(Hong Kong, August 13, 2009) We wish to inform you about an interview, in its entirety, with ‘sisaIN’, a weekly magazine in Korea, concerning the independence of the National . The interview was conducted using both email and telephone connections. The Korean version of the interview can be read here.
Interview follows:
Q: When did the AHRC become concerned about the NHRCK and start to monitor its actions? When did the AHRC start to think that the status of the NHRCK should be downgraded? Mr. Yun Jang Hyun, a board member of the AHRC said that, From last year, Korea had become a monitor country when Ahn Kyung Hwan had resigned.
A: As the part of the general mandate of a regional organization, the AHRC monitors the work of National Human Rights Commissions throughout Asia. There was, a few years ago, a situation that was very satisfactory and the AHRC at that time held up the National Human Rights Commission of South Korea as one of the best commissions in Asia and an example that could be followed. However from 2008 we had reasons to worry. As the new government came into power, there was an attempt to bring the National Human Rights Commission under the control of the President’s office. This is of course, a move that could have undermined the good work that had been done by this commission and deprive it of its independence. We expressed our concerns at the time and we were happy to see later the government withdrew the proposal. Then, there were reports of attacks, particularly on freedom of expression during various candlelight vigils and also attempts to bring restrictions on the press, including measures of censorship. At such times it is a duty of the National Human Rights Commission to intervene with the government and to ensure that such measures are not being enforced. It was obvious that there were attempts to undermine the role of the Commission. The recent resignation of the Chairperson, Mr. Ahn Kyung-Hwan also signals that something is going seriously wrong in the National .
The yardsticks by which we measure national institutions such as the Korean Human Rights Commission are famous enough. They are known as the Paris Principles. Under such principles, the independence of the commission is an essential aspect. The very nature of the defence of human rights requires independence. If independence is denied then it is no longer a national institution that is capable of protecting and promoting human rights. Having a toothless human rights commission is not good for the nation. We know from experience of several countries that when the executive interferes with the functioning of the commission, they transform the commission into a propaganda tool of the government rather than a critical institution that can contribute to the health of a society.
Thus, we have our concerns regarding the Korean National Human Rights Commission
Q: Korean Conservative newspapers reported that a Korean leftist group pushed the AHRC to urge the ICC to downgrade its status. Is it possible? Who did influence of your decision?
A: We are aware of the editorial of Dong-A published on August 4, which is a usual cheat and political crab. The article demonstrates the absence of any understanding of what human rights are. Human rights are not given by a state. These are inherent rights and as in the case of Korea, acquired rights by enormous scarifies made by the people of a past generation. The clear message from the past is that the past practices of the enormous abuse of power and violations of human rights should not be repeated. If someone says that this is the leftist perspective, what then we would like to ask, is their perspective? The defence of human rights is neither the left nor the right. It is a universal perspective. If those who call themselves for right-wing think that the protection and promotion of human rights belongs to the left, they are making the fundamental admission that the people’s protection is a secondary affair of the nation.
It is unfortunate that those who call themselves right-wing in Korea still remain in a backward state of mind which shows a continuity from the type of thinking that prevailed during the military dictatorship. The proudest moment of South Korea was when this dictatorship was defeated by the people themselves and when it proved capable of being a vibrant democracy. In fact South Korea was becoming a shining example of the direction to which all Asian countries should go from the point of view of developing democratic institutions and upholding human rights.
However, it appears that even though the militarism has been physically destroyed, the internal political and psychological impulses which gave rise to the militarism still remains quite strong in Korea. There is an incomplete work done in terms of making Korea the type of democracy that can equal other more developed countries. The remaining backlog of political thought, social awareness and economic interests detriment to democratic needs must be brought to an end if the Korea’s democratic struggle is to succeed.
The editorial of the Dong-A newspaper shows a narrow outlook which fails to recognize that we are living in an open world where a communication revolution brings news of the slightest thing happening in the world to the very doorstep of every household. Had there been the kind of communication flow as it exists now, at the time of the dictatorship, it would not have lasted so long and been able to cause the extent of damage that it did to the Korean people. However, today no government can do anything under such secrecy and it is not also possible to delude the world with cheat propaganda.
The facts about the developments of the NHRCK are known to the world. It is the same facts that we have based ourselves on. Such misinformation in the right-wing propaganda as a local agency carrying bad news to the world to sabotage a government arose from the time of the Cold War political propaganda. Such newspapers should begin to acknowledge that the world is open place and that their kind of propaganda only exhibits their ignorance and bad taste.
There is a global human rights movement working constantly to monitor human rights on the basis of criteria laid down by the United Nations. We are thoroughly influenced by these principles and those who work hard in all countries in the world to uphold these principles. We are also influenced by our knowledge about the struggles of people in Korea to bring about changes towards democracy and human rights. We are influenced by the basis of the highest principles and the deepest human consideration where human rights come first and the government’s power come second.
We are also influenced by understanding the policy reasons which were behind various attacks on the National Human Rights Commission in recent times. We are disturbed that the great example South Korea was making in the direction of human rights may be undermined by the recent actions of the government and thereby these works of tremendous value developed in Korea may suffer a setback.
Q: Conservative newspapers said that there was no need to hold a public discourse on the appointment of a new chairperson of the NHRCK. Do you agree with this?
A: That open letter is an honest one which demonstrates the actual motivations behind the attacks on the NHRCK. The very essence of developing good human rights institutions is that all appointments must be subjected to public discourse and this applies to all public services. However, it applies even more so to any institution that is expected to play a very difficult role of existing for the protection of human rights. It will be a foolish idea to think that human rights work is a honeymoon. It requires courageous people with deep conviction and a proven past of past achievements in human rights principle. Even under a good government, there is a contest between the rights of the people and the actions of the government. But when the government turns more prone to abuse power, more courage is require from those who are appointed to the position of the chairperson of a human rights commission. Therefore, such appointments must be done in an open and transparent manner and any impression that the incoming chairperson may be biased towards the government is an issue of public interest. The post of chairperson in the human rights commission is an important public position and therefore, people have a stake in knowing who is appointed and if the people are not satisfied, such a commissioner simply cannot do the job that is expected of commission.
Q: Some conservative people said that during the last 10 years the same human right violations happened in Korea. So, they insist that there is no big change in Korean human right status. How do you see the difference in terms of the human rights situation over the last 5 to 10 years and now?
A: Facts speak plainly for themselves. In the recent years, there had been very serious setbacks from the goal that the Korea people pursued. Of course, the previous years are not perfect by any means. However there were attempts to create a genuine human rights commission and provide resources to enable it to do its job. The previous governments were willing to subject themselves to the monitoring of the human rights commission. What is needed is more resources for the commission and more independence to be asserted by the commission. However, the factual situation in attempting to downsize the commission and the interference of the appointment and the like, the attacks on the media and demonstrators are all indicators of deterioration to an objective observer.
Q: How could Korea regain the “A” accreditation for human rights?
A: Of course, the answer is very obvious. Remove all the obstacles to the functioning of a proper national institution based on the Paris Principles. Undo the downsizing of the commission, provide more resources to the commission and make sure that all the appointments are done in a manner that will have public approval. You cannot win back lost prestige by cosmetic measures. It is only a genuine will on the part of the government to respect the National Human Rights Commission and demonstrate that will by allowing the critical function of the commission that the accreditation will be received with due honor.
Q: What do you think about the meaning of Korean human right status?
A: Human rights status is a measure of credibility in the modern world. A government that has a high credibility in the field of human rights is answering to the demands of a modern civilization. If the human rights status is bad, it is a sign that nation is backsliding and is on the way to all kinds of aberrations in the political, economic, social and cultural fields.
Q: Not only in Korea, but also in many Asian countries, human right violations happen. Is there a trend of the retreat of human rights in Asian historically? Please tell us about human rights institutions, not only in Korea but also other Asian countries with specific examples.
A: South Korea became an exception to many other Asian countries from a democratic and human rights point of view since the fall of the military dictatorships. It was therefore a unique example of defeating militarism and abuse of power, greater respect of people and improved transparency and accountability. There are many countries in the world that have gone backwards. For example, Sri Lanka is a case in point. At one time, Sri Lanka was thought of as the most possible candidate for higher economic development and greater democracy. Many economists predicted that even before South Korea, Sri Lanka would take a turn and improve its economy and democracy. However today, it is one of worst cases of a collapse economic, political and social system with an extremely repressive political model of government. From a democracy, it turned to an authoritarian system. Sri Lanka’s failure was in not trying to protect basic institutional framework of independent institutions. Due to various opportunistic reasons some political regimes undermined these institutions.
This is the clear example that demonstrates that unless there is constant vigilance, initial attempts made by many countries to go towards democracy and greater respect for human rights can be turned backwards.
Therefore, Korea should not take for granted that since it made some advances in democracy, rule of law and the promotion of human rights, these improvements can remain without the support of independent institutions to protect democratic norms and standards.
Q: Since the AHRC asked the ICC to downgrade the status of NHRCK, do you think there is a possibility that the ICC will accept your request? How do other national human rights institutions, including the ICC see the human rights situation in Korea?
A: There had been several instances in downgrading the human rights institutions in the recent past during the coup in Nepal, when the king virtually abolished the parliament and took entire power to himself; he also interfered with the national human rights institution in Nepal that lead to the downgrading of the commission during that time. The Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission was also downgraded because of bad appointments which undermined the work of the commission. The situation of Thai Human Rights Commission where the commissioners who were earlier appointed through due process of open consultation were removed thereby undermining the independence of the commission is also under scrutiny.
It is a duty of ICC to monitor the performance of the commission and we are sure they will act on the basis of the best traditions and their own assessment in coming to their decision. We have no reason to think that such upholding principles will not be followed.
