Showing posts with label North-South Talks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North-South Talks. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Behind Breakdown of Korea Talks, a History of Suspicions

My wife commented that north Korea has not been able to figure out President Park.  I think perhaps the north's action here (though expected and in line with their playbook of how to scuttle agreements) may be an illustration that it is wary of (if not fears) the potential of President Park's policy of "trustpolitik."    She is taking the moral high ground and the north may be beginning to understand that she is not one who will back down in the face of provocation and rhetoric.  Furthermore, I think one of the things China has made clear to the regime is that the ROK/US Alliance is stronger and more unified than ever and that the north is not going to be successful in splitting the Alliance.  And most importantly the strength of the Alliance provides President Park with a strong foundation from which to operate and from this she has a lot of flexibility.  I think the regime may be beginning to figure this out.
V/R
Dave


June 12, 2013

Behind Breakdown of Korea Talks, a History of Suspicions

SEOUL, South Korea — Plans to hold what would have been the highest government dialogue between North and South Korea in years — and hopes for a rapprochement on the divided Korean Peninsula — collapsed over what appeared to be a minor technical issue: who should lead their delegations to the planned talks.

But in the decades-old confrontation between the two Koreas, even a matter of protocol can escalate into a highly sensitive struggle over pride. Their latest tussle over the proper ranks of their chief delegates was in part an extension of a struggle that has persisted for decades.

“We must think of the pride of our people,” Prime Minister Chung Hong-won of South Korea told the National Assembly on Wednesday, explaining what was at stake in the dispute with North Korea.
During border talks decades ago, both sides took the competition over protocol and appearances to the extreme, with North Korean military officers secretly adding inches to the legs of their chairs so they would look taller than their counterparts from South Korea and the United States across the table.
In those cold war-era meetings, the sides usually exchanged invectives and retorts. But they also sometimes persisted in silence — for over 11 hours in one session in 1969 — challenging the other side to speak first.

In the best-known contest of pride on the divided peninsula, North and South Korea once engaged in a race over which country could raise its national flag higher over the heavily fortified border. That battle was eventually settled with the North beating the South; today, the North’s flagpole stands 500 feet tall, beating the rival South staff by roughly 200 feet.

The latest tussle of pride began when the two Koreas agreed this week to hold government-to-government dialogue in Seoul, starting on Wednesday, but could not come to terms on who should be their chief delegates.

South Korea said it would send its vice unification minister, Kim Nam-sik, to the meeting as its chief delegate. North Korea said that Mr. Kim was not senior enough and demanded that the South send Mr. Kim’s supervisor, the Unification Minister Ryoo Kihl-jae, as chief delegate. The South retorted that the proposed chief North Korean delegate — Kang Ji-yong, director of the secretariat of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea — was already below Mr. Kim “in status.”

Last-minute negotiations for a compromise had failed, with both Koreas complaining of a bruised ego. Then, on the eve of the talks, North Korea pulled out of the planned meeting in Seoul, accusing the South of “an insult,” South Korean officials said.

It appeared unlikely that the two Koreas would try to resume negotiations any time soon.
South Korean officials said they were still open to dialogue but had no plan to reach out to the North by making a concession over the chief delegate. On Wednesday, Mr. Chung, the South Korean prime minister, said his government had no intention of succumbing to the North’s “humiliating” demand.
North Korea has not made any announcement on the matter since its withdrawal from the talks. On Wednesday, it did not respond when the South made routine maintenance calls on the cross-border communications hot lines.


Critics accused the South Korean government of ruining a chance to engage the North through dialogue, instead bickering over protocol matters. The planned talks had raised hopes of a thaw on the peninsula after months of bellicose rhetoric, including threats of nuclear war, from the North. But South Korean officials said that their firm stance reflected the new approach under President Park Geun-hye, who has stressed “principle” and “trust” in relations with the North and vowed to make the North respect “global standards.”
(Continued at the link below)

Saturday, June 8, 2013

NightWatch For the night of 7 June 2013: north Korea, South Korea, China, India, Pakistan, US, Syria, Lebanon


Working level and ministerial level talks are set to take place between north and South Korea.  Mr. McCreary notes the confidence of the regime's "peace offensive" with the Xi-Obama summit and the upcoming Park-Xi summit.

But I think Mr. McCreary's assessment of the Agreed Framework and the Sunshine Policy needs further comment:
Some analysts consider that the Agreed Framework of the Clinton administration and the Sunshine Policy of engagement of President Kim Dae-Jung between 1994 and 2003 were failures in that they did not prevent North Korea's development of ballistic missiles and nuclear devices or weapons or reduce is belligerent attitude. 
That is an accurate judgment, but they did slow them and they had lasting effects on attitudes. There were no nuclear tests; the Yongbyon reactor was frozen; and serious discussions had begun on limiting North Korean missiles under the Missile Technology Control Regime. All nuclear tests and long range ballistic missile launches occurred during the past eleven years of hardline policies, after the earlier initiatives were abandoned.
Perhaps the regime did not conduct nuclear tests during the Agreed Framework because it was not able to – but the Agreed Framework and the Sunshine Policy provided resources not only to prevent regime collapse and to allow survival (Sunshine Policy) but also bought time for it to develop its nuclear capability.  A counter to Mr. McCreary's assessment that the nuclear tests occurred because of the past 11 years of hardline policies (implying that the rests were because of the hardline policies) is that the tests occurred because the regime was ready to conduct them.  For Mr. McCreary's analysis to be correct we would have to believe that the north was willing to give up its nuclear program in return for political and economic concessions when the exact opposite seems to have occurred – the north uses its nuclear program and he threat of its continued development to gain political and economic concessions.  And ironically it will likely continue to do so after these talks because the regime's assessment is that the return to upcoming talks will be a result of the fear of its nuclear program and any political or economic concession the regime receives will be a result of the nuclear program (in the regime's assessment).  The difference between now and the Agreed Framework and the Sunshine Policy periods is that we understand its strategy (and therefore should be able to exploit that knowledge and attack the strategy) and that the ROK/US Alliance is demonstrably stronger and prepared to counter the north's provocation with decisive action.

China makes a positive statement on the upcoming China-South Korea talks and Mr. McCreary assesses it is "cleaning up its neighborhood." (He attributes the north's actions to China being in control of its neighborhood).

Unclear incident at the Pakistan-India line of control.  Note Mr. McCreary's special comment a challenge to Prime Minister Sharif.

Another drone strike in Pakistan killed seven.

Syrian and Hezbollah forces "press the fight."

Lebanese Army warns of a plot to bring Lebanon into the Syrian conflict.
V/R
Dave



NightWatch
For the night of 7 June 2013

North Korea-South Korea: The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)published North Korea's counter-proposal to the South Korean proposal to hold talks in Seoul on 12 June.

"The spokesman for the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea (CPRK) gave the following answer to a question raised by KCNA on Friday, 7 June, as regards the positive response of the South Korean authorities to the proposal made by the DPRK on holding talks between the authorities of the north and the south in its special statement: As already reported, we issued a special statement on Thursday, 6 June, clarifying its crucial stand with the aim of providing a fresh and decisive phase in the north-south relations. "

"We appreciate the fact that the south side promptly and positively responded to the proposal made by us for holding talks between the authorities of both sides."

"It is our view that working contact between the authorities of the north and the south is necessary prior to ministerial-level talks proposed by the south side in the light of the prevailing situation in which the bilateral relations have been stalemated for years and mistrust has reached the extremity."

"So, we propose holding working contact between the authorities of the north and the south in Kaesong on 9 June. To this end, we will reopen the Panmunjom Red Cross liaison channel from 14:00 on 7 June and, through this, hope the south side sends a reply to our above-mentioned proposal."

South Korea counter-proposed to hold the talks at Panmunjom. North Korea communicated its agreement via the Red Cross liaison channel.

The South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that the two sides have agreed to meet at the Cabinet level in Seoul on Wednesday.

Comment: The 9 June talks will be the first working level talks since 2011. The ministerial-level talks will be the first at that level since 2007.

The North Korean agency in this new initiative is worth noting. Most of the terminations of contacts in March and April were announced from military channels. The Foreign Ministry weighed in on one cancellation. The message was clear that it was an all-of-government action.

The restoration is being accomplished in civilian channels by a single government agent, the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea. The channel of the North's engagement does not convey fundamental or permanent change of policy. This is the same old North Korean policy game.

Nevertheless, it is prudent for South Korea to take advantage of this opening. Looking back on what worked and what failed in the Kim Chong-il era, it seems that it is more useful to go beyond talking and engage in more joint projects. The aim would be not just to shore up regional stability, but also to expose North Koreans to modern ideas and technology and to make profits.

Some analysts consider that the Agreed Framework of the Clinton administration and the Sunshine Policy of engagement of President Kim Dae-Jung between 1994 and 2003 were failures in that they did not prevent North Korea's development of ballistic missiles and nuclear devices or weapons or reduce is belligerent attitude.

That is an accurate judgment, but they did slow them and they had lasting effects on attitudes. There were no nuclear tests; the Yongbyon reactor was frozen; and serious discussions had begun on limiting North Korean missiles under the Missile Technology Control Regime. All nuclear tests and long range ballistic missile launches occurred during the past eleven years of hardline policies, after the earlier initiatives were abandoned.

That history shows that North Korea responds to modern economic and technological projects that benefit it in tangible ways even though they work against the state ideology.

Finally, it seems more than coincidental that North Korea's peace offenses was timed to occur right before President Xi's trip the California this week. The message is that China is in control of its neighborhood.

China-South Korea: Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei hosted a regular news conference on 7 June 2013. He led off with an announcement:


"At the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Republic of Korea (ROK) President Park Geun-hye will pay a state visit to China from 27 to 30 June to hold talks and meet with Chinese leaders. The two sides will exchange views on bilateral relations as well as major international and regional issues of mutual concern."
(Continued at this link below)

Giving Tuesday Recommendations

  Dear Friends,  I do not normally do this (except I did this last year and for the last few years now, too) and I certainly do not mean to ...