Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Jan. 29th, 2015

[Cheolhyeon Jang]

There are two classes in North Korea. There are people who hand out, people who are on top, and then there are people who are in the market. There are people who rely on rations and who get a lot of rations compared to people who are relying on the markets. People with sufficient rations are loyal to the party, of course, and only a limited number of people receive sufficient supplies. But most of the people in North Korea are in the market class because they really can't expect to live on rations.

From 1994 to 1999, about three million people died of starvation in North Korea. Why? Because we didn't have a market. That was the first reason. Second, it's not because we didn't have enough rice: it's a matter of system. We didn't have human rights. That's why they starved to death.

What I'm saying is that North Korea could just as easily have given up its nuclear program and then spent that money to buy rice for their people, but they made a choice to develop their nuclear program even further. They used more money.... When three million people were dying of starvation, they spent about $800 million on a mausoleum for the tomb of Kim Il Sung. When the people of North Korea starved to death, they didn't really think of them as people. They just thought of them as another number. They weren't important. They weren't people.

Now, North Korea keeps asking the outside world for food. Are they asking for food for their people? No. I think it's for the people who are loyal to them, the ration class of people who can be sustained on the rations, the very few. They just want to feed those very few. In this totalitarian system, they want to keep it alive, of course, and because of that, to keep their system alive, they're asking for food aid from the outside.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Do you see any tangible progress towards an open and free society in North Korea? When do you envision North Korea opening up to the rest of the world?

[Cheolhyeon Jang]

As I said to you before, as long as North Korea focuses on this cultification, this deification, of the Kims, then opening up the society is just out the question. They need their leader to be a god, and everyone else in the country is held hostage to this cause.

Right now, though, the North Korean authorities have basically lost their ability to provide rations, so they're losing their control over the society. They just look away when they see markets sprouting up. I think this probably will be what pushes back against the North Korean government. They're not fighting against the external enemies; they're fighting against the markets that are sprouting up within the country. If these grassroots markets continue to flourish, I think North Korea will change a bit. People in the past thought about loyalty to the party, but now, with these markets, they're thinking about materials and what they can buy. In the past there was a very simple line of command, and people would just follow that, but now we have a new order of demand and supply in this market. There's a new life order because of these markets.

So if you want to change North Korea, as long as the regime insists on cultification, we can never have any top-down change in North Korea. We can only hope for change to start at the grassroots. You and other countries around the world shouldn't be talking with the North Korean authorities; you should be looking more at the people in North Korea and what you can do to support their efforts to make more markets flourish in that country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Cotler, you're next.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I first want to commend Mr. Lee for bringing up the importance of a North Korea human rights act. As I think you put it, this would give hope to the North Korean people themselves. It has importance as a symbolic as well as substantive statement. I have drafted in the past a comprehensive motion on North Korea, and would like to do a North Korea human rights act, but it would go nowhere as a private member's bill, unfortunately. I'm hoping that perhaps at the end of testimony today this committee might consider a motion to recommend to the government that it consider a North Korea human rights act, because it would be much more important if it came from the government.

The second thing I want to express my appreciation for is adding the sixth consideration to R2P, regarding the responsibility to rescue.

Let me get to the particular question. Recently UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed purported overtures by North Korea's government to improve access, as the Secretary-General put it, in support of human rights monitoring and indications that it would allow greater access to humanitarian relief organizations. What do you make of the Secretary-General's statement, and how does this affect our whole approach with regard to North Korea and the findings regarding their ongoing commission of crimes against humanity?

[Kyung Bok Lee]

Some months ago, when the UN General Assembly was trying to pass the resolution, the North Korean authorities wanted to negotiate. In exchange for deletion of the critical elements of the resolution, they would allow the UN special rapporteur to visit North Korea. At the same time we hear, according to satellite information, that one of the prison camps in North Korea, Yodok, is all of a sudden disappearing and the camp facilities are disappearing. Perhaps this was done in order to assure the special rapporteur that this is not a political prison camp but rather a collective farm only. It's a strategy of deception, in other words. We are saying they have to dismantle the political prison camp system, not the camp facility. They can transfer inmates to other camps. That's not dismantlement in the true sense of the word. I think the same applies to the dialogue. The international community engaged in dialogue for—what?—20 years, over the nuclear issue. What's the result? Nothing.

This authority is impervious and totally impossible. So, diplomatically, yes, the international community, including the South Korean government and the Canadian government, can engage in dialogue, but we have to make sure that we know what they are saying is not really what they are saying. They don't mean what they are saying, so we have to be careful. Most of the time we are the losers, because, as Mr. Jang said, the western societies, the international community, have been deceived for so long and continue to be deceived.

So we have to deal with North Korea.

[Cheolhyeon Jang]

The North Korean regime gave their reaction to the COI report. The reason is not that they have changed their attitude to human rights, it's that they wanted to refer the supreme leader to the international tribunal. That's why. As I said before, the North Korean regime is based on the deification of their leader. The international community is now referring him. They want him to go before the tribunal. That's why they couldn't help but put on a show. It's not because they genuinely have changed their attitude towards human rights in North Korea. Because if they had, they would have abolished their system of terror. But they still create a lot of political prisoners and they still keep their secret police. The North Korean regime puts on this show, so we shouldn't be deceived by that.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to mention parenthetically on that point that in 2014 North Korea was part of the universal periodic review at the United Nations. Canada made seven recommendations regarding what North Korea should be doing. Among the recommendations that were rejected, two of them that were rejected, which I found interesting, were the closure of prison camps and, again, in relation to what you just said Mr. Jang, ensuring accountability for violations of human rights. Those were two of the four recommendations made by Canada that were rejected.

If I may, I have a very quick question, Mr. Chair.

Recently, as you know, Shin Dong-hyuk recanted parts of his account of escaping from North Korea. Will this have any impact on the findings of the commission of inquiry regarding the crimes against humanity committed by North Korea, and will it in any way affect a prospective referral by the UN Security Council of these crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court?

[Kyung Bok Lee]

Please, is the question for me?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, to you or to Mr. Jang.

[Kyung Bok Lee]

It is very unfortunate that he changed his testimony. He has changed his story, but the essence of his testimony is what is happening in North Korea, especially in the political prisoner camps. He changed his story of how he was tortured at age 20 and said 13 instead of 20, and he said that he was ill-treated in Camp 18 instead of Camp 14, and therefore the credibility of his testimony is being tested. That is very unfortunate, but as I said, what's happening in North Korea in the prison camps is true. I think that's why it won't affect much; to some extent, yes, but not really.

[Cheolhyeon Jang]

I missed some of the question, but I would like to mention one thing, which is that in the political prison camps, as some argue, you cannot get out alive. When people hear about political camps, they always talk about the Yodok camp, but Yodok is a sort of re-education camp. That's why there have been some survivors of that camp.

Some people have been released by the regime, but unfortunately now there are no survivors from those political camps, because the North Korean regime executed those people. That's why we don't have those survivors. Mr. Shin's recanting of his story is based on that reality.

If the North Korean regime is willing to dismantle their political prison camps, if they have a list of people they're willing to release, if they're willing to do that, they should show us that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

[Kyung Bok Lee]

It depends how you define a political prison camp. I hear in the testimony of other political prison camp survivors that the degree of the punishment, isolation, and torture is a little bit different. In the case of Camp 18, it is not a total control zone.

As they said, a real political prison camp may be defined as a total control zone. I hear that even in the Yodok camp, there are two parts. One is a total control zone that you can never leave. We don't know how they are treated because they are destined to die in there. Nobody knows, because there are no survivors so far. For other camps, maybe after years, after serving their term, people can be released. We have survivors.

Generally, labour camps, whether they are total control zones or not, we still think of as political prison camps. In that sense, I don't agree with him that there are no political prison camp survivors; there are, I guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Hillyer, you're next.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

You said that getting through to the regime is pretty much hopeless and that we should direct our efforts towards the people themselves.

What are some things that we can do to support and encourage or inspire the people themselves since we have to get through the filter of the government?

[Cheolhyeon Jang]

I think getting outside information in would be the most effective thing.

Why? Because North Korean residents are actually living in a total control zone. They're living in a society that is totally controlled. They can't move freely, and they can't go abroad. They are in a closed environment and they are just getting the information that is coming down that has been brainwashing them since they were born about the deification of the Kims. They have nothing to compare to. They don't know what it's like out there, and they can't compare what it's like inside. We need to get information on the reality of the outside world in to the North Korean people so that they realize that this is wrong and they're living in a society that is wrong. I think that's the first step that we need to take.

Second, we need to look at how we can help the North Korean people, not the regime. The first way would be to rescue the defectors. The defectors who reached South Korea are about 28,000 in number. They're very lucky. There are many people who are in China or in Southeast Asia who want to come to South Korea but they can't come in. There are about 100,000 of them currently on the run. We need to be able to help these people to go to South Korea or to other free countries. I think that is a role that we need to play, because that also will play a part in bringing about the collapse of the regime.

I told you that there is punishment by association in North Korea. It's three generations of punishment. If someone in your family has defected then your whole family is going to be classified as people who are traitors to the country. In this situation, everyone in North Korean society, the people of North Korea will all be classified as people who are disloyal, because they know someone in their family who has defected. We definitely need to help these people to defect more and defect safely and to go into safe countries.

We need to break down the cultification, the deification of the Kims. How can we do that? I don't think it's that difficult. We need to keep our broadcasts that go into North Korea, that go on the open airwaves. We also need to keep putting pamphlets into the areas of North Korea where we can get them. We need to tell the North Korean people that these three generations of the Kim dynasty have left three generations of slavery for the North Korean people. Just by telling them the truth, I think we can change the thoughts of the North Korean people.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'll just advise you that I'm following my own clock, which is a bit different from the one up there. We still have a few minutes left for the committee.

Are you sure you're done, Mr. Hillyer?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. I have to do a Standing Order 31.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Okay.

Mr. Benskin, please.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

As I expressed after hearing one of the previous witnesses from North Korea, my head spins at the testimony you are providing. I thank you both for your testimony as well as for your candour and courage in sharing these stories with us.

As an artist, I have always prided myself in the work done by my artistic colleagues and me, in the firm belief that we can change the world one poem at a time. Your testimony in regard to the tools that are being used to subjugate the people of North Korea is disheartening, to say the least. You shared with us that you yourself were part of creating poems but also novels and other forms of communication in order to contribute to the brainwashing of North Korean residents. We heard through past testimony, and you've just echoed it, that one of the things that will aid in ending this regime and this life is the information filtering in to the North Korean people. We heard how information, through television shows, is being smuggled in on thumb drives and CDs.

What other type of work is being done? It would take the same kind of work to undo, I guess, or deprogram, as you said, what is happening. You mentioned earlier the language of control. Could you elaborate a bit on what that language is and what you mean by that?

[Cheolhyeon Jang]

I'm not sure if there is anything like this in English, but in Korean we have an honorific system built into the language. You show very high respect, respect, and just.... People with equal status have a different language system, let's say.

The honorific system can only be used for the people in the leader's family, the Kims. They get the highest-respect language. You can't use that style of language for anyone else. So within the language itself you're classifying. You're splitting the people into classes. There's a specific style of language that you can use only with regard to the leader's family and the leader.

For literature, we have the juche ideology. That is built into the literature that's coming out of the government departments. If we look at poetry, in North Korea you can't use the word “tears” with a person in general. You can't use that. There was a very famous poet in North Korea by the name of Kim Chul. He wrote “dew” instead of “tears”, since he couldn't use the word “tears”, but they caught on to that. He was sent to a prison camp for 15 years.

Everything starts from this ideology. We have these prescriptions for every different type of literature. Basically, it's all just used as a tool, and legally as a tool, for propaganda only. There's a people's literature division within the UFD where they come up with the means to control everything in popular culture. But there is no popular culture, because no one's allowed to come up with their own songs. You can't do anything, even on your gravestone. On the gravestone you can put the person's name, their birthdate, and that's it, because people can read that gravestone and they don't want anyone to read something that they haven't prescribed.

You probably can't imagine this type of control, but everything starts from the language, what you can use and what you can't.

[Kyung Bok Lee]

I want to add one more thing. When we are talking about freedom of expression, that implies freedom of expression of thought. Freedom of opinion means freedom of expression of thought. But when we're talking about expression, we may express our thoughts, and at the same time we may express feelings. Okay? Now, they don't have freedom of expression of thought, of course, and they don't even have freedom of expression, of feeling freely. That's what he means.

In addition, they don't have the freedom of feeling freely. You know what? If you express your feeling, then it is expressed. For instance, Jang Song-thaek, Kim's uncle, was executed. One of the crimes he committed was that he clapped half-heartedly. That was one of the crimes. You have to clap full-heartedly. This means that you cannot express your feelings freely. He clapped half-heartedly because he didn't feel good, you know. In other words, they even control how you feel. If I have time outside of this committee meeting, I can talk with you. Because you said that you are an artist, I hope we can continue our discussion later. Thank you.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Do I have time left?