Planned US law on North Korea would only make things worse

Originally published by IPS

Editor's note:

On July 22, 2004, the US House of Representatives unanimously passed the
North Korea Human Rights Act (NKHRA), writes Christine Ahn, who coordinates
the Economic and Social Human Rights Programme at the Institute for Food and
Development Policy and is a member of the Korea Solidarity Committee of the
San Francisco Bay Area.

In this article, the author writes that the bill was backed by a coalition
of right-wing evangelical Christian groups and pro-war thinktanks that
believe the collapse of the regime will usher in freedom for North Koreans.
It demonstrates US policymakers' complete ignorance of North Korea, the
conditions that have caused famine there, and the ensuing human rights
crisis.

The NKHRA is based on the assumption that the famine in North Korea was a
result of Kim Jong Il's mismanagement of the country. Most experts, on the
other hand, agree that the main causes of famine were a series of
catastrophic events beyond North Korea's control: the collapse of the Soviet
Union, which brought an end to the shipments of oil needed to run tractors
and other agricultural machinery, and a series of the historic droughts and
floods.

A letter signed by over 100 NGOs states that the bill would not improve
human rights but would further hinder international humanitarian aid and
negotiations for peace on the Korean peninsula.

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug (IPS) - From the mid 1990s to early this century, the
famine in North Korea displaced over 5 million people and ravaged 5 percent
of the population. A documentary filmmaker who travelled the country
extensively said it was impossible to describe what he saw, that "it was
worse than war."

Today, the arduous march appears to have finally passed. Even the UN Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reports that 2003- 2004 was the best
harvest North Korea had in nine years. But they are still facing a food
deficit of 944,000 tons of food, meaning that at least 6.5 million North
Koreans will go hungry this year.

Washington, however, has a different idea for what North Koreans need.

On July 22, 2004, the House of Representatives unanimously passed the North
Korea Human Rights Act (NKHRA) to "improve" the human rights conditions of
North Koreans. The bill was introduced by Iowa Republican Jim Leach and
backed by a coalition of right-wing evangelical Christian groups and
pro-war thinktanks, including the Defense Forum Foundation, that believe the
collapse of the regime bring freedom to North Koreans. Its Senate
counterpart, the North Korea Freedom Act, has been said to read like a
manual to topple the North Korean regime.

This bill will make USD 24 million dollars in taxpayer funds annually
available to US-based NGOs working on improving the human rights of North
Koreans. It will also expand radio service to North Korea, strengthen
monitoring of humanitarian aid to North Korea, and permit North Korean
defectors to apply for asylum in the US.

This bill demonstrates US policymakers' complete ignorance of North Korea,
the conditions that have caused famine there, and the ensuing human rights
crisis.

The NKHRA is based on the assumption that the famine in North Korea was a
result of Kim Jong Il's mismanagement of the country. However, most experts
agree that the main cause of famine was a series of catastrophic events
beyond North Korea's control. The first was the collapse of the Soviet
Union, which brought an end to the shipments of oil needed to run tractors
and
other agricultural machinery. The second cause was the historic droughts and
floods that destroyed 300,000 hectares of agricultural land and devastated
1.9 million tons of grain.

Ironically, the most vocal opposition to the NKHRA has come from a wide
spectrum of South Korean human rights groups, including Sarangbang for
Human Rights, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, and Good
Friends, a respected humanitarian organisation that has worked most with
North Korean refugees.

A letter signed by over 100 NGOs states that the bill would not improve
human rights but rather would further hinder international humanitarian aid
and negotiations for peace on the Korean peninsula. According to the
widely-respected March 2004 report by Good Friends, "We cannot separate
the problem of human rights from the food shortage. The human rights
improvement that North Korean residents want most is large-scale
humanitarian food aid before anything else."

Although food aid should not come with strings attached, the NKHRA
stipulates that before more aid is given, the US government would need
assurances about the North's improvements in human rights.

Since 1995, the United States has provided about 1.9 million tons of food
aid to North Korea. When the Bush administration took office, food aid to
that country dropped from 500,000 to about 100,000 tonnes per year, clearly
as a result of it political agenda. Undersecretary of State John Bolton
characterised the Bush administration's aim as follows: "the end of North
Korea".

The monitoring of humanitarian aid, strangely, seems less of an issue to the
relief agencies providing the aid. In 2003, James Morris, Executive
Director of the World Food Programme (WFP), testified before the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations: "It would be wrong for me to depict the
regime in Pyongyang as totally uncooperative," he said, noting that the
WFP staff have access to 85 percent of the population and that they
"believe that most food is getting through to the women and children who
need it".

A recent study by UNICEF showed that food aid is reaching the most
vulnerable North Koreans. From 1998 to 2002, the number of underweight
children dropped by two-thirds, acute malnutrition was almost cut in half,
and chronic malnutrition dropped by one-third. Caritas International, the
largest private humanitarian network in North Korea, is confident that food
aid is reaching the most needy.

On a recent trip to North Korea, I expected to find a depressed society
completely devoid of foreigners, but this was not at all the case. I met
many conservation agriculturalists from around the world who were working
with the government to move their food production to a more sustainable,
less energy-intensive model. In fact, Theodor Friedrich, a senior
agriculturalist with FAO who has visited North Korea five times, said: "I
always compare DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) with countries in
Africa and Latin America. In any African of Latin American country,
malnourishment is much more visible and omni-present than in DPRK".

Friedrich also said that food security for an isolated DPRK would always be
a very difficult challenge. Once North Korea reunifies with South Korea,
historically the country's breadbasket, food security will be less of an
issue. But in the meantime, if Americans truly care about the human rights
of North Koreans, we should first understand that underlying the crisis is
the food shortage and then demand the US government sign a permanent peace
treaty and end 50 years of economic sanctions. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Christine Ahn coordinates the Economic and Social Human Rights Programme
at the Institute for Food and Development Policy and is a member of the
Korea
Solidarity Committee of the San Francisco Bay Area.