Inter-Korean summit, 'clear victory' for the South

By Kim Jae-kyoung

The historic inter-Korean summit carries huge significance as it has allowed South Korea to act as a go-between for the U.S. and North Korea, according to Balbina Hwang, a former senior adviser to the U.S. State Department, Sunday.

She described the summit between Moon and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first of its kinds in over a decade, as a “clear victory” for Moon and South Korea.

“What is of absolute historical significance is that for the first time since the outbreak of the Korean War, the North has legitimized the South as an equal dialogue partner,” Hwang, a visiting professor at Georgetown University's Center for Security Studies, said in an interview.

She said that at the April 27 summit, Pyongyang first acknowledged Seoul as the lead or co-partner in not only negotiating permanent peace on the peninsula, but also denuclearization.

She pointed out Pyongyang is using Seoul as its “agent” or negotiating representative with Washington, particularly on the nuclear issue, which is “unprecedented.”

“What this signifies, in terms of the North's intentions, is yet unclear, but for President Moon and the South, this is a clear victory, regardless of whether South Koreans support or oppose the detente with North Korea, as it is preferable to being left out of the process entirely,” she said.

She believes one of main purposes of the inter-Korean summit was precisely to establish the parameters of a U.S.-North Korea summit.

In other words, the Moon-Kim summit was aimed not only at encouraging the atmosphere for the possibility of holding the U.S.-North Korea summit, but also narrowing the possibilities towards a positive outcome.

“In this regard, the inter-Korea summit was successful in that it produced a very positive atmosphere,” she said.

However, Hwang, a senior State Department adviser on East Asian Affairs during the Obama Administration, thinks the summit should not be taken as an indicator the Kim regime is changing.

“Of course, the summit indicates Kim and his regime are flexible; certainly more flexible than most give him credit for,” she said.

“But flexibility does not necessarily equate with a fundamental strategic shift in regime calculations or objectives, particularly since the summit agreement does not reflect any dramatically new policies.”

Regarding the North's announcement of publicly dismantling its key nuclear test sites, she said, “The fact that North Korea is suddenly showing the willingness now to dismantle some of it nuclear arms may possibly indicate its level of confidence or security in its existing capabilities,” she said.

Hwang, a founding member of National Committee on North Korea, advised Moon to consider denuclearization and “peace” on the peninsula as two separate issues as one does not necessarily preclude the other.

“In other words, one can be achieved without the other,” she said.

Denuclearization in her words is something South Korea has very little control over, and is something that is entirely in the control of North Korea.

“It is essentially a decision North Korea must ultimately make, or if it continues to refuse to do, may ultimately be forced upon it by the international community, neither of which South Korea will be able to prevent,” she said.

“Moreover, whether North Korea denuclearizes or not, this may or may not necessarily bring peace to the Korean Peninsula, as denuclearization does not automatically end the Korean War.”

Trump-Kim summit

The Washington-based North Korea specialist expects the success of the upcoming Trump-Kim summit will hinge on how the two leaders will iron out their differences over the concept of “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” because the two sides have different interpretations.

According to her observation, Washington and Seoul are comfortable with the definition meaning “North Korea” as South Korea possesses no nuclear weapons capability.

But from Pyongyang's perspective, “denuclearization of the peninsula” means the South must also be free from U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities, which is provided under the so-called U.S. nuclear umbrella.

The issue here is that the nuclear umbrella does not require actual physical stationing of weapons on the peninsula, but the commitment as guaranteed by the deployment and presence of U.S. forces under the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

“So the North Korean commitment to complete denuclearization is ultimately nothing short of an end of the U.S.-ROK alliance itself,” she said.

“So it is not clear how there is any real room for any more new give-and-take than in the past, and difficult to see how there can be any forward movement past any of the old impasses that were not overcome.”