The aftereffects of North Korea’s nuclear test - and how long they last - will be determined by how the North and the countries involved handle the situation from this point on. The worst scenario would be one in which a hard-line response escalates things to the point of catastrophe. That kind of scenario must not be allowed to unfold. Certainly, one can imagine that tensions would be increased right now. But a situation in which the differences between the sides are so great that compromise becomes impossible unless one side gives in completely could easily lead to catastrophe, as well. All the more so with North Korea and the United States, each thinking they are the main players on this issue. Leaving things like that is a choice that must be avoided.
The best scenario would be to achieve compromise in a way that turns a bad situation into something good before the crisis further deteriorates. This is also the most realistic choice available. Naturally, there is little room for immediate compromise, since the North’s provocative nuclear test has angered concerned countries and because Pyongyang is making wild demands. The North’s ambassador to the United Nations said the test "is a response to more than half a century of hostile policy toward [North] Korea by the U.S.", and that instead of announcing "useless resolutions and chairman’s statements," the U.N. should instead "be congratulating us." Pyongyang needs to quit with the bravado and look reality straight in the face so as to keep from becoming further isolated.
The U.S. administration is being relatively calm about the announced test. In his statement in response, President George W. Bush condemned the test and called for an immediate response by the U.N. Security Council, but at the same time he spoke of the need for a diplomatic solution and for resuming the six-party talks. What that means is that he is excluding a military response and will place greater priority on actions together with the international community instead of having the U.S. act alone. Even given the fact that the U.S. has its hands tied in the Middle East, it is rational on the part of Washington to state clear diplomatic goals instead of suggesting an armed conflict that could be ruinous.
Diplomacy in stages toward a solution
There are an infinite number of suggestions as to what kind of diplomatic solution should be attempted. Shortly after the announced test, the U.S. submitted to the UNSC a draft resolution calling for all of the North’s international financial transactions to be halted and to allow for the inspection of any ship entering or leaving North Korean waters suspected of carrying nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction. The draft invokes Article VII of the U.N. Charter, opening the way for possible military action. This thus may be interpreted as the U.S. calling for a sea blockade. Instead of forcing the North to recognize its mistakes and come to the table, this could make the situation quickly take a turn for the worse and threaten the very possibility for a diplomatic solution. That is why disciplinary action must be considered very carefully, even if such measures are to be included in a UNSC resolution. Low-intensity action acceptable to all nations should be adopted first, and then the U.N. can move to the next stage depending on the North’s actions. It would be a solution in stages.
South Korea has to continue play an independent role, one that increases the likelihood of dialogue, while it continues to work with the international community. Looking back, on not one occasion has the U.S. or North Korea been the first to come to the negotiation table. It was South Korea, through its "profound proposal" last year, that got the six-party talks restarted and brought about the September 19 Joint Statement in Beijing. South Korea should have strengthened its leadership role this past spring, when rumors of a North Korean missile test first began. But the government, not wanting to offend hard-liners in Korea and abroad, lost that opportunity, and so bears some degree of responsibility for the recent nuclear test. It was irresponsible for President Roh to say "Korea’s role has shrunk."
Policy of engagement must not be abandoned
The accusations about the engagement policy toward Pyongyang miss the mark. The current government’s policy of engagement developed out of former president Kim Dae-jung’s "Sunshine" policy. Its goal is to build a foundation for peaceful reunification by indirectly encouraging the North to move towards reform and openness by increasing cross-border exchange through reconciliation and cooperative programs. The main opposition Grand National Party’s claim that this policy caused the nuclear test can only be because it has misunderstood the policy to be a panacea of some sort, or because the party wants to distort things for its own political advantage. It is precisely due to the engagement policy making progress in areas of economic cooperation and exchange that there have been calls for relations with the North to include political and military contact, as well. The reason there has not been complete chaos in the wake of the nuclear test is because the situation is manageable under the current engagement policy.
Calls for the private-led Gaeseong (Kaesong) Industrial Park and Mt. Geumgang (Kumgang) tourism project to be halted are also being made out of haste. Money paid to North Korean workers at the industrial park amounts to mere billions of won, but the value of the enterprise is far greater when you consider how it contributes to the lessening of tensions and the increase in economic exchange. It is short-sighted to demand the South put an end to the industrial complex in order to make economic sanctions more effective, as that view fails to take into account that the North’s military moved north of the complex and would move back down to the demilitarized zone if the operation were to be shut down. Perhaps nothing can be done about the fact that cooperation and nongovernmental exchange are going to be hurt by this nuclear test, but even so, the government needs to be careful about initiating action in response.
There’s no way to know exactly what Pyongyang’s intentions are, but there is also no reason to cut off North-South relations. The effort to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully and not just punish the North for its test must continue, if only for the sake of guaranteeing the survival of the Korean people. South Korea needs to be changing the direction of how this unfolds little by little, and not just following along.
[Editorial] South Korea still has a leadership role to play |
