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.

 

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".

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 

31st Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Item 3: Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

Oral Statement Delivered by Ms. Gayoon Baek on Behalf of
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) and
MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society

Thursday, 10 March 2016

Thank you, Mr. President. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) makes this statement jointly with MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, on behalf of 52 South Korean NGOs.

We welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/HRC/31/65) and share the view that countering violent extremism must focus on addressing the underlying causes, while more repressive, security-based approaches would have the reverse effect. Counter-terrorism and national security measures have tightened around the world, which has resulted in undue attempts to illegally or arbitrarily limit fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Counter-Terrorism Act enacted in the Republic of Korea on 2 March 2016, is a disturbing example. The Republic of Korea already has an established system to address “terrorism” spread over various laws and instruments, including the National Security Act, Aviation Safety and Security Act, and Act on Prohibiting Against the Financing of Acts of Threats and Expansion of Weapons of Mass Destruction against General Public. While the long-standing criticisms and concerns on the National Security Act continue and remain unaddressed, as it is viewed to be a law that restrict the work of human rights defenders, the new Counter-Terrorism Act will only serve to further violate the freedom of expression and right to privacy.

The broad and vague definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist” in the Act can result in arbitrary interpretation. According to article 2(3) of the Act, a "potential terrorist" includes anyone "who is reasonably believed to have prepared, conspired, propagated, or incited terrorism.”, without a clear reference on the process of assigning and delisting a potential terrorist. This is particularly concerning, considering that the Government has many times labeled peaceful protests as "acts of terror" and a lack of a minimum safeguard for de-listing.

In addition, the Act strengthens the authority of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) to an unprecedented level. Under the Act, once listed as a potential terrorist, the NIS can extensively collect personal information, including sensitive information and location data, wiretap, tail, and even apply financial sanctions. The NIS has been well known for violating human rights even before this power is given, such as the illegal intervention to the 2012 Presidential Election and false accusation against a DPRK defector of espionage in 2014. Considering that safeguards to manage and monitor such abuse of power are highly insufficient, we note with grave concern that this new legislation will be a tool to facilitate illegal intervention to people’s private life.

Therefore, we would like to ask the Special Rapporteur:
 - What kind of consultations should the State have with relevant stakeholders before enacting the Counter-terrorism Act?

Also, we would like to recommend the Government of the Republic of Korea:
 - Immediately repeal the Counter-Terrorism Act
 - Establish strong measures to prevent abuse of power by the Government body who is in charge of counter-terrorism

Thank you.

This statement is endorsed by below 52 South Korean NGOs:

 

Alliance for Enactment of Anti-Discrimination Act, Ansan Labor and Human Rights Center, Buddhism Human Rights Committee, Catholic Human Rights Committee, Cheongju Labor Human Rights Center, Cultural Action, DASAN Human Rights Center, Democratic Legal Studies Association, Disability and Human Rights in Action, Disabled People’s International Daegu, Geochang Peace and Human Rights Art Festival Commission, Gwangju Human Rights Activities Center, Human Rights Education Center 'Deul', Human Rights Education Center OnDa, Human Rights Movement Space 'Hwal', Human Rights Solidarity for New Society, Incheon Human Rights Film Festival, Joint Committee with Migrants in Korea, Korea HIV/AIDS Network of Solidarity KANOS, Korea Institute of Labor Safety and Health, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, Korean Contingent Workers' Center, Korean Council for Democratic Martyr, Korean Gay Men's Groups 'Chingusai', Korean House for International Solidarity, Korean Progressive Network 'Jinbonet', Korean Sexual-Minority Culture and Rights Center, Labor Attorneys for Labor Rights, Lesbian Counseling Center in South Korea, Migrants Human Rights Solidarity, MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Minkahyup Human Rights Group, Network of Accessible Environment for All, Palestine Peace and Solidarity in South Korea, Peace and Human Rights Center in Jeju, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, People's Solidarity for Social Progress, Samsung Labor Watch, SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights, Seoul Human Rights Film Festival, Solidarity against Disability Discrimination, Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+, Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea, Solidarity for Peace & Human Rights, Supporters for the Health And Rights of People in the Semiconductor industry, SHARPS, The Committee to Support Imprisoned Workers, The National Council of Churches in Korea Human Rights Center, The Research Institute of the Differently Abled People Rights in Korea, Ulsan Solidarity for Human Rights, Women with Disabilities Empathy, Won Buddhism Human Rights Committee, World Without War