.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
| Prof. Shin Gi-wook: Asia specialist and director of Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center / Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk |
By Oh Young-jin
By all appearances, the two Koreas are on a collision course over the North's undeterred ambition of becoming a nuclear weapon state.
President Park Geun-hye has gone to the point of calling for a regime change in Pyongyang. Kim Jong-un, the 33-year-old dictator in the North, has emerged as the chief anti-South propagandist, signing an order to detonate an H-bomb, in a news clip, and, in another, reviewing testing of newly developed missiles that can strike well south of Seoul. Maybe, he thinks he can afford to wait her out and talk to her successor.
Under this highly charged atmosphere, is peace possible? Or could representatives from both Koreas meet across the table? Not likely. But an Asia specialist and director of Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center said that this is high time to reach out to the North.
"Nobody with authority from the South has ever met Kim Jong-un in person, not alone knowing much about him," said Prof. Shin Gi-wook in a recent interview.
The Korean-born sociologist, who has a wide authorship covering economics to politics, reasoned that it doesn't make sense for the current government to pursue a hard-line policy against the North without fully studying the personality and thinking patterns of its leader.
"Perhaps, he (Kim Jong-un) is making a big noise in order to gain a better negotiating position," he posited.
Then, what would be the best way of reaching out to the North and steering it back to talks for a peaceful resolution of its nuclear challenge?
"Four-nation talks may be an alternative," he said. The four would be the two Koreas, the United States and China. Representatives would be envoys who are well respected, have direct contact with leaders but are outside the chain of government command, he said. "Somebody who has the stature and wisdom of William Perry." Perry served as President Clinton's defense secretary and drew up the Perry Process that could have led Pyongyang to reduce its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by offering step-by-step incentives along designated landmarks.
Shin said that the current six-party talks have outlived their usefulness. The talks, started in 2003, were aimed at dismantling the North's nuclear development programs; but stalled because of North boycotting them. The six countries include the above-mentioned four plus Japan and Russia.
The talks are now unfit to deal with the added urgency of the North's nuclear program getting more sophisticated, Shin said. "The envoys should make a fresh start on a serious note to reintroduce a Perry Process-like roadmap for the North's soft landing," he said.
But the big question remains: whether the North will ever give up its nuclear programs that it considers as its key to survival: Libya being a powerful antithesis for a leader ending up with the short end of a deal with the West. Counterbalancing this is Iran, a resource-rich country that can be poorly compared with the North.
"I don't think the North will give up its nuclear weapons," he said. "It is true that, for the lack of a better choice, we have to stick to dialogue, but it is common sense that speaking to each other is a priority to finding a solution."
In that sense, he wouldn't object to China's proposal of conducting peace talks simultaneously with denuclearization negotiations. The North tried to push such talks before its Jan. 6 alleged detonation of a hydrogen bomb, but was spurned by the U.S. which insists that denuclearization precede peace talks.
Seoul and Washington view Pyongyang's peace talks proposal with suspicion because the reclusive state often uses it as a platform to push for the U.S. withdrawal from the South. China would be happy to see the U.S. leave.
"We can deal with these issues along the way," the professor said.
The reason that dialogue is important is because of the lack of a coherent North Korea policy for the next two years. A new U.S. president, who will be elected in November, needs six months to get his or her foreign policy team working. By the time it is ready, Korea will be into a presidential election cycle, he said. "Managing the North's challenge without making it worse for next two years is very important."
He discounted concerns about the leading Republican candidate Donald Trump, who is negative about maintaining U.S. troops here. "If he gets nominated, Trump will have to change," he said.
So what does he think Seoul and Washington should do to handle the North for now?
"Don't miss such a chance as we had at the end of the Clinton administration," he said. The relationship with the North was so good then that Clinton came close to making a presidential visit to Pyongyang but it was nixed because of opposition by his Republican successor George W. Bush.
Then, would such a chance come ever again?
The professor didn't answer.
