Foreign Assistance to North Korea
Mark E. Manyin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Mary Beth Nikitin
Specialist in Nonproliferation
March 20, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40095
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Summary
Should the United States resume food, energy, and/or denuclearization assistance to North Korea?
This is the major issue facing Congress in considering the provision of aid to Pyongyang.
Between 1995 and 2008, the United States provided North Korea with over $1.3 billion in
assistance: just over 50% for food aid and about 40% for energy assistance. Since early 2009, the
United States has provided virtually no aid to North Korea. In late February 2012, after bilateral
talks with the United States, North Korea announced a moratorium on long-range missile
launches, nuclear tests, and nuclear activities (including uranium enrichment) at its Yongbyon
nuclear facilities. It also said it would allow international nuclear inspectors to return to North
Korea. The United States announced it would provide North Korea with 240,000 metric tons
(MT) of food aid. However, two and a half week later, the agreement appeared in jeopardy after
North Korea announced that in April it would launch a satellite, a move that would defy a number
United Nations resolutions targeting North Korea. U.S. officials said that a satellite launch would
“abrogate” the February agreement.
Food Aid. North Korea has suffered from chronic, massive food shortages since the mid-1990s.
Food aid—largely from China, South Korea, and the United States—has been essential in filling
the gap. In 2011, in response to continued food shortages, Pyongyang reportedly asked the United
States, South Korea, and other countries to provide large-scale food aid. The United Nations has
issued an appeal for assistance. In 2008 and 2009, the United States shipped about a third of a
planned 500,000 MT food aid pledge before disagreements with the North Korean government
led to the program’s cessation.
Providing food to North Korea would pose a number of dilemmas for the United States.
Pyongyang has resisted reforms that would allow the equitable distribution of food and help pay
for food imports. Additionally, the North Korean government restricts the ability of donors to
operate in the country. Multiple sources have asserted that some of the food assistance going to
North Korea is routinely diverted for resale in private markets or other uses. However, it is likely
that food aid has helped feed millions of North Koreans, possibly staving off a repeat of the
famine conditions that existed in North Korea in the mid-late 1990s, when 5%-10% of the
population died due to particularly severe food shortages.
In deciding how to respond to North Korea’s current request, the Obama Administration and
Congress must make a number of decisions, including whether to resume food aid; if so, whether
to condition food aid on progress in security and/or human rights matters; whether to link
assistance to Pyongyang easing its restrictions on monitoring; and whether to pressure China to
monitor its own food aid. In 2011, many Members of Congress tried to prohibit food aid to North
Korea.
Energy Assistance. Between 1995 and 2009, the United States provided around $600 million in
energy assistance to North Korea. The aid was given over two time periods—1995-2003 and
2007-2009—in exchange for North Korea freezing its plutonium-based nuclear facilities. In 2008
and 2009, North Korea also took steps to disable these facilities. However, no additional energy
assistance has been provided since 2009, when Pyongyang withdrew from the Six-Party Talks—
involving North Korea, the United States, China, Japan, and Russia—over North Korea’s nuclear
program. The move followed condemnation and sanctions by the U.N. Security Council for North
Korea’s April 2009 launch of a suspected long-range missile and May 2009 test of a nuclear
device.
Congressional Research Service

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

In 2007 and 2008, the United States also provided technical assistance to help in North Korea’s
nuclear disablement process. In 2008, Congress took steps to legally enable the President to give
expanded assistance for this purpose. However, following North Korea’s actions in the spring of
2009, Congress rejected the Obama Administration’s requests for funds to supplement existing
resources in the event of a breakthrough. Congress did approve monies for the State Department’s
general emergency non-proliferation fund that the Administration could use in North Korea. The
Obama Administration, along with the South Korean government, has said that it would be
willing to provide large-scale development aid if North Korea takes steps to irreversibly
dismantle its nuclear program.
This report will be updated periodically to track changes in U.S. provision of aid to North Korea.
Congressional Research Service

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
A Brief History of U.S. Aid to North Korea.............................................................................. 1
Energy Assistance ............................................................................................................... 2
Food and Other Humanitarian Aid ...................................................................................... 3
The February 2012 U.S.-North Korean Announcements .......................................................... 4
Should Food Aid Be Resumed?................................................................................................. 5
U.S. Energy Assistance.................................................................................................................... 6
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) ............................................... 6
Assistance Related to the Six-Party Talks ................................................................................. 7
Heavy Fuel Oil Shipments .................................................................................................. 8
Congress and Energy Assistance ............................................................................................... 8
U.S. Denuclearization Assistance .................................................................................................... 9
Nuclear Disablement Expenditures ........................................................................................... 9
“Glenn Amendment” Restrictions..................................................................................... 10
Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds................................................................................ 10
Assistance to the IAEA ..................................................................................................... 11
Congress and Denuclearization Assistance ............................................................................. 11
U.S. Food Assistance ..................................................................................................................... 12
Congress and Food Assistance ................................................................................................ 14
U.S. Food Aid Policy............................................................................................................... 15
The Ebbs and Flows of Food Aid to North Korea, 2006-2010................................................ 15
North Korea’s 2006 Restrictions and the Decline in the WFP’s Program......................... 15
The U.S. Resumes Food Aid in 2008 ................................................................................ 16
Cessation of the 2008-2009 Program ................................................................................ 17
The Food Aid Dilemma ........................................................................................................... 18
Options and Considerations for Future Food Aid to North Korea........................................... 19
Other Forms of U.S. Assistance..................................................................................................... 21
Medical Assistance .................................................................................................................. 21
Development Assistance.......................................................................................................... 21

Figures
Figure 1. Total Estimated Food Aid to North Korea, 1995-2009................................................... 13

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Assistance to North Korea, 1995-2011 ...................................................................... 2
Table 2. Six-Party Talks-Related Energy Assistance to North Korea .............................................. 8

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Introduction
In 2012, Congress is likely to confront the issue of whether to support or reject proposals for
resuming food, energy, and/or denuclearization assistance programs to North Korea. In late
February 2012, the Obama Administration and North Korea announced they had reached two
related agreements. In the first, North Korea announced it would abide by a moratorium on
testing and allow international monitoring of key parts of its nuclear program. The second was a
U.S. announcement that it would resume large-scale U.S. food aid—termed “nutritional
assistance”—with guarantees for enhanced monitoring to increase the likelihood that deliveries
reach their intended recipients. The two steps appear to have been largely worked out in bilateral
meetings in 2011. However, the December 19, 2011, announcement of the death of Kim Jong-il,
North Korea’s former supreme leader, halted the talks for a few months. North Korea’s March 16
announcement that it would launch a satellite in April has thrown the February agreement into
question. Such a launch would defy a number of United Nations resolutions, which demand
North Korea refrain from “any launch using ballistic missile technology.” The Obama
Administration has said it would regard a satellite launch as an abrogation of the February
agreement. Moreover, during their discussions with North Korea in 2011, U.S. officials
reportedly warned their North Korean counterparts that the United States would regard a satellite
launch as a violation of the agreement the two sides were negotiating.1
As discussed below, Members of Congress have a number of tools, most notably the annual
appropriations process, they could use to influence the implementation of these and future aid
programs with North Korea. (See the “Congress and Energy Assistance,” “Congress and
Denuclearization Assistance,” and “Congress and Food Assistance” sections below).
A Brief History of U.S. Aid to North Korea
For four decades after the end of the Korean War in 1953, U.S. strategy toward the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, commonly referred to as North Korea) was relatively simple:
deter an attack on South Korea. This included a freeze on virtually all forms of economic contact
between the United States and North Korea in an attempt to weaken and delegitimize the North
Korean government. In the 1990s, two developments led the United States to rethink its
relationship with the DPRK: North Korea’s progress in its nuclear weapons and missile programs
and the onset of massive, chronic food shortages there. In response, the United States in 1995
began providing the DPRK with foreign assistance, which to date has totaled over $1.2 billion.
This aid has consisted of energy assistance, food aid, and a small amount of medical supplies.
(See Table 1.) The Obama Administration, like the George W. Bush Administration, has said that
it would be willing to provide “significant” energy and economic assistance to North Korea if
Pyongyang takes steps to irreversibly dismantle its nuclear program.2

1 State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, “Daily Press Briefing,” Washington, DC, March 16, 2012.
2 State Department Press Release, “Remarks at the ASEAN Regional Forum by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of
State,” Laguna Phuket, Thailand, July 23, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Energy Assistance
In 1994, the United States and North Korea negotiated an Agreed Framework, under which
Pyongyang agreed to shut down its nuclear program in exchange for two light water nuclear
reactors (LWRs) and heavy fuel oil (HFO). Between 1995 and 2003, the United States provided
over $400 million in HFO, which was channeled through the Korean Peninsula Energy
Development Organization (KEDO), the organization established to implement the Agreed
Framework. The Bush Administration halted energy assistance in the fall of 2002, following
North Korea’s reported admission that it had secretly been developing a uranium-based nuclear
program.3
The Bush Administration resumed energy assistance to North Korea in 2007. In July of that year,
progress was made in multilateral negotiations, called the Six-Party Talks, over North Korea’s
nuclear programs. As a result, the United States and other countries once again began providing
HFO in return for Pyongyang freezing and disabling its plutonium-based nuclear facilities in
Yongbyon.4 By December 2008, the United States had shipped its promised 200,000 tons of HFO.
From July 2007 to April 2009, the United States provided technical assistance to North Korea to
help in the nuclear disablement process. North Korea’s May 2009 nuclear test effectively halted
discussion of U.S. energy assistance to North Korea in the near term.
Table 1. U.S. Assistance to North Korea, 1995-2011
(As of December 2011)
6-Party Talks-Related
Assistance
KEDO
Medical
Food Aid (per FY)
(per FY; $ million)
Assistance
Supplies &
Calendar
Commodity
(per
Other (per
or Fiscal
Value
calendar yr;
Nuclear
FY; $
Total
Year (FY) Metric Tons
($ million) $ million)
Fuel Oil Disablement
million)
($ million)
1995
0
0.00
$9.50
—
—
0.20
9.70
1996
19,500
8.30
22.00
—
—
0.00
30.30
1997
177,000
52.40
25.00
—
—
5.00
82.40
1998
200,000
72.90
50.00
—
—
0.00
122.90
1999
695,194
222.10
65.10
—
—
0.00
287.20
2000
265,000
74.30
64.40
—
—
0.00
138.70
2001
350,000
58.07
74.90
—
—
0.00
132.97
2002
207,000
50.40
90.50
—
—
0.00
140.90
2003
40,200
25.48
2.30
—
—
0.00
27.78
2004
110,000
36.30
0.00
—
—
0.10
36.40

3 See also CRS Report RL34256, North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues, by Mary Beth Nikitin. For its
part, Pyongyang had expressed frustration at the slow pace of constructing the light-water nuclear reactor (LWR) that it
had been promised under the Agreed Framework. LWRs do not produce weapons-grade nuclear materials, unlike the
plutonium production reactor that North Korea had been operating.
4 The Six–Party Talks involve North Korea, the United States, China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia. See also CRS
Report R41259, North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation, by Emma Chanlett-Avery.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

6-Party Talks-Related
Assistance
KEDO
Medical
Food Aid (per FY)
(per FY; $ million)
Assistance
Supplies &
Calendar
Commodity
(per
Other (per
or Fiscal
Value
calendar yr;
Nuclear
FY; $
Total
Year (FY) Metric Tons
($ million) $ million)
Fuel Oil Disablement
million)
($ million)
2005
25,000
5.70
—
—
—
—
5.70
2006
0
0.00
—
—
—
0.00
0.00
2007
0
0.00
—
25.00
20.00
0.10
45.10
2008
148,270
93.70
—
106.00
25.00
0.00
224.70
2009
21,000
5.60
—
15.00
—
4.00
24.60
2010 — 2.90a
—
—
—
0.60
3.50
2011
—
—
—
—
—
0.90
0.90
Total
2,258,164
708.15
403.70
146.00 45.00
10.90
1,313.75
Source: Compiled by CRS from USAID; US Department of Agriculture; State Department; KEDO (Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization).
Note: For the purposes of this report, U.S. government democracy promotion and refugee support programs
are not included as forms of assistance to North Korea.
a. $2.9 million in FY2010 represents a budgetary adjustment for contributions provided in FY2008.

Food and Other Humanitarian Aid
Since the 1980s, North Korea has experienced massive food shortages of varying degrees of
severity. For a decade after DPRK authorities’ 1995 appeal for outside help, the United States
was one of the largest providers of food assistance. The request was unprecedented; by choice,
North Korea was and still remains one of the world’s most reclusive countries. U.S. and United
Nations aid officials have continuously wrestled with DPRK authorities over how much freedom
foreign workers should be allowed to distribute and monitor food assistance. The regime’s
restrictions have ebbed and flowed, usually in accordance with the government’s desperation for
outside food. Twice since 1995 Pyongyang has significantly tightened restrictions. In both
periods—FY2006-FY2007 and FY2010-FY2012—the United States responded by providing
virtually no food aid.
Medical Assistance
From time to time, the United States also has provided small amounts of medical assistance to
North Korea. In 2008, for instance, the Bush Administration allocated $4 million in assistance to
U.S. NGOs to help several North Korean rural and provincial hospitals by improving their
electrical supplies and by providing medical equipment and training. More recently, following
localized floods in North Korea in the summer of 2010, the Obama Administration spent about
$600,000 on the provision of relief items, such as medicine, to North Korea.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

The February 2012 U.S.-North Korean Announcements
On February 29, 2012, the North Korean government announced that as a result of several rounds
of talks with the United States it would abide by a moratorium on nuclear tests and long-range
missile launches, as well as uranium enrichment activity at its nuclear facility at Yongbyon, so
long as “productive dialogues continue.”5 It also agreed to allow the IAEA to monitor the
moratorium on uranium enrichment. In a nearly simultaneously released announcement, the
Obama Administration said that it would provide 240,000 MT of “nutritional assistance,” and
would take steps to increase bilateral people-to-people exchanges.6 In a subsequent briefing,
anonymous senior officials revealed that agreement over the food aid, which is to be disbursed in
20,000 MT increments over 12 months, was reached after North Korea agreed in principle to
accept tougher conditions on monitoring and that the food assistance would take the form of food
products (such as corn-soy blends) that are less likely to be diverted from their intended
recipients, namely pregnant women and young children.7 State Department and USAID officials
met with their North Korean counterparts on March 7 and 8 to finalize the arrangements for the
food aid package. In the weeks following Kim Jong-il’s death, North Korea had demanded food
assistance in the form of rice and grains that are considered more desirable and therefore more
prone to theft and diversion. North Korea had also requested over 300,000 MT of food.8 In a
concession to North Korea, the United States announcement mentions that there is “the prospect
of additional [nutritional] assistance based on continued need.”
State Department officials referred to North Korea’s moves on its nuclear and missile programs as
“very modest,” and “pre-steps” that “unlock the door” to the possibility that the Six-Party Talks
over denuclearization will eventually resume. The officials acknowledge that the steps are
reversible, and that they only cover North Korea’s nuclear facilities in Yongbyon.9 Many experts
suspect that there are additional uranium processing sites in other areas of North Korea.
Disagreements over whether international inspectors could verify suspected sites outside of
Yongbyon played a significant role in the collapse of the Six-Party Talks process in 2008.
Administration officials cautioned that U.S. agreement to resume participating in the talks, if it
happens, could take some time and would require that North Korea take other steps, including
improving inter-Korean relations. Indeed, the U.S. “Leap Day” announcement makes no mention
of the Six-Party Talks, in contrast to the North Korean statement. In another possible discrepancy
over the interpretation of the agreements, the North Korean statement made no mention of the
plutonium facilities at Yongbyon. A senior State Department officials has said that “there’s no
doubt in our mind” that during the bilateral negotiation process North Korea agreed to allow the
IAEA to confirm that these facilities are disabled.10 In early March, during unofficial, “track 1.5”
discussions with North Korea analysts in New York, a senior North Korean diplomat reportedly

5 Korean Central News Agency, “DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman on Results of US-DPRK Talks,” February 12,
2012.
6 Press Statement, Victoria Nuland, State Department Spokesperson, February 29, 2012.
7 An anonymous senior administration official said, “... if we are successful in finalizing the details that I’ve just laid
out, this will be the most comprehensively monitored and managed program since the U.S. began assistance to the
DPRK in the mid 1990s,” State Department, “Background Briefing on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,”
February 29, 2012.
8 “DPRK Will Follow U.S. Moves: FM Spokesman,” Korean Central News Agency, January 11, 2012.
9 State Department, “Background Briefing on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” February 29, 2012.
10 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

stated that the Leap Day deal was part of the 3-month old regime of Kim Jong-un (Kim Jong-il’s
third son) effort to “break from the previous generation.”11
However, on March 16, such hopes were dashed when the North Korean Committee for Space
Technology announced that a polar-orbiting earth observation satellite would be launched
between April 12 and 16, to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il Sung, who ruled
North Korea from its founding in the 1940s until his death in 1994.12 State Department
spokesperson Victoria Nuland stated that such a move would violate UN Security Council
Resolutions 1718 and 1874, which demand that North Korea refrain from any launch “using
ballistic missile technology.” Moreover, Nuland said that during negotiations in 2011, U.S.
officials had warned their North Korean counterparts that a satellite launch would “abrogate” the
agreement. Nuland added that if there is a launch, “it’s very hard to imagine how we would be
able to move forward” on delivering food aid because it would “call into question the credibility”
of North Korea’s promises on of monitoring of food aid and the ensuing tensions would “make
the implementation of any kind of a nutritional agreement quite difficult.”13
Should Food Aid Be Resumed?
For over a year before the North Korean satellite launch announcement, the Obama
Administration and Congress have debated whether to resume food aid to North Korea. In late
2010 and early 2011, North Korea asked the United States, South Korea, and numerous other
countries for large-scale food assistance, amid outside organizations’ ongoing alerts that food was
becoming more scarce for ordinary North Koreans.14 In May 2011, the Administration dispatched
to North Korea a team, led by Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Robert King, to
discuss with North Korean officials conditions over monitoring food assistance if the Obama
Administration decided to provide aid. However, King did not have the authority to promise
North Korea that food aid would be resumed if authorities there agreed to certain conditions. The
Obama Administration’s policy is that resuming food aid requires a needs assessment as well as
confidence that the distributors of the food will be able to effectively manage the program and
physically monitor their shipments to ensure food is reaching the intended recipients.15 However,
in the eyes of many observers, the Obama Administration’s reported December 2011
understanding with North Korea on the resumption of food assistance appears to have been
directly linked to the concessions that North Korea was expected to make on the nuclear issue
before the death of supreme leader Kim Jong-il. As discussed below, food aid to North Korea has
been controversial in Congress.
In the weeks prior to Ambassador King’s trip, at the request of Pyongyang, a group of NGOs and
a team from the United Nations performed separate food assessments in North Korea and
reported that the food situation had worsened considerably, leaving millions of North Koreans in
need of outside aid.16 The United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP) and the North Korean

11 Chung Min Lee, “Kim Jong Eun's Biggest Obstacles to Reform Aren't Washington and Seoul, But His Own Party
Apparatchiks,” The Wall Street Journal Opinion Asia, March 12, 2012.
12 “DPRK to Launch Application Satellite,” Korea Central News Agency, March 16, 2012.
13 State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland Press Statement, “North Korean Announcement of Missile
Launch,” March 16, 2012; “Daily Press Briefing,” Washington, DC, March 16, 2012.
14 Jung-wook Kim, “Pyongyang Asks U.S. to Restore Food Aid: Source,” JoongAng Ilbo, February 9, 2011.
15 State Department Daily Press Briefing by Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary, February 9, 2011.
16 World Food Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

government subsequently negotiated a Letter of Understanding (LOU), which according to one
detailed review seems to contain terms for more expansive monitoring than the WFP has obtained
in the past.17 The WFP then issued an appeal for donors to support a year-long program designed
to provide over 310,000 MT of food to over 3.5 million vulnerable women and children.
According to a team of American non-governmental organizations that traveled to North Korea in
the fall of 2011, floods in the summer significantly worsened food conditions in the northern part
of the country. Other first-hand observers, however, say that crisis conditions do not exist. In
response to the floods, the United States in August 2011 announced it would provide $900,000 in
emergency relief items such as blankets and water filtration kits.18
Several motivations may lay behind the DPRK’s appeal for food aid. First, despite a slight
improvement in recent years’ harvests, large-scale shortages persist and perhaps have worsened,
particularly outside Pyongyang. A second possible motivation is that North Korean authorities are
seeking to stockpile food in preparation for 2012, which the Kim regime says will be a seminal
year in the country’s history. 2012 marks North Korean founder Kim Il-sung’s 100th birthday, is
the year designated for North Korea to become “militarily strong and economically prosperous,”
and may be an important time for new supreme leader Kim Jong-un to demonstrate his authority
following the death of his father, Kim Jong-il, in December 2011. Third, the regime may be
seeking aid in preparation for leaner times, for instance due to a future nuclear or missile test—
which could bring about a harsher international environment—and/or an intensified crackdown
against private markets, which for years have been the most important source of food for average
North Koreans. Finally, North Korea may see food aid as a useful means for altering the
diplomatic dynamic in its favor.
These motivations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is possible that the regime has already
begun to hoard food stores for the future, as reported by some sources, thereby worsening a food
system that was already showing renewed signs of strain.19 Regardless of the causal factors, the
costs of continuing or worsened shortages would be borne by ordinary (i.e., non-elite) North
Koreans who neither farm nor have ready access to foreign exchange.
U.S. Energy Assistance
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)
From 1995 to 2002, the United States provided over $400 million in energy assistance to North
Korea under the terms of the U.S.-North Korean 1994 Agreed Framework, in which the DPRK
agreed to halt its existing plutonium-based nuclear program in exchange for energy aid from the

(...continued)
“Rapid Food Security Assessment Mission to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” March 24, 2011. A number
of observers, including some who support the provision of food aid to North Korea, criticized portions of the U.N.
report’s methodology and findings as flawed. See, for instance, Marcus Noland and Stephan Haggard, “Parsing the
WFP/FAO Report,” Witness to Transformation blog, posted on April 5, 2011, at http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=826.
17 Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland, “Monitoring Aid,” Witness to Transformation blog, posted on May 17th, 2011,
at http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=1329.
18 Earlier that month, the United States and North Korea agreed to a resumption of the excavation of the remains of
U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War. The program had last operated in 2005.
19 Daily NK, December 16, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

United States and other countries.20 After Washington and Pyongyang reached their agreement,
the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea formed an international consortium, the
Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), to manage the assistance.21 The
planned aid consisted of the construction of two light-water nuclear reactors (LWRs) and the
provision of 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually while the reactors were being built.22
U.S. contributions covered only heavy fuel oil shipments and KEDO administrative costs.
In October 2002, KEDO board members decided to halt fuel oil shipments following a dispute
over North Korea’s alleged clandestine uranium enrichment program. In December, North Korea
expelled inspectors from its Yongbyon nuclear site, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty (NPT), and resumed operations at Yongbyon. The Bush Administration thereafter sought
to permanently end the KEDO program.23 In 2003 and 2004, KEDO’s Executive Board (the
United States, South Korea, Japan, and the European Union) decided to suspend construction on
the LWRs for one-year periods. In the fall of 2005, the KEDO program was formally terminated.
In January 2006, the last foreign KEDO workers left the LWR construction site at Kumho, North
Korea.
Assistance Related to the Six-Party Talks
After the collapse of the Agreed Framework arrangement in 2002, the Bush Administration and
the Chinese government worked to create a multilateral forum of the six major countries in
Northeast Asia to discuss and resolve the North Korean nuclear problem. As with KEDO, the
Bush Administration and other members of the Six-Party Talks—South Korea, Japan, China, and
Russia—promised energy assistance to North Korea as an inducement to end its nuclear program.
In September 2005, the six parties issued a joint statement agreeing to “promote economic
cooperation in the fields of energy, trade and investment, bilaterally and/or multilaterally.” The
United States, China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia also stated their “willingness to provide
energy assistance to the DPRK.” The agreement said that the parties would discuss the provision
of a light water nuclear power reactor to North Korea “at the appropriate time.” This document
serves as the foundation for subsequent agreements.24
Talks were stalled after North Korea tested a nuclear device in October 2006. After a return to
talks, a Denuclearization Action Plan was reached in February 2007. It called for a first phase to
include the shut-down of key nuclear facilities and initial provision of 50,000 metric tons of
heavy fuel oil to North Korea. In the second phase, the parties agreed to provide North Korea
with “economic, energy and humanitarian assistance up to the equivalent of 1 million tons of
heavy fuel oil, including the initial shipment of 50,000 tons of heavy oil.”

20 See “Total Financial Support by Country: March 1995 to December 2005,” Table B, Appendix 1, KEDO 2005
Annual Report. http://www.kedo.org/pdfs/KEDO_AR_2005.pdf.
21 Membership in KEDO expanded to include additional states and international organizations that contributed funds,
goods or services: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, the European Union (as an executive board
member), Indonesia, New Zealand, Poland, and Uzbekistan. KEDO also received material and financial support from
nineteen other non-member states. Details at http://www.kedo.org/au_history.asp.
22 Full text of the KEDO-DPRK supply agreement at http://www.kedo.org/pdfs/SupplyAgreement.pdf.
23 State Department Daily Press Briefing by Adam Ereli, Deputy Spokesman, November 5, 2003.
24 Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks Beijing, September 19, 2005. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/
prs/ps/2005/53490.htm.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Heavy Fuel Oil Shipments
The shipments of fuel oil or equivalent (e.g., steel products to renovate aging power plants)
assistance were to happen on an “action for action” basis, as North Korea made progress on
denuclearization.25 The shipments of 1 million metric tons (MT) of heavy fuel oil or equivalent
were to be divided equally by the five parties (i.e., 200,000 MT each). HFO shipments were
delivered in a start-and-stop manner, slowed primarily by disagreements between Pyongyang and
Washington over how and whether to verify North Korea’s disablement, and over whether the
United States would remove North Korea from its State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Before the Six
Party Talks broke down in March 2009, the DPRK had received 500,000 MT of heavy fuel oil
and equipment and 245,110 MT of fuel equivalent assistance.26
Table 2. Six-Party Talks-Related Energy Assistance to North Korea
(July 2007-March 2009)
Amount of HFO
Amount of HFO (MT)
Equivalent (MT)
Amount Left to be
Donor Country
Delivered
Delivered
Delivered
China 50,000
150,000
0
Japan 0
0
200,000
Russia 200,000
0
0
South Korea
50,000
95,110
55,000 HFO equivalent
United States
200,000
0
0
Total 500,000
245,110
310,000
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service.
Notes: Japan has stated it will not deliver energy assistance to North Korea until the issue of abductions of
Japanese citizens by North Korea is resolved.
Congress and Energy Assistance
Over time, Congress has influenced administration policy by placing conditions on aid to North
Korea. From 1998 until the United States halted funding for KEDO in FY2003, Congress
included in each Foreign Operations Appropriation requirements that the President certify
progress in nuclear and missile negotiations with North Korea before allocating money to KEDO
operations. To support the Six-Party Talks, Congress provided funds for energy assistance in the

25 These commitments were reaffirmed in the October 3, 2007 Agreement on “Second-Phase Actions for the
Implementation of the Joint Statement.” http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/oct/93223.htm.
26 Japan said it would not provide its share of energy assistance to Pyongyang until North Korea had satisfactorily
resolved the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea. For more on this topic, see CRS Report RS22845,
North Korea’s Abduction of Japanese Citizens and the Six-Party Talks, by Emma Chanlett-Avery. In 2008, press
reports said that the United States was arranging for other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and European
states to provide Japan’s portion of HFO aid. Australia and New Zealand had each reportedly agreed to donate $10
million, approximately equal to 30,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil. See “Japan mulls funding N. Korea
denuclearization, others to give oil aid,” Japan Economic Newswire, October 21, 2008. Japan also reportedly was
considering the contribution of technical assistance related to North Korea’s nuclear dismantlement in the amount of
200,000 metric tons of HFO (approximately 16 billion yen or $164 million). See “Japan may pay cash for North
Korea’s denuclearization, says report,” BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific, October 22, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252). This act also gave the President
authority to waive Arms Export Control Act sanctions on Pyongyang for the purpose of providing
aid in connection with denuclearization (see ““Glenn Amendment” Restrictions” below).
However, this waiver was not used, and was no longer in effect following the May 2009 North
Korean nuclear test. Congress has supported funding for the denuclearization of North Korea, for
example in the FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (see “U.S. Denuclearization Assistance”
section below).
No energy assistance for North Korea was proposed in the Administration’s FY2011, FY2012, or
FY2013 budget requests. Previously, in its FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations budget request,
the Obama Administration sought over $150 million for North Korea-related energy and
denuclearization assistance to use in the event of a breakthrough with North Korea.27 In separate
committee actions, House and Senate appropriators rejected these requests, in large part due to
North Korea’s withdrawal from the Six-Party process and subsequent missile and nuclear tests in
the spring of 2009.28 Since the 2009 tests, Congress has specifically prohibited energy assistance
to North Korea. In the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), Congress said
specifically that “none of the funds made available by this Act under the heading ‘Economic
Support Fund’ may be made available for energy-related assistance for North Korea.” FY2012
appropriations report language includes this same prohibition on using ESF for energy-related
assistance to North Korea (H.Rept. 112-331, §7044(e)).
U.S. Denuclearization Assistance
Nuclear Disablement Expenditures
As part of Phase Two under the Six-Party agreements, the Departments of State and Energy
worked on disabling the nuclear facilities at the Yongbyon complex in North Korea until April
2009.29 This effort was funded through the State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament
Fund (NDF). The State Department paid the North Korean government for the labor costs of
disablement activities, and related equipment and fuel. Approximately $20 million in FY2007 and
$25 million in FY2008 was approved for this purpose. NDF funds may be used “notwithstanding
any other provision of law,” and are available until expended.
The Department of Energy’s (DoE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) was
contributing its personnel as technical advisors to the U.S. Six-Party delegation and as technical
teams on the ground at Yongbyon overseeing disablement measures. Although disablement has
been suspended, DoE programs continue preparatory work for future verification or

27 The funds included $95 million under the Economic Support Funds (ESF) to potentially pay for heavy fuel oil (HFO)
and $81.5 million to be available to potentially pay for the dismantlement of nuclear facilities and other
denuclearization work in North Korea (for details, see “Heavy Fuel Oil Shipments” and “U.S. Denuclearization
Assistance” below).
28 As in the past, funds from the State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund may be used in North
Korea.
29 Nuclear disablement should be distinguished from nuclear dismantlement, the former referring to a process that
could be reversed. For discussion of what was accomplished, see Table 2 in CRS Report RL34256, North Korea’s
Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues, by Mary Beth Nikitin.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

denuclearization activities in North Korea.30 NNSA estimated that it spent approximately $15
million by July 2008 in support of Phase Two (Yongbyon disablement) implementation.31 NNSA
estimated that disablement costs could have totaled up to $360 million if North Korea had agreed
to the packaging and disposition of separated plutonium and spent fuel at Yongbyon. The
Congressional Budget Office estimated that full nuclear dismantlement in North Korea would
cost approximately $575 million and take about four years to complete.32
“Glenn Amendment” Restrictions
North Korea’s 2006 nuclear test triggered sanctions under Section 102 (b) (the “Glenn
Amendment” 22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1) of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits assistance to
a non-nuclear weapon state under the NPT that has detonated a nuclear explosive device. Due to
this restriction, DOE funds could not be spent in North Korea without a waiver. Congress passed
language in the FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252) that would have
allowed the President to waive the Glenn Amendment restrictions and that stipulates that funds
may only be used for the purpose of eliminating North Korea’s WMD and missile-related
programs.33 The waiver’s purpose was to allow DOE “to procure, ship to North Korea, and use
equipment required to support the full range of disablement, dismantlement, verification, and
material packaging and removal activities that Phase Three will likely entail.”34 The Bush
Administration notified Congress of its intent to waive these sanctions for the purpose of
denuclearization aid on November 14, 2008, but did not exercise the waiver authority. Because
North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test on May 25, 2009, the waiver may no longer
be issued under P.L. 110-252. The law stipulates that a nuclear test after the date of enactment
would nullify the waiver authority.35
Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
In 2008, Senator Richard Lugar proposed that the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program be granted “notwithstanding authority”36 for denuclearization work in

30 For example, the NNSA’s Nonproliferation and International Security and Nuclear Noncompliance Verification
(NNV) programs. See FY2011 Department of Energy Congressional Budget Justification.
31 Statement of William H. Tobey, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, July 31, 2008.
32 The CBO’s cost estimate takes into account the dismantling of the reactor and three associated plants at Yongbyon as
well as the transport and reprocessing of the spent fuel outside North Korea. Congressional Budget Office, “Cost
Estimate: S. 3001 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” June 13, 2008. http://www.cbo.gov/
ftpdocs/93xx/doc9390/s3001.pdf.
33 Similar language appeared in the Senate version of the FY2009 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L. 110-417), but was not included in the House version. The final act includes it under “legislative provisions not
adopted” under Title XII, since the waiver authority was passed earlier in the FY2008 Supplemental. See joint
explanatory note: http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/fy09ndaa/FY09conf/
FY2009NDAAJointExplanatoryStatement.pdf.
34 Tobey testimony, ibid.
35 In P.L. 110-252 §1405 (b)(3), there is an exception for activities described in Subparas A or B of §102(b)1 of AECA.
This includes “transfers to a non-nuclear weapon state a nuclear explosive device,” and “is a non-nuclear-weapon state
and either (i) receives a nuclear explosive device, or (ii) detonates a nuclear explosive device.”
36 So that funds may be used “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Senator Richard Lugar, Remarks to
National Defense University, October 2, 2008. http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=304026&&.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

North Korea. Authorization was given for CTR funds to be used globally for the first time in the
FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181, see §1305), which expressly encourages
“activities relating to the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.” The
FY2010 Defense Authorization bill (P.L. 111-84) gave the CTR program notwithstanding
authority for a limited amount of funds to be used globally in response to urgent proliferation
threats, which could include work in North Korea.
Assistance to the IAEA
The United States provided $1.8 million in 2007 and $1.5 million in 2008 to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for its monitoring activities at Yongbyon. Japan has provided the
agency with $500,000 for this purpose.37 The European Union in 2008 contributed approximately
$1.6 million (1.025 million euros) to the IAEA for Yongbyon monitoring and verification
activities. North Korea expelled the IAEA inspectors in April 2009. If North Korea invites the
IAEA to monitor the moratorium of enrichment activities at Yongbyon as announced on February
29, 2012, the agency might need extrabudgetary contributions for this work.
Congress and Denuclearization Assistance
The Obama Administration’s FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Request asked for $47
million for the State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF) “to support
dismantlement of nuclear facilities in North Korea.” The House Appropriations Committee
halved the NDF request to $23.5 million, but did not exclude the use of these funds in North
Korea. The Senate Appropriations Committee report also does not specifically mention North
Korea in its description of NDF funding, but does not exclude it. The committee approved $77
million for the NDF, of which $50 million is for border security in Gaza.38 The NDF could choose
to use other funds in North Korea.
The Administration had originally requested $34.5 million for Department of Energy (DoE)
denuclearization work in North Korea as part of the FY2009 Supplemental, including $25 million
for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative to “complete disablement tasks and to initiate spent
fuel disposition and other denuclearization efforts” in North Korea, and $9.5 million for the
Nonproliferation and International Security Program’s “disablement and dismantlement support”
in the DPRK. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees deleted all the DoE monies for
North Korea, saying in reports that should North Korea reverse its policies, then denuclearization
assistance could be considered.
The FY2011, FY2012, and FY2013 budget requests did not provide specifically for any
denuclearization funding for North Korea. The 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-
117) and the continuing appropriations for FY2011 did not address denuclearization assistance to
North Korea since the process was stalled. Sections 8042 of the FY2012, FY2011, and FY2010
appropriations bills say that, “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this
Act may be obligated or expended for assistance to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

37 Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Testimony before House
Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment and Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Washington, DC, October 25, 2007.
38 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, 111th Cong., May 14, 2009, S.Rept. 111-20.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.” It is not yet clear from the February 2012
announcements whether U.S. personnel will participate in monitoring a moratorium of
enrichment activities at Yongbyon. If they do, then as in the past, the State Department
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund may be used for any necessary equipment, and the
Department of Energy might contribute personnel to the effort.
U.S. Food Assistance
Since 1995, the international community has donated over 12 million MT of food aid to North
Korea to help North Korea alleviate chronic, massive food shortages that began in the early
1990s. A severe famine in the mid-1990s killed an estimated 600,000 to 3 million North
Koreans.39 As Figure 1 shows, the amount of food aid has varied from year to year, but in
general, Pyongyang has successfully ensured a significant inflow; except for 2006 and 2008, food
aid has exceeded 400,000 MT.

39 For a short review of the estimates of the famine’s death toll, see Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland, Famine in
North Korea. Markets, Aid, and Reform, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), p. 73-76.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Figure 1. Total Estimated Food Aid to North Korea, 1995-2009
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
ric Tons
Met
600,000
400,000
200,000
-
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
199
199
199
199
199
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
WFP
Non-WFP

Source: World Food Program’s International Food Aid Information System (INTERFAIS) database.
Four countries, China, South Korea, the United States, and Japan, have dominated the provision
of food aid, contributing over 75% of the total since 1995. North Korea has been adept at turning
from one donor to another, opportunistically seeking out the least stringent terms.40
For instance, unlike the WFP, Beijing and Seoul historically have made few requests for access
and monitoring. When both countries increased their food contributions to North Korea in the
mid-2000s, this arguably allowed North Korea’s central government authorities to roll back the
highly intrusive (from North Korea’s perspective) WFP in the mid-2000s (see “North Korea’s
2006 Restrictions and the Decline in the WFP’s Program” in “The Ebbs and Flows of Food Aid to
North Korea, 2006-2010” below). Conversely, in 2008, when inter-Korean relations began to

40 For more, see Haggard and Noland, Famine in North Korea, Chapter 6.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

sour and humanitarian assistance from South Korea dried up, North Korea turned back to the
United States for food aid and accepted Washington’s demands for expanded access and
improved monitoring conditions.
Congress and Food Assistance
Over the years some Members of Congress have supported continued donations to help the North
Korean people, on humanitarian grounds, regardless of the actions of the North Korean regime.
Other Members have voiced their opposition to food aid to the DPRK. In the 2000s, many
Members called for food assistance to be conditioned upon North Korean cooperation on
monitoring and access. For instance, in 2011, the House passed a measure—which the Senate
rejected—that would have prohibited the Administration from using the primary U.S. food aid
program to send food assistance to North Korea.41 The 111th Congress included in the FY2010
omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 111-117) language that called for the State Department to
determine how much Pyongyang “owes” the United States for the approximately 21,000 MT in
U.S. food aid that the North Korean government had distributed after it had halted a U.S. food
assistance program being implemented by a consortium of U.S. non-governmental organizations
(NGOs).42 The act also required the State Department to reduce any aid to North Korea by this
amount unless it was found that the North Korean government provided the food to the intended
recipients (generally, vulnerable women and children in the northwestern parts of the country).43
If the Obama Administration resumes food aid to North Korea, two options would be to use
FY2011 food aid that has not been committed or to tap the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The
latter, which was used for the original 2008 program, is a financial reserve that may be used when
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator makes a
determination that other statutory sources of aid are unavailable. While the Administrator is not
required by law to notify Congress of such a determination, he very likely would consult with
House and Senate agriculture and foreign affairs committees as this decision is made.44

41 Specifically, on June 15, 2011, the House passed by voice vote an amendment proposed by Congressman Edward
Royce to H.R. 2112, the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act, that would have prohibited the Administration from
using the primary U.S. food aid program to send food assistance to North Korea. The Senate version of the bill, passed
on November 1, contained no such measure. Participants in the House-Senate conference committee decided to strip
the Royce amendment’s tougher restrictions, replacing it with language (§741) that food assistance may only be
provided if “adequate monitoring and controls” exist. President Obama signed H.R. 2112 (P.L. 112-55) into law on
November 18, 2011.
42 See §7071(f)(6)) of P.S. 111-117, The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
43 Other examples of Congressional attention on the monitoring issue include the following: The North Korean Human
Rights Act (P.L. 108-333) included non-binding language calling for “significant increases” above current levels of
U.S. support for humanitarian assistance to be conditioned upon “substantial improvements” in transparency,
monitoring, and access. The reauthorized act (P.L. 110-346) does not include this language, and drops the extensive
discussion of humanitarian assistance that was included in P.L. 108-333. Both the original and the reauthorized act
require annual reports to Congress on U.S. humanitarian assistance to North Korea. See CRS Report RS22973,
Congress and U.S. Policy on North Korean Human Rights and Refugees: Recent Legislation and Implementation, by
Emma Chanlett-Avery.
44 For more, see CRS Report R41072, International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues, by Charles E.
Hanrahan. Historically, P.L. 480 has been the main vehicle for providing U.S. agricultural commodities as food aid
overseas, and from FY2003-FY2005 was the program that funded nearly all of the U.S. food commitments to North
Korea. When commodities or cash are released from the Emerson Trust, they are provided under the authority of P.L.
480 Title II. The Emerson Trust statute essentially authorizes the use of commodities or cash in the Trust to be used as
a backup to Title II when there are unanticipated humanitarian needs. Congress directly appropriates P.L. 480 aid, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

U.S. Food Aid Policy
Since 1996, the United States has sent over 2.2 million metric tons (MT) of food assistance worth
nearly $800 million to North Korea. Over 90% of U.S. food assistance to Pyongyang has been
channeled through the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP). The United States has been by far
the largest cumulative contributor to the WFP’s North Korea appeals.
Officially, U.S. policy de-links food and humanitarian aid from strategic interests. Although
diplomatic factors have always affected decisions over aid to North Korea, the degree to which
they have been linked has varied over time. It has been well documented that the Clinton
Administration used food aid to secure North Korea’s participation and increased cooperation in a
variety of security-related negotiations.45 The Bush Administration arguably weakened the
linkage and made improved monitoring and access one of three explicit conditions for providing
food aid to North Korea. The other two were the need in North Korea and competing needs for
U.S. food assistance.46 Although Obama Administration officials say that these three criteria
remains their policy, diplomatic factors appear to be rising in importance alongside humanitarian
considerations. First, many observers feel the Administration delayed a decision on giving North
Korea food aid because of fears that doing so would weaken U.S. relations with the South Korean
government, which opposes large-scale aid. Second, in the eyes of many observers, the Obama
Administration’s February 2012 understanding with North Korea on the resumption of food
assistance appears to have been directly linked to the concessions that North Korea was expected
to make on the nuclear issue before the death of supreme leader Kim Jong-il.
The Ebbs and Flows of Food Aid to North Korea, 2006-2010
North Korea’s 2006 Restrictions and the Decline in the WFP’s Program
After peaking at over 900,000 MT in 2001, assistance provided by the WFP fell dramatically over
the following years until 2008, when a large U.S. contribution brought up the WFP total. There
were two primary reasons for the decline in WFP assistance. The first was “donor fatigue,” as
contributing nations objected to the North Korean government’s continued development of its
nuclear and missile programs as well as tightened restrictions on donor agencies’ monitoring of
shipments to ensure that food is received by the neediest. The emergence of other emergency food

(...continued)
therefore could, although it rarely does, direct how the food should or should not be disbursed.
45 Andrew Natsios, The Great North Korean Famine. Famine, Politics, and Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: United
States Institute of Peace Press), Chapter 7; Marcus Noland, Avoiding the Apocalypse. The Future of the Two Koreas
(Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics), 182-91.
46 USAID Press Release, June 7, 2002. In practice, some have argued that the timing for U.S. pledges from 2001-2005
sometimes appeared to be motivated also by a desire to influence talks over North Korea’s nuclear program, and that
the linkage between U.S. donations and improvements in North Korea’s cooperation with the WFP occasionally has
been tenuous. As discussed below, events in 2008, when the Bush Administration resumed food assistance, appear to
indicate a tighter link to issues of access and monitoring of food shipments. In late 2008, when Bush Administration
officials felt North Korea was violating its agreement with the WFP, they halted food shipments through the WFP but
continued sending food through the consortium of NGOs that were handling one-fifth of the United States’ 500,000
MT pledge. Mark Noland, “Avoiding the Apocalypse: The Future of the Two Koreas,” Peterson Institute of
International Economics, June 2000, pp. 159, 186, 189. Stephen Haggard, Marcus Noland, and Erik Weeks “Markets
and Famine in North Korea,” Global Asia, Vol. 3, No.2, August 2008.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

situations around the globe also stretched the food aid resources of the United States and other
donors. Whatever the causes, the WFP was unable to fill its goal of 150,000 MT for the 2006-
2008 period. During this time, increased bilateral assistance—outside the WFP’s program—that
China and South Korea shipped directly to North Korea, as well as improved harvests in North
Korea, appear to have made up much of the gap, which generally is estimated to be in the range
of 1 million MT per year.
In 2006, the WFP drastically scaled down its program after the North Korean government
imposed new restrictions, constraining the organization’s size and ability to distribute and
monitor its shipments. The WFP and Pyongyang then negotiated a new agreement that would
feed 1.9 million people, less than a third of the 6.4 million people the WFP previously had
targeted. North Korea’s total population is approximately 22 million. In the deal, the WFP
expatriate staff was cut by 75%, to 10 people, all of whom were based in Pyongyang. Before
2006, the WFP had over 40 expatriate staff and six offices around the country conducting
thousands of monitoring trips every year.47 The North Korean government did not allow any
Korean speakers to serve on the WFP’s in-country staff.
The U.S. Resumes Food Aid in 2008
In 2008, the WFP warned that food shortages and hunger had worsened to levels not seen since
the late 1990s, because of decades of poor agricultural planning, large-scale floods in 2007, and
also the significant decline of aid from the two largest bilateral food providers, China and South
Korea. North Korea began seeking a new outside source of food. In May 2008, the United States
Agency for International Development announced that the United States would resume food
assistance to North Korea by providing 500,000 MT for one year beginning in June 2008. Of this
amount, 400,000 MT was to be channeled through the WFP. Approximately 100,000 tons would
be funneled through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including World Vision, Mercy
Corps, Samaritan’s Purse, Global Resource Services and Christian Friends of Korea. The
announcement stated that the resumption was made possible by an agreement reached with
Pyongyang that allowed for “substantial improvement in monitoring and access in order to allow
for confirmation of receipt by the intended recipients.”48 The U.S. move came not long after a
breakthrough was reached in the Six-Party Talks. Bush Administration officials repeatedly stated
their policy that decisions on food assistance were unrelated to the nuclear negotiations.
In June 2008, the WFP signed an agreement with Pyongyang that stipulated terms for increased
WFP personnel and access for monitoring the delivery of the food aid. It allowed WFP to expand
its operations into 131 counties, versus an earlier 50, in regions at particular risk of famine.49 The
agreement also expanded the WFP’s rights and ability to monitor the shipments of food aid, in
order to better ensure that the food was not diverted from its target recipients. Following the
agreement, the WFP issued a new emergency appeal for over 600,000 MT for 6.2 million North

47 WFP Press Release, “WFP Set to Resume Operations in North Korea,” 11 May 2006; undated WFP document,
Projected 2007 Needs for WFP Projects and Operations, Korea, DPR.
48 USAID Press Release, “Resumption of U.S. Food Assistance to the North Korean People,” May 16, 2008.
49 WFP, “Operational Priorities, September 2008, D.P.R. Korea,” EMOP 10757.0 – Emergency Assistance to
Population Groups Affected by Floods and Rising Food and Fuel Prices. In 2005, the WFP had access to 158 of 203
counties and districts, representing approximately 83% of the population. USAID, Report on U.S. Humanitarian
Assistance to North Koreans, April 25, 2005; March and April 2005 e-mail exchanges and phone conversations with
WFP and USAID.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Koreans. The NGO consortium, which targeted around 900,000 people, operated in the country’s
two northwestern provinces.50
Cessation of the 2008-2009 Program
The WFP Component
Beginning in the late summer of 2008, operating conditions for the WFP appear to have
worsened. The North Korean government reportedly did not allow the U.N. agency to fully
implement parts of its WFP agreement. In particular, the Bush Administration disagreed with
Pyongyang over the number of Korean speakers and Americans allowed in the country. Due in
part to these difficulties, the United States has not sent a shipment of food to the WFP’s North
Korea appeal since August 2008. On March 5, the WFP announced it was scaling back its
program to “a core minimum” that would allow the organization to rapidly expand its operations
if it receives more donations in the future. The announcement stated that the WFP was feeding
incomplete rations to only 2 million of the 6.2 million people it had originally targeted.51
Ultimately, donors provided the WFP with less than 25% of the target for its 2008-2010
emergency appeal.52 There have been reports that the WFP program suffered from lapses in the
management of the North Korea office’s finances and commodities.53 The charges followed
incidents of misuse and diversion of funds during the mid-2000s by the North Korea offices of
another U.N. agency, the U.N. Development Program (UNDP).
The NGO Component
According to U.S. officials and representatives of the NGO consortium, the NGO portion of the
U.S. program continued to proceed smoothly, with marked improvements in cooperation between
the aid providers and their North Korean counterparts. For this reason, throughout the winter of
2008-2009, the United States continued to send shipments via the consortium. However, in March
2009, North Korea asked the United States and the NGOs to shut down their portion of the U.S.
program by the end of the month. The program had been scheduled to run until May 2009. Many
speculated that North Korea had closed the program in part due to the overall deterioration in
relations with the United States and South Korea. The consortium delivered 71,000 MT of food
during its 10-month tenure, reaching more than 900,000 people.54

50 “Aid Agencies Send Fourth U.S. Food Shipment to North Korea,” Mercy Corps and World Vision press release,
October 16, 2008.
51 “WFP does what little it can for North Koreans,” WFP Press Release, March 5, 2009.
52 WFP, “Resource Situation” February 3, 2011, Recipient Country: Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of, Project
Number 107570.
53 George Russell, “EXCLUSIVE: U.N. Audit Finds ‘Lapses’ in Managing Food Program Aid to N. Korea,”
FoxNews.com, September 28, 2010.
54 “Statement of NGO Partners on Cessation of Food Aid Program in the Democratic People’s Republic Of Korea
(DPRK),” Mercy Corps, Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, March 19, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

The Food Aid Dilemma
Providing food to North Korea poses a number of moral and policy dilemmas for the United
States. Pyongyang has resisted taking economic reforms that would help pay for food imports or
increase domestic production, as well as the political reforms that would allow for a more
equitable distribution of food. Additionally, the North Korean government restricts the ability of
donors to monitor shipments of aid. Multiple sources have asserted that a sizeable amount of the
food assistance going to North Korea is routinely diverted for resale in private markets or other
uses. 55 Although there has been much public concern about diversion to the North Korean
military, WFP officials and other experts said they have seen little to no evidence that the military
is systemically diverting U.N. food donations, and further, that the North Korean military has no
need for WFP food, since it receives the first cut of North Korea’s national harvest. Moreover, the
assistance is fungible, in that funds that the government otherwise would have spent on food can
be spent on other items. Compounding the problem, China, currently believed to be North
Korea’s largest source of food aid, has no known monitoring systems in place.
The North Korean government’s desire to maintain control over the country is inextricably linked
to the food crisis and its chronic reliance on food aid. Residency in North Korea is tightly
controlled and highly politicized, with the elite permitted to live in or around Pyongyang, where
food shortages are less acute than in the country’s more remote areas, where politically less
desirable families live. For this reason, the United States generally has shipped its food aid to the
northern provinces. Additionally, North Korea is believed to expend little of its foreign currency
to import food, relying instead upon the international community. Moreover, since 2007, the
government has taken many steps to reimpose state controls over farmers and markets.56
However, it is likely that food aid has helped feed millions of North Koreans, possibly staving off
a repeat of the famine conditions that existed in North Korea in the mid-late 1990s, when 5%-
10% of the population died due to food shortages. A number of observers argue that the North
Korean people should not be unduly punished for their government’s behavior, that diversion to
markets helps ordinary North Koreans by lowering food prices, and that measures can be taken to
limit the Kim Jong-il regime’s abuses of food aid. For instance, Obama Administration officials
said in late 2011 that if they decided to resume food aid, the shipments would be “nutritional”
products such as high-protein biscuits that are less likely to be diverted than traditional food
staples.57
Additionally, some contend that a well-designed food aid program can facilitate the expansion of
markets, which over time will erode the Kim regime’s hold over the country, while helping to
reduce food prices in North Korea’s most vulnerable provinces.58 Providing food aid also can be
used to serve larger diplomatic goals, though many experts caution against explicitly linking food

55 See, for instance, Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland, “Hunger and Human Rights: The Politics of Famine in
North Korea” (Washington, DC: U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 2005), in which the authors argue
that up to half of the WFP’s aid deliveries did not reach their intended recipients.
56 Stephen Haggard, Marcus Noland, and Erik Weeks, “Markets and Famine in North Korea,” Global Asia, Vol. 3,
No.2, August 2008.
57 State Department Daily Press Briefing by Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, December 13 and December 14, 2011.
58 Stephan Haggard and Marcus Noland, Witness to Transformation. Refugee Insights into North Korea (Peterson
Institute for International Economics: Washington, DC, 2011).
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

to concessions in the security arena, such as in the Six-Party Talks over North Korea’s nuclear
programs.
Options and Considerations for Future Food Aid to North Korea
Along the spectrum of continuing the status quo (i.e., no food aid) and providing food without
any conditions, the Administration and Congress face a number of options and considerations
when deciding whether and how to resume food aid to North Korea, including the following:
• Establish explicit “diplomatic” linkages by conditioning food aid on progress
in security-related talks, such as negotiations regarding the North’s nuclear
programs. As mentioned above, this appears to be the direction the Obama
Administration is following, although officials insist the linkage was made by
North Korea, not the United States. In the past, emphasizing geostrategic
concerns as a condition for food aid has led to some short-term successes, such as
persuading North Korea to return to the bargaining table. However, in nearly all
of these cases, it is not clear that the provision of food has induced significant
changes in North Korea’s long-term behavior on security issues. Additionally,
this approach runs the risk of encouraging the North Korean government to
believe that concessions on other issues, such as the denuclearization talks, are
more important to the United States than demands for improved monitoring of
the delivery of food aid. Yet another variant of this approach would be to link
food aid to North Korean concessions in the human rights sphere, such as
releasing political prisoners.59
• Set explicit “humanitarian” linkages by conditioning future food aid on
improvements in access and monitoring.60 For instance, after several years where
the United States did not provide food to North Korea, the 2008 program was
initiated after Pyongyang and Washington reached an agreement on improved
monitoring that provided greater confidence that the food was being received by
the intended recipients, women and young children. The U.S. program also
shipped only to North Korea’s historically poorer and politically marginalized
northern provinces, to help ensure that even if diversion did occur, food would be
diverted to markets likely to be used by the most vulnerable, rather than to
markets in the wealthier and politically connected locations of Pyongyang and its
surroundings. The Administration could also insist that Pyongyang abide by
concessions made in 2008, but apparently not fully implemented, such as
granting relief workers the ability to bring emergency communications
equipment into the country.
• Decide on whether and how to harmonize policy with Seoul. For much of the
2000s, attempts to convince North Korean authorities to conform to international
aid standards were often undermined by large-scale, largely unconditional food
aid from South Korea and China. In contrast, the current South Korean
government of Lee Myung-bak appears to be making tougher humanitarian

59 Chol-hwan Kang, “Unconditional Aid to N.Korea Is Poison for its People,” English.chosun.com, April 27, 2011.
60 For one argument in this vein, see Nicholas Eberstadt, “Outside Aid Has Failed. Only an ‘Intrusive Aid’ Approach
Will Work,” Global Asia, September 2011, http://www.globalasia.org/.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

demands on North Korea. It also is asking North Korea to make improvements in
North-South relations before it will consider providing large amounts of food and
fertilizer, a demand that has become firmer in the aftermath of North Korea’s
November 2010 shelling of a South Korean island that killed four South Koreans.
Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in June 2011,
Ambassador King said that South Korea would prefer that the United States not
provide food aid to North Korea.61 Lee government officials are concerned that
large-scale U.S. aid would reinforce the view among many South Koreans that
they are being unduly rigid in their North Korea policy. Some observers have
argued that the United States should not provide food in part because it might
create a rift with South Korea, while others contend that U.S.-South Korea
cooperation on North Korea is sufficiently strong to sustain different approaches.
In November and December 2011, the South Korean government announced it
would make humanitarian donations to North Korea, including over $12 million
through the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF).62 This move likely has made it diplomatically easier
for the Obama Administration to move forward with a significant food aid
package to North Korea.
• Should China be pressured on food aid? U.S. officials could publically and/or
privately urge China to insist on some monitoring for its food aid, a topic that
does not appear to have been on either the Obama or Bush Administration’s
crowded list of talking points with China. A fallback position with Beijing could
be to call for a continuation of its current policy, which appears to be to provide
food assistance only at a subsistence level needed to maintain stability in North
Korea. Since at least 2007, China does not yet appear to have provided North
Korea with the massive amounts of grain that would be needed to alleviate
hunger and/or build up stores for 2012.
• Select the mix between the WFP and NGO Channels. If the Obama
Administration decides to resume the 2008 program, about 30,000 MT will
remain from the program’s NGO component and 300,000 from the WFP
component. U.S. officials may wish to change this allocation. Since 1995, more
than 90% of the 2.2 million MT of food aid the U.S. has provided to North Korea
has been shipped via donations to the WFP. One reason the Bush Administration
decided to channel one-fifth of the 2008 aid package through NGOs was because
several of these private groups appear to have had more success than the WFP in
monitoring their assistance, particularly in gaining access to aid recipients and
using their own Korean-speaking staff. The smaller operations of these NGOs
allow them to deal principally with local North Korean officials, who often have
greater incentives to be more cooperative than the central government. The WFP
operates nationally and targets millions more.

61 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing, Religious Freedom, Democracy, Human Rights in
Asia, Status of Implementation of the Tibetan Policy Act, Block Burmese JADE Act, and North Korean Human Rights
Act, 112th Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 2011.
62 Earlier in 2011, North Korea had rejected South Korea’s offer of 5 billion won (over $4 million) in flood relief,
demanding that South Korea provide a larger package that included rice and construction equipment.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

Other Forms of U.S. Assistance
Medical Assistance
From time to time, the United States has responded to humanitarian disasters in North Korea by
sending medicines and other emergency equipment. For instance, after floods struck parts of
North Korea in the summer of 2010, the Obama Administration sent North Korea about $600,000
worth of pharmaceuticals and other assistance. The aid was channelled through two U.S. NGOs:
Samaritan’s Purse and Mercy Corps. The aforementioned 2011 $900,000 flood relief package
was distributed by Samaritan’s Purse, which along with other NGOs paid for the costs of
transporting the assistance.
In an example of a broader aid program, in 2008, the Bush Administration allocated $4 million in
assistance to U.S. NGOs to help several North Korean rural and provincial hospitals by
improving their electrical supplies and by providing medical equipment and training. The four
recipient NGOs are Mercy Corps, the Eugene Bell Foundation, Global Resource Services, and
Samaritan’s Purse.63 The program, which is in its final stages, has not received any new funding
for FY2010.
Development Assistance
During the Bush Administration, various officials, including the President, issued vague pledges
of more extensive U.S. assistance that might be forthcoming if North Korea dismantled its
nuclear programs and satisfied other U.S. security concerns dealing with missiles and the
deployment of conventional forces.64 The Obama Administration has indicated a
“comprehensive” aid package would be forthcoming if North Korea takes positive steps on the
nuclear front.
With regard to U.S. development assistance programs, in the near term, the President has
considerable flexibility to offer some forms of development assistance. The Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, for instance, allows the President annually to provide up to $50 million per country
for any purpose.65 Longer-term initiatives, however, would likely require changes in U.S. law and
thereby require congressional action. For instance, the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act
specifically bans many forms of direct aid to North Korea, along with several other countries.66
Many health and emergency disaster relief aid programs are exempt from such legislative
restrictions because they have “notwithstanding” clauses in their enacting legislation.
Additionally, if the Administration were to designate North Korea as a country involved in drug

63 “U.S. Spends $4 Million On Medical Aid For N.Korea In 2008,” Korea Herald, December 21, 2008; December 2008
communication with U.S. State Department.
64 Testimony of Richard Armitage, State Department Deputy Secretary, before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, February 4, 2003.
65 §614 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, P.L. 87-195.
66 §607 of P.L. 110-161, the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which also bans direct aid to Cuba, Iran, and
Syria.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Foreign Assistance to North Korea

production and trafficking—as some have advocated—then by law North Korea would be
ineligible for receiving most forms of U.S. development assistance.67

Author Contact Information

Mark E. Manyin
Mary Beth Nikitin
Specialist in Asian Affairs
Specialist in Nonproliferation
mmanyin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7653
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745


67 See CRS Report RL32167, Drug Trafficking and North Korea: Issues for U.S. Policy, by Raphael F. Perl.
Congressional Research Service
22

---