Stakes Over Peace Regime

By Lee Byong-chul

By many accounts, the negotiations to disable the North Korean nuclear facilities are getting under way as planned despite the fact that prospects for success are slim.

Calls are rarely heard here in Seoul for North Korea to shut down its nuclear facilities, which implies that the process of scrapping the troubled weapons program has already gone beyond the basic point.

Having the potential to cause the world a headache, Pyongyang agreed to shut down four facilities in July at the Yongbyon site by allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) negotiators to monitor those facilities. And a team of technical experts led by the United States inspected the site satisfactorily.

All the other nations ― except for Japan, which does not hide uneasy emotions over the speedy and fruitful talks between Washington and Pyongyang ― remain optimistic about the future of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.

In reality, it is worth starting with reasons for optimism. Yet such a rose-tinted prospect holds true only for the current U.S.-North Korea relationship. South Korea and the United States seem to be confronting each other over a peace regime on the peninsula.

In fact, it goes without saying that the peace regime has become a hot item for South Koreans as a whole, but not for Americans.

Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said Oct. 26 at a seminar that ``For peace regime discussions to move forward, the United States needs to be assured that denuclearization will continue beyond Phase Two (to complete the disablement of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities and provide a complete declaration of all of its nuclear programs by the end of the year).''

He continued, ``We need to see movement toward complete and verifiable denuclearization by North Korea.''

The seasoned diplomat's view certainly reflected the notion that the peace regime discussion would be impossible unless North Korea's denuclearization is completely achieved.

Based on his statements, disabling Pyongyang's nuclear facilities is Washington's uppermost interest. North Korea is now the focus of attention in Washington.

In contrast, Song Min-soon, the South Korean minister of foreign affairs and trade, said at the same seminar that the peace regime discussion will be necessary when the process of North Korea's nuclear disablement develops ``visually.''

And the Roh Moo-hyun government surmised on October 29 that with regard to the date and subject of formally ending the Korean War, it would be initially discussed on a working or ministerial level along with the announcement of the beginning of the peace regime negotiation.

After that, Seoul is likely to seek the four-party summit talks on the Korean peninsula for signing the peace agreement.

From the conservative perspective, Seoul's rhetoric was enough to lead Washington to believe that South Korea as well as North Korea dominates the U.S.'s foreign worries.

A powerful cheerleader for the liberal Roh government's diplomacy, according to some critics of the government, Song takes it for granted that Seoul and Washington do not always see things the same way.

He is not shy about advising the United States on what to do to establish the peace regime on the peninsula.

``As a normal state, South Korea now needs to reconsider its special relationship with the United States,'' said an expert who did not want to be identified. ``The old blood-sharing alliance is more like the relationship between cousins in a family firm. We can be angry with each other, but the family ties remain.''

Seoul has decided thus to persuade Washington with a view to transforming the current Northeast Asian security into a more stable one for the longer term.

Obviously, Song found himself misplaced by virtually failing to create a concrete timetable for the peace regime on the Korean Peninsula after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Nov. 7 in Washington, since Rice also took the same course of what her envoy in Seoul had already addressed.

Instead, they agreed to ``look for the right time'' for the discussions on the peace regime. Song seems to believe that the old remedies for the Korean peace have not worked and are certain that it's time to need new ones.

In fact, many observers here in Seoul already predicted that Song would be unable to get significant clues as to the solid peace regime aimed at the unprecedented four-country summit gathering.

Apparently, there was a gap between what he sees in the box and what they hear out of the box, a gap between the wishful-thinking-like perspective of the former and political consideration-free analysis of the latter.

Assuming his sixth talks with Rice appeared hastily arranged and the presidential election goes ahead, the possibility cannot be disregarded that the cousins ― Seoul and Washington ― may quarrel.

However, it is highly likely that more time is needed in order to find some solution with which they are both satisfied, and only if Bush's foreign policy toward the Korean Peninsula continues on its current trajectory.

Lee Byong-chul is senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Coopertion (IPC), a non-partisan policy advisory body based in Seoul. He can be reached at bcleebc@gmail.com.