Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
The Korea Times conducted interviews with four Korean and foreign experts to ask for their opinions on what Korea needs to do to go beyond the 70 years of conflict caused by the Korean War and usher in a next 70 years of unity. They are Park Won-gon, professor of international politics at Handong Global University; Kim Jung, professor at the University of North Korean Studies; Emanuel Pastreich, president of the Asia Institute; and Leif-Eric Easley, associate professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University. ― ED.
Q: Please evaluate the past 70 years of North-South Korea division. Do you think inter-Korean relations have improved since the first inter-Korean summit in 2000?
Park: There have been ups and downs in inter-Korean relations since 2000. But overall, there has been no remarkable progress. Recent inter-Korean reconciliation in 2018 was short-lived as tensions on the Korean Peninsula are re-escalating now.
Kim: Prior to the 1980s, South Korea and North Korea had hostile relations that sought to change the status quo by unifying each other by force, but since the end of the Cold War in 1991, inter-Korean ties have turned to maintaining the status quo due to the growing gap in national power. In the 21st century, relations between South and North Korea are trapped in a repeated cycle of rapprochement and confrontation.
Q: South Korea's North Korea policies have changed whenever a new administration is launched. How do you think the administration changes have affected inter-Korean relations? What do we need to keep consistency in North Korea policies?
Pastreich: Korean politicians are increasingly interested in image and media coverage, not substance or long-term planning. If we want consistency, we need a long-term plan, we need a system in which experts can work together with those who understand Korea's political realities to formulate effective policies. There is no such space in Korea any more. The changing of administrations does have some impact, but increasingly it is interference from the U.S. that causes problems.
Park: I think that North Korea's attitude toward South Korea has a greater influence on inter-Korean relations than South Korea's change of administration between conservative and progressive sides given that all South Korean governments have sought dialogue, reconciliation and cooperation with North Korea right after their inauguration. However, North Korea's provocations and inter-Korean conflicts eventually worsened relations. Continuing humanitarian aid to the North is the only thing that the South can show consistency in, in terms of its policy toward the North. As a result, South Korea's North Korea policy cannot move forward beyond the limit of "responding" to the North's attitude.
Q: Since North Korea has worked on nuclear weapons, South Korean efforts are now not enough to improve inter-Korean relations as all relevant neighboring countries have to be involved. How have the involved countries' own interests ― from the military, economic and political aspects ― influenced inter-Korean relations?
Kim: Issues of the Korean Peninsula have never been a non-international issue since Korea was incorporated into the modern international community. In that sense, we need to acknowledge that neighboring countries' involvement to address the North Korean nuclear armament issue is natural.
Pastreich: It is not at all obvious that all regional countries must be involved in North Korea issues. They must be involved in planning for peaceful international relations in Northeast Asia, but that is a bigger topic than North Korea. It is a mistake to say that all countries must be involved in every aspect of North Korea policy. Moreover, we must recognize that sanctions are the primary reason for instability today.
Park: North Korea's nuclear armament is an international matter. However, even without the nuclear issue, it is inevitable for the Korean Peninsula to become internationalized due to its geopolitical location. Plus, North Korea's nuclear program carries extra significance as an international issue of nuclear non-proliferation, making it more difficult to solve.
 |
| gettyimagesbank |
Q: As seen from the recent killing of a South Korean official by North Korean troops, incidents between the North and the South have often caused internal disputes among South Koreans. What is the main reason for such internal conflicts and how can we prevent such conflicts from being repeated?
Park: We need to narrow the difference in perception of North Korea among South Koreas, but it is not easy. North Korea gives us a dual image. North Koreans are our fellow countrymen to embrace, but at the same time, they are the biggest enemy threatening us. In addition, the South's policy for unification is contradictory to its policy on North Korea given that the former is to break the current situation while the latter is to maintain the status quo. In the end, the only way to reach a national consensus among South Koreans on the North is to choose either a unification policy or a North Korea policy.
Kim: In a democratic society, it is natural that there is a diversity of opinions in relation to policy issues that have to do with existential security. Although discussions about which one is effective, between engagement and containment, in dealing with North Korea need to continue, they should go toward seeking more agreement on a moderate policy, away from both extremes of ideology.
Pastreich: Many of these events are obscure and we should hesitate to leap to conclusions as to their significance. I do not trust North Korea, but I find it to be predictable. If it does something odd, there is probably a reason.
Q: What are other causes of internal conflicts in South Korea? How have they negatively affected South Korean society's general development?
Kim: Intergenerational conflict will exceed ideological conflict to complicate Korean society's conflict structure. Conflicts can function as a source of social innovation if they can be managed in an appropriate way, so it is necessary to establish norms and rules for public spheres that cannot be spread through extreme conflict.
Park: Extremely polarized political conflict causes internal conflicts in South Korea, with basic common sense and rationality disappearing and competition and hatred between each other intensifying. What's worse, such domestic political polarization extends to the nation's foreign policy and negatively affects it.
Q: What lessons can Koreas learn from Germany's unification?
Kim: As Germany was a divided country without undergoing a civil war, it is necessary to be cautious in direct comparison between Germany and Korea. In addition, due to the two sides' different political systems, we also need to be cautious in searching for lessons from German reunification.
Easley: South Korea is a democratic, globalized, capitalist U.S. ally, as was West Germany before unification. But North Korea is a harsh dictatorship repressing its people, distorting its economy, and pursuing nuclear weapons, all to maintain the Kim regime. East and West Germany interacted much more during the Cold War than the two Koreas, which have been divided for decades longer. Before its defeat in World War II, Germany was a threatening state that invaded its neighbors; in contrast, Korea experienced colonialism and civil war. While West Germany successfully integrated into the European community, Northeast Asia lacks comparable institutions. Unified Germany became the largest economy in Europe, surrounded by many other states. But even a unified Korea would be surrounded by larger powers China, Japan and Russia. South Korea may have more divisive domestic politics and a less favorable regional environment than West Germany did, but its biggest challenge is the lack of a trustworthy partner in Pyongyang.
