Help North Koreans ‘live in the truth’

The US has now added the option of a preemptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites, but it should first highlight the regime’s human rights abuses. Here’s why that tactic helped bring down the Iron Curtain.

Reuters
Thae Yong Ho, North Korea's former deputy ambassador in London who defected to the South, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Seoul, South Korea, Feb. 3.

North Korea tested its first nuclear device in 2006 and may soon test a missile capable of reaching an American city with such a weapon. This rising threat has now led the United States to widen its options to include a preemptive strike on the North’s weapon sites. The US and its allies remain frustrated that their main option, a tightening of economic sanctions, has not curbed the North’s nuclear threat.

But there is one option – casting a sharper spotlight on the massive abuses in North Korea – that has not been tried enough and yet seems to be having some effect.

The leaders in Pyongyang have become very outspoken ever since 2014 when the United Nations began to ratchet up its exposure of the North’s many atrocities. The regime may be worried that the North Korean people, despite living under tight censorship, are learning that the world is standing up for their human rights.

The strategy behind this option is to make the regime more concerned about its people than about building up its military threat. As Robert King, former US special envoy for North Korean human rights, recently explained: “A regime that puts the welfare and well-being of its own people well below its acquisition of nuclear weapons will not hesitate to use those nuclear weapons against others.”

Many recent high-level defectors from the North attest to the increasing awareness among North Koreans for the world’s concerns for them. The UN’s special envoy on North Korean human rights, Tomás Ojea Quintana, has met with many defectors and come away “impressed that they were well aware of their rights...”

The UN crossed an important threshold in 2014 when a special UN commission issued a 400-page report detailing the many abuses in North Korea, comparing them to atrocities committed by Nazi Germany. Then last year, the UN General Assembly recommended that North Korea be taken to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. And this week, the UN Human Rights Council again took up a measure to condemn the country’s abuses, which include jailing more than 100,000 political prisoners.

A good precedent for this strategy is the West’s highlighting of human rights violations in the Soviet Union starting in the 1970s. The 1975 Helsinki Final Act, which called for European countries to honor human rights, helped to empower dissidents behind the Iron Curtain to challenge the regimes of the Soviet empire. The late Czech dissident Václav Havel said the West’s actions empowered dissidents to “live in the truth” and stand up for basic rights.

Another useful tactic of that period was a US law, known as Jackson-Vanik, that gave special trading rights to the Soviet Union in return for it allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate. The law tied human rights to Soviet economic interests, but it also sent a strong message to the Russian people about resisting their regime, which eventually collapsed in 1991.

Telling the truth about the wrongs of the North Korean regime has a way of dissolving its legitimacy, both with its own people and with its only ally, China. As the North lobs more test missiles toward other countries, a good response from the rest of the world is to lob back more information to the North Korean people about the nature of their regime.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.