Lee’s N. Korea policy criticized at ASEAN Regional Forum

Posted on : 2008-07-26 15:30 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
Foreign ministers support continuation of inter-Korean dialogue and implementation of summit agreement

Foreign affairs and security experts who are working on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ Regional Forum in Singapore, a stage for multilateral diplomacy, have pointed out that the administration of President Lee Myung-bak needs to reshape its policy on North Korea by clarifying that it will implement two summit accords with the North, the June 15 Joint Declaration and the October 4 Summit Declaration.

Providing evidence that the international community has raised the issue of the North Korean policy by the South Korean government, the experts cited a statement issued by foreign ministers of 27 nations participating in the regional security forum that “expressed strong support for continued development of inter-Korean dialogue based on the October 4 Summit Declaration.”

The United States is also believed to have raised the issue of South Korea’s hard-line policy toward the North, though this is dependent on progress in North Korea-U.S. relations, the experts said.

Park Geon-young, a professor at Catholic University, said, “As significant progress is made in North Korea-U.S. relations, it is possible that the administration of President Lee Myung-bak may dismantle the backbone of its North Korean policy, called Vision 3000: Denuclearization and Openness, after consultations with the U.S.” Under the Vision 3000 policy, President Lee has pledged that the South Korean government will aid North Korea to achieve US$3,000 in per capita income within 10 years if Pyongyang completely gives up its nuclear weapons program.

Kim Geun-sik, a professor of politics and diplomacy at Kyungnam University, said, “The tone of the chairman’s statement from the ASEAN Regional Forum, which includes the participation of the U.S., reflects critical views about the Lee Myung-bak administration’s North Korean policy.”

Despite progress in the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, the South Korean government has little room to maneuver within that forum and on other international diplomatic issues due to souring relations with the North.

President Lee’s North Korea policy agency received a chilly reception at the ASEAN Regional Forum in Singapore. Now, it seems that the North Korea policy promoted by President Lee, who has shunned the June 15 Joint Declaration and October 4 Summit Declaration, has been “rebuffed” and Lee was “advised to revise” his policy on the North by the 27 nations, which include the participants of the six-party talks.

The faces of the South Korean delegates to the ASEAN forum, which included Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan, were stony as they traveled back to South Korea after the close of the forum on July 25. A high-ranking member of the South Korean delegation said, “Things didn’t go as we’d hoped.”

In the chairman’s statement, written after opinions had been gathered from foreign ministers of 27 participating nations, the host state Singapore said the ministers had “expressed strong support for continued development of inter-Korean dialogue based on the October 4 Summit Declaration.” Inclusion of this information might have come after China wielded its influence on the ASEAN member nations and the United States turned a blind eye, many observers say.

For the United States and China, which have been in tune with progress at the six-party talks and geopolitical stabilization of the Korean Peninsula, the increasing strain in inter-Korean relations and the recent shooting death of a South Korean tourist by a North Korean soldier at a Mount Geumgang resort site might be worrisome, the observers say.

According to the chairman’s statement, the ministers of the 27 participating nations were pleased that the informal meeting of foreign ministers from the six-party talks had been convened and reiterated their support for the six-party negotiations. They also called for an effective mechanism to verify North Korea’s declaration of its nuclear weapons program and reflected their expectation that the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005 would be fully implemented. In addition, they expressed strong support for continued development of inter-Korean dialogue based on the October 4 Summit Declaration and their hope that the shooting death of a South Korean tourist at Mount Geumgang would be resolved swiftly. The statement [[expressed positive support for]] progress in inter-Korean relations and geopolitical stabilization of the Korean Peninsula.

The South Korean delegation, however, appeared shaken by the chairman’s statement. The South Korean diplomats had attempted to include in the statement the phrase “the Mount Geumgang incident will be resolved through dialogue by resuming government-level talks between South and North Korea.” They also tried to have the phrase “based on the October 4 Summit Declaration” removed from the statement.

On the contrary, North Korean officials had tried to insert the phrase “support for the June 15 Joint Declaration and October 4 Summit Declaration” into the statement. They were opposed to including comments about the Mount Geumgang incident.

In the end, the chairman’s statement was largely written as North Korea had hoped, handing the South Korean government a diplomatic defeat.

Kim Yeon-cheol, the head of the Hankyoreh Peace Research Institute, said, “The participating nations could not have understood why the South Korean government has not taken action on the June 15 Joint Declaration and the October 4 Summit Declaration, both of which are strongly supported by the United Nations and the international community. This is a serious regression in South Korean diplomacy.” Such diplomatic isolation was the result of the Lee administration’s lukewarm attitude toward implementing the summit accords, Kim said.

A high-ranking Blue House official tried to tone down the meaning of the chairman’s statement, saying, “The ARF Chairman’s Statement includes references to things that have happened over the past year. Other than that, the inclusion of the October 4 declaration had no particular meaning.”

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

Most viewed articles