Panel I: Assessing the Humanitarian Crisis in North Korea
The first panel presented the many types of human rights abuses in North Korea, including religious persecution, famine and human trafficking. Descriptions included accounts of widespread stunted growth and other conditions related to malnutrition as a result of the regime’s treatment of its people. According to the panel, the situation in North Korea should be regarded not as one of policy and politics, but of humanity.
The panel focused on the plight of North Korean refugees, especially those attempting to flee into China, with numbers estimated to be between 100 and 250 refugees each week. China refuses to give them refugee status despite demands by international NGOs, an issue which has become a source of tension between the United States and China. The Chinese government claims the situation is not a human rights issue, but rather a border management issue because the refugees have entered China purely for economic reasons. In the case of North Korea, however, many argue that the severity of the economic deprivation is a form of political oppression.
Recently China has tightened its borders even further in response to bombings and other forms of protest. In addition, forcibly repatriated North Koreans are certain to be persecuted upon their return to North Korea. The solution lies in changing Chinese policy. China must grant North Korean defectors refugee status and give citizenship to spouses of Chinese residents and their children. Furthermore, the panel suggested that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees be allowed to visit the border to assess the situation and to decide who merits refugee status. There must be a global effort to address the needs of North Korean refugees by providing aid in the form of health care, economic assistance, food and other resources. An international coalition is necessary to apply adequate pressure on China on this issue.
One of the panelists provided a historical basis for the current status in North Korea. He suggested that the human rights violations have been shaped by North Korea’s political incorporation of neo-Confucianism and subsequent development into Stalinism. This created a particularly cruel form of government, which promoted slave labor and collective punishment. Based on this premise, the solution to the current situation in North Korea would be to keep human rights at the forefront of the agenda. Simultaneously, governments must continue to provide humanitarian aid to alleviate the immediate food crisis. The US should exhibit a willingness to negotiate, not necessarily because negotiations will immediately lead to improvements, but for the sake of maintaining a dialogue. According to the panel, the more North Koreans meet South Koreans and have increased contact through technology with the outside world, the faster the regime’s legitimacy will disintegrate.
The panel did not agree whether it ultimately will be the Korean people, China, the United States, or the international community as a whole who may resolve these issues. Furthermore, the situation of the trafficking of North Korean refugees into China constitutes a major human rights violation. According to estimates, there are more than 10,000 victims of trafficking, thus making this specific human rights abuse a very serious problem on its own. The injustice of human trafficking does not only impact the victims but also their children who face similarly bleak futures. The Chinese government has, unfortunately, not demonstrated leadership on this issue by failing to respond to international appeals to grant the North Koreans refugee status and prosecute those responsible for trafficking vulnerable North Korean citizens. The panel suggested that the UN Security Council could issue an investigation by the International Criminal Court to hold those responsible who have engaged in trafficking.
Additionally, the ongoing food shortage since the famine of the 1990’s has severely impacted North Koreans physically over the past few decades as a result of relentless malnutrition and starvation. Presented research indicates that the famine of 1990 killed nearly 5% of the North Korean population and was largely preventable. In North Korea, malnutrition corresponds to differences in class and geography. The urban working class and those in the Northeast are worst affected, largely due to corrupt food delivery mechanisms. Ultimately the problem is that the North Korean regime’s complete dismissal of human rights. Recently, the North Korean government has been particularly inflexible, exemplified by the ban of private grain trade, confiscation of grain in rural areas, and the expulsion of humanitarian organizations from North Korea. The panel strongly felt that the power must be more evenly distributed in order for North Korea to build food security; otherwise the inherent class structure of food distribution would be perpetuated.
The panel cited South Korea, China, and the United States as key players and listed a number of actions South Korea should take to improve the human rights situation in North Korea, including: 1) appointing a special envoy to deal with human rights, 2) allowing Radio Free Asia to broadcast from South Korea to reach North Korean, 3) targeting its food program geographically within North Korea and providing a food type that is less likely to be diverted by elites, 4) economically engaging North Korea by involving economic actors not controlled by the central government, 5) implementing private treaties to raise these issues at every possible meeting involving stakeholders, and 6) actively addressing the refugee problem. The panel agreed that any high level delegation sent to China should bring up the issue of human rights in North Korea as a private, consistent, and permanent dialogue. In particular, as China seeks to become a more prominent member of the international system it must be held accountable for its role in addressing the North Korean human rights crisis and its role in providing a safe haven for North Korean refugees. Furthermore, as North Korea flounders economically and struggles to feed its own people, it will be unable to turn to multi-lateral financial institutions like the World Bank or Asia Bank as long as its military spending is higher than its social spending. North Korea must reach a much greater degree of transparency and resolve its human rights issues in order to join these important organizations and benefit from legitimate recognition from the international system.
Panel II: Can Human Rights Concerns be addressed in a Comprehensive Northeast Asia Security Regime?
The focus of this panel was on the responsibility of the international community to respond to the human rights crisis in North Korea. Panelists were asked to examine what the best strategies would be for approaching North Korea on the issue of human rights. This discussion was focused on the precedent of the Helsinki process and its potential application within the Asian context. The Six-party peace talks were also central to this panel’s discussion. The session began with three important questions which directed the discussion: Are there multilateral mechanisms that can serve as feasible models for a negotiation scheme? Are there specific proposals involving a process similar to the Helsinki one for Northeast Asia? How can we get beyond the competing notions of containment vs. sanctions?
The panel presented the Japanese perspective on human rights violations in North Korea, focused entirely on the Japanese concern about the abduction of Japanese nationals. According to one panelist, from 1959 to1984 thousands of Japanese nationals moved to North Korea in response to propaganda and have not been able to leave. More than five-million Japanese have signed a petition voicing their concerns on this topic. In 2002, when Prime Minister Koizumi visited North Korea, Kim Jong-Il apologized for the acts of abduction, which North Korea had long denied. According to the panel, Japan also has a stake in dissuading North Korea from developing nuclear material, since it would be a grave threat to the entire region. Therefore, Japan believes the key to improving the human rights situation is to make North Korean officials realize the benefits they will enjoy if the DPRK can become a member of the international community.
The panel also discussed the role of the Six-party peace talks in improving the human rights situation in North Korea. According to the panelists, the Six-party talks are complicated by the five countries all having a common interest in non-proliferation, but each having a different relationship with North Korea. The role of South Korea in engaging with North Korea is especially complex. Although the South Korean government believes in human rights as a universal value, from which no country can claim exception, it is possible that more political pressure towards North Korea would be counter-productive for South Korean interests and stability within the region in general.
From the South Korean point of view, the collapse of the North Korean regime is not a welcome scenario because South Korea is not yet capable of reabsorbing North Korea. Therefore, for South Korea, a more gradual process would be a more desirable outcome and, in this case, engagement is a more effective tactic than increased pressure. The process would be a gradual intervention of South Korea aiding North Korea in improving its standard of living and encouraging change. According to the panel, South Korea has conveyed to North Korea that they must reform in order to continue receiving humanitarian assistance. The Joint Statement from the Six-party talks was significant because it was the first time that major actors in the region have accepted a collective and comprehensive approach to deal with security issues. Yet the challenge of integrating discussions about human rights remains. Currently, there is no specific time frame or set sequence for negotiations. There should be a way to get the North Korean government and other governments of Northeast Asia to talk about humanitarian concerns, in an evolutionary manner, similar to peace talks about the nuclear weapons issue. North Korea must move on an evolutionary path not solely concerned with nuclear security.
Similar to the Six-party talks, the Helsinki Accords were launched in 1975 on clearly defined principles. The Helsinki process organized separate negotiations for each goal, decided on consensus, and gave veto-power to every country. In the case of North Korea, the principles enumerated in the Joint Statement provide a good start. A multilateral framework is an important tool to tackle both security and human rights concerns. The panel emphasized that the Helsinki Process is a viable model that should still be applied cautiously within the boundaries of the Asian context. The problem with negotiations in North Korea at the moment is that they are only about nuclear containment, which is too narrow a topic to make for long term success. The discussions with North Korea should include methods for enhancing transparency, developing infrastructure, improving human welfare, encouraging freer movement of people and ideas, and adhering to international human right standards. Increasing the number of issues on the table can also grant each issue more legitimacy. This would also allow negotiators movement between issues preventing discussions from being stalled indefinitely. Given North Korea’s economic situation, technical development assistance and the rigorous enforcement of the consideration process by multilateral financial institutions could be vehicles for negotiating improvements in human rights. The idea of a multilateral Helsinki-like arrangement is worth pursuing alongside the Six-party talks. Unlike other regions in the world, there is no multilateral organization in Asia that puts human rights in a security framework. This needs to change; multilateral action must be organized to bring sustained and structured attention to the Korean peninsula within a broader framework.
Recommendations:
1) Humanitarian aid should be linked to delivery mechanisms in order to eliminate the current corruption that exists in food distribution in North Korea. While food aid is undoubtedly essential, it must be accompanied by a system of checks and balances to ensure equity in distribution.
2) The porous border between North Korea and China has developed into a unique cultural entity because of the influx of North Korean refugees into Northeastern China. As this continues, China must:
a) Grant North Koreans refugee status.
b) Support local level exchange between Chinese and North Koreans to enhance openness and support interpersonal dialogue.
3) The international community should turn to the Helsinki Process as a model for how to integrate human rights into the security agenda. A comprehensive strategy like the Helsinki Process is an important tool for the United States, South Korea, Japan, North Korea, and the international community in general. Although, the Helsinki Process is an excellent model, it should be cautiously applied to Northeast Asia and needs to be adapted given the unique Asian context.
4) Human rights should be a consistent element in all dialogue with North Korea despite the complications of conflicting interests of involved parties in the Six-party talks.
5) The regulations of multilateral financial institutions provide opportunities for reforming North Korea’s military spending as well as encouraging an increase in social spending. As North Korea struggles to feed its citizens and seeks recognition from the international community, institutions like the World Bank and Asia Bank may be helpful in alleviating the human rights crisis in North Korea.
Report prepared by Rachel Kagel and Orly Friedman in cooperation with Dr. Shyama Venkateswar and Sita Hellerich.
Copyright © 2001. Asia Society. All rights reserved. Please click here for legal restrictions and terms of use applicable to this site and Asia Society's Privacy Policy.
