Three ways to tackle North Korea quandary

This is the 11th in a series of letters by experts to President-elect Park Geun-hye. — ED.

By Bernhard Seliger

Bernhard Seliger

Dear Madam President-elect,

Now you have a chance to start a new page in history, not at least in the quest for improved inter-Korean relations and, eventually, unification of the country still divided. Here the outlook is much less bright.

Not only have inter-Korean relations turned sour in the past years, but also more and more South Koreans, youths in particular, are less convinced of the necessity to overcome division in the country.

South Korea ― an admired economic miracle, a host of international events ― has, thanks in part to K-pop, soap operas, and the help of a certain song, turned into “Cool Korea.” Wouldn’t unification with the poor neighbor to the north jeopardize these achievements?

Allow me to draw your attention to the case of Germany.

Germany stumbled unprepared into unification and this led, fortunately, many Koreans to believe that preparation is necessary. To be prepared is a good idea, but in the past the focus has been too much on financial preparedness, as embodied in the “unification jar.”

Though not wrong, such efforts take attention away from the immediate task of innovating ways to deal with North Korea, not with a naïve sunshine policy based on money transfers, but on a policy that mixes realism and incentives. Let me shortly give three examples how such a policy could work.

First, “trade over aid” is a very sensible motto. Many people – and North Korea itself – expect the reopening of the Mt. Geumgang tourism project. But Mt. Geumgang is a poor project to improve people-to-people contacts compared to alternatives because it gives almost no opportunities for human exchange, while being a cash cow for the North.

On the other hand, the joint Gaeseong Industrial Complex, brings together thousands of North and South Koreans on a day-to-day basis, allowing North Koreans to work in a modern environment formerly unknown in the country.

Restarting trade relations, frozen after the incidents of 2010, is administratively easy and guarantees the much sought-for reciprocity. Founding another inter-Korean complex, such as in the industrial complex in North Korea’s Haeju or the maritime complex in Goseong, certainly beats reopening Mt. Geumgang. It would require a bold and rapid offer, before North Korean demands determine the dynamics of inter-Korean relations.

Second, try to involve North Korea in more “low-level” international engagement acceptable for the country, to improve its diplomatic and administrative capabilities to deal with international partners.

International climate change negotiations are an example. In the past years North Korea, party to the Kyoto protocol, started to register its first Clean Development Mechanism projects, in which Germany’s Hanns-Seidel-Foundation was involved. South Korea will start its own emissions trading scheme in two years. Why not include the North as a place where offsetting activities can take place (In the current draft for the Emissions Trading Scheme North Korea is, contrary to South Korea’s own state philosophy, labeled as a foreign territory)?

Third, combine real military strength and preparedness with more confidence on the “ideological” battlefield. It is not cool of “Cool Korea” to still ban people from watching North Korean websites. In West Germany, before unification everyone could at leisure read the East German communist flagship publication, Neues Deutschland, but nobody did (because it bored you to death). Nothing would more clearly show the real position of the South and the North than scrapping these remnants in South Korea’s laws from a time when the ideological battle was not yet decided. It does not enhance security, but rather sidetracks from really serious security threats.

I hope these three short examples show that still many innovative approaches can be tried out to improve inter-Korean relations. Not all might work in the end, but they are worth a try.

The history of German division provides some interesting examples for further possible actions. This year, Korea and Germany look back to 130 years of diplomatic relations and 50 years of the contract to send miners and nurses of Korea to Germany, an important kick-start for the South Korean economy in the 1960s.

I hope a new “North policy” based on “realpolitik,” neither neglecting the true nature of North Korea’s regime nor simply isolating it, will form part of your presidency. Be assured of the sympathy of the Germans for your quest for peace and unification.

Dr. Bernhard Seliger is the Seoul resident representative of Hanns Seidel Foundation.