Kerry Slams North Korea

Secretary of State John Kerry has issued statements denouncing the North Korean government. Kerry called North Korea “an evil, evil place”, discussing “human rights violations”, including executions involving “122-millimeter aircraft guns to obliterate people and force people to watch these kind of executions.”

Kerry reiterated that North Korea was evil, and said the world would need to focus to keep the country accountable. Kerry thinks “every aspect of any law that can be applied should be applied.”

These statements come against the background of North Korean defectors giving “harrowing testimony” to a United Nations inquiry. The U.N.’s report said “North Korea’s leaders should be brought before an international court for a litany of crimes against humanity.” The article did not elaborate on what actions might be pursued. The report found that “systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by North Korea, its institutions and officials.”

As the details in the United Nations report become more widely disseminated, what role should the United States, or the United Nations, play in protecting the citizens of North Korea from their government?

I am troubled by the characterization of North Korea as an evil place. This is a vast oversimplification of the situation in North Korea. If the international community wants to take some responsibility for the fates of North Korean citizens, it is important to distinguish between the government and the people it oppresses. Labeling an entire nation as “evil” is not an effective way to encourage international understanding and community.

The Guardian reported Tuesday that Japan has released it’s draft energy policy, the first following the 2011 nuclear crisis at Fukushima. Somewhat surprisingly, the nation has not significantly changed its attitude toward nuclear power, despite the environmental and health consequences of its recent accident. The energy policy draft continues to focus on the importance of nuclear, in conjunction with renewable energy, in supplying Japan with its electricity. All 48 of its nuclear plants are currently non-operational pending their meeting new safety requirements. It is expected that Japan will be slightly less dependent on nuclear energy, with more focus on renewable sources, but all plants passing the new safety requirements are expected to come back on line.
In some ways, the continuation of Japan’s use of nuclear energy is surprising and in other ways it is not. This trend doesn’t follow that of the United States, which tends to back off of nuclear energy following each accident or near accident. In the United States, the Fukushima accident has prompted many environmental groups and politicians to call for the end of nuclear power here at home. A similar trend has been observed with previous accidents (such as Chernobyl) or even partial-accidents with few consequences (like Three Mile Island). So it can be hard for us to understand why, despite the clear health and environmental consequences of the Fukushima accident, the Japanese would choose to continue using nuclear power.
On the other hand, Japan does not have many options. According to the EIA, Japan follows only the US and China as a net oil importer and is the world’s largest liquefied natural gas importer due to limited domestic energy resources. Prior to the Fukushima accident, nuclear energy supplied about 26% of power generation and had to be replaced by significantly more expensive fossil fuel resources while the nuclear plants were shut down. Energy imports represented one third of Japan’s import costs in 2012. Nuclear power represents an essentially domestic source of energy, requiring only imports of uranium and plutonium. In addition, while the latest energy policy has focused on increasing the quantity of renewable energy, Japan currently uses little renewable energy. Hydroelectricity represents 16% of total power generation, but other renewables only represented about 3% of total electricity production in 2011.
So while it is difficult to imagine why Japan would be willing to take the risk on nuclear, they are not in much of a position to give up on that sector. It will be interesting to see if the cabinet approves the draft Basic Energy Plan in March, as expected, and if the public will be accepting of this continued push for nuclear.

Last Thursday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed its version of a state senate bill that many are calling the “Turn Away The Gays” bill.  If signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, Arizona may well have taken a huge step away from those states that have struck down laws and constitutional provisions inhibiting LGBT equality.  This bill might be seen as a reaction by state conservatives to a national trend towards marriage equality for LGBT couples.  This has been felt particularly close to home for Arizonans, since state and national courts have recently overturned bans on same-sex marriage in neighboring California and New Mexico.

 

The language of the bill is generally vague, stating that:

B. …STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

 

C.  Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON’S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:

 

1.  In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

 

2.  The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

 

 

Despite this broad language, many Arizonans critical of the bill believe that it is designed to permit business owners to refuse services to LGBT persons.  While the bill is designed to enhance the religious freedom of all persons, it defines “persons” as including all forms of business associations.  The executive director for the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties has described the bill as “unnecessary and discriminatory,” and that it’s taint of anti-LGBT sentiment would ultimately harm the state economy.

 

Taken at its broadest interpretation, the bill’s vague language presents other problems as well.  Sen. Ana Tovar, a Democratic leader in the state senate, believes that the law could open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability.”  If Gov. Brewer signs the bill next week, then it may indeed open the door to a broad range of sanctioned discrimination by businesspersons – or at least what they perceive to be sanctioned discrimination.  At least some Arizona businesspeople have registered their disapproval of the bill, sometimes in rather blunt and humorous ways: the owner of a Tucson pizzeria posted a sign on door reading “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona Legislators.”
(Sources for this article can be found at the hyperlinked text within.)