Is Kim Jong-un progressive?

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, center, attends a parade to celebrate the 110th birth anniversary of its late founder Kim Il-sung, at the Kim Il-sung Square in Pyongyang, North Korea, April 15, in this photo provided by the North Korean government. AP-Yonhap

By David A. Tizzard

As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s, I've generally understood human rights to be a good thing. Freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, and to not discriminate against people on a political, racial, gender, sexual, or class basis are good for us and the people around us. The basic ideology being that everyone's equal and deserves a fair crack of the whip. At the same time, I've been cognizant of the social construction of human rights and how some see them as a political tool.

Nevertheless, when you throw aside all the tankie posturing, I would suggest most of us want to inhabit a society where we can travel freely without government interference. We want to live in a world where our thoughts and speech are not regulated by a Ministry of Ethics. We want to be free to call the god our culture worships a scallywag. When it comes to the freedoms we desire for ourselves, they are countless. Sadly, not everyone has such liberties. Moreover, those that do are often unaware of how and through what sacrifices these freedoms were achieved.

For the sake of argument, let's start from the position that freedom of thought and movement are, if not innate, a generally good thing for our well-being and sense of personal value and integrity. From there, we understand that in North Korea, such values are not provided to the citizens of the country. They have apartments, dreams, toothaches, romance, laughter, and cancer. They are not different from us in the human experience, except in terms of the freedoms denied to them by their ruling elite class. They can't express worries about the state of the nation nor can they take a summer trip to Europe. They can't access the internet and they are required to worship their eternal leader. Fair enough, you might say. The North Korean ruling class are allowed to run their country in the way they best see fit. And, according to the U.N.'s 2005 "Responsibility to Protect" principle, if they are not carrying out genocide or famine, we are not obliged to impinge on their sovereignty.

So while granting the North Korean rulers their autonomy, and being conscious of their history and how they see themselves as the victims of imperialism, colonialism, and continued American barbarism, we can also take umbrage with the fact they deny their citizens basic freedoms and rights today in the 21st century. This act of respecting the freedom of other individuals is, I would argue, a pretty standard value one should hold to be considered decent. To be progressive would require a position many magnitudes beyond this.

So the situation in Korea has often puzzled me. If a South Korean president or high-ranking politician (this situation doesn't apply to the hoi polloi like us, of course) engages with the elite of North Korea and champions interaction with them while purposefully remaining silent on the issue of human rights both domestically and in international forums, we are then expected to call these people progressive. They are championed in the global media as vanguards of peace. A bright light of humanity in an otherwise dark and troubled world. Nobel Peace Prizes and Time Magazine covers abound. Conversely, if a high-ranking South Korean figure decries the North Korean elite for the lack of freedoms it offers and the atrocities carried out against their citizens, they are often portrayed as a hawk or a war-monger. They are the very opposite of what the world has understood to be humane. They are a hardline ideologue intent on malevolence. Doesn't this seem like a contradiction?

If I believe people should be free to think as they wish without government control, and then also have the liberty to express these thoughts without fear of physical violence, it would seem I am obliged to oppose the North Korean "method" of government and the political system that operates in Pyongyang. I would certainly not like to live there myself because I wouldn't be allowed to write these columns nor take the occasional trips to the beach when I feel like it.

Perhaps I'm an out-of-touch boomer, but according to how I was raised, you're progressive when you support the people, not the power and hegemony. If we care about the rights and freedoms of the North Korean elite who live in luxury, aren't we sycophants for power? Shouldn't progressive people attend to the rights and freedoms of the everyday citizen instead of the continued affluence of a kleptomanic ruling class? If so, why are the Korean left and their various leaders who meet frequently with the elites and powerful in Pyongyang yet remain deadly silent on the issue of human rights in order to achieve such meetings described as progressive? Answers on a postcard please.

Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and lectures at Seoul Women's University and Hanyang University. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.