|
The second day of "Prospects for U.S. Policy toward the Korean Peninsula - in the Second Bush Administration", a seminar jointly sponsored by the Chosun Ilbo and the U.S. Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), started off with a presentation by the U.S. State Department¡¯s Intelligence and Research Bureau Northeast Asia chief John Merrill on internal transformation in North Korea. He said North Korea was engaged in a two-pronged attempt to recover economically and strengthen military leadership, but its finances were rapidly deteriorating because of its defense spending. The Stalinist country¡¯s public health sector was close to failure, he said, because North Korea¡¯s manufacturing sector, once a major source of tax revenue, has collapsed.
Prof. Yoo Ho-yeol of Korea University, the second presenter, said North Korea was divided into three classes ? the top leadership, the elite and ordinary citizens, each facing different challenges. Yoo said the country¡¯s leader Kim Jong-il was officially named successor to Kim Il-sung in the 1980s but had in fact been groomed for leadership from the early 1970s. But it was impossible to tell who his own successor would be, and that led to insecurity at the highest level of leadership.
Session 2: Future of six-party talks
In the second session, which dealt with the future of the six-party talks, the heads of working-level teams at the talks of South Korea and the U.S., Cho Tae-yong of the Foreign Ministry and special envoy Joseph DiTrani, gave presentations that refuted point by point North Korea¡¯s logic for boycotting the negotiations.
Cho said if North Korea is unable to put the brakes on its nuclear plans, time would inevitably become a factor in the negotiating strategies of the other parties.
He said the six-party talks had not been an effective negotiation framework, and there was room for improvement. He cited Iranian nuclear talks with Germany, France and Great Britain as a possible benchmark. The Iranian talks follow a two-tiered structure whereby the delegation heads set the comprehensive direction and the details are handled in working-level negotiations.
Meanwhile, DiTrani dismissed talk of a June deadline for North Korea to return. He also said the U.S. presented a negotiating plan that included even normalization of ties if Pyongyang gives up its nuclear program, but North Korea kept stalling. He said his government would raise issues such as human rights, drugs, smuggling and missiles during the course of normalizing its relations with Pyongyang, but it was not a precondition that everything be resolved before diplomatic relations are established, he said.
Session 3: Visions of Korea-U.S. alliance
The third session dealing with visions of the Korea-U.S. alliance made for heated discussion over why the alliance appears in crisis and what the two countries must do in the future.
The Asia Foundation¡¯s Scott Snyder said everyone was talking about the North Korean nuclear crisis, but the crisis in the South Korea-U.S. relationship was also worth attention. He proposed three tasks each for Washington and Seoul. Washington needed to copy the way it rebuilt its alliance with Japan and sit down with Seoul to nail down common long-term strategic goals. It also needed to win the confidence of the Korean people. And the resulting understanding of the alliance must securely underpin it, he said, adding the U.S. must not make the mistake of excluding Korea when formulating regional and international strategies.
Seoul in turn needed to make a strategic decision whether it really wants its alliance with the U.S. If Seoul wants to narrow differences in understanding between government and people, it then must clearly explain the need for the alliance. He said South Korea also had to find a way of harnessing patriotic feelings to contribute positively to relations with the U.S. and other countries.
Prof. Chun Jae-seong of Seoul National University said in his presentation a 21st century alliance needed to deal with issues in Northeast Asia, and on a global level, post-modern threats like terrorism. CSIS senior fellow Derek Mitchell predicted a meeting between the Korean and U.S. presidents in late June or early July will deal with the future of the alliance. He said the two sides needed frank talks to find common points of interest, and leaders in both countries need to work to make this happen.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
|
