|
Considering the North's nuclear crisis, the written agreement issued at the ministerial level talks in Pyongyang is out of focus. The delegates who took part in the meeting are saying that they delivered the government's strong stance, but their efforts were not reflected in the written agreement.
The North's recent admission that it has nuclear weapons has increased tensions in inter-Korean relations, but the content of the recent joint statement is no different from the one issued in January. That no advancements were made even in a time of higher tension represents a step back in North-South relations. Because the South was not included in the three-way talks in Beijing, the South-North ministerial level talks became our only channel to bring up the nuclear issue. But we were merely reminded of the North's strategy to exclude the South from talks on the issue.
The expressions used in the agreement are also problematic. It was simply stated that "the South and North will cooperate to solve the problem peacefully," without mentioning thee North's responsibilities. The North's nuclear development is a clear violation of the 1991 South-North denuclearization pact, but that deal went unmentioned in the agreement. It is frustrating to see that South-North cooperative works and events for unification were mentioned in a business-as-usual manner.
Critics say we got those results because the government overly concentrates on communicating with the North. Communication with the North loses a considerable amount of its function if the North knows that the South would do anything to maintain it. The South should at least once try to show a firm stance - it should reject the joint statement as a strategy for the next talks.
May 1, 2003
|
