Anoma P. van der Veere and Marte C.H. Boonen
Almost two years have passed since the first report on North Korean forced labour in the European Union was released to the public. The effects have been felt in the chambers of the International Labour Organization, the European Parliament, national diets across the world, and most visibly in the international media. Documenting the still underdeveloped field of North Korean labour export, the report raised awareness concerning a substantial blind spot in the exploration of these practices.
For two years, Poland has been the central case study. This is because, unlike many other countries, Polish local institutions have been cooperative in laying bare the intricacies of overseas North Korean labour, despite the swift and flexible bending around legal loopholes by local human resource managers and North Korean managers. However, despite having had the opportunity – following the release of the report – to progressively position itself as a country willing to limit and regulate forced labour of this kind, the national government in Poland chose instead to continue the issuance of working permits to North Korean labourers, even after repeated promises to the contrary.¹ Although these work permits are not the central issue, the government has steadfastly refused to utilise its deep and broad resources to handle the issue, and has been found to have severely underperformed in documenting the working conditions of the North Korean workers within its own borders.
To more positive effect, the findings presented in the report have found their way to news outlets across the world. Directly after the publication of the first edition, it was extensively covered by the Korean language edition of Radio Free Asia.² The Diplomat juxtaposed the early efforts of the researchers with that of Marzuki Darusman’s comments on North Korean workers abroad, reinforcing the importance of the issue within the United Nations.³ In order to locate the responsibility for the allowance and continuation of these practices, the article elaborates on structural difficulties of addressing forced labour. This is especially true in the European Union, where the report has had something of a ‘wow effect’, simply because of its geographical focus.
In the Netherlands, the surprise among journalists was visible in the spin the story was given in national newspapers. Focusing on the extent of the practice, de Volkskrant combined the findings of the report with the data released by the Global Slavery Index, published by the Walk Free Foundation. The article’s headline emphasised the global leadership of the North Korean regime in the facilitation of ‘global slavery’: ‘45.8 Million Slaves Globally, North Korea Takes the Cake’.⁴ The working conditions of these labourers are highlighted as especially harsh. Detailing the long working hours, days, and sporadic salary payments, the nationally distributed free newspaper Metro also delivers the findings of the report with euphemistic sarcasm, commenting that ‘life as a North Korean is certainly not a lot of fun’.⁵ In the run-up to the publication and conference scheduled in July 2016, opinion pieces by the authors also found their way into national and international news outlets, generating a large response in the form of phone calls, radio and television requests, and demanding emails.⁶
The intricacy of forced labour schemes and the complicated legal implications can be hard to unravel, and various news sources automatically connected the (plausible) dots between the much-debated North Korean missile programme and earnings from the forced labour practices covered in the report. The Telegraph, quoting UN sources, assertively claimed that funds gained from overseas forced labour ‘fund the [North Korean] regime’s nuclear weapons and missile programmes’.⁷ This connection is implied strongly by the article’s segue into a summary of the report’s findings. This is concluded on a strong note by capturing one of the most covered elements of the report, the European Union’s own funding of companies involved in the facilitation of these forced labour practices.
This particular perspective has gained significant traction in the United Kingdom. It has been repeated by the more conservative-leaning media outlets in the country, almost to the point of saturation. The Sun’s framing of this element of the report is especially poor. Without bothering to generalise the entire European population’s role in the issue, it simply focuses on the unfortunate predicament British taxpayers find themselves in by being part of the EU, foreshadowing Brexit by a few months. The article is titled: ‘Fears British Taxpayers’ Cash is Being Funnelled into North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Programme Through the EU’, and is a prime example of making the wrong conclusions based on the right information.⁸ Nevertheless, the article does manage to put pressure on one of the sore spots of European negligence on the issue by addressing the opaque constructions through which EU funds are being handed out, and subsequently the complete dismissal of responsibility on the issue.
Elaborating on the European response to the report, the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant interviewed Dutch politician and MEP Agnes Jongerius on the handling of the issue in Brussels. The original ‘Slaves to the System’ report included a preface from Jongerius, and her personal opinion on the issue is stated clearly: ‘This should not be possible’.⁹ The availability of North Korean forced labour has been pointed out in Russia and China, yet the geographical proximity of these workers has not sent the same shock waves through the European Parliament as they have through international media. The report has been discussed on several occasions. Failing to address the issue up until very recently, however, the findings were archived and stored for later discussion. According to de Volkskrant, this impediment is not because of a general political unwillingness, but rather the result of Polish denial of any issue whatsoever.
Of course, this perspective is not limited to the European media. The Korea Herald headlined their coverage on the new findings with ‘EU Funds Allegedly Help Bankroll N.K. Regime: Study’, making the same connection, albeit cautiously.¹⁰ The content of the article relies much more on the actual findings, detailing the employment structures and payment methods utilised in Poland. Juxtaposing the report with the recent findings published by the North Korean Database for Human Rights Research Center, located in Seoul, the article is more reserved about generalising the issue into some form of victimhood for localised taxpayers, focusing more on the egregious exploitation of North Korean workers. EU funds are attractive for any developing sector, yet some of these funds end up in companies that employ North Korean forced labour. Nevertheless, dehumanising the North Korean victims and shifting victimhood for domestic political gain is not a structural solution for this problem. Framing North Korean forced labour in the way The Sun does distracts from the importance of finding a way to end these practices in the EU, and in general.
The Vice documentary ‘Cash for Kim’ details the subject of North Korean forced labour visually and with journalistic vigour. It supplements the documentation of forced labour practices in Poland with interviews, placing in context the broader structural formation of North Korean forced labour by adding the human decision-making process of both North Korean and local human resource managers.¹¹ Following this example, Danish documentary makers closely followed both the format and information of the Vice version, adding their domestic concerns in the shape of Danish warships being built with the same North Korean hands.¹² There was a large domestic spin-off in Denmark, resulting in extensive coverage of the issue. The dissatisfaction of local media outlets with the practice was presented with astonishing clarity, with articles using headlines such as: ‘Danish Warship Built with the Help of North Korean Slave Workers’,¹³ and ‘North Korean Forced Labourers Hired to Build Armed Forces’ New Warship’.¹⁴ The anxiety of North Korean labour on domestic production is suddenly tangible when it fits into a pattern of ideological securitisation. The result of this process is visible in the national coverage governmental production lines suddenly received.¹⁵ The follow-up extended into international coverage, with Newsweek’s exploration of Danish firm Karstensens Skibsværft’s outsourcing of the production of the warship named ‘Lauge Koch’.¹⁶ This was done at Crist Shipyard, one of the Polish exploiters of North Korean forced labour. The connection back to the findings of the first report solidifies the article’s main argument.