By John Burton
One of the main criticisms of the U.N. sanctions against North Korea is that they hamper the delivery of humanitarian aid. The U.N.'s human rights expert on North Korea appeared to acknowledge this fact when he said recently that U.N. sanctions should be eased as the country faces a potential food crisis.
The statement by Tomas Ojea Quintana, the U.N. special rapporteur, should provide an opportunity to re-examine whether U.N. sanctions are the most effective way to deal with ending North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
He warned that with the most vulnerable children and elderly at risk of starvation due to Pyongyang's strict COVID-19 controls, the "sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council should be reviewed and eased when necessary to both facilitate humanitarian and lifesaving assistance."
Other observers suggest that the easing of sanctions could help break the current deadlock between the U.S. and North Korea on the resumption of negotiations.
The U.S., however, appears determined to keep the sanctions in place while paying lip service to its claims that the sanctions do not interfere with humanitarian aid, blaming Pyongyang instead for the dire food situation. U.S. lawmakers also appear reluctant to ease sanctions. But the truth of the matter is that the U.S. needs to take a more proactive approach in addressing North Korea's humanitarian crisis in an effort to build trust with Pyongyang.
Humanitarian conditions in North Korea are only likely to get worse based on a recent assessment by the U.S. intelligence community. It said that North Korea was "highly vulnerable" to the effects of climate change and lacked the capability to adapt.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Climate Change noted that North Korea's poor infrastructure and resource management would probably weaken its ability to cope with increased flooding and drought, exacerbating chronic food shortages.
One hopeful sign is that the U.S. Treasury Department, which is in charge of policing U.S. sanctions worldwide, is at least reviewing its sanctions policy. This includes studying whether to expand humanitarian exceptions to ease the flow of goods and the burden of compliance measures, which have been a source of complaints by U.S. aid groups working in North Korea.
A change in U.S. sanction rules would also probably affect U.N. sanctions on North Korea, which were largely written by Washington during the Obama administration.
But a smarter way for the U.S. to deal with humanitarian issues in North Korea would be working with the U.N. on promoting sustainable development measures.
Washington has often cited North Korea's human rights violations as a justification for its sanctions policy. But working with the U.N. on its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) program as applied to North Korea could help address human rights issues.
Historically, North Korea has preferred working with the U.N. since Pyongyang regards it as a relatively neutral organization that conveys international recognition to the regime. It has also expressed support for the SDG program which seeks to improve the quality of human life regardless of political system or ideology.
The SDGs address many of the problems affecting North Korea ranging from food insecurity to adequate and sustainable energy. Pyongyang has cooperated with the U.N.'s World Food Programme and UNICEF in trying to feed its most vulnerable populations and has been amenable to accepting U.N. recommendations, such as increasing mandated maternity leave and protecting the rights of the disabled.
This has resulted in cautious optimism that if North Korea can be persuaded to improve basic services, it will also lead to increased economic and social rights.
This oblique approach may prove to be a more effective way to improve the human rights situation in North Korea than tackling the issue head on since Pyongyang is unwilling to engage with U.N. initiatives that directly deal with human rights violations in the country.
This reflects the fact that North Korea is sensitive about its legitimacy and international acceptance and views criticism of its human rights situation as a threat to its status.
One exception to this rule is that North Korea has participated in the U.N.'s Universal Periodic Review, under which each U.N. member conducts a self-examination of its human rights obligations.
Pyongyang has regularly participated in this process since it is not focused solely on North Korea, but rather conducted for all U.N. member countries. It also provides an opportunity for Pyongyang to highlight what it considers its human rights achievements.
Supporting SDG initiatives as a way to improve the human rights situation in North Korea is unlikely to produce quick and immediate results. But it does promise a partial solution to the humanitarian challenges that North Korea faces, which in turn could result in better human rights conditions in the future.
John Burton (johnburtonft@yahoo.com), a former Korea correspondent for the Financial Times, is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist and consultant.
 |
The statement by Tomas Ojea Quintana, the U.N. special rapporteur, should provide an opportunity to re-examine whether U.N. sanctions are the most effective way to deal with ending North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
He warned that with the most vulnerable children and elderly at risk of starvation due to Pyongyang's strict COVID-19 controls, the "sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council should be reviewed and eased when necessary to both facilitate humanitarian and lifesaving assistance."
Other observers suggest that the easing of sanctions could help break the current deadlock between the U.S. and North Korea on the resumption of negotiations.
The U.S., however, appears determined to keep the sanctions in place while paying lip service to its claims that the sanctions do not interfere with humanitarian aid, blaming Pyongyang instead for the dire food situation. U.S. lawmakers also appear reluctant to ease sanctions. But the truth of the matter is that the U.S. needs to take a more proactive approach in addressing North Korea's humanitarian crisis in an effort to build trust with Pyongyang.
Humanitarian conditions in North Korea are only likely to get worse based on a recent assessment by the U.S. intelligence community. It said that North Korea was "highly vulnerable" to the effects of climate change and lacked the capability to adapt.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Climate Change noted that North Korea's poor infrastructure and resource management would probably weaken its ability to cope with increased flooding and drought, exacerbating chronic food shortages.
One hopeful sign is that the U.S. Treasury Department, which is in charge of policing U.S. sanctions worldwide, is at least reviewing its sanctions policy. This includes studying whether to expand humanitarian exceptions to ease the flow of goods and the burden of compliance measures, which have been a source of complaints by U.S. aid groups working in North Korea.
A change in U.S. sanction rules would also probably affect U.N. sanctions on North Korea, which were largely written by Washington during the Obama administration.
But a smarter way for the U.S. to deal with humanitarian issues in North Korea would be working with the U.N. on promoting sustainable development measures.
Washington has often cited North Korea's human rights violations as a justification for its sanctions policy. But working with the U.N. on its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) program as applied to North Korea could help address human rights issues.
Historically, North Korea has preferred working with the U.N. since Pyongyang regards it as a relatively neutral organization that conveys international recognition to the regime. It has also expressed support for the SDG program which seeks to improve the quality of human life regardless of political system or ideology.
The SDGs address many of the problems affecting North Korea ranging from food insecurity to adequate and sustainable energy. Pyongyang has cooperated with the U.N.'s World Food Programme and UNICEF in trying to feed its most vulnerable populations and has been amenable to accepting U.N. recommendations, such as increasing mandated maternity leave and protecting the rights of the disabled.
This has resulted in cautious optimism that if North Korea can be persuaded to improve basic services, it will also lead to increased economic and social rights.
This oblique approach may prove to be a more effective way to improve the human rights situation in North Korea than tackling the issue head on since Pyongyang is unwilling to engage with U.N. initiatives that directly deal with human rights violations in the country.
This reflects the fact that North Korea is sensitive about its legitimacy and international acceptance and views criticism of its human rights situation as a threat to its status.
One exception to this rule is that North Korea has participated in the U.N.'s Universal Periodic Review, under which each U.N. member conducts a self-examination of its human rights obligations.
Pyongyang has regularly participated in this process since it is not focused solely on North Korea, but rather conducted for all U.N. member countries. It also provides an opportunity for Pyongyang to highlight what it considers its human rights achievements.
Supporting SDG initiatives as a way to improve the human rights situation in North Korea is unlikely to produce quick and immediate results. But it does promise a partial solution to the humanitarian challenges that North Korea faces, which in turn could result in better human rights conditions in the future.
John Burton (johnburtonft@yahoo.com), a former Korea correspondent for the Financial Times, is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist and consultant.
