An Iron Curtain Still Surrounds North Korea

On June 25, 1950, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea invaded the Republic of Korea to the south. Kim Il Sung ruled North Korea in the Stalinist mold, initially as a Soviet client state. The Korean People's Army that invaded South Korea had been advised, trained and equipped by the Soviet Union expressly for this purpose.

In Europe, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. The Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. Russia and its former clients have all evolved since then, sometimes for the better, sometimes not so much. All except for North Korea, that is, which is still run as a absolute dictatorship. North Korea combines Soviet style authoritarianism with a personality cult built around the Kim family. Kim Il Sung died in 1994 and was succeeded by his son Kim Jung Il. The younger Kim died in 2011 and was succeeded by his son Kim Jung Un. Nothing significant has changed for the North Korean people since 1950. Kim's version of the Berlin Wall has never fallen. An iron curtain still surrounds North Korea, locking its citizens in a virtual prison. This is the root of North Korea's suffering.

North Korea's gulags and slave labor camps are manifestations of a more general truth. The DPRK is a confinement facility masquerading as a nation. Most countries build fences to keep people out; North Korea builds them to keep people in. No one is free to leave. People are shot trying to escape. Those who are captured are imprisoned and tortured.

The ruling party does its best to imprison the mind as well as the body. No one is free to communicate with the outside world. Telephone lines and the internet do not connect to the global network. Foreign books and videos are banned. No one is even free to speak candidly with their neighbors for fear of being denounced to the government. Their neighbors may, in fact, denounce them for fear of punishment if they do not.  The people are under constant surveillance for ideological conformity. Ritual obeisance to the the regime is mandatory. The government not only punishes offenders, it threatens their family members as well.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both recognize North Korea as one of the world's most repressive states . The United Nations reached the same conclusion in its 2014 Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There is no freedom of movement, thought or communication, much less freedom of expression, association, or religion. The government extracts labor at the point of a gun. Murder, torture are sexual abuse are instruments of national policy, used to instill fear in the populace. North Korea is the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian.

For the life of me, then, I cannot understand why so many ostensibly Christian groups cannot bring themselves to speak up for the people of North Korea in general, and for their suffering brothers and sisters in Christ in particular.

You cannot endanger real peace with the truth. Pray for peace and reconciliation, surely. Walk in the way of forgiveness, certainly. To do so without speaking up for human rights in North Korea, however, is complicity in evil. Silence is indeed consent.

Some say that that the key to peace on the Korean peninsula is a peace treaty to replace the armistice that was signed in July 1953. There will be no shalom, however, without justice for the people of North Korea. The primary problem is not the military situation on the peninsula but the leadership in Pyongyang. True peace will be possible only when North Korea begins to recognize some of the most basic principles enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The people of North Korea must be free to:

  • Leave the country, if they wish, permanently or temporarily, without being shot or tortured or imprisoned for doing so.
  • Communicate with people both inside and outside the country without fear.
  • Express themselves freely and associate with whom they want without the threat of punishment.
  • Practice their religion (if any) in accordance with their conscience.

The estimated 200,000 political prisoners must be set free. The slave labor camps and reeducation camps must be shut down. Human rights observers must be given free, unescorted access to every part of the country. Since 1950, no outside visitor to North Korea has seen anything other than a façade constructed by the government, a puppet show put on to benefit the state.

That's not to mention the Kim family's murderous history, the government's rampant corruption, the resources lavished on the party's elite, the nation's abysmal failure to provide for its people and the DPRK's threats to international peace. The world should address all of that, but first things first.

Mr. Kim, "tear down this wall." Open your borders to your own people. Open the gates of international travel. Open the lines of normal communication between your country and the world. Those are the first steps to peace.

Sadly, I do not think Mr. Kim will ever do that. He knows that his regime cannot stand the light of day. The one goal of those in power in Pyongyang is to stay in power.

Neither military exercises nor the lack of a treaty are the primary obstacles standing in the way of peace on the Korean peninsula. Rather, the first barrier that must be breached is the iron curtain that keeps the North Korean people captive to their own government. It is still standing, and it needs to come down.

 

Popular posts from this blog

If My People

Performative civil religion was on full display this week during the America Reads the Bible series of public Bible readings. The performance is supposed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence. During the event, a series of politicians, MAGA supporters, and other ostensibly notable figures will read aloud the entire Protestant Bible in piecemeal fashion. The readers are using the King James Easy Read Bible, one of many obscure revisions of the KJV. The live readings take place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. Tickets are $50. You can also register to watch a live stream. I cannot understood why anyone thinks merely reading the words of the Bible aloud will mean anything to God, have a positive effect on the nation, or draw anyone to Jesus. On Tuesday, President Trump read from Second Chronicle. The organizer's website features a recording of the president's reading on the home page of it's website and declares, As...
Read more

The Problem with Religious Affiliation Codes

Religious preference codes only exist to give commanders and chaplains a big, one-over-the-world view of the religious needs of the unit as a whole. They reside in the big Army database of personnel records as useful data points for generalized planning. They are not terribly useful for individual religious support where people don't always fit their labels. There, chaplains need to get to know their soldiers personally.  Soldiers entering the Army are overwhelmed by an avalanche of administrative requirements. It’s a normal human response to proceed through that process without much thought.  I found that Soldiers had often chosen their religious preference codes hastily, and the religion coded in the personnel database did not accurately reflect their religious identities.  The previous list of religious codes was long (5 single spaced pages) and not logically organized. It was a jumble of institutional identities and religious categories, most of which were going to be...
Read more

Is the President Saving Religion?

The president spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast on February 6, 2026. The event is sponsored by a Christian organization, but its official website says that it is open to people of all faiths. It is supposed to bring national leaders of faith together regardless of political affiliation.  As a Christian pastor, I would like to respectfully offer some reflections on the president’s 77 minute speech. This essay is long because the speech was long. What’s In the Speech What was the tone of the speech? Uplifting? Inspiring? Unifying? Spiritual? I would characterize it as political. It’s tone matched the tone of all his speeches, if you know what I mean. Most of it echoed themes and talking points common to every speech he makes. Little of it had any bearing on on the purpose of the assembly, and I can’t begin to address those parts of the speech. Simply put, I found much of it objectionable.  But what about the rest, the parts that talked about religion? In over 12...
Read more