Shades of Parallel Oppression: South Africa’s Apartheid and North Korea’s Songbun as Crimes Against Humanity

By SoEun Park, HRNK Research Intern
Edited by Raymond Ha and Diletta De Luca
​

Introduction
 
For many, South Africa’s Apartheid evokes images of historical struggle and resilience immortalized in history books, while North Korea’s Songbun seems distant in the confines of a closed-off regime. Despite the vast geographical distance between the two countries, these seemingly disparate systems exhibit notable parallels in their mechanisms of oppression and control. As Nelson Mandela and countless others grappled with the chains of Apartheid in South Africa, North Koreans endured—and continue to suffer—the oppressive grasp of the Songbun system. Both Apartheid and Songbun are tainted by state-sanctioned discrimination and human rights abuses.
 
North Korea’s sociopolitical classification system, Songbun (성분), creates distinct classes under oppressive conditions, having an immeasurable and lasting impact on human rights with its highly destructive and repressive effects on the majority of the population. This system, which creates an oppressive society that is practically unparalleled in the contemporary world, consists of three classes that have been created and divided into over 50 categories.[1] As a system that is based on social status assigned to North Koreans at birth, the party-directed caste system is the primary cause of widespread discrimination and other human rights abuses.[2] The harsh reality in North Korea is that this system forces a third of the 23 million citizens into a form of slave labor, while the remainder is bound by loyalty to the regime.[3]
 
The concept of class struggle as the driving force of history can be traced to The Communist Manifesto, where Marx emphasizes that modern bourgeois society, emerging from the remnants of feudalism, has not eradicated class antagonisms. Instead, it has engendered new classes, forms of oppression, and struggles to supplant the old ones.
 
The Kim regime has deliberately established and upheld social hierarchies based on political loyalty. The Songbun system is crucial for understanding North Korean society and especially the mechanism of oppression that the ruling elite employs to protect and maintain political dominance.
​
Thus, this article delves into the historical contexts of the Songbun system in North Korea and the Apartheid system in South Africa, examining their origins, implementations, and societal impacts. It also draws comparisons and contrasts between the two systems by exploring the legal parallels, as both systems have been denounced as crimes against humanity under international law. Additionally, the article proposes strategies and recommends steps forward to approach and confront these systemic injustices and uphold human rights worldwide. Ultimately, the Kim regime has deliberately established and upheld social hierarchies based on political loyalty. The Songbun system is therefore crucial for understanding North Korean society and especially the mechanism of oppression that the ruling elite employs to protect and maintain political dominance.

North Korea’s Songbun System

North Korea first developed the Songbun system to consolidate Kim Il-sung’s rule by isolating, identifying, and controlling perceived political threats. Songbun, which translates as “ingredient” but also can mean “background,” categorizes every North Korean according to how politically reliable or dangerous they were believed to be, based on their family history. By utilizing this system, the regime isolated and purified Kim’s real and perceived enemies and rewarded his supporters.[4] The North Korean regime targeted those who had backgrounds in land ownership, business, religion, or collaboration with Japanese occupiers, branding them as “counterrevolutionaries” and subjecting them to execution, imprisonment, or relocation to remote mountainous regions.[5]
 
In 1957, the Korean Workers’ Party (KWP) formalized and intensified the Songbun system through proclamations and resolutions, implementing legislative measures such as Cabinet Decree No.149 to justify mass relocations on the grounds of internal security.[6] Key factors determining one’s Songbun include their ancestors’ socioeconomic status at the time of liberation in 1945, their actions during the Korean War (1950–53), and whether they had relatives in South Korea or China, as connections to the outside world were deemed detrimental to one’s loyalty to the Kim regime.[7] The Songbun classification process starts at birth for every North Korean, and children under 17 are classified according to their parents’ status.[8]
 
The Songbun system divides the population into three groups: the “Core,” comprising roughly 28% of the population, including revolutionaries and descendants of war heroes; the “Wavering” group, making up 45%, including individuals from diverse backgrounds such as former South Koreans or intellectuals; and the “Hostile” group, accounting for the remaining 27%, which encompasses descendants of landlords, capitalists, and those deemed politically opposed or associated with external forces. These classifications were meticulously maintained in individual files accessible through the digital system “Faithful Servant 2.0,” in 2019, facilitating government control and surveillance across all administrative levels.[9]
 
Songbun dominates all aspects of individuals’ lives in North Korea. Job assignments are determined by songbun, resulting in significant disparities in work conditions and social standing. Those with high Songbun have access to better educational opportunities, perpetuating privilege across generations. Songbun also significantly impacts family life, as marriage prospects and familial reputation are heavily influenced by it, leading to “intra-class” unions. Those with low songbun may face exile to remote regions, limiting their freedoms and economic opportunities. Furthermore, songbun determines access to food and healthcare, reinforcing class divisions and the dominance of the ruling elite. Despite its opacity, awareness of songbun pervades North Korean society, instilling fear and fostering compliance among the population. It serves as a powerful tool for regime control and maintaining power.[10]
 
According to the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (COI), Songbun continues to be enforced by the Kim regime. Moreover, the “discrimination based on gender and songbun is employed as a means of maintaining a rigid social structure less likely to produce challenges to the political system”.[11]

South Africa’s Apartheid

In 1948, the National Party government in South Africa instituted Apartheid, which translates to "apartness" in Afrikaans. The Apartheid system was an organized system of racial segregation that required distinct living spaces, facilities, and restricted interaction between racial groups.[12] This system was distinct from previous segregation regimes in that it used a repressive governmental machinery to crush opposition and legally enforced racial isolation, disproportionately affecting non-White populations. Moreover, Apartheid consistently pushed the majority of the population to the margins of society based only on the color of their skin, leaving non-white people frequently in near destitution.[13] Apartheid institutionalized notions of racial “superiority” and “inferiority.”
 
The Population Registration Act was pivotal in Apartheid legislation, categorizing South Africans into racial groups (white, black, colored, and later Asian) that determined their social, political, educational, and economic opportunities. It formalized racial segregation and upheld the discriminatory practices, supported by complementing laws such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Group Areas Act.[14] These rules prohibited interracial unions and divided people into four racial groups: white, black, Indian, and colored. Each group had specific neighborhoods they were allowed to reside in. While white South Africans continued to rule over urban areas, black South Africans were forced to relocate to their tribal homelands. Segregation was further cemented when Afrikaans was mandated as the language of instruction and administration.[15]
 
Despite relentless repression from the ruling government, anti-Apartheid sentiment gave rise to political movements opposing white supremacist ideologies. Prior to 1960, opposition to Apartheid was broad and varied. Along with Indian, Colored, White, and church-based groups, key organizations driving the battle were the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), and the United Democratic Front (UDF)[16]. In particular, the African Native National Congress (SANNC), founded in 1912 as the South and later known as the ANC, advocated for South African black rights and played a central role in the anti-apartheid struggle, including the 1952 Defiance Campaign, before internal divisions led to the formation of the PAC in 1959.[17]
 
As domestic and international pressure to end Apartheid grew by the 1980s, political prisoners were freed and there were political negotiations that ultimately led to the founding of a non-racial democratic state in 1994. The end of Apartheid opened the door to creating a more inclusive society in which everyone could take an equal part in public life and governance.
 
North Korea’s Songbun System vs South Africa’s Apartheid
 
Similarities
 
North Korea’s Songbun system and South Africa’s Apartheid regime share striking similarities. Both relied on legislation and political documents to justify discriminatory practices. South Africa’s Population Registration Act of 1950 classified individuals into racial categories, dictating their social, political, and economic rights. Similarly, North Korea’s Songbun system categorized citizens based on perceived loyalty to the regime, influencing their access to resources and opportunities. Specifically, North Korea formalized discriminatory practices through directives such as the “On the Transformation of the Struggle with Counter-Revolutionary Elements into an All-People All-Party Movement” proclamation and the KWP’s May 30 Resolution. These measures are comparable to South Africa’s Population Registration Act.
 
In both South Africa and North Korea, the Apartheid and the Songbun regimes were used to justify the geographical segregation and establishment of localities limiting the freedom of oppressed black South Africans and North Korea’s hostile class.[18] In South Africa, Apartheid laws designated ‘Bantustans’ as homeland areas for black residents, stripping them of citizenship rights and forcing mass relocations.[19] Similarly, North Korea’s “hostile” class faces restricted movement and employment in isolated areas, akin to Apartheid’s spatial segregation.[20] Both regimes employed policies that disrupted families and communities, enduring social and economic hardships.
 
Both Apartheid and Songbun enacted laws that enforced large-scale racial or social segregation, dictating where people could live based on their designated category. They formalized classification systems with identity cards, specifying racial groups in South Africa and background and birth origin groups in North Korea. These categorizations were used to justify forced removals and relocations of marginalized groups to designated areas. Additionally, both states suppressed dissent through laws banning gatherings and organizations perceived as threats, while their education systems perpetuated labor divisions and social inequality. Furthermore, both systems facilitated the exploitation of labor, including instances of forced labor, domestically and sometimes internationally, further entrenching systemic inequities.
 
Differences
 
However, there are also significant differences between the two systems. South Africa’s Apartheid regime, characterized as a crime against humanity, focused primarily on enforcing racial segregation and discrimination through government legislation. Its laws institutionalized racial inequality by restricting the rights and freedoms of non-white South Africans, enforcing separate facilities, and imposing harsh penalties on those who resisted. The system aimed to maintain white minority rule and economic dominance, perpetuating systemic oppression and marginalization of black, colored, and Indian communities.
 
In contrast, North Korea’s crimes against humanity under the Songbun system target groups based on perceived political loyalty and family background. Songbun categorizes individuals into core, wavering, and hostile social classes, dictating access to resources and opportunities. The regime uses Songbun to control and oppress its population, rewarding loyalists while punishing perceived dissenters through systemic discrimination and severe human rights abuses. Unlike Apartheid, which was primarily race-based, North Korea’s system is based on political allegiance and social background, reflecting the regime’s draconian control over every aspect of citizens’ lives. Nevertheless, it is imperative to note that some racial elements are also involved in Songbun.[21] Chinese individuals within families are barred from the core class and can only advance to the wavering class through strict adherence to regime policies. Those with Japanese backgrounds[22] face even harsher discrimination, affecting their songbun classification and treatment in North Korean society, despite occasional exceptions based on exceptional talents or circumstances.[23]

Legal Parallels and Applicable Laws to Apartheid in North Korea

In particular based on discrimination against those of “impure” ethnic background, North Korea’s Songbun system could meet the criteria of contemporary apartheid under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, which defines crimes against humanity as “inhumane acts committed within an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups, aimed at maintaining that regime,” including murder, enslavement, torture, and persecution based on various grounds.[24] While South Africa’s crimes predominantly revolved around Apartheid and North Korea’s around the persecution of identifiable groups, both systems exhibit severe human rights abuses consistent with these categories.

Three pivotal international treaties apply to collectively target the crime of Apartheid: The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the Apartheid Convention, and the Rome Statute.[25] The ICERD, which entered into force in 1966, sets out to eliminate racial discrimination and Apartheid practices by affirming states’ obligations to prevent and eradicate such injustices.[26] In a comparable manner, Apartheid is defined by the Apartheid Convention, which has been in effect since 1976, as systematic oppression through cruel acts that uphold racial dominance and include denial of fundamental rights and discriminatory laws.[27] The 1998 Rome Statute, entered into force in 2002, establishes Apartheid as a crime against humanity in relation to pervasive or organized assaults on civilian populations.[28] While it adopts the same standards as the Apartheid Convention, it faces difficulties in defining "racial group" in accordance with international law.

Specifically, Article 2(h) of the Rome Statute defines Apartheid as inhumane acts similar to those in paragraph 1 of the Rome Statute, occurring within an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression by one racial group over others, aimed at maintaining control. The North Korean regime employs its own form of racism, emphasizing Korean racial superiority over all others. The Songbun system in North Korea, akin to Apartheid, institutionalized racial discrimination and domination by the Kim regime, highlighting the superiority of the Korean race over others and disadvantageous individuals with Chinese or Japanese heritage or backgrounds.[29] These discriminatory practices, alongside documented survivor testimonies and reports, illustrate the systemic oppression and suffering inflicted by both regimes on their respective populations.
 
Some scholars contend that the inclusion of Apartheid in the Rome Statute, which achieved customary international law status and is considered jus cogens—a peremptory norm of international law—is pivotal.[30] They argue that the crime of Apartheid remains relevant and applicable globally, not limited to its original context in South Africa. John Dugard, a South African professor of international law, underscores this view, suggesting that while the Apartheid Convention may have initially targeted South Africa, it now serves as a broader instrument under international law, encompassing systemic racial discrimination in any context. Numerous international legal instruments support this interpretation, such as the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention and the Draft Code of Crimes against Peace and Security of Mankind, both of which recognize Apartheid as a crime that is not geographically bound but rather as a universal condemnation of institutionalized racial oppression.[31]
 
Additionally, as Apartheid should be universally condemned as a crime for its institutionalization of racial oppression, scholars have aimed to advance different policy suggestions for eradicating this crime from North Korea.  . B. R. Myers, an American professor of international studies at Dongseo University in South Korea, focuses on internal public communication (propaganda) in order to understand how the North Korean regime constructs ideological legitimacy. The emphasis on racial purity in the regime’s own internal pronouncements leads Myers to conclude that rather than being a failed communist state, North Korea derives its legitimacy from “the claim to superior might, race-purity, and resolve”.[32] Based on these observations and his own upbringing in Apartheid-era South Africa, Myers believes that engagement with North Korea is more effective, and its opposite, isolation.
 
However, other commentators who lean towards engagement with North Korea find the comparisons between North Korean racism and Apartheid-era South Africa very uncomfortable. Marcus Noland notes that their reaction is understandable: they find it simpler to justify engaging with “misguided socialists” rather than with “racially obsessed fascists”.[33] For Americans in this category, the discomfort is amplified by the similarities to Ronald Reagan’s failed [34]“constructive engagement” approach towards South Africa’s Apartheid regime, which parallels current discussions on engaging with the Kim regime.[35]
 
Conclusion: A Step Forward

Both systems––South Africa’s Apartheid and North Korea’s Songbun––have been scrutinized for violating international human rights norms. North Korean decrees and resolutions established systemic discrimination against perceived political rivals, while Apartheid's Population Registration Act and later laws reinforced racial discrimination. These actions, which represent the systematic marginalization and repression of specific groups in each community, have been denounced under international law as crimes against humanity.

The Songbun system has escaped international attention despite its substantial ramifications, partly because outsiders are reluctant to recognize its coercive nature and the state maintains secrecy. The system exerts a persistent influence on the day-to-day lives of North Koreans, including through the extremely unequal distribution of resources. As long as North Korea's repressive system and acts of torture, unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, and harsh prison conditions continue, the international community must hold the country accountable for these atrocities.

Nevertheless, the enforcement of international regulations and convention against North Korea’s violations continues to face numerous challenges relative to the necessary fulfillment of the notion of sovereignty. North Korea’s non-ratification or non-signatory status for these conventions, limited jurisdiction of the ICC, and the nature of North Korea as a rogue and dictatorial regime impede the international community to take concrete steps to alter the course of the ongoing violations. However, despite these challenges, international pressure, diplomatic efforts, and advocacy through international organizations remain important tools to promote compliance with international conventions and norms, including those related to human rights and discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of race. As a first step in combating Apartheid in all its forms, the international community must hold North Korea accountable for its chronic violations of international treaties. This will help protect the fundamental rights of all North Koreans. In particular, when providing humanitarian aid to North Korea, the international community could take steps to ensure that aid reaches the most vulnerable groups, including those disadvantaged under the Songbun system; for instance, the WFP should “develop more stringent monitoring and seek to assure the right to food for all those who are hungry, including those in neglected rural areas, street children and the up to 120,000 men, women and children held in the kwanliso prison labor camps”.[36] This is not the end, but rather another step forward in the international investigation of North Korea’s violations of human rights, indicating to the country and the international community that rapid action is required. The urgency of these efforts is underscored by the profound and ongoing impact on the lives of North Koreans, demanding swift and decisive international action.

SoEun Park is currently a research intern with HRNK. She is an undergraduate student at Harvard University concentrating in Government and Sociology.

[1] Collins, R. & The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. (2012). Marked for life: SONGBUN, North Korea’s social classification system. In Marked for Life: SONGBUN, North Korea’s Social Classification System. The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/HRNK_Songbun_Web.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Robertson, P. (2020, October 28). North Korea’s caste system. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/07/05/north-koreas-caste-system#:~:text=Kim's%20government%20based%20each%20citizen's,War%2C%20from%201950%20to%201953.
[5] Collins, R. R. N. K. & Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. (2021). South Africa’s Apartheid & North Korea’s Songbun: Parallels in crimes against Humanity. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/Collins_Apartheid_Songbun_Final.pdf
[6] Ibid.
[7]  Ibid.
[8]  Ibid.
[9]  Ibid.
[10]  Ibid.
[11]  Ibid.
[12] AUHRM Project Focus Area: The Apartheid | African Union. (n.d.). https://au.int/en/auhrm-project-focus-area-apartheid#:~:text=The%20Apartheid%20
[13] A history of Apartheid in South Africa | South African History Online. (n.d.). https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa
[14] Ibid.
[15] AUHRM Project Focus Area: The Apartheid | African Union. (n.d.).
[16] A history of Apartheid in South Africa | South African History Online. (n.d.).
[17] Ibid.
[18] Collins, R. R. N. K. & Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. (2021). South Africa’s Apartheid & North Korea’s Songbun: Parallels in crimes against Humanity.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Note: Kim Jong-Un’s mother is an ethnic Korean who previously lived in Japan and was born in Osaka, Japan. For political reasons, the regime cannot reveal this to the wider population.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (n.d.). International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf
[25] Collins, R. R. N. K. & Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. (2021). South Africa’s Apartheid & North Korea’s Songbun: Parallels in crimes against Humanity.
[26] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (1965, December 21). United Nations Human Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racia
[27] United Nations General Assembly. (1974). International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. In United Nations General Assembly Resolution. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf
[28] United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.shtml
[29] Collins, R. R. N. K. & Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. (2021). South Africa’s Apartheid & North Korea’s Songbun: Parallels in crimes against Humanity.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Noland, M. (2014, February 11). Myers, Apartheid, and Engagement with North Korea. Peterson Institute for International Economics. https://www.piie.com/blogs/north-korea-witness-transformation/myers-apartheid-and-engagement-north-korea
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] COHEN, R. (2015, April 21). Must UN Agencies Also Fail in North Korea? 38 North. https://www.38north.org/2015/04/rcohen042115/