11 January 2016

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
UN Headquarters
405 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
USA    

Cc : Zainab Hawa Bangura, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Guarantees of Non-recurrence
H.E. Choi Kyong-lim, President of the UN Human Rights Council
Members of the UN Committee against Torture
Members of the UN Human Rights Committee 
    

Re: Clarification on the UN Secretary-General’s Position on the Recent Republic of Korea-Japan Agreement on Wartime “Comfort Women”

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) is a non-governmental organization based in Seoul, the Republic of Korea (ROK) with United Nations(UN) ECOSOC consultative status. We are writing to you today to seek clarification of the Secretary-General's position on the recent ROK-Japan agreement on wartime “comfort women”. We express our concern on your recent congratulatory remarks on the agreement, because we view that the agreement was not made in a way to implement the values and principles put forth by the UN, which has emphasized a victim-centered approach.

In the official statement regarding the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan on issues related to “comfort women” from the ROK which was released on 28 December 2015, you welcomed “that the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea have reached an agreement,” and hoped “that the agreement will contribute to improving the bilateral relationship between the two countries.” Following your statement, the ROK President’s Office (Blue House) released a briefing on 1 January 2016, saying that you congratulated President Park Geun-hye, via telephone, on reaching the agreement with Japan, and stated that “history will laud President Park’s courageous decision based on her vision.”   

Yet, the latest agreement between the ROK and Japan hardly reflects the wishes of the victims themselves, nor did the process involve any participation by the victims. Lee Yong-soo, one of the few surviving victims of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery policy, harshly criticized the agreement, saying “The agreement does not reflect the views of former ’comfort women’. I will ignore it completely.”  Ms. Lee condemned the deal as amounting to “a second death of the victims.” The latest agreement indeed does not incorporate any of the demands which include official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. The victims have consistently put forward these demands since making their past agony public for the first time in 1991. According to the recent agreement, the Japanese government did promise to provide JPY 1 billion (around 8.3 million USD) for a new special fund to be set up for a foundation for the surviving “comfort women”. However, Mr. Fumio Kishida, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, made it clear that the money was not legal reparation , and still refuses to recognize Japan’s legal responsibility for wartime sexual slavery. However, the governments of both countries have concluded that the latest agreement will be the “final and irreversible” resolution to the “comfort women” issues, thus inviting mounting criticism from inside and outside the ROK.

We would like to remind you that the latest agreement on “comfort women” does not even satisfy the UN recommendations regarding Japan’s wartime sexual slavery and related issues which were made in the past. Different human rights mechanisms of the UN have condemned the acts of wartime sexual slavery committed by Japan as “crimes against humanity,” and recommended that the Japanese government acknowledge its legal responsibility, make formal reparations to the victims, and prosecute the parties responsible for such crimes. During its review on Japan in July 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that most “comfort women” were recruited by, transported to, and managed at Japanese military bases or agencies working on behalf of the Japanese military through force and coercion, and expressed concerns at the Japanese government’s continued denial that these women were “ever mobilized or migrated by force” (CCPR/C/JPY/CO/6, para 11). In August 2014, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its concerns that the Japanese government had not recognized nor apologized to “comfort women”, and urged the Japanese government to immediately conclude investigations and bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para 18).

We would also like to point out that the UN and the international community at large uphold a consistent set of victim-centered principles and standards with respect to the rights of victims of human rights violations.

In February 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council) adopted “Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity” (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), followed by “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” (A/60/509/Add.1) adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2005. These two documents endorse the “victim-centered perspective” in international human rights law, and emphasize the victims’ right to justice, right to reparation, and right to know. These documents also stress as essential principles the need to give victims restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, reparation, and redress.

Since its establishment in 2002, the International Criminal Court has also stressed the need for victim participation in all phases of investigation and judicial procedures. “The Chicago Principles on Post-Conflict Justice 2001-2008”, which provide basic guidelines on the handling of atrocities perpetrated under authoritarian rule and amid armed conflicts, also emphasize: “Policies that seek justice for past violations should be victim-centered and should address victims’ rights to remedies and reparations.”

We note with serious concern that your remarks on "welcoming" the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan, and lauding it as a “courageous decision” by the South Korean President are not in line with the human rights principles and positions the UN and the international community have accumulated so far. 

We would therefore like to request your response to the following questions to further clarify your position. 

1. Do you think that the recent agreement between South Korea and Japan satisfy the UN-emphasized principles of the rights of the victims of human rights violations and properly address war crime legacies and past recommendations made by the UN human rights mechanisms to Japan?

2. According to the briefing issued by the Presidential Blue House of the ROK, you phoned the President of the ROK to discuss the recent agreement. Have you done the same with the Prime Minister of Japan? If so, what exactly was discussed or remarked in the latter conversation? If no such conversation took place with the Prime Minister of Japan, why have you had such a conversation with the President of the ROK and not with the Prime Minister of Japan?

3. The UN Secretary-General is obligated to make efforts to promote human rights in all Member States. Therefore, some argue that the UN Secretary-General should help invalidate the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan that seems to condone war crimes. What do you think of this argument?

4. Is the Secretary-General inclined to urge both the government of the Republic of Korea and Japanese governments to resolve the “comfort women” issues through official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence from the Japanese state through processes that are actually based upon victim participation?

We thank you for your reply in advance and look forward to hearing back from you at the earliest possible time. If you have any questions or would like clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or +82 (0)2 723 4250. 

Yours sincerely,

 
Ms. Hyunback Jung
Co-Representative
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy 

Situation of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association in the Republic of Korea

The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Mr. Maina Kiai, is officially visiting South Korea from 20 January to 29 January 2016. South Korean NGOs built a coalition and jointly prepared the Special Rapporteur's visit. As a part of our work, we published the English report "Situation of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association in the Republic of Korea".

16 October 2015

Urgent Appeal to
- The UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights

Re: Republic of Korea - Government-issued History Textbook 

Dear Ms. Farida Shaheed,

We are writing to you today to express our grave concerns over the announcement made by the Government of the Republic of Korea on 12 October 2015 that the Government will issue middle school history textbook and high school Korean history textbook from 2017. Currently, there are eight different types of history textbooks and they are examined by the National Institute of Korean History before being published. We note with serious concern that the Government-issued history textbook will result the history being written in a way to idealize the history of military dictatorships and indoctrinate people with a standardized history.  

The current Minister of Education, Hwang Woo-yea, said that “it was an inevitable choice in order to eventually realise national cohesion by ending social disputes based on ideological bias and to correct the history”. However, we are all well aware that it is a misconception that there is only one objective truth concerning history. In 1992, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea also ruled that “in the case of Korean history, it is difficult to confirm that one theory is an absolute truth, and when different interpretations exist with valid background, it is essential to present different views.” Article 31(4) of the Constitution stipulates “Independence, professionalism and political impartiality of education and the autonomy of institutions of higher learning shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by law.”

The Government-issued history textbook create more confusion and ideological conflicts in a society. Most historians announced that they oppose the Government-issued history book and refuse to be authors of the textbook. As a result, only Government friendly historians will be authors. In response to the Government’s decision, history and social science professors, teachers of elementary school, middle school and high school, politicians, 14 Superintendents of Education out of 17, and civil society organisations officially and heavily criticised the Government’s plan to issue official history textbook. In addition, on 12 October 2015, around 15 university students were arrested by the police while protesting against Government-issued history textbook. 

We would like to draw the special attention of the Special Rapporteur on this issue. As you pointed out in the report presented to the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in 2013, the accreditation of one single history textbook is problematic and State-sponsored textbook carry the risk of being highly politicized. We would appreciate it if you could strongly remind the Government of the Republic of Korea of the importance of diverse history textbook and urge them to withdraw their decision on the Government-issued history textbook.

If you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Gayoon Baek ([email protected], +82 (0)2 723 4250) at any time. We hope this will help in your work.

Yours Sincerely,

CHUNG Hyun-back
Co-Representative 
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy 

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
PSPD is a non-governmental organization based in Seoul, South Korea. We were founded in 1994 and has been working on promoting people’s participation in government’s decision making process and socio-economic reforms. PSPD has ECOSOC consultative status since 2004.

 

Solidarity Message to <Anti-War Coalition In Solidarity to Protect Article 9>

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD) has opposed the amendment of peace constitution and rearmament of Japan by Abe administration. We are very concerned about national security bills in a bid to be passed at the National Diet of Japan.

Japan must be prevented from exercising the right of collective self-defense. This will nullify the Japanese peace constitution, particularly article 9, which has served as an anchor of peace in East Asia.

This year is the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII. The memories of the atrocious Japanese colonial rule and aggression in the past in many of its neighboring countries cannot be simply erased.

Japan must stop military buildup and preserve its peace constitution.

We will continue to stand in solidarity with those who are concerned about and marching for peace across Asia-pacific.

Peace & Solidarity

Peace and Disarmament Center, PSPD

115th Session of the Human Rights Committee
19 October 2015 – 6 November 2015

NGO Briefing on the Republic of Korea

Oral Statement Delivered by Ms. Gayoon Baek(People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy) and Mr. Youngsoug Chang(MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society) 
on Behalf of South Korean Human Rights Organizations Network (83 NGOs)

We are presenting this statement on behalf of 83 civil society organizations in the Republic of Korea who jointly submitted the report to the Committee. All the rights mentioned in the Covenants are our areas of focus.

Human rights were once a pride for Koreans. But today, we are grieved to present the report with shame. Civil and political rights in the Republic of Korea have been drastically deteriorating year after year. We fear that the Republic of Korea is reverting to the dark era of authoritarian regime that we believed to have overcome. One can easily find human rights defenders in the Republic of Korea, on the streets, on top of factory chimneys, in front of the court, and in prison. Sewol ferry victims’ families have been living on the streets to protest for more than a year, workers have been on a hunger strike for more than 45 days, and villagers have been protesting against the naval base construction for more than 9 years.  As we speak today, hundreds of high school students are protesting on the streets opposing the Government’s plan to impose state history textbooks, which is suspected to idealize past military dictatorship. The Government has failed to protect people’s civil and political rights and people are compelled to run to the streets with candles. 

Although rule of law, freedom of expression and independence of judiciary are guaranteed in the Constitution, the laws have been used as tools to justify restriction and suppression of human rights and people have lost their freedom after expressing their views. The judiciary no longer defends human rights defenders, and is no longer a safeguard for human rights victims. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea also cannot play an active role in monitoring implementation of the Covenant and we have a serious concern that transparent and independent selection process of the Commissioners are not yet guaranteed which brings doubts on human rights competency and expertise of commissioners. 

The number of people who have been charged and indicted for violating the National Security Act, which the Committee and other UN human rights mechanisms have repeatedly recommended to amend or repeal, has increased threefold in 2013 compared to 2008. Government officials and agencies consistently punish people for defamation  or insult  who criticize the Government, sometimes even those who state facts or simply express feelings or opinions. On the other hand, human rights defenders and social minorities become targets of incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. However, there is no legal framework nor gestures from the Government showing any political will to protect them. The society is now at a critical juncture. 

People who gather to peacefully protest against Government policies or development projects are being arrested, detained and indicted. The police use excessive force against barehanded protesters to suppress assemblies, such as water cannons loaded with capsaicin and tear gas liquid and bus barricades to block assemblies. Even human rights lawyers and journalists have been arrested during protests. Around 550 people including family members of the victims were arrested during the Sewol ferry related protests from April 2014 to May 2015. We are not allowed to stand in solidarity with our friends, not to mention participating in assemblies. One worker who visited labor strike sites to deliver support statements has been punished for aid and abetment of Obstruction of Business. 

The Republic of Korea has the highest Internet penetration rate and the fastest wireless broadband in the world. With this technology, the Government is watching and intervening in people’s private lives. The police can identify those who are at protests by seizing and analyzing all phone call histories from the nearby base stations. Phone or internet users’ personal information can be seized without warrants, and such seizure is significantly increasing, amounting to about 13 million accounts in 2014 in a country with just 50 million people. Children under 19 years old must use mobile phones equipped with applications enabling the parents and service providers to monitor and remotely control their phones. 

We are also subject to human rights violations under the name of counter-terrorism. All currently pending counter-terrorism bills grant excessive authority to the National Intelligence Service (NIS) which is notorious for its abuse of power and human rights violations. The NIS systematically intervened in the 2012 Presidential Election by posting and tweeting 786,000 online messages. Also, the NIS was found fabricating evidence of an espionage case.   

In face of gross violation of civil and political rights in the country, people cannot gain full access to justice and are unfairly treated during investigations. Only 0.2% of investigators are indicted of maltreating the accused.  Even though lawyer’s participation is crucial to prevent such harassment, the police and prosecutor’s office arbitrarily interpret the Criminal Procedural Act to minimize lawyers’ participation. Generally, lawyers are limited in presenting their views during the interrogation and sometimes, lawyers are even threatened by the investigators.   

The human rights situation in detention centers is also problematic. The disciplinary punishment committees of prisons are not guaranteed of their independence and fairness, as the prison warden appoints members of the committee. Almost 90% of the actual punishment in the prison has been executed in the form of solitary confinement, which is the most severe disciplinary measure. 

In particular, children, transgenders and foreigners in detention centers are facing more serious human rights violations. Children are denied protective measures under relevant regulations in the criminal procedures. Moreover, detention centers have no guidelines on the treatment of transgenders.  Because of this, transgender inmates are denied underwear of their own choice and there was a case where a transgender inmate was punished for refusing to get a haircut.  Furthermore, foreigners detained in detention centers may be subject to indefinite detention due to lack of legal regulation on maximum detention periods. In the event the Minister of Justice commenced detention that is not subject to independent judicial review, the detainees are prevented from disputing the legality of the detention. The deportation rooms at Incheon International Airport practically function as detention centers since detainees are restrained from outside contact and denied access to attorney.

Recently in 2014, the existence of the DPRK Defector Protection Center (former Central Joint Interrogation Center) was widely known by testimony of one detainee. When DPRK defectors come to the Republic of Korea, they are sent to the center for interrogation, but nobody knows what exactly is happening inside. We do not know how many DPRK defectors are being detained for how long, and whether they are being deported or not. Access to the center is strictly regulated by the NIS. Also, there are some DPRK defectors in the Republic of Korea who wish to go back to the DPRK, but their return is not allowed by the Government on grounds of violations of the National Security Act.  

The military, where all Korean men are mandated to serve, is another blind spot for human rights violations. Almost 3,600 human rights violations such as assault and other cruel acts have been reported in the last five years, but only 1.4% of perpetrators were sentenced to imprisonment. The Military Court, which deals with assault and cruel acts in the military, is not independent because commissioned officers and commanders, who are not judges, exercise judicial power. Soldiers may be detained for up to 15 days in military prison as disciplinary action without a warrant and judicial scrutiny. The decision for detainment is not even made by the military court, but only by military superiors. 

When a country’s human rights situation regresses, marginalized groups become even more marginalized. Women, persons with disabilities, LGBTIs and people with HIV/AIDS, and children continue to be discriminated against. Since the last review in 2006, the gender wage gap still remains the highest among OECD countries and more than half of female workers are non-regular workers. The right to equal recognition before the law of persons with disabilities’ continues to be greatly affected.

We have two LGBTI friends in this room. They experience discrimination on a daily basis. They are discriminated against when they go to the police to report their annual pride parade, when they become victims of rape, when they want to enjoy same rights as heterosexual couples, and even when they want to set up an NGO to advocate their own rights. They are even punished under sodomy provisions in the Military Criminal Act. Persons with HIV/AIDS are suffering from stigma and discrimination when they receive medical services. The Government is turning a blind eye to this injustice and homophobic/transphobic groups who incite hatred against LGBTIs and persons with HIV/AIDS, and do not show any political will to legislate a comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Act. 

Even though UN human rights mechanisms such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly recommended to the Government to abolish corporal punishment, it is still prevalent in schools and at homes. Examples of these punishments include staying down in push-up position for hours, repeatedly sitting up and down 100 times, or raising one’s arms above the head for one hour. These severe punishments can be explained in line with widespread military culture in the society. 

Finally, the rapid economic growth of the Republic of Korea has expanded the geographical boundaries of human rights violations. Many companies from the Republic of Korea are responsible for forced labour in Uzbekistan and violation of indigenous people’s rights in India. However, the Government does not provide legal framework for the implementation of extra-territorial obligations under the Covenant. Narrow definitions of human trafficking in the Criminal Act limit protection of victims, as seen in the incident of abuse of disabled men and homeless in the salt farm, sexual exploitation of foreign women, and exploitation of migrant farm workers.  

As is clear from our presentation, the Government of the Republic of Korea does not comply with the Covenant and does not fulfill its commitment as a member of the Human Rights Council. We do not wish to go back to the time when we could not speak out freely. To bring people on the streets back to their normal lives, we hope our areas of concerns will be reflected in the Committee's concluding observations. 

We thank you. 

Concluding Remarks by the Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee Fabián Omar Salvioli

 

Obviously a great number of issues have been raised, and I’m not going to give you an exhaustive list, but I’d like to highlight that we’d like to see the withdrawal of the reservation of art. 22, just as we’ve seen the withdrawal of reservation under art. 15; because we don’t really see from the dialogue why you need to maintain the reservation. Now your Excellency said that you are going to give the highest priority to the HRCttee’s observations and comments. So we very much hope that you will do this through effective mechanism in order to be able to comply with our recommendations and the provisions of the optional protocol, particularly when it comes to conscientious objection. Here the Committee has a very clear stance on this issue. And for me, I’ve had trouble hearing conscientious objectors described as criminals when really they are exercising a right. So, we very much hope that you will be able to comply with the provisions of the Covenant in this area, and also to ensure that the human rights provisions are aligned with the principles. And when it comes to the operations of Korean businesses abroad, want to ensure that they comply with human rights. Mr. Iwasawa raised the issue of equality and nondiscrimination when it comes to various groups of people, particularly LGBTI population. Counter-terrorism measures must also effectively comply with the provisions enshrined in the Covenant as Mr. Shany articulated in his concern. Regarding torture and mistreatment, this is another issue of concern, the use of certain protective measures sometimes as a form of punishment is not compatible with the Covenant. Obviously the right to integrity is crucial. Legal aid, access to lawyer, I would refer you to our General Comment 32 which provides very helpful guidelines for the state to be able to bear in mind the need for the exercise of defense. 

 

Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are crucial in a democratic society. We have had difficulties during this dialogue to ensure that this issue is fully understood. We very much hope that after this dialogue you will take legislative measures and other measures necessary to ensure that these rights are fully given effect to. Finally, groups that are particularly vulnerable that require attention, like those living with HIV, and the need not to stigmatize these individuals based on the various measures my colleagues referred to. And of course the migration population, due to their various situations, needs more protection in general in order to ensure that their human rights are guaranteed and upheld. I’d like to thank you all very much.

GPPAC calls for an inclusive, people-centered peacebuilding response to the COVID-19 pandemic

6 April 2020

As peacebuilders from around the world, united as the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), we stand in solidarity with all those affected by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

The pandemic is causing physical and psychological suffering, as people and communities experience illness, loss and economic hardship, as well as isolation, fear, and despair. It is not just a challenge to human health, but to human dignity, and the values that we hold dearest as peacebuilders. 

At a time like this, strengthening peacebuilding, human security and global cooperation as well as creating innovative, responsive, inclusive and multilateral conflict prevention strategies is more essential than ever.

We call upon governments, civil society, businesses, communities and individuals to put inclusive peace and human rights at the centre of all responses to the outbreak.

We call for:

• A global ceasefire, to prevent a multiplication of suffering as the pandemic and armed violence intersect.


• A unified response, without discrimination, racism, xenophobia and political division; and with protection of vulnerable and marginalised groups, including those now at greater risk of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence.


• Protection of civic space and human rights, this health crisis must not be used as an excuse to erode them.


• International solidarity, including economic solidarity, in response to this crisis.  


• A transformative vision of a post-COVID-19 world, which centres people, prevention, peace, cooperation and human security.

A global ceasefire

We add our voices to the call of UN Secretary-General António Guterres for a global ceasefire. We are dedicated to preventing and ending violent conflict, as its staggering human cost is always unacceptable, and will be further exacerbated by the virus. Its impact will be greatest on societies where healthcare systems have collapsed or are already overburdened by war; on those who are fleeing or living in refugee camps, where physical distancing is near impossible, and access to clean water, good sanitation and healthcare is limited.

As peacebuilders, we are here to help support dialogue and mediation, and to seek a peaceful way forward together. We call for a permanent lockdown on war!

Unity over division

Governments, political, religious and community leaders, media and civil society: Do not allow this pandemic to be used as an excuse for xenophobia, racism, discrimination, stigmatisation, toxic nationalism, or perpetuation of international political divisions. 

No-one is to blame. There is an urgent need for us to come together and work across divides to limit the spread and impact of the virus.

We call on governments to respond to the crisis in a non-discriminatory way, ensuring that support reaches all parts of society, in rural areas and cities, and includes marginalised and vulnerable groups. This includes the protection of those at increased risk of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence; and the protection of health workers. Equally important is the need to ensure that communication surrounding the disease and measures to address it is accurate, equal and accessible, taking into account language, literacy and disabilities, as well as access to communications media.

We encourage regional inter-governmental organisations to convene virtual dialogues and to invite civil society leaders, including women peacebuilders, young people, traditional indigenous leaders and faith community leaders to provide recommendations on response and recovery. Now, more than ever, we need a multi-stakeholder approach.

Protect human rights and civic space

We support temporary measures to slow or halt the spread of COVID-19. However, we call on governments in the strongest possible terms to respect human rights and to not abuse this moment to restrict civil rights and civic space or further militarize communities.

• Do not violate people’s rights to privacy.


• Address the spread of hate speech and false health information, but do not broadly restrict freedom of expression and speech and access to information.


• Do not limit freedom of peaceful assembly any longer than is strictly necessary to halt this virus.


• Do not use a state of emergency to bypass democratically elected bodies in policy making and legislation unrelated to the disease.


• If events where civil society ordinarily has a voice are cancelled or taken online, ensure that civil society voices can still be heard.

Any measures taken should be necessary, proportional, and time bound. Emergency powers must have clear limitations and oversight and grievance mechanisms in place.

The UN and regional organizations must work to ensure that the response to the pandemic is progressive, peace-oriented and inclusive rather than authoritarian and exclusive.

As civil society, we are here to help limit the spread of the disease and its consequences: We can help convey accurate information, prevent panic, support community cohesion and assist in humanitarian response. We can contribute to a recovery strategy. We can help assess the human rights and conflict impact of measures taken. Do not silence us.

Solidarity at every level - but don’t divert funding

We stand in solidarity with all those affected around the world. We have seen and applaud beautiful examples of solidarity in communities, in countries and between nations. We call on governments, especially those of wealthy countries, to extend that solidarity across the world.

This pandemic impacts us all. However, in poorer countries the effects will be more intense, multiplied by weaker healthcare systems, malnutrition, lack of access to water, sanitation and information as well as a lack of opportunity for many to stay home without going hungry. The poor will also be hit in wealthy nations, for many of the same reasons.

We call on governments and wealthy nations in particular to address these inequalities on principle, but also because this virus is not restricted or confined by borders or gates: We need a global pandemic “Marshall Plan” to protect people, economies, and our collective future. A unified, coordinated strategy and pooling of resources is needed for just and inclusive recovery. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide an integrated framework to help rebuild, and particularly to address the needs of marginalised and vulnerable populations more quickly and comprehensively.

At the same time, we call on donors and donor countries not to divert funds from other issues: it remains as important as ever to build peace, address gender inequality, protect human rights, mitigate the climate crisis, fight hunger, and much more. Instead, lets create new aid packages to halt this pandemic, protect the vulnerable from its economic effects, and bolster healthcare systems around the world. 

Local peacebuilders are first responders. Their work is critical and should be supported. We also call on donors to be flexible in allowing grantees to adjust their programmes to respond to this crisis, and to extend grants as a result of many planned activities having to be postponed.

A moment of opportunity

We have a shared responsibility to shape the world we want to live in once this pandemic has passed. As a community of peacebuilders we have bigger dreams than a return to the pre-pandemic status quo. As humanity, we have a chance:

To end wars and build peace.

To contribute to achieving all the Sustainable Development Goals.

To (re)build the public good and public institutions.

To recommit to international cooperation for the benefit of humankind, and advance reform of the international institutional architecture, including the UN system.

To realise a true shift to prevention – in healthcare, in conflict, in creating healthy environments and more – and the transformative approach societies deserve.

To refocus on what is most important to us.

To protect and expand human rights and civic space.

To show that human instinct leans towards kindness and caring, not hatred and violence.

To support people and the planet over money and markets.

To recognise our critical workers - those in healthcare, teaching, cleaning, food production and more - with better wages and conditions.

To build our collective infrastructures for peace and resilience to this and future challenges.

To be able to look back one day and say: 2020 was the year we chose to change the whole world for the good.

https://gppac.net/news/gppac-calls-inclusive-people-centered-peacebuildi... target="_blank" rel="nofollow">GPPAC website>>

Statement by the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)

Welcoming the Singapore Summit

A Step Towards a Peaceful, Nuclear-Free Korean Peninsula

June 12, 2018

As a global network of civil society peacebuilding organisations, the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) welcomes today's historic summit and subsequent agreement in Singapore by President Donald Trump of the United States and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The points laid out in the agreement, relating to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations, the building of a lasting peace regime, and the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula are important, positive steps forward to achieving a peaceful, nuclear-free Northeast Asia.

The lack of a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, and the ongoing nuclear threats on the Korean Peninsula, continue to endanger the lives and human security of not only the Korean people, but also the entire Northeast Asian region and indeed the world. It is for this very reason that GPPAC and its member organisations in Northeast Asia, including in Korea, have continued for decades to undertake multilayered initiatives to promote dialogue, exchange and trust building for peace on the Korean Peninsula, including the GPPAC Northeast Asia-led Ulaanbaatar Process.

We applaud the diplomatic efforts which made today's summit possible, including the leadership demonstrated by South Korean President Moon Jae-in, supported by the civil society which brought him into power through the Candlelight Revolution. This is indeed an example of the prevention of armed conflict, with the support of civil society – vitally needed in light of the long-running tensions on the Korean Peninsula, involving even the risk of a catastrophic nuclear war.

At the same time, we recognize that today's meeting is but a first step, and that a long process must follow. Concrete steps must now be made to implement both the Sentosa Agreement and the April 27 Inter-Korean Panmunjeom Declaration. To this end, we welcome both Chairman Kim’s expressing his strong will to achieve denuclearization, and President Trump's announcement to end war games on the Korean Peninsula. We encourage all parties to cease any potential acts of provocation. Further trust must be built in order to ensure that this agreement will be upheld, and the peace process will be lasting, and we urge the international community to extend their full support to this end.

GPPAC also emphasises the importance of civil society involvement in the ongoing Korean peace process. We encourage the involved parties to develop mechanisms to ensure such meaningful engagement, and to heed the various recommendations being presented from civil society already. This includes those regarding concrete steps to create a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, the importance of women's meaningful inclusion in the talks, private sector participation in regional and international economic cooperation, and the easing of restrictions regarding humanitarian work and civil exchange.

The “promotion of peace, prosperity, and the security of the Korean Peninsula” is indeed vital for peace globally. We call on the entire international community to join efforts to support the implementation of today's agreement and past agreements. Furthermore, this should be taken a step further, towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapons free zone in Northeast Asia, a regional mechanism for peace and security, and the comprehensive resolution of lingering Cold War structures in the region. Today's positive momentum must be sustained into the future. Based on the historic efforts of civil society, we pledge to do our utmost to work together with all relevant parties to promote further dialogue and confidence building, and to take active steps towards the creation of a peaceful, nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, Northeast Asia, and world.

GPPAC Northeast Asia Statement Welcoming the 2018 Inter-Korean Summit

Supporting new hope for peace on the Korean Peninsula,

towards a peaceful, nuclear-weapons free Northeast Asia

April 28, 2018

The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) Northeast Asia, a network of civil society organizations working for peace and dialogue in the region, wholeheartedly congratulates the leaders of the DPRK and the ROK, as well as the Korean people, for the historic achievement of the “Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula” issued following the Inter-Korean Summit of April 27, 2018 at the Peace House on the southern side of Korea's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The Summit contributed to a significant reduction of tensions and indeed avoidance of the catastrophe of a potential nuclear war. Furthermore, it showed the world the true impact of committed leadership and diplomacy, and the direct, personal meeting between the leaders of both Koreas sent a powerful wave of emotion around the world.

The landmark steps of goodwill and promises for action shown on this day mark a historic moment, and the beginning of a “new era of peace” for the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. A peaceful resolution of the ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and a shift from the current Armistice regime to a permanent peace regime, is vital for the security not only of both Koreas, but for the Northeast Asia region as a whole. We strongly welcome the declaration to bring a swift end to the war on the Korean Peninsula, and realize a peace treaty, as well as the concrete steps outlined to end hostilities and encourage active cooperation. Concrete steps including the establishment of a joint liaison office, continued high-level dialogue, and active contacts will mark the historic start of this new area.

Reaffirmation of the common goal of attaining a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through “complete denuclearization” is greatly encouraging. We also share the view that the DPRK's measures to cease nuclear and missile tests are important steps for reducing tensions. We sincerely hope that these developments will be followed by clear commitments for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and for nuclear disarmament by all related parties. Both Koreas could celebrate complete denuclearization by together signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We call on other parties in the region to also do so, as a step towards the future establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone in Northeast Asia.

The encouragement of more active cooperation in social, economic and cultural fields is also significant, as are the steps outlined regarding practical implementation of previous agreements. We underline the role played by cultural exchange in creating the positive environment for the Inter-Korean Summit. Having organized regional civil society meetings at joint sites such as Mt Kumgang and the Kaesong Industrial Complex, we can directly testify to their significance as symbolic spaces for interaction between people from both Koreas and internationally, as well as for concrete cooperation and the development of joint inter-Korean institutions – important steps towards eventual unification. We therefore welcome commitments to expand such activities, such as on June 15 and other upcoming events. The clear declaration to restart reunions for tragically separated families, and solve humanitarian issues on the peninsula, are also crucial steps forward.

GPPAC Northeast Asia, with members from throughout the region including both Koreas, pledges to continue to do all we can to support diplomacy and the creation of an environment in which the Panmunjeom Declaration, as well as past agreements and future efforts to build peace, can be realized. In 2018, we will continue to convene the Ulaanbaatar Process, our civil society dialogue for regional peace and stability, to complement official processes towards the development of a peaceful, nuclear-free Northeast Asia.

We call upon the international community to undertake all efforts to support the implementation of the Panmunjeom Declaration, as well as previous joint agreements. The success of this Summit should be carried on to the upcoming US-DPRK discussions, which we sincerely hope will conclude with concrete steps towards denuclearization and a peace treaty for the Korean Peninsula. Space should be ensured for all stakeholders, including GPPAC members, civil society, states and the United Nations, to make utmost efforts to build on this success, and work towards the establishment of regional peacebuilding mechanisms for Northeast Asia.

The Summit is a powerful symbol of a process to overcome conflict and achieve peace through shifting from reaction to prevention. We sincerely believe that the realization of peace on the Korean Peninsula will develop into peace for the Northeast Asian region, and in turn contribute to momentum for building peace and security around the world.

>> Download

<사진 = GPPAC 동북아>

한반도·동북아 평화 위한 민간대화

2017 ‘울란바토르 프로세스’ 개최

지난 8월 29일부터 30일까지 2017 '울란바토르 프로세스' 정례대화가 몽골에서 열렸다. 2015년 이래로 열리고 있는 울란바토르 프로세스 회의는 한반도와 동북아 평화를 위한 민간대화(트랙2)이다. 남한과 북한을 포함해 6자 회담 국가들 중국, 일본, 러시아, 미국, 몽골의 시민사회 인사들이 참여하고 있으며, 남한 시민사회단체로는 참여연대와 평화를만드는여성회가 참여했다. 

이번 회의 참가자들은 북한의 계속되는 미사일 발사, 한미연합군사연습 그리고 한반도 사드 추가배치 등으로 동북아 긴장 상태가 지속되고 있는 것에 우려를 표하고 역내 긴장을 완화하기 위해서는 군사적 행동 보다 대화와 개입을 우선시해야 할 필요가 있다는데 한 목소리를 냈다. 이러한 맥락에서 어떠한 국가도 핵사용 위협을 해서는 안되며 한미일 삼국이 군사훈련의 중단 또는 감소와 같은 선제적인 평화 조치로 긴장 완화의 노력을 기해야 한다고 강조했다. 또한 평화체제가 한반도 비핵화와 핵무기 없는 세상에 기여할 수 있을 것이라는 점 역시 토론했다. 

이번 회의는 유엔에서 핵무기금지조약이 통과(7월 7일)된지 얼마 안된 시점이자 몽골의 비핵국가 선언 25주년에 즈음하여 개최되었다. 이에 참가자들은 동북아 평화와 안정에 몽골의 노력이 가져온 긍정적 영향에 대해 토론하고 핵무기금지조약이 앞으로 동북아 평화와 비핵화에 주는 의미에 대해서도 논의하는 시간을 가졌다. 

다음 울란바토르 프로세스 회의는 2018년 하반기에 개최될 예정이다. 참가자들은 정기회의 외에도 회원 단체들 간에 활발한 교류를 지원할 방안과 이번에 발간한 책자 '동북아의 평화와 안보 고찰 – 울란바토르 프로세스의 관점'를 활용할 방안에 대해서도 토론했다. 한국 시민사회는 민간 주도의 울란바토르 프로세스가 현재 한반도에 핵 위기가 심화되고 있는 상황에서 대화와 개입을 통해 긴장을 완화하고 한반도·동북아 평화와 안정을 수립하는 데에 기여할 수 있도록 지속적인 협력을 해나가겠다고 밝혔다.

>>> 보도자료 [원문보기/다운로드]

▣ 2017 울란바토르 프로세스 개요

- 회의명 : 2017 울란바토르 프로세스 회의 참가

- 일시 및 장소 : 2017년 8월 29일(화)  ~  9월 1일(금), 몽골 울란바토르

- 주최 : GPPAC 동북아시아 위원회
- 주관 : 블루배너(Blue Banner), 피스보트(Peace Boat)
* 블루배너는 몽골의 대표적인 평화운동 NGO이며 GPPAC 울란바토르 포컬포인트를 맡고 있음. 피스보트는 일본 평화운동 NGO이며 GPPAC 동북아시아 위원회 사무국을 맡고 있음.
* 울란바토르 프로세스에는 GPPAC 동북아 회원단체(베이징-중국, 도쿄·교토-일본, 평양-북한, 서울-한국, 블라디보스토크-러시아)와 GPPAC 북미 회원단체(워싱턴-미국)가 참여함.

 

- 프로그램 
○ 첫째 날(8/29)
세션1. 개회
세션2. GPPAC, 울란바토르 프로세스 소개 및 활동 업데이트
세션3. 동북아 평화안보 상태 국별 업데이트

 

○ 둘째 날(8/30)
세션4. 동북아 평화안보 상태 국별 업데이트
세션5. 지역상황에 대한 주제 토론 : 핵군축과 한반도 위기
세션6. GPPAC 공동발행 책자 소개 및 향후 활용방안 토론

세션7. 2017 울란바토르 프로세스 최종 문서 검토 및 2018 계획 논의

 

▣ 무장갈등예방을위한글로벌파트너십(Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, GPPAC)이란?
- 설립배경 : 2003년 설립. 2001년 무장갈등 예방 보고서를 작성하면서 시민사회와 소통했던 코피 아난 전 유엔 사무총장이 갈등 예방과 평화 구축에 있어 글로벌 네트워크의 필요성을 절감하고 설립을 지지함.
- 설립목적 : 지역사회(local), 국가(national), 지역(regional), 글로벌 평화와 안보를 위해 활동하는 시민사회와 정부, 유엔, 그 밖의 역내 기관들 간 네트워크 강화를 위해 설립.

- GPPAC 지역 모임과 회원 구성
 • 지역 : 중앙·서아프리카, 남아프리카, 중남미, 북미, 남아시아, 태평양, 동남아시아, 동북아시아, 중앙아시아, 중동·북아프리카, 동유럽, 카프카스(구소련일부), 서발칸지역, 북·서유럽 등 총 15개 지역
 • 동북아시아 위원회 : 베이징, 홍콩, 도쿄, 교토, 서울, 상하이, 타이페이, 울란바토르, 블라디보스토크 등을 기반으로 한 시민사회단체들로 구성
* GPPAC은 국가가 아닌 도시기반으로 멤버십 구성함. GPPAC 평양은 옵저버로 참여를 시작해 현재 GPPAC 동북아지역 회원으로 참여
* GPPAC 서울에는 참여연대, 평화를만드는여성회, 아리(ARI), 동북아지역평화구축훈련센터(NARPI)가 회원단체로 활동하고 있음.

 

 

▣ 2017 울란바토르 프로세스 참가자 (이름, 소속, 지역)

○ 몽골 (울란바토르 포컬포인트)

엔자이칸 잘갈사이칸 / 블루배너(Blue Banner), 몽골 울란바토르

미약마르 도브친 / 블루배너(Blue Banner), 몽골 울란바토르

알타 누그소이 / 블루배너(Blue Banner), 몽골 울란바토르

갈산 세리터 / 블루배너(Blue Banner), 몽골 울란바토르

다바 라브단도르 / 블루배너(Blue Banner), 몽골 울란바토르

○ 미국

린다 루이스 / 미국친우봉사회(AFSC) 북한 프로그램, 중국 대련

캐롤라인 커니 / 평화분쟁연구센터(CPCS) 한반도 담당, 캄보디아 시엠립

○ 중국

수 하오 / 중국 외교학원(China Foreign Affairs University), 중국 베이징

리 용 / 중국 NGO 협력위원회 (CANGO), 중국 베이징

○ 러시아

아나스타샤 바라니코바 / 네벨스코이 국립해양대학교(Maritime State University), 러시아 블라디보스토크

○ 일본

요시오카 타츠야 / GPPAC 동북아 사무국-피스보트, 일본 동경

○ 북한

오룡일 / 조선평화옹호전국민족위원회(KNPC), 북한 평양

김종훈 / 조선평화옹호전국민족위원회(KNPC), 북한 평양

○ 남한

이태호 / 참여연대, 한국 서울

이미현 / 참여연대, 한국 서울

안김정애 / 평화를만드는여성회, 한국 서울

○ 사무국 대표

샬롯 디빈 / GPPAC 글로벌 사무국, 네덜란드 헤이그

메리 조이스 / GPPAC 동북아 사무국-피스보트, 일본 동경

▣ 울란바토르 프로세스 2017년 회의 요약문서 

 

울란바토르 프로세스 2017 회의

8월 29-30일 울란바토르, 몽골

 

요약 문서

 

울란바토르 프로세스: 평화와 대화를 위한 다양한 시민사회의 목소리

 

지난 2015년 6월 무장갈등 예방을 위한 글로벌 파트너십 (Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict 이하 GPPAC)을 위해 동북아 평화와 안정을 위한 시민사회들이 주도한 울란바토르 프로세스가 몽골 울란바토르에서 발족되었다. 15개의 지역 네트워크로 구성된 전 세계의 시민사회 네트워크인 GPPAC은 울란바토르 프로세스를 소집하고, 촉진하는 역할을 한다.

 

매년 열리는 울란바토르 프로세스의 주요 목적은 역내 보다 확대된 시민사회 간 대화와 상호 작용을 증진함으로써 동아시아에 평화와 안정을 가져올 조건 마련을 지원하는 것이다. 세 번째 울란바토르 프로세스 회의는 2017년 8월 29일에서 30일까지 열렸다. 이번 회의는 동북아의 최근 평화와 안보 상황 특히 한반도 상의 위기에 대해 시민사회 간 열린 대화를 할 수 있는 기회를 제공했다. 중국, 북한, 일본, 몽골, 한국, 러시아, 미국을 아우르는 참가자들은 대화의 중요성과 최근 상황을 평화롭게 해결해야 한다는 시민사회 관점을 재차 강조했다. 

 

이번 회의에서 ‘동북아의 평화와 안보 고찰 – 울란바토르 프로세스의 관점‘이라는 책자를 발간했다. 여러 글들을 엮은 이번 책자는 위기를 겪고 있는 동북아의 다양한 의견들, 우려, 긴장, 그리고 모순 등을 포착했다. 각 챕터는 동북아 안보와 비핵지대에 대한 비전, 한반도 안보 이슈와 이것이 지역안정에 미치는 영향, 그리고 동북아 평화구축에서 시민사회의 대화와 다자외교 노력에 대해 다뤘다. 이번 발간물에 나타난 각 필자의 스타일, 의견, 관점은 동북아 지역 자체 만큼이나 다양하다. 다만 이들이 기꺼이 선의에서 자신들의 의견을 제시했다는 점은 울란바토르 프로세스라는 현재 진행 중인 실험 그리고 앞으로 손에 잡히는 결과가 성공적일 것이라는 중요한 증거라고 할 수 있다. 

 

지정학적 맥락과 지역 문제에 대한 우려, 2017년 8월

 

지난 2016년 11월 울란바토르 프로세스 회의 이후 한국과 미국에서는 새로운 정부가 들어섰다. 회의 중 참가자들이 토론한 모든 이슈들, 즉 한미연합군사연습, 북한의 8월 29일 미사일발사, 한반도 사드 추가배치 등 여전히 현재 진행형인 위기 상황 가운데 이번 회의가 열렸다. 

 

동시에, 이번 회의는 동북아 평화와 안정에 크게 기여했던 몽골의 비핵국가 선언 25주년을 즈음해 개최되었다. 참석자들은 몽골이 보여준 리더십에 축하를 표하고 특히 울란바토르 프로세스 주관 단체인 블루배너가 몽골의 비핵국가 지위를 역내에서 그리고 국제적으로 증진시키는데 기여한 바에 대해서 축하의 인사를 전했다. 

 

이에 더해 이번 회의는 7월 7일 유엔에서 전세계 다수의 국가들의 지지로 핵무기를 금지하는 조약을 채택한 즈음에 개최되었다. 참가자들은 이 조약 통과가 핵무기 없는 세상으로 가는 길의 매우 중요하고 긍정적인 이정표와 같다고 인식하며 이 조약이 동북아 평화와 비핵화를 향한 발걸음에 주는 의미에 대해 토론했다. 

 

또한 동북아에서 국가와 시민사회의 역할, 역내 시민사회 교류에 당면한 도전과제에 대한 토론도 이뤄졌다. 보다 구체적으로는 안보와 인간안보의 중요성을 정의하는 관점, 언론의 역할과 언론이 긴장을 고조하는데 어떻게 작동하는지, 지역 내에서 보다 더 평화교육이 이뤄져야 하는 필요성, 그리고 기후변화 경감, 인도주의적 원조, 유엔 지속가능한 발전 목표 등과 같은 이슈에서 협력의 가능성 등도 이야기 됐다. 참가자들은 어느 분야에나 적용되는 공통 분야로 여성과 청소년이 역내 평화와 안정을 위해 기여하는 노력의 중요성 역시 강조했다. 

 

공통되는 기반에 대한 관점

 

모든 참가자들은 역내 긴장을 완화하기 위해서는 군사적 행동과 도발에 기대기 보다는 대화와 개입을 우선시해야 할 필요가 있다는데 동의했다. 핵위기와 군사적 긴장은 이 지역에 사는 사람들에게 큰 위협을 끼친다. 이는 평화로운 방법으로 해결되어야만 한다. 이러한 이유로 모든 수준의 대화가 중요하다. 

 

참가자들은 또한 모든 이해관계자들이 핵전쟁이든 재래식 전쟁이든 상호 위협을 줄이고 상호 신뢰를 쌓기 위한 진정한 노력을 해야 한다고 권고했다. 어떤 나라도 다른 나라에 핵무기 사용 위협을 가해서는 안된다. 이는 결국 역내 심각한 갈등이 더 과격한 대응으로 악순환에 빠지고 격화되는 결과를 낳을 수 있다. 

 

참가자들은 엄청난 수준의 군사적 능력과 자원을 보유하고 있는 미국과 한국, 그리고 일본은 평화를 위한 선제적인 조치를 위해 먼저 나서야 할 필요성이 있다고 강조했다. 이러한 조치에는 군사훈련의 중단 또는 감소 등이 포함된다. 지금의 정전체제를 대체할 평화체제의 필요성 특히 평화체제가 한반도 비핵화와 핵무기 없는 세상에 기여할 수 있을 것이라는 점 역시 토론했다. 

 

다음 단계 

 

과거 수년 간 쌓아올린 신뢰와 약속 위에 참가자들은 포용성, 존중, 협력, 개방성이라는 가치에 기반을 두고 이러한 시민사회 대화 프로세스를 유지하는 것의 중요성에 대해 동의했다. 참가자들은 정기회의 외에도 회원 단체들 간에 활발한 의사소통을 지원할 체계에 대해서 토론했다. 또한 울란바토르 프로세스의 관점과 결과를 다른 관심있는 이해관계자들과 나눌 수 있는 절차에 대해서도 토론했다. 여기에는 새로 발간한 책자를 온오프라인에서 활용하는 법에 대한 토론도 포함됐다. 2018년 회의 계획과 관련해서도 북한에서 처음으로 회의를 개최할 가능성에 대해 토론했다. 

>>> GPPAC 책자 '동북아의 평화와 안보 고찰 - 울란바토르 프로세스의 관점' 보러가기

>>> 2016 울란바토르 프로세스 보러가기

>>> 2015 울란바토르 프로세스 보러가기