Summary

  • In 1995 the DPRK (North Korean) government appealed to the international community for assistance to cope with gross food shortages, which threatened starvation for its people.
  • UN humanitarian agencies that had had some relationship with the DPRK since the 1980s—the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Food Program (WFP)— responded to these appeals and became fully operational and resident in the country after 1995.
  • Prior to the crisis of the mid-1990s, the DPRK had no experience of working with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) except for periodic links with the Red Cross and through its hosting of small delegations such as the American Friends Service Committee.
  • The UN agencies and the NGOs had little knowledge of the politics, economy, culture, or society of the DPRK prior to their involvement in emergency assistance to the country.
  • The DPRK government had a parallel lack of knowledge and understanding of the conventional requirements for international humanitarian assistance.
  • Humanitarian agencies found common difficulties in the constraints placed by the government on monitoring, assessment, and evaluation and faced a dilemma about whether or on what terms to continue.
  • Agency responses varied considerably, according to a multiplicity of factors, including country of origin, mandate, and type of donor.
  • The majority perspective was that confidence building and a process of mutual comprehension had taken place and continues to evolve between the DPRK government and the humanitarian agencies.
  • Although difficulties remain, the process of dialogue has facilitated an improvement in humanitarian agency working conditions.
  • Humanitarian assistance continues to save lives and therefore multilateral and bilateral humanitarian agencies should continue to supply much-needed assistance.
  • Donor governments should build on the channels opened by humanitarian assistance to further develop policies of constructive engagement, confidence building, and the slow but essential formation of trust that is crucial for bringing human and international security to the Korean peninsula.

About the Report

This report examines the diversity of humanitarian agency responses to working in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)—North Korea—and proposes a set of recommendations for agencies and governments.

Hazel Smith worked for the UN World Food Program in the DPRK from August 2000 to July 2001. Smith is currently a senior fellow in the Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace at the Institute. A much earlier version of this report was written for a workshop on "Minimum Conditions for Operating in the DPRK" organized by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (CHD), Geneva, in December 2001. The views presented herein are the views of the author and not necessarily of CHD.

The information in this report comes from United Nations, governmental, and non-governmental organization (NGO) reports on humanitarian activity in the DPRK and the results of an e-mail and telephone survey of major humanitarian actors that have operated and continue to operate in the DPRK. The survey was carried out by the author in October and November 2001.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policies.


Related Research & Analysis

The Current Situation in North Korea

The Current Situation in North Korea

Thursday, February 13, 2025

In 2018, reinvigorated diplomacy and reduced tensions generated hope for a more secure and peaceful Korean Peninsula. At a historic summit in Singapore in June, the United States and North Korea committed to establish “new U.S.-DPRK relations” while North Korea also committed to work toward the “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” However, the two countries disagreed about what each side should concede and when, leading to a diplomatic failure at a subsequent summit in Hanoi in February 2019. Today, the United States and North Korea coexist in an antagonistic, high-risk stalemate.

Type: Fact Sheet

The Risks of South Korea’s Nuclear Armament Under a Troubled Democracy

The Risks of South Korea’s Nuclear Armament Under a Troubled Democracy

Monday, February 10, 2025

On President Donald Trump’s first day in office, he referred to North Korea as a “nuclear power.” Just a few months before, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un said he would “exponentially” increase his country’s nuclear weapons arsenal, which he followed by testing a new intercontinental ballistic missile and a new hypersonic missile. Additionally, there are concerns that Moscow may transfer sensitive military technologies to North Korea in exchange for Pyongyang supplying weaponry and troops for Russia’s war on Ukraine. These developments inject new urgency into a key question that will have major ramifications for stability and security on the Korean Peninsula and beyond: Should South Korea go nuclear?

Type: Analysis

To Build Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea, Focus on Ordinary North Koreans

To Build Peaceful Coexistence with North Korea, Focus on Ordinary North Koreans

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

For any peaceful coexistence between the United States and North Korea to take root, there will need to be multiple levels of dialogue, engagement and cooperation. Given the historic distrust between the two countries, this is easier said than done. But “people-focused” engagement — that is, engagement that centers North Korean people’s wellbeing — could allow Americans to establish working relationships with North Korean counterparts while also demonstrating U.S. commitment to improving the lives of ordinary North Koreans.

Type: Analysis

View All Research & Analysis