Feffer argues for a human security approach to North Korea. While the "name and shame" approach has helped identify HR problems in DPRK, name-and-shame has not changed regime behavior. Feffer states, "The name-and-shame approach starts not where North Korea is but where it should be. Since North Korea doesn’t share the same perspective about where it should be in the future, little has been accomplished in terms of productive discussion or movement forward." In contrast, a human security approach begins where North Korea is. "In order to work inside North Korea, an organization must start where the government is" by supplying:
1) What the government wants at some level.
2) Meeting the survival needs (food, shelter, medical care) of "the greatest number of people who lie between the elite (who don’t need help) and the inmates of the labor camps (to whom we have no access)," with the hope of creating greater "voice" among these North Koreans.
Two practical areas to implement the human securtiy approach are 1) economic development and 2) educational exchanges. The principle behind this approach is to focus on "strengthening economic and social rights rather than political and civil rights".
Cohen's summary of Feffer is below
He proposes instead a “human security” approach built on an “empathetic” relationship with North Korea that focuses on the “economic betterment” of its people through “development assistance,” “educational exchanges” and joint economic projects. Such an approach will further economic and social rights without being weighed down by concerns about “the inmates of the labor camps” (to whom there is “no access”) or wishful thinking about the desire of civil society for political freedoms. It will help North Korea evolve into a country that can meet the needs of its citizens and eventually lead to civil and political freedoms.
Cohen, on the other hand, argues that Feffer's position is based on the assumption "that the North Korean government is committed to the economic betterment of its population and that the aid will advance this goal." Unfortunately, North Korea’s "rigid political and ideological controls (which regularly get in the way of economic reform" suggest the contrary.
Moreover, Cohen counters Feffers arguing "that North Korea is entirely impervious to international human rights norms and structures is another mistaken assumption." The naming-shaming strategy has produced some limited results with the DPRK signing on to UN conventions, which have also increased some North Korea people's awareness of how far the regime has fallen short of universal commitments.
Finally, exceptions should not be made for North Korea. "Making North Korea into a human rights exception will create the patronizing relationship that Feffer, with his social work sensitivities, so deplores, and undermine the goals of the international human rights system."
Feffer tries to bridge the divide in a final response.
