In today's seemingly endless stream of dreadful news, positive developments on the Korean peninsula, that under normal circumstances may well have made the international headlines, stand out. When ministers from the estranged Korean states sat around one table after a six-month hiatus, they managed to do some serious business. Some observers considered the mere fact that North Koreans and South Koreans talked again a success, after pessimists had begun to declare the whole process of reconciliation stone-dead. But, quite fortunately, these concerns proved premature. The Joint Press Release published after the talks provides eloquent testimony that the inner-Korean process of cooperation is back on track. In a way, this wording may be taken literally, as the reconnection of the cross-border railway and a motorway across the demarcation line between the two countries were placed high on the list of projects to be completed in the near future.
The single issue which understandably arouses the most emotions concerns Korea's divided families. According to opinion polls, a large majority of South Koreans considers the three meetings of members of divided families that have taken place so far the most important results of President Kim Dae-jung's Sunshine policy of engaging the North. In mid-October, once more, 100 individuals from each side will have the opportunity to share some precious moments with estranged relatives on the other side after decades of separation.
The ministers' meeting also produced agreement on an extensive list of practical cross-border projects, such as working-level discussions aimed at the establishment of an industrial park in the North Korean town of Kaesong, talks on opening a land-route to revive the ailing Mt Kumgan tourism project or putting into effect -- "as early as possible" -- a set of economic agreements concluded before the breakdown of the talks last spring.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Although much of what has been agreed upon sounds rather technical, it is highly political. Seen as a whole, this week's agreements herald a new beginning in inter-Korean relations. These had lost much momentum after the government in Pyongyang showed the South the cold shoulder on more than one occasion.
In spite of a sense of understandable euphoria in the South Korean government after this turn of events, the talks have not met all expectations. Seoul had hoped to hear when exactly the Dear Leader would live up to his promise and come to the South for the much desired return visit. No word in this regard, we are told. Quite obviously, the North Koreans are not willing to commit themselves, as they don't deem the conditions ripe for such a dramatic gesture. On the other hand, Pyongyang's emissaries once more asked for electricity supplies from the South, to help their dilapidated economy back on its feet. Here, Seoul stone-walled, insisting that on the spot surveys should precede any deal.
In a way, all these nitty-gritty issues of inter-Korean negotiations lose much of their relevance considering the international ramifications of the talks. Following the horrific terrorist attacks against the US, this world has entered a new phase of international relations, that -- without doubt -- will also effect the Korean peninsula.
This said, the attention of journalists and political observers was focused on whether (or in what form) the ministers from South and North Korea would come up with a common Korean response to the carnage in the US. On the eve of the meetings, President Kim Dae-jung had publicly pleaded for a joint statement condemning the massacre: "a joint declaration against terrorism would be a meaningful, major achievement in the course of the South-North ministerial talks," Kim said. But the delegates from Pyongyang were not willing to go along: "the incident has nothing to do with these talks, which are supposed to deal with inter-Korean affairs only," North Korea's chief delegate Kim, Ryong-song said upon his arrival in Seoul. There has been some speculation as to why the North Koreans were unwilling to join hands with the South Koreans in this crucial matter. Some argue President Kim's proposal came too late to be seriously dealt with by Pyongyang's diplomatic apparatus. Others noted all terrorism-related matters are dealt with by the North Korean military and not the diplomats, and therefore the delegates in Seoul had no mandate to even discuss the issue.
There may be some truth in both explanations, but I see as the main reason for Pyongyang's hesitation its understanding that issues related to terrorism are first and foremost to be dealt with in negotiations with the US. For many years, terrorism has been a bone of contention between the US and the North Koreans and remains so until this very day. As is well known, Washington has placed Pyongyang on its list of states that sponsor terrorism (along with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba and Sudan), after North Korean agents engaged in terrorist acts against South Koreans in the 1980s. On top of this, Washington has evidence that Pyongyang has supplied military hardware to the Middle East. Getting off the incriminating list of terrorism sponsors has long been a diplomatic priority for the North Koreans.
Pyongyang actually managed to make considerable headway in this regard in the final stages of the Clinton administration. A document -- the Joint Communique -- issued on the occasion of the historic visit to Washington of North Korean Vice Marshall Jo Myong-rok last October. During their unprecedented negotiations, the US and the North Koreans not only resolved "to make every effort to build a new relationship free from past enmity," quite remarkably they also agreed "to support and encourage international efforts against terrorism." Considering to what low levels US-North Korean relations have dropped since the Bush administration came to power, it is hard to believe that these conciliatory phrases were jointly put to paper by North Korean and US diplomats less than a year ago. It is no wonder therefore, that US North Korea-experts, who are not at all happy with the recent turn in their country's relations with Pyongyang, often refer to this document, urging the Bush government to publicly reaffirm its validity.
It has been argued this would be a suitable diplomatic signal that Washington is indeed ready and willing to pick up the political process with Pyongyang where it was left, when President Clinton moved out of the White House. With international relations turned upside down after the terrorist attacks, this may well be the right time for the US to grasp the opportunity and make a bold move for a new beginning with the North. As I see it, the US can only win. And who knows, at the end of the day the North Korean "rogues" may even end up joining the international alliance against terrorism.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation in Seoul and a commentator on Korean affairs.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
RSS