Pyongyang University of Science and Technology

I know or have met several people associated with the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST). Two weeks go, they detained Tony Kim, a U.S. citizen who had been teaching accounting at PUST. Now they've detained another American, Kim Hak-song. Both are alleged to have committed "hostile acts" against the regime. This bring the total number of Americans held captive in North Korea to four.

photo: Ian Wells, PUST websiite

My own thoughts about PUST have always been ambivalent. The people I know who've taught at PUST have shared really amazing stories about their time at the school which demonstrate the human (and for Christians, the Holy) spirit at work, and the potential for people-to-people exchanges with North Koreans. But at the same time, PUST as an enterprise which is 100% funded by foreigners, raises so many questions about the status of an overtly Christian school operating inside a repressive regime. 

Suki Kim, who worked as an undercover author posing as an English teacher, penned an op-ed questioning whether PUST is propping up the regime. Kim has offered measured criticism against PUST, even implying that PUST may be providing students technical skills which can be transferred for military purposes (which I think is way off mark). 

But she also writes in her op-ed, " Yet there is also a positive aspect to PUST. From living with these foreigners on such an intimate basis, these young, isolated North Koreans are exposed to the glimpses of the outside world and its freedom, which might eventually provide hopes for North Korea’s future."

I wish PUST the best, but news of recent detained citizens connected to PUST is certainly troubling, both from a human rights standpoint, and also for the future of PUST. 

The Brits and Transnational Activism on North Korean Human Rights

One of my activist friends posted a set of articles this morning (as he does every morning) on North Korean human rights (NKHR). I've been focusing primarily on U.S. or South Korean activism and NKHR but it's good to be reminded that the push for NKHR is a transnational phenomena. Raising awareness in the UK, British Parliamentarians have spoken out against human rights abuses in North Korea. Interestingly, it appears that conservative members take the lead in NKHR like their counterparts in the US Congress.

To what extent is human rights and humanitarian aid politicized under the backdrop of ongoing security problems. This is a question a former student and I are currently investigating in North Korea and Iran. Leaders are driven by principled beliefs - but how do they interact with strategic beliefs and how does this lead to politicization?

Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt

Just read Michael Barnett's article "Evolution without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt." Here are few reactions, and some insights for my own research.

Barnett’s theoretical claim is the adaptation of evolutionary theory to social science (in this case the evolution of ethics and humanitarian organizations). Institutions and humanitarian groups have evolved over time – taking on larger roles and responsibilities, becoming more relevant in IR. Evolution, however, may not have actually led to progress. The political environment forced agencies to adapt. “The combination of environmental mechanisms and organizational culture led many humanitarian agencies to adapt to their environment in ways that incorporated politics…Actors respond to a world of change…there are strong pressures to conform to their environment” (624). Barnett goes on to conclude “There are many examples of the possibility of the practical ethics of aid agencies becoming politicized, mainstreamed, and tamed as a consequence of external pressures” (656). However, there is the fear that these NGOs may actually be reproducing and expanding the very world order (one dominated by politics, directed by powerful states) that they claim to resist. The environment “can have a pronounced impact on the principles of principled actors and enmesh them into the very world orders that they want to resist and transform” (626).

What’s striking here is the overwhelming emphasis of structure in Barnett’s argument. Barnett admits that the environment does not determine everything, and that actors have choices. But the choices are bounded within the limitations of the environment. Should there be more room for agency. I found his overviews for CARE and World Vision more plausible than MSF and UNHCR (i'm still puzzled why he uses an IGO for the "accomodationist" category).

Barnett’s piece in IO has given me different ideas about my (failed) grant proposal on “The Politicization of North Korea.” Empirically, he raises many of the same issues and questions that I do regarding human rights and humanitarian aid agencies. How do altruistic groups become wrapped in politics? Barnett provides a theoretical hook grounded in evolutionary theory to answer this question. Due to the nature of the grant proposal, I wrote a very policy-specific to North Korea. To turn it into a working paper, I could, however, follow Barnett’s example and formulate a general theory explaining/describing how human rights rights and humanitarian aid organizations operate within a given political environment, using North Korea as one case (Burma, Congo, Iran are other possible examples).