Problems With North Korea

By Tong Kim

The suspended inter-Korean dialogue ― that began with the start of the Lee Myung-bak administration ― is causing serious concern. No breakthrough to the inter-Korean incommunicado is in sight. Further deterioration in North-South relations, if unchecked, could also halt the Gaeseong tourist program in addition to the already suspended Mt. Geumgang program.

Since the fatal shooting of a South Korean tourist at Mt. Geumgang, the Seoul government has repeatedly called for North Korea to cooperate in a joint investigation. The North is yet to respond at a government level. Both sides are boxed in and there seems to be no easy way out.

The suspended tourism is hurting the North's revenue by tens of thousands of dollars a day. Yet, the North, with fresh hopes of an economic turnaround with infusion of investment and aid from other countries, seems willing to accept financial damage in order to make a political point: The North will not talk to the South, unless the latter scraps its policy of ``denuclearization and opening 3000" and honor the two summit agreements of June 15, 2000 and October 4, 2007.

President Lee Myung-bak proposed at the opening session of the current National Assembly that the North and the South resume talks to discuss the implementation of all the agreements signed between the two sides, including the two summit agreements ― which he had excluded from mentioning before ― and the July 4 Joint Communique, the North-South Basic Agreement and the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. In the proposal, the president signaled abandonment of his ``denuclearization-first" policy.

From Pyongyang's perspective, the two summit agreements should supersede the basic agreement and the joint declaration of denuclearization in light of the fact that the substance of the accord on non-aggression and reconciliation was reassured in the recent summit agreements, while denuclearization is pursued through the six party talks, in which the South also participates.

Inclusion of the two summit agreements for discussion was seen as a political concession on President Lee's part and a positive step toward the resumption of talks. But the North has summarily dismissed the offer as `` talk among the low subordinates" of President Lee. It is deplorable that Pyongyang either deliberately disregards or haplessly fails to understand the reality of democratic politics in the South.

The Lee government bungled its policy towards the North at the beginning. It was predictable that a denuclearization first policy would not work and the North would likely refuse talks with the new conservative government of the South, unless President Lee revises his election pledge of ``denuclearization-first" in a ``pragmatic" and workable fashion.

For the first three months in governance President Lee and his policy makers were making inconsistent and conflicting statements on the continuum of inter-Korean relations. During the last presidential campaign, the North kept uncharacteristically silent on presidential candidate Lee's North Korean policy, and they even tried to contact the president-elect's people before the inauguration of the Lee government. The North Koreans were humiliated when their overtures were rejected.

After the election, Lee discontinued the two previous administrations' engagement policy on the ground that that policy had only given aid to the North without yielding reciprocal action in return. North Koreans should understand that President Lee was doing what he was elected to do. They should understand a majority of the people in the South no longer support the unilateral provision of aid to the North. Many South Koreans have come to identify ``engagement" with ``plush provision of aid" with nothing in return.

To conservatives in the South the 10 years of the two progressive administrations were a ``lost decade," during which nothing good was accomplished. Of course the progressives disagree. Improved inter-Korean relations and defused tension between two heavily armed nations in the absence of a permanent peace mechanism were cited as one of the biggest accomplishments by the progressive governments.

The atmosphere on the Korean peninsula today is deja vu of the undesirable situation under the government of Kim Young Sam 10 years ago. The North denounces the Seoul government as a ``sycophant traitor" who only wants to depend on the United States. As the denuclearization process is making progress, North Korea and the United States are moving in the direction of improved relations. The North keeps its back turned against the South, rejecting any humanitarian aid, while accepting huge amounts of food from the U.S.

Revived tensions between the two Koreas are already disrupting the planned expansion of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, where small scale South Korean companies operate with low-wage North Koreans workers. If this joint economic project fails, following cancellation of the two tourist programs, the inter-Korean relations could relapse into the state of cold war confrontation, a dangerous situation to which nobody wants to return. This would certainly cost both sides dearly in terms of economic and military security.

The South Korean unification ministry last week announced an interim report on its inconclusive investigation of the shooting incident without a visit to the scene, which did not shed any new light on the incident. The North Korean tourist authority at Mt. Geumgang expressed ``regrets" but blamed the South for the incident. The North did not appreciate the suspension of the tourist programs, accusing the South of challenging the North.

The South Korean foreign minister raised the issue of investigating the shooting at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in the face of DPRK foreign minister, who had refused to meet with the South Korean minister. There were some concerns that raising an inter-Korean issue on an international platform would not help solve the issue but would further aggravate inter-Korean relations. During the days of cooperation both sides agreed that inter-Korean issues ― political or economic ― should be treated as internal matters of the same nation and should be resolved between the two sides without the interference of outside forces.

The wisdom of discussing the incident at the ARF is questionable, knowing it would not yield any result except making the North Koreans look bad and upsetting them. The world already knows that a 53-year old South Korean female tourist was shot dead in the back by a North Korean soldier. It seems all South Koreans ― including progressives on the left ― support a joint fact-finding mission to determine what exactly happened and to come up with appropriate safeguards against the recurrence of such an incident.

Although some analysts suspect the incident was an intentional attempt by the North to demonstrate its displeasure at the Seoul government's North Korean policy, this appears to be unfounded speculation. There are some indications that the North Korean authorities do not want to exacerbate the situation. The North has little to gain from the suspension of tours there.

For the sake of peace and stability on the Peninsula, the Geumgang tourist program should be resumed as soon as possible. Tourism resumption could be realized by mutual understanding through discreet private or confidential government channels that can save face for both sides. Resolution of this issue could serve as a new window of opportunity for reengagement, which would be mutually beneficial. What's your take?

Tong Kim is a research professor with Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University SAIS. He can be reached at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.