North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been a conundrum for the international community for over half a century. Cloistered and undemocratic, the power base keeps a tight rein over its population with heavy surveillance and pervasive constraints. The latest news that recently it restarted to activate its nuclear facility at Yongbyon is most disturbing, as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has already imposed sanctions on the country to end its nuclearisation. Is there any strategy to deal with the country in an engaging manner?
There is a junction between political concerns and human rights dilemmas. The former is addressed partly through the UNSC which has a sanctions committee monitoring compliance with a range of sanctions such as limits imposed on oil imports and other items into the country, paralleled by a prohibition on the export of coal from the country and other activities outside the country. The human rights dilemmas are covered by a variety of UN human rights mechanisms. The harder edge of monitoring the country's human rights record is carried out by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK who reports on the human rights situation, and this role was bolstered by a UN Commission of Inquiry a few years ago. The latter found that the authorities had been committing crimes against humanity against its population, and it called for the referral of individual perpetrators to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The other entry points for human rights monitoring include the human rights bodies under the five human rights treaties on women, children, persons with disabilities, civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights to which the country is a party. In reality, the country seems to have engaged best with another human rights arm of the UN Human Rights Council -- the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which is a soft process of interactive dialogue with the country whereby it can choose whether or not to accept recommendations addressed to it by other states. Most interestingly, the country now engages with the UN backed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with its 17 goals and sent in a voluntary report recently in regard to its implementation process. Voicing its JUCHE ideology (based on a socialist system under a now dynastic regime), it underlined its premise that "people are god", which , of course, has to be tested in reality.
Whatever the scenario, the country should not be isolated from the international community. There are five lynchpins for an international multi-tracked strategy. First, intersection between political and human rights action. On the political side, the negative impact of sanctions on human rights should be addressed. They include shortages of food, electricity and medical equipment partly caused by sanctions, as well as unemployment of a range of workers and repatriation of workers from abroad. However, violations of sanctions also have negative impacts on human rights. Current violations include the illegal import of oil into the country, the illegal export of coal, the sale of fishing rights, and a range of subterfuges. All this means dark money falling into the hands of those who abuse human rights.
The human rights door should remain open to encourage improvements. For instance, a revisit by the UN Special Rapporteur on persons with disabilities should be possible. Various UPR recommendations, such as ratification of more human rights treaties, are not too difficult to implement, while various needs under the SDGs can be satisfied, such as disaster preparedness and food security, through local and global support. Of course, the country should open up to the UN Special Rapporteur on the DPRK and other UN human rights mechanisms.
Second, accountabilisation. This is the more challenging angle of accountability which calls for the referral of perpetrators to the ICC. However, the country is not a party to the ICC Statute and the only channel of referral is through a UNSC resolution. This remains difficult due to the threat of vetoes by some permanent members. There have also been calls for an ad hoc tribunal to be set up, and perhaps it is time to test whether the UN General Assembly can exercise its powers on the front where the UNSC is dysfunctional. There are possibilities for action by individual countries to impose sanctions, while some countries also invoke "universal jurisdiction" to prosecute offenders even if the crimes did not take place in the countries.
Third, humanitarian facilitation. This invites humanitarian support for the country, such as food aid and medical aid. Such assistance should be unconditional, subject to the safeguard of checking that the aid reaches the intended target group. Another critical area of concern is the issue of Korean families separated between North and South Korea since the war of the early 1950s. Meetings need to be resumed and this should not be difficult at least through online family reunion opportunities. It is also suspected that the country is in great need of support to tackle Covid-19, even if the statistics of infections remain obscure.
Fourth, maximised peer traction. This involves the various key states nearby and beyond to calibrate their action to press for results. There used to be the "Six Party Talks" between North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, the US and China as a platform for discourse on the nuclear issue, with some implications for human rights, such as the issue of Japanese nationals abducted by North Korean agents. There remains also the issue of the peace agreement needed to formally end the Korean War. What about more plurilateral support?
Fifth, graduated liberalisation. This is perhaps the most intractable area internally, as it requires substantive democratisation. However, some sectors can be opened up even gradually and this would be welcome. For instance, while there is still a food shortage, the past ten years have witnessed some improvements in agricultural yield due to the introduction of the paddy unit responsibility system which enables the farming population to enjoy a greater share of the produce. Of course, the excessive military budget needs to be shifted to help the daily needs of the general population. If the people are god, the country should do away with its "Military First" policy.
Those multiple dimensions are inevitably about leverage for constructive change.
Vitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor Emeritus at Chulalongkorn University. He was formerly UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK.