In the Sermon on the Mount in
the New Testament, Jesus uses the metaphor of a mere sliver of wood in another
person’s eye being objected to by a person who has an entire plank in one’s own
eye to criticize the hypocrisy that can occur with self-righteousness.[1]
In international relations, it is much easier to see abuses of human rights in
another country than in one’s own. Mixing metaphors, it can be said that people
in glass houses should not throw stones because one may come back to bite. Generalizing
from particular abuses of human rights, the refusal of national governments to
give up some governmental sovereignty so an assembly “with teeth” could go in
and arrest abusers within a country in violation of protecting its residents’
human rights means that we are all guilty of insufficient political action. The
UN pales next to such an assembly, yet, at least as of 2026, it is the best we
have.
In 2025, the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights said “that human rights in North Korea” had “shown
no improvement over the past decade and had in fact worsened in many cases.”[2]
Nevertheless, on 5 November 2026, North Korea’s state media “lashed out at the
European Union over its draft UN resolution addressing human rights” abuses in
North Korea.[3] The
fact that the country’s dictatorship had long been accused of “running prison
camps and severely restricting freedom of expression and access to information”
and the UN General Assembly had passed resolutions against North Korea every
year since 2005 did not phase the North Korean government officials who accused
the Europeans of submitting a draft resolution that is a “farce” and a “politically-motivation
provocation” by “flagrantly distorting the human rights policy and situation of
the DPRK.”[4]
Even the use of such hyperbolic language discredits the Korean response. Even
the veneer of official government-speak was lacking in Korean response: “The EU
had better mind its own business, instead of hyping up the non-existent ‘human
rights’ issues.”[5]
The Koreans were on more solid ground, albeit again steeped in exaggeration, in
retorting: “In cities across Europe, from Paris to Brussels . . ., streets are
filled with demonstrators from all walks of life demanding such elementary
rights as the rights to existence.”[6]
Although the rioting has pointed to deep frustration, protesting the deplorable
condition of some schools and for a livable wage is not comparable to
protesting, were it allowed in North Korea, against so many citizens being held
in political prison-camps in forced labor.
The response of the North
Korean government would have been more credible had the media statement
included the paralyzing impact on the E.U. of political differences between
E.U. states on how (or even whether) to respond politically and economically to
Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and officially-condoned violence against Palestinian
property-owners in the West Bank. Ironically, North Korea could claim the moral
high ground in that respect. Whereas the E.U. had an ongoing trade agreement
with Israel in 2026 even though Israel was violating the human-rights stipulation,
North Korea did not recognize the state of Israel, and even considered it to be
a “terror project” engaging militarily in crimes against humanity while being
supported politically, financially and militarily by the U.S. so the crimes
could go on with impunity. Even the E.U.’s lack of sufficient unity on Israel effectively
enabled the genocide and violence by Israelis in the West Bank. North Korea
could even have pointed to the stubborn refusal of the governors of E.U. states
to give up the veto that each held in the European Council and the Council of
Ministers as keeping the E.U. to adopt a policy critical of Israel with economic
sanctions.
Therefore, North Korea’s reply
to the E.U.’s draft resolution critical of North Korea could legitimately have
suggested that the Europeans focus on standing against the genocide and, as a
way to begin to take up that task, to reform the E.U.’s basic law by
eliminating the state veto in the two federal councils that represent the state
governments. The conflict of interest facing governors of states unwilling to
give up their veto power at the federal level could have been exposed as itself
unethical, and indirectly as standing in the way of the E.U. opposing Israel.
As bad as the human right violations likely were in North Korea at the time, it
is interesting that the North Korean dictatorship was out-performing the E.U. in
regard to opposing the perpetuation of crimes against humanity by the Israeli
government. That the U.S. was actively enabling Israel even militarily during
the genocide and decimation of entire cities in Gaza supports North Korea’s
point that the West did not hold a monopoly even just in standing for human
rights. Rather than pointing fingers, the E.U. and North Korea, and even the
U.S., could alternatively have been working together where practicable to take
out or at least weaken state actors committing crimes against humanity within
their borders with impunity. Because such cooperation was in short supply,
whereas pointing fingers was more attractive at least through 2026, the
rationale for an international, semi-sovereign political body with sufficient military
muscle to combat abusers of human rights can be understood.
2. Gavin Blackburn, “North Korea Tells EU to ‘Mind Its Own Business’ after Draft UN Resolution on Human Rights,” Euronews.com, 5 November 2026.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
