Loading ...
Korean.net has a good commentary on the upcoming North-South Korean Summit by Jae H. Ku, the director of the US-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. The commentary plays it straight down the line, warning against using the Summit for domestic political purposes while at the same time recognizing the tremendous opportunity that the Summit represents for Korea’s future:
The summit can further inter-Korean cooperation and complement the six-party talks in paving the way for the denuclearization. Yet, many in Seoul and elsewhere feel uneasy with both the process and the atmosphere in which the summit was arranged.
The commentary exemplifies the double edged sword that the Summit has become for the Roh administration. On the one hand, the Summit represents an historic opportunity with the potential to advance inter-Korean dialogue. On the other hand, the Summit represents a tool that could be manipulated by domestic forces both left and right as they struggle to secure their own futures.
It is really a shame that the Summit has been manipulated like this in South Korea’s domestic politics. When one thinks of the historical opportunity that the Summit represents, negative political campaigning that derrogates its value seems both selfish and lacking in vision. The Korea.net commentary notes:
President Roh has an opportunity to make history. He can provide a real roadmap for North Korea to join the international community…Or he can reward Kim based on a misconceived domestic expediency.
Ultimately, however, it is not all down to President Roh’s actions. Indeed, how the Summit is perceived in South Korea and how it is cast in domestic politics is every Korean’s responsibility. Is the Summit part of a long-term vision for peace and prosperity or is it merely a tool to be crudely manipulated for short-term domestic political gain?
7 responses so far ↓
1 Richardson // Sep 26, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I think North Korean leadership has made it abundantly clear on many occasions over time that they do not consider South Korea to be a worthy partner for peace negotiations; North Korea only wants to deal with the U.S. on that issue. All the South Korean efforts related to engagement have gained absolutely no tangible security benefits, and indeed have seen further North Korean missile tests and of course the nuclear test. Clearly the upcoming summit is nothing more than a forum for the DPRK to extract all it can from South Korea while giving nothing in return. Roh’s party will gain nothing from it. Only the North Korean elite gain in this game.
2 dilworth // Sep 27, 2007 at 6:53 pm
It is true that there have been no tangible security benefits. However, I would contend that there have been substantial intangible security benefits.
Real or not, there is a sense that the peninsula has become more peaceful since the commencement of South Korean engagement policy. There is evidence of this in the incremental rise in South Korean sovereign ratings by international ratings agencies such as Moody’s and S&P since the commencement of engagement.
There is also the even less tangible security benefit of changed North Korean attitudes. Less tangible because we can really only assume that engagement is the causal effect. Anecdotal evidence does show a change in North Korean perceptions of the South. Interviews with North Korean defectors [see the recent book ‘Saram-eui Tongil, Ddang-eui Tongil’ by Cheon Woo-Taek] show a big difference between North Korean perceptions of South Korea over the last ten years.
While the Summit is not going to be a magical spell that will greatly advance engagement, in the greater context of North-South relations, it is still a significant and potentially important historical event.
My major concern is that the Summit will get caught up in the filth, selfishness and lack of vision that permeates the domestic political scene.
3 Richardson // Sep 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Over time there have been no reduction in, for instance, naval mishaps along the NLL, KPA have actually increased along the DMZ, no reduction in artillery or missiles directed at Seoul, a continuation of missile testing, and a nuclear test. That’s a false sense of having, “become more peaceful.”
I’d say it’s more than just anecdotal, but only the smallest minority of defectors are from the elite, which is the group that matters. Engagement is double-edged sword for the regime elite as they want to reap the unmonitored aid from South Korea, but do not want to let destabilizing information in that would threaten their positions.
Again, Kim Jong-il will use this summit to extract maximum aid from South Korea, but will give nothing tangible in return.
4 dilworth // Sep 27, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Undoubtedly, you are right that Kim Jong-Il will use the Summit to exract maximum benefit from the South - and give nothing in return.
However, engagement as a policy cannot be judged over the short period of time. It is a long term strategy (which granted is difficult to conceive of when one thinks of NK human rights).
Over time, the trickle of information and ideas that engagement brings to North Korea will hopefully result in change. It is likely that there will be no tangible security benefits from the Summit in the short term, but in the long term, as one small part of a much wider engagement effort it could bring change to North Korea.
What other options are there that don’t involve the risk of war, humanitarian disasters and economic upheaval?
5 Shane // Sep 28, 2007 at 1:23 am
Here here! Where are the men and women of vision for this nation. I would love to see politicians who have some notion of honor and work for a future for their people, not just for their politics.
6 Richardson // Sep 28, 2007 at 2:19 am
~7 years of Sunshine should have yielded something more than the few (and less than promised) family reunions. Instead there have been negative changes in real security (vice the “sense” of security). Changing attitudes about the outside world among North Korea defectors and those along the border have much more to do with the cross-border traffic and trade spurred by the 90s famine than anything South Korea’s engagement policy could hope to produce.
If engagement “works” longer term, what it will accomplish is a stronger northern regime still not interested in unification under any terms other than its own. If political change does occur in North Korea (e.g., a change in the Kim family cult, etc.), it’s highly unlikely that a ROK policy would be the cause.
Being non-confrontational and keeping an elevated – but monitored – level of humanitarian aid is good, and even what the Sunshine Policy was supposed to be would not have been bad. But it has instead morphed into a policy of enabling and appeasement that accomplishes nothing, except to prolong the torture of those in DPRK gulags.
South Korea’s engagement is worse than useless in its current form.
——
On a separate note, are “Dilworth” and “Gunter” the same persons?
7 dilworth // Sep 28, 2007 at 8:59 am
I guess ‘morphing into a policy of enabling and appeasement’ is part of the political pendulum.
After years of a strongly confrontational approach (with substantial tangible security gains, but little improvements in the intangible ’sense’ of security) the South Korean public swung to the opposite side. Now they are ready to swing back.
Hopefully, in time a less extreme medium can be reached (engagement after all does rely on a combination of both strength and reconciliation). Perhaps as you say an elevated, but monitored, level of humanitarian aid, even along the lines of the original Sunshine Policy.
——
Yep, first name ‘Gunther’, second name ‘Dilworth’
Leave a Comment