Win-Win Solution

Pyongyang Should Act More Reasonably on Tourist Killing

Speculations are rampant regarding North Korea's ``official" silence as to the killing of a South Korean tourist 12 days ago.

Unofficially, however, Pyongyang is leaking information that the shooting of Park Wang-ja, who allegedly wandered into the North's military area, was an accident perpetrated by a ``small" soldier. North Korean officials reportedly expressed their hope, too, that the ``unintentional" mishap would not hinder inter-Korean exchanges.

Right after the accident took place, however, the Communist regime said it was a regrettable occurrence but passed the buck to South Korea and called for Seoul's apology.

The combination of Pyongyang's official and unofficial comments on this happening could lead to the conclusion that the isolated regime does not want the accident to aggravate its image or worsen its relations with the outside world, although it is not willing to admit its fault nor apologize for the accident. This is definitely the old North Korea ― positive in asserting its rights but passive in fulfilling its duties ― that should no longer be accepted.

North Korea's embarrassment is understandable if the accident works to deter inter-Korean economic cooperation projects in Gaeseong Industrial Complex or even affects Washington's decision to drop it from its list of terrorism sponsors.

This makes it all the more hard to understand why Pyongyang is dragging its feet in taking such a simple and seemingly unavoidable first step: Explain exactly what happened in the wee hours of July 11 in a way South Koreans can understand. The North's explanation so far has failed in this, leaving only more questions than answers. Even during war, soldiers are not supposed to shoot unarmed civilians. Even if an inexperienced North Korean guard made a mistake, why should it be so hard to say so and apologize for it?

Pyongyang is ill advised if it is reluctant to do so because of the hard-line stance of the Lee Myung-bak administration in the South. A human's death should neither be the subject of a war of nerves between ideological adversaries nor of international bargaining, such as business contracts. It is only a humanitarian issue, which Pyongyang stresses so often when asking for foreign economic aid. North Korea ought to show minimal courtesy to a person killed by its own mistake, mourning the victims and paying condolences to her bereaved family members.

Only then can the Koreas discuss ways to prevent similar accidents based on shared facts, if Pyongyang finds it hard to accept joint investigations requested by the South right now.

The Lee administration's response to this accident was far from desirable, though, wavering between utter lack of preparedness and an unnecessarily hard-line stance, giving only confused signals to Pyongyang and making the latter further postpone taking the steps it should take.

It is apparent the government's lack of philosophy and principles in the inter-Korean relationship has led to failure to make a consensual and coordinated response to an accident like this one.

Each side needs to take a step back and seek a compromise to turn this predicament into a breakthrough in the chilled relations of recent months. It is Pyongyang of course who needs to make the first move, but Seoul should also be ready to provide it some space to do this.