Stephan M. Haggard is the Lawrence and Sallye Krause Professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Graduate School of International Relations and is the director of Korea-Pacific Program (KPP). He is the editor of the Journal of East Asian Studies and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Professor Haggard has written extensively on the political economy of North Korea with Marcus Noland, including Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform (2007) and Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea (2011). Haggard and Noland are co-author of the "North Korea: Witness to Transformation" blog at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Summary

Will the international community be able to bring changes to the trajectory of North Korea’s human rights issue? Stephan Haggard, Distinguished Professor at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS) at UC San Diego (UCSD), points out that the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Human Rights in North Korea by the UN Human Rights Council was critical for shedding new light on the issue, starting from the release of the COI report last year to the subsequent votes in the General Assembly and the Security Council. Dr. Haggard notes that North Korea has been unusually responsive during this process, most likely because it could involve a potential referral of the issue to the International Criminal Court (ICC) that may hold Kim Jung Un accountable for the human rights violations in North Korea. Considering that China and or Russia would likely veto any such measures, however, Dr. Haggard argues that the more important aspect of this process lies within the possibility for Pyongyang to take this as an opportunity to engage in the remedies offered by the COI and alleviate some of the gross violations, even if that may be temporary or cosmetic. Dr. Haggard suggests that the U.S. and South Korea refrain from taking leadership in the UN process, given North Korea's intentions to portray it as part of U.S. hostile policy as well as the risk of complicating inter-Korean relations and the nuclear issue. In that sense, providing space for a different group of actors to engage North Korea at the international fora might prove to be more effective. Finally, Dr. Haggard argues that the human rights issue should not be considered as just another way to corner North Korea by means of greater sanctions. In fact, he emphasizes the complementary relationship between pressure and engagement as a better strategy to induce change in North Korea. For South Korea, Dr. Haggard urges Seoul to take greater initiatives from President Park Geun-hye's trustpolitik, including the lifting of the "May 24th sanctions" as its first step. He argues that it is very unlikely to see anything happening by choosing to follow the U.S. strategy of strategic patience.

“It is possible that the North Koreans would respond by moderating at least some of the worst abuses on the ground […] What we are really interested in is trying to reduce and mitigate the worst of the abuses which are taking place in the country.”

The Establishment of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea

• Starting from the mid 2000’s, the international community began to seriously consider the human rights situation in countries that have been very gross violators of human rights. The UN Human Rights Council received more attention, and one of the first developments of that time was the creation of individual country mandate holders. In this context, the North Korean human rights issue became a focus of the Council, resulting in North Korea receiving one of the first special mandate holders and the establishment of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in North Korea.

• The North Koreans have been unresponsive and uncooperative with all aspects of the UN’s involvement in the North Korean human rights issue. In this regard, the UN and the relevant agents are having difficulties carrying forward their plans. For example, both the UN Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman and Michael Kirby, head of the investigating team for the Commission of Inquiry, have never visited North Korea while conducting their research.

Significance and Implications of the UN Process on North Korean Human Rights

• The significance of the North Korean human rights issue is not confined to the problems of human rights itself, but could be expanded to judging and estimating the position of North Korea in the international community and the possibility of North Korea becoming a proper member of the global system. 

• The North Korean government reacted strongly to the Commission’s findings because it implies that individual leaders, even Kim Jong Un, could be responsible and tried for crimes against humanity. This information itself could result in a loss of legitimacy for the Kim regime inside the country.

Recommendations: Complementing Pressure with Engagement

• South Korea and the U.S. should allow other parties, such as the EU, to take the lead on the North Korean human rights issue at the UN and cooperate with them. Taking leadership would likely be exploited by North Korea's claims that the process is just another form of U.S.-led hostile policy and complicate inter-Korean relations and the nuclear issue.

• In the absence of some form of engagement with North Korea, it is very unlikely that any of the types of pressure are going to have significant effect. The human rights issue should not be considered as just another brick to corner Pyongyang; it is rather a challenge that North Korea needs to address if it truly intends to participate in the international community.

• The U.S. is currently not in a good position to take risks with respect to North Korea and strategic patience will not be able bear fruit to meaningful change. If anything is going to happen, therefore, it would have to come out of an initiative taken up by South Korea and opening commercial channels outside of Kaesong by lifting the "May 24th sanctions" could be a first step towards this direction...(Continued) 

Through the Smart Q&A, East Asia Institute (EAI) seeks to offer timely and in-depth analysis on current issues by conducting video interviews with domestic and international experts. EAI takes no institutional position on what is said in the interviews and they are solely the position of the interviewees. This report was prepared by Ben Forney, Yewon Choi and Yena Shin and edited by Jaesung Ryu.