Tuesday, December 21, 2021

Touring North Korea? An Interview With Author Robert Willoughby

Touring North Korea? An Interview With Author Robert Willoughby:

Touring North Korea? An Interview With Author Robert Willoughby

Touring North Korea? An Interview With Author Robert Willoughby
BYPeter HandelTruthoutPUBLISHEDNovember 29, 2014


Pyongyang, North Korea. (Photo: Gabriel Britto)

An interview with Robert Willoughby, author of North Korea, edition 3 (Bradt Guides; trade paper; $29.99).

Peter Handel: Your new edition of North Korea is one of the few books available (and the only one allowed into the country by the North Korean government) for people who are interested in traveling to this remarkably isolated country. How did you come to write the guide in the first place?


Robert Willoughby: I lived in Beijing in the very late 1990s and 2000, my last hurrah at living abroad as I’d done so in Moscow and Hanoi. I’d heard vague things about North Korea, but knew nothing about it except it was one of the extreme socialist states, small and self-isolated like Albania, totally inaccessible, so I thought, and all the more mysterious for it. One day at Beijing airport I saw Pyongyang as a destination on the flight board, and I realized not only could you go there, but you could do so by plane (that level of ignorance, to be honest!).

That took a hold in me and I became more and more fascinated by the place, then found Beijing was North Korea’s main portal to the world or the base for anyone who had any regular business with the country. A small community within a small world, and I ended up meeting a few of them, and learning more and more.

I visited on business and as a tourist, then returned to England, and found out Bradt wanted someone to do a guide book, so I said “me,” and spent six or seven months at SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London) researching the country and talking with the contacts I’d made in China, and on that basis wrote the guidebook. . . .

What changes have you been able to discern on subsequent visits since the death in 2011 of Kim Jong-il and the ensuing rule of his third son, Kim Jong-un?

Not much has massively changed from the Dear Leader to the Great Marshal, but there are tangible differences between when I was there in 2001, when the country was staggering out of the famine, and more recently I’ve been, where there’s a lot more economic activity going on.

At one end of the scale, when going through towns, you can see down alleys the distant awnings of markets and throngs heading in their direction, that originally sprang up – and kept the general population alive during the famine when the Public Distribution System collapsed in the 1990s – and have now become the begrudged (by the state) bedrock of the economy. You are not allowed to visit them (except in the Rason special economic zone, but that’s an exception), but you know they’re there.

At the other end, you see many new buildings going up in Pyongyang; nearly everyone’s got a mobile phone and tablets; there are many new cars (and evidently the fuel to drive them), more lights on and that stay on all night and evidence of consumerism. There’s a vibrancy and people are much more inclined also to catch your eye and smile. But this is all very relative – Pyongyang’s wealth is a world apart from the outlying cities, let alone the countryside, and as soon as you’re back in Beijing, or even see the Chinese border city of Dandong from the train on the North Korean side, you’re starkly reminded how poor in fact even Pyongyang is.

As we hear of Americans being held in detention and tourists in general under close supervision at all times, why would anyone really want to visit in the first place? Can visitors really manage to get a sense of the actual day-to-day lives of the citizens?

While we deplore how North Korea treats people, believers of Christianity included, missionary work is illegal. And while Americans are welcome and make up a good quarter of visitors, the US along with South Korea have not been at peace with North Korea since 1950, something the rest of the world forgets but is very much in the foreground of North Koreans’ minds.

It’s not so much that visitors are supervised; it’s that they’re not allowed to roam freely and are taken on well-trodden itineraries that (are possibly designed to) preclude visitors’ ability to get involved with ordinary people and their lives. But you’ve also got the linguistic barrier. Locals are as friendly as they can be, but they’ve got their own stuff to do. Being a tourist is a contrived state in any country, and you can’t expect people just to pour forth about their lives just because you’re foreign.

Overall, it’s an extraordinary place in an extraordinary time and situation; go see it and wonder what the worth is of the world seeking to isolate the place as much as it’s said that that is the strategy of the state, and present yourselves to the locals as people like they are. All very small beginnings, but worthwhile.

How hard was it to write a guidebook to a country where choices for lodging, food and recreation are so seemingly limited?

In the first instance, the lack of choice actually made the book easier to write – same as for tourists on group tours; once they’ve got past the panic over how not to offend anyone, they realize all they have to do is follow the guides, get on the bus and have a good time. That the country is infamous as an information black hole made for some interesting games of reference, cross-reference, inference and classification of data along lines of fact: probable, possible, unconfirmed, unverifiable and obvious rubbish, and that’s still true.

For the first edition, as I said, I researched at the school, SOAS, and there was a handful of people only to talk to, who’d refer me from one to the next. Now there are scores of observers, analysts, academics, NGO workers, human rights workers, charities and organizations, all readily contactable on Twitter, Facebook et al; handily available information, along with Google Earth as well as a score of travel companies with guides gleaning new information all the time; and innumerable blogs; and not least, numbers of defectors and refugees who’ve become settled outside North Korea and whose stories are now being told.

The amount of information available compared with what it was is quite staggering, but there again, there’s any-fold more that we don’t know, and the scope for total rubbish to be printed in the western press – from “rare glimpses” to half-cocked sensationalism to utterly uncorroborated rumors and lies planted by NK’s enemies – is as broad as ever. Specifically, re tourism though, the number of new destinations, restaurants and information about the nuanced changes on the ground now going on, partly as Kim Jong Un is promoting tourism, made the third edition much harder work in editing, and frustrating for the relative dynamism of the situation, but also more fun.

If you were to highlight five “attractions” in North Korea, what would they be?

The capital Pyongyang almost unavoidably is the centerpiece to nearly all tours, and it’s worth it for things to see and do, if only for the intensity of the monolithic, all-exclusive narrative of the Korean Workers’ Party and the Kims in images, architecture, even the city’s layout, and the vestiges of wealth and glitzy high-rise contrast starkly with the total decrepitude of the trams, for example.

Mount Paektu up on the Chinese border is stunning, if you go in autumn it’s so cool, beautiful and remote, and you see something of how basic rural life is for people, yet the area’s also absolutely integral to the history and mindset of Kim Il Sung. Along the East Coast, you’ve got the industrial port city of Chongjin, with its population about a third of Pyongyang’s, and it’s fascinating not least as it’s only now beginning to open up; again, contrast the new Chinese investments amid age-old rusting Soviet-era stuff and poverty. It’s also near to the glories of the Chilbo mountains, and as much can be said of Wonsan port city and Kumgang mountains farther south along the coast. Pyongsong is a trader town, a wholesale market center that kind of stands out as what’s been achieved regarding building a critical mass of market trading of all goods at all levels – although that’s not the official story – and is just 40 minutes’ drive outside Pyongyang, and, in summer, there’s a tangible verve in the air.

What would be the top five do’s and don’ts for visitors touring the country?

Don’t bring a Bible. Don’t mock the Kims or deface any images of them. Do not take photos of military subjects. Get along with your co-travelers on these intense, once-in-a-lifetime trips, and don’t see your guides as chaperones or minders, but facilitators (seeking to antagonize them, as with anyone, will be counter-productive). 
If you go along with their requests, they’ll open up and tell you a lot about the country and their lives, albeit perspectives likely colored by the position of some privilege being a guide in North Korea is, for the trust and benefits it comes with. But always with North Korea, you have to qualify or justify everything that anywhere else is obvious or taken as par for the course. More than anything, keep an open mind.

What are the primary misconceptions the West has about North Korea?

What seems to freak some people out about the place is how many more vestiges of normality there are, including the locals. Try and see them for who they are.

For reasons of internal governance, poor resources and international sanctions, it is a markedly poor country, and that is obvious – if what you’re being shown is the best there is, it is frayed.

There’s a lot that’s extraordinary about the country and how it’s run, and there’s a lot that’s pretty terrible, the worst aspects in terms of poverty or camps you wouldn’t see, but you don’t see these things on any tour anywhere.

I read a blog piece by a guy who’d spent four or five days there and detailed how he’d felt at one point like he was having some kind of almighty existential crisis simply because when some children looked at him and smiled, he really couldn’t tell if they were doing so genuinely, or were actors in this massive show put on solely to impress him.

Recently the Daily Mail, a newspaper in England, published a feature by a photographer from Singapore who visited North Korea – on a tour – and came back surprised he didn’t witness any of the popular perceptions the Western media portrays about life in the country, such as starving populace and ultra-control of the citizens. Your take on his experiences?


It’s somewhat self-explanatory in that no tour of anywhere would show visitors starving people. There is still a major problem of food shortages and malnutrition in parts of the country that tourists aren’t taken near to. But as I said, you see where the markets are, if for the most part, you don’t go to them. It’s more to do with the imagery that westerners are normally presented with, a population of automatons forever engaged in military march-pasts in Pyongyang, rocket launches, Kim Jong Un looking at something, twirling female traffic wardens on empty roads (not because there’s no traffic, but because outsiders fetish about them), or reprinting some floridly-written threat to the world from the official North Korean press. Then you go there, and you see people just trying to get by, kids playing in the streets, teenagers on mobile phones, women doing backbreaking work pushing handcarts of boulders along roadworks – and this blows people’s minds.

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

‘A bright new future’: how Australians are helping Canada’s private sponsors give refugees a fresh start | Australian immigration and asylum | The Guardian

‘A bright new future’: how Australians are helping Canada’s private sponsors give refugees a fresh start | Australian immigration and asylum | The Guardian


‘A bright new future’: how Australians are helping Canada’s private sponsors give refugees a fresh start

Eight refugees held for years in Australian detention have arrived in Canada under community sponsorship scheme

File photo of refugees arriving at Toronto airport in Canada
File photo of refugees arriving in Canada. Australians have donated more than $3.8m to support Canadian community sponsorship of refugees. Photograph: MCpl Genevieve Lapointe/Reuters

Eight refugees – held by Australia’s offshore immigration regime for more than eight years – have landed in Vancouver and Toronto, sponsored by community groups in Canada and Australia to begin new lives on the other side of the world.

The eight flew out of the Papua New Guinea capital Port Moresby on Thursday, joining another former Manus detainee who arrived in Canada a week ago.

Abdo had been medevaced from PNG to Australia before being accepted for resettlement in Canada.

“I have mixed feelings about starting this new life in Canada,” Abdo says. “It was hard leaving my friends in Australia. I wish I could have stayed.

“Thank you for all [the] people that made it possible for me to become a permanent resident of Canada, I am looking forward to a bright new future. To all my Aussie friends, come [for a] visit.”

Abdo, a former Manus Island detainee, was the first refugee to be resettled to Canada by Operation Not Forgotten
Former Manus Island detainee Abdo was the first refugee to be resettled to Canada by Operation #NotForgotten

The nine have been accepted for resettlement under Canada’s Private Sponsorship of Refugees scheme, which allows community groups to privately sponsor refugees to resettle in Canada, in addition to the government’s own humanitarian resettlement quotas. The scheme, which has been running for more than 40 years, has allowed more than 300,000 refugees to restart their lives in Canada.

Six of the eight refugees who landed in Canada on Saturday (Australian time) were resettled through Operation #NotForgotten, a community sponsorship partnership between the Refugee Council of Australia, the Vancouver-based migrant and refugee settlement service Mosaic, and volunteer network Ads Up Canada.

The other two have been sponsored by community volunteers supported by Ads Up Canada.

The eight left PNG just three weeks ahead of Australia formally ending its eight-year offshore immigration regime in PNG. More than 100 people remain held there by Australia.

Abdo – the Guardian is choosing only to publish his first name – was incarcerated on Manus Island, medevaced to Australia suffering acute medical issues, and then granted a temporary visa to live in the Australian community while awaiting resettlement. He landed in Vancouver on 6 December.

Those resettled are the first of an expected steady stream of Canadian resettlements from within Australia’s offshore immigration system. Another four refugees currently held by Australia will arrive in Canada over the next month. Travel arrangements for a further three newly approved applicants is currently being arranged.

Australians and Canadians working together

The Refugee Council chief executive, Paul Power, says the resettlement of refugees from within Australia’s onshore and offshore immigration detention systems is the result of “ordinary people in Australia and Canada working together to find a solution for refugees who needed the opportunity to get on with the rest of their lives after years of mistreatment by the Australian government”.

“These eight people sought sanctuary in Australia after escaping oppression in their homelands, as was confirmed when their refugee status was assessed,” he says.

“Instead of being helped by Australia, they were put into detention under appalling conditions and have spent years not knowing what the future held for them and their families.”

Australians have donated more than $3.8m to Operation #NotForgotten through the Refugee Council. Mosaic and Ads Up Canada have lodged sponsorship applications with the Canadian government and organised volunteer groups to support refugees after arrival.

Abdo arrived in Vancouver on 6 December
‘It was hard leaving my friends in Australia. I wish I could have stayed’: Abdo arrived in Vancouver on 6 December. Photograph: Mosaic

Since November 2019, applications for 156 refugees – in PNG, Australia and Nauru – and 125 separated family members have been lodged through Operation #NotForgotten.

“Australians concerned about the mistreatment of the refugees sent to PNG and Nauru are very grateful to the people and government of Canada for providing a welcome and a new home for people who need the opportunity to live in freedom and start again,” Power said.

Iris Challoner, the manager of Mosaic’s private sponsorship program, says the private sponsorship program is transformative, both for refugees beginning lives in new countries and the communities they are welcomed into.

“Our team is privileged and honoured to have gotten to know so many Australians that are a force for better and take a stand for human rights. Ordinary Australians have made this unique collaboration possible; they saw suffering and found solutions where they could. This is what makes Operation #NotForgotten unique: it is a true collaboration of civic society across continents.”

‘A team of people who become family’

The Australian government has, for several years, speculated about implementing a scheme based on Canada’s model, which has been resettling refugees since 1979.

In Canada, private sponsors, which are often community, humanitarian or faith groups, commit to providing income support for refugees for the first year after arrival. Currently, it costs the equivalent of A$21,500 to sponsor a single refugee, or A$36,500 for a family of five.

Other countries have adopted the model. In October, the US, after decades of only government-sponsored resettlement, announced a Sponsor Circle Program for Afghans, specifically to assist with the resettlement of more than 50,000 Afghans currently being housed in military bases across the US, some of those who made it onto flights out of Kabul as the country fell to the Taliban. Ireland, the UK and New Zealand have committed to or established similar schemes.

Australia’s Community Support Program was launched in 2017 as a pilot program, set at 1,000 places to be drawn from within Australia’s humanitarian migration program. Crucially, it was not additional to the government’s resettlement programs – every place sponsored by a community group would subtract one from the government number.

Australia’s pilot – as the government’s own reviews have conceded – is riven with systemic flaws.

The Australian program is:

  • small, limited to just 1,000 places a year;

  • expensive, more than three times the cost of comparable schemes overseas, costing about $100,000 to sponsor a family of five, with an application fee alone of $19,000;

  • restrictive – available only to refugees between 18 and 50 who have functional English and a job offer in Australia or skills that make them “job ready”, and

  • critically, not additional: any refugee sponsored by the community subtracts by one from the government’s resettlement commitment.

The Department of Home Affairs’ own review of its existing Community Support Program this year found it was structurally flawed, and ineffective in resettling significant numbers of refugees.

Quick Guide

How to get the latest news from Guardian Australia

Show

The review, by the commonwealth coordinator-general for migrant services, Alison Larkins, said while the CSP was “well-intentioned” it was: prohibitively expensive; not additional to the existing government humanitarian program (which has been reduced to 13,750 and was less than half-filled last year); and consistently under-subscribed because it failed to “harness broader community goodwill and support”.

The findings, presented to the government in May, said “community organisations generally report being unwilling to engage in (and bear high financial costs for) sponsorship without it generating places in addition to the current humanitarian intake”.

In a speech last year, Larkins said international evidence demonstrated “governments alone can’t make the difference”.

“In Canada, you can directly see the importance of community in creating economic participation for refugees through their community sponsorship model,” she said.

“Seventy per cent of privately sponsored refugees in Canada declared employment earnings within their first year of arrival compared to 40% of government assisted refugees.”

Australia’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, has previously said he was a “strong supporter of the community support program”.

A spokesperson for the home affairs department said the government was “currently considering the findings of the review and anticipates being able to offer a further update soon”.

“The government looks forward to ensuring Australia’s Community Support Program becomes a genuine, successful partnership between community, business and the government, to provide beneficial outcomes to our refugee and humanitarian arrivals in Australia.”

Challoner says the nature of Canada’s private sponsorship program “sets people up for success”.

“Sponsors commit to 12 months of sponsorship support. As a result, privately sponsored refugees arrive with a built-in social support system. They have a safe and clean place to live, and a team of people who become family, supporting all aspects of their settlement experience.

“Done right, private refugee sponsorship can change attitudes across the world about refugees, re-unify families that are separated … It enables ordinary citizens to truly make a difference … to be the change they want to see.”

You've re