hankyoreh

Kim Yeon-chul

By Park Byong-su, Song Chae Kyung-hwa and Kim Nam-il, staff reporters

Park Sun-seong

What about an exit strategy?　

Experts on inter-Korean relations suggest that the way to escape from the crisis on the Korean peninsula is through inter-Korean talks. However, there are also some who argue that, insofar as it is premature to propose dialogue, the South Korean government first needs to work on its strategic plan for finding a solution to strained relations with the North.

"Dialogue is the only way out of the current standoff, which could be set off by the slightest spark," said Yang Mu-jin, professor at the University of North Korean Studies, advocating an assertive approach to dialogue.

"In conflict and confrontation, North Korea is bound to take the lead," Yang said. ”If we are to get control of the situation while maintaining stability, the only option is dialogue and cooperation."

In regard to how dialogue could be accomplished, various options have been suggested, including sending an envoy to the North, making behind the scenes contact, and mediation by a third country.

Regarding recent proposals by South Korean politicians to send an envoy to the North, Park Sun-seong said, "If we send an envoy, it could be someone who is in the confidence of Park Geun-hye. But if that doesn’t work out, we could also think about sending a high-ranking US politician who could convey the messages both of the US and South Korea."

But there are other observers who say that openly sending an envoy could be problematic since since North Korea‘s attitude is still unclear. Instead, they argue, it could be more effective to get the process off the ground by first making behind the scenes contact with the North before sending a special envoy.

Kim Yeon-chul said there was no reason to eschew dialogue, but added that it would be "inappropriate" to send a special envoy at the moment. "The situation right now is so tangled that it would be impossible to resolve with a one-off visit by any envoy," he explained. "The purpose of dialogue is to determine the other side’s intentions, and also to calm the crisis. At times like this, you could get more from having behind-the-scenes contact."

Yang Mu-jin suggested that a third party could bridge the gap. ”If making overtures for dialogue would seem too much like ‘begging,’ then we could use another country as a bridge in between,“ he said. "In the past, China was a mediator with the 2006 nuclear test, and the US with the inter-Korean denuclearization talks in 2011."

"That way, we could proceed along the path toward inter-Korean dialogue, North Korea-US dialogue, and four-party or six-party talks," he continued.

But some suggested the present moment might not be the right time to look for a breakthrough based on dialogue. Koh Yu-hwan, a professor at Dongguk University, was not sure that this is the right moment for talks, although he did say, "dialogue in some form is needed to turn things around."

According to Koh, the Foal Eagle exercises between South Korean and the US, which continue until the end of May, are likely to prevent any change in the current impasse. "Right now, we need to reach some kind of agreement at the South Korea-US summit talks in May, forming the right policy approach - whether it’s the old integrated approach or the ‘trust-building process’", he said. "Then we can look for a method that will get the ball rolling with Pyongyang."

Korea National Diplomatic Academy professor Yun Duk-min said Pyongyang was working according to its own internal plan with the recent provocations and was very likely to reject a special envoy visit if offered.

"We should be taking a cool-headed approach now," Yun said. "Internally, we should be working on developing a substantial North Korea policy, one that the US, China, and the rest of the international community will support."

Chang Yong-seok, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, said formulating a strategy should take precedence over resuming dialogue.

"Washington is going on about ‘North Korea fatigue,’ and all the Park Geun-hye administration does is repeat the same generalities about a ‘trust-building process,’" Chang said. "Before saying yes or no to dialogue, we first need to concern ourselves with the government’s lack of any credible ideas for North Korea, or any will or system to solve the problem."

What is the cause of the crisis?
　
The question of Kim Jong-un’s need to consolidate his power 　

Asked about the cause of the exceptional intensity of North Korea’s actions to escalate tension on the Korean Peninsula, experts point to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s political needs in the process of taking power and a strong response to the US and South Korea.

"Kim Jong-un cannot back down because he has to show the powerful elites and the North Korean people that he is presenting a strong front to the US, South Korea and China," said Park Sun-seong, a professor at Dongguk University.

"The fundamental reason is to seek stability for the Kim Jong-un’s regime,“ said Yun Deok-min, a professor at Korea National Diplomatic Academy. "Since there is a lot of dissatisfaction among the military leaders, Kim is trying to strengthen his support base."

Chang Yong-seok, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, drew attention to Kim Jong-un’s intention to gain control of the military. "We must pay attention to the elements of instability inside North Korea," Chang said. "In the process of taking power, it is important for Kim to gain control of the military."

South Korea and the US’s stern responses to actions by the North are also identified as part of the reason the North has been increasing its military provocations.

"Since the crisis has been building up over the past five years without an opportunity for dialogue being made, the crisis has been escalating with increasing speed,“ said Kim Yeon-cheol, a professor at Inje University. ”There had been a cycle of provocations, sanctions, negotiations, and provocations, but over the past five years negotiations have been missing in this cycle. This has meant that provocations and sanctions have occurred ever more precipitously.“

"Tensions are increasing because South Korea and the US have responded to North Korea’s military provocations with strong military defensive measures instead of with diplomacy," said Park Sun-seong.

Other analysts think that North Korea is trying to be recognized as a nuclear-armed state and to reset its relationships with South Korea and the US.

"The fuss that North Korea made about its third nuclear test is an example of noise marketing, as the country tries to get official recognition for the test," said Koh Yu-hwan, another Dongguk University professor. "The North intends to wipe the slate clean and reorient itself according to the current state of political and military affairs. This is the point where we need to turn down the volume, but we have instead responded strongly, escalating the situation."

"The North is shifting the focus to the instability on the Korean peninsula," said Yang Mu-jin, professor at the University of North Korean Studies. "It is demanding that South Korean President Park Geun-hye choose dialogue or confrontation, and it is demanding that the US choose dialogue or nuclear war. The key objective is pushing South Korea and the US to alter their policy toward North Korea and engage in dialogue."

What’s next for inter-Korean relations?
　
Wait and see what comes of the ‘trust-building process’　

The experts were divided on the best long-term vision for inter-Korean relations, but most agreed that a patient "wait-and-see" approach was the best response to the Park administration’s "trust-building process".

Yoo Ho-yeol, a professor of North Korea studies at Korea University, said there was a chance of more sincere dialogue with Pyongyang through the trust-building process once the present crisis subsides to some extent.

"I don’t think there will be any speeding up of the process as we saw with the Sunshine Policy, or worsening of the situation as with the Lee Myung-bak administration, where personal feelings really soured," Yoo said.

Kim Yeon-chul said the current crisis would be a test of whether the trust-building process actually works when things are out of hand. "It’s basically a forecast for how inter-Korean relations are going to pan out over the mid to long term," he said, pointing to non-military solutions and initiative from Seoul in getting the six-party talks back off the ground as potential starting points.

Other experts said that with no real options available to relieve the tensions, the summit scheduled between Seoul and Washington in early May should be a starting point for a more long-term conception of inter-Korean relations.

"I think the policy of the trust-building process is basically the formula for dealing with North Korea when they act like this," said Koh Yu-hwan. "You have the leaders of South Korea and the US reaching some kind of agreement on the best approach, and then they try to get North Korea to respond.“

Some suggested that inter-Korean relations should be separated from the nuclear issue in the South Korean government’s strategy, which is the opposite of the Lee administration’s approach.

”The trust-building process is similar in some ways to the June 15 Declaration [of 2000] by the Kim Dae-jung administration,“ said Yang Mu-jin. ”It requires a more proactive mind-set, the idea of creating opportunities rather than waiting for them to be handed to you.“

Yang said Seoul should work on figuring out the best pace and scope of developments in inter-Korean relations based on the amount of progress made in resolving the nuclear issue through dialogue between Washington and Pyongyang or at the six-party talks.

"The Park administration needs to let go of the idea of doing everything on its own and approach things in a way that prioritizes the six-party talks," he said.

Dongguk University professor Park Soon-sung also said the process would not succeed if it was narrowly conceived as "we‘ll do something for you once there’s enough trust."

Yun Duk-min said the situation called for a ”comprehensive road map."

"The international community has been negotiating with Pyongyang for almost 20 years, and North Korea hasn‘t changed at all," he said. "The reason is that everyone was approaching it separately: Seoul with inter-Korean relations, Japan with the abductee issue, Beijing with regional stability, and Washington with nuclear non-proliferation."

"We need to talk to the other countries in the region and create an action plan and road map that brings the nuclear issue and everything else together," Yun advised.

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