California State University memo

Scenario

Congratulations! You have just been appointed the new Special Envoy on North Korean Human Rights Issues, a Congressionally-mandated and Senate-confirmed position within the State Department. You have spent much of your career focusing on Asia and North Korea, including substantial periods in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

You realize that this is going to be a tough job. Without doubt, the North Korean regime’s record on human rights is abysmal. A lengthy paragraph in the Department’s 2022 Human Rights Report catalogues dozens of categories of human rights abuses perpetrated by authorities in North Korea. International observers and NGOs routinely condemn Pyongyang’s abuse of its citizens. Even the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution in April 2023 that expressed its deep concern “about the systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that, in many instances, constitute crimes against humanity…”

At the same time, you also understand that U.S. concerns about the DPRK encompass far more than human rights issues. You also wonder how much leverage the U.S. wields vis-a-vis the DPRK.

The National Security Advisor plans to convene a Principals Committee meeting next week to review U.S. policy toward the DPRK. The White House has made it clear that it wants to develop a new strategy toward North Korea that includes, among other priorities, a focus on human rights. This meeting is intended to give shape to the new strategy. The Secretary of State has asked you to draft a memo that will help define State’s thinking before the high-level interagency discussion takes place.

Assignment and Instructions

The Secretary’s tasking requests that you address the following topics in a memo that may not exceed four pages.

Your tasking includes a list of topics (below) that must be included in the memo, including several illustrative questions to consider. You must address those questions at a minimum, but you are not limited by them. Feel free to explore other dimensions of each topic as you see fit. You may also change the order of these topics if that would facilitate the flow of your memo.

Please use the following format for your memo. Memo Template (State Dept) DPRK.docx(Do not include in your memo the text of the questions in the template. They are there merely to serve as prompts for your responses.)

Topics for the Memo

• (U) U.S. Efforts to Date: Assess U.S. policy — including in the area of human rights — toward the DPRK over the last decade. Which elements of national power (using the “DIME” paradigm) has the U.S. employed? Which aspects of our approach, if any, have produced positive results? Are there some elements of our policy that have failed or produced no results? (U) Interests and Values: Assess which U.S. national interests and/or values are at stake in the DPRK. Do they compete or converge? To what extent should interests and/or values guide U.S. policy and actions? Describe the extent to which human rights concerns have impacted U.S. policy toward North Korea over the last decade and assert your view as to whether the U.S. should assign a greater or lesser priority to human rights in its dealings with Pyongyang. (U) International Law: Does international human rights law apply to the situation in the DPRK? To what extent, if at all, should international legal considerations affect the U.S. approach? Are there any legal obligations for the U.S. or the broader international community to act in the face of ongoing human rights violations in North Korea?(U) Responsibility to Protect: Should or could R2P apply in this case and, if so, in what way? Would there be any diplomatic or other obstacles to R2P implementation?(U) Accountability and Responsibility: Is there any criminal liability on the part of DPRK officials for reported human rights violations and/or violations of international humanitarian law? Does the U.S. have an obligation, or role of any kind for that matter, in punishing perpetrators of human rights crimes in North Korea? Regardless of any U.S. role, which mechanism(s) or jurisdiction(s), if any, could/should be employed to investigate, prosecute, and punish perpetrators? (U) The Path Forward: Based upon your findings, and the White House’s desire for a new DPRK strategy, spell out at least three specific recommendations relating to human rights considerations that the State Department should advocate in interagency discussions.

Optional Materials

You will have to conduct your own research for this project, but I have included here some potentially useful materials to help get you started. You are not required to use and/or cite any of these materials.

• Country Report on Human Rights – North Korea (U.S. Dept. of State, March 2023)
• Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OHCHR)
• UNGA 78/218 “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (December 2023)
• Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (February 2014)
• World Report 2024: North Korea (Human Rights Watch)
• Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity in North Korean Detention Centers (June 2022)