INTERVIEW Russia still has role on Korean Peninsula issues
By Hwang Jae-ho
Dr. Victoria V. Panova
The Moon Jae-in government has three main foreign policies: the ”New Economic Map,” based on cooperation with North Korea; the “New Southern Policy,” focusing on Southeast Asia and South Asia, and the “New Northern Policy,” which concerns Russia and Central Asia.
In terms of promoting the “New Northern Policy” into serious progress, President Moon has established the Presidential Committee on Northern Economic Cooperation and attended the New Eastern Economic Forum conducted by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vladivostok last September.
Next month, Moon is planning to meet Putin at the FIFA World Cup in Russia, where issues regarding North Korea and South Korean-Russian economic cooperation will be discussed.
Here, Dr. Victoria V. Panova, Vice President for International Relations at the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU) in Vladivostok, gives her view on Korean-Russian relations in this email interview.
Q: How do you evaluate South Korean-Russian relations since President Moon took over the presidency?
A: First of all, I need to mention that all the views expressed here are my personal views and are not expressed in my official position.
I believe relations between the two countries have all the conditions for deep, friendly and mutually beneficial cooperation. The initiative of nine bridges of President Moon could constitute a positive further development of such neighborly relations and more regular meetings of economic commissions, while Korean investor days held in the Far East are to serve the same purpose.
While South Korea occupies sixth place among Russia’s trade partners, and over the time of President Moon in power total trade turnover between the countries continued growing at a much greater pace, a lot of that could be still attributed not just to the new policies implemented, but rather to a resurging Russian economy and higher prices for hydrocarbons.
It should be said that trade items composition remain unbalanced and more action should be undertaken by both sides in order to achieve even better results. According to Vice Premier Yu Trutnev, full potential of bilateral cooperation remains underexplored. Russia and South Korea also need to continue paying special attention to humanitarian and cultural exchanges and cooperation programs, enhancing people-to-people contacts, which in turn would foster further already very warm relations between the neighbors.
Q: What do you think of the recent inter-Korean summit?
A: It definitely was a very welcome move, and Russia and its people are very much interested in having peace and stability in the region, and this cannot be achieved without solving the inter-Korean problems.
But there are two things that make me cautious while evaluating its long-term effect. First of all, I remember previous similar meetings in 2000 and 2007 and the reverse of the process some time later. It is also worth remembering that a number of guarantees that the North Korean leader is willing to give cannot be obtained from his South Korean counterpart and need affirmative steps on the part of the USA.
At the same time there are at least two aspects that could contribute to sustainability of what’s happened – cautious market reforms that President Kim Jong-un started introducing in his country at the start of his coming to power, and the logical end of the weapons’ upgrade phase in North Korea, which would allow for tradeoffs within a comfortable zone.
Q: What do you expect from the U.S.-North Korean summit?
A: The expectations of the June 12th meeting of the two Presidents in Singapore were running high all the days between its announcement and its cancellation. Why would many people, even knowing the difficult history of the issue would still get into this euphoria and suggest that no matter how feeble and unprepared this summit looked, it would still bear real fruit?
Of course, it might have been the need to get positive news and hope for peace after the months of military alert and balancing on the brink of war with the exchange of harsh wordings and gestures of the previous months got everyone worried of the possible breakout. Thus, the total reverse of the course and agreement of the two leaders to meet and negotiate, all that after the hopeful Inter-Korean Summit, could have had additional psychological effect of something positive happening after risk of military outcome running high. A number of people would also say that state of reforms and general approach of the North Korean leader, aiming at taking his country out of isolation into the new brighter future also meant we are to have a successful summit.
What went wrong instead. Well, everyone even slightly not lazy would name among the reasons of the failure of holding the summit itself US-ROK military drills and Bolton’s mentioning of the “positive Lybian scenario”. What is there to see, is whether we really had high chances for the Summit to work up to its expectations if it did happen…
Let’s look at the President Trump. If it were for the regular country leader, I would say such announcements make us confident of the preliminary results already negotiated and degree of breakthrough leading to lasting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula being in final stages. At the same time, this is not a regular leader, but rather Donald Trump, known for his spontaneous activities. Which could on the one hand bring success to the meeting, but on the other hand there are a few “but” that should be taken into account. A) new set of people responsible for the region/or issue area as a whole with just one month ahead for substantive preparations - we’ve just had recent incoming of the US State Secretary Mike Pompeo only few weeks back we’ve had Admiral Harry Harris appointed to become US Ambassador to South Korea; according to my knowledge we still don’t have special envoy for North Korea after resignation of Joseph Yun. B) Donald Trump is a hostage of his internal counter-revolution, which occurred when he came to power – any fault pas or even small mistake will be used by his opponents among American political elites to the full, and how much they will be willing to welcome the situation where North Korea makes partial concessions is to be seen
Nevertheless, what we see here, is that difficult issues, even if sometimes could be resolved due to unexpected and even illogical behavior of the leader, taking those steps, do plunge into even a bigger pit after early high hopes if failed. We should always remember – best improvisations are rehearsed ones. US – DPRK Summit and “breakthrough” demonstrated this well.
Q: What’s your anticipated outcome and agenda from the South Korea-Russia summit next month?
A: While it won’t be anything but speculation, since it is not yet public, I’d see the upcoming meeting of the Russian and South Korean presidents as having a number of important issues on the table – including the situation around the Korean Peninsula, although more details will come up as the situation evolves. And as we saw recently, things change with cosmic speed. But also, there will be the first outcomes of efforts in deepening Russian-South Korean socio-economic and humanitarian relations.
5. Where does Russia stand regarding the Korean Peninsula issue, including the peace treaty and the six-party talks?
A: Russia’s stand remains unchanged, and it is about there being no other alternative to diplomatic efforts to resolve challenges surrounding the Korean Peninsula. The stance also includes full normalization of relations between the DPRK and South Korea, between the DPRK and the USA, and also full adherence to six-party talks, since security in Asia concerns all players represented in this group.
Russia's role in the Korean Peninsula is small compared to other countries, but still it can never be ruled out. Currently, the Moon government plans to discuss the details of the Panmunjeom declaration with North Korea and the U.S., and the details of the peace treaty with North Korea, the U.S. and China. However, it is likely Russia will play a role in the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. In addition, the Moon government’s main policy, the New Northern Policy, is aimed at cooperation with Eurasia but it is no exaggeration to call it the “Russia project.” Russia is an important partner of the current South Korean government in terms of both security and economy. We can therefore expect a constructive role for Russia on the Korean Peninsula.
Dr. Victoria V. Panova is Vice President for International Relations at the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU). From March 2016 to March 2017, she held the post of the Dean of the Oriental Studies Institute of the FEFU. Before that she was Associate Professor and Deputy Head of the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO-University MFA Russia). She also serves as Chief Strategy Planning Adviser for the National Committee on BRICS Research, Russia. She holds a PhD in history of IR from MGIMO-University. Her research focuses on the club governance (G8/G7, G20, BRICS), military-political and energy security, sustainable development as well as global governance.