Program Evaluation Report

Final Evaluation Paper

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

IPSS newsletter april--bi-monthly newsletter I create for school IPSS program

ipssnewsletter2

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

ipssnewsletter

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Education Brochures & Catalogs

Sopesar los Efectos de la Alianza Entre los Estados Unidos y Colombia

Sopesar los Efectos de la Alianza Entre los Estados Unidos y Colombia -Hala Sun & Katie Femia

Proyecto Final, otoño 2008

Durante los años noventa Colombia estaba afrontando dificultades como la amenaza de las guerrillas, el narcotráfico, un aumento en la violencia, y una crisis económica. Cuando llegó el año 1999, la autoridad del estado y la estabilidad de Colombia eran muy frágiles. Después de nueve años y millones de dólares de asistencia militar y económica de los Estados Unidos como parte de Plan Colombia, Colombia ha sobrevivido. Sin embargo, continúan varios desafíos, y una solución para el narcotráfico y conflictos con los FARC está por verse. Hoy en día, considerando las críticas que recibe de algunos de sus vecinos, y la indecisión de los Estados Unidos para continuar este nivel de asistencia, la pregunta más importante es: ¿Ha creado más efectos positivos o negativos la alianza entre Colombia y los Estados Unidos? Además, ¿Cuales son las ventajas y desventajas para Colombia si mantiene su gobierno derechista y su alianza con los Estados Unidos? Aunque la alianza ha proveído asistencias económicas y de seguridad a Colombia, crea problemas políticos al mismo tiempo.

Colombia como un “peón”: Los aspectos negativos de la alianza
Uno de los efectos negativos de la alianza entre Colombia y los Estados Unidos ha sido las críticas de otros países de Suramérica. Colombia está situada en una región rodeada de países más izquierdistas, o por lo menos con tendencias a hacerse izquierdista. Su vecino al noreste, Venezuela, se define a sí mismo en oposición a los Estados Unidos y considera al presidente colombiano Álvaro Uribe como un peón americano, según el presidente Hugo Chávez. Chávez imagina un sistema de socialismo para su país, con menos influencia estadounidense en el mundo, y más integración entre los países en vías de desarrollo. Hay una razón para creer que Venezuela ha apoyado las operaciones de las FARC contra el gobierno de Colombia. Esta evidencia fue encontrada en marzo de este año en los archivos electrónicos de un líder de las FARC, Raúl Reyes, quién murió en un ataque cometido por Colombia en Ecuador. En septiembre los EEUU acusó a tres ayudantes de alto rangos de Chávez por narcotráfico y por acumular armas para que las FARC pueda derrocar el gobierno de presidente Álvaro Uribe.
Colombia ha visto un alza en la tensión con Ecuador desde que Colombia bombardeó a un grupo de las FARC en Ecuador en marzo. Ecuador se está moviendo al otro lado del espectro político también, es decir, hacia la izquierda. La embajadora de Ecuador recientemente denunció el sistema capitalista y propuso el desarrollo económico basado en “una nueva concepción social de bienestar.” En Bolivia el presidente Evo Morales ha criticado públicamente las políticas de los EEUU en varias ocasiones, aunque dice ahora que le interesa mejorar las relaciones con el nuevo presidente estadounidense. No obstante, su optimismo ante la llegada de Obama no cambia el hecho que el primero de noviembre prohibió las operaciones de los agentes de la DEA (por sus siglas en inglés) en Bolivia, a causa de sospechas de espionaje. Aunque no es un problema con Colombia directamente, representa un rechazo de la vía que Colombia ha tomado en sus relaciones con los EEUU – lo que algunos como Bolivia consideraría una violación de la soberanía.
Otro ejemplo de tensiones entre Colombia y sus vecinos se debe a la formación de UNASUR (Unión de Naciones de América del Sur), una organización multilateral en América Latina como una alternativa a la OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos), que domina los EEUU. La idea de UNASUR es crear una identidad suramericana y mantener la “soberanía, integridad, y inviolabilidad territorial” de los estados. Colombia canceló su participación y retiró la oferta de contribuir con sus tropas a la Unión.
Una parte integral de las críticas que los otros países expresan hacia Colombia como un “peón” de los EEUU es el Plan Colombia. El Plan Colombia, a veces referido como “Tío Sam al rescate”, empezó en el verano del año 2000 como la asistencia por una suma de US$7.5 mil millones para el desarrollo económico y la reconstrucción social de Colombia. El objetivo fue que el control de drogas volvería al nivel de importancia fundamental en las políticas de Colombia. Hay debate sobre el Plan Colombia y si ha tenido más fracasos o éxitos desde su incepción. Un informe publicado este año por La Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito (UNODC, por sus siglas en inglés) indica que en 2007 fue un alza en la cultivación de coca, pero fue una estabilización en la producción. Según este informe, el área de la cultivación de coca expandió por 27% a 99,000 hectáreas en 2007 – 55% del total mundial. La producción se estabilizó porque las cosechas fueron plantadas en malas áreas o porque no fueron bien cuidadas. Además, en su Informe del 2008: El Estado de los Derechos Humanos del Mundo, Amnistía Internacional dice que Colombia sigue cometiendo abusos serios de derechos humanos, y juzgando a personal del ejército en tribunales militares donde no reciben una pena justa.
Un editorial de opinión llamado “El narco-militarismo” captura el sentimiento: “No son suficientes las destituciones, ni la renuncia del general Mario Montoya, comandante del ejército, tampoco la retórica gubernamental de “eficacia con transparencia”. Ante la comunidad internacional se necesita mucho más que movimientos audaces, espectáculos mediáticos, directivas ministeriales o discursos. El gobierno tiene que ser consciente que acaba de explotar en su cara un tema que puede dar al traste con los esfuerzos de los últimos diez años y que le cae de perlas a la estrategia de las Farc.”
Hasta el momento en 2008 Colombia ha recibido US$543 millones para el plan, pero las violaciones a los derechos humanos, la continuación del cultivo de coca y cocaína, y la crisis financiera estadounidense crean un clima favorable para recortar la ayuda económica a Colombia. Por razones similares, los demócratas mantienen en suspenso la aprobación del Tratado del Libre Comercio con Colombia. Sin embargo, antes de que decidamos que las relaciones entre Colombia y los EEUU no han tenido éxito y no valen la continuación de asistencia en su actual nivel, necesitamos analizar los efectos positivos que ha tenido la alianza.

Una simbiosis: Los aspectos positivos de la alianza
¿Cuáles son las razones que existen para que los dos gobiernos decidieran trabajar juntos? Según Robert B. Charles, quién dio su testimonio ante el Comité de Asuntos Exteriores del Congreso, el futuro de Colombia va a afectar el futuro de los Estados Unidos. Charles, el ex-asistente del secretario del Departamento del Estado para la Oficina de Negociado de Narcóticos, también mencionó que Colombia tiene muchas luchas: la seguridad interna, el terrorismo regional, el narcotráfico, el desarrollo económico, la relación civil-militar, el gobierno democrático y el derecho humano. El progreso o la falta de progreso en esas áreas afectará el futuro y la seguridad de los Estados Unidos. Por lo tanto, los EEUU ha implementado el Plan Colombia.
La razón principal por la cual el gobierno de los EEUU ha mostrado interés en los asuntos de Colombia es que Colombia de pronto se ha convertido en un centro de terrorismo y de narcotráfico. Este cambio ha amenazado la estabilidad, la democracia y el progreso económico en Colombia y también en los EEUU. Además, hay un incremento tanto en la trata de humanos y el tráfico de armas como en la tasa de homicidios, secuestros y masacres. Por lo tanto, los EEUU han decidido contribuir al desarrollo que necesita Colombia, dándoles entrenamientos especiales a los policías colombianos para que puedan asegurar su país. A través del Plan Colombia, los EEUU han mandado varios recursos para contribuir a la seguridad sostenible en Colombia, sobre todo ya que Colombia carece tanto de una infraestructura estable como de fuerzas de seguridad adiestradas.
Los EEUU se enfocan tanto en el progreso económico como en la seguridad de Colombia. Según Charles S. Shapiro, el asistente del secretario del Departamento del Estado para la Oficina de Asuntos Hemisferios Occidentales, el fortalecimiento de la seguridad ha permitido el progreso económico en Colombia. Gracias a la ayuda de los EEUU, tanto la tasa de pobreza como la de violencia han bajado; además, el cultivo de coca ha disminuido. Específicamente, por medio del tratado de libre comercio en 2007, los colombianos tienen más oportunidades de paliar la pobreza del país. Mientras tanto, el Plan Colombia le ha permitido al gobierno de los EEUU construir muchas comisarías de policía, cárceles y palacios de justicia para mejorar la seguridad. Además, los EEUU han implementado varias medidas para asegurar un sistema de vigilancia que exige que se rindan cuentas. En cuanto al problema del narcotráfico, los EEUU han ayudado a Colombia a abordar los problemas del cultivo, la producción y el transporte de cocaína.
Tal vez el tratado de libre comercio y el Plan Colombia no sean perfectos pero Colombia necesita asistencia y está en el interés tanto de los EEUU como de Colombia que colaboren juntos. Según el testimonio que dio el año pasado ante el Comité de Asuntos Exteriores del Congreso, Erin Farnsworth, el vice-presidente del Council of the Americas (“El Consejo de las Américas”), dijo que el tratado de libre comercio ha creado más trabajos en Colombia y también más oportunidades para los exportadores en los EEUU. El Plan Colombia también les ha dado varias ventajas a los dos países.
Primero, por medio de este plan, los EEUU, Colombia y las Naciones Unidas calculan que el cultivo de heroína ha disminuido el 58%. Además, el cultivo de cocaína bajó más de 50% durante los primeros cinco años del Plan Colombia, o sea entre 1999 y 2004. En segundo lugar, hay una reducción de 97% del cultivo de cocaína en la región de Puamayo, Colombia—un lugar donde la producción de cocaína fue vigorosa. En tercer lugar, con la ayuda del Departamento de Estado, de Justicia y de Defensa, el gobierno de Colombia detuvo a 145 traficantes de drogas en 2006. Antes del Plan Colombia, nadie había sido detenido por narcotráfico. En cuarto lugar, las fuerzas armadas de Colombia y de los EEUU han incautado 500 toneladas de cocaína desde 2003. Esta cantidad de cocaína costaría aproximadamente 5,000 millones de dólares en los EEUU. En quinto lugar, con la ayuda de los EEUU, el Plan Colombia ha destruido 28 portaaviones de narcóticos. En sexto lugar, el Departamento de Estado ha adiestrado a los policías de Colombia con los entrenamientos de los derechos humanos y otros entrenamientos especiales. Como consecuencia de los entrenamientos, ha habido una disminución de la fuerza de las FARC. En séptimo lugar, los fondos del Plan Colombia han creado varias comisarías de policía en 158 municipios en Colombia—por lo tanto, todos los municipios tienen ahora una presencia policíaca. En octavo lugar, desde 2000, la tasa de homicidio ha bajado 40%, la tasa de secuestro ha disminuido 76% y los incidentes terroristas han disminuido por más de 61%. Finalmente, hay un alza constante en el desarrollo económico—de 1.47% en 2002 a 7.68% en 2006.
El Plan Colombia no pretende crear una relación de dependencia duradera entre Colombia y EEUU, sino otorgar poderes a los colombianos, dándoles ayuda económica y seguridad. Si observamos el progreso, podemos ver que los colombianos han comenzado tomar las riendas en los campos en los que han adquirido competencia. Entre 2000 y 2005, el gobierno de Colombia ha gastado 7,000 millones de dólares y los EEUU han gastado 4,000 millones en el Plan Colombia. Los críticos dicen que los EEUU deben concentrar sus gastos en las asistencias sociales en vez de las militares. Sin embargo, según Robert B. Charles, “la asistencia de seguridad es necesaria para que las asistencias sociales puedan funcionar en el futuro” Es cierto que los EEUU gastan mucho en el apoyo militar de Colombia pero tenemos que entender que los equipos de seguridad, incluyendo las armas básicas, los helicópteros y los aviones suponen costos altos, sin mencionar los entrenamientos especiales de los policías.

Conclusión
Muchos críticos observan las desventajas de la relación entre los EEUU y Colombia, específicamente el Plan Colombia. Los países vecinos como Venezuela y Bolivia, que tienen sentimientos negativos hacia el liderazgo del gobierno de los EEUU, han expresado sus oposiciones contra la cooperación. Hugo Chávez, el presidente de Venezuela, dijo en junio que iba a poner su relación con Colombia en el “congelador.” Es importante que sopesemos los efectos positivos y los negativos de esta relación y del Plan Colombia. Sin embargo, debemos determinar si la relación es sostenible. Además, tenemos que considerar las razones de esta alianza. Según Alberto Gonzales, el Ministro de Justicia del Departamento de Justica, es comprensible y bueno que Colombia y los EEUU trabajen juntos porque los dos países apoyan y desean la libertad de sus países pero ambos tienen problemas con los terroristas. En cuanto a los países vecinos, estos tienen que llegar a ser más racionales y a buscar maneras de ayudar a Colombia para asegurar el futuro de todos. Vivimos en un solo mundo en donde todos los países quieren paz—no es necesario “congelar” las relaciones con nadie.




Bibliografía

Charles, Robert B. “CQ Congressional Testimony: U.S.-Colombia Relations.” Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 24 de abr., 2007.

"Ecuador y Colombia en el congelador.” BBCmundo.com, 25 de jun., 2008.

“Ecuador propone abandonar el desarrollo basado en crecimiento y mercado.” hoy.com.ec, 29 de sept., 2008.

“EEUU hace enlaces con 3 ayudantes de Chávez a guerrilla; Venezolanos afrontan sanciones sobre conexiones a FARC en Colombia.” The Washington Post, 13 de sept., 2008.

Famsworth, Eric. "U.S.-Colombia Relations." AS/COA Online, 24 de abr., 2007. http://www.counciloftheamericas.org/article.php?id=513

González, Alberto. "Alberto Gonzales Delivers Remarks on U.S.-Colombia Relations, as prepared for delivery, as released by the Justice Department.” Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 25 de ago., 2005.

Guarín, Rafael. “El narco-militarismo.” Semana.com, 13 de nov., 2008.

Informe de 2008: El Estado de los Derechos Humanos del Mundo. Amnistía Internacional. http://thereport.amnesty.org/americas.

Informe Mundial sobre las Drogas 2008, La Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito (UNODC). http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html

McPherson, Alan, ed. Anti-Americanism in Latin America and the Caribbean. New York: Berghan Books, 2006.

“Morales: Obama sí, DEA no.” BBCmundo.com, 18 de nov., 2008.

“Unión de Naciones de América del Sur.” El País Internacional, 4 de jun., 2008.

"U.S. - Colombia Relations," U.S. Department of State, http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/07/q2/83646.htm

"Effective Humanitarian Assistance in North Korea" by Hala Sun

Introduction

“South Koreans are very apathetic towards North Koreans.” These were the words of Peter M. Beck, former Executive Director of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, on April 10, 2008, during his speech at Georgetown University about the current human rights violations in North Korea.[1] At first, I was very surprised by his bold comment, especially since I am a South Korean; however, after thinking about what he said, I realized that, overall, it is true. Every year when I visited South Korea, I always wondered why people almost never discuss about North Korean humanitarian crises. At the same time, I also wondered why the world is not taking an aggressive action against human rights violations in North Korea. Are we not discussing North Korean issues because we have no access to what is happening inside that country? Alternatively, are we assuming that we cannot do anything because the “enemy” is Kim Jung Il? Or are we simply becoming apathetic? Occasionally, the South Korean media have featured North Korea’s current events, but these events were most of the time related to North Korea’s nuclear weapons. As a citizen of the world, I am frustrated with the overall apathetic atmosphere. However, instead of being discouraged, I have decided to be more passionate about researching what is happening in North Korea, who is helping the vulnerable North Koreans, and what is being done about the human rights violations. As I continue to seek ways on how the international community can advocate for North Koreans’ human rights without endangering their lives or creating a political conflict with the North Korean government, I decided to take a closer look on nongovernmental organizations in North Korea and how they have responded to the humanitarian crises that exist side by side with human rights violations. Furthermore, I wanted to explore how effective NGOs are in their pursuit of humanitarian assistance in the midst of many challenges they face in an oppressive country.

Background

On the same day I heard Peter M. Beck’s speech at Georgetown University on human rights violation in North Korea, I also had a chance to listen to the life story of Mr. Kim Hyun Sik, a defector who escaped North Korea in 1993 with the help of a South Korean CIA and a Russian mafia. I felt very privileged to hear about North Korea from someone who served as a private tutor to the wife of Kim Il Sung—the first communist dictator in North Korea. At the same, I was shocked to hear what the majority of North Koreans believe. According to Mr. Kim, North Koreans regard Kim Il Sung as their God and Kim Jung Il as their Jesus. People believe that they live in a “paradise”; they believe that South Korea, on the other hand, is a place like “hell.” Mr. Kim added that he had never heard of the term “human rights” until he defected to South Korea.[2] I was furious to hear that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jung Il have brainwashed the North Koreans to become grateful and loyal to their oppressive regime—even during the famine when many of them died.

In the mid-1990s, a great famine hit North Korea. During this period, almost three million North Koreans died. According to the North Korean government, natural disasters have caused the famine and death. However, organizations, such as the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) and the National Geographic Channel, claim that natural disasters are not the only reason why so many people died and still continue to suffer today. Ten percent of the North Korean population died during the mid-1990s, and today, 40 percent of the North Korean children are chronically malnourished, not to mention that the average height of a seven-year-old North Korean kid is 20 centimeters shorter and the average weight is 10 kilograms lighter than a normal South Korean kid.[3]

It is an undeniable fact that the cause of the famine, the death, as well as the ongoing humanitarian crises in North Korea are due to North Korean government’s mismanagement, denial of human rights, and blockage of foreign humanitarian assistance entering the country. According to HRNK’s 2005 report, “Hunger and Human Rights: The Politics of Famine,” during the famine, the North Korean government used its expenditures to strengthen its military forces and used its military forces to stop people from traveling in search of food.[4] There were ways in which the North Korean government could have stopped the famine, such as seeking multilateral assistance from other countries. However, Kim Jung Il refused foreign aid and was aggressive in preventing people to live—a fundamental human right we must all have. What makes Kim Jung Il more inhumane is the fact that he, who was against foreign influence or aid, indulged himself in foreign imported products in the midst of the crisis, owning 100 foreign limousines and becoming the largest single customer of Hennessy-cognac in the world.[5]

Up to this date, the North Korean government fails to reach out and to provide the necessities to North Koreans—not because the government lacks the capacity but because it refuses in doing so. Therefore, having humanitarian organizations that are willing to reach out and to provide different necessities to North Koreans who are in desperate need is crucial. Before North Koreans can seek their human rights, or before they can realize that their human rights are being violated, they need basic necessities to live and to survive—basic necessities that humanitarian organizations can provide. In the article, “Hunger and Human Rights: The Politics of Famine,” it is stated that, “[g]iven that human rights are meaningless in the absence of the basic sustenance required to maintain life itself, the humanitarian imperative necessarily trumps human rights concerns and requires continued engagement even where basic rights are denied.” [6]

Humanitarian Players in North Korea

Among various humanitarian players, I have selected two key organizations that are currently active in providing humanitarian assistance in North Korea. These two organizations are Mercy Corps and World Vision. Aside from the fact that these two organizations take the lead in various humanitarian projects, reaching out to the vulnerable population in North Korea, I have chosen Mercy Corps because I personally know someone from Mercy Corps and his stories about North Korea has sparked my interest for this research. Meanwhile, I have decided to choose World Vision because the organization started in Korea in 1950s, helping orphaned children during the Korean War.[7] Furthermore, I hope to work at this organization in the future. Using these two organizations as an example, I hope to define what humanitarian aid is like in North Korea and how humanitarian organizations evaluate or ensure that their aid is “effective.”

Mercy Corps

Mercy Corps is a non-profit organization that defines humanitarian aid as a tool to “alleviate suffering, poverty, and oppression.”[8] Mercy Corps has been working for 29 years, providing aid to help people build secure, productive, and just communities. It reaches out to 106 nations, but specifically responds to people who have experienced disasters, conflicts, poverty, and instability. The underlying reason why Mercy Corps provides aid is that they “believe in the intrinsic value and dignity of human life.”[9] Furthermore, Mercy Corps believes that it is their “duty” to serve others by being “effective stewards of the financial resources entrusted to [them].”[10] They have adapted the Universal Declaration Human Rights’ principles—accountability, participation, and peaceful change—as their guide as they provide humanitarian assistance. [11] The types of aid that Mercy Corps provides mostly focus on is emergency relief and sustainable economic development assistance, such as food, shelter, health care, water and sanitation, agriculture, education, and small business loans. However, Mercy Corps hopes to go beyond “simply handing out food” kind of assistance—it seeks to strengthen civil society by promoting citizen participation and accountability. [12]

World Vision

World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization that defines humanitarian aid as a tool to “tackle the causes of poverty and injustice.”[13] Its work encompasses relief, development, and advocacy—an area where Mercy Corps does not focus on. Since 1950, World Vision has been working to provide the daily needs of people, to build peace and promote justice in the community, as well as to encourage spiritual transformation with the help of churches and individuals. The organization reaches out to approximately 100 countries, serving almost 100 million people, including “earthquake and hurricane survivors, abandoned and exploited children, survivors of famine and civil war, refugees, and children and families in communities devastated by AIDS in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.” [14] While Mercy Corps’ motivation to pursue humanitarian assistance is the value and dignity of human life, World Vision, on the other hand, provides aid to people who are especially oppressed and poor in order to demonstrate and share God’s unconditional love for all people. Similar to Mercy Corps, the types of aid World Vision provides focus on disaster relief and development, which includes water and sanitation, food and agriculture, health and hygiene, education and literacy, and economic development through small business loans, and children program. One of the main differences between Mercy Corps and World Vision is the children program. Mercy Corps seeks to nurture children through innovative education, health, and nutrition programs while World Vision, on top of all physical needs, also focuses on the psychological and spiritual needs, such as providing counseling services and “safe houses” for traumatized children to live.[15]

Mercy Corps in North Korea

Mercy Corps has been working with vulnerable North Korean families since 1996. Mercy Corps saw and still continues to see the need of aid in North Korea especially because of many natural disasters, such as flooding and drought, as well as extensive deforestation, and fuel shortages that have happened in the country. These natural calamities destroyed North Korea’s agricultural system; as a result, several crises emerged, such as food shortage, malnutrition, and diseases. By seeing all these adversities, Mercy Corps has specifically reached out to vulnerable North Korean families who have been impacted by economic collapse, agricultural failure, and lack of medical services.[16]

The three main projects that Mercy Corps is doing in North Korea are the following: (1) Emergency Medical Assistance; (2) Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives; and (3) Food Aid.

Through the Emergency Medical Assistance program, Mercy Corps has sent eight shipments of medicine and medical supplies (a total worth of $225,000 US Dollars) to inadequate hospitals in North Korea.[17] In 1996, Mercy Corps hand-delivered medicines worth $13 million dollars to North Korean flood survivors. Furthermore, with the help of USAID, Mercy Corps installed emergency generators and various medical equipments in six hospitals in North Korea.[18]

Meanwhile, within the Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives program, Mercy Corps started the “Apple Tree Project” in year 2000, in which the North Koreans have been able to plant 70,000 apple trees. These apples, grown in the southwestern region of North Korea, are sold either as a whole fruit for consumption or as juice. In addition to apple trees, Mercy Corps has sent fertilizers, windmills, alfalfa seeds, and various vegetable seeds. The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative program seeks to increase self-sufficiency as well as food security of North Koreans.[19]

Finally, Mercy Corps’ food aid program is large and significant as it takes the lead in providing food to North Koreans. This year, Mercy Corps has distributed approximately 100,000 metric tons of food. With its joint efforts with World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, Christian Friends of Korea, Global Resource Services, and USAID’s Food for Peace Program, Mercy Corps has distributed food and has managed to monitor its distribution. Some of the types of food that has been distributed are corn, wheat, vegetable oils, and beans. Mercy Corps especially tries to reach North Korean children, who are chronically malnourished, and North Korean mothers, who are mostly anemic.[20] Since monitoring aid distribution is crucial, Mercy Corps requires staff members to reside in North Korea to visit families and assess the impact of aid.

It is important to mention that Mercy Corps not only works with other NGOs in food distribution, but they also collaborate with private firms such as DHL, for faster delivery of aid, and Nike, which donated a large amount of clothes for North Koreans.[21]

World Vision in North Korea

World Vision has been working with insecure and weak North Korean children and families since 1995—the year the North Korean government finally requested humanitarian assistance. Similar to Mercy Corps, World Vision continuously see food shortage crisis in North Korea. Specifically, World Vision points out the “lack of arable land, collective farming, weather-related problems, and chronic shortages of fertilizers and fuel” as some of the causes of the current adversities in the country.[22]

World Vision and Mercy Corps are alike in terms of the types of aid being sent to North Korea—food, clothing, medicines, and sustainable systems. However, dissimilar to Mercy Corps, World Vision’s sustainable program focuses beyond agriculture; its sustainable program includes hydroponics, noodle production, child and welfare, and potable water projects.[23] Currently, World Vision has selected seven potable water sites that will provide services to 15,000 North Korean villagers, specifically to children, patients receiving home-care services, and pregnant women. On the other hand, the noodle production project is fascinating because with the help of North Korean scientists, there are now noodles in North Korea that are made of soybeans and corn. According to BBC News, not only this new type of noodle “delays the feeling of hunger,” but it also has more protein content than a regular noodle made of wheat and corn.[24]

In terms of food aid program, World Vision co-leads the project with Mercy Corps and works with three other NGOs with the support of USAID’s office of Food for Peace. Just a couple months ago, in October 2008, World Vision with four other NGOs distributed their fourth shipment of food to North Korea, targeting 894,000 vulnerable North Koreans. World Vision hopes that the shipment of 25,060 metric tons of corn and soy will sustain the people during the winter season.[25] According to World Vision, in addition to natural disasters, the current food shortage and malnutrition is problematic due to China’s barrier to food export. Moreover, the extent of the problem is unknown because of the North Korean government’s restrictions to access other areas of the country.[26]

Publicly, Mercy Corps only mentions the natural calamities and other non-political factors as the causes of the current crises in North Korea. However, it is worth pointing out that World Vision mentions the politics of North Korea—that the communist government impedes and hinders World Vision’s ability to provide effective humanitarian assistance. Even if the whole world knows about the communist regime of North Korea, and even if many people assume that the oppressive regime might be one of the main reasons why crises exist in the first place, it is important for a humanitarian organization to reveal the political hindrances in North Korea. It is understandable that many humanitarian organizations resist creating more political conflict with the North Korean government. In her book, “Hungry for Peace,” Hazel Smith states that many humanitarian organizations have not been supportive of direct advocacy—demanding policy change from the North Korean government—because they believe it would not achieve “desired results.” [27] Indeed, it is risky for humanitarian organizations, who currently have established a relationship with the North Korean government, to participate in advocacy. However, who knows North Korea better than the humanitarian organizations that have been inside North Korea and have seen the need for change? The world needs to know about what is happening in North Korea; moreover, governments and the other international organizations need to know about the challenges and the difficulties humanitarian organizations encounter in North Korea in order to collaboratively figure out ways on how humanitarian organizations can improve their operation to save lives and to spark a desire for human rights in the hearts of vulnerable North Koreans.

Challenges of Humanitarians in North Korea

Because of the communist regime, humanitarian institutions face various challenges—from entering the country and leaving the country. However, the first and foremost challenge is to have access to the areas where people are in desperate need. In the beginning, the North Korean government did not open its door to foreign assistance—not until 1995. However, the North Korean government has never opened its door fully—it continues to impose restrictions on where organizations can go and distribute aid. According to Hazel Smith, because the government restricts certain remote areas, not only it is hard for humanitarian organizations to attain information on who might be hungry and how the poorest are surviving in these remote areas, it is hard for the organizations to do an overall assessment and humanitarian programming.[28]

North Korean government opened its door to humanitarian organizations because the government finally acknowledged that it cannot feed its citizens without international aid. It opened its doors but humanitarian officials had to be use the word “reform” in discretion because the North Koreans equated the word with “attempts to dismantle their political and social system.”[29] The 1998 UN strategy document explains briefly the underlying reason to North Korean government’s fear:

“The local reluctance to change stems from history, mistrust and the fear to loose [sic] face. We should not expect the leaders of this country to contemplate any type of “reform” or further major opening if they are unaware of, particularly, social implications. These fears are not unfounded; they range from the loss of social values, welfare and cohesiveness to the introduction of crime and HIV/AIDS…”[30]

Despite North Korean government’s “open door” to foreign aid and despite the massive food aid, more than one million North Koreans died of hunger and disease, according to the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) report, “Failure to Protect,” published in 2006.[31] According to HRNK, there are three main reasons why many North Koreans died. First, HRNK believes that the North Korean government responded late to the crisis and sought aid when it was too late. Second, the government closed the Public Distribution System (PDS) in 1996 due to poor harvest. Finally, the government actively blocked the aid entering the regions where the aid was needed, especially those who depended on the PDS.[32]

Public Distribution System (PDS) is a discriminatory system that denies certain people to have an access to food; thus, even before the famine happen, this system was already slowly killing the people who were vulnerable. In North Korea, the government distributes food in two ways. When the farmers harvest their crops, they only retain a small amount of their harvest, and the government distributes the rest of the harvest to the population. The largest portion of the food goes to those people that the government favored—military, party officials, government-perceived “loyal” citizens, and those in favored occupations.[33] This horrible system has made it easier for the country to have food insecurity and for many people to die of hunger.

When humanitarian assistance entered the country, not only the government limited the areas where the organizations can distribute, but it also interfered in aid distribution and hindered monitoring. According to HRNK, the North Korean government created policies that limited the number of World Food Program and NGO workers delivering aid. Furthermore, the government hindered humanitarian assessments in analyzing what kind of aid is needed and where it is needed. Second, the North Korean government disallowed Korean interpreters to work with the humanitarian workers, making it more difficult to collect information and to make assessments. Third, the government denied the humanitarian organizations to have a transparent and independent distribution network; instead, the government forced that the organizations use the government-controlled PDS network. Finally, the humanitarian workers were not allowed to move freely without government “escorts.”[34]

According to the North Korean government, these restrictions are necessary because the country is vulnerable to foreign military attacks; thus, the government would like to protect its countries’ socio-economic information from its enemies.[35] However, because of these restrictions that hinder effective monitoring and distribution in North Korea, it is debatable whether organizations should continue in giving humanitarian aid. HRNK mentions in their report that one South Korean NGO estimated that almost 50 percent of foreign aid goes to “non-deserving people, including the military”[36] However, it is a valid question to ask: Is there such thing as “non-deserving people” in this world? World Vision, for example, seeks to serve “all people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, and gender.”[37] Can the North Korean military people be considered in this category of “all people” that World Vision refers to? This is a question that all humanitarian organizations should think about, because the military people are also North Koreans who may have a poor family. The military people could have become “lucky” and have obtained a job that is favorable to the government. As I mentioned previously, all North Koreans are brainwashed—this includes the military people who do not have a choice but to serve the communist regime. Therefore, are military people truly “non-deserving”?

In terms of the extent of responsibility and the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance, HRNK raises four valuable questions that we should all ponder upon. First, “Should the international community provide assistance even if it means prolonging the life of a despotic regime?”; Second, “Does aid prolong the very policies that led to the famine in the first place?; Third, “Should donors provide assistance even if some portion of that assistance is diverted to undeserving groups, including the military and party cadre?” Finally, “If the decision is made to provide assistance, how can donors guarantee that food aid reaches vulnerable groups and achieves other objectives, such as inducing economic reforms or empowering new social groups?”[38] Truly, not only it is challenging to know if the aid will end up going to the people in need, but it is also very difficult to evaluate the performance and the effectiveness of the humanitarian assistance. However, humanitarian organizations have been able to measure and assess to the best of their ability, such as, systematic documentation and nutrition survey, meeting and coordination efforts, “inputs” and “outputs,” and types of aid being sent.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Humanitarian Aid

According to Hazel Smith, the primary goal of humanitarian agencies is to alleviate human insecurity by saving lives, and the second goal is to help create conditions that will allow sustainable human development to happen.[39] Achieving these two goals would signify the organization’s effectiveness. However, in the case of North Korea, it is a challenge to evaluate whether the aid has significantly impacted the life or the survival of an individual. Moreover, it is difficult to assess the extent of how significant the aid has improved the life of an individual—if the aid did reach. The North Korean government allows organizations to make an assessment from an individual visit but repeat visits to the same individual beneficiaries are almost never permitted.[40] Moreover, conducting surveys of households is not permitted in North Korea as well as determining and assessing the food source of the beneficiaries. However, the North Korean government has provided social statistics to humanitarian agencies to use; thus, allowing the World Food Program (WFP), another active humanitarian organization in North Korea, to restructure the information, monitoring, reporting, and evaluation systems and creating comprehensive information, especially on distribution capacity, for other agencies to use.[41] In addition, WFP, UNICEF, and the European Union were able to do an extensive nutrition survey in 1998 in collaboration with the North Korean government. Therefore, these data and survey have allowed humanitarian organizations in North Korea to analyze NGOs activities in depth and to evaluate the overall needs and vulnerability of North Koreans.[42]

In terms of coordination efforts, all humanitarian agencies working in North Korea, which include Mercy Corps and World Vision, meet regularly and share their fieldwork activities and observations through in country coordination. Furthermore, there is a commitment to interagency meetings (weekly) and inter-sectoral meetings (bi-weekly or monthly) in order to share information, to coordinate activities, and to enhance operations.[43]

Measuring humanitarian “inputs” and “outputs” is another way to assess humanitarian organizations’ effectiveness. To measure “inputs” in North Korea, the information could be taken from the amount of aid, trade, and agricultural productions.[44] On the other hand, to measure the “outputs,” the number of trees planted and the number of individuals sent abroad could be used.[45] For instance, through Mercy Corps’s “Apple Tree Project,” almost 70,000 apple trees were planted. However, there are limitations to measuring the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance through inputs and outputs because what is truly important is to know not how much aid has been sent in terms of money or how many plants have been planted, but to know how and why these types of aid have impacted the lives of North Koreans—a qualitative information that is difficult to obtain in North Korea due to restrictions.

Finally, the type of aid being sent to North Korea is another crucial aspect to measure the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance. Aid becomes valuable when the beneficiaries are truly benefiting; thus, considering what type of aid to send would not only impact the lives of the beneficiaries but it would also ensure that the aid is delivered to the people in desperate need. According to Mr. Kim Hyun Sik, the North Korean defector I mentioned earlier, humanitarian organizations should stop sending rice and start sending more corn and other alternative grains. Mr. Kim explained that rice was considered as food for the “rich” people and for North Korean authorities; thus, rice aid usually does not reach the poor, hungry people.[46] Both Mercy Corps and World Vision seem to know this fact because they are sending more corn than rice.

In addition to sending the “right” type of food aid, it is also important to look into whether the humanitarian organizations match their aid with the nutrition the beneficiaries need. For instance, one of the food aid Mercy Corps sends is wheat. Since Mercy Corps tries to reach mothers who are anemic, the organization should invest in fortifying the wheat flour with folic acid and iron. According to studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fortifying wheat flour is an effective yet an inexpensive way to fight iron-deficiencies especially among pregnant women.[47] If Mercy Corps could invest in approximately $1.50 U.S. dollars per metric ton of wheat flour to fortify wheat flour with folic acid, iron, and other vitamins, then the food aid will be more effective in terms of meeting the needs of the beneficiaries. Meanwhile, World Vision should continue to expand its use of soybeans from noodle production project to other food projects to reach malnourished children. Protein is an essential nutrient especially for children because it builds up, maintains, and replaces tissues of the body, which includes all the muscles, organs, and the immune system.

Recommendations

After researching and analyzing the challenges and the effective ways to provide humanitarian assistance in North Korea, and after evaluating the current projects of Mercy Corps and World Vision, I would like to make the following recommendations to both organizations.

1. Mercy Corps and World Vision should increase its efforts in expanding its food aid projects and invest in fortifying the food that is being sent to North Korea in order to meet the proper nutritional needs of the beneficiaries. Specifically, Mercy Corps should fortify its food aid of wheat flour with folic acid and iron.

2. Mercy Corps and World Vision should consider hiring humanitarian field workers who already speak Korean to enhance negotiations with the North Korean government and to be more effective and efficient in collecting data, making assessments, and working with North Korean people, especially for capacity building projects.

3. Mercy Corps and World Vision should create more capacity building projects to increase interactions with North Koreans as well as to send more North Koreans outside the country to study abroad and to be challenged.

4. Mercy Corps and World Vision should focus more on small scale operations for easier monitoring, better assessments, and increase in interactions with North Korean authorities.

5. Mercy Corps and World Vision should increase its efforts in pursuing dialogues with the North Korean government and helping them understand that humanitarian assistance is not just giving food but their engagement in the common principles of humanitarian assistance, such as efficiency, transparency, and accountability, is important. Furthermore, Mercy Corps and World Vision should seek to strengthen its ties with the North Korean government in order to build trust and confidence and to have more successful negotiations in delivering humanitarian aid into the country.

---

[1] Beck, Peter M.. "Truth and Human Rights in North Korea: From an NGO Perspective." Panel on the Human Rights Crisis in North Korea, Washington, April 10, 2008.

[2] Kim, Hyun Sik. "Truth and Human Rights in North Korea: From a Personal Perspective." Panel on the Human Rights Crisis in North Korea, Washington, April 10, 2008.

[3] National Geographic - Inside North Korea. 2007; U.S. and Canada: National Geographic Video.

[4] " Hunger and Human Rights: The Politics of Famine." U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

[5] National Geographic - Inside North Korea. 2007; U.S. and Canada: National Geographic Video.

[6] " Hunger and Human Rights: The Politics of Famine." U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

[7] http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/history

[8] "Mercy Corps > About Us > Overview > At a Glance." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] "Mercy Corps > About Us > Overview > Vision for Change." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[12] "Mercy Corps > About Us > Overview > History." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[13] "World Vision - Who We Are - World Vision." Sponsor A Child - World Vision.

[14] Ibid.

[15] "World Vision - Children in Crisis." Sponsor A Child - World Vision.

[16] "Mercy Corps > Countries > North Korea > Overview." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[17] "Mercy Corps > Countries > North Korea > Program Details: North Korea." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[18] "Mercy Corps > Countries > North Korea > Food for North Korea's Families." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[19] "Mercy Corps > Countries > North Korea > Mercy Corps Sends 100,000 Apple Tree Rootstocks To North Korea." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[20] "Mercy Corps > Countries > North Korea > Food for North Korea's Families." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[21] "Mercy Corps > Countries > North Korea > Food for North Korea's Families." Mercy Corps - Be the Change.

[22] "World Vision - Information and Facts About North Korea — World Vision." Sponsor A Child - World Vision.

[23] Ibid.

[24] "BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | N Korea 'develops special noodle'." BBC NEWS | News Front Page.

[25] "World Vision - Aid agencies send U.S. food shipments to North Korea." Sponsor A Child - World Vision.

[26] "World Vision - Information and Facts About North Korea — World Vision." Sponsor A Child - World Vision.

[27] Smith, Hazel. Hungry for Peace: International Security, Humanitarian Assistance, and Social Change in North Korea. Washington: United States Inst Of Peace Pr, 2005, 118.

[28] See ibid., at 120.

[29] Smith, Hazel. Hungry for Peace: International Security, Humanitarian Assistance, and Social Change in North Korea. Washington: United States Inst Of Peace Pr, 2005, 103.

[30] UNDP, “1998 Annual Report,” 2.

[31] " Failure to Protect: A Call for the UN Security to Act in North Korea,” 24. U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

[32] See ibid., at 24.

[33] See A FAILURE TO PROTECT, at 27.

[34] See ibid., at 24-25.

[35] Smith, Hazel. Hungry for Peace: International Security, Humanitarian Assistance, and Social Change in North Korea. Washington: United States Inst Of Peace Pr, 2005, 119.

[36] See A FAILURE TO PROTECT, at 25.

[37] "World Vision - Who We Are - World Vision." Sponsor A Child - World Vision.

[38] " Hunger and Human Rights: The Politics of Famine." U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.

[39] Smith, Hazel. Hungry for Peace: International Security, Humanitarian Assistance, and Social Change in North Korea. Washington: United States Inst Of Peace Pr, 2005, 118

[40] See ibid., at 121.

[41] See ibid., at 119.

[42] EU, UNICEF, and WFP, “Nutrition Survey.”

[43] United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance, Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal 2001.

[44] Smith, Hazel. Hungry for Peace: International Security, Humanitarian Assistance, and Social Change in North Korea. Washington: United States Inst Of Peace Pr, 2005, 121

[45] Ibid.

[46] Kim, Hyun Sik. "Truth and Human Rights in North Korea: From a Personal Perspective." Panel on the Human Rights Crisis in North Korea, Washington, April 10, 2008.

[47] "Trends in Wheat-Flour Fortification with Folic Acid and Iron --- Worldwide, 2004 and 2007." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.