Commentary

This edition focuses on three main interconnected issues:

The break in the aid pipeline
Stalemate in Pyongyang’s negotiations with Seoul and Washington.
The refugee crisis

The World Food Programme has been warning that because aid donations are drying up, due to competition from other claims, such as Afghanistan, and from ‘aid fatigue’ in respect of DPRK, it is being forced to cut back. The email from WFP in Pyongyang was stark, warning of:

‘the very real prospect of no food assistance from July onward. At the beginning of May, WFP had to take the hard decision to stop the distribution of cereals to 350,000 elderly people and 675,000 secondary school children, in order to eke out the remaining resources for the most vulnerable. 144,000 caregivers, the majority of whom are women, are no longer receiving WFP rations. In addition, food for work has been sharply cut back therefore reaching far fewer urban unemployed in the northeast, possibly affecting half a million people. More than one million people will not get WFP cereals from May because of the shortfall.’

Japan has suspended aid on what looks like a suspiciously spurious issue of ‘abductees’. This comes at a time when John Powell, WFP Regional Director for Asia, was reporting on the achievements of the aid programme and when there were all sorts of positive signs on the economic front – the DPRK economy grew for the third year in a row, inter-Korean trade was up, DPRK held a software expo in Beijing. These, and others, are documented on our website. The message is that aid can be effective in the short term and the economy can be rehabilitated in the longer term. There are solutions but it is necessary both to identify them, and the constraints and the opposition to them.

The food/aid situation has to be seen against the background of Pyongyang’s international relations, especially with Seoul and Washington. The collapse of the old economic relationship with the Soviet Union lies at the root of the economic crisis, and the solution of that crisis is dependant upon a new relationship with the outside world.

The visit to Pyongyang in April of President Kim’s special envoy Lim Dong-won shows how much resilience there is in the North-South dialogue despite US policy. The umbrage shown by Pyongyang to Foreign Affairs-Trade Minister Choi Sung-hong’s remarks in Washing (‘NK needs a big stick’) indicates how vulnerable that dialogue is. Chairman Kim’s reception of the politician Park Geun-hye (daughter of Park Chung Hee), and the European business delegation with her is yet another example of attempting to outflank US hostility, but these attempts are far from sufficient to build up the constituency for normalisation in the South, and the world, especially the US, that DPRK needs. The classic illustration of this has been the undue focus on the Arirang festival rather than utilising the opportunity of the South co-hosting of the World Cup. A replay of the 1966 triumph, when NK defeated Italy, would have done far more to create positive awareness, and tourist dollars, than Arirang.

DPRK desperately needs both, as the refugee saga makes clear. Many people have moved into Korean-populated areas of China to escape the crisis. Some then try various methods to move on to other places in search of a better life. That is understandable and at a manageable level is a useful way of alleviating distress. However certain NGOs and individuals have tried to push things further in order to provoke a crisis which they argue will produce a solution by bringing about the collapse of the DPRK. They are wrong on many counts, and their actions will exacerbate not relieve. China will crack down on illegal immigrants. Japan and US have demonstrated that they do not want refugees and although ROK has publicly to offer safe haven, in private it is worried. Koreans from the North (and China) are unwelcome even at current low levels; a flood would be catastrophic. It would be far worse than in Germany. The solution to the humanitarian crisis in the DPRK lies in aid and the rehabilitation of the economy. That it turn revolves crucially around US policy. Inflaming the refugee situation will merely strengthen US hawks rather than debeak them.

Tim Beal

Food and Aid

World Food Programme Report

Testimony by John Powell, Regional Director for Asia at the World Food Programme, before the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee on May 2, 2002. ..//..

Power-the lack of power is evident everywhere, especially in the industrial sector where factories sit idle, causing considerable unemployment and underemployment,..//.. any land on which food could be produced-however tenuously-would be used, despite the negative impact on the environment that this practice causes---including increased vulnerability to flooding. In urban areas we saw land cultivated from the roadside to the very edge of the apartment buildings. In rural areas, the few metres of land around the houses are intensely cultivated - including on the roofs. ..//..Children's nutrition-there was a visible improvement in the health status of the children. We no longer saw evidence of the widespread acute malnutrition seen in the previous years. Children in kindergartens and primary schools were active and alert. A far cry from the reports of just a few years ago..//..So, while great strides have been made in reducing the levels of acute malnutrition, the kind most associated with famine, chronic malnutrition remains at unacceptably high levels. ..//..On the issue of the alleged diversion of WFP food assistance to the military, let me be direct. The army takes what it wants from the national harvest up front, in full. And it takes it in the form of food Koreans prefer: Korean rice. ..//... They do not need to take WFP food. Nor have we any evidence that they do. ..//.. So, like in any WFP operation anywhere in the world, we do not know where each and every bag of food is going but we do have a reasonable degree of assurance that the food provided through WFP gets to those who need it. ..//..This being said, we have come a very long way with the DPRK Authorities over the past four years, as trust and confidence has been built. ..//..

As to resources, WFP will run out of food in July or August this year unless new pledges are made urgently. ..//.. Some 1.5 million people will not get food because of the shortfall. DPRK is a mountainous country with limited arable land and a short growing season. It cannot produce enough food to meet the basic requirements of its people. And it does not have the foreign exchange to import that food. ..//... There is no doubt that the people are hungry and need the food. Without that food, the prospects are chilling. Those who rely on WFP assistance are looking down the barrel of a food crisis. ..//..

Source: Nautilus website 20 May 2002

Pyongyang, Seoul, Washington

Diplomacy by Dereliction: U.S. Policy Toward Korea Is in Disarray

Bruce Cumings, Professor of History at the University of Chicago

..//..A year after taking office, Bush has presided over a cacophony of mixed signals and diplomatic backsliding that has left U.S. policy toward Korea in disarray. ..//.. Last June EU leaders negotiated a DPRK moratorium on long-range missile testing until 2003. The North has also signed several international agreements opposing terrorism…//... Few realize that within hours of the [September 11] attacks Pyongyang denounced them and sent a diplomatic note of condolence, and assiduously sought to get itself off the State Department's list of "terrorist" nations by signing on to several international agreements against terrorism. Whatever opportunism may be involved here, these are unprecedented and positive changes that demonstrate the North's desire for good relations with the U.S…//.. one hopes they [Bush Administration] will return to serious negotiations with Pyongyang--and the hopes and dreams of Koreans for reconciliation with their brethren will not again be dashed.

Source JoongAng Ilbo 28 February 2002

Apologies to Seoul and Beijing

Chalmers Johnson (former Professor of East Asian Politics at Berkeley)

When it comes to the histories and cultures of the countries of the Pacific, the U.S. president either received a lousy education at Andover and Yale or else failed to study…//..

On his next stop, South Korea, Bush took the de rigueur look north through binoculars at one member of the newly designated "axis of evil." He is lucky that the Koreans, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize winner who is the current president of South Korea, are polite people. They had every reason to tell him to take his motley crew of U.S. soldiers, spy planes, napalm bombs and nuclear weapons, and go home.

In June 2000, President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea ventured to the North Korean capital to attempt a reconciliation ..//... He met with great success.

The meeting allowed Kim to proclaim, "The North will no longer attempt unification by force and, at the same time, we will not do any harm to the North. The most important outcome of the summit is that there is no longer going to be any war."

But this development ran directly counter to the interests of the American military establishment, the American arms industry and America's position as hegemon of East Asia, and it spread panic among American strategists and intelligence operatives.

In his "axis of evil" speech of Jan. 29, 2002, Bush succeeded in scuttling the emerging hopes for peace on the Korean Peninsula. In Seoul, amid pomp and obfuscation, while he blathered on about Laura, terrorism, democracy, worship, and "the family," South Koreans may have wondered what he really had in mind. They no doubt feared that they had entrusted their fate to the village idiot…//..

As a matter of our own national self-respect, we should apologize on his behalf and pledge in the future to keep him home munching on pretzels and watching TV.

Source: JoongAng Ilbo 7 March 2002

U.S., not the North, is a barrier

It is a pity that North Korea pulled the plug on inter-Korean economic talks just as they were about to take place. But we must not forget that the fundamental reason North Korea backed off from the meeting is because of the Bush administration's hard-line policies toward Pyongyang. That is clear from observing the atmosphere in Pyongyang…//..

The North Korean leader's policy is to place the military first. While he holds total control over the military authorities, he is trying to bend it to be a supporter of reform and open-door policies.//..

And how does Washington see things? Contrary to common belief, it was the United States that did not keep its end of the bargain agreed to in Geneva. In article 2 of the agreement, Washington agreed to lift restrictions on trade and investment within six months after signing the agreement. But the Clinton administration lifted only partially the sanctions six years after the agreement, in June, 2000.

When the Bush administration was inaugurated, the United States hardened its position toward the North. The Bush administration shows no interest in normalizing relations with North Korea, and has taken the position that individual issues, such as terrorism and missiles, must be solved. The U.S. government seems to believe that North Korea will eventually collapse.

Considering the thinking in Pyongyang and Washington, the cancellation of the inter-Korean talks can be understood. President George W. Bush is anathema to Pyongyang. The reformists in Pyongyang may be grinding their teeth in frustration over the fiasco that has become of their plan to revive the stagnant North Korean economy with support from the International Monetary Fund because of Mr. Bush's hard line. The group opposed to reforms will block the resumption of inter-Korean talks and talks with Washington…//..

North Korea craves normalizing relations with Washington. ..//..

Conservative groups in Seoul and Washington claim that North Korea has not changed, but it is rather the United States that has not changed. The Clinton administration's engagement policy towards the North started with the presumption that Pyongyang would collapse, but it revised that assessment after the Perry report. The Bush administration is again backing a policy of ignoring North Korea. As long as Washington acts that way, North Korea will not appear at meetings that it has promised to attend. Seoul has to urge the Bush administration to change, not Pyongyang.

Source: JoongAng Ilbo 10 May 2002

US Blamed for Stalling Talks With NK

The envisioned dialogue between North Korea and the United States has long been delayed because key policymakers in the U.S. administration have shown conflicting approaches to issues regarding the Korean peninsula, according to sources in Seoul.

The talks were originally expected to take place early June with the planned visit to Pyongyang by Jack Pritchard, U.S. ambassador for negotiations with North Korea.

But the prospect has become dim as little progress has been made since the U.S. agreed to send its special envoy to Pyongyang in late April. The North had expressed willingness to accept Pritchard during a meeting between its leader Kim Jong-il and President Kim Dae-jung's Special Envoy Lim Dong-won, who was in Pyongyang in early April.

Sources have attributed the delay to the failure of the U.S. administration in working out a delegation, timing and a specific agenda for the talks. ..//..

Other sources cited the differences in opinions between the State Department and the Defense Department. ..//..

North Korea, for its part, has been showing a relatively docile attitude recently over a series of cases such as its retention on the list of states sponsoring terrorism.

Source: Korea Times 29 May 2002

Refugee issue

NGOs Offer Conflicting Prospects for Defections

Human rights activists at home and abroad are projecting different schemes for possible defections by North Koreans during the World Cup starting May 31, puzzling the South Korean government scuttling to handle an increasing number of defections.

Nobert Vollertsen, a German doctor who has vigorously campaigned for the human rights of North Koreans, said during a press conference at the Press Center in Seoul yesterday, ``I came to recognize that creating big events covered by the global media is the only way to help resolve the defector issue.''

Earlier, he triggered a controversy by saying he would assume the leading role in organizing for some 1,000 North Koreans to reach South Korea by ship during the World Cup, with the help of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). ..//..

Under Vollertsen's scheme, the North Koreans will leave Chinese ports on small boats before being transferred onto a large ship owned by international NGOs on the open sea and coming to South Korea. ..//..

He said he would finalize the details when he travels to Europe next week to secure funds and the vessels. ..//..

Should the German doctor's plan materialize, it may pose a considerable burden on the Seoul government in terms of security during the World Cup period. ..//..

Civic organizations also expressed anxiety over the move, casting doubt on Vollertsen's motives in his bid to publicize the defection issue. ..//..

Source: Korea Times 17 May 2002

KASM's Position on North Korean Refugee Issues

Korean-American Sharing Movement (KASM), an organization active in providing food aid to the DPRK

Background

Unless managed very carefully, well-intentioned efforts to help North Korean refugees in China will do far more harm than good. China has long tolerated the presence in its border areas of American, South Korean, and other NGO and church-based groups working to help North Korean migrants and asylum seekers. The resident Korean-Chinese border communities depend heavily on these agencies for financial and other support. Sensation seeking efforts to raise the profile in the media about their important work almost certainly will lead to stricter border controls and even the return of North Koreans who had settled along the border. In other words, these people could be hurt and hurt badly by those who would help them.

On May 22nd, the Chinese government allowed the five people who had entered the Japanese consulate in Shenyang to travel to South Korea. By doing so, China again demonstrated its willingness to resolve asylum-seeking issues in a discrete and sensitive manner. Less than 50 people have so far participated in these attempts, a tiny number in comparison to other situations of crisis for refugees. China can be expected to continue its relatively benign policies as long as the problem is not transformed into political theater. Clearly, however, it is no more likely to allow independent UNHCR intervention than any other sovereign country.

First, Do No Harm

Where should people who share concerns about North Korean migrants focus their efforts? First, they should not use their energy where it is all but certain to do more harm than good. Tens of thousands of people, almost all of them now living more or less invisibly in Chinese border areas, should not be used as pawns in a political game aimed at the government of North Korea. Their livelihoods and perhaps their very lives are at stake. We at KASM strongly believe that nobody gave us the right to take those sorts of risks with the lives of others.

Help People Who Are in Harm's Way

Groups concerned about these people can do three practical things, none of which involve any delay: (a) support the long ongoing NGO and church-based refugee assistance programs, (b) increase the effectiveness of those efforts by financing programs to create employment for the existing migrant population, and (c) work with Chinese and DPRK authorities to improve living conditions in North Korean border areas, while also seeking the expansion of well-monitored WFP and UNICEF feeding and child care programs into those regions.

Get at the Root Causes of North Korea's Misery

None of this will be even remotely enough. North Korean poverty can only be dealt with by helping the country to develop its economy and its society. Almost every interested country in the world has been trying to get this process underway by allowing the IMF and World Bank to at least begin preliminary technical and training work in Pyongyang. Only the United States remains opposed to even the beginning of discussions between North Korea and the Bank and the IMF. As soon as the United States ends its objections, we can really begin the job of helping North Korea end the poverty that is causing North Koreans to enter China in search of food.

Source KASM via Nautilus 24 May 2002