Our minds are not at rest today, the first anniversary of the joint statement produced at the six-party talks on September 19, 2005 in Beijing. The confrontational mood between North Korea and the United States remains unchanged, and the political situation in Northeast Asia is as complicated as ever. The atmosphere is such that the joint statement could lose its significance if the six-party talks do not resume within the year.
You could actually call the statement, adopted at last year’s fourth round of the six-party talks, a South Korean product. It was our government that brought to the table what was called the "significant proposal," one in which it agreed to furnish the North with electric power as part of the deal, and thus got Pyongyang to return to the six-party process. And it was Korea that played the leading role in drafting the joint statement, following weeks of debate in the wake of the resumption of talks in late July. When, in the course of discussions, there was a failure to compromise, the South used trilateral contact with the U.S. and the North. The document itself is deep and comprehensive in that it includes not only compensation for the North if it should give up its nuclear program but also agreement on how ties would be normalized between the North, the U.S., and Japan, as well as measures to ensure a permanent peace on the Korean peninsula.
Now, South Korea is again called to the same mission. It is a serious situation, one that demands the South bring all its drive and creativity to bear on the task of getting the six-party talks going again, and in a way that moves toward the implementation of the joint statement. One way to go about this will be putting the "joint, comprehensive approach" to work, as agreed upon last week at the U.S.-South Korea summit in Washington, D.C.
Aside from producing a realistic plan in which all countries party to the talks can participate, South Korea has even more to do.
To begin with, it needs to create an atmosphere in which the North’s high-ranking officials can talk directly with the five nations attending the talks, in particular the U.S. One way to do this might be to facilitate a visit to North Korea by top U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill, or to see to it that deputy North Korean foreign minister Kim Kye-gwan visits the U.S. The wall of distrust and misunderstanding will not be lowered if people do not meet.
It is also important that the inter-Korean relationship is again normalized. All contact between North and South Korea has essentially been cut off since Pyongyang test fired a series of missiles in early July. Currently, the South is implementing measures to pressure the North, having suspended rice and fertilizer aid. Now, in step with the efforts to restart the six-party talks, the South Korean government needs to consider a profound change of position, and again resume contact with and aid for the North. Having the current situation continue is of no help to either side. In particular, the inter-Korean ministerial talks originally scheduled for this month need to be held at the earliest possible date. And if necessary, the South should be prepared to send a special envoy to Pyongyang.
[Editorial] S.K.’s role one year after the 9/19 statement |
