hankyoreh

None of the expectations hung on the North Korea visit of a delegation led by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter came to fruition. Seoul and Pyongyang showed a curious approach around the time of the visit, as though attempting to use it as an excuse for not engaging in dialogue rather than an opportunity for dialogue or approaching one another. The situation brought on frustration with no clear end in sight. That said, the opportunities did not disappear, nor did any new obstacles surface. Carter’s visit did produce results in some sense. It is now a question of how to take them and take advantage of them.
Through Carter’s delegation, Pyongyang sent a message to Seoul that it was ready to engage in dialogue without any preconditions, including a possible summit meeting. However, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, who gave the impression of intentionally avoiding a meeting with the delegation, made the bewildering move of summoning the group back to the meeting site on its way to South Korea to communicate his intentions indirectly. This behavior inevitably gives the dialogue proposal the impression of insincerity, calling into question its significance.
As though waiting to pounce, certain South Korean authorities and conservative news outlets downplayed the proposal from Pyongyang and took issue with the fact that there was no new content to it, as well as the third-party method of communication itself. They seemed to regard it as fortunate that expectations were dashed, and even disparaged the purity of the delegation’s motives. Even before the visit, the mood was unwelcoming. In many cases, the response from these quarters was to emphasize that they were not harboring any great expectations and to continue the line that apologies for the Cheonan sinking and artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island must be preconditions for dialogue.
North Korea’s vague behavior certainly may have revealed the limitations of its own system, with its failure, or unwillingness, to see a larger prize.
But there is a strong chance that this attitude from Seoul was also a significant factor. In an April 23 Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland memorandum, North Korea declared that if South Korea insisted on preconditions, it would “no longer cling to the notion of dialogue.” Both countries have seemingly took a path of infeasibility, racing in that direction. The result was little hope for the realization of dialogue.
It is not the case, however, that there were no accomplishments. While North Korea’s proposal may not have contained anything perceived as new, this does mark the first time that Kim Jong-il has explicitly stated to South Korea that he is willing to engage in dialogue, including a possible summit meeting.
Some within the government have viewed this in a positive light, looking forward to more concrete proposals from Pyongyang. There is a strong chance that some measure of flexibility will emerge in the three-stage approach plan for the six-party talks. It is time to cultivate such seeds of change.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]