Controversy Arises Summit of Three or Four
South Korea, the United States and China have been thrown into a debate over a clause of the Oct. 4 Joint Declaration issued by President Roh Moo-hyun and his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-il at the end of their summit. The controversy has arisen over the fourth clause of the declaration. It reads: ``The South and the North have also agreed to work together to advance the matter of having the leaders of the three or four parties directly concerned to convene on the peninsula and declare an end to the war.''
The equivocal point is who are the ``three parties?'' The four parties are unequivocally the two Koreas, the United States and China. So, there is no problem with the four parties. But when it comes to the three parties, we have to exclude one from the four nations. As the question was raised right after the summit, the Seoul government said Pyongyang wants to exclude China. However, no official gave the exact reason for China's exclusion. Probably, North Korea has recently developed an estranged relationship with its traditional ally.
Beijing must have felt left out in the cold. Its ambassador to Seoul, Ning Fukui, said China would play a constructive role in the process of replacing the armistice with a peace treaty. China was among three participating parties _ along with North Korea and the U.S. _ in the 1953 armistice. Therefore, China can claim that it should be included in the three parties. Press reports said the Chinese government instructed diplomats at its embassy in Pyongyang to confirm the North's alleged intention.
Some critics at home and abroad claimed that the North is trying to exclude the South from the three parties. They reminded people that Pyongyang has long employed a policy of sidestepping Seoul for direct talks with Washington. The logic of this policy is that the South is not a signatory to the armistice. Then President Syngman Rhee refused to sign the armistice in a move to continue the 1950-53 Korean War to unify the divided peninsula. The critics pointed out that the North has not changed the policy, saying that Kim Jong-il used the controversial clause in an apparent bid to exclude the South. Besides, Kim allegedly insisted on the use of the ``three parties'' phrase in order not to give the impression that it has officially recognized the Seoul government.
But, no one knows exactly what the North's intention is. President Roh's remarks added fuel to the controversy Thursday. Roh frankly said he did not know the meaning of the clause. He said he realized the declaration's draft referred to the ``three or four parties'' while reviewing the wording of it. But the President did not raise the issue because the North inserted it. This is an indication that Roh and his entourage made a serious mistake. How could Roh sign such a statement without even making it clear who the three parties are.
Another debate erupted from a symposium at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Thursday. Harry Harding, international affairs professor of the school, said that it is not clear if the South or China would participate in the summit in the event of a three-party one. In response, former South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said the three-party summit is the idea of U.S. President George W. Bush. He added that the three are the two Koreas and the U.S.
But, Maureen Cormack, deputy director of Korean affairs at the U.S. State Department, refuted Jeong's claim. She said the U.S. has not made any decision on how many or who the concerned parties are. The controversy will not die down until the number of parties is set to convene the summit. The leaders of the two Koreas should have avoided such a vaguely worded declaration. Such an equivocal expression might foil efforts for national reconciliation and permanent peace on the peninsular.