Will pipeline give fresh hope?
By Park Si-soo
Given recently unfolding events, the roaring sound of construction is likely to resonate all the way from the northern tip of North Korea to its southern neighbor in the near future.
President Lee Myung-bak has predicted “faster than expected” progress in talks with the North and Russia to build a transnational gas pipeline linking the three nations. Rep. Hong Joon-pyo, chairman of the ruling party in Seoul, has bolstered the view, saying “good news” will come in November.
In the latest favorable signal, Russian state-controlled gas supplier Gazprom said Friday it has discussed prospects for building the pipeline with energy officials from both Koreas.
All these remarks and events happened in less than a month after North Korean leader Kim Jong-il discussed the matter with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during his trip to Russia last month.
It’s obvious that the two Koreas will economically benefit from the project. The conduit, if realized, will enable South Korea to secure 7.5 million tons of high-quality Russian natural gas each year at cheaper prices than its existing sources, while the cash-strapped North is expected to earn $150 million in compensation for the facility’s passage through its territory.
Yet, it’s still doubtful as to how much it would help ease inter-Korean tensions and eventually bring peace to the divided peninsula. Experts have presented mixed opinions with skepticism prevailing.
“It is a ridiculous idea,” said Michael Green, a senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in the United States. “A pipeline project would allow North Korea multiple opportunities to blackmail the South.”
He said Pyongyang would keep engaging in provocations and create crises to gain political leverage over its southern rival, referring to the ongoing disposal of South Korean-owned assets in a jointly-run resort in Mt. Geumgang in the North and the death of a South Korea tourist shot there by a North Korean soldier in July 2008. The resort has been closed since the incident.
Another North Korea expert said the project will surely put a fresh spin on inter-Korean relations, but its impact will be limited.
“For the North, the project should be a timely tool to send a signal that it wants to normalize relations. But it’s uncertain whether other involved countries will act in a way it intends,” the expert in Seoul said on condition of anonymity. “Without concrete actions — such as the shutdown of nuclear facilities or allowing inspections by an international nuclear watchdog — the diplomatic impact of the pipeline project will be limited.”
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has suggested a moratorium on its nuclear testing and production if the dialogue resumes. But the United States wants such steps before the resumption of talks.
Victor D. Cha, another senior advisor for the U.S. think tank, said North Korea’s interest in the project is noteworthy, but it is difficult to tell whether this is a tactical decision to show the United States and China that it has other options or whether it represents a strategic shift by the regime to trade this for its nuclear weapons.
“I don’t think any South Korean government currently and in the future would see the pipeline project as a remedy for its energy needs,” Cha said. “The reason is obvious given that the pipeline could be turned off by the North at any time. If it were to happen, the South would basically see it as a form of economic development assistance to the North.”
He said the project would be a way to entice North Korea with economic assistance on this project, while the South could benefit marginally from the gas.
Unlike other experts, Kim Yong-hyun, a North Korea expert at Seoul’s Dongguk University, pins high hopes on the project, saying, “It could bring about a fundamental change in South-North relations.”
“This is an international project, in which Russia is deeply involved. In this framework, it’s difficult for the North to abuse it to raise its leverage over the South or the United States,” Kim said. “In the long run, the project, if run successfully, will help resolve problems with the resort in Mt. Geumgang.”
The North abandoned the six-party negotiations in April 2009 and conducted its second nuclear test a month later. But diplomatic efforts to restart the dialogue have resumed this summer after nuclear envoys from the two Koreas held a rare meeting in Bali in July.
South Korea’s chief nuclear envoy Wi Sung-lac travelled to the United States earlier this month after North Korea’s announcement that it was ready to resume long-stalled six-party disarmament talks. But the United States remains skeptical of the North’s genuine intention to return to the negotiating table.
Earlier this month, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, “We have not seen signs, as yet, from North Korea that it’s prepared to meet the conditions we’ve set forward.”