Recent criticism of the UN Human Rights Office in Seoul, coming from individuals supposedly working towards North Korean human rights, unfairly judges the offices’ work and does not represent the views of the majority of activists in this field.

Furthermore, it is actually harmful to the broader North Korean human rights movement and our shared goal of improving the human rights situation inside North Korea.

In face of all the victories of justice the UN has helped secure in recent years, critics in Seoul have lately alleged the year old Human Rights Office has not been fulfilling its proper mandate of working strictly on North Korean human rights, even spreading deliberate misinformation about its activities. This particular line of criticism suggests that the vague name indicates the inclusion of South Korean human rights issues among its portfolio.

Criticism…is actually harmful to the broader North Korean human rights movement and our shared goal of improving the human rights situation inside North Korea

However, the majority of human rights NGOs are well aware of the character of work produced by the UN Office, while its official website and social networking sites makes it readily apparent to the public that it focuses strictly on the North Korean human rights situation. If the name of the office is really confusing the general public, though, it could of course easily be revisited.

Another line of criticism says the most important stakeholders have been left unaware of the offices’ actual purpose, with the majority of North Korean victims having no idea about its work and having limited access to the office.

Yet if some critics feel the language barrier prevents North Korean victims from having satisfactory contact with the office, they too should know this could easily be resolved. Currently, it is stretched: the office has only one Korean-speaking staff member and given an extensive workload, could clearly do with additional assistance.

The recent campaign also involved submitting letters of protest to media about an alleged upcoming visit of the office to Pyongyang, ostensibly in order to interview the families of 13 restaurant workers who arrived in South Korea in April.

But let’s get the facts straight: this information was not checked for accuracy, and the office has since stated that the media’s information about their visit was false. Yet even if it were true, why should that be an issue? After all, this is how the UN is supposed to operate, in country.

Of course, North Korea, does not recognize the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur for DPRK or the UN office, leaving Seoul as the obvious location, where there are over 30,000 North Koreans who can provide access to vital primary source information.

However, even if Pyongyang were to suddenly invite the entire UN system, there are explicit standards as to how visits should proceed that make the brunt of the aforementioned criticism misplaced. In short, these standards make it hard to imagine that the UN would selectively address only certain human rights problems in any such visit.

So how is the Human Rights Office really doing, here in Seoul?

Since its opening in 2015, I have been present during many of their countless meetings with NGOs, North Korean re-settlers, South Korean family members of victims abducted to North Korea, and members of separated families.

I’ve seen the Office willingly collaborate with activists on a wide-range of issues, including the abductions of South Korean citizens, the issue of women’s rights in the DPRK, and transitional justice, to name just a few.

As such, I know that for North Korean human rights organizations and victims, such easy access to the UN system has never before been possible. Consequently, recent criticism is misguided and harmful to the North Korean human rights movement.

The criticism shows those who launched attacks against the UN office must not remember the emergence of the North Korean human rights movement in the 90s, when it was just a voice in the dark

Above all, the criticism shows those who launched attacks against the UN office must not remember the emergence of the North Korean human rights movement in the 90s, when it was just a voice in the dark in a world that did not care to listen.

It shows they don’t remember when only a few South Korean and international NGOs, joined by North Korean victims, witnessed the first resolution on North Korean human rights, passed by the UN Commission for Human Rights in 2003.

And it shows they don’t recall the meeting with Navi Pillay, then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and thus can’t understand the emotions evoked when she issued her statement calling for the UN Commission of Inquiry.

They don’t remember any of this because they weren’t there.

Yet the COI’s report and the subsequent resolution’s call for the referral of the North Korean government to the international criminal justice – which also established the UN human rights office they today complain about – were important milestones for the North Korean human rights community.

Attacking the very institution that was a hard-earned victory after two decades of campaigning is therefore not human rights-oriented and is divisive. The suffering North Korean population needs our united voice now more than ever.

Main picture: Activist Post