hankyoreh

South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha (center) and participants in the 2017 Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Forum pose for a commemorative photo at the Grand Hilton Hotel in the Seodaemun District of Seoul on Nov. 16. Participants are holding a Soohorang stuffed animal

After US President Donald Trump claimed on Nov. 15 that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping had “agreed that we would not accept a so-called ‘freeze-for-freeze’ agreement,” experts on Northeast Asia who were gathered in Seoul on Nov. 16 turned their attention to the subject. The freeze-for-freeze is a Chinese proposed solution to the North Korean nuclear issue involving a simultaneous and temporary suspension of North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile tests and the US and South Korea’s joint military exercises.

Chinese scholars who attended the 2017 Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Forum, which was held at a hotel in the Hongje neighborhood of Seoul on the morning of Nov. 16, emphasized that the freeze-for-freeze is still a valid approach. “In the statement released after his visit to China, President Trump said that North Korea’s denuclearization must be comprehensive, verifiable and irrevocable. At the same time, we must take a realistic approach. It’s a little late for [North Korea’s] immediate denuclearization,” said Shen Dingli, associate dean at Fudan University, who was a discussant in the plenary session.

“If the US and South Korea scale down their military exercises a little and ask North Korea not to test nuclear weapons, I think the situation will improve in 10 years and that denuclearization will occur in 20 years,” Shen said. “North Korea is not going to give up its nuclear weapons. Rather than telling them to give up all their nukes all at once, we need to reduce the threat by stages and from various angles.”

A remark by Xia Liping, director of the Center for Polar and Oceanic Studies at Tongji University, who participated in a session on regional security that afternoon, got people’s attention: “If President Trump really wants China to take steps to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, he needs to help China. I think that the Americans should stop their joint military exercises with South Korea. If the US halted its exercises and North Korea refused to stop developing nuclear weapons, China would have a legitimate reason to impose the most severe sanctions on North Korea.”

“Given the recent acceleration of the timetable for North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles, China seems to be getting more anxious as well. Since a freeze-for-freeze or anything of that sort will be useless if North Korea declares itself to be a nuclear weapon state, the attitude toward the freeze-for-freeze is apparently shifting inside China as well,” said one diplomatic source.

“We have a good opportunity right now, and I think that we need to take it. We don’t have a lot of time at the moment,” Xia said. While these remarks are made by scholars and not Chinese government officials, they are clearly at odds with Trump’s claim that the US and China agreed to write off the freeze-for-freeze as a possible solution.

“There is a problem with the freeze-for-freeze,” said James Schoff, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who expressed the American viewpoint. He contended that a freeze on North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile testing “cannot be exchanged for a freeze on South Korea-US military exercises.” Instead, he said, “we could see a quid-pro-quo compromise with North Korea related to its conventional forces, such as sending those forces to the rear.”

But the proposal that Schoff prefers is seeking a solution through “five-party talks” involving South Korea, the US, China, Japan and Russia. “We are at a new turning point entailing risks that are far too great. What we need is a five-party initiative,” he said. “Making a proposal with a single voice through five-party talks could sweeten the pot for North Korea. I don’t think we have any other options.”

Another scholar agreeing with the proposal for five-party talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue was Kazuto Suzuki, a professor at Hokkaido University. “The proposal for five-party talks is extremely important. We need to maximize pressure on North Korea to bring about a change in North Korea’s behavior,” Suzuki said. Earlier in the day, Oleg Davydov, a former special envoy for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that “The five countries of Russia, China, South Korea, the US and Japan need to work together to convince North Korea to open its doors. All the parties would be taking a step forward.”

“In regard to five-party cooperation, the important question is how we go about convincing North Korea,” said Kim Jun-hyeong, a professor at Handong Global University. “Resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through multilateral cooperation would be better than the Trump administration’s unilateralism,” Kim told the Hankyoreh. “The key, however, is North Korea’s participation.” Kim argued that “engagement and sanctions must go hand in hand” in order to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.

“If [the international community] puts sanctions on North Korea, it will weaken the North Korean economy, but that won’t change the North Korea’s resolve [to possess nuclear weapons]. If North Korea is isolated from the international community and placed under sanctions, its hatred will grow. Diplomacy needs to be given another chance. Along with sanctions, we need to offer a package [that can persuade North Korea],” argued Enkhbaigali Byambasuren, director of Mongolia’s Institute for Strategic Studies.

On a different topic, Yoshiji Nogami, president and director general of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, said that the Indo-Pacific Strategy, which has recently been the subject of controversy, “consists of large democratic states. The geographic element is secondary, and the systems and values that they share are more important.”

“There is a misunderstanding about the concepts of a regional security mechanism and a security alliance. A security mechanism is entirely feasible, but it would be different from a security alliance, which requires ironclad agreements, including bilateral military agreements. The two should not be confused,” Nogami insisted.

Although he was not explicit on this point, he appears to have been expressing his opinion about South Korea’s declaration of opposition to entering an alliance with the US and Japan – which is was one of the “three no’s” that have recently been under debate in South Korea. “Japan, the US and South Korea have said that trilateral cooperation is important, but the current political structure is making trilateral cooperation impossible,” Nogami said.

By Kim Ji-eun, staff reporter

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