hankyoreh

Paju

The prospects for resuming inter-Korean dialogue are looking brighter, with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un answering a dialogue proposal by South Korea’s Unification Preparatory Committee by saying there was “no reason we can’t have the highest-level talks.”

Indeed, Pyongyang seems to be working to shape a more favorable climate for dialogue by avoiding denunciations of South Korea through Jan. 4 after Kim‘s New Year’s address. On the South Korean side, numerous senior officials who are normally unavailable to reporters have gone on record with their desire for dialogue and the need to “push the signs of change in North Korea‘s New Year’s address in the direction of improved relations.”

But many hurdles remain before any practical improvements are achieved. First on the list is coordinating the dialogue format. On Dec. 29, Minister of Unification Ryoo Kihl-jae suggested dialogue between the Unification Preparatory Committee and its North Korean counterpart. “We’re hoping either the government or private-sector vice chairman of the committee can meet with the North in a mutually agreed upon location,” Ryoo said at the time. The phrasing suggested the framework would be half-and-half official and private.

In contrast, Kim’s address for the New Year mentioned only “senior-level talks,” “talks by area,” and “talks at the highest level.” All referred to dialogue between governments. The Ministry of Unification responded by saying it would not insist on any one format, adding that it was “open to all forms of dialogue.” But some are predicting an upcoming tug-of-war in the coordination process.

The two sides haven’t bridged differences in focus either. South Korea still regards reunions among members of divided families as its top priority, while North Korea hopes for a lifting of the May 24 Measures, sanctions barring trade and exchange that were imposed in the wake of the 2010 sinking of the ROKS Cheonan warship, and a resumption of the tourism at Mt. Keumgang that was halted after a South Korean tourist’s 2008 shooting death.

The first question is how readily Pyongyang will respond to Seoul’s top priority, the reunion issue. It previously agreed to a reunion event in Feb. 2014; far from producing any gains, it only resulted in relations worsening. Observers are now suggesting it could demand some “collateral” this time with the May 24 measures or tourism to Mt. Keumgang.

Another question is how much of a change Seoul shows on the May 24 Measures. Ryoo suggested some room for maneuvering on the measures in remarks on Dec. 29, saying the two sides “can discuss all issues of interest to South and North.” But he continues to maintain that “responsible actions” from the North on the 2010 Cheonan sinking have to come first.

North Korea has also demanded a halt to joint military exercises by South Korea and the US, including the Key Resolve/Foal Eagle and Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises. With South Korean military authorities insisting they have no plans to halt the exercises, Pyongyang’s response could prove an obstacle to dialogue. But some observers have argued the issue is unlikely to be a deal-breaker, noting that the same exercises continued under the administrations of Presidents Kim Dae-jung (1998-2003) and Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2008), which had much more dialogue with the North.

Another issue is the scattering of propaganda leaflets in North Korea by conservative South Korean groups. This spring, the United Nations is opening a North Korean human rights office in Seoul. Pyongyang‘s objections, and Seoul’s response, could create a new twist in the dialogue saga.

By Park Byong-su, senior staff writer

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