SEVEN YEARS OF “HUMANITARIAN” AID: A BALANCE AND A POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
This paper is divided into two parts and an annex. Part I takes stock of seven years of supposedly humanitarian aid extended by the international community to North Korea. Three main points are made. First, though large amounts of aid, mainly food, have been flowing in since 1995-96 very little is known for sure about the real extent of the famine that hit North Korea in the mid 90’s, its end and the real needs of the ordinary population at present. Second, as a consequence of this lack of information, a number of assumptions widely and conveniently held by both donors and aid operators in North Korea lack verification and should therefore be questioned. Third and most importantly, very little of the aid given to North Korea can be genuinely called humanitarian; it has rather been structural/budgetary support, mainly in the form of “programme” food aid. Part II attempts to indicate a possible way forward. Structural/budgetary support should continue so as to avoid a sudden implosion of the country as this would result surely in a costly, and possibly also dangerous, crisis. However, while structural/budgetary support should continue, it should be negotiated directly by the donor countries as part and parcel of their diplomatic engagement policy towards DPRK. At the same time, genuine humanitarian aid should be augmented to strengthen low-level foreign relations at people level (rehabilitation micro-projects and personal contacts aimed at progressively opening up the “hermit kingdom”). An effective and cheap tool to do this is through resident NGOs. Donor countries should fund NGOs much more generously and should press DPRK authorities much more firmly to accept genuine humanitarian aid through an increased number of resident NGOs. The annexes analyse the various forms of aid extended by the European Commission to DPRK. It is presented as an embryonic model of the tactical changes advocated for the future aid policy of all other major donors - South Korea, USA and Japan.
Abstract
This paper is divided into two parts and an annex. Part I takes stock of seven years of supposedly humanitarian aid extended by the international community to North Korea. Three main points are made. First, though large amounts of aid, mainly food, have been flowing in since 1995-96 very little is known for sure about the real extent of the famine that hit North Korea in the mid 90’s, its end and the real needs of the ordinary population at present. Second, as a consequence of this lack of information, a number of assumptions widely and conveniently held by both donors and aid operators in North Korea lack verification and should therefore be questioned. Third and most importantly, very little of the aid given to North Korea can be genuinely called humanitarian; it has rather been structural/budgetary support, mainly in the form of “programme” food aid. Part II attempts to indicate a possible way forward. Structural/budgetary support should continue so as to avoid a sudden implosion of the country as this would result surely in a costly, and possibly also dangerous, crisis. However, while structural/budgetary support should continue, it should be negotiated directly by the donor countries as part and parcel of their diplomatic engagement policy towards DPRK. At the same time, genuine humanitarian aid should be augmented to strengthen low-level foreign relations at people level (rehabilitation micro-projects and personal contacts aimed at progressively opening up the “hermit kingdom”). An effective and cheap tool to do this is through resident NGOs. Donor countries should fund NGOs much more generously and should press DPRK authorities much more firmly to accept genuine humanitarian aid through an increased number of resident NGOs. The annexes analyse the various forms of aid extended by the European Commission to DPRK. It is presented as an embryonic model of the tactical changes advocated for the future aid policy of all other major donors - South Korea, USA and Japan.