hankyoreh

000 people gather at Kim Il-sung Square in Pyongyang to demonstrate their intention to support the content of the joint New Year’s Day editorial

The 2010 outlook on the Korean Peninsula is a somewhat bright one. As we recall, last year started off with tensions high and a possibility of a military clash between North Korea and South Korea. We are astonished at how much has since changed.

Contributing to this favorable outlook is that will be no regime change in the administrations of South Korea or the U.S. serving as a factor of instability, as they did in 2008 and 2008, respectively. According to an open-ended questionnaire administered to 42 scholars and former high-level officials on inter-Korean issues, conducted annually by the Hankyoreh and the Institute for Far Eastern Studies, the forecast suggests a high probability of a third inter-Korean summit within the year.

The Hankyoreh is focusing its reporting on analysis of two major items in the survey’s results. The first item is of the respondents‘ analysis of a possibility of an inter-Korean summit, and the second is of the respondents’ analysis of progress on the North Korean nuclear issue. What follows below is the second report with a focus on the possibility of restarting six-party talks.

Predictions for 2010 developments in the North Korean nuclear issue take as their starting point the results of the December visit to North Korea by Stephen Bosworth, U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, the first formal dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. since the administration of President Barack Obama took office. Both the U.S. and North Korea afterwards announced that they had reached a “shared understanding” on the need to carry out the terms of the September 19 Joint Statement and to resume the six-party talks.

While North Korea still has not formally announced that it will be returning to the six-party talks, experts on issues pertaining to the Korean Peninsula accept as a given that talks will soon resume after one or two more rounds of dialogue between North Korea and the U.S. Jang Yong-seok, research director at the Institute for Peace Affairs, predicts, “As long as nothing momentous happens to affect the talks, and even if something does happen, as long as it is not dealt with in a way that breaks down mutual trust then there is a strong likelihood the six-party talks will formally resume within the first half of the year.”

Regarding the timeline for North Korea‘s return to the six-party talks, other experts predict that it will take place before April’s Nuclear Security Summit and May‘s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, which deal primarily with issues of nuclear terrorism and non-proliferation. Their basis for this prediction is the idea that the U.S. government will actively attempt to bring North Korea back to the talks in order to have some achievements to show at the two rather significant international meetings. Analysts say there is an additional concern that going into the second half of the year without taking these opportunities could waste the energy from efforts that have been made thus far for resuming the talks. This was the opinion presented by most experts, including former Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun and University of North Korean Studies Professor Koo Kap-woo.

Of course a number of experts also agree that resuming six-party talks does not in itself guarantee smooth sailing. Kim Yeon-cheol, head of the Hankyoreh Peace Research Institute, predicts a rocky road ahead for when the six-party talks resume. Kim explained, “The nuclear issue has a deep and broad-reaching history, so it will by necessity have to go through a complex and continuous process of negotiations.”

Yu Ho-yul, professor of Korea University, also warned against excessive optimism regarding the talks. Yu notes, “North Korea is emphasizing a peace regime for the Korean Peninsula and improvements in DPRK-U.S. relations, whereas the U.S. and the other participant nations in the six-party talks are focusing on the North Korean nuclear issue.”

Experts are also predicting that if the talks resume, the first hurdle will be determining how to approach the convening of a Korean Peninsula peace regime forum mentioned in the September 19 Joint Statement. Since late 2009, North Korea has been raising this peace regime as a major issue and claiming that its nuclearization originated as a response to the antagonistic policies of the U.S. For this reason, its position is that discussions should focus on the issues of denuclearization and a peace agreement or a peace regime in response to denuclearization.

In contrast, South Korea’s position is that a peace regime can only be discussed after a certain degree of progress has been made in denuclearization discussions. An expert who worked at the Cheong Wa Dae (the presidential office in South Korea or Blue House) during the Roh Moo-hyun administration says, “The key is in what approach the Obama administration takes.” The former official suggests that even if a peace regime forum were to be launched relatively soon, discussions on the matter would vary in accordance with the speed of progress in denuclearization.

Interest is also focusing on the possibility of high-level DPRK-U.S. dialogues in 2010 involving someone at the level of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or higher. Observers say this could be taken as a barometer of the political determination of both North Korea and the U.S. to achieve a breakthrough in the nuclear situation. Out of 42 experts surveyed, eleven answered that the possibility was slight, including University of North Korean Studies Professor Yang Mu-jin, former Unification Minister Kang In-duk and Sejong Institute Senior Researcher Hong Hyun-ik. In their analysis, North Korea likely wants such dialogue, but the U.S. will not rush things. An expert at a state think tank noted that the North Korean nuclear issue has been relegated to the bottom in the list of U.S. policy priorities and said, “The U.S.‘s interest is in the Middle East.”

In contrast, seventeen of the experts polled predict “a chance” or “a strong chance” for dialogue, including Dongguk University Professor Koh Yu-hwan, Woosuk University Professor Song Jeong-ho and Soongsil University Professor Lee Jung-chul. Their views support a forecast of favorable conditions for high-level dialogue as the U.S. takes a political gamble to hasten North Korea’s determination to abandon its nuclear program or North Korea takes some kind of steps towards advancing denuclearization.

The remaining twelve experts are taking more of a wait-and-see approach. In particular, a former senior member of the Unification Ministry expressed the view that Hilary Rodham Clinton‘s decision about whether or not to run in the next U.S. presidential election might be a variable.

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