The DPRK update, live and direct from the UN.
Monday, November 16, 2009
"While near-consensus had been reached on many issues that had stymied reform of the Security Council for years, questions about exactly how to expand the 15‑member body in a way that guaranteed its effectiveness remained a stubborn snag in building on progress, General Assembly delegates said today as they wrapped up their two-day joint debate on those and other security matters".
And where, one might think, would there be scope for an epic Japano-Korean bust up there?
Oh but there was.... And the DPRK started it:
SIN SON HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said although Security Council reform had been on the Assembly’s agenda for 15 years, discussions continued spinning with no results. No progress was achieved with regard to adequate representation of developing countries within the body, and recently specific countries abused it for political purposes by forcing it to unlawfully deal with issues beyond its mandate. That had led the international community to discredit the Council....Continuing, he said non-aligned and other developing countries, including Africans, which constituted the overwhelming majority of Membership, needed to be adequately represented on the Security Council. Japan, however, should never be granted a seat, since “it revives militaristic ambition by persistently denying the history of aggression, instead of recognizing and repairing its crime-woven past.” Any discussions on Japan’s status based on its contribution to United Nations activities were a dangerous move and a shame of the international community. This would only instigate Japan’s unaccomplished ambition for realizing the “Great Asia Common Prosperity Sphere.”
The Japanese did not like that:
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Japan said his comments were related to the comments made earlier by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was regrettable that Japan had to respond to such comments when other delegations were seriously engaged in the debate of today’s topics. Japan firmly believed that the qualifications of a given country for permanent membership in the Council should be based on that country’s real contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. Japan was committed to peace and had been trying its best to live up to this standard.
Regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea delegate’s reference to the “unfortunate past”, Japan could not accept those references by that delegation because Japan had been facing up to its past with sincerity and consistency since the end of World War II. Japan had been consistently dedicating itself for more than 60 years to promoting international peace and prosperity and demonstrating respect for democracy and human rights.
And the DPRK did not like that:
Responding, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said Japan was not qualified for a permanent seat in the Security Council. In order to clarify the issue, he said Japan had killed one million Koreans, and provided “comfort women” for the Japanese army. While Japan said that it had done all it could to rectify that situation, Japan used the word “apology” only when it felt it needed to redress the political situation. In addition, he said Japanese officials explained away the incidents by saying that comfort women were sold by their parents and they were prostitutes. He called those “inhumane and insane remarks.”
Fearing their crimes would be revealed, he said the Japanese had destroyed evidence and deleted facts from school textbooks under official connivance of the Government. Well known political figures had honoured war criminals and human slaughter. Such ceremony was emblematic of Japan’s “blood stained past crimes.” Most victims of sex slavery still lived in suffering. He added that Japanese denials of its criminal history meant it could repeat its crimes and potentially attempt another “old fashioned mission for a Great Asian Prosperity Sphere.” He said that it wasn’t the money that counted, but the sincere manner that one conducted itself as a Member State of the United Nations.
And the Japanese did not like that:
Responding, the representative of Japan strongly asserted that his country would not accept “baseless allegations” levelled by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and described those allegations as being “full of foul language”. He said it was reprehensible that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea representative could use the forum of the General Assembly as a platform to direct unsubstantiated allegations against his country.
And the DPRK returned serve....
Responding, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation had raised the subject during the debate on Council reform because it had wanted to clarify the issue. Japan had destroyed the strategic balance of the region and refused to apologize for its past crimes. It had joined the United States system of the balance of power. “Who was the agent that threatened the peace and stability of the region?” he asked. Japan had used outer space for military purposes. It was worth noting that Japan had persisted in its ill-minded behaviour by condemning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea satellite launch in April. Japan had knocked at the door of the Council to adopt a resolution against his country. Japan was not in a right position to blame any other countries. Japan had committed crimes of the past and the present.
A bid for a permanent council seat did not match with Japan’s true picture. It was more advisable that Japan should do more to liquidate its bloody past and act accordingly. So the issue would never be debated at the Assembly.
Whereupon the Japanese, and presumably everybody else, ran out of patience.
And where, one might think, would there be scope for an epic Japano-Korean bust up there?
Oh but there was.... And the DPRK started it:
SIN SON HO (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said although Security Council reform had been on the Assembly’s agenda for 15 years, discussions continued spinning with no results. No progress was achieved with regard to adequate representation of developing countries within the body, and recently specific countries abused it for political purposes by forcing it to unlawfully deal with issues beyond its mandate. That had led the international community to discredit the Council....Continuing, he said non-aligned and other developing countries, including Africans, which constituted the overwhelming majority of Membership, needed to be adequately represented on the Security Council. Japan, however, should never be granted a seat, since “it revives militaristic ambition by persistently denying the history of aggression, instead of recognizing and repairing its crime-woven past.” Any discussions on Japan’s status based on its contribution to United Nations activities were a dangerous move and a shame of the international community. This would only instigate Japan’s unaccomplished ambition for realizing the “Great Asia Common Prosperity Sphere.”
The Japanese did not like that:
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Japan said his comments were related to the comments made earlier by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It was regrettable that Japan had to respond to such comments when other delegations were seriously engaged in the debate of today’s topics. Japan firmly believed that the qualifications of a given country for permanent membership in the Council should be based on that country’s real contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. Japan was committed to peace and had been trying its best to live up to this standard.
Regarding the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea delegate’s reference to the “unfortunate past”, Japan could not accept those references by that delegation because Japan had been facing up to its past with sincerity and consistency since the end of World War II. Japan had been consistently dedicating itself for more than 60 years to promoting international peace and prosperity and demonstrating respect for democracy and human rights.
And the DPRK did not like that:
Responding, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said Japan was not qualified for a permanent seat in the Security Council. In order to clarify the issue, he said Japan had killed one million Koreans, and provided “comfort women” for the Japanese army. While Japan said that it had done all it could to rectify that situation, Japan used the word “apology” only when it felt it needed to redress the political situation. In addition, he said Japanese officials explained away the incidents by saying that comfort women were sold by their parents and they were prostitutes. He called those “inhumane and insane remarks.”
Fearing their crimes would be revealed, he said the Japanese had destroyed evidence and deleted facts from school textbooks under official connivance of the Government. Well known political figures had honoured war criminals and human slaughter. Such ceremony was emblematic of Japan’s “blood stained past crimes.” Most victims of sex slavery still lived in suffering. He added that Japanese denials of its criminal history meant it could repeat its crimes and potentially attempt another “old fashioned mission for a Great Asian Prosperity Sphere.” He said that it wasn’t the money that counted, but the sincere manner that one conducted itself as a Member State of the United Nations.
And the Japanese did not like that:
Responding, the representative of Japan strongly asserted that his country would not accept “baseless allegations” levelled by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and described those allegations as being “full of foul language”. He said it was reprehensible that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea representative could use the forum of the General Assembly as a platform to direct unsubstantiated allegations against his country.
And the DPRK returned serve....
Responding, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation had raised the subject during the debate on Council reform because it had wanted to clarify the issue. Japan had destroyed the strategic balance of the region and refused to apologize for its past crimes. It had joined the United States system of the balance of power. “Who was the agent that threatened the peace and stability of the region?” he asked. Japan had used outer space for military purposes. It was worth noting that Japan had persisted in its ill-minded behaviour by condemning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea satellite launch in April. Japan had knocked at the door of the Council to adopt a resolution against his country. Japan was not in a right position to blame any other countries. Japan had committed crimes of the past and the present.
A bid for a permanent council seat did not match with Japan’s true picture. It was more advisable that Japan should do more to liquidate its bloody past and act accordingly. So the issue would never be debated at the Assembly.
Whereupon the Japanese, and presumably everybody else, ran out of patience.
Labels: DPRK-watch, Japan, UN
