Well-crafted approaches will lead to real change
U.S. President Joe Biden's North Korea policy is the same as that of his former boss Barack Obama and his "strategic patience."
Pyongyang has been launching many missiles recently and challenging Washington verbally. However, the Biden administration sticks to its old posture, saying "We are open to solve all issues with talks" ― and then does nothing. Unlike his eccentric and showy predecessor, Donald Trump, Biden and mainstream U.S. diplomats prefer a status quo on the Korean Peninsula. Biden also has no time or resources to care about Kim Jong-un, as he is busy dealing with two far larger and more formidable rivals ― Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.
However, the U.S. leader cannot just sit there doing nothing about the thorn in America's neck, especially considering the election. So, Washington played its trump card last week ― human rights issues. On Friday, the U.S. imposed sanctions on 10 North Korean individuals and organizations for serious human rights violations and other crimes. The move coincided with Washington's call, along with 30 countries, including South Korea, for the U.N. Security Council to discuss the North's rights situation openly and not behind closed doors.
Nothing could be more welcome for South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, whose favorite word is "freedom." Intense confrontation with Pyongyang has also been the conservative camp's way of cementing voter support while attacking their liberal rivals as "weak and submissive" to the North. However, Seoul abstained from two major U.N. resolutions recently. One condemned the human rights violations of the Uighur people in China on Oct. 31, and the other on Nov. 16 denounced the rights situation in Crimea after it was annexed by Russia.
The foreign ministry tried to justify the duplicity, saying it "comprehensively considered national interest and other things." It's somewhat understandable because Seoul cannot ignore Beijing and Moscow. Still, South Korea can never become a "global hub state and values-based democracy" as Yoon pledges with such dual standards when it comes to human rights.
Even so, the progressives, more sympathetic to North Korea, should no longer turn a blind eye to what's happening in the North. Delaying the discussion by citing "special circumstances" has long been impossible ― for humanitarian and tactical reasons. The inter-Korean hawks reject all reconciliation attempts under the pretext of human rights problems. Presenting substantive steps in this matter will also help them restore the initiative in the inter-Korean relationship.
At stake is how. For now, only a few things seem clear. First, more pressure and sanctions, as some hardliners call for, will backfire. True, human rights are the sorest part of an autocratic state like North Korea. That means outsiders must take a more subtle approach if they want fundamental changes. For instance, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Yet there are other equally critical basic rights, too, such as the right to survive. Take the residents in the inter-Korean border areas. Anti-North activists send balloons containing propaganda leaflets claiming freedom of speech. Still, residents experience threats to peaceful living or even their survival.
A study by three researchers at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) gave some policy insights after studying other troubled countries. They took two countries as contrasting examples: Cyprus and Cuba. "South and North Cyprus opened borders, reinvigorating free travel and economic exchanges," it said. "Such social and economic growth has helped promote peace and human rights." In contrast, the U.S.-led economic sanctions as well as the rigid socialist system have hindered socioeconomic development in Cuba, adversely affecting its peace and human rights, the KINU study said, adding that "This has some similarities to North Korea."
What approach Seoul should take appears simple. However, the incumbent right-wing government in Seoul seems unlikely or unable to do so. That explains why relatively liberal opposition parties, with the help of like-minded civic groups, should maintain the inter-Korean initiative.
U.S. President Joe Biden's North Korea policy is the same as that of his former boss Barack Obama and his "strategic patience."
Pyongyang has been launching many missiles recently and challenging Washington verbally. However, the Biden administration sticks to its old posture, saying "We are open to solve all issues with talks" ― and then does nothing. Unlike his eccentric and showy predecessor, Donald Trump, Biden and mainstream U.S. diplomats prefer a status quo on the Korean Peninsula. Biden also has no time or resources to care about Kim Jong-un, as he is busy dealing with two far larger and more formidable rivals ― Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin.
However, the U.S. leader cannot just sit there doing nothing about the thorn in America's neck, especially considering the election. So, Washington played its trump card last week ― human rights issues. On Friday, the U.S. imposed sanctions on 10 North Korean individuals and organizations for serious human rights violations and other crimes. The move coincided with Washington's call, along with 30 countries, including South Korea, for the U.N. Security Council to discuss the North's rights situation openly and not behind closed doors.
Nothing could be more welcome for South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, whose favorite word is "freedom." Intense confrontation with Pyongyang has also been the conservative camp's way of cementing voter support while attacking their liberal rivals as "weak and submissive" to the North. However, Seoul abstained from two major U.N. resolutions recently. One condemned the human rights violations of the Uighur people in China on Oct. 31, and the other on Nov. 16 denounced the rights situation in Crimea after it was annexed by Russia.
The foreign ministry tried to justify the duplicity, saying it "comprehensively considered national interest and other things." It's somewhat understandable because Seoul cannot ignore Beijing and Moscow. Still, South Korea can never become a "global hub state and values-based democracy" as Yoon pledges with such dual standards when it comes to human rights.
Even so, the progressives, more sympathetic to North Korea, should no longer turn a blind eye to what's happening in the North. Delaying the discussion by citing "special circumstances" has long been impossible ― for humanitarian and tactical reasons. The inter-Korean hawks reject all reconciliation attempts under the pretext of human rights problems. Presenting substantive steps in this matter will also help them restore the initiative in the inter-Korean relationship.
At stake is how. For now, only a few things seem clear. First, more pressure and sanctions, as some hardliners call for, will backfire. True, human rights are the sorest part of an autocratic state like North Korea. That means outsiders must take a more subtle approach if they want fundamental changes. For instance, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Yet there are other equally critical basic rights, too, such as the right to survive. Take the residents in the inter-Korean border areas. Anti-North activists send balloons containing propaganda leaflets claiming freedom of speech. Still, residents experience threats to peaceful living or even their survival.
A study by three researchers at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) gave some policy insights after studying other troubled countries. They took two countries as contrasting examples: Cyprus and Cuba. "South and North Cyprus opened borders, reinvigorating free travel and economic exchanges," it said. "Such social and economic growth has helped promote peace and human rights." In contrast, the U.S.-led economic sanctions as well as the rigid socialist system have hindered socioeconomic development in Cuba, adversely affecting its peace and human rights, the KINU study said, adding that "This has some similarities to North Korea."
What approach Seoul should take appears simple. However, the incumbent right-wing government in Seoul seems unlikely or unable to do so. That explains why relatively liberal opposition parties, with the help of like-minded civic groups, should maintain the inter-Korean initiative.
![[INTERVIEW] North Korean-born chef delights Southerners' taste buds, breaks down cultural barriers](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/3a6dc51899d548b990f489b784a0ecd3.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[ANALYSIS] Yoon-Kishida meeting raises expectations of 3-way summit with China](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/f435e5a0dc774045ba9e051c7ea72913.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
