POSITION PAPER

DELEGATE

: Laras Ayu Sekartaji

COUNTRY

: Democratic People's Republic of Korea

COMMITTEE

: General Assembly Social, Humanitarian, and

Cultural Committee (SOCHUM)

Topic Area 1: Mainstreaming Peace Education to Counter Violent Extremism

No country is immune to the threat of terrorism; it is real, pervasive and multifaceted, and should
be carefully assessed to ensure that it is neither exaggerated nor minimized. As the number of
international terrors conducted by groups of extremist grows even rapidly in past years, the
world begins to evaluate the effectiveness of measures that have been taken to combat such
crimes. In recent years, the role of education in countering violent extremism has gained
prominence among policymakers and practitioners. Tackling violent extremism through
education is reflective of a broader international shift toward terrorism prevention and the need
to identify the enabling environment for extremists to disseminate their ideologies and recruit
supporters.1
CURRENT CONDITION AND POSITION
In the context of international terrorism, one thing should be made clear: the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea is not to be associated with any terrorist attacks nor should we be accused in
financially sponsoring any terrorist groups. Publications or dissemination done by some states
which claim otherwise are groundless and becoming proofs of slander towards the DPRK. As it
was stated in the beginning, terrorism is a grave threat to all of the international community;
pointing fingers to blame, especially when its pointed towards an entirely innocent parties,
would not be the solution more than it serves merely as political means for some states to
continuously demeaning the DPRK.
Set the blaming game aside, more fundamental issues demand indispensible responds of the
international community on a broader context of the matter, violent extremism. The
understanding of reasons and process as to how an individual would be associated with violent
extremism has become extremely nuanced. Consequently, approach in countering terrorism and
extremism have dynamically changed while evidences become more diverse. History have
shown that social and economic inequalities, drastic cultural shift or imposition by external
parties, and manipulated teachings of religions or a revolutionary-based idealism are proven to
be the contributive factors in driving ones decision to commit violence to reach their personal
interest. Incentives and measures which continuously changed throughout times but still resulting
failures to suppress the activity of recruitments and the successful propaganda of those extremist

http://www.hedayah.ae/pdf/role-of-education-in-countering-violent-extremism-meeting-report.pdf

groups show how much we want to understand the complexity of the matter, and the lack
thereof.
The DPRK sees that failures on behalf of the government to restraint growing radicalism within
its society as an underlying problem that needs an imperative solution. Any given opportunities
allowing the radicalization of an idea and/or opinion to take place inside the country will give a
better chance for extremists to develop. Collective supports of these groups could in time result
as a dangerous power which undermines the sovereignty of the state and legitimacy of the ruling
government. As a country that highly values nationalism and unity between the government,
society, and military, it is our utmost aim to preserve order for the public benefits. Incentives to
nurture patriotism in the heart of our citizens can be achieved through education as its medium.
The process needs to be inclusive, sustainable, and conducted on individual, community, and
national level as it is the true objective on any peace-building movements. The importance of
national loyalty and responsibility for public benefits will be the ideology which surpasses any
opposing radicalism or potential extremism.
PROPOSED ACTIONS AND SOLUTIONS
Violent extremism is a complex problem that requires complex solutions, of which education
could be one tool in countering violent extremism.2 However, first and foremost, we must
address the issue in a more holistic manner. Comprehensive analysis regarding the recruitment
process, psychological and social studies on the nature of those violent extremists needs to be
established to serve as grounds of policy-making which follows. Then, in incorporating strategy
of counter violent extremism in education system, there has to be a sustainable curriculum of
which the materials being taught are relevant, neutral, and evidence-based. More importantly, it
needs to be flexible and up for each state to decide adjustment of the materials, if it is felt
suitable or necessary to be coherent with national values. Enforcement of any political values
from external parties would not be accepted by the state. Only through this approach the
implementation of peace education can synergize with national interest. For a sustainable
conduct, all stakeholders in the peace education provision need to be well-equipped with an
adequate understanding of the issue. Capacity-building for teachers can be achieved through
seminars, conferences, and trainings. In regards to that, there has to be uniformity and coherence
between the government, schools, or any community-based teachings as to what values should
be imposed.

Ibid

Topic Area 2: Promoting Responsible Freedom of Expression

Human rights, including the freedom of expression, are inherent and fundamental to all of
mankind. For 67 years, this has been legitimized in the adoption of Universal Declaration of
Human Rights by the United Nations. As a democratic country, the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea believes in the same spirit of the declaration. However, the core question that
challenge the idealism today is should there be limitations to those rights, and to what extend do
those rights stand while concerning the current conditions and objectives of a state. We believe
that a greater benefit for the state and the society should always rise above ones personal
interest. Particularly, constraints for freedom of expression are to be determined by the state as
long as it were provided by law, valued as necessary and made for a legitimate aim. Only by then
a responsible freedom can be achieved in the context of citizenship.
CURRENT CONDITION AND POSITION
The DPRK constitution has protected the freedom of expression for all of our citizens as they are
entitled to receive information approved by the state. We concede that the practice of democracy
and such exercise of freedom of expression in our country are not identical to what is being
perceived as the norm in other democratic states. However, this is precisely how the government
of the DPRK fulfills its obligation to set the limitations of freedom of expression accordingly to
the states interest. Our parameter of the necessity and legitimacy of aim to conduct such
limitation is the possible harms that certain information can cause to jeopardize the national
security and stability. For that sake, we are not allowing any flow of information to distort our
citizens nationalism which potentially inflicts radical views against the state. The DPRK has the
final interest of preserving public order and political, social, and economic stability of the state.
Thus, to maintain the practice of freedom of expression with suitable limitations in the DPRK
should be a valid policy made by the government. Disappointingly, some states chose to
undermine this basic sovereignty and instead value the condition in our country as a shortcoming
which called for international intervention. Since last year there has been an overwhelming
amount of publications made by the external parties which characterized the DPRK as a violator
of human rights freedom of expression of its citizens. We perceive such actions to be the
product of political confrontation and vicious slander of the hostile forces against the DPRK and
it has nothing to do with the genuine promotion of human rights. Those malevolent efforts to
continuously demeaning the government of DPRK through accusations and intervention would
only further cost our trust to the international community. What is clear is that we are not going
to sacrifice our sovereignty and legitimacy of our government by conforming to those unfair
partial judgments.
PROPOSED ACTIONS AND SOLUTIONS
The lack of consensus in determining the parameter of violations to the rights of freedom of
expression remains as an underlying issue that should be tackled. A general understanding of the

matter and that every states have different conditions will reduce the potential bias between
Member States. The key to a better approach to promote freedom of expression in a balanced
manner in all states is for the resolution to take the states condition and interest into account.
The basic principle of the rights of freedom of expression provision should be an equivalent
responsibility of all states. However, it should not violate each states supremacy and undermine
the legitimacy of its governance. All measures, including international intervention, which called
for accountability in the provision of rights by the state, should be based on the urgency to fulfill
peoples will in the DPRK as opposed to a political means by external parties to enforce their
idealism into our country. There also has to be clear limitations to ensure a responsible conduct
of freedom of expression, especially of speech, which becomes subject to abuse. A balance must
be struck between the ability of individuals to be unrestricted in the free expression of thoughts
and ideas, and the need to ensure that governments are able to efficiently carry out their function
of administration, law and order, and preserving the rights of individuals vis--vis each other.3

LJM Cooray. Human Rights in Australia. 1985. Freedom of Speech and Expressions,
http://www.ourcivilisation.com.