ed Preventing another Korean war
By Lee Chang-sup
.jpg?w=728)
Few doubt the Koreas face the greatest risk of war since the 1950-1953 Korean War, given North Korea’s hysterical reaction to the ongoing annual military exercise between South Korea and the U.S.
The North has always regarded such drills as preparation for attacking the North. Its hysteria peaked this month when the U.S. displayed heavy military equipment, including bombers and submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
North Korea’s young leader, Kim Jong-un, has exaggerated the perceived U.S. threat with two aims in mind — to solidify his power base and initiate a dialogue with the U.S. In negotiations with the United States, Kim desperately wants Washington to recognize him as North Korea’s head of state, not a dictator of the country sponsoring terrorism. A. U.S. acknowledgement of his leadership would help him consolidate domestic power.
Koreans are troubled by the lack of communication channels between the two Koreas, especially as Pyongyang has cut all hot lines. In addition, it has suspended the operation of the Gaesung Industrial Complex Tuesday. Given this lack of communication, many believe even a minor miscalculation or misunderstanding may trigger a military clash between the two countries, which in turn may lead to a nuclear war and the Third World War.
North Korea is notorious for brinkmanship. It has shown predictable patterns of behavior over the past two decades. It has escalated tension to squeeze external aid. It has also developed nuclear weapons during dialogue and tested them when dialogue is suspended.
However, North Korea is not the only one to blame for the current tension. The South is also responsible. For instance, the hard-line Lee Myung-bak administration scrapped the inter-Korean agreements his two predecessors had signed.
In South Korea, conservatives and liberals have been locked in an ideological clash. Liberals pressed the Lee administration to engage with the North in vain. Meanwhile, conservatives branded advocates of an engagement policy as pro-North Koreans or North Korea sympathizers. Conservatives demonized North Korea, which retaliated by sinking a South Korean Navy ship and shelling the Yongpyeong Island in 2010.
Under North Korea’s repeated provocations, dialogue proponents in Korea and the U.S. were sidelined. Meanwhile, hard-liners advocated their views without acknowledging a war could also kill them and their families.
Yonsei University Professor Moon Chung-in said last week in an interview in Washington with the progressive Hankyoreh, “Many Koreans criticize North Korea, but seldom check whether their criticism lacks in logic.” Moon, who attended the inter-Korean summit in 2000 as an advisor to President Kim Dae-jung, is a strong advocate of an engagement policy with the North.
The U.S. is also not free from blame in the current inter-Korean deadlock. The Obama administration has done little to help mend the relationship between the two Koreas, and has accepted President Lee’s hard-line policy. In fact, the Obama administration has imposed the U.S. government’s heaviest sanctions on North Korea.
Facing pressing domestic and global problems, President Obama considers the inter-Korean issue low on his list of priorities. In a recent report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) points out drawbacks of the U.S. strategic patience, which is Obama’s policy of containing North Korea’s nuclear proliferation, but critics argue is an excuse for doing nothing. The CRS states North Korea has continued to develop its uranium enrichment program, solidified support from China and embarked on a propaganda offensive against South Korea and the United States designed to shape the eventual agenda to its benefits in negotiations with Seoul and Washington.
Korean and American leaders claim they coordinate closely with each other in dealing with North Korea. However, their countries’ efforts face challenges, including budgetary constraints. Many South Korean leaders do not want to provide too much financial concession to the U.S. for keeping U.S. Forces in Korea, nor agree to U.S. policies that may antagonize China. At the same time, the U.S. wants to reduce its fiscal deficit.
Despite these constraints, South Korea and the U.S. need to work with North Korea, China and Japan in ensuring peace on the Korean Peninsula.
For one, Korea and the U.S. have crucial economic and military stakes with each other. In 2011, the U.S. was South Korea’s third-largest trading partner, second-largest export market and third-largest source of imports. It is also among South Korea’s largest suppliers of foreign direct investment. On the other hand, South Korea is a major buyer of U.S. weapons.
President Obama has repeatedly said South Korea is a model middle-power country, which has risen out of the ashes of the Korean War. A war might turn this model country into a Third World country again.
Presidents Park Geun-hye and Barack Obama will reaffirm the Korea-U.S. alliance in their summit in Washington early next month. However, this reaffirmation alone would not lead to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The two leaders need to assess the perceived flaws in the alliance, including budget constraints and hard-line North Korea policy.
The two presidents must agree on resuming a sincere dialogue with the North. Seoul and Washington policymakers should regard North Korea as a partner for dialogue, and should refrain from bashing it. In a Monday column to the conservative JoongAng Ilbo, professor Moon warned demonizing North Korea would block room for any dialogue.
He also advised Presidents Park and Obama to include both conservative and liberal experts in charting North Korea policy. He said flexibility, rather than rigidity, would lead to a genuine dialogue with the North.
In return for dialogue, Washington and Seoul could encourage Pyongyang not to produce, miniaturize or export more nuclear weapons. Once the North scraps its nuclear weapons, the U.S. could promise to open a liaison office in Pyongyang and to sign a peace treaty with the North. These efforts would be in line with President Park’s policy of conciliation and firmness in dealing with North Korea.
A constructive dialogue with North Korea is the only way to prevent war on the Korean Peninsula. A bad dialogue is better than confrontation.
Lee Chang-sup is the executive managing director of The Korea Times. Contact him at editorial@koreatimes.co.kr.