It is significant that at a time when there is controversy over how to approach the North Korean nuclear issue and about the future of the U.S.-Korea alliance, the leaders of the two countries met in Washington D.C. yesterday and reaffirmed their common understanding about both. Unfortunately, there was not time to agree on the details of the issues at hand, but it is a positive development that they determined what both countries need to work toward in the future.
Most notable about the summit meeting between Korean president Roh Moo-hyun and U.S. president George W. Bush is that they agreed to a common and comprehensive approach to getting the six-party talks started again. The top delegates to the six-party process are soon scheduled to meet. The Korean government says that the two countries have been talking for about two months about what to do next, and are developing a realistic plan to deal with the situation. That in part puts the brakes on the U.S.’s policy towards Pyongyang, which, ever since the North test fired a series of missiles, has increasingly looked towards sanctions. This is also notable because it provides momentum for coordinating all possible policies for restarting the six-party talks.
One thing that needs to be included in this new plan of approach is something that keeps the U.S.’s financial sanctions from hindering resumption of the talks: Pyongyang sees them as an attempt to cause regime change - not, like the U.S. asserts, a move to "enforce the law" regarding illegal North Korean activity. Unless the six-party members find a way to get around this, any policies the U.S. and South Korea are able to combine will be ineffective. During a meeting in New York last March, North Korean officials proposed a format for discussion with the U.S., and Christopher Hill, the U.S. State Department’s point man for the six-party talks, was at one point supposed to visit Pyongyang. Both ideas need to be given serious consideration once again.
This might be the last chance for the U.S. and South Korea to work together to get the talks going once again. If they fail to get back on track the situation would very likely deteriorate, so North Korea needs to make sure it does not miss this opportunity. Just as it is unrealistic to expect Pyongyang to surrender unconditionally, it is also wrong of Pyongyang to wait for a complete change in U.S. policy. The fact that rumors are circulating that Kim Jong-il is about to visit Beijing can be interpreted to mean Pyongyang really wants to resolve the impasse. Having a Sino-North Korean summit is as important as having a common approach between the U.S. and the South.
Bush takes a rational approach when he says the question of transferring wartime operational command of Korea’s military is "not a political issue." While the two countries do have somewhat divergent interests about the transfer, his stance is only natural when the U.S. and South Korea are nevertheless working out the details in a relatively orderly fashion. Conservative elements in Korea opposed to the transfer need to stop raising their voices about how they oppose the idea. They instead need to concentrate on discussing ways to achieve a smooth transfer and realize how that would be the way to contribute to a future-oriented U.S.-Korea alliance.
The three key items on the agenda discussed at the summit in Washington were all things for which there are clear directions to be taken. The North Korean nuclear issue must be resolved peacefully and diplomatically, through negotiation. The transfer of wartime operational command needs to take place in an orderly fashion. Finally, a free trade agreement between the two countries will only mean something if it is beneficial to both sides. We hope that is what president Roh had in mind when, speaking about the proposed trade agreement, he said "what the document says is more important than when it is signed."
[Editorial] U.S.-S.K. summit highlights need for consensus |
