N. Korea: forget-me-not

By Tong Kim

In the midst of an unending series of ferociousattacks by ISIL and other “extreme Islam terrorists” ― in Paris, Turkey, and most recently in Mali ― that keeps shocking a divided international community with respect to how to eliminate the sources of global terrorism, North Korea refuses to be forgotten.

Pyongyang finally on November accepted Seoul’s proposal for holding working-level talks. Two delegations will meet at the Tongilgak on the North Korean side of Panmunjom to discuss timing, venue, and agenda for high-level inter-governmental talks.

In the August 25 agreement, which was reached following a dangerous standoff over a landmine explosion in the DMZ, both sides pledged to hold government-to-government talks to improve inter-Korean relations. The August accord led to another reunion of separated familiesin October, while easing up humanitarian assistance to the North.

Pundits in Seoul believe the North Korean decision to re-engage the South has to do with a few relevant factors, including Pyongyang’s announced Workers’ Party Congress for next May, the prospect of a visit to Pyongyang by Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General, and Pyongyang’s desperate need for economic assistance from the South.

Ri Hung Sik, Pyongyang’s ambassador-at-large, at the DPRK mission to UN, said Ban’s visit would be “a natural one”, which was reportedly planned to take place November 23. The North had cancelled an earlier invitation to the Secretary General at the last minute before. UN pressure on the North Korean human rights issue ― as the General Assembly passed an unbinding resolution to send the issue to the International Criminal Court two years in a row ― disturbs the North Korean leadership, how defiant it may be.

It is a welcome development even if Pyongyang may have wanted to draw world attention to itself by re-engaging the South. Talks could make progress toward building mutual trust and keeping stability and peace. This does not mean the DPRK has excluded other means of attention getting ― such as provocative missile or nuclear testing.

Preoccupied with other urgent security issues, including ISIS, Syria, and the South China Sea, and following the successful Iranian nuclear deal,Washington is not going to offer a new, condition-free approach to denuclearization talks, unless Pyongyang gives up its duel policy of nuclear and economic development.

Washington is sharply divided between Republicans and Democrats over the issues of terrorism and refugees from Syria and Iraq ― between American values and American security ― especially in the aftermath of the ISIS attack in Paris. Nevertheless, there is no big difference in American concern about, and opposition to, the North Korean nuclear and missile development programs.

Yet, there are some private views in Washington on what to do about the North Korean nuclear issue. For example, Bill Richardson, formerly governor of New Mexico and US ambassador to UN, who visited Pyongyang nine times on various occasions and provided advice to the North Koreans on improving relations with the U.S., proposed a new format for multilateral nuclear talks at an academic conference in Washington. (It was held November 10 jointly by the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul and the Wilson Center in Washington.)

Richardson proposed an International Contact Group (ICG), composed of the current members of the six-party talks ― China, U.S., Russia, Japan, and the two Koreas ― plus some new participants, including EU, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and even Cuba, and Burma to replace the dormant Six-Party Talks, which has not met since 2008. His argument: these European countries have worked with North Korea for a long time, and Pyongyang would feel comfortable to work with them.

“If Cuba and Burma, with whom the DPRK has good relations, are included in the ICG,” Richardson argued, “Pyongyang can perhaps learn how these two countries improved their relations with the U.S.” Within the ICG framework under U.S. leadership, not Chinese chair, participants are encouraged for bilateral and multilateral discussions of ways to resolve the nuclear issue, lessen tension, and secure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region.

Interestingly enough, Richardson’s idea was quickly shot down by Ambassador Sung Kim, North Korea Policy Representative of the Obama administration, who addressed the same conference at the Wilson Center as a special guest speaker. Kim said the change needed is not of the composition or format of nuclear talks but in the North Korean attitude. He again confirmed that Pyongyang would have to show its interest in credible and meaningful talks before Washington moves to the next step.

North Korea is equally entrenched in a position of no concession to the U.S. demand. The clock is ticking, and it becomes less and less likely that the North Korean nuclear issue would be resolved before President Obama leaves the office in a little over a year’s time.

The political center of gravity in Washington has currently moved to terrorism and ISIS propaganda warnings of targeting New York and Washington. Russia and the U.S. have differences on how to deal with the Syrian situation, in which three forces ― the government forces backed by Russia but opposed by the U.S., the rebels fighting the government forces, and the ISIL forces, being bombed by France, the U.S. and Russia ― are all fighting each other.

Multilateral negotiations are underway to bring about a ceasefire between the Syrian government and the opposing forces. Washington sees Syrian tyrant Assad, who killed thousands of his own people with air strikes and chemical weapons as the root cause of the rise of ISIS, which occupies a good size of territory in parts of Syria and Iraq. The Republicans blame Obama for the lack of a winning strategy in Syria.

The world is facing a new global challenge from the barbaric acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists. If the North and the South join to fight international terrorism, would it not help improve the image of North Korea? What’s your take?

Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist

for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the

Institute of Korean-American Studies.