By Masood Hyder
Sunday, January 4, 2004; Page B07
PYONGYANG -- Like aid groups in other troubled parts of the world, the humanitarian community in North Korea is people-
oriented but operates in an environment dominated by politics. It focuses first on the basic needs of the most vulnerable.
The 2004 appeal for North Korea was launched on Nov. 19, when the press was seized with the nuclear issue -- and little else.
Yet 3 million children desperately need proper nourishment and clean water, and an entire population needs basic medicine and
better hospital care. If you could see what we see -- widespread industrial decrepitude, hardscrabble farming and abysmal
health services -- you would have no doubt these ordinary yet heroic folk fully deserve the help we are requesting.
A large-scale survey last year by UNICEF and the World Food Program (WFP) showed four out of 10 North Korean children to be
stunted by malnutrition. A report last month by WFP and the Food and Agriculture Organization put the country's cereals
shortfall at almost 1 million tons.
The appeal by U.N. agencies, the Red Cross and nongovernmental organizations is for $221 million in food, medicine and
materials. We are seeking only to meet the most basic -- and most urgent -- needs. The people need much more than what the
donor community is willing to offer in the current circumstances, notably for water and health.
Some of that community's hesitation arises from our protracted stay. We have been in North Korea for nine years. During that
time there has been a very substantial donor response to the humanitarian crisis. Millions of tons of food have been
distributed, and a variety of health care, agriculture, nutrition, water and sanitation programs have been implemented.
How, then, can we say that things are still bad, that basic assistance is needed? Did we fail?
We did not fail. Lives were saved; we are helping turn the situation around. The malnutrition, stunting and maternal
mortality rates, while still high, have fallen. Above all, we have established preventive capacity: Another famine cannot
happen while we are here and properly supported.
Some critics advocate ending humanitarian aid to North Korea and passing the burden to the government. If we did not help,
resources would have to be diverted from more aggressive purposes to take care of the vulnerable, they argue. This is a
dangerous assumption. Let us not place unrealistic expectations on the ability of the humanitarian imperative to dictate
national security priorities.
All too soon, though, the generous donor response has begun to falter. Last year WFP had to suspend assistance to as many as
3 million of the most vulnerable -- the old among them -- to continue helping the neediest children. Recently we were again
obliged to halt vital cereal distribution to 2.7 million people, including the elderly and schoolchildren.
But we cannot give up now. We must not, above all when things are beginning to change. Change, albeit gradual and cautious,
is all around us. There is greater openness. We have recently been granted access to a local market in Pyongyang. Mobile
phones have arrived. Adjustments in prices and pay levels are having a major -- though not always salutary -- impact. Food
aid monitoring visits have risen by nearly 50 percent in the past two years.
Fundamentally, what is changing is the attitude toward change itself. Instead of stoutly defending a supposedly perfect
system that needs no amendment, authorities now allow for the possibility of change and adaptation. The question is: Will the
world stand aside or help the process along?
We must also address the allegation that WFP assistance is diverted to the North Korean military. While we cannot guarantee
that every sack of grain goes where it should, there are good reasons to believe -- foremost among them the impressive
results of last year's nutritional survey -- that the great bulk of it does.
More than half of the 8 million tons of food aid to North Korea since 1995 has been provided on a government-to-government
basis by countries such as South Korea and China and is subject to few, if any, monitoring requirements. In addition, the
North Korean army has first claim on the domestic harvest. So why would it even need to think about diverting U.N. food aid?
The humanitarian community continues to press for more access and more freedom to monitor the effectiveness of multilateral
assistance. Until its demands for the sort of working environment that prevails in other beneficiary countries are met,
doubts will persist in the minds of donors. But we have clearly demonstrated that the vulnerable are better off for having us
in North Korea.
The writer is the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in North Korea.
|