North Korea and the Responsibility to Protect

The 5 page report can be downloaded in PDF format at the link below.  This is the first paper I have read that explicitly discusses Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in terms of north Korea.  Excerpt:

This Policy Brief clarifies 

the application of R2P in the case of DPRK, outlining the 

responsibility of the international community in relation 

to the government’s commission of crimes against 

humanity. While the situation remains complex and 

dangerous, the international community, especially the 

UNSC, has not exhausted all options and can no longer 

continue to overlook ongoing mass atrocity crimes in 

DPRK. 

Policy Brief 

18 August 2014

http://www.globalr2p.org/media/files/dprk-and-r2p-august-2014-1.pdf

North Korea and the 

Responsibility to Protect

INTRODUCTION 

The human rights and humanitarian situation in the 

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is dire. 

Crimes against humanity as well as other systematic and 

widespread human rights violations continue to be 

committed by the government under the current 

“Supreme Leader,” Kim Jong-un. Despite testimony 

from defectors and other credible evidence accumulated 

over the last decade, the government has never 

acknowledged the existence of abuses, nor amended its 

repressive policies. Extreme political isolation and 

governmental intransigence continue to hamper further 

investigation and accountability. 

Amid mounting human rights concerns in DPRK, on 21 

March 2013 the United Nations (UN) Human Rights 

Council adopted resolution 22/13, establishing a 

Commission of Inquiry (CoI) to investigate systematic, 

widespread and grave violations of human rights, 

particularly where “these violations may amount to 

crimes against humanity.”1 

The CoI published its findings on 7 February 2014, 

establishing responsibility at the highest level of 

government for ongoing crimes against humanity, 

including “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, 

imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual 

violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and 

gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the 

enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane 

act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.” The 

report noted the government’s failure to uphold its 

primary responsibility to protect its population. 

For nearly a decade UN bodies, including the General 

Assembly, Human Rights Council and Secretariat, have 

expressed concern over grave human rights violations 

and called upon the government to improve the 

situation. While the UN Security Council (UNSC) has 

been engaged on DPRK in relation to nuclear weapons, 

it has never directly addressed ongoing human rights 

abuses. DPRK’s provocative nuclear policies, as well as 

security concerns over the ongoing division of the 

Korean Peninsula as a result of the 1950-1953 Korean 

War, have continued to overshadow human rights 

issues. 

The DPRK government bears the primary Responsibility 

to Protect (R2P) its population from genocide, ethnic 

cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but 

is manifestly failing to do so. This Policy Brief clarifies 

the application of R2P in the case of DPRK, outlining the 

responsibility of the international community in relation 

to the government’s commission of crimes against 

humanity. While the situation remains complex and 

dangerous, the international community, especially the 

UNSC, has not exhausted all options and can no longer 

continue to overlook ongoing mass atrocity crimes in 

DPRK. 

U.S. Urged to Adopt Policy Justifying Intervention

Secretary Albright's report is at this link: http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/pdf/The-United-States-and-R2P.pdf.  For discussions of R2P my question is what do R2P advocates propose to do about the 23 million people suffering some of the most horrific human rights violations (or crimes against humanity) in the history of mankind in north Korea.  Unfortunately (as in almost every discussion of R2P I have heard or read) that question is not addressed in zSecretary Albright's report.

But the report provides some good background on R2P;  the concept, background and evolution.

V/R

Dave

July 23, 2013

U.S. Urged to Adopt Policy Justifying Intervention

By MARK LANDLER

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/us/politics/us-urged-to-adopt-policy-justifying-intervention.html?ref=world&_r=2&&pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON — When Samantha Power, President Obama’s nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, faced senators at her confirmation hearing last week, the first question from Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking Republican, was how she defined an idealistic, if somewhat obscure, foreign policy principle known as “responsibility to protect.”

It was a politically loaded question to a woman who made her name as an academic by arguing that nations have a moral obligation to act against genocide and other mass atrocities.

Ms. Power answered gingerly, saying that when civilians were murdered by their governments, “it’s incumbent on us to look” for ways to halt the bloodshed. But, she was quick to add, the principle is “less important, I think, than U.S. practice and U.S. policy.”

The exchange before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee captured the awkward place that “responsibility to protect” occupies in the Obama administration. A 2005 United Nations initiative that calls on countries to intervene to prevent genocide and other mass atrocities, R2P, as it is known, has been endorsed by the United States and many other countries.

Some administration officials cited R2P to justify Mr. Obama’s backing of NATO-led airstrikes in Libya in 2011, which headed off a potential massacre of rebels by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Yet the administration has said nothing about R2P during two and a half years of bloody civil war in Syria, in which Mr. Obama has resolutely refused to become entangled. In that case, the strategic complexities of the conflict have outweighed any moral imperative to intervene militarily on behalf of Syria’s embattled rebels.

Now, a new report written by Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of state, and Richard S. Williamson, a former special envoy to Sudan and foreign-policy adviser to Mitt Romney, argues that the administration should wholeheartedly embrace “responsibility to protect” and explain its importance to the American public.

“R2P sounds like some chemical formula,” Dr. Albright said in an interview. “It’s in many ways a misunderstood concept; it’s up to us to clarify what ‘responsibility to protect’ means.”

Mr. Williamson is blunter. “R2P is still struggling,” he said, in part because of the administration’s unwillingness to do more about Syria, which he criticized as an adviser to Mr. Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/us/politics/us-urged-to-adopt-policy-justifying-intervention.html?ref=world&_r=2&&pagewanted=print