 Well, after that seamless transition, we'll move to our first panel. This panel is the UNCOI report in perspective. The focus of this particular panel is to look in retrospect at what has been accomplished since the release of the UN Commission of Inquiry's report, as well as look forward at the tasks and challenges ahead to maintain momentum and implement the recommendations. We have about the most appropriate panel I think you could find in the world on this question. Ambassador Hee Jung-Hoon, the Republic of Korea Ambassador for Human Rights. Judge Michael Kirby, who as you all know led the UN Commission of Inquiry report. Ambassador Robert King, the United States Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. And then Commission Member Sonia Becerco, who was one of the members of the Commission of Inquiry report that was released actually a year ago today. So to begin, the first question will go to Judge Kirby. And what I wanted to ask you, Michael, was it's been quite a year for the Commission of Inquiry report. And I wanted to get a sense from you. What has it been like for yourself in terms of the report as well as any comments you would like to make about the recent revelations in the news about the questions about defective testimony and things of this nature? So if you'd like to begin, Michael, we'd appreciate it. Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for having me at this very important anniversary session. Life is a journey, and the journey can be full of joy and full of sorrow. And so the last year has been full of successes, but also a number of failures. If you ask me to reflect upon the last year since we delivered our report in Geneva, I would say that there are some things that we can certainly count as important successes. The first was the creation of the COI in the first place. These things don't have to happen, but it was done. And it was done, I think, with a very large part from civil society. And they appointed three people who happened to be from different parts of the world, different cultures. But we got on well together. We worked hard together. We delivered our report, and it came in within time, within budget, and it was unanimous. And I think it has stood the test of time of the last year. We had an outstanding secretariat. It's important to say that because the UN comes in for quite a lot of criticism. Some of it quite justified. But we had an outstanding, hardworking, diligent, honourable, professional secretariat. We adopted a methodology which was unusual for United Nations. Fundamentally, it was an Anglo-American methodology of public hearings. That's the way we do it, and we agreed to do it. And I think in retrospect it was extremely wise. It's been made wise by the revelations of Mr. Shindong Yook concerning parts of his testimony. The answer to those who lay too much store on Mr. Shind's testimony is to say, sit down and watch hour after hour after hour of the testimony of the witnesses. As a person who was a judge in my own country for 34 years. It's important to tell you that hearing testimony over a long time makes you very cautious about the evidence of anybody, anybody. You don't believe anybody's testimony just because they say it. You have to be very comfortable and sure. And the members of the COI will tell you that we were comfortable and sure of the recommendations and conclusions we put before the international community and the UN because the testimony was far more than the testimony of Mr. Shindong. American media might build Mr. Shindong up to be a big celebrity. That is not the way an inquiry of the United Nations works. You look at all the testimony and you judge it on its merits. The report was readable. Now that's a very unusual thing in UN reports. It's readable because we took pains to weigh every word to make it comfortable. Comfortable in the English language and I hope in the translations, especially into the Korean language that it's a readable report. There were very strong votes of the United Nations. The Human Rights Council, 30 members of the Council supported the strong resolution that followed. That's a very big vote in the Human Rights Council. The General Assembly, 116 states against 20. And in the Security Council, 11 of the 15 states in the Security Council supported the resolution to put this matter of human rights in North Korea on the agenda. A very powerful voice, a procedural motion and therefore not susceptible to the veto. A field office is being created as we've heard from Mr. Dorisman, the mandate holder and that will be created next month in March in Seoul. And the DPRK is clearly stung by what the Commission of Inquiry put forward. The fact that they took part for the first time in the Universal Periodic Review and as Mr. Dorisman just said, except 113 of the recommendations. But none of them on the political and civil rights, only in the areas which they thought they could live with. The accountability principle is non-negotiable. We found on a reasonable grounds basis that crimes against humanity had been committed. That is a very serious finding. It imposes on the international community an obligation to make those who are responsible accountable. And we wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader warning him that the officials of his government and possibly he himself might be accountable. These are clear statements and they stand before the international community as a challenge for action. But a very important thing that is very rarely mentioned is we gave the victims, those who came before us, the dignity of a voice. We gave them the opportunity to express to the highest level of the United Nations and to the leaders of the world what they had been through. That's a very important thing in itself. Even if we achieve nothing else, that is something new and strong and brave. So all of those are things that we are, I think, justifiably pleased about. So what are the failures? There was no engagement with DPRK. We tried in every possible way. I believe they had a press conference today saying they should be down here. I'd be quite happy if they were down here, but this is a public session. We have reached out to them and I will go anywhere. The members of the COI, the special rapporteur will go anywhere to engage with them. But they won't engage with us except on very limited terms favorable to them. There's been no real cooperation from China. They were polite. They saw us. They were courteous. But the bottom line was they would not let us go to the borderlands. They wouldn't even let us go to Beijing to speak to the academies and the officials in Beijing. The definition of genocide came up in our report and a disappointment was that is a very narrow definition. It's a 1948 definition and it wasn't wide enough for us to find genocide and we didn't. If we were ever in doubt on this report, we did not make a finding. We held back. This is a prudent, conservative, cautious report, but there was plenty of material on which to make strong findings. One of the things that struck us all in the commission was why didn't the international media really pick up on the issue of religion? Have we got to that point in our societies that it doesn't matter so much nowadays that people of religion, at least if they're people of some religions, are mocked and put down and suffer discrimination and violence and death? Does that not matter enough that that is happening in North Korea? Also, women. Women are great victims in North Korea and we made a lot of points and made findings on this, didn't get much attention. Rights up front, a big policy announced with fanfares. Well, there's a lot yet to be done to carry that forward in the United Nations. Responsibility to protect all the leaders of the governments of the world came together and committed themselves to it. But the responsibility to protect still meant that very important nations who claim to be great democracies and appear to be great democracies didn't give support to the recommendations and proposals of the commission. The Security Council, it's a good thing that they put the issue on their agenda, a good thing, a strong thing. But we made a specific recommendation. It was supported by the General Assembly and by the Council, Human Rights Council, that the Security Council should refer the case of North Korea to the International Criminal Court and that wasn't done. I can understand why they would hold back. They would know that if they pressed forward prematurely, there might be a veto. But eventually, the way the Charter is intended to operate with the veto is those who cast the veto must take the approbrium of the international community for stopping just and proper resolutions from being accepted. And I hope that we will see the resolution for the referral to the ICC come before the Security Council under its procedural mandate so that if it is passed, those who are guilty can be rendered accountable. And if it is not passed, those who stop accountability can answer before the bar of the international community. Finally, nuclear weapons, that's a human right issue too. Uncontrolled nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a very serious and dangerous thing for the people of North Korea and for the people of the Republic of Korea and Japan and others in the region. So that's a human rights question as well. And one thing our colleague, Mazuki Darusman, now the Special Rapporteur, then the Special Rapporteur, always insisted to us, he said, the bottom line is we must make a difference for the people on the ground in North Korea. If we don't do that, then we have not succeeded. And the bottom line is we have not an assurance that what we have done in our report has even got to the people of North Korea. How do we get it to them? That's a real challenge before this meeting today. How do we get it in and how do we get change on the ground? And that is what we should be concentrating for the road ahead. My teacher of international law, when I was at law school, was Professor Julius Stone. And he would often remind us of what the Talmud scholars would teach. They taught it isn't given to any generation to achieve the writing of all the wrongs of this world. But he went on, it isn't our privilege to fail to try. We must try to right the wrongs and the wrongs of North Korea demand our attention and they have to be changed. And we know it, they know it, and the obligation of us today is to chart the road ahead. Thank you, Michael. Thank you very much for that and for putting on the table a number of issues for discussion. I'd like to ask Commissioner Bracerco to give us a sense of what, as we think about the one year anniversary of this very important report, what has been the reactions that you've seen in Europe, among the European Union and other communities to the report and to what extent has it affected views of North Korea in your estimation? Thank you. I think Michael has covered most of the activities that have been going on through UN bodies and the system. I was more focused and will be more focused on what is the perception of North Korea and how they accepted or how they apparently reacted to our report. First to say a few words about Europe, I think the European Union is one of the addresses that North Korea would like gladly to cooperate, especially United Kingdom, and I think this potential should be very much exploited to open up this channel for dialogue and cooperation for more engagement on all levels, economic, social, diplomatic and so on. But I would like to make one short comment about societies as North Korea is coming from a country which is still struggling with changes. I can say that toppling down the leader is not, it's only one personal step. My country is after 15 years of changes, after changes, still struggling with some of the very essential things. Therefore, we cannot expect much in a short time to happen in North Korea. As Birginski mentioned 20 years ago when talking about Arab countries, he said that democratization in such countries require historical patience and cultural sensitivity. And I think North Korea comes into the same group of the countries. What we can see from different sources, and there are many experts and media and so on, that there was impetus on North Korean leadership, first of all in economics here, limited though, but still there are some changes. There is more information coming in the country, there are more diplomatic relations being established. Therefore, there is an opening up, which maybe at this moment doesn't guarantee true changes, but still I think in the long term society we learn to maybe reflect better and in more, how should say, serious way about the character of the regime. But at this moment I think it's very important to engage with this regime, at least with part of the current elite. Because first of all the leader of this country is not so deeply in the crime as his predecessors, so I think this opportunity should be taken up as an opportunity to communicate with this young leader who is probably not in charge of everything that is going on in the country. I also think there is a lot of opportunity to deal with some segments of the society like women and young people, as true agents of changes, like in many countries in the Middle East or in our region as well. And I think that maybe there should be more, I would say, contests with North Koreans who are abroad, especially young people who are studying, many of them are studying in China and some other countries. But I would like also to touch upon the ICC deferral, which has been one of the major successes of the Commission. Much attention was given to it in the UN and the fact that it was in the Security Council is really great achievement. But I think now it is necessary, maybe emotionally, very difficult for activists and perhaps for the Commission itself to balance the hopes of millions of what the ICC might achieve against the real damage that the way to buy Russia or China in the Security Council would undoubtedly do. I think it doesn't mean that this doesn't call for more actions. I think North Korea should be kept responsible in all UN bodies through resolutions and other means, but maybe there should also be, it should be also opportunity to establish other mechanisms, such as informal tribunals, to formal tribunals established by democratic states, that can call witnesses with the view to keeping evidence up to date. Such tribunals, I think in long term, may be a very important, how should we say, way of dealing with the legacy of the Kim regime. Also coming from the country where ICTY and ICJ had enormous work to do, but I can tell you that the attitudes of the societies didn't change much. After 10 years of ICTY and there is very little changes in society's attitudes to the responsibility of my country. Firstly, because political and cultural elites didn't accept to open dialogue in the society to deal with all this evidence which is put forward in the ICTY. And I think this is lesson to be learned from this exercise and this experience that we had, and it means that North Korean society has to be from now on prepared for the changes to come and to enable them to sort of help civic society and other segments of the society to come up with serious work in the meantime in order to be able to open dialogue long term. Maybe commission of truth would be, how should say, mechanism to deal with North Korean legacy. But however, I think that we should all be more open to cooperation in the North Korean, not only leadership, but with society in general. Great, thank you, Sonia. Obviously, two of the countries that have been very involved in this have been the United States and the ROK. And I'd like to go to both of our panelists, Bob King and Yi Zheng Hun, to offer some remarks. Perhaps we can start with Bob if you could tell us sort of how has the administration responded over the past year to the COI, and what do you see are the challenges going forward from US foreign policy standpoint. Let me say one thing right up front. The commission of inquiry was outstanding. There is no question in my mind that the appointment of this particular commission of inquiry, these three individuals, the way they conducted their responsibility, the way they held hearings, the way they produced their report, and the way they've continued to talk about the results of their inquiry, has set the gold standard for what a UN commission of inquiry ought to do. I think there's probably no commission that's had the impact that this report from this commission has had. And I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to these three people for the time, the effort, the energy that they put into that. I want to reinforce or reiterate what Michael Kirby said about the important role of the civil society groups, the non-government organizations that played a role in terms of creating pressure for the creation of this commission of inquiry. They were very important in terms of the role they played, and it's been very important in terms of the follow-up that they have continued to be vested in what came out of the commission's report. A second comment that I'd like to make is that there is a growing acknowledgement that North Korea is not dealing with its human rights problem. There are few countries that defend North Korea. It's interesting when you sit through the sessions in Geneva at the Human Rights Council in New York, at the General Assembly, at the Security Council sessions that have been held on this subject to see who defends North Korea. When you look at the votes, the vote is very heavily, is very heavy and very strong in favor. But when you look at the countries that speak up on behalf of North Korea, I would be embarrassed if those were the countries that were speaking on my behalf. Furthermore, they don't defend North Korea. They simply say we shouldn't single out individual countries. And the result is it's very clear that North Korea has very little support internationally for its human rights policies. When you look at the lists, and there are various groups who put together lists of rankings of human rights records, North Korea consistently comes out of the very bottom of the list. And I think that's recognized, and that's what's happened in the UN has been a full acknowledgement of that fact. The other thing that I'd like to add is one thing that I see that's encouraging is that the North Koreans increasingly feel infeld to respond. To what's happening. Basically, up until eight months ago, North Korea said very little, if anything, about the human rights situation. Beginning in the summer, and particularly September, with the General Assembly sessions, the opening of the General Assembly session, the North Koreans have become increasingly assertive about human rights, speaking out on human rights. It hasn't done them a lot of good, but they felt the need and the requirement to do so. It was interesting, as Marjuki Darrisman mentioned, the North Koreans were much more engaged in the universal periodic review process that they went through last year. They've acceded, they've signed the Universal Declaration on Rights of People with Disabilities. They haven't yet ratified it, but they've signed it. They've recognized that they have a responsibility, and they've acknowledged that human rights, in fact, is a legitimate issue for international discourse. And I think that's a particularly important element that's involved there. The one thing that North Korea faces more than anything else is a question of its own legitimacy. There are two Korean governments, there are two Koreas that claim to be the legitimate government of the entire Korean people, North Korea and South Korea. And when you look at North Korea and you look at what it's done economically, the gross domestic product of South Korea is 40 times the gross domestic product of North Korea. There is a question about the legitimacy of the North Korean government's ability to provide for its people to establish an economy that is successful. When you look at the number of cell phones in North Korea, probably one cell phone for 10 people, South Korea has 1.3 cell phones per person. When you look at these issues, there is a question as to whether North Korea has legitimacy in claiming to represent the Korean people. And I think increasingly the question of human rights over this last year has become part of that question. And when you look at North Korea and you look at what it's done and you look at the lack of support that it has in the international community, there is no question that it does not have the legitimacy that it seeks and that it's claiming. Again, let me say that the activity and the work of the Human Rights Commission has been exemplary in terms of what needs to be done. The recommendations that they've made are certainly the key to moving forward. The establishment to avoid the UN jargon, the office of the soul is, I think, an important step forward that will be helpful. But I think it's also important, and I hope during the course of this conference that we'll be able to discuss other things that we can do to continue to push forward on human rights and putting pressure on North Korea to make progress in terms of dealing with its human rights. I think that's the key to the process. Thank you very much. Thanks, Bob. And I think we will be doing that the rest of the day. I really appreciate that. Thank you. I think they want to fix your mic, too, because there seems to be some static coming off of that. I'm sorry. But don't worry, everybody heard you. So perhaps we can go to Jong-un. If you could give us your view. The Republic of Korea's view is obviously quite complex, quite unique in many ways compared with the rest of the world because of your close proximity and relationship with the regime in the north. Could you give us a sense of what the feeling is, the perspective is in Seoul over the past year in response to the COI and the findings and all that's happened in the UN over the past year? It is indeed a complex matter, a complex question. We do have the issue of continuing to improve the inter-Korean relations and reduce the risk of security threat from North Korea. There is, on the one hand, the continued effort from some quarters of the government to engage in dialogue and to officially bring about negotiations on nuclear issues and otherwise. But having said that, I think it's very clear that the South Korean government has been, from day one, in full support of the COI reports. We've been instrumental in the foreign ministry through the working out of our representative office in New York. Instrumental in helping to bring about the passage of the resolution at the General Assembly, which of course is based on the COI report and the recommendation. And of course we're very happy that it also got adopted at the Security Council as an official agenda. I think when Justice Kirby was in Korea last April, he had the audience of President Park Geun-hye had a very nice meeting. And our president, of course, was in New York in the General Assembly in September last year and gave a speech within which, of course, a very strong emphasis on the importance of the North Korean human rights issues. So it's sort of a dual approach. They're not mutually exclusive. We on the one hand tried to continue with the inter-Korean dialogue, but with a very resolute stance on the importance of supporting the UN and international communities efforts on North Korean human rights. And I think that really is the government's position on this. I might just add, I've already spoken at the welcoming session, I might just add that in the past year since the advent of the COI, I mean there's been a tremendous development in the international community. The civil society, many of whom are represented here at this conference was instrumental in helping to bring about the commission of inquiry and has continued. So I think the momentum has added with the advent of the COI. In London, there's a major law firm called the Hogan Levels, which did a pro bono work to look into the North Korean human rights issue, gave their legal opinion that there's more to what's happening in North Korea than just crimes against humanity. Of course, Justice Kirby mentioned about the COI's take on the genocide, but some lawyers at the Hogan Levels were of the opinion and they came up with about a hundred page booklet report that their evidence is to suggest that genocide could be applied in the case of North Korea. There's been multiple hearings. I was here in Washington DC last June because in your Congress there was hearings and in Canada I believe that the North Korean Human Rights Act is being pursued and hopefully that it will be concluded by end of this year. So a lot of things continuing to develop, but I think to make my story short, I think the most important thing to come out of the COI report is the fact that from a year ago, whenever, whatever country it may be, you're dealing with North Korea, you're dealing with a government that commits crimes against humanity and that's a very, very powerful deterrent in whatever you do with that state, until of course some major changes takes place in North Korea. So I would just emphasize that point that it's not just one small organization but the United Nations through a full year of inquiry and investigation has concluded that in North Korea crimes against humanity, which is one of the worst crimes in international law, is being conducted in that country. So therefore whenever you're dealing with the North Korean government, you're dealing with a government and the people that's committing this crimes against humanity and that's a very, very powerful thing, very important thing. And I think that is probably so far anyways, this is a continuing thing of one of the most important legacies of the COI. Could I say that I pay a tribute to the George Bush Institute for the excellent document which is available here, but one of the unsettling features in that document is it said a poll in the United States showed that only 13% of Americans knew of the existence of the COI, little learn knew what the report had said. And if that is so in a country which is swamped with media, then go to North Korea and how many people in North Korea know about the report. And I at one stage put out a challenge in South Korea, in the Republic of Korea, with all of this technological brilliance in South Korea, how can we jump the border? How can we make sure that the people of North Korea learn about what the world is saying of their country, of their leaders, of the situation? And that really ought to be a priority I think because they are a member state of the United Nations, this is a report of the United Nations, it's been duly made by the United Nations, it's gone to the Security Council of the United Nations, but their people don't know about it. And that is totally unacceptable, so that I repeat the challenge, how do we get the report into the people who are most affected, the people of North Korea? That's something that is partly a political question, but it's also partly a technological question. And I think there's a lot of good sense in some of the recommendations in the Bush Institute document as to what we should do to get the report before the people who matter most, the people of North Korea. Because I think this is a very important question and I think it's very difficult to reach people at this point, but the pressure on the elites, not only political culture, all those who represent regime is extremely important because they are in danger. And people, I think it's a longer term project which may become realistic once you have penetration in the society. You cannot, how should I say, anticipate some kind of mobilizing people on this issue without being in the society. That's why I think the opening up of North Korea and cooperation with North Korea is so important in order to reach people. You cannot reach it from this distance. Thanks. So there, I have two sort of follow-up questions based on that very excellent discussion in exchange. The first is, I'd like to hear from Ambassador Lee. Judge Kirby mentioned the Bush Institute's report citing the low level of knowledge about the COI here in the United States. What about in South Korea? We know the government has been very interested and supportive. What has been the South Korean public's reaction? What have you seen in the media with regard to the COI? And then I'd also like to ask the whole panel, you know, Sonya's raised this very interesting question of how do we engage or there's an opportunity to try to engage with the DPRK directly on this. Judge Kirby mentioned it as well. As some of you may have heard, the North Korean government actually did a press conference last night in New York where they criticized this meeting today and demanded that it be canceled, which only ensured that we were going to have it today despite how much more snow we were expecting. So if I could ask Joellen to address the first question and then perhaps ask the panel to address the point raised by Sonya about direct engagement with DPRK. Right. I think in Korea there's a fairly good understanding of the COI report and what the UN is about. Not necessarily at the time of the inquiry investigation and when the COI came out, but just the fact that this was a process when this issue was discussed through the mechanism of the General Assembly being adopted at the General Assembly. And of course the Justice Kirby gave numbers of how many countries voted for and how many against. All of this was very well reported in Korea. And then of course following the General Assembly, a lot of curiosity as to is this going to be adopted at the Security Council. So I think not just the COI, but what's been followed up as part of the UN mechanism drew quite a bit of interest in South Korea. It's never enough. I mean we have some Korean media here which is great, but I think that as far as we're concerned I wish that there would be more documentaries by Korean media. On some of the stories of the defectors, refugees, on the North Koreans, on the political prison camps, so on and so forth. But hopefully all of this will come as we move forward. I might also add that in the case of how do we get this into North Korea. North Korea I believe has about 2.5 million mobile phones right now. I believe the number of the personal computers, the usage of that is increasing. And this is probably one of the reasons why North Korean government is cracking down. I think you know that they're cracking down not only on these illegal phones, but the regular usage of the phones. I think Human Rights Watch has recently come up with some report on that. So again it comes down to how sensitive the regime is, the North Korean government, on this human rights issue as never before. Which only indicates to me that that information is somehow seeping through. We have to find more ways, USBs, mobile phone, SNS, whatever it is. I think it falls on a lot of the civil societies and NGOs to make sure that somehow we have to find a way to penetrate that society so that the people understand what they are going through. In answer to the question, Victor, I was very impressed when I went to the Blue House. I met the President. She was most charming and forthcoming in her discussion. She really helped to interpret something which I think if you're not a Korean, you don't quite fully understand. And she said, what I must tell you is first and foremost on the mind and heart of every Korean is reunification. If we can get reunification, we believe that all of these problems can be solved. Now, I wonder if it's the love of the Korean people on both sides for each other and the yearning for reunification that makes the Republic of Korea, South Korea, rather cautious about the steps that are needed to put the report and the knowledge into North Korea. In other words, the South Koreans are really opposed to the balloon strategy and the attempts to invade the space of North Korea and put the report and other documentation into North Korea. But really, we have to think of this in terms of the rights of the people of North Korea to know what the United Nations, of which their country is a member, is saying about them. It really is just fundamental that if you're a member of the show, you don't have to be a member of the United Nations. It's not compulsory. You've got to apply and you've got to really stick to the certain basic rules. And I just wonder if there's some hesitation in the Republic of Korea, South Korea, that pushing this point too far will really make the dream of reunification unattainable. And I just feel there's something I'm not quite understanding in the dialogue. And I don't complain about that. And I don't complain about the importance of the love that lies behind the notion of reunification. All of us in our own country think of the United States and the Civil War, what the United States went through. And the love of the parts and the desire to keep the Union was so powerful. So maybe Ambassador Lee can explain this and say what can be done to get this in, because it ought to be a top priority. It ought to be a top priority. They have a right. I might just deflect this to say that actually in the fourth panel there will be further discussions on this than probably from Mr. Jo Gap-Jae. I would, however, just make one slight correction in pointing out that South Koreans are not against sending the balloons to North Korea. It's the opposition party and some of the sort of left-leaning North Korea sympathetic groups in South Korea, there's a very loud voice who are opposed to sending balloons. And balloons, I think it's a very important tool in trying to get some information into North Korea, because there's no other way. I mean, it's such a closed society. Yes, but look, you've got some of the cleverest technicians in the world. You've got 1.3 mobile phones per capita and you've got just across your 100 kilometers from the border and you can't tell me that in North Korea with so many people on the intranet that there wouldn't be a technological way to get into the intranet to get this in if there was a will. I just find it hard to accept that that couldn't be done. You've got very clever people in this field. One thing that I'd like to add is I think there is an effort underway to get this information into North Korea. It's not terribly public, but it's out there. And that is the way you can get to North Korea is via radio. Now, it is illegal in North Korea to have owned a radio that can be tuned. Nonetheless, there are a lot of North Koreans who do have radios that can be tuned. But right now, based on information surveys of people who have left North Korea, people who are temporarily outside of North Korea, we estimate that there are about 30 percent of this obviously unrepresentative sample, but nonetheless 30 percent of the population of North Korea are listening to foreign radio broadcasts. Those foreign radio broadcasts come from three sources and that 30 percent about one third, one third, one third. One third are listening regularly to South Korean broadcasts to North Korea. The South Koreans do broadcast to North Korea. They continue to broadcast analog television because North Korean television sets are still analog. So the South Koreans are making a major effort. And when you look at the overall impact, the balloons that may or may not reach North Korea are far less effective than what people are hearing via radio and South Korean television. The other third, and other third, is U.S. radio broadcasting. We put considerable resources into Radio Free Asia, Voice of America. And again, those are listened to in North Korea. And you can bet that we've spoken occasionally about the report of the commission. Probably more than just occasionally. The third source of outside information on radio is Korean language radio coming from China. Radio that is intended for the Korean population living in China, but nonetheless it penetrates the border and people listen to those broadcasts. So information is getting in. The other thing to keep in mind is that in spite of the negative steps that have been taking place in North Korea, there are increasing number of North Koreans who are allowed to go legally to China for business purposes. And you can't go to China without getting a sense that the world beyond the borders of North Korea is very different than the world inside North Korea. And particularly when you're comparing it with China, which in many ways was very much like North Korea used to be, you can see the change, the difference, the information that's available in that area. And there's a lot more information getting across now than was getting across five years ago or 20 years ago. So there are significant things that are happening as well in those areas. Yes, Anya. I think we shouldn't forget that most of the Korean people are concerned with their economic and social problems. They have been dehumanized for so long. Therefore, any economic benefit they could get like relief of sanctions and things like that would open up for different perception of the Western world international community. For example, Russia has written off their debts recently and they are building up the pipeline down to the South Korea which is okay, geo-strategic consideration, but still it may have impact on the population. And you should never underestimate the potential of propaganda that North Korean media has because they portrayed enemies all the time. So you have to fight with this perception which is there for so long. So I think economic, social and cultural other kinds of communication with society would be also great relevance for the understanding of the outside world. I ask, and we'll go to, we'll take some questions from the audience in a moment, but could I ask Ambassador Lee and Ambassador King to respond to this idea that Sonya raised in her opening remarks about some sort of direct engagement with the North Korean regime on this issue. Is there an opportunity for that? Would you welcome that? I mean, I'd like to just hear the reaction from our U.S. and ROK folks. Well, I might just add, you were earlier mentioning about how the North Korean representative office in New York came up with this press conference statement complaining about our conference. Just several days ago, a week ago in Jakarta, actually I was there with Special Rapporteur Daruzman. We had a North Korean human rights conference in Jakarta to which, of course, exactly the same thing happened. North Korean embassy in Jakarta complained about, why are you holding this conference? Why are we not invited? And in fact, of course, they don't have that limitations where they can come to the conference, so they did. I think about five or six North Korean embassy staff members came to the conference to complain and wanted to be included. I think they had their own sort of video film, who knows what it was, most likely discrediting COI and promoting their human rights, wanted to play that. And even after the conference, they followed that up with lodging an official complaint to the Indonesian government. And of course, we have this, and we probably may not have heard the last North Korean government on this conference either, so there seems to be a pattern and I think we should brace for more of these hackles and complaints from North Korea. But I think by the same token, if they are so distraught by not being included by all means, I think we're fully open to whatever human rights conference they are willing to engage. Maybe if they're so willing that we should hold it in Pyongyang. They complain about political prison camps not existing in North Korea. Well, let's have an international joint investigation committees. They asked for it when they sank the Cheonan ship, if you remember four years ago. And let's see, let's go into these political prison camps, which they claim that they are not political prison camps, and investigate and see what happens. So instead of just complaining, let's put the ball on their court and let's open up and let's have a real dialogue. Let's see what you've got is my take on this. It's good that this is happening actually, that they whose whole strategy was silence. For decades it was silence. And now by reason of what has happened in the last year, they realize that strategy cannot be maintained. So they are asking to be here. I think they should be here. I'm not an agent of the Republic of Korea. I worked for the United Nations and my principle is neutrality. And it's important that we should hear the voice of North Korea, but it's also important we should insist that they hear the voice of the United Nations of which they're a member. And let the word go out from Washington today that the testimony of Mr. Shin Dong Hyuk was a minor element in the testimony. It was referred to twice, I think, in the report of the Commission of Inquiry. It was not a significant part of our work. And if they're in doubt, they should accept the invitation which the COI and the Special Rapporteur have offered to go to Pyongyang to answer questions, to explain the logical insignificance of it in the whole. We would take with us the videos of the hour after hour of the testimony of our witnesses, and we would ask that they do what they are asking to be done for them, that they listen to the voice of the United Nations and hear it and bring it to their people right through the length and breadth of North Korea. Thanks, Bob. You were very much in favor of engagement with North Koreans in terms of discussing human rights issues. The only visit I've made to North Korea since I've been in the current position of I raised with them the issue of human rights dialogue and indicated our interest in terms of pursuing that. We haven't had a lot of success in terms of response from the North Koreans. But we've also sought consciously to encourage American NGOs to engage with North Korea, not just on human rights issues, but also on humanitarian issues. There are a number of American NGOs that are engaged in providing medical assistance to North Korean medical equipment, medicines, training. There are others who deal with providing assistance in terms of development technologies, educational programs. All of these things are kinds of things that we are trying to encourage. The North Koreans make it very difficult. Americans for the most part are not allowed to live and stay relatively permanently in North Korea. They're restricted to visits a few times a year. They're very carefully controlled when they're there. Nonetheless, we've tried to encourage this kind of engagement with North Korea because we think it's an important part of what we need to do with that country. Great. Thanks. We're a little bit behind schedule, but we have time for a couple of questions from the audience. So just raise your hand. We have people with mics going around, and you can just identify yourself. And please, again, given our time constraint, no speeches, just ask your question. Just ask your question, please. My name is Kyung Lee, representing Council for Human Rights in North Korea based in Toronto, Canada. The UNCOIA, COI, cautious and very conservative, as Honorable Kirby mentioned a minute ago, characterized the DPRK as a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world. What it says is, as I understand, North Korea is a totally totalitarian state that doesn't deserve to be recognized as a state, a regime that doesn't deserve to be recognized as a regime. I think the human rights violations in North Korea is no longer an issue to talk about. Rather, it's an urgent task we have to undertake. With that in mind, I want to make note that recently President Obama made remarks. I quote, over time. Could you get to your question, please? Because we don't have much time. Could you have a question? Yes, yes. Could you get to your question, please? Over time, you will see a regime like this collapse, not regime change or regime transformation, ending the regime. I have a question to Ambassador Kim. Can you tell us any roadmap or plan? Automatically, I mean, the U.S. government is scheduling to carry out the President's determination or willingness if you have or if you don't have, why not? Okay, thank you. So is there a roadmap for regime change that you'd like to inform us about? Yeah, exactly. Here's Gaby. And you will tell us. I think what President Obama was saying is reflecting what he thinks is going to happen. But what we are concerned about doing in terms of our policy is when it comes to human rights, focusing on what we can do to expand the availability of human rights to the people in North Korea. And that we are working to do with many other countries through the United Nations and various other agencies. We're also working very hard with the North Korean government to try to move in directions that will move towards the curtailment of nuclear weapons and the nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And those are the objectives that we have and the goals that we're working for. And I think that was the President's analysis of what might happen. Thank you. I can't speak on the American roadmap, but I do think it is important today that we don't, as it were, concentrate only on denunciation because otherwise we're not going to get what Mazuki told the COI all the time. We've got to have a multi-factorial strategy and the people of North Korea deserve that we have some strategy to reach out. And I think we can do well to study Germany. It's not the same. It's very different. But even before the wall fell down in Germany, there were links across the border. They began to open up some telecommunication connections. And there were... Why dentists in North Korea can't meet dentists in South Korea is a mystery. So that what we ought to be doing is looking at person-to-person contacts, which the COI emphasized, didn't get much publicity, but we've got to be building up these links as well as insisting, as international law insists, that those who are guilty or may be guilty of crimes against humanity are rendered accountable. That's one track, but we've got to also look at the track that reaches out and finds the way forward to the hope of reunification, which both sides proclaim is part of their long-term goal. I think that's actually a great place to... Finish the discussion. Thank you very much, Judge Kirby. I want to thank the panelists. We'll take a 10-minute break. There's coffee and other warm liquids out there for you to imbibe. And we'll return for the second panel. Thank you again.