The change of power in the US has considerable impact on political developments in and around Korea.
The governments in Seoul and Washington have lost little time initiating discussions aimed at fine-tuning their respective policies.
Although South Korea's Foreign Minister Lee Joung-bin was not the first foreign politician to meet with the new US Secretary of State, he belongs to the very early visitors of the new administration, underlining the significance attributed to the Korean issue in the US.
It is too early to say what will be the new US administration's policy about Korea, and specifically North Korea. Washington is presently reviewing the options available. It may take some months, before the political strategists arrive at final conclusions. In the meantime, analysts greedily pounce upon every utterance emanating from the lips of the new decision makers.
A lot of fuss was made about Secretary Powell's characterization of the North Koreas leader Kim Jong-il as a dictator during the Senate confirmation hearings. Some analysts concluded this was a clear indication of a toughening of the the US position. Much more important than this wording, which at least from the angle of political science is accurate, I found Powell's statement that the new administration is "open to a continued process of engagement with North Korea, so long as it addresses political, economic and security concerns, is reciprocal and does not come at the expense of our alliances and relationships." This is a dense political announcement, obviously authored by someone with a clear understanding of the broad direction of future US policy.
"Basically we are on the same track," South Korea's Foreign Minister Lee said after his talks with Powell last week. Both sides were eager to convey the picture of a harmonious relationship. The press reports highlighted Washington's full support for Kim Dae-jung's engagement policy. In reality, though, things are not that simple. When politicians proclaim that "basically" all is OK, they often mean that some issues remain unresolved. It would be naive to assume, that within days of the inauguration of the new Administration, the widely publicized differences between the Seoul government and the Republicans regarding the handling of the regime in Pyongyang have vanished.
During his visit to Washington Minister Lee met a group of US experts on Korean peninsula issues. During what one correspondent called a lively discussion behind closed doors the Americans and the Korean minister apparently could not agree as to the relevance of reciprocity in the dealings with the North. As reported, Lee insisted the controversial concept be conditional, and introduced the term of "reciprocity with flexibility" regarding South Korea's dealings with the North. The term reciprocity has a long history in international relations, mainly in economic affairs: Concessions in trade matters usually do not occur unilaterally, but are the result of bi-or multilateral agreements for reciprocal reduction or adjustments of tariffs or trade barriers. In diplomacy, too, reciprocity plays an important role. I remember vividly my first encounter with the South Korean consul in Germany, before coming to this country nearly five years ago. The diplomat would not give me more than a prelimenary visa valid for only three months, and asked me to reapply for a new permit once in Seoul. I pointed out that this was a rather burdensome procedure, only to be presented an unsolicited lecture on the principle of reciprocity governing the diplomatic relations even between the two friendly nations Germany and South Korea. In short, reciprocity is another word for a relationship conditioned by a mutual exchange of rights and privileges, and sometimes also favors. The Romans coined the phrase quid pro quo, meaning nothing else but tit for tat.
RSS