Michael Williams, Baron Williams of Baglan

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea are saddened by the death of Michael Williams, Baron Williams of Baglan. Michael was a committed humanitarian, an insightful and authoritative giant of international politics, and great friend of the APPG.

25614543026_6dc963b5b2_o
Lord Williams of Baglan [Credit: British High Commission, New Delhi]
Michael began his career at Amnesty International before joining the BBC World Service as an editor in 1984. From there he moved to the United Nations where he was served in Cambodia as Deputy Director for Human Rights; in former Yugoslavia as Director for Information; Geneva as Adviser to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and New York as Director, Office for Children and Armed Conflict.

Between 2000 and 2005 he was Special Adviser to two Foreign Secretaries and then served as Under-Secretary General, UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon. Michael was appointed to the House of Lords in October 2010 and joined the BBC Trust in December 2011.

Michael was a long-standing supporter and advocate for a BBC World Service for North Korea. We will greatly miss his friendship and passion for promoting freedom and knowledge across the world.

Advertisements

Update: Change of Venue for 2017 International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights

Owing to the pre-election parliamentary recess, the 2017 International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights has changed venues. The Symposium will now take place at Central Hall Westminster (not the Houses of Parliament) from 10:00-18:00 on 18th May 2017.

Methodist Central Hall
Central Hall Westminster [credit: Chris Chabot]
Located directly opposite Westminster Abbey, Central Hall Westminster is a short walk from two underground stations: Westminster (exit 6) or St. James’s Park (exit Broadway) and a 10 minute walk from Victoria train station, a 15 minute walk from Charing Cross train station and a 20 minute walk from Waterloo train station.

The address for Central Hall Westminster is: Storey’s Gate, London, UK, SW1H 9NH. Please proceed directly to the Aldersgate Room.

 

Freeing North Korea: a readiness for responsibility

thaad
A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) test. CC: United States Missile Defense Agency

 

This year has and will deliver continental-sized shifts in the global political landscape. New administrations in the United States and the Republic of Korea, major changes to China’s Politburo Standing Committee, and ongoing political flux across Europe will reposition our known political compass points. But one of the biggest changes looks likely to come from a small corner of north-east Asia, namely North Korea.

Pyongyang’s recent tests of ballistic missiles and the suspected murder of Kim Jong Nam should come as no surprise to global policymakers. North Korea has been on a deliberate march toward nuclear deterrence since the 1960s, while its support and participation in acts of terror have grown in stature and frequency in recent years.

Given the current political condition in which South Korea finds itself, Pyongyang appears to sense an opportunity to cement itself as Asia’s immovable force. The terrorisation of its nationals abroad is a deliberate part of this strategy.

How will our changed world respond to North Korea? Diplomatic overtures in recent years have lacked the urgency, intimate knowledge, and policy coherence which has been required. I have seen first-hand how many states, particularly in Europe, appear to believe that North Korea’s nuclear weapons (not to mention its human rights violations) could be negotiated away for political or economic reasons.

But as Nicholas Eberstadt recently explained to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Sovereign governments simply do not trade away their vital national interests.” It is beyond the realm of reason to think that a North Korean Government that keeps millions in hunger and poverty, hundreds of thousands in concentration camps, has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, violated two International Atomic Energy Agency agreements, two Agreed Frameworks, and six United Nations Security Council resolutions, would willingly negotiate away its only bargaining chip.

“Engagement and dialogue can and do work in many situations. North Korea is not one of those situations.”

Engagement and dialogue can and do work in many situations. North Korea is not one of those situations. North Korea’s rulers cannot put an end to their policies of human rights abuses. Nor can they relinquish their nuclear program. They are not ignorant of the costs of Libya’s rollback of its nuclear ambitions. Nor are they oblivious to the consequences that befell totalitarian regimes who initiated social and economic reforms or lessened their grips on violence.

Calls for negotiations with Pyongyang grow louder by the day, but we must not let reason yield to misplaced hope. The North Korean Government has repeatedly stated that it will not relinquish its nuclear weapons. Why doubt this? For North Korea’s elite, promises of personal wealth, immunity from war crimes, or foreign economic investment count for naught. They have the blood of millions of innocent people on their hands which cannot be washed away. They know that with reform will come retribution.

Given recent developments, the former UK Ambassador to North Korea, David Slinn, posed the question: “Is it possible to even think of negotiating with [somebody] who believes it is OK to use a deadly nerve gas in public in a foreign country?” North Korea’s new tools of lethal intent clearly demonstrate one point: that it will seek survival at any cost. The world cannot continue to endure such an existential threat. It is high-time that we adopt a new and radical approach.

It is taboo, yet entirely reasonable to expect states to initiate policies that seek the demise of the North Korean regime in a controlled and non-violent manner. No status quo can last forever, especially one as catastrophic as that which exists in North Korea, and any effective foreign policy should acknowledge this point.

“No status quo can last forever, especially one as catastrophic as that which exists in North Korea, and any effective foreign policy should acknowledge this point.”

The rise of the Cheollima Civil Defense, an underground and seemingly powerful group that operates inside and outside of North Korea to save the lives of its vulnerable citizens, suddenly allows us place our hope in a revolutionary actor who tells us that change is not just conceivable, for it already exists. This group’s brave actions, which have been supported by the governments of the US, China, and the Netherlands, should be supported more widely.

As a member of the UK’s International Development Select Committee, I know it is vital for a network of international experts to commit to planning the rebuilding of vital infrastructure and services in North Korea. We must learn from cases such as Iraq and put in place rapid response strategies in the event of regime failure in North Korea for food and medical aid; and from Burma, where we have seen that democracy building is a slow, painful process, which requires persistent support over time in a coordinated manner by the international community to promote progress. The governments of the US, UK, South Korea, and European powers are in strong positions to begin this urgent task today.

“The time to speak out against North Korea has, to a certain extent, already been and gone. History will judge those who turned a blind-eye, appeased North Korea, or disempowered the exiled community. Soon, actions and not words may be crucial if millions of North Koreans are to be saved.”

The time to speak out against North Korea has, to a certain extent, already been and gone. History will judge those who turned a blind-eye, appeased North Korea, or disempowered the exiled community. Soon, actions and not words may be crucial if millions of North Koreans are to be saved. Unification, democratization, marketization — these can all come later. First, we must carefully consider how we can help free North Koreans.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the anti-Nazi dissident, proclaimed that “Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” This is especially true in the case of North Korea. When change arrives, governments, civil society, and other stakeholders, including the United Nations, should be ready for the responsibility that Bonhoeffer described. Bonhoeffer was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp in April 1945, just one month before the liberation of Germany. The same fate must not befall those in North Korea’s concentration camps. We may only have one chance to help North Koreans reclaim their country; and it is a chance that we must not surrender.

Fiona Bruce is Co-Chair of the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and a serving Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.

*A version of this article was originally published in the Korea Times on March 28th 2017.

North Korean Diplomats: personae non gratae

Once again, the international community finds itself asking a perennial question: What to do about North Korea? A chain of events has unfolded in the past month-and-a-half which has proved as astonishing as it has belligerent, and the international community is now compelled to take immediate and resolute measures — not only to uphold numerous international laws and norms, but also to ensure the security of North Korean exiles and refugees.

On February 11th, North Korea launched a Pukguksong-2 medium-range ballistic missile aimed directly at Japanese waters, followed by the launch of four more ballistic missiles on March 6th which landed just 300 kilometres west of Japan’s Oga Peninsula. Both were acts designed to perfect weapons capable of inflicting death on an enormous scale.

Yet it is the calculated and cold-blooded murder of one individual, Kim Jong Nam, which appears to have exposed a new and deadly intent of the North Korean regime. Slain on February 13th in broad daylight at a crowded Kuala Lumpur airport with a highly toxic liquid nerve agent that has been classified by the United Nations as a weapon of mass destruction, the murder — if carried out by the Government of North Korea — would be one of the most brazen acts of state-sponsored terrorism and chemical warfare in recent memory.

Apparently orchestrated by a North Korean institution designed to network with foreign governments and non-government agencies, the External Liaisons Department, seven North Korean nationals have been suspected by Malaysian police of being involved in the murder. Four immediately flew to Pyongyang, while the remaining three suspects, one a North Korean diplomat, are still in hiding at the DPRK embassy in Kuala Lumpur.

The refusal of the DPRK Ambassador to Malaysia, Kang Chol, to release the North Korean suspects into Malaysian custody, combined with his unsuccessful attempts to impede Malaysia’s police investigations and a suspected attempt to gain entry at the morgue where Kim’s body was held, rightly led the Government of Malaysia to declare Kang to be persona non grata.

As the international community reflects on this series of events, what is to be done about North Korea’s belligerence and the suspected wider problem of North Korean diplomats acting as agents of terror?

Continued missile launches pose existential threats to us all and North Korea’s military operations must be countered by direct and targeted disruption, in addition to the roll-out of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system and the imposition of yet further and far stronger sanctions. But the gruesome murder of Kim Jong Nam, which is just the latest in a long list of outrages suspected to have been coordinated by North Korean diplomatic personnel, requires a closer consideration of North Korean diplomats and agents across the world.

Operating as potential extensions of Pyongyang’s domestic arms of terror, corruption, and belligerence, North Korean diplomats have the capacity to move freely to conduct illicit activities, organise slave labourers, and execute North Korean exiles — even in Europe.

A recent United Nations Panel of Experts report found “diplomats, missions and trade representatives of the [DPRK] systematically play key roles in prohibited sales, procurement, finance and logistics.” Indeed, I have written in this paper before that such actions make it abundantly clear “that diplomatic relations with Pyongyang are effectively a façade.”

The latest United Nations Security Council Resolution calls upon Member States to “reduce the number of staff at DPRK diplomatic missions and consular posts.” The United Kingdom and other European Union states have submitted their initial implementation reports concerning this resolution to the United Nations Security Council, and we should expect many North Korean diplomats to face de-recognition and a return to North Korea in the coming months.

Of course, a return to Pyongyang is not the only option for North Korean diplomats. The example of Thae Yong Ho, who I met while he worked at the DPRK Embassy in London and who has provided valuable intelligence on North Korea’s illicit activities since his defection, demonstrates the pull of freedom and prosperity over tyranny and fear. The emergence of the Cheollima Civil Defence, a discrete organisation which rescues and evacuates high-level North Koreans, and the recent quadrupling of the reward given to elite North Korean defectors who share intelligence to $860,000 by the South Korean Government, suggests that many more North Korean diplomats may refuse to abandon the freedoms and living standards they and their families enjoy in Europe and across the world.

But for now, the murder of Kim Jong Nam has brought the actions of North Korean diplomats sharply into focus. For far too long, Pyongyang’s diplomatic personnel have acted as potential vehicles for terrorism, murder, sanctions evasion, illicit sales, and the procurement of weapons of mass destruction. The latest United Nations resolution provides states with an opportunity to uphold international law and better protect exiled North Koreans and refugees who now find themselves to be targets of this most brutal regime. Starting today, this is a task that must not fail.

Fiona Bruce is Co-Chair of the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and a serving Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.

*An edited version of this article was originally published in the Chosun Ilbo in Korean on March 28th 2017.

Business Not Quite As Usual

15622126333_3c6a482920_o
UK Houses of Parliament (Credit: Long Road Photography)

In her Statement, in the aftermath of the attack at Westminster, the Prime Minister defiantly insisted that parliamentary business would today continue as usual. During the morning sittings in both Houses, there was a united and wholly unambiguous message that those who would destroy our democracy and fundamental freedoms will not succeed.

But in the sombre atmosphere that inevitably prevailed, it wasn’t quite business as usual. And we always need to remind ourselves that this is not the first, and will not be the last attack on Westminster – both on the buildings and on the values which are its foundation stones.

Nearly forty years ago, on March 30th 1979, on the day after I was elected to the House of Commons in a by-election, Airey Neave was murdered by the Irish National Liberation Army, blown up just yards from where P.C. Keith Palmer – a father-of-two and a member of the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Squad – was yesterday murdered by an Islamist terrorist.

Keith had worked at Westminster for fifteen years and he was one of our gallant band of men and women who protect us and every day greet us, and endless visitors, with great courtesy but who also know that Westminster is far more than a tourist attraction. It is an iconic building that stands for democracy and freedom and is therefore bound to be a target for those who wish to destroy those things and impose hate driven ideologies.

P.C.Palmer’s body lay just yards from the entrance to Westminster Hall – which was subjected to Nazi bombs at the height of World War Two. In 1940 a high explosive bomb fell into Old Palace Yard. In 1941 an incendiary hit the Victoria Tower and a police sergeant showed great courage when he climbed the scaffold and extinguished the burning magnesium with a sandbag. Then the western courtyard was hit and two auxiliary policemen were killed.

Next, the Commons Chamber was hit along with Westminster Hall – built by William Rufus in 1097. As the Commons burnt, firemen with axes broke down the doors of the Hall and as the medieval rafters burnt they pumped in water from the Thames to save the Hall.

P.C.Palmer stands in a long and heroic tradition of extraordinary bravery placed at the service of their country.

If the walls of Westminster Hall could speak they could tell this nation’s history – of its struggles for political and religious freedom, its belief in human rights and its belief in the rule of law. From its construction in 1097, and the first meeting of Parliament in 1265, to the trials of William Wallace in 1305, of St.Thomas More in 1535, and Charles I in 1649, to the lying in State of Kings, Queens and Prime Ministers, there is little that this Hall could not tell us about who we are and what we stand for as a nation.

My first visit to Westminster Hall was as in 1965, as a school boy, when we came to pay our respects to Sir Winston Churchill whose body had been brought to the Hall – and whose leadership saw this country through its darkest hours.

Yesterday, after being locked down for several hours in Central Lobby many of us were taken into the Hall – where hundreds of people waited as events continued to unfold. Here were Peers, MPs, secretaries, researchers, ancillary and catering staff and visitors to the House– the complete diverse mix that makes up the Westminster community on any working day. I wondered what some of the school children, who had been singing songs to keep up their spirits, would make of this their first visit to Westminster. Beyond the tragedy I hope they will be inspired and realise that in every generation the baton must pass to the one which follows.

As the attack was taking place I was meeting with the Egyptian Coptic Bishop, Angaelos. A few months ago he had spoken in Westminster Hall at the annual parliamentary prayer breakfast. During our meeting we had been talking about recent attacks on his church community – many driven out by ISIS killers from the Sinai Peninsula. We talked about the Copts who had been murdered by ISIS in Libya – who went to their deaths refusing to renounce their faith. We were recalling that the last time we had been together was to stand outside Westminster Abbey at a service of remembrance to mark the deaths of 25 people at Cairo’s Cathedral of St.Mark.

Then, one of our Doorkeepers urgently asked us to follow him – and he took us to Central Lobby. Among many we spoke to there was Lord Tebbit – who had survived the Brighton bomb and whose dear wife Margaret had been paralysed by the attack. Bishop Angaelos and I spent five hours in the lockdown in Central Lobby and Westminster Hall. Horrible but nothing in comparison with what happened to those who were killed, maimed or wounded.

At 4.00pm I had been due to chair a meeting on North Korea and I still don’t know if anyone hoping to come into the House for that hearing was hurt but I do know that South Koreans were among the casualties on Westminster Bridge. The intended speaker, who had escaped from North Korea, and his translator, sent me a text to say that they had got safely away.

Yesterday, London had a glimpse of the brutality and unforgiving hatred that fuels a global ideology. But, as Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, reminded us when we assembled in the House later in the morning, hatred need not win. Westminster has withstood far worse, and in displaying traditional British stoicism and resilience, Parliament must also inspire and encourage beleaguered communities, the world over, by displaying leadership and determination in resisting those who would destroy the values for which P.C.Palmer gave his life.

Lord Alton of Liverpool

Opinion: Preparing for Change in North Korea

We are told that North Korea is a Hermit Kingdom ─ mysterious, unknowable, and impenetrable. But this is simply not the case. Those of us involved with North Korea are acutely aware of what is happening within its borders.

We know that a famine, exacerbated by government action and inaction, deliberately starved to death between 250,000 and 3.5 million innocent North Koreans in the mid-1990s. We know that government officials routinely commit acts of torture and sexual violence upon vulnerable women and girls. We know that returned female escapees, who are often trafficked and sold into prostitution or marriage in China, and who become pregnant in the process, undergo forced abortions upon their repatriation ─ lest the ‘pure’ Korean bloodline becomes tainted. And we know that the government runs a nationwide system of concentration camps that hold up to 200,000 people.

These facts should not surprise us, rather they should inform our actions. We cannot afford not to know that the Government of North Korea has committed crimes against humanity for over six decades. To do so would be an abrogation of our duty as compassionate, free, and responsible human beings.

To talk of Yodok and Hwasong concentration camps in the same breath as Auschwitz and Belsen is not an exaggeration. North Koreans, and up to three generations of their families, have been sent to these camps for the crime of being ‘politically impure’ and many have not returned.

North Korea’s horrors should not suffer distance or time. Nor should they be far from our thoughts, because what is happening in these concentration camps is not a part of the past. Terrible atrocities and crimes against humanity are happening today in North Korea, now – as we write this, and even as you read this.

North Korea’s horrors should not suffer distance or time. Nor should they be far from our thoughts…

To this end, the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, which both authors serve, continues to raise these issues. Parliaments across the world have discussed with horror the events that have unfolded in Syria, Libya, South Sudan, Yemen and elsewhere. We have contemplated the suffering of ethnic and religious minorities at the hands of Daesh and other likeminded actors. Sadly, far fewer protest about the atrocious human rights abuses and restrictions on fundamental freedoms in North Korea. This must change.

What must the world do to end suffering in North Korea? It would surely be a suspension of reason to assume that any government which keeps millions in hunger and poverty, hundreds of thousands in concentration camps, withdraws from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, violates two Agreed Frameworks, and six United Nations Security Council resolutions, would negotiate away its security in good faith. North Korea’s rulers will not be oblivious to the consequences that have befallen totalitarian regimes who initiated reforms or lessened their grips on violence.

As difficult as it may seem, there are ways and means for the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea to exercise their leverage over Pyongyang. Stricter and better enforced sanctions on a raft of luxury goods; the dismissal of North Korean slave labourers in Europe and further afield; increasing information inflows to North Korean citizens; and the recognition that diplomatic relations with Pyongyang are effectively a façade, would all have notable effects. We must also do far more to convince China that the economic, political, and humanitarian costs of supporting Pyongyang outweigh any benefits.

Stricter and better enforced sanctions on a raft of luxury goods; the dismissal of North Korean slave labourers in Europe and further afield…and the recognition that diplomatic relations with Pyongyang are effectively a façade, would all have notable effects.

But if there is one strategy that must be implemented, it is this: the international community should prepare for change to come to North Korea. No status quo can last forever ─ especially one as catastrophic as that which exists in North Korea ─ and we cannot afford to wait until the moment of change to react.

Examples from recent nation-state transitions evidence a need for effective preparation. We must learn from cases such as Iraq and put in place rapid response strategies for food and medical aid, and from Burma, where we have seen that democracy building is a slow, painful process, which requires persistent support over time in a coordinated manner by the international community to promote progress.

We must begin to quietly support a meaningful opposition in North Korea. We must support and train North Korean exiles in leadership roles so that they may one day take ownership of their country. And we must build support for change in North Korea among international partners.

Over a decade of concerted engagement and pressure has not significantly altered North Korea’s behaviour. Millions of its citizens continue to suffer untold abuses and hardships, while the regime continues its march towards its aim of comprehensive nuclear deterrence. It is therefore high-time to recognise our failures and to help quicken fundamental transformations inside North Korea. Change will come, that is assured, and we must be ready to help. Let us pay heed to the words of the anti-Nazi dissident, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said that “Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility”.

Fiona Bruce is Co-Chair of the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and a serving Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.

James Burt is Special Adviser to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea and Director of Research at the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea.

*An edited version of this article was originally published in the Chosun Ilbo in Korean on February 14th 2017.

Opinion: Actions, not words, will help North Korea’s refugees

vawg_088no-logo
James Burt, Special Adviser to the APPG, & Lord Alton, Co-Chair of the APPG |  Credit: Human Atlas

*This article was originally published in the Korea JoongAng Daily on February 6th 2017.

Displacement and suffering have shaped the human landscape of the Korean peninsula. Annexed in 1910 and occupied until 1945 by the Empire of Japan, between four and six million Koreans were forced into slavery as labourers and up to 200,000 Korean women served as sexual slaves. Come 1945, twenty percent of the Korean population had been displaced and nearly half a million had been killed.

This legacy of loss and dislocation continued throughout the Korean War and forced hundreds of thousands of Koreans to migrate between the newly formed North and South Koreas. For the people of South Korea, memories of these times are still raw. The ongoing struggles over Japanese apologies, compensation, and how to deal with North Korea all point to wounds that have yet to heal.

But for North Koreans, memories of displacement and brutalisation cannot be confined to the historical record ─ for they are also the reality of life today. A 2014 United Nations Commission of Inquiry established that extermination; enslavement; torture; rape; forced abortions; sexual violence; and persecution on political, religious, racial, and gender grounds are all prevalent in North Korea.

That such abuses continue is surely one of the greatest failures of the modern era’s collective response to atrocities.

One consequence of this failure has been the creation of a North Korean refugee crisis. Since the late 1990s, when significant numbers of North Koreans began to flee their homeland following severe famine, it is estimated that over 200,000 have fled to China. In that time, just 30,000 North Koreans have successfully reached the safety of South Korea, while around 2000 have settled in North America and Europe, including close to 1000 in the United Kingdom.

In theory, the Government of China should accept North Koreans as asylum seekers and extend the many protections granted by the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. It should allow the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees access to screen, determine the status, and protect those in need. And it should not practice refoulement — the forcible return of North Koreans to a country where they risk persecution.

Despite this, plus many other international obligations (namely the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), China deports up to 6000 North Koreans every year. Upon their repatriation, North Koreans, of which around seventy percent are women and girls, face torture, sexual violence, imprisonment, and even execution.

What can the world do to end this illegal situation? The international community have long called upon the Government of China to put a stop to the arrest and deportation of North Koreans, while numerous United Nations speeches and resolutions have called upon the Government of North Korea to respect fundamental human rights. The final report of the former United Nations General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon, noted, “the Secretary-General remains concerned that women who seek to leave or have left [North Korea] are subject to trafficking and sexual abuse…serious human rights violations, including torture and ill-treatment”.

That our words and concerns have failed to protect North Korean escapees is clear. Sitting thousands of miles from North East Asia, and facing the might of the Government of China, it would be easy to see desperate and fleeing North Koreans as a responsibility for someone else. But the issue of North Korean refugees is, ethically and legally, a global responsibility. Where vulnerable escapees face journeys that risk imprisonment or death, we are compelled to provide our support.

The Government of North Korea is the cause of the refugee crisis and should be our long-term target, but engaging the Government of China may provide a more feasible short-term solution. Clearly, Beijing does not want North Korean refugees on its territory, so conscientious states should begin to quietly offer an alternative to China: namely, that their embassies and consulates would, without publicity or fanfare, take custody of captured North Koreans from Chinese authorities and aid their travels to safe havens ─ such as South Korea or Europe. In return, China would gain further leverage over North Korea, end years of negative publicity, and put a foot on the right side of history.

This recommendation may appear improbable or unrealistic. But as Nelson Mandela frequently told us, the most arduous challenges seem impossible until they are conquered. That China would welcome a solution to an internal refugee crisis should not surprise us. Instead, it should encourage us to formulate new solutions. A day will come when all North Koreans are free. Until that day, we must do what we can to help refugees that fall within our grasp.

Authors: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Co-Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea) & James Burt (Special Adviser All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea; Director of Research at the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea).