[Correspondent’s column] The butterfly effect of failed N. Korea-US talks

Posted on : 2016-03-11 18:06 KST Modified on : 2016-03-11 18:06 KST
Sputtered attempts at holding dialogue may have spurred recent cascade of thorny developments on the peninsula

The situation on the Korean Peninsula just keeps going from bad to worse. Whatever signs of improvement are faint to the point of invisibility. Where did it all go wrong?
A clue may be found in a Wall Street Journal article from Feb. 21 titled “U.S. Agreed to North Korea Peace Talks Before Latest Nuclear Test.” Apart from its references to exploratory dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington, the article offers little in terms of specific facts or interpretation. Nevertheless, its publication made it clear that bilateral discussions on a peace agreement did take place sometime around Nov. 2015, and that those discussions failed to produce any substantive results.
In retrospect, the breakdown of those talks can be seen as having had a sort of butterfly effect result with an unexpectedly large impact on the way things have deteriorated ever since. Like the tiny wings of a butterfly leading ultimately to a hurricane, it seems to have been the starting point for the events that led to North Korea’s nuclear test and long-range rocket launch this past January and February.
The peace agreement discussions were first proposed by North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Su-yong in a keynote speech at the UN in New York on Oct. 1, a suggestion that the North’s UN mission then formally communicated to Washington. The differences ultimately proved too wide to bridge: Pyongyang said it would only agree to discussing a peace agreement, while Washington countered that denuclearization should be part of the peace agreement discussions.
According to Washington experts, North Korea may not have been entirely unwilling to discuss the denuclearization issue at some point, depending on how things proceeded. At the same time, it doesn’t appear to have confirmed this with the US government at any official meeting. Having failed to receive a clear signal, the US backed off. Distrust deepened, and neither side found traction for dialogue to continue.
Since then, both sides have opted for a hard line. On Dec. 8, the US State and Treasury Departments unexpectedly listed the strategic military command in charge of North Korea‘s ballistic missile operations as a target for sanctions. The decision was ostensibly based on several medium- and long-range ballistic missile launches conducted a year before in 2014. In retrospect, I get the impression that the measure - which seemed to come out of nowhere at the time - was a way for the US to let off steam over the failure of its bilateral dialogue attempt. It was around a week later on Dec. 15 that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un responded by signing the final order to go ahead with a nuclear test.
The breakdown of the attempt at talks may also explain another puzzle. Washington experts hinted that the Park Geun-hye administration appeared as recently as late November as if it might show more flexibility on improving inter-Korean relations - including a resumption of tourism at Mt. Keumgang - at vice minister-level inter-Korean talks then scheduled for Dec. 11 and 12. Some experts also predicted that US might grudgingly agree to the tourism resumption.

Yi Yong-in
Yi Yong-in

But a senior Seoul official who visited Washington just before the inter-governmental talks continued to mention the US variable in connection with Mt. Keumgang tourism - indirectly, but insistently. It wasn’t taken seriously at the time because of the optimistic prospects that had been “input” beforehand. On reflection, it seems unlikely that Washington would ever have sent positive signals on resuming tourism when its own discussions with Pyongyang had broken down. It‘s also another case of the Park administration opting to let itself be swept along at a decisive moment rather than taking the initiative in trying to improve the situation.

When the possibility of peace agreement discussions was first mentioned in the US after a meeting of the US and Chinese Foreign Ministers on Feb. 23, some in the South Korean government seemed uncomfortable with the prospect. In their view, South Korea should be the party taking the initiative on such an agreement. But any talk of “initiative” rings hollow at a time when Seoul shows no sign of a plan for achieving an agreement - or a willingness to bear the political risk of talks failing.

By Yi Yong-in, Washington correspondent

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

button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Most viewed articles