Pyongyang lashes Kirby again

North Korea has predictably lashed out again at its latest bete noire, Australian former High Court Judge Michael Kirby, for repeating assertions that the leaders of the Stalinist state must be held accountable for human rights abuses.

Kirby, who heads a special United Nations inquiry into North Korean crimes against humanity, released a report earlier this year in which he said the regime’s top officials, including the 31-year-old Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, should be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to answer for their misdeeds.

While there is no chance that anyone from the Pyongyang regime will voluntarily present themselves at the Hague, Kirby has followed this up with a call at a UN meeting for targeted sanctions against individuals most responsible for the abuses which, he said, included summary executions, enslavements and sexual violence.

The response from North Korea, presented via the country’s official news agency, was in keeping with its regular use of extravagant language, describing Kirby’s report as “a frantic racket aimed at tarnishing the image of the dignified Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and “bringing down the ideology and social system chosen by the Korean people in the long run’’.

The question is what to do next? Emma Campbell, a Korea expert at the Australian National University College of Asia and the Pacific, believes the West’s options are limited.

Dr Campbell points out that the North is already subject to strict sanctions through its refusal to abandon its nuclear weapons program, and that an even greater crackdown would probably hurt the general population more than its leaders.

Military action would run the risk of devastation on the Korean Peninsula and beyond, while China would almost certainly block referral to the ICC by using its veto in the Security Council.

Dr Campbell puts her faith in more people-to-people engagements in the areas of culture, sport, government and economics, coupled with increased humanitarian aid “to improve the lives of the North Korean population and empower them to bring about change on their own terms”.

While this may be effective elsewhere in the world, Dr Campbell has made the mistake of underestimating the utter ruthlessness of the Pyongyang regime and the lengths to which it will go to preserve its hold on power.

She is not alone. I have previously expressed the hope Kim, who received part of his education in the West, might be a liberalising influence – I was hopelessly wrong.

Instead, the young man has proved himself to be in the best Stalinist traditions by liquidating anyone who might prove to be a challenge to his rule, including his close relations – his aunt appears to be the latest victim.

I fear that any increased humanitarian aid would simply be channelled to reward the regime’s closest supporters, including the million-strong armed forces.

As Kirby states, virtually the only option will be targeted sanctions against individuals, but even these will be mitigated if China chooses to ignore them. Beyond that lies the possibility of support for internal dissidents to destabilise the regime – something Russian President Vladimir Putin is employing all too successfully in Ukraine – if indeed there are any dissidents left that have escaped the regime’s attention.