The dignity of Chinese laws

Predictably enough the Chinese are unimpressed with South Korean efforts to shame them into honouring their obligations under the UN Refugee Convention to treat defectors from North Korea as refugees rather than economic migrants:

Beijing is increasingly irked by South Korean efforts on behalf of a group of North Koreans who were arrested in China and face repatriation. In a press briefing on Tuesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei reiterated the North Koreans "illegally crossed the border for economic reasons. There are no sufficient grounds to consider them refugees."

Hong was replying to a question whether China intends to help defectors given that they face persecution if they are sent back to the North.

"Some defectors were sent back because they frequently crossed the border illegally. Some of them had crossed the border a dozen times," Hong said. "No country would tolerate illegal border crossing or criminal activities assisting such people."

"I'd like to say once again that the dignity of the Chinese laws should be duly respected and protected," he added. "China will deal with the issue on the basis of domestic and international laws and humanitarian principles."

Hong complained that South Korean media reports "are taking an emotional and political approach to the defector issue. This neither accords with the facts nor helps in finding a solution."

Hong's reference to "humanitarian principles" is more than a little nauseating given what we know about the likely fate of returnees. 

As Stephan Haggard points out, Beijing is not only ignoring its obligations under the UN Refugee Convention: there's also the Convention Against Torture. Article 3, in full, states:

“No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

A brief read about the North Korean rehabilitation camps should give substantial grounds enough on that score. 

Comments

[Dom]

I know it's a bad habit to read the comment sections, but I always do, and one comment at the last link really got to me:

"Here [meaning Canada] they use credit cards to enslave the masses, China they use a gun."

It's become a trite sentiment, but the triteness is what bothers me. I wonder when people first started thinking this way -- that the highest form of wisdom or open-mindedness is to see no difference between a credit card and a giant gulag of a country? And this comment appeared in an article in which, we are told, 10-year boys are hung over fires until they faint from the pain.

Or this:

"Too bad NK does not have oil - so no reason to 'bring democracy'"

Is there now a generation for which the entire history of the Korean War was washed down the memory hole?

[Mick H]

Well yes: it's a safe bet that in any comment thread on an article critical of a foreign country you'll get someone making some kind of remark on those lines - ie "we're no better".

In this CiF piece on the first ladies of Arab leaders, and in particular Assad's wife Asma - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/28/arab-first-ladies-of-oppression - the most recommended comment, by a long long way, is no.7: "Why not highlight the wives of Western leaders and ask why they stand by their men? Cherie Blair and Laura Bush?!"