On June 27

On this day in ...
... 1950 (60 years ago today), President Harry S. Truman announced that he'd ordered U.S. troops to join South Korea in enforcing the June 25 U.N. Security Council Resolution 82, which, by a vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention, called for "an immediate cessation of hostilities" on the Korean peninsula and withdrawal of North Korean armies to the 38th parallel. Later on this same day, Council would vote 7-1 in favor of Resolution 83, which

Recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore peace and security in the area.

War followed for years. Above left, a 1951 U.S. Army photo (credit) of Korean War refugees.

(Prior June 27 posts are here, here, and here.)

On October 9

On this day in ...
... 2006, North Korea declared that it had completed its 1st nuclear weapon test. According to the BBC, the government "said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation." Other countries condemned the event: the United States "said the reported test was a 'provocative act', while China denounced it as 'brazen' and "expressed its 'resolute opposition' to the claimed test." which it said "'defied the universal opposition of international society'." As we've posted, the standoff continues between North Korea (flag above) and others in the international community.



(Prior October 9 posts are here and here.)

"Nyet"

Remember Georgia?

Russia does.

The dispute in the former Soviet Socialist Republic now known as the Republic of Georgia has disappeared from the global news page that today tells of election protests in Iran and an anti-sanctions rally in North Korea. Yet the dispute about which IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Mary Ellen O'Connell has posted -- a dispute fueled by the desire of the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to break away from Georgia and ally with welcoming neighbor Russia -- remains.
And so yesterday Russia wielded its veto clout as 1 of the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council to say nyet to a 16-year-old peacekeeping operation in Abkhazia.

Because the "Council failed ... to extend the presence of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia," a U.N. press release stated, "Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will instruct his Special Representative to take all measures required to cease UNOMIG’s operations, effective 16 June, and consult with his advisors on the immediate next steps ...."

As for another P-5 member: U.S. Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo (below right), Alternate Representative to the United Nations for Special Political Affairs, decried the veto with these words:

'It is the civilian population that suffers by facing a tenuous security environment without an international presence in Abkhazia, Georgia.'

A dream again deferred *

Talk about stepping on message.
This was supposed to be the week that we contemplated a world without nuclear weapons.
At least that was what U.S. President Barack Obama aimed for when he chose a public square in Prague, Czech Republic, for a Palm Sunday speech pledging to that his "administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," "will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year," "will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation," and will work with allies toward an eventual and total nuclear disarmament.
Kim Jong-il had other ideas.
In the wee hours before Obama was to deliver his speech, the North Korean leader ordered the firing of a rocket that he maintains is a communications satellite, but that much of the rest of the world assumes was a test-run of technology for transport of a nuclear missile.
How did the world respond?
The United States and the European Union condemned the launch.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, formerly a diplomat for South Korea, expressed "regrets."
The U.N. Security Council did manage an emergency session yesterday afternoon. But it failed to reach agreement for the usual reason: a couple of the P-5 members that wield veto power, in this case China and Russia, balked at passing a resolution against the state in question.
By day's end, the North Korean launch attempt seemed a failure.
So too yet another effort at global collective security.
Dreams of a no-nukes world?
Again deferred.


(* In recognition, this National Poetry Month, of the 1951 poem by Langston Hughes.)

On June 25

On this day in ....

.. 1993 (15 years ago today), Kim Campbell was sworn in as Canada's 1st woman Prime Minister. "Facing a series of formidable tasks, including reducing a yawning federal budget deficit, balancing demands of Quebec- and English-speaking provinces and preserving national health and other social programs," the New York Times wrote of Campbell's government-reduction and other cost-cutting measures, the new Prime Minister said her Cabinet heralds 'a new approach to government and a new generation of leaders for Canadians.'" She did not last a year, resigning from her post and retiring from electoral politics in December 1993. (credit for Merna Forster's 2004 photograph of Campbell unveiling her official portrait)

... 1950, the U.N. Security Council denounced North Korea's invasion of South Korea. By Resolution No. 82, it labeled the action a breach of the peace and called for an immediate end to fighting.

North Korean Refugees: Politics as Usual

I spoke yesterday on refugee law at a conference on human rights in North Korea at Penn Law. Having written, practiced and taught in the field of refugee law for a decade, it came as a surprise that I had never examined or confronted the issue of North Korean refugees. Given that human rights-abusing regimes nearly always result in refugee flows, it seems obvious that North Korea would have its fair share of asylum seekers. But from 2002-2004, only eight North Koreans were granted asylum in the United States, and none were resettled as refugees. Why? I can only point to politics -- the politics of refugee law and of human rights law. First, the international legal framework on refugees reflects the biases of international human rights law in that civil and political rights are favored over economic and social rights. Many North Korean refugees are fleeing famine, and are labeled economic migrants. However, digging a bit deeper, the North Korean political system awards entitlements based on loyalty to the regime; those whose ancestors were politically disloyal are last to receive benefits, and suffer generations of economic discrimination. Moreover, all individuals who leave North Korea without permission arguably become refugees sur place, as they face severe punishment for their unauthorized departure, including imprisonment in forced labor camps and torture. Crossing the border is seen as the ultimate form of political resistance to the North Korean regime, which of course does not want to see refugee law used as a shaming sanction. Surprisingly, other nations seem to go along with this course -- South Korea, because it doesn't want to offend North Korea; China, because it does not want to recognize the legitimate presence of Koreans in its territory as that might represent a threat to the south-east half of China's North-East; and the United States, which fails to make China's poor treatment of North Korean refugees part of its dialogue with China and limits the numbers of North Korean refugees it protects due to alleged national security concerns. The solution? Raising awareness of the plight of these refugees, of course, is key, as is emphasizing the very political nature of the economic persecution that many face and the perils of unauthorized departure from North Korea.