A draconian anti-DPRK "resolution" on the human rights aimed at seriously hurting its dignity was railroaded through the Third Committee of the 69th UN General Assembly on Nov. 18.

The U.S. and other forces hostile to the DPRK fabricated the "resolution" peppered with misinformation malignantly abusing its genuine human rights policy and, not content with this, even asserted that the DPRK's "human rights issue" should be referred to the International Criminal Court.

This was the most vivid expression of the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK as it was a hostile action against it, a product of the U.S. strategy to bring down the socialist system centered on the popular masses under the pretext of human rights.

Such hostile actions of the U.S. and its followers are naturally compelling the army and people of the DPRK to launch the toughest counteraction to cope with them.

Under the present grave situation where the human rights issue is at the crossroads of sincere cooperation or war, the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies releases a detailed report to lay bare the secret behind such political fraud as the anti-DPRK "human rights resolution" which has no relevance with the protection and promotion of genuine human rights and clarify the responsibility for the ensuing consequences.

1. DPRK's Policy and Efforts for International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights

It is the consistent political stand of the DPRK to make sustained efforts to protect and promote the genuine human rights and positively promote the international cooperation in this field.

The DPRK government has encouraged and developed the international exchange and dialogue in the field of human rights since long ago.

To cite a few examples, a delegation of Amnesty International visited the DPRK twice in April-May, 1991 and in April-May, 1995. It met with law-enforcement officials and prisoners and visited reform institutions and detention rooms, etc.

The reform institution visited by the delegation was just the same as the one where U.S. citizen Pae Jun Ho served the term of hard labor from May 2013 to November 2014.

In May-June, 1995, members of the International Association against Torture visited the DPRK and witnessed its reality.

In July, 1995, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and her party visited our country and were briefed on the DPRK government's policy and measures for combating the violence against women and learned about the reality.

Human rights issue has been included in the agenda of the regular political dialogue between the DPRK and EU since the DPRK-EU highest level meeting in May 2001.

In September 2001 the delegation of Parliamentarians from different political parties of France visited a reform institution and met with its inmates and officials concerned in the DPRK and learned about its reality.

In May 2002, the head of the division for East Asia at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany visited the DPRK and met those who had served their terms in prisons to understand the legal system in the DPRK.

EU, however, made a U turn in its stand of dialogue with no reason all of a sudden in April 2003 when the international cooperation was making progress in the field of human rights, and sponsored together with Japan a "resolution" on human rights situation in the DPRK, the first of its kind, and rammed it through the 59th meeting of the then UN Commission on Human Rights.

This was a follow-up politically-motivated hostile act of EU in the wake of the Bush administration's labeling of the DPRK an "axis of evil," reneging on the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework.

This scuttled the DPRK-EU human rights dialogue. Since then EU introduced anti-DPRK "human rights resolutions" to UN every year, blocking any cooperation with EU which has followed one-sided policy of confrontation.

However, the DPRK has not ceased its efforts to promote the multilateral cooperation in the field of human rights.

The DPRK government submitted the second report on the implementation of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in November, 2003 and took a sincere part in its examination.

It submitted its second report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in June, 2004 and participated in its examination.

It presented its first report on the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in July, 2005 and took part in its examination.

It submitted its third and fourth reports on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in January, 2009 and participated in their examination.

The DPRK took part in the first-cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) under the UN Human Rights Council in December, 2009 and the second-cycle of UPR in May, 2014.

The DPRK signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on July 3, 2013.

It signed the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography in September 9, 2014 and ratified it in November.

The DPRK government has made these efforts under the serious situation where the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK has escalated to the field of human rights.

For example, the U.S. passed "North Korean Human Rights Act" through its Congress in July, 2004, legalizing its interference in the internal affairs of the DPRK and its scenario to bring down its social system under the pretext of "human rights protection".

The keynote of this act is to air 12-hour Korean language broadcasting a day for the purpose of creating discontent with the DPRK government among its inhabitants under the signboard of promoting human rights, democracy and market economy in it, smuggle transistors capable of listening to its programs, lure its people to defect from their country, emigrate or take refuge in the U.S. and give financial and material support for doing so, etc.

The U.S. is spending tens of millions of U.S. dollars every year to implement the "North Korean Human Rights Act" which forces different international organizations and neighboring countries to get involved in it.

Even recently when the U.S. and its allies laid bare their attempt to introduce the "human rights resolution" seriously hurting the dignity of the DPRK to the UN General Assembly this year, the DPRK government made ceaseless efforts for dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights.

Under the situation where the human rights situation in the DPRK was seriously misrepresented due to the persistent plots of the hostile forces, the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies released a report on Sept. 13, 2014 for the purpose of clarifying truth and helping the international community understand it.

The report was warmly welcomed by the international community and it was registered and circulated as the UN General Assembly, UNSC and UN Human Rights Council's official documents for making a comprehensive and objective clarification of the human rights situation in the DPRK where the people became its master.

The DPRK Foreign Ministry in September 2014 declared its readiness to have dialogue over the human rights issue with Germany, UK and other European countries and on Sept. 17 formally expressed its intention to receive technical assistance if the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights provides it.

On Oct. 17 the DPRK formally invited the special representative for human rights of EU to visit the country.

On October 27 the roving ambassador of the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK met the "Special Rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK in New York for the first time and expressed such good will and magnanimity as saying that the DPRK would allow his visit to it if he is sincerely interested in the settlement of the human rights issue.

Some EU countries understood and positively affirmed the DPRK's broadminded efforts and called upon EU to opt for cooperation with the DPRK. However, EU under the pressure of the U.S. finally took the road of confrontation by joining in adopting the "resolution." By doing so, they closed the door of dialogue including human rights dialogue and exchange and cooperation by themselves.

2. Falsity and Reactionary Nature of the Anti-DPRK "Resolution on Human Rights"

The hypocrisy of the "resolution" lies, above all, in that it is based on the "report" of the Commission of Inquiry (CI) on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, a collection of lies and fabrications called "testimonies" made by a handful of "defectors from north Korea" who fled it after committing crimes here or were abducted.

For a decade the U.S. has prodded EU and Japan into ratcheting up pressure on the DPRK in the international arena including the UN and finally cooked up the Commission of Inquiry on the situation of human rights in the DPRK.

CI is a plot-breeding body whose political nature is clear from the background against which it was established.

An anti-DPRK "resolution" on establishing CI was adopted at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March, 2013. It was the time when the DPRK-U.S. standoff was evermore acute due to the sanctions slapped by the U.S. against the DPRK in the wake of its successful satellite launch on Dec. 12, 2012 and the third nuclear test on Feb. 12, 2013.

The U.S. launched a new offensive of pressure upon the DPRK over its human rights issue, aware that it is hard to bring down its social system by sanctions only.

CI made up of three persons was reported to have worked out a "report" in which it allegedly made an overall "judgment and estimation" of the human rights situation of a country and made even a "recommendation" in a matter of less than a year. This itself raises a serious problem in view of scientific accuracy and credibility.

The "report" claims that CI members met about 300 "witnesses" in different countries. But among them there was not a single citizen of the DPRK and none of the members of CI has ever visited our country.

The countries which members of CI claimed visited were such countries as the U.S. and Japan hostile to the DPRK and those persons whom they insisted they met were either citizens of hostile countries or "defectors from north Korea" under the control of the south Korean authorities.

From the outset CI hostile to the DPRK in its nature had no intention to visit it. From its inception CI declared that it would conduct its inquiry mainly on the basis of testimonies made by "defectors from north Korea" and satellite photos.

Chairman of CI Michael Kirby in an interview with Australian broadcasting service on May 7, 2013 said there were a series of press reports about human rights abuses in north Korea but there was a lack of ground to confirm them.

The "report" failed to publish the names of most of "defectors from the north" who made testimonies.

CI made such poor excuse that "confidential interviews" were held to prevent their families from being hurt, a very serious flaw in a document of an international body.

For example, the "report" claimed on the basis of "statement" made by "defector from the north" Sin Tong Hyok that there is a "camp for political prisoners" in the DPRK and "unethical crimes" are committed there. Why did it not feel "worry" about Sin's father living in the DPRK at a time when it opened Sin's name. Maybe Sin is such bete noire who discarded human ethics so completely as having no worry about his real father that he made a false "testimony" that his father was dead.

A video clip was posted on website "By Our Nation" (www.uriminzokkiri.com) to prove false name, career and testimony made by Sin.

Even the author who released a book dealing with Sin's "Story about defection from the north" admitted that recently Sin told a lie about the reason for the punishment of his mother.

The book is the fictional novel that "touched" U.S. Secretary of State Kerry so strongly and sparked off his unusual antipathy toward the present social system in the DPRK.

Whoever has visited the DPRK even once, a man or woman from the West, is not ignorant of the human rights situation in the DPRK.

An Italian lawmaker who witnessed the reality of the DPRK in an interview with Italian Broadcasting Service 24 stated that what Sin Tong Hyok, defector from north Korea, said at a press conference is a lie to get some money and the book based on his lie is on sale, declaring he would not buy such book.

A journalist of Ireland on Oct. 29, 2014 in an article dedicated to the internet magazine The Diplomat said that Pak Yon Mi, 21-year old girl who defected from north Korea, spoke about "the serious human rights situation" in north Korea in tears at the World Youth Summit held in Dublin early in October and BBC, Al Jazeera, Daily Mail and other media gave wide publicity to it, but not a few critics claimed what she said was contrary to the truth, expressing skepticism about her speech.

Swiss businessman Felix Abt who had worked in north Korea for seven years till 2009 asserted that most of the stories told by those defectors from the north were not confirmed and clearly hyped or they were sheer lies.

Denying the claim made by Pak Yon Mi, comparing Dublin Canal with a river in the area where she had lived, that she saw dead bodies afloat over the river every morning, Abt refuted her story by saying he had been to north Korea many times but had never seen dead bodies, showing a picture of children in north Korea wading in rivers with joy.

Challenging the assertion of Ri Kwang Chol, defector from the north, who said there is no physically disabled person in north Korea due to infanticide, Abt recalled that Pyongyang dispatched disabled players to the Paralymic Games held in Inchon, south Korea.

Michael Bassett, who served the U.S. forces as an expert for north Korea in the Demilitarized Zone on the Korean Peninsula for years, said that the story made by Pak Yon Mi, defector from the north, was a sheer lie, that Pak described the human rights situation in north Korea as a "massacre", prompted by her intention to create a great sensation and that such anti-DPRK organizations in south Korea as "Freedom Factory" were behind her. Bassett, referring to the fact that Pak Yon Mi sent him an article refuting his story, ridiculed that her English was too perfect though she was a foreigner.

A researcher of the French Institute for International Strategic Affairs in an interview with the French paper La Croix on Feb. 19, 2014 said that the UN "human rights report" on north Korea is a biased and unscientific report and an unscientific document worked out on the basis of testimonies made by "victims" of the north Korean regime only without confirmation of information through visits to north Korea. In the light of the case in which a satellite photo of a nuclear test of north Korea several years ago was opened to public and proved to be false later, even the satellite photo showing a "management office" of north Korea is hard to believe, and a biased "report" based on rumors or public opinion on the "human rights" of north Korea should not be worked out but attention should be paid to more objective and scientific information, the researcher held.

A vice-president of the Party for Free Motherland of Brazil contributed a statement to the paper Ora Du Pob under the title "A servant of Obama faked up a Nazi report against the DPRK" on Feb. 19, 2014. It said:

"Michael Kirby's basic mission is to fabricate evidence as required by Washington, make persistent and old big lies of monopoly reptile media meeting the U.S. interests sound plausible, spread lies about the DPRK and participate in the international cooperation steered by the U.S. against the DPRK.

Michael Kirby had never visited Pyongyang, met and talked with representatives of the DPRK government. Following without any consideration the theory of the Nazis that if one repeats lies many times, everybody will believe in them, he was only invited many times to visit Seoul where all structures were made to provide 'evidence' necessary for working out the false 'UN report' having 372 pages through interview with persons in Seoul and several 'defectors from the north'."

The reactionary nature of the present "resolution" lies in that it serves as a tool for inciting confrontation, not cooperation, and a war, not peace.

The above-said "resolution" is designed to secure a justification for armed intervention by branding the DPRK as a "tundra of human rights" in the arena of the UN.

History clearly remembers the Yugoslav war which the U.S. ignited under the pretext of "protection of human rights and minority" in 1999.

The gravity of the "resolution" lies in that a dangerous precedent is made to politicize and internationalize the human rights issue of an individual country and use it for overthrowing the social system of that country.

3. The EU bereft of "independence"

The history of the UN knows no such document as the "report of the CI" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK which was fabricated in clumsy and hasty manner.

The EU, too, must be aware of the fact that the "report" has a lot of flaws and requires at least a verification.

The DPRK offered an opportunity for the verification under the situation where there are two conflicting reports thanks to the publication of the DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies' report fully reflecting the DPRK's policy on human rights, human rights regime and the reality of the people's enjoyment of human rights.

This was the reason why we consented to the visit of the UN "Special Rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK and the special representative for human rights of EU and proposed the resumption of the human rights dialogue with EU on our initiative.

But EU said that it discussed the matter within it but a country in the EU opposed it and decided to pass the resolution because of opposition from the U.S. and Japan outside EU and proposed dialogue later.

Those countries opposed it were precisely the ones that have not recognized the state sovereignty of the DPRK where the people are fully guaranteed human rights.

The UN "special rapporteur" on the situation of human rights in the DPRK said at the contact with the DPRK on October 27, 2014 that he would propose EU to delete the issue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) from the "resolution" but a few days later he made a U turn in his stand and insisted that the DPRK's "human rights issue" should be referred to the ICC and his visit to the DPRK be realized.

This is little short of having negotiations with the DPRK while leveling a gun at it.

As shown by the 20 odd-year-long history of the course of dealing with the nuclear issue, it is the stand of the DPRK never to have any dialogue under pressure but to recognize and approach the dialogue based on equality only.

The behavior shown by EU this time makes us think once again of the "independence" oft-repeated by it.

Some years ago, the prime minister of a member state of EU earned an ill-fame as a poodle of the U.S. but today EU has itself created a strong impression that it is just a poodle of the U.S.

How can proper dialogue and negotiations be held with a party bereft of reason and its own principle?

Witnessing the shape of EU bereft of "independence," we cannot but question whether the DPRK's relations with EU have any meaning.

4. Extreme Partiality of UN

The course of the forcible passage of the "resolution" clearly proved that the UN has turned into a theatre of rampage, where everything is decided by the high-handed and arbitrary practices and dollar bag of the U.S., quite contrary to the principle of equal sovereignty specified in its Charter, and the fate of the individual countries might be adversely affected in a moment if they are weak.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, with this year's UN General Assembly at hand, had contacts and dialogue on human rights issue with more than 150 UN member states, except for some die-hard hostile countries.

Most of the member states the DPRK got in touch with were skeptical about the "CI report" and admitted that the document was politicized. While doing so, not a few countries noted that they cannot but take the stand of abstaining from or not participating in the voting for "the resolution" as the U.S., Japan and others threatened them to suspend their economic aid and loan while putting so strong political pressure on them. They asked the DPRK side to regard this as their support and solidarity with the DPRK.

There were many such countries in Asia and Africa, in particular.

Who is opposed to having dialogue on human rights, in actuality, was brought to light during the recent UN General Assembly.

On Sept. 23 the U.S. announced that "high-level event on human rights of north Korea" would be held in New York on sidelines of the 69th UN General Assembly.

Prompted by the desire to set right the wrong opinion and view on the "human rights issue" in the DPRK and help its participants know truth, the DPRK expressed its will to participate in the meeting in the capacity of the party concerned and proposed this to the U.S. side.

The U.S. side said it would give an answer later, after thinking about it for a long while, but refused the DPRK side's participation in the meeting under the absurd pretext that it was "not appropriate" at a time when the meeting was imminent.

By origin, it is a practice and procedural regulation to invite the party concerned with the agenda item to be discussed at UN meetings and all other international meetings.

But it was evident that the U.S., holding a meeting concerned with the DPRK only, had no willingness to agree with the participation of the DPRK, the party concerned, or held the meeting in the backlane in a bid to hatch a plot from the outset.

Are such country and its servants entitled to talk about human rights dialogue ?

Not a few countries asked for understanding that they voted for the "resolution" not because they were concerned for the human rights issue but because the U.S. and Japan threatened them to halt economic aid. This fully revealed what extent the U.S. highhanded and arbitrary practices have reached in the UN.

As a Western personage said, the UN is now becoming an arena where 99 percent of its member nations sacrifice themselves for one percent of its membership.

We do not want anyone's "recognition" as regards the human rights issue and, moreover, do not feel the need to read the face of others at all.

What our people like and what conforms with their requirements and interests is precisely our human rights standards.

The recent farce orchestrated at the UN is a shameless political chicanery to put down justice with injustice and conceal truth with lies and the height of brazenfaced burlesque to deceive the world people with intrigues and fabrications.

The U.S. and its followers are trying hard to bring down the man-centred socialist system chosen by the Korean people, the cradle which they regard dearer than their own lives. This is lashing them into great fury.

Growing stronger are the voices calling for dealing merciless sledge-hammer blows at those who hurt even the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK fully representing its people, which cannot be bartered for anything.

The DPRK will make every possible effort to shatter all "human rights" rackets kicked up by the U.S. and other hostile forces and defend the socialist system where the people are masters and their genuine human rights are guaranteed on the highest level.