 |
|
Veterans of previous summits
|
A third inter-Korean summit should have the goals of denuclearization, increasing exchange and cooperation, and establishing peace
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un sent his younger sister, Workers’ Party Central Committee first vice director Kim Yo-jong, to make a proposal on Feb. 10 for a “third inter-Korean summit” with South Korean President Moon Jae-in. The Pyeongchang Olympics have resulted in some dramatic developments in inter-Korean dialogue, but the international community – including the US and Japan – have adhered to an approach of sanctions and pressure against Pyongyang. For Moon, who needs to make some headway in improving North Korea-US relations before the Olympics end in late March, this proposal represents both an opportunity and a challenge. The Hankyoreh listened to suggestions from five experts in inter-Korean relations who were involved in the first summit in 2000 and the second in 2007. ■ Baek Jong-chun, chairman, Sejong Institute (former chief presidential national security advisor) “An inter-Korean summit would have three aims: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, expanding inter-Korean exchange and cooperation, and defusing military tensions and establishing peace on the Korean Peninsula. The third [summit] would have the same goal as the second. But the ‘conditions,’ as President Moon put it, are quite different. The second summit took place at a stage when North Korea was developing nuclear weapons and missiles, but the nuclear issue was in a process of resolution through the Six-Party Talks. Now we’re in a position where we have to conclude that North Korea has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them over long distances. The US and international community say they’re going to apply sanctions and pressure until North Korea shown an intent to denuclearize, but it’s not going to be easy to get that from them. There needs to be support from the public at home. The second [summit] was also tough, but now the [South Korean] government has even less room to maneuver because the North now has nuclear capabilities. If we do go [to the North], we’re going to also have to address the issue of peace on the Korean Peninsula. That’s going to require some time. The government is going to need to do some careful planning and go when they’re really capable of receiving tangible results.” ■ Lee Jae-joung, superintendent, Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education (former Minister of Unification) “It’s unprecedented for Kim Jong-un to personally make this kind of proposal. North Korea appears to be firmly committed to holding a summit and restoring inter-Korean relations. Hopefully, the [South Korean] government will take proactive measures and get itself prepared. It’s important to have the agreement and consent of the international community. There also needs to be a process of forming the right climate domestically. With the 2007 summit, the two areas where North Korean said the environment had been ‘put in place’ to hold a summit were the restoring of trust between South and North and changes in the international community. The most important thing, however, is that South and North are at the center of peace on the Korean Peninsula. Also, while we can regard it as our goal to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, that shouldn’t be a precondition. Rather than placing conditions on things, it’s important for us to have dialogue that allows us to take a first step toward denuclearization and permanent peace on the peninsula. This seems to me like a golden opportunity for the Korean Peninsula.” ■ Jeong Se-hyun, president, Korea Peace Forum (former Minister of Unification) “It’s not easy living with the fear that war might break out if North Korea keeps on the way it has been. It looks like there’s a calculation here, where they want to use inter-Korean dialogue as a way of getting to North Korea-US dialogue and turn the situation around. An inter-Korean summit could mean a rapid upgrade in terms of the pace of inter-Korean relations. But there needs to be cooperation with the US. The President talked about ‘forming the right conditions.’ Those conditions aren’t something we can form on our own; North Korea also has to do the right things. We can’t proceed with a mind-set of ‘keeping things among the Korean people.’ Cooperation with the US starts with the issue of joint military exercises. The US needs to be persuaded to change its [North Korea] policy approach to something that starts with a freeze [to the North Korean nuclear program] or moratorium [on nuclear and missile testing], with the ultimate goal of bringing about North Korea’s denuclearization. It’s not possible to promise denuclearization right off the bat. The US needs to send a special envoy – something like the director of national security. They need to hold high-level talks, and North Korea needs to be encouraged not to pose any obstacles. That’s how you go about forming the right conditions.” ■ Lee Jong-seok, senior research fellow, Sejong Institute (former Minister of Unification) “It appears that North Korea’s proposal of a third inter-Korean summit is an attempt to achieve strategic improvements to inter-Korean relations rather than using them as a one-off for the Pyeongchang Olympics. When North Korea declared its nuclear armament ‘complete’ after the test-launch of the Hwasong-15 in late November, its aim was to get things turned toward dialogue. North Korea has a need or vision for general improvements in relations, but that’s currently in conflict with the international sanctions against it. From its position in the middle [of the US and North Korea], the South Korean government needs to get North Korea to adopt a flexible stance on denuclearization and keep the halt to nuclear and ICBM tests going. While that’s going on, it needs to get the US to go from an aggressive, sanctions-only policy approach toward something that opens up the possibility of dialogue, and it needs to allow China to play a role as well. There’s also a justification for sending a special envoy, since the North sent one. It’s a matter of using ‘indirect dialogue’ to form the right conditions.” ■ Park Jie-won, National Assembly representative, Party for Democracy and Peace (former Minister of Culture and Tourism) “North Korea’s invitation to President Moon seems to send the message that it wants to initiate dialogue with the US by improving relations with the South. I think it’s similar to the way it used the June 15 summit [in 2000] to achieve the September 19 agreement [joint statement from the Six-Party Talks in 2005]. But an inter-Korean summit isn’t going to be possible with the US’s cooperation and trust. Kim Jong-un is also hoping to hear the US’s position through President Moon. [North Korea’s] military parade was smaller than expected and ended quietly. This comes across as a request for the US to do the same with its joint military exercises with the South. As far as a summit goes, the sooner the better. These are people who have experience with the second summit, so they’ll do a good job.” By Kim Ji-eun, Noh Ji-won, and Kim Kyu-nam, staff reporters Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]
