[Smart Q&A: Stephan Haggard] “Complementarity of Pressure and Engagement”: One Year Since the UN COI Report and North Korean Human Rights

YouTube Link: video.eai.or.kr/150227_sqa.flv

Professor Stephan Haggard is currently a professor at the Graduate School of International Relations at UC San Diego and holds the Lawrence and Sally Krause Chair for Korea-Pacific Studies. He is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of East Asian Studies, published by the East Asia Institute, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has co-authored numerous works on North Korea's political economy, including Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform (2007) and Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea (2011) with Marcus Noland. He also contributes to the Peterson Institute for International Economics blog "North Korea: Witness to Transformation".

Overview

What response can the international community offer regarding North Korea's human rights issues? Professor Stephan Haggard of the Graduate School of International Relations (IR/PS) at UC San Diego first draws attention to the establishment and activities of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea (COI) under the UN Human Rights Council. This is because since the COI published its report on North Korean human rights in February of last year, the issue has been re-highlighted as a matter of international concern, leading to a vote at the UN General Assembly and its inclusion on the agenda of the Security Council (hereinafter referred to as the Security Council) in December. Furthermore, the COI concluded in its report that crimes against humanity may have been committed in North Korea and recommended the referral of North Korean leadership, including Kim Jong-un, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity. Professor Haggard assesses that the adoption of the UN resolution on North Korean human rights, based on the COI report, would have been an unacceptable threat to North Korea. However, he points out that referral to the ICC through the Security Council is impossible as long as China and Russia, permanent members, exercise their veto power. Therefore, he suggests that international efforts should focus on encouraging North Korea to review the human rights improvement cooperation measures additionally proposed by the COI and to temporarily improve or alleviate serious human rights violations. Professor Haggard also emphasizes the risks associated with South Korea or the United States leading international efforts to resolve North Korean human rights issues. In such cases, the issue could become entangled with sensitive inter-Korean relations or the nuclear issue, and North Korea could exploit it by framing it as part of the US policy of hostility towards North Korea. Professor Haggard suggests that it would be more effective to involve various international actors and allow them to take the lead. Finally, Professor Haggard states that the human rights issue should not be reduced to another tool of pressure or sanctions against North Korea. He proposes that to bring about genuine change in North Korea, a strategy of complementarity between pressure and engagement, rather than an either/or approach, should be pursued. To this end, he suggests that President Park Geun-hye's trust diplomacy should be pursued more actively, and the lifting of the 'May 24 Measures' could be the first step. He believes that if South Korea merely follows the US's 'strategic patience,' no change can be expected.

“North Korea may show minimal signs of improvement in response to the international community's demands for resolving its human rights issues... We must focus our efforts on reducing and alleviating, even slightly, the horrific human rights violations occurring within North Korea right now.”

Background and Significance of the Establishment of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea

• In the mid-2000s, the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the Human Rights Council) established a system of individual country mandate holders in response to growing international awareness of severe human rights violations by certain states. North Korea was among the first countries to have a mandate holder appointed and has been considered a continuous focus of attention, as evidenced by the subsequent establishment of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea (COI).

• The North Korean authorities have consistently responded to the UN's efforts to address human rights issues with indifference or non-cooperation, resulting in a lack of significant achievements by the UN. In fact, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, and COI member Michael Kirby were never able to visit North Korea during their investigation periods.

Efforts to Resolve North Korean Human Rights Issues Through the UN: Implications and Limitations

• The approach to North Korean human rights issues through the UN is not only limited to the direct resolution of human rights problems but also aims to gauge North Korea's position in the international community and its potential for integration into the global system.

• The strong reaction from the North Korean authorities to last year's COI report was due to the report's assertion that Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader, could be referred to the ICC for potential crimes against humanity committed within North Korea. This information alone could undermine the legitimacy of the Kim Jong-un regime.

Achieving Substantive Change in North Korea Through Complementary Operation of Pressure and Engagement

• If South Korea and the United States lead efforts to resolve North Korean human rights issues at the UN, it could lead to complications involving inter-Korean relations and the nuclear issue, and could be exploited by North Korea to support its claims of US hostility. It is more effective to create an environment where other international actors, such as the European Union (EU), can lead on North Korean human rights issues and to cooperate with them.

• Pressure without engagement fails to bring about meaningful change in North Korea. In this context, North Korean human rights issues should be viewed not merely as a tool to pressure North Korea, but as a challenge to overcome in the process of integrating North Korea into the international community.

• The United States is currently unwilling to bear any risks related to North Korea, and strategic patience alone cannot bring about change in North Korea. In this situation, South Korea needs to more actively pursue President Park Geun-hye's trust diplomacy, and lifting the 'May 24 Measures' to build economic relations beyond the Kaesong Industrial Complex could be the first step... (continued)

The East Asia Institute (EAI) conducts Smart Q&A interviews in video format with domestic and international experts to provide timely and in-depth analysis of current issues. This manuscript is the original interview text compiled by EAI Foreign Affairs and Security Team interns Choi Yewon, Choi Yena, and Ben Forney, and edited by researcher Yoo Jaeseung. The opinions expressed are those of the interviewee and do not represent the views of the East Asia Institute. Please cite the source when quoting from Smart Q&A.