[ad_1]
Approached from the perspective of “freedom of expression”
Biden’s next administration is free of charge.
The Federation of Gyeonggi-do Paju-si Lee Jangdan, the Imjingang Merchants Association, the Gyeorehana Paju Branch, and the head of civilian villages, Tongil Village and Haemaru Village, held a press conference in Jang Jun Park- ha at the Odusan Observatory in the city of Paju on the afternoon of June 22. Call for severe punishment for the spreaders. By Paju / Lee Jong-geun, Staff Reporter [email protected]
Criticism continues to be heard from some parts of the United States against the ‘Prohibition of War against North Korea Act’ that was passed in the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 14th. Although some experts and human rights organizations are still At the “ raise a main issue ” level, if the Joe Biden administration, which emphasizes human rights, shows interest in this issue, it may act as a new obstacle to relations between Korea and the United States in the future. On the 16th, the (VOA) presented the voices of concern from US officials that “the so-called ‘law to prohibit the spread of the warp against North Korea’ passed by the ruling South Korean party in the plenary session of the National Assembly could undermine the liberal democratic values shared by the ROK-US alliance. ” did. According to the article, Sina Gritons, professor of political science at the University of Texas (visiting fellow at the Korea Institute of Strategic and International Affairs) commented on his Twitter account: “To what extent will this measure undermine democracy, the biggest global asset that Korea has made so difficult? I don’t know if I understand it well. In fact, the move could potentially undermine the ability of the Biden administration and the South Korean government to pursue a broader, values-based partnership. “David Maxwell, Principal Investigator at the Foundation for the Protection of State Democracy The United States also said: “The law against North Korea’s spread against North Korea violates the values of freedom, liberal democracy, free market economy, rule of law and human rights shared by the United States and Korea. The first crisis in Korea could be the difference in values and human rights between Korea and the United States. ”Mark Fitzpatrick, former deputy assistant secretary for nonproliferation at the State Department, said:“ I agree, ”citing comments in the former head of the Blue House Foreign Affairs and Security Cheon Young-woo, who criticized the law against North Korea as “immoral.”
Voice of “violation of the fundamental values of liberal democracy”
The Human Rights Foundation (HRF), a human rights organization based in New York, United States, also criticized the Korean government in a statement on the 14th. The group’s representative, Thor Halborsen, assumes that the bill is “a catastrophic tragedy for North Koreans” and says “North Korean defectors may represent the voices of 25 million North Koreans who do not have access to the Internet, external mail or uncensored information.” There are people. They are helping North Koreans regain their basic rights by exercising their democratic rights based on freedom of expression. It is a shameful attempt to have the Korean government discriminate against them and treat them as second-class citizens, ”raising the level of criticism. In American politics, Congressman Chris Smith (Republican Party) expressed ‘serious concerns’ in a personal statement on the 11th, and in a statement sent by the Republican secretary of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Michael McCawul, the day 14, “Freedom of expression is the central value of democracy. The United States Congress has expressed its view that the bipartisan majority has long supported efforts to provide external information to North Korea under a closed dictatorship. “However, the secretary of state in the upcoming Biden administration, Tony Blincoln, who has actively commented on important diplomatic issues like the Hong Kong issue and the Paris Climate Agreement via Twitter, and Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, did not voice their views. in the United States to the law against the war against North Korea reflect the traditional American position of looking at the North Korean human rights issue only from the perspective of liberal democracy and human rights. In a statement on the 11th , Congressman Smith referred to Article 19 of the ‘Code of Civil and Political Rights’ (ICCPR), which establishes that all persons d The United Nations (UN) have freedom of expression. “Why should President Moon Jae-in protect these civil and political rights? “Are you neglecting your duty to do so?” Though the context is slightly different, US Secretary of State Stephen Beggan, who has been in charge of negotiations with North Korea for the past two years, said in a speech at the Asan Institute for Political Studies on the day. 10, “(6 · 12) Singapore (agreement) If progress is made on each element, the most sensitive also hoped to address the problem,” he said for a long time, including the death of Otto Warmbier, a major human rights issue among Korea. North and the United States, and the problem of the Japanese kidnappers, a human rights problem between North Korea and Japan. In the debate for the US presidential elections in late October, Biden also called North Korean leader Kim Jong-un a “bully” in the sense of being a dictator who suppresses human rights.
Twitter from Harry Kazianis, Director of the US National Interest Research Institute, South Korea, who expressed the view that “the Blue House did the right thing” in the shear ban against North Korea
“Will we wage war because of war?” Counterargument
However, the position of the South Korean government vis-à-vis North Korea will surely be more complicated. In order to manage inter-Korean relations in a stable way, North Korea not only had to end the problem of the war against North Korea, which has been extremely antagonistic, but also the security problems of residents in the border region. If North Korea’s human rights issue is a “question of principle” that should not be conferred on the United States, it means that it is a “diplomatic issue” that sometimes requires a realistic response to the United States. Going one step further, the two Koreas pledged: “Stop all hostile acts, including the broadcast of loudspeakers and the broadcast of flyers, and the abolition of your media” through Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Panmunjom Declaration of the April 27, 2018. There are voices in the United States that say they understand the situation of the Korean government. For example, Harry Kazianis, director of the Korean National Interest Research Institute, posted on his Twitter on the 15th: “I think the Blue House has done the right thing by outlawing the war against North Korea. We must remember that the North Korean leadership responds to pressure on them with increased pressure. Is a brochure worth fighting for? By Gil Yoon-hyung, Staff Reporter [email protected]
[ad_2]
