Background information: The following essay was written in 2017. At the time, I was in graduate school where I studied social work. The essay was in response to an assignment to examine an international policy issue that affects the practice of social work. Facts and figures are accurate as of 2017.
Sanctions: A model for human rights violations?
Sanctions are commonly used to compel countries to adhere to a certain set of rules and regulations (Masters, 2017). Sanctions can be imposed by global bodies such as the United Nations or by singular countries with the ability to enforce them such as the United States. Sanctions are often used as attempt to stop a country from violating the human rights of its citizens (Masters, 2017). In this paper, I will examine how the opposite effect often occurs. That is, sanctions can contribute to further violation of human rights.
Specifically, I will examine how sanctions issued by the United States and the United Nations against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (commonly known as DPRK or North Korea) have done little but further the violation of human rights that North Korea is already committing against its citizens. I will review how sanctions developed in North Korea, the impact of sanctions on North Korea and the human rights they violate. I will also discuss North Korea and the international community’s respective responses to the sanctions that have been imposed and what successes and challenges each have faced in their efforts to end the use of sanctions. I will discuss what key cultural issues will need to be addressed by any intervention that attempts to help mitigate the human rights violations that sanctions against North Korea has brought on its most vulnerable citizens. Finally, I will conclude with my own brief remarks on the complexity of the issue of using sanctions for social change and what role social workers may serve in ensuring said sanctions are not furthering the human rights violations they are attempting to stop.
Brief Overview of Sanctions and North Korea
Sanctions. As mentioned above, sanctions at the international stage are used by one nation state or multinational organization (such as the United Nations) to force another nation state to adhere to a desired policy position or to stop said nation state from treating its citizens in ways that violate international standards (Masters, 2017). Sanctions are commonly economic in nature. That is, sanctions seek to subdue a nation state into compliance by limiting its ability to trade goods with other countries, have financial holdings in other countries or receive aid from other countries (Masters, 2017). Additionally, sanctions can prohibit affect travel between countries (OFAC, 2016).
The effectiveness of sanctions is often unclear (Masters, 2017). In recent years, attempts have been made to target sanctions to specific organizations or individuals (such as terrorists) to avoid hurting innocent citizens of a country but targeted sanctions can be difficult when a country’s policies themselves are the reason for sanctions such as is the case in North Korea. Lack of support from other countries also heavily impacts the effectiveness of sanctions (Masters, 2017). For instance, if Country ‘A’ sanctions Country ‘B” but Countries ‘C’ – ‘Z’ do not support the sanctions, then Country ‘B’ can keep doing whatever it was doing and go to the other countries for whatever it may have been getting from Country ‘A’. Regardless of these potential shortcomings, sanctions continue to be used as they are often seen as a much more desirable option to bringing a country into compliance than through armed intervention (Masters, 2017).
North Korea. In its current form, North Korea can trace its roots to the end of World War II (Jezard, 2017). Korea had previously been under Japanese rule for several decades prior to WWII. When Japan surrendered to Allied Forces to end WWII, Korea was liberated. Liberation was complicated though as Korea’s geographic location served strategic purposes for both the US and the USSR (Jezard, 2017). Somewhat like post-WWII Germany, Korea was divided into two separate nation states. One country (what is now known as South Korea) was supported by the United States while the other country (North Korea) was supported by the USSR (Marshall, 2013).
Since this separation, North Korea has played an often-antagonistic role towards South Korea and the wider world. A complete explanation for why North Korea has taken on this role is much too complex for the limited space of this paper but in simplest terms, any policy positions and subsequent actions taken by the North Korean government since its formation following WWII can almost all be directly traced to the Kim family whom have ruled North Korea for three generations now.
Kim Il-sung was the first leader of North Korea. With the support of the USSR and China, he formed a communist police state in which power was eventually centralized wholly in himself (Marshall, 2013). North Korea saw surprisingly robust economic growth during the early years of Kim Il-sung’s rule (Armstrong, 2010). But, this growth has since stagnated due to a variety of factors including the fall of the USSR and the subsequent loss of aid from the USSR, increased haphazard rule from the Kim family and sanctions (Marshall, 2013).
Kim Il-sung was succeeded in leadership by his son Kim Jong Il (Oh, 1988). Kim Jong Il was then succeeded by his son Kim Jong Un (Campbell, 2017). Familial succession is unusual in countries that proclaim a strict adherence to communism as North Korea does (Oh, 1998). A significant factor in why the Kim family has maintained power is due to the cult of personality that has developed around the Kim family. That is, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un are all venerated in North Korea as gods (Fifield, 2015). Under threat of extreme punishment, North Koreans must maintain reverence to the Kims and their self-proclaimed status as creators of the world. North Koreans are indoctrinated from a young age to have complete faith in the Kims as having divine status and to hate the United States, Japan and South Korea (Fifield, 2015).
The personality cult that through propaganda, punishment and indoctrination has allowed the Kims to maintain their position as the sole authoritative power is not without historical precedent. In European countries such as England and France, monarchs were once seen as divinely appointed and thus any disagreement with the monarch could be heresy against the church, a crime that was often punishable by death (Murphy, 2014). Also, as part of its surrender in WWII, Japan was required to concede that its emperor was not a direct descendant of a divine being (Time, 1946). Further, in North Korea’s own cultural history can be found many examples of class-based systems in which power is concentrated in the elites and passed down through generations of families (HRC, 2014). Though the divine status the Kims attribute to themselves is largely unprecedented in Korean culture, the power structure that has developed in North Korea is not completely unfamiliar to North Koreans’ cultural roots (HRC, 2014)
Mixing unquestioned divinity with the fallibility of humans has generally not resulted in a fair and just society for anyone but those persons who hold power. In North Korea specifically, the Kim cult of personality has led to extremely poor treatment of the non-elites (and arguably anyone who is not the current Supreme Leader) of North Korea. This poor treatment has resulted in numerous human rights violations. These violations were extensively documented in a report from the 2014 United Nations Human Rights Council.
Development of Sanctions in North Korea. Sanctions placed on North Korea can mostly be attributed two one of two reasons; the threat of nuclear proliferation and human rights violations (Albert, 2018). North Korea started nuclear weapons development decades ago due to the belief that it was vulnerable to attack from the United States (Armstrong, 2010). This belief came about due to the excessive bombing campaign the United States conducted against North Korea during the Korean War. The bombing campaign killed hundreds of thousands of North Koreans and it was rumored not a single modern building was left standing in the capitol of North Korea, Pyongyang (Armstrong, 2010). The successive leaders of North Korea since have heavily emphasized military defense of the country. Defense of the country includes the ability to strike enemies first with intercontinental ballistic missiles (Miller and Narang, 2017).
The emphasis on military spending in North Korea has often come at the expense of the human rights of its citizens. Due to the combination of the collectivist cultural roots of North Koreans, the self-sacrifice for the good of all mentality of communism and the cult of personality surrounding the Kim family, whomever is the Supreme Leader at a given time can increase military spending with little to no impunity. Basic needs such as access to food are cut as a result (Roth, 2017) To speak out against the decision of the Supreme Leader is likely to result in imprisonment or death (HRC, 2014).
In other words, the ideology of the Kim family and the resulting policies violate the human rights of the citizens of North Korea. These violations include (but are not limited to) restricting freedom of thought and freedom of movement, torture and discrimination (HRC, 2014). Further, the North Korea government has shown little desire to end these harmful policies. Due to North Korea’s unwillingness to stop violating the human rights of its citizens, multinational organizations such as the United Nations and nation states such as the United States have both imposed numerous and evermore comprehensive sanctions on North Korea.
As of December 2017, the United Nations has imposed nine separate sanctions against North Korea. These sanctions include heavy restrictions on trade such as banning agricultural and mining exports, banning oil and natural gas imports and restricting fishing rights (Albert 2018). The United States has issued several executive orders which effectively serve as sanctions against North Korea. Also, in breaking from the tradition of sanctions issued via executive order, the United States Congress has passed legislation to formally impose sanctions on North Korea due in part to North Korea’s continued human rights violations (HR757, 2016). Collectively, the sanctions issued through executive orders and the sanctions issued through legislation include the banning of imports and exports from North Korea, prohibition of investing in North Korea and prohibition of any financial transactions with North Korea or individual citizens of North Korea (OFAC, 2016).
Impact of sanctions on human rights in North Korea
As was described above, sanctions placed on North Korea have been initiated to compel the North Korean government to stop developing its nuclear weapons program and to stop violating the human rights of its citizens. Sanctions placed on North Korea have been devastating for the non-elite citizens of North Korea. Specifically, the sanctions described above have violated, at minimum, Articles 22, 23 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which by virtue of the clause found in the Preamble “Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” (UN, 1948 – Bold mine) does include the people of North Korea irrespective of whether their human rights are being violated by their own nation-state, another nation-state or a multi-national organization.
Article 22. Article 22 states “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality” (UN, 1948 – Bold mine). The most recent sanctions issued against North Korea by the United Nations are largely against the entire nation state of North Korea rather than targeted against specific individuals such as Kim Jong Un (Roth, 2017). These sanctions impact economic outputs such as mining. Mining is a major industry in North Korea. To not allow exports of mining materials, the daily lives of the miners themselves are impacted much more negatively than the daily life of the Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. Also, as has often been done, a sanction that cuts so heavily across an already vulnerable population may serve to embolden Kim Jong Un to turn the sanction into propaganda that further restricts the free development of a North Korean citizen’s personality (Fifield, 2015).
Article 23. Article 23, in part, states “Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection” (UN, 1948). The citizens of North Korea have very little opportunity to an existence worthy of human dignity. Their status is heavily influenced by a class system that is arbitrarily imposed by their leader (HRC, 2014). To take away North Korea’s ability to trade limits the ability of its peasant class to work for even a pittance of what their work is worth and only serves to further degrade their status and rights. Unfortunately, the same sanctions mentioned in the section on Article 22 seek to cut North Korea’s export revenues by a third, over a billion dollars (Roth, 2017). Mining and fishing jobs will be heavily impacted by these sanctions (McCurry, 2017). Loss of mining and fishing jobs only indirectly impact the target of the sanctions, Kim Jong Un, while directly impacting the vulnerable victims of Kim Jong Un’s rule.
Article 25. Article 25, in part, states “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (UN, 1948 – Bold mine). Living standards in North Korea for non-elite citizens are already extremely low. In 2017, a drought caused food scarcity for all but the ruling class of North Korea (FAO, 2017). Sanctions issued by both the UN and the US severely limit the economic abilities of North Korea. There is very little security in the event of unemployment due to the very limited ways in which North Korea can generate revenues. Also, these sanctions make an already difficult situation more desperate and do little to protect the citizens of North Korea from the ‘lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond [their] control” (UN, 1948).
In sum, sanctions such as the ones mentioned restrict access of the most vulnerable citizens of North Korean to the economic rights they are entitled. These sanctions severely limit any opportunity a member of North Korea’s peasant class may have to equal pay for their work. And, finally, these sanctions have created more instability and lack of access to an adequate standard of living for all citizens of North Korea. Of course, notably, Kim Jong Un and others he favors can fairly easily evade the majority of the personal impact the sanctions were intended to make due to illicit dealings on the black market and through countries who have no interest in upholding UN or US sanctions (Albert, 2018).
Responses to sanctions
North Korea’s response to sanctions has been to continue doing what it was already doing. That is, North Korea has continued to try to develop nuclear weapons that have first-strike capabilities against its enemies. North Korea continues to be defiant on the world stage. Its official government policy has been to continue to create propaganda that blames the United States, South Korea and Japan for any difficulties while also continuing to force the citizens of North Korea to worship the cult of the Kim family (Fifield, 2015). It should be noted though that within the last days of April 2018, North Korea’s rhetoric and actions have taken on a more reconciliatory tone as Kim Jong Un initiated a summit with South Korea and proposed formally ending the Korean War (Sang-Hun, 2018). It remains to be seen if Kim Jong Un’s overtures are sincere as North Korea has made overtures towards peace in the past that ended up not being sincere once they reached whatever diplomatic goal they had in mind (I.e. Loosening of sanctions, receiving food aid due to crop failure related to drought, etc.) (Sang-Hun, 2018).
The UN and US have generally responded to their sanctions by continually easing up and then restricting them again. Often, the sanctions are restricted to a level that is more restrictive than they were previously (Roth, 2017). It is difficult to say what, if any, successes these sanctions have brought. But, considering the continued human rights abuses brought by the government of North Korea against its citizens, it is fair to say they have done little to lessen these human rights violations. As detailed above, these sanctions have likely contributed directly and indirectly to the continued violation of human rights in North Korea.
Cultural considerations
Sanctions as an intervention are particularly ineffective in North Korea. North Korea has no diplomatic relations with the United States, so it generally has very little motivation to do anything to have said sanctions lifted. They can get the resources they need from other countries and use the sanctions against them as propaganda to further strengthen the cult of personality that has developed around the Kim family. The lack of willingness of other countries to uphold the UN’s sanctions (until somewhat recently) also undercuts any positive benefit that may result from sanctions while helping to perpetuate the negative effects of sanctions. That is, countries trade with North Korea from a position of power creating a trade imbalance. Any trade that is done is in secret and North Korea likely gets less for its exports than what they are worth and pays more for imports than what they are worth. While not affecting the ruling class of North Korea all that much, the other classes are faced with unfair pay, food scarcity and no options to advocate for fairer treatment.
Sanctions that are targeted to specific individuals who are not the majority power holders in their country could arguably be more effective. But, again, sanctions by nature deprive humans of rights that they are entitled. As mentioned previously, at best, sanctions are merely a lesser evil to armed intervention.
Concluding Remarks
In studying the impact of sanctions on a country like North Korea, I have been continually reminded of the complexity of global politics. There seem to be obvious human rights violations occurring all the time in North Korea yet due to its extreme cultural and governmental secrecy, it is difficult to know what truth is and what is exaggeration (HRC, 2014). Sanctions have done little to stop North Korea from doing whatever it wants. Yet, due to a (right) desire to not engage in armed intervention due to the instability of Kim Jong Un’s rule and the proximity of China and Russia, sanctions are seemingly the only option the US and the UN can use to try to improve the lives of the citizens of North Korea and protect the citizens of the rest of the world.
There is no simple solution or catch-all intervention that will solve the issues discussed above. Where sanctions have had (limited) success in stopping other autocrats, sanctions seem to only embolden the leadership of North Korea to treat their citizens worse. At this point then, one of the most important roles a social worker can take is to be an advocate for the people of North Korea who are most vulnerable to sanctions. Social workers should play a central role in the conversation of what, if anything, the world should do in response to Kim Jong Un’s actions. Social workers can push back against the narrative that more punitive sanctions need to be implemented while also giving voice to the potential human rights violations sanctions may cause.
Comments