One of Europe's first concerns after its successful diplomatic mission to Pyongyang and Seoul was to dispatch emissaries to Tokyo and Washington to inform the main allies about the results of the visit.
On more than one occasion, the EU delegation emphasized that what it was doing was closely coordinated with the US government. "We will not replace the US. It is not possible," said Goran Persson, Sweden's Prime Minister and current head of the EU. The aim of the unprecedented mission -- the highest level Western delegation ever to travel to North Korea -- was all but modest. According to an official fact-sheet "the EU would like to encourage the search for a solution bringing lasting peace between the Republic of Korea and the DPRK. This mission is intended to support the momentum created by the Pyongyang summit."
As is well known, this momentum was destroyed after George W. Bush moved into the White House. It is no secret that the Europeans have watched this development with little sympathy. Their intervention in Korea may well be called a diplomatic reaction to the Bush administration's sabotage of the peace process.
The new government in Washington has justified halting the dialogue with North Korean with an ongoing policy review. Reportedly, this review will produce tangible results in the not too distant future. This is good news, as the uncertainty regarding the superpower's strategy has been the main reason for the political stalemate on the Korean peninsula. On more than one occasion, President Kim Dae-jung has urged the Americans to return to the negotiating table : "I hope the US-North Korea talks can be resumed at the earliest possible date," president Kim has told his US counterpart.
In spite of a demonstrated lack of political support from Washington for his Sunshine policy, president Kim has at no point uttered even the smallest doubt that the US is and remains Seoul's most important ally. "He is the most pro-American president the country has ever had," says an American friend who has worked as a lobbyist for Korean institutions in the US capital.
Yet, president Kim seems not to have developed any sense of personal closeness, let alone friendship with the new tenant of the White House. It may be assumed, the first summit-meeting in early March, which reportedly ended in the American "humiliating" the Korean, has done little to strengthen the personal bonds. On the other hand, Kim Dae-jung's encounter with the European delegation had a very different flavor. The atmosphere during the meetings at the Blue House was so friendly, the mood at the banquet hosted in honor of the European guests so warm, that one could almost speak of a family party.
One could sense the Europeans were moved emotionally by the encounter with the Korean statesman and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. They were so impressed by the exuberant rhetoric of their revered host, that some members of the delegation could not hold back their tears.
"You Europeans," Kim told his visitors from the old continent, are "standing on the side of the 70 million Koreans in the South and North, and all those in the world who love peace. I am most grateful to you." The president then called the European mission "a proud page in European history," emphasizing that peace, reconciliation and cooperation on the peninsula have become "an irreversible inevitability." At the end of his extraordinarily friendly speech, the South Korean president encouraged the Europeans to carry on their involvement: "I hope the EU nations will continue to play a constructive role in the future," he said.
As if he himself had been part of the European mission, President Kim the next morning praised the results of the EU's talks in the North: "We have achieved more than we anticipated," the South Korean president said during a joint press conference at the Blue House.
The most important result of the European visit to Pyongyang was the North Korean pledge to extend a moratorium on missile tests until 2003. This pledge may be termed unexpected and surprising, as the missile issue is arguably a subject the Europeans have the least influence on. Politically, the missile issue is the key to the resumption of the dialogue between the US and North Korea. But, with the US treating them like diplomatic pariahs (or rogues, to use the revived official term), the North Koreans at this point could think of no better messenger for their "olive branch" (if we may call it that) than the EU.
In Washington, the first reaction to Pyongyang's pledge has been positive: the spokesman of the State Department used the term "constructive" to characterize the North Korean announcement, and then hurried to welcome the diplomatic mission of the Europeans: "We have been in touch with the Europeans all along, discussed their interaction with North Korea with them on a number of occasions. This is part of the whole process that we have supported and encouraged," the Department spokesman said.
Surely, not all Americans think so positively of the European involvement in an area many continue to consider an exclusive zone of US strategic influence: "With all due respect to our European allies, I don't want them negotiating our security interests on the Korean peninsula," a US senator from the Democratic Party said recently. There are numerous indications, that the EU doesn't enjoy special appreciation mainly in the more conservative circles in America: "Beneath the bromides of alliance solidarity," one observer writes, "Washington has a cool contempt for its allies. It doesn't take more than a few drinks at Washington dinners to start a round of smug jokes at the allies' expense."
The Europeans put up with these jokes with a sense of coolness, typical of the self-confidence of a newly emerging world power. Beyond the positive effects the EU's mission to North East Asia may have for the further developments on the Korean peninsula, this visit has also shown that the Europeans are ready and capable of effectively intervening on the stage of international diplomacy.
"We have an obligation to play a stronger role internationally, and will be more engaged in this globalized world," Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, said in Seoul. What -- one journalist wanted to know -- is the source of this new sense of international commitment? And the Spaniard answered without hesitation: "We Europeans, after the enlargement of our Union will have four times the population of Japan and two times the population of the US. We have an obligation to get involved."
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich-Naumann Foundation in Seoul and a commentator on Korean affairs.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS