American secretary of state Condoleezza Rice recently observed that diplomacy is something much more than a simple deal-making. She said that a successful diplomacy depends on grasping strategic and historical context of the issues under negotiation.
She was talking about the need for creating a suitable condition or environment for resolving the Palestinian issue. And as a way of illustration, she asked who could have predicted the German reunification before the end of cold war.
The need for painstakingly creating the right condition for resolving any longstanding international issue also applies to the case of Korea. And this is a point well worth considering as President Roh Moo Hyun prepares for his summit talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang Oct. 2-4, originally scheduled Aug. 28-30, but postponed due to the devastating flood demage in North Korea.
Will this summit talk lay the foundation for peace and better relations between the two parts of Korea and become an historic watershed or will it be a political ploy in the vote-getting campaign for the presidential election slated for December?
Only after the summit can one know the answer.
Critics have taken issue with the choice of timing and venue for this summit talks. It comes uncomfortably close to the presidential election in South Korea; and venue is again Pyongyang, which former president Kim Dae Jung had visited in the year 2000, not Seoul, as Kim Jong Il had promised he would visit in return.
But President Roh has sought to reassure the nation. In his independence day address on August 18, he said “he remained committed to fulfilling his historic role and make every effort to assume responsibility rather than rushing to achieve results.” It was a direct effort to dispel the concern that wanted to use the upcoming summit for a selfish partisan purpose.
In pursuing a major political initiative of this scale, however, it’s not sufficient to reassure his domestic audiences only. He must reassure our friends in the international community, as well as our ally the United States, that this political initiative on the North is soundly conceived and can bring fruitful results.
In order for his policy initiative to be effective and successful, his vision and philosophy as well as KOREA’S long-term national interest, should be directed at creating the right environment suitable for alleviating the tentions and moving towards the peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula, and that his summit talks with Chaiman Kim should be keyed to bringing about such condition.
One question on which President Roh needs to be clear is whether he creates a confluence of views with the United States, our chief ally, on the objective of the summit talks. Since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the US security policy operates within a clearly stated framework of preventing nuclear weapons, nuclear material or nuclear technology from falling into the hands of terrorists. North Korea is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and it has been a paramount goal of the US security policy to denuclearize the North. No other issue has overshadowed this overriding goal in the administration of US president Gorge W. BUSH.
The question that follows, then, is whether the upcoming summit talks can help accelerate the condition for denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, a goal that has been pursued not just by the US and south Korea, but also by China, Russia and Japan in the Six-Party Talks. Under the 13 February Agreement reached in Beijing, the North has finally shut down its main nuclear reactor in exchange for energy, economic and polical benefits. And at the Pyongyang summit talks, president Roh’s focus on the issue and his self-confidence – backed by SEOUL’s economic muscle – may create the ground for an optimistic outcome for the talks.
But it will require much more than his self-confidence in pushing Chairman KIM from a rhetorical commitment to some specific promises towards de-nuclearization, such as early return to the nonproliferation treaty and disablement of all nuclear facilities and programs by the end of this year. Success of president Roh’s talks with Chairman Kim hinges very much on whether these concrete commitments can be secured.
Any commitment for more economic aid in the absence of a clear – and tangible progress on the denuclearization issue will trigger strong backlashes at home, putting at risk not only his presidential legacy but also a smooth implementation of the roadmap established in the February 13 Agreement. Needless to say, such an outcome will negatively impact on our joint US-Korean efforts to denuclearize the North.
Despite complaints on timing, venue and delay, there’s no question South Korea needs to be aggressively searching for a breakthrough on the current state of affaires on the peninsula. A proactive stance is necessary in terms of policy priority, but it’s also wise to keep our perspectives balanced when dealing with the North’s intentions. One must not lose sight of the fundamental security challenges facing the peninsula from threats posed by North Korean nuclear and missiles programs.
In pursuing security policy, our position must rest on opponent’s intention, not on fabricated goodwill. The fact that confrontation on the peninsula has lasted more than half a century testifies to intransigence of the north Korea’s system. This requires our policy decisions be not only prudent, but also responsible to our allies as well as to ourselves.
President Roh’s wish to leave behind a shining legacy is quite understandable. But it should also be clear to him – as well as to his supporters – that such a legacy must be solid enough to withstand the test of history. As it were, the stakes are much too high to be a simple electoral boost for the next occupant of the Blue House. Ends.
<Korea Herald, 21 August,2007>
Distinguished Professor, Korea University
Honorary Chairman, the UN Association of Korea
Park Soo Gil
