 |
| Michael Schluter, president and CEO of Relational Peacebuilding Initiatives (RPI), speaks during a meeting on a peacebuilding project for Korea at its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, May 17. Courtesy of RPI |
'Denuclearization is unfeasible ― for now ― but peace can still be achieved'
By Jung Min-ho
After two Pyongyang-Washington summits that ended without an agreement, North Korea has refused to talk over the last three years, while intensifying its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
This situation paints a bleak future for the Korean Peninsula and the world. The chances of a conflict escalating into a nuclear catastrophe in the region are greater than ever before and seem to be only increasing as North Korea appears to have lost interest in developing any other types of weapons. By 2030, the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a Seoul-based think tank, warns North Korea could develop as many as 300 nuclear warheads and more advanced delivery means.
Shifting the ruinous course is still possible, but only through a deal that would be acceptable to the North. Michael Schluter, the U.K. social entrepreneur who was behind forging a path to help overcome apartheid in South Africa and other peacebuilding efforts in the continent, reckons the South has not proposed such a deal yet.
 |
The Audacious Initiative proposed by the Yoon Suk-yeol administration offers modernization but does not show the North respect, as it is effectively another form of aid package, he said.
Just as South Korea rejected aid offers from North Korea in the 1950-60s, when its economy was smaller, on the same grounds, in his view, the last thing Pyongyang wants is to put itself in a lesser position to receive unilateral "help" from Seoul.
Schluter understands this situation because RPI has been working with various countries over the last few years to facilitate a process of consultations involving both South and North Korea, as well as its direct conversations with both parties.
What his organization is proposing is an incremental bilateral free trade agreement between the two Koreas, initially for trade in agriculture products and then to extend it step-by-step to other sectors over a period of 10 years. It is a peacebuilding model that proved to be successful in Europe, in which the European Coal and Steel Community was established by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in 1951 to pool their production of the essential materials for war. The single-sector trade agreement for peace in Europe was extended over the next six years to include all economic sectors and became the European Economic Community, paving the way for a peaceful and united Europe after an endless series of armed conflicts on the continent.
 |
| Seminar participants, including members of Relational Peacebuilding Initiatives (RPI), talk about the feasibility of RPI's peacebuilding proposals for the Korean Peninsula at the University of Cambridge in England in October 2019. Courtesy of RPI |
The objective of the first of Schluter's five-phase model for a peaceful and united Korea is to expand intra-Korean collaboration and relieve humanitarian hardship in the North. In doing so, the two parties can build trust, which would be required for higher levels of economic, social and political partnerships in later stages. The details of the vision are explained in his recently published 600-page book, "No Other Way to Peace in Korea? A Practical Path to Reunification," which is expected to be released also in Korean in April.
Many South Koreans remain skeptical of signing another joint economic project with North Korea after the failure of the Gaeseong Industrial Region, which had operated for more than 10 years before its abrupt shutdown in 2016. But Schluter said it was destined to failure because of disproportional benefits and the lack of a long-term vision.
"The problem of Gaeseong was probably that it used cheap North Korean labor and gave returns to South Korean capital, in socialist categories. Put another way, from a long-term point of view, the major benefits seemed to go mainly to South Korea. It did not contribute to modernizing the whole North Korean economy, and therefore was not ambitious enough to sustain North Korean interest and involvement," Schluter said. "It is important that the purpose of the next proposal is not being humanitarian to the North, but economic modernization of the North."
"Ideally, what the proposal says must not give the impression that South Korea is making or controlling the process. Otherwise, North Korea will be suspicious of it. It also should appear to be coming from a neutral third party to both North Korea and South Korea, and both will need to decide to engage with it or not," he added.
An obvious challenge to the idea is international sanctions imposed on the regime. Speaking to reporters last month, however, a high-ranking official at the Unification Ministry said he was highly optimistic that a partial lifting of sanctions for humanitarian reasons "won't be a problem" as the ministry was giving North Korea the offer for returning to talks.
 |
| A TV screen shows a file image of a North Korean military exercise during a news program at Seoul Station in central Seoul, Oct. 14. AP-Yonhap |
Perhaps a greater challenge is accepting the reality that North Korea will not give up nuclear weapons, at least in the foreseeable future. Schluter thinks denuclearization of the North is not impossible but it will take more time than many would want.
"In RPI's view, total denuclearization of North Korea is not possible without reunification of the peninsula. Unilateral disarmament by North Korea is simply too risky [for the regime]. However, steady progress to economic modernization of North Korea in parallel with steady steps toward denuclearization will dramatically lower the risk of nuclear war and reduce the urgency of North Korea's nuclear ambitions," he said.
Peaceful unification is not just a policy of one administration in South Korea. Its Constitution requires it. Yet, after decades of botched attempts, many have become doubtful, questioning the feasibility of doing so. Schluter remains hopeful. The current geopolitical environment presents a good opportunity for Koreans to take one more shot in the coming years, he said.
"Both China and the U.S. do not want the spread of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, so they are both likely to support RPI's proposals as first steps toward their shared objective. However, if there is no progress soon, the risk is that superpower competition could well lead to confrontation in East Asia, with the DMZ becoming the new 'Berlin Wall' of a cold war between them," he said.
After spending decades on peace initiatives in South Africa, Rwanda and between South and North Sudan, Schluter was about to retire a few years ago. But a Korean man he met led him eventually to the Korea project.
"Speaking personally, my reason for embarking five years ago on spending the major part of my life now focusing on peace and the reunification of the Korean Peninsula was simply a sense of calling from God. For those who are not Christians, this will be difficult to understand and may even be rejected as self-delusion," Schluter said. "However, many may understand that the same sense of inner conviction led to those who founded important education and health institutions in the late 19th century in South Korea and in North Korea before their occupation in 1910, to come to the peninsula and seek to make a contribution to the well-being of the society."
