News

Go back

Tough new sanctions on North Korea: but is there a better way?

Published 25 Apr 2016
Jessica Tattersall

In early March, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved tough new sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK – that is, North Korea). These sanctions are the strongest the DPRK has seen in two decades. The sanctions aim to have an economic impact, such that the DPRK will not have enough resources for a nuclear weapons program. Major aspects of the sanctions include mandatory inspection of any vessel coming from the DPRK, a ban on selling aviation fuel to the DPRK, and the expulsion of any diplomats or government agents who were involved in violating previous sanctions. Unsurprisingly, the DPRK did not hesitate to retaliate to the sanctions by firing several short-range projectiles just one day later. If the DPRK is not going to comply with these sanctions, perhaps we should consider being even tougher. A travel ban on foreign tourists going to the DPRK could be effective, considering the large amount of money the DPRK receives from tourism.

Foreign tourism to the DPRK is an extremely lucrative source of income for the regime. Tours to the DPRK are expensive: a four-night trip from Beijing to Pyongyang costs around 2000 euros (AU $2976). Think of this alongside the fact that the GDP per capita in the DPRK in 2013 was 1600 euros (AU$2382). In June 2015, the DPRK announced plans to increase foreign tourism. The government aims to increase the number of tourists tenfold over the next couple of years. Officials hope that by 2020, two million tourists will visit per year. “Though the economic sanctions of the US imperialists are increasing, we are developing our economy”, said Kim Sang Hak, an economist at the DPRK’s Academy of Social Sciences. The DPRK sees tourism as a highly profitable business that is not affected by sanctions, and is placing increasing importance on the industry. If we want to affect the long-term economic prospects of the DPRK, we need to look further than trade. We need to consider a ban on foreign tourism.

Banning Australians from travelling to the DPRK would be a blow to the regime; however, banning Chinese tourists would have the biggest impact. This idea may sound farfetched, as China is the DPRK’s strongest ally. However, China had no qualms in approving the recent tough sanctions on the DPRK. Who’s to say China would not also agree to a travel ban if the situation continues to escalate? Banning Chinese tourists would be powerful because most tourists to the DPRK are Chinese, and all foreign tourists entering the DPRK do so by travelling through China. The impact of a Chinese travel ban would obviously be economic, but it would also send a strong diplomatic message to the DPRK regime.

It may be asked what would be the impact on the local population if a travel ban was put in place? The DPRK already has a terrible human rights record, and most of its citizens barely have enough to eat. Wouldn’t a travel ban make this situation worse? The answer is no. In the words of Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, the DPRK “would rather grow its nuclear weapons programme than its own children”. Hardly any money from tourism goes to the people. The money goes straight to the party elite. The goal of banning foreign tourism would be to make the DPRK government realise that an aggressive nuclear weapons program is not feasible, and that if they wish to survive as a nation they need to pay more attention to their people’s needs.

Although a ban on foreign tourism is attractive in many ways, it may well be a bridge too far. It may be too controversial and too difficult to put in place. Travel bans do exist (Australians are currently banned from travelling to much of Syria, and just last year Papua New Guinea lifted a ban on Australians travelling to Bougainville), but these bans are not common. There is a risk of setting a dangerous precedent that could be counterproductive if we ban travel to the DPRK. The most viable option is to appeal to people’s morality, and urge them not to travel to the DPRK. The message is clear: tourism income is used to support the regime, and if you disagree with the actions of the DPRK, then you should not go.


Jessica Tattersall is about to commence her final semester of a Master of International Law at the University of Sydney. She completed her undergraduate degree at New York University in Abu Dhabi where she was a member of the inaugural class. She studied history, politics, and Chinese (Mandarin). She spent two semesters on exchange at NYU in Shanghai and London. She has extensive journalistic experience in university-affiliated publications as well as working as a public relations officer for DeVries Global in Singapore. She also has policy experience having worked for NSW treasurer the Honourable Gladys Berejiklian MP. As well as English, she is fluent in French and has business fluency in Mandarin.