has issued. But no, he has not had access to North Korea, although I do believe he is able to speak to individuals who are outside the country.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Shantz, you mentioned CIDA. I can't remember whether you referred to it or if it's just in your notes and you didn't get that far—yes, you did.

[Graham Shantz]

I'd be happy to speak to it if you want. In the interests of respecting the chairman's instructions on time, I truncated the presentation, but I'd be pleased to talk—

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

It's okay. There are just a lot of dollar figures here. What is the nature of that aid? I understand it's being delivered by NGOs, but none is going to the Government of North Korea. What's the nature of that aid? Is it all food?

[Graham Shantz]

Yes, and in answer to your earlier question to my colleague, obviously it's a closed regime, as we all know, so you have limited options in terms of either trying to document systemic human rights abuses or in fact engaging with North Koreans—I don't want to say the North Korean government. In fact, in terms of the Canadian International Development Agency contributions, it's humanitarian assistance and it's designed for urgent relief needs. It does not go to the government. It is channelled through two international organizations: the UN system and the Red Cross movement.

To date, in 2012, this year, CIDA has provided $7 million to the World Food Programme, its emergency food operation in North Korea, and an additional $1 million to UNICEF in support of its work to treat acute malnutrition in young children. Since 2008, Canada has provided $15.6 million in humanitarian assistance to North Korea, all of it through experienced international organizations. To be clear, CIDA does not provide any humanitarian assistance directly to the Government of North Korea.

I hope that answered your question.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, it did.

The nature of that is primarily food. Is there any medicinal aid in that regard as well?

[Graham Shantz]

All I know is that it's humanitarian assistance, and I'm confident of the food, sir. I don't want to make a claim with respect to medicine. I just don't know. But we can get back to you if you wish.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

You brought up the clear observation that this is a very closed society, a closed nation in this regard, with a very tight cap on it. We dealt with Eritrea recently and we're seeing the same kinds of concerns.

Are we making any headway with our relations with China in regard to North Korea and some movement? I'm certain that North Korea also presents to them a destabilizing concern on their border as well.

[Graham Shantz]

I can't speak for China, but clearly it's preoccupied with the situation in North Korea because of the possibility of refugees coming over its borders, in fact, which again raises concerns for Canada in terms of how China would treat North Korean refugee claimants or North Korean refugees.

From our perspective, we're working with like-minded countries to express the Government of Canada's concerns with respect to the human rights situation in North Korea. We're working with like-minded and allied countries, and with respect to North Korea and its treatment of its citizens, we don't hesitate to raise issues of concern with many of our bilateral partners, including China.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

There are two major concerns, of course—human rights, which we're primarily talking about here today, but the nuclear aspect is also of grave concern. You alluded to that in your remarks.

Are there any exceptions in the western world? Is everybody treating North Korea with this...? We have this seam of modified relation with them. Is that primarily the status quo with most of the western nations?

[Graham Shantz]

I think most western nations are responding to the UN Security Council resolutions.

In terms of our response, we were clear both in enforcing our obligations under the resolutions but also in putting a policy framework in place, which we call “controlled engagement”, as I had mentioned in my presentation.

In terms of implementing the obligations under the Security Council resolutions, we're not alone. I think in terms of expressing our view with respect to the human rights situation in North Korea, we're clearly and consistently expressing what we believe to be a deplorable situation in North Korea.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I was trying to get to one thing specifically. What we discovered—and Professor Cotler was certainly very concerned about that when we were talking about Iran—was that there was lots of agreement and lots of engagement with regard to nuclear, but we didn't have that much momentum in the other western nations with regard to human rights.

Do you see a difference with North Korea? Do you see the same level of passion and engagement in most other western nations towards the human rights violations in North Korea, or is it primarily with the nuclear threat from this nation?

[Graham Shantz]

On human rights, I think Canada is clearly in a leading position, and we're clearly in a leading position expressing our views. We're not alone; I don't mean leading in.... We're not alone, but we're clear in our expression on that.

On the nuclear issue, in terms of our own view, the resolutions were with respect to...were coming out of North Korean's regime in terms of its nuclear program. So there's consensus in the international community in that sense.

Our views on North Korea's nuclear program are clear. I know other of our like-minded partners are very concerned about it. There are the six-party talks trying to deal with a range of issues but specifically the nuclear situation on the Korean peninsula.

In terms of the sanctions' effect, the effect is to express clearly to the North Korean regime the international community's objection to its behaviour and its nuclear program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Sweet, you're out of time.

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have to let you know that I have an SO 31, so I'll have to duck out a little bit before the end of the meeting.

Welcome. I'm pleased to hear your testimony.

About five years ago, maybe four, I was with the foreign affairs minister on the DMZ. We went down to the partition area, right where the line was. Of course, some of the North Korean soldiers came down—from here to the chair—with binoculars, looking at us. It was very ironic to see. The shocking thing was how tiny the soldiers were. Most countries feed their military first, and these people were just racks of bones. I can't imagine what life is like for the ordinary citizen.

I've done some work with the North Korean human rights council out of Toronto. They talked about people who escaped from North Korea into China. You mentioned that in your remarks. Their testimony to us was that the people quite often are bounced back into North Korea by the Chinese. They're not kept there at all.

I'll leave that thought with you. You might want to respond if you have information on that.

Beyond that, the commission of inquiry.... You know, we have this responsibility to protect. Pardon my way of expressing this, but there are some very grand pronouncements in the international community of what we would or wouldn't do under certain circumstances. But with the situation and our last experience in Korea, with the intervention of China 50 years ago....

Is it 60 now? My goodness, I'm aging rapidly here.

The thing is that, realistically, I can't see the international community pushing too far on this for that reason. I think it was Mr. Sweet who was referring to the fact that China had doubts, or appeared to have doubts, towards North Korea.

Is there any evidence that North Korea is becoming more isolated, even from China?

[Graham Shantz]

On your first question, 60 years is the armistice next year, in 2013.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It occurred to me as I said it.

[Graham Shantz]

With respect to North Korean refugees and China, we call on the Chinese government to respect its obligations under its international refugee obligations, and obviously that's of concern in terms of how refugees would be treated.

With respect to—I don't know what you would call it—shoots of hope or something, there was a regime change recently in North Korea, as we all know, and the question is, effectively, do the Chinese view this as leading to some hope? I guess it becomes almost a triumph of, potentially, hope over experience. There are some people who would claim that the fact the new leader of North Korea has appeared with his young wife, who happens to have an expensive purse, is a sign of hope.

I don't know how the Chinese would interpret all of that. There have been I think recently some comments in the press about the possibility of special economic zones in North Korea. We all know that there is already one at the border that you were at, just around that area, with South Korean investment in North Korean territory—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Well, it was interesting. There's a train station that they've built there. They built a rail line up, and it ends right at the DMZ, where they have a train station built and fully prepared for the event of reunification if the north builds to meet them. The amounts of money that were put into it led you to feel that at least somebody thought there had been some significant hope at some point in time.