|
International controversy is brewing over the agreement between the two Koreas last week to work together to have the leaders of the ¡°three or four parties¡± directly concerned in the Korean War to meet on the peninsula and declare a formal end to the war. And experts say there are several other expressions in the declaration that ended the inter-Korean summit which leave room for disagreement in future talks with North Korea.
Former unification minister Park Jae-kyu, for one, said talking of ¡°the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula¡± as opposed to the North Korean nuclear problem could lead to complications as the North is expected to dismantle its nuclear facilities. In inter-Korean ministerial talks, ¡°the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula¡± has been the standard phrase, but North Korea might well insist that the issue encompasses South Korea¡¯s nuclear facilities, including the U.S. nuclear umbrella as well. All U.S. nuclear weapons deployed as part of American forces in South Korea were withdrawn in 1991, but the North insists there are still nuclear weapons in the South.
Kim Hyung-ki, a former vice unification minister, pointed out that the two Koreas agreed that their prime ministers will meet to implement the declaration, their first meeting slated for November in Seoul. But he noted there was no such schedule for the envisaged meeting of the defense ministers. ¡°There would be no problem if the defense ministers¡¯ talks continued naturally. But just as after the 2000 summit, there is the chance that those talks will take place only once,¡± he said. Kim added that the agenda of the defense ministers¡¯ talks has been limited to military trust-building measures, including military guarantees for a ¡°peace zone¡± planned for the West Sea and related cooperation projects, and this limitation may have imposed barriers to serious military discussions.
Others object to the expression ¡°cooperative projects.¡± Suh Jae-jin, a senior research scholar at the Korea Institute of National Unification, said areas where South Korea unilaterally provides huge financial support ¡°have been dressed up as cooperative projects.¡± He said franker expressions should have been used to avoid problems down the road. For example, at one point the declaration reads the two sides agreed to continue ¡°cooperative projects in various areas such as agriculture, health and medical services and environmental protection.¡±
Yoo Ho-yeol, a North Korea expert at Korea University, said the clause, ¡°The South and the North have agreed not to interfere in the internal affairs of the other¡± coujld prevent any complaints to Pyongyang over human rights violations. Yoo said this was ¡°an outdated clause that does not uphold the universal values of mankind.¡± He added that the clause, ¡°The South and the North have agreed that their highest authorities will meet frequently for the advancement of relations between the two sides¡± left out the concept of ¡°regular¡± summits, freeing North Korean leader Kim Jong-il from the responsibility of paying a return visit to the South.
Jhe Seong-ho, a professor of law at Chung-Ang University, says the new agreement makes no mention of the 1992 Basic Accord, making it appear as if South Korea was sympathizing with North Korean efforts to bury that agreement. Prof. Ryu Gil-jae of Kyungnam University said it was inappropriate to put in the expression ¡°by-the-Korean-people-themselves¡± in the first clause, since it implies a rejection of foreign influence.
Meanwhile, a North Korean mouthpiece in Japan has called on the South Korean government swiftly to discard legal mechanisms like the National Security Law that treat North Korea as the enemy. The report from Pyongyang appeared in the Chosun Shinbo, the organ of the pro-North Korea General Association of Korean Residents in Japan or Chongryon,
(englishnews@chosun.com )
|
