Start of trust-building process

By Tong Kim

With a scheduled inter-Korean ministerial meeting in Seoul on June 12, President Park Geun-hye’s North Korea Policy, labeled as “a Korean Peninsula trust-building process,” is finally taking off. There are some logistic details and agenda items to be worked out in advance of the ministerial meeting. Both sides held a preparatory working-level meeting at Panmunjeom on Sunday.

Extraordinarily positive responses were quickly exchanged between the two sides ― that had been at each other’s throat for months if not years ― after the North Korean Committee for the Peaceful Unification of the Fatherland first proposed government-to-government dialogue on June 6. Seoul interpreted the surprise news as Pyongyang’s positive response to its earlier calls for talks. The North specified the subjects of discussion ― to resume the Gaeseong industrial complex and Mt. Geumgang tourism, and to arrange reunions of separated family members from the Korean War.

The North also suggested holding joint celebrations of the two landmark inter-Korean agreements ― the June 15 declaration produced by the first North-South summit between President Kim Dae-jung and National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-il and the joint July 4 statement of 1972, which was adopted during the rule of President Park Chung-hee, father of President Park Geun-hye.

The North’s proposal had offered the venue and timing for talks to be determined at the convenience of the South. In six hours, the South, accepting the offer, made even a bolder proposal that a ministerial meeting be held in Seoul on June 12. The next morning on June 7, Pyongyang quickly made a new proposal that a working-level meeting be held at Gaeseong on June 9 to prepare for a ministerial meeting. At 2 p.m. Friday, the North reopened the Red Cross channel at Panmunjeom that was closed in March to facilitate communications for the proposed talks. Two hours later the South informed the North through the reopened channel that it would accept a preparatory meeting, with a proposed change of the venue to Panmunjeom. At 10 a.m. Saturday, the North accepted the new venue.

Although the latest development on the peninsula is widely welcomed in Seoul, there is ample caution against false expectations, given the history of ups and downs in inter-Korean relations. Whatever may have motivated the North to switch from confrontation to dialogue, the North’s proposal was comprehensive on economic and humanitarian issues. It did not propose to discuss its nuclear and missile programs or other security issues. However, Pyongyang appears genuinely interested in reopening the joint industrial park closed for two months and the Mt. Geumgang tourism closed for four years. These two projects when in operation provided Pyongyang with valuable revenue for much needed hard currency and Seoul with business opportunities to make profits.

The Gaeseong industrial park also served as a military buffer and a political symbol of inter-Korean cooperation. There is broad support of the people in the South for resuming the operation of the joint industrial complex. Up front if possible or at an appropriate time, Seoul should negotiate for a legally binding guarantee of investment, business operation and the safety of South Korean workers according to the standards of international practices. Reopening of Mt. Geumgang tourism should not be too difficult since both sides are well aware of what it would take to do so. Reunion of the separated families would be a matter of making logistic arrangements, which had been done several times before.

Pundits are busy figuring out the North Korean intent that may include a dire economic need, change in China’s attitude to the North, an outcome of policy struggle between civilians and the military, a bridge to talks with the U.S., least likely capitulation to President Park’s policy of principle and consistency or to international pressure, and perhaps a tactical ploy to show good behavior to the Obama-Xi Jinping meeting in California, in which the two big powers have agreed to cooperate on the nuclear and missile issues. At this point, action matters more than an analysis of the motivation.

The North did not gain anything from its abusive threats of war that had continued for three months since its third nuclear test in February, but its leader Kim Jong-un now appears to have a firm grip on power and a good control of the military. Pyongyang is pursuing parallel development of a continuing nuclear armament and a sustainable economy. It has shown no interest in denuclearization. A nuclear weapon is a survival kit, which they would not give up until the day when they are convinced that they can survive and prosper without it.

Park’s “trust-building process” was never fully explained or understood, as it has not been put to practice due to tensions from threats of war. This process seemed to contain two elements: a strong security deterrent against the North and keeping the door open to dialogue, if the North makes the right choice toward denuclearization. However, supporters of Park’s policy argue that denuclearization is not a condition to, but a goal of, the trust building process. Trust ought to be mutual, and it is not built by offensive rhetoric. It is built through progress in talks and implementation of agreements.

While denuclearization is a distant goal to achieve multilaterally with the cooperation of the U.S. and China, this upcoming resumption of inter-Korean dialogue is a rare opportunity to solve immediate economic and humanitarian issues to the benefit of both sides and to start building trust as part of Seoul’s North Korea policy toward ultimate denuclearization and durable peace in Korea. What’s your take?

The writer is a research professor at the Illmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and a visiting professor at the University of North Korean Studies. He is also an ICAS fellow. Reach him at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.