한국은 정치 자유 면에서 세계 최고 수준이며 시민 자유는 그 다음 수준인 ‘자유국’인 반면, 북한은 정치적 자유와 시민의 자유가 모두 최악인 ‘비자유국’으로 분류됐다고 미국의 인권단체 프리덤하우스가 19일 밝혔다.

프리덤하우스는 192개 국가를 대상으로 지난해 12월부터 올해 11월까지 1년 동안 일어난 사건들을 분석해 각국의 자유 수준을 평가한 연례 보고서 ‘2006년 세계의 자유’에서 이같이 평가했다.

이 보고서에서 한국은 지난해와 마찬가지로 정치적 자유 1점, 시민의 자유 2점, 평균 1.5점으로 ‘자유국’으로 평가됐다. 한국보다 높은 평균 1점을 받은 국가는 모두 50개국이었다.

반면 북한은 지난해와 마찬가지로 정치적 자유와 시민의 자유 모두 최저 등급인 7점(최고 점수 1, 최저 점수 7)을 받아 미얀마, 쿠바, 리비아, 수단, 시리아, 투르크메니스탄, 우즈베키스탄과 함께 최악의 8개국에 포함됐다.
국가로 공인되지 않는 중국의 티베트(西藏·시짱 자치구)와 러시아의 체첸도 이 범주에 포함됐다.

세계 민주화 지도를 보면 약 30억 명이 89개 ‘자유국’에 살고 있으며 약 12억 명이 58개 ‘부분적 자유국’에, 약 23억 명이 45개 ‘비자유국’에 살고 있는 것으로 나타났다.
프리덤하우스는 올해 평가에서 27개국이 상승하고 9개국이 하락해 전반적으로 자유가 신장됐다고 평가했다. 특히 일부 국가에서 민주선거가 실시된 중동과 민주혁명이 휩쓴 옛 소련 국가의 약진이 눈부셨다고 평가했다.
이를 반영하듯 ‘오렌지 혁명’의 우크라이나는 ‘부분적 자유국’에서 ‘자유국’으로 상승했으며 아프가니스탄과 레바논은 ‘비자유국’에서 ‘부분적 자유국’으로 올랐다.

세계 주요국 정치·시민자유지수 2004년 12월~2005년 11월.
구 분 지 수 국 가
자유국 1.0 미국 영국 프랑스 독일 호주 대만 등
1.5 한국 일본 그리스 이스라엘 등
2.0 브라질 아르헨티나 멕시코 몽골 등
2.5 인도 인도네시아 우크라이나 등
부분적 자유국 3.0 볼리비아 그루지야 터키 등
3.5 몰도바 모잠비크 등
4.0 베네수엘라 말레이시아 등
4.5 쿠웨이트 싱가포르 등
5.0 아프가니스탄 에티오피아 등
비자유국 5.5 이라크 이집트 네팔 파키스탄 카자흐스탄 등
6.0 이란 베트남 등
6.5 중국 사우디아라비아 라오스 등
7.0 북한 쿠바 미얀마 리비아 수단 시리아 등
1.0(최고 자유국가) 7.0(최악의 국가). 자료: 프리덤하우스

김재영 기자 redfoot@donga.com

---------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Astrid Larson
(212) 514-8040 x10
(301) 873-3062 (mobile)

MIDDLE EAST PROGRESS AMID GLOBAL GAINS IN FREEDOM
Arab Middle East Shows Improvement, Despite Continued Repression
Major Gains in Ukraine, Indonesia; Decline Noted in Philippines
Notable Gains in Worldwide Freedom

NEW YORK, December 19, 2005 -- The people of the Arab Middle East experienced a modest but potentially significant increase in political rights and civil liberties in 2005, Freedom House announced in a major survey of global freedom released today.

The global survey, 'Freedom in the World,' shows that although the Middle East continues to lag behind other regions, a measurable improvement can be seen in freedom in several key Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. In another key finding, the number of countries rated by Freedom House as Not Free declined from 49 in 2004 to 45 for the year 2005, the lowest number of Not Free societies identified by the survey in over a decade. In noteworthy country developments, Ukraine and Indonesia saw their status improve from Partly Free to Free; Afghanistan moved from Not Free to Partly Free; and the Philippines saw its status decline from Free to Partly Free.

According to Thomas O. Melia, acting executive director of Freedom House, 'The modest but heartening advances in the Arab Middle East result from activism by citizen groups and reforms by governments in about equal measures. This emerging trend reminds us that men and women in this region share the universal desire to live in free societies.'

'As we welcome the stirrings of change in the Middle East,' said Mr. Melia, 'it is equally important that we focus on the follow-through in other regions and appreciate the importance of the continuing consolidation of democracy in Indonesia, Ukraine, and other nations.'

Complete survey results, including a package of charts and graphs, and an explanatory essay are available online. The Ratings reflect global events from December 1, 2004 through November 30, 2005. Country narratives will be released in book form in summer 2006.

On the whole, the state of freedom showed substantial improvement worldwide, with 27 countries and one territory registering gains and only 9 countries showing setbacks. The global picture thus suggests that the past year was one of the most successful for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom in 1972.

'These global findings are encouraging,' said Arch Puddington, director of research. 'Among other things, the past year has been notable for terrorist violence, ethnic cleansing, civil conflict, catastrophic natural disasters, and geopolitical polarization. That freedom could thrive in this environment is impressive.'

Although the countries of the Middle East lag behind other regions in areas such as adherence to democratic standards, independent media, the rights of women, and the rule of law, the past year witnessed modest positive trends. Lebanon experienced the most significant improvement; its status improved from Not Free to Partly Free due to major improvements in both political rights and civil liberties that followed the withdrawal of Syrian occupation forces. Elections exhibiting increased competition in Iraq, Egypt, and the Palestinian territories; the introduction of women's suffrage in Kuwait; and improvements in Saudi Arabia's media environment are among other encouraging signs in the region.

According to the survey, 89 countries are Free, the same as the previous year. These countries’ nearly 3 billion inhabitants (46 percent of the world's population) enjoy open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media. Another 58 countries representing 1.2 billion people (18 percent) are considered Partly Free. Political rights and civil liberties are more limited in these countries, in which the norm may be corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and religious strife, and a setting in which a single political party enjoys dominance. The survey finds that 45 counies are Not Free. The 2.3 billion inhabitants (35 percent) of these countries are widelytr and systematically denied basic civil liberties and basic political rights are absent.

Aside from the Middle East, countries in the former Soviet Union were most notable for improvements in freedom during 2005. In addition to Ukraine, improvements were noted in Kyrgyzstan, whose rating improved from Not Free to Partly Free, and Georgia. Positive change was also noted in Latvia and Lithuania, two states where democratic freedoms had already been consolidated.

Further gains in the region will likely depend on the development of the kind of mature and credible opposition that emerged in Ukraine and Georgia prior to their nonviolent revolutions. At the same time, authoritarian leaderships in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, and, most importantly, Russia have adopted policies that will make it more difficult for the development of a genuine civil society and will impede the development of a democratic political opposition.

In Uzbekistan, state violence against demonstrators, the repression of civil society, and an overall decline in human rights conditions during the past year was sufficiently pronounced to warrant a decline in the country's Freedom in the World score to the lowest possible rating. Only eight countries worldwide earned a similar status as the worst of the worst, and two, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, are in Central Asia. In Russia-whose freedom status Freedom House lowered from Partly Free to Not Free one year ago-the Putin leadership's anti-democratic tendencies appeared, if anything, more pronounced in 2005.

Among the study's other findings:

The number of electoral democracies increased by three, from 119 to 122. This represents 64 percent of the world's countries-the highest number in the survey's 33-year history.
Of the four countries that registered an outright decline in status, the most significant was the Philippines. The decision to downgrade this country from Free to Partly Free was based on credible allegations of massive electoral fraud, corruption, and the government's intimidation of elements in the political opposition. The period since September 11, 2001, has witnessed steady progress in majority Muslim countries in regions beyond the Middle East.
The steady record of progress observed represents a powerful argument against the proposition that Islam is incompatible with democracy or is an impediment to the spread of freedom. Indeed, there has been a striking improvement in the level of freedom in majority Muslim countries over the past ten years. In 1995, 1 majority Muslim country was Free, 13 were Partly Free, and 32, or 70 percent, were Not Free. For 2005, the figures are 3 Free countries, 20 Partly Free, and 23 Not Free.
Regional Patterns

Democracy and freedom are the dominant trends in Western and East-Central Europe, in the Americas, and increasingly in the Asia-Pacific region. In the former Soviet Union, the picture remains mixed, while in Africa, Free societies and electoral democracies remain a minority despite recent progress. As noted above, the Middle East has experienced gains for freedom, though the region as a whole overwhelmingly consists of countries in the Partly Free and Not Free categories.

Of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 11 are Free (23 percent), 23 are Partly Free (48 percent), and 14 are Not Free (29 percent). Of the African countries, 23 (48 percent) are electoral democracies.

In Asia, 16 of the region's 39 countries are Free (41 percent), 12 are Partly Free (31 percent), and 11 are Not Free (28 percent). A solid majority of the region's countries, 23, are in the ranks of electoral democracies.

In East-Central Europe and the former USSR, there is now evidence of a deepening chasm. In Central Europe and parts of Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, democracy and freedom prevail; in the countries of the former Soviet Union, however, progress has been decidedly mixed. Overall, 17 of the 27 post-communist countries of East-Central Europe and the former Soviet Union are electoral democracies. In addition, 13 of the region's states are Free (48 percent), 7 are Partly Free (26 percent), and 7 are Not Free (26 percent). Meanwhile, of the 12 non-Baltic former Soviet republics, 1 country is free (8 percent), 4 are Partly Free (33 percent), and 7 are Not Free (58 percent).

Western Europe consists largely of Free countries and democracies, with 24 states Free, 1 country (Turkey) Partly Free, and all 25 ranking as electoral democracies.

Among the 35 countries in the Americas, 33 are electoral democracies. In all, 24 states are rated as Free (69 percent), 9 are Partly Free (26 percent), and 2-Cuba and Haiti-are Not Free (6 percent).

In the 18 Middle Eastern countries, only one, Israel, ranks as Free (Israel is also the only electoral democracy in the region). There are 6 Partly Free states (33 percent), and 11 countries that are Not Free (61 percent).

Worst of the Worst

There are 45 states that are rated as Not Free, in which a broad range of freedoms are systematically denied. Among the Not Free countries, 8 states have been given the survey's lowest rating of 7 for political rights and 7 for civil liberties. The eight worst-rated countries represent a narrow range of systems and cultures. Cuba and North Korea are one-party Marxist-Leninist regimes. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are Central Asian countries ruled by dictators with roots in the Soviet period. Libya and Syria are Arab countries under the sway of secular dictatorships, while Sudan is under a leadership that has elements both of radical Islamism and of the traditional military junta. The remaining worst rated state is Burma, a tightly controlled military dictatorship.

There are two worst-rated territories: Tibet (under Chinese jurisdiction) and Chechnya, where an indigenous Islamic population is engaged in a brutal guerrilla war for independence from Russia.

---------------------------------------------------
인권탄압부문 세계챔피언에 오른 김정일!


조갑제

2005년 3월에 미국의 국제인권단체인 프리덤하우스가 발표한 '최악중의 최악국가(또는 영토)'엔 10개국이 선정되었다.
버마, 쿠바, 리비아, 북한, 사우디 아라비아, 수단, 시리아, 투르크메니스탄, 체첸(러시아), 티벳(중국).

이 최악국가들은 192개 국가와 14개 지역에서 뽑혔다. 이 10개중에서도 최악을 하나 꼽으라면 단연 북한이 선정될 것이다. 10개국중 북한이 보유한 20만 명 규모의 강제수용소를 가진 나라는 없고 먹고살기 위하여 탈출한 죄가 사형에 해당하는 곳도 없다.

세계에서 가장 높은 수준의 IQ를 가진 한민족을 이 지경으로 만든 김정일도 나쁘지만 자유와 풍요를 누리면서도 그 김정일에 추종, 굴종한 자들이 권력의 핵심부에 들어가 있는 한국도 참으로 큰 일이다. 인권탄압부문에서 챔피언인 정권과 손잡고 대한민국에서 지금 반역적 상황을 조성하고 있는 자들이 입만 열면 인권이요 민주, 개혁이다. 이런 자들을 억제할 수 없는 사회는 자위능력이 없다고 보아야 한다. 한국사회가 그런 자위능력을 갖추기 위해, 즉 바이러스에 대한 면역력을 만들기 위해 이렇게 열이 나고 있는 모양이다.

아래 글은 프리덤하우스가 발표한 '최악중의 최악국가' 보고서의 서문이다.
---------------------------------------------------------------

THE WORST
OF THE WORST

THE WORLD’S
MOST REPRESSIVE SOCIETIES
2005

A Special Report to the 61st Session of the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Geneva, 2005

Freedom House


Introduction

Freedom House has prepared this overview report in conjunction with the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. We present our findings on countries and territories that represent the worst environments for political rights and civil liberties.
The reports are excerpted from the Freedom House survey Freedom in the World 2005, which surveys political rights and civil liberties in 192 countries and 14 major territories. The ratings and accompanying essays are based on events from
December 1, 2003 through November 30, 2004. The 18 countries and 3 territories profiled in this report are drawn from the total of 49 countries-a quarter of the world's total-and 9 territories that are considered to be Not Free
and whose citizens endure systematic and pervasive human rights violations.
Included in this report are eight countries judged to have the worst records:
Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkmenistan.
Also included are two territories, Chechnya and Tibet, whose inhabitants suffer intense repression. These states and regions received the Freedom House survey's lowest rating: 7 for political rights and 7 for civil liberties. Within these entities, state control over daily life is pervasive and wide-ranging, independent organizations and political opposition are banned or suppressed, and fear of retribution for independent thought and action is part of daily life. In the case
of Chechnya, the rating in large measure reflects the fallout of a vicious conflict that in the last 11 years has disrupted normal life and resulted in some 200,000
deaths.
The report also includes ten further countries near the bottom of Freedom House's list of the most repressive: Belarus, China, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Haiti, Laos, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. The territory of Western Sahara is also included in this group. While these states scored slightly better than the 'worst of the worst,' they offer very limited scope for private
discussion while severely suppressing opposition political activity, impeding independent organizing, and censoring or punishing criticism of the state.

Introduction

The World’s Most Repressive Regimes

Massive human rights violations take place in nearly every part of the world. This year's roster of the 'most repressive' includes countries from the Americas, the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa, and East Asia; they represent a wide array
of cultures and levels of economic development. This report from Freedom House to the United Nations focuses on states and regions that have seen some of the world's most severe repression and most systematic and brutal violations
of human dignity. Our report seeks to focus the attention of the Commission on states and territories that deserve investigation and condemnation for their widespread violations.
The fundamental violations of rights presented in this report are all the more alarming because they stand in sharp contrast to the significant expansion of
human liberty over the last three decades.

In that period, dozens of states have
shed tyranny and embraced democratic rule and respect for basic civil liberties. There has also been growing public support around the world for the values of liberal democracy including multiparty competition, the rule of law, freedom of
association, freedom of speech, the rights of minorities, and other fundamental, universally valid human rights. According to our global survey Freedom in the World, (whose findings can be accessed online at www.freedomhouse.org) at the
beginning of 2005, of the 192 countries in the world, 89 (46 percent) are Free and can be said to respect a broad array of basic human rights and political freedoms. An additional 54 (28 percent) are Partly Free, with some abridgments of basic rights and weak enforcement of the rule of law. In all, 2.8 billion people-44 percent of the world's population-live in Free states in which a broad array of political rights are protected.
There is also growing evidence that most countries that have made measured and sustainable progress in long-term economic development are also states that respect democratic practices. This should hardly be surprising as competitive,
multiparty democracy provides for the rotation of power, government transparency, independent civic monitoring, and free media.

These in turn promote improved governance and impede massive corruption and cronyism, conditions that are prevalent in settings where political power is not subject to
civic and political checks and balances.
The expansion of democratic governance over the last several decades has important implications for the United Nations and other international organizations. Today, states that respect basic freedoms and the rule of law have
greater potential than ever before to positively influence global and regional institutions. But they can only achieve that potential within international bodies.

Introduction

Nowhere is the need for international democratic cooperation more essential than in Geneva at the UN Commission on Human Rights.
In 2002, Freedom House and the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations sponsored an Independent Task Force on the United Nations that recommended the establishment of a democracy caucus at the UN to promote the values of human rights and democracy and to ensure that countries committed to respect
for these fundamental principles occupy leadership positions within the UN system. We therefore strongly applaud the creation of a UN Democracy Caucus under the leadership of Chile. We hope that this year the Democracy Caucus
can play an important role in placing under scrutiny and criticism the rights practices of many of the countries identified in this report as among the 'worst of the worst' in their rights practices. By focusing on specific countries with the worst records in terms of rights, the UN Democracy Caucus can contribute to reinvigorating UN human rights system, which many observers believe is suffering a crisis of credibility as a result of it past record of inaction against gross human
rights violators.
Freedom House distributes this information about the 'most repressive' societies in the hope that it will spur the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN Democracy Caucus to condemn and take determined and principled action
to improve the deplorable rights situation in these countries. We express our support for the courageous human rights defenders engaged in struggles for dignity and freedom, who work at great risk to hasten the day when dictatorships will give way to genuine pluralism, democracy, and the rule of law.
Jennifer Windsor
Executive Director
Freedom House
March 2005
----------------------------------
North Korea
Political Rights: 7
Civil Liberties: 7
Status: Not Free

Overview:
North Korea's foreign relations continued in 2004 to center around the rest of
the world's efforts to engage the isolated Asian nation in talks about its selfproclaimed
nuclear weapons program. No real progress on the issue had been
made as of late 2004, as several rounds of talks held throughout the year produced
empty promises. In September, a huge explosion suspected of being a nuclear
test was reported.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was established in the northern
part of the Korea Peninsula in 1948 following three years of post-World War II
Soviet occupation. At independence, North Korea's uncontested ruler was Kim
Il-sung, a former Soviet army officer who claimed to be a guerrilla hero in the
struggle against Japan, which had annexed Korea as a colony in 1910. North
Korea invaded South Korea in 1950 in an attempt to reunify the peninsula
under Communist rule. Drawing in China and the United States, the ensuing
three-year conflict killed as many as two million people and ended with a
ceasefire rather than a peace treaty. Since then, the two Koreas have been on a
continuous war footing, and the border remains one of the most heavily militarized
places in the world.
Kim Il-sung solidified his power base during the Cold War, purging rivals,
throwing thousands of political prisoners into labor camps, and fostering a
Stalinist personality cult that promoted him as North Korea's 'Dear Leader.'
The end of the Cold War, however, brought North Korea's command economy
to the brink of collapse, as Pyongyang lost crucial Soviet and East Bloc subsidies
and preferential trade deals.
North Korea
56 The World’s Most Repressive Regimes
Kim's death in 1994 ushered in even more uncertainty. Under his son, the
reclusive Kim Jong-il, the regime has maintained its rigid political control but
has taken modest steps to free up North Korea's centrally planned economy.
During the initial years of Kim Jong-il's rule, the situation grew even bleaker as
natural disasters, economic mismanagement, and restrictions on the flow of
information combined to kill an estimated one to two million North Koreans
between 1995 and 1997, according to the U.S. State Department.
The threat of acute famine has receded thanks in part to foreign food aid, but a
2002 UN study found that more than half the population suffers from
malnutrition. Moreover, North Korea's state-run health system has all but
collapsed, hospitals lack adequate medicine and equipment, and clean water is
in short supply because of electricity and chlorine shortages.
Against this backdrop, the economic reforms launched in July 2002 have made
life tougher for ordinary North Koreans by igniting inflation and increasing
unemployment. While the regime eased price controls, many of the promised
salary raises designed to offset the higher prices have not materialized. The
government has given factories more autonomy and has also allowed farmers to
set up small markets in cities, something it has quietly tolerated for decades in
the countryside. These markets now sell consumer goods as well as food. There
is no expectation, however, of more far-reaching market reforms. The regime is
adamantly opposed to any measures that would grant North Koreans significantly
greater control over their daily lives, for fear of undermining its tight grip on
power.
In September 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the North Korean
Humanitarian Act of 2004, which bans non-humanitarian assistance to North
Korea due to the country's dismal human rights record. North Korea criticized
the bill the following month, claiming that it 'will pose a bigger obstacle at the
six-party talks to solve nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula'.
Tension over North Korea's nuclear weapons program was renewed in October
2002, when Pyongyang admitted to having a nuclear weapons program, and
has remained unabated since then. In December 2002, North Korea threw out
international inspectors monitoring its Yongbyon nuclear reactor. In 2003,
Pyongyang not only made a series of boasts about its alleged nuclear capabilities
and threatened to test a nuclear weapon, but also pulled out of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
North Korea
Freedom House 57
International observers' worst fears seemed confirmed in September 2004 when
a huge explosion was reported within the country. The North Korean foreign
minister subsequently said that the explosion was merely the demolition of a
mountain for a power project, not a nuclear test. Many analysts believe, however,
that the greatest threat posed by North Korea is not an actual nuclear bomb, but
the country's potential to sell plutonium to rogue states or terrorists for hard
cash. In September 2004, North Korea postponed indefinitely the latest round
of six-nation talks (including South Korea, the United States, Russia, China,
and Japan) on the issue. No new date for the talks had been set as of November
2004, but North Korea did issue a statement in that month indicating that it
would be 'quite possible' to resolve the conflict if the US agreed to co-operate
the with Communist regime rather than trying to destroy the entire system. The
statement, the first since the re-election of U.S. President Bush in early November,
was seen as something of a conciliatory gesture.
Political Rights and Civil Liberties:
North Korea is a dictatorship and one of the most tightly controlled countries in
the world. The regime denies North Koreans even the most basic rights, holds
tens of thousands of political prisoners under brutal conditions, and controls
nearly every facet of social, political, and economic life.
Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader since 1997, and a handful of elites from
the Korean Worker's Party (KWP) rule by decree, although little is known about
the regime's inner workings. Kim is formally general secretary of the KWP,
supreme commander of North Korea's 1.1 million-strong army, and chairman
of the National Defense Commission. This last post has been the 'highest office
of state' since the office of president was abolished in 1998. North Korea's
parliament, the Supreme People's Assembly, is a rubber-stamp institution and
meets only a few days each year. Parliamentary and local assembly elections were
held in 1990, 1998, and, most recently, in August 2004. The elections were
not free, and in the most recent elections, the Central Election Committee
reported that Kim received 100 percent of the vote of his constituency. The
government has created a few minority parties for the sake of appearances, but
they do not fulfill any real electoral role.
North Koreans are subjected to intense political and ideological indoctrination.
According to the U.S. State Department's human rights report for 2003, released
in February 2004, 'the cult of personality of Kim Jong Il and his father and the
North Korea
58 The World’s Most Repressive Regimes
official juche ideology has declined somewhat, but remained an important
ideological underpinning of the regime, approaching the level of a state religion.'
Juche refers to a national ideology of self-reliance (the country is totally dependent
on foreign aid); it is imparted to citizens through the school system, the statecontrolled
media, and work and neighborhood associations.
North Korea was not ranked by Transparency International in its 2004
Corruption Perceptions Index.
Press freedom does not exist in any sense. The KWP controls all cultural and
media activities, and practices extensive censorship. Foreign media broadcasts
are banned.
The 'freedom of religious belief' guaranteed by the constitution does not exist
in practice. Persons practicing unauthorized religious activity are subject to
harsh punishment. Academic freedom is likewise nonexistent.
Although the constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, the
government maintains a highly developed system of official discrimination.
Individuals are accorded security ratings, termed either 'core,' 'wavering,' or
'hostile' in terms of their loyalty to the regime. Nearly all facets of life, including
employment and educational opportunities, residence, access to medical facilities,
and severity of punishment in case of legal infractions, are determined by the
rating. The government rates its subjects on the basis of the reports of a huge
network of informers. It monitors all correspondence and communication, and
can subject entire communities to security checks.
The law bans independent civic, human rights, and social welfare groups.
Unauthorized public meetings are forbidden, and there are no known associations
or organizations other than those created by the government. The government
controls all labor unions. Strikes, collective bargaining, and other basic organizedlabor
activities are illegal.
North Korea does not have an independent judiciary and does not acknowledge
individual rights, emphasizing instead 'socialist norms of life' and a 'collective
spirit.' Little information is available about specific criminal justice practices, as
outside observers are generally not tolerated. Security forces are known to commit
the most serious human rights abuses. Reports of arbitrary detentions,
disappearances, and extrajudicial killings are common; torture is widespread
and severe. The crimes for which capital punishment is the mandatory penalty
are so broadly defined-'opposing socialism,' for example-as to render them
North Korea
Freedom House 59
effectively 'subjective criteria' rather than actual crimes, in the words of the UN
Human Rights Committee. Starvation, torture, and execution in prisons are
common, and because the government prohibits live births in prisons, forced
abortions and infanticide are standard practices. The government engages in
collective punishment, whereby an entire family can be imprisoned if one member
of the family is accused of a crime. The regime also runs a network of 'reeducation
through labor' camps that are notorious for their brutal and degrading
treatment of inmates. In November 2004, refugees fleeing the country reported
the occurrence of systematic medical and scientific experimentation on political
prisoners.
Freedom of movement does not exist. Although internal travel rules have been
relaxed to the extent that citizens are now allowed to travel beyond their home
village, this means little in practice because very few citizens have had any means
of transportation. Permission to enter Pyongyang is tightly controlled. Exit visas
are issued only to officials and some artists, athletes, academics, and religious
figures. Emigration is illegal, and defection and attempted defection are capital
crimes.
Despite recent market reforms, North Korea's economy remains centrally
planned. The government assigns all jobs, prohibits private property, and directs
and controls nearly all economic activity. Besides being grossly mismanaged, the
economy is hobbled by creaking infrastructure, shortages of energy and raw
materials, and an inability to borrow on world markets or from multilateral
banks because of sanctions and a past foreign debt default.
Little is known about how problems such as domestic violence or workplace
discrimination may affect North Korean women. There were widespread reports
of trafficking of women and girls among the tens of thousands of North Koreans
who have recently crossed into China.
[ 2005-10-29, 23:26 ] 조회수 : 396