Inter-Korean Summit: Promise of Peace or Peril for Rising Powers?

Policy Alert #164 | May 2, 2018

The Inter-Korean Summit in the Joint Security Border between North and South Korea on April 27, 2018, resulted in the Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace as well as the shocking photo-op of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un stepping into the South Korean side of the border. The Summit followed a series of surprise announcements, such as North Korea’s promise to halt nuclear and ballistic missile tests until the Trump-Kim Summit later this year, and secret meetings, such as Kim’s visit to see Chinese President Xi Jinping in late March 2018 and newly-confirmed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s stealthy preparatory visit to North Korea as then-Director of the CIA in early April 2018. With all the cloaks being tossed over the negotiating process, many watchers in the Rising Powers are wary of potential daggers. In this RPI Policy Alert, we sample the reactions to the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula.   

SOUTH KOREA
In a press statement following the signing of the Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, President Moon announced that “Chairman Kim Jong Un and I reached a crucial agreement after holding a historic meeting in accordance with the aspirations of the 80 million Korean people who wish for peace. We declared that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun. We could stand here because we have believed that we are able to prevail over the pain and sorrow of longstanding [sic] division.”

• The liberal-leaning Korea Times was cautiously optimistic in its responses to the news by juxtaposing the potential for mutually beneficial changes with warnings and caveats. One editorial, which outlined how increased trade with North Korea would provide a boost to the South Korean economy, also warned, “[W]e should not make haste for or be too optimistic about such cooperation because it might weaken the international sanctions against the North before its complete denuclearization. Thus, the Moon administration needs to take a cautious approach in order to make sure Kim gives up his nuclear ambitions before seeking peace and economic co-prosperity on the peninsula.” In response to skepticism within South Korea and abroad over the sincerity of North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization, one Times editorial explained the promising steps the North has already taken, but called for North Korea to stay the course, as well: “North Korea should fully do its part for a peaceful Korean Peninsula by honoring the Panmunjeom declaration with concrete measures for denuclearization.” Another offered examples of humanitarian and cultural exchanges with the North to strengthen ties between the two countries: “The two countries should expedite exchanges in diverse fields, such as music, tourism and academia, among others. Since the two Koreas share the same history, a great synergy effect can take place among scholars of the two countries with joint research into ancient history. Joint projects will be helpful in regaining our identity as one people.”
• Another liberal-leaning paper, The Hankyoreh, shared these sentiments in its responses to the success of the Kim-Moon summit. The Hankyoreh accredited the groundbreaking summit to President Moon’s persistence to pursue peace: “This inter-Korean summit was made possible by the persistent effort of the South Korean government. Since his inauguration in May 2017, Moon has continually made overtures of peace to the North. […] Even while North Korea and the US were trading barbs about ‘fire and fury,’ Moon held to the firm and unwavering principle of peace.”
• In an editorial for The Hankyoreh, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Professor Emeritus Lee Jang-Hee called for the South and North Korean governments to create a “peace regime” with new institutions to ensure the successful normalization of relations, rather than stopping with a peace treaty to end the war. “[A] traditional peace treaty is less desirable than a peace regime that takes into account legal issues including the cessation of the war and the normalization of relations, a mechanism for building military trust; and the geo-political angle. Considering the circumstances on the Korean Peninsula, it would be more practical to have a peace regime including a legal document that declares the end of war and normalizes relations in the legal realm, the establishment of a commission to manage peace on the demilitarized zone and to guarantee the building of military trust, and an international organization […] to guarantee that the aforementioned two elements are carried out. The reason is history offers countless cases, too numerous to list here, in which a peace treaty alone has failed to guarantee peace.”
• The Korea Herald was less trusting of Kim’s “performance” and suggested that the Kim-Trump summit would be more revealing of North Korea’s sincerity: “The Kim-Trump talks will also give other clues as to the real face of a man who, until the Panmunjeom summit, had been more known for his ruthless dynastic dictatorship and pursuit of dangerous weapons than for openness and rationality. We all know which way is better for North Korea and the world. To adopt Trump’s cliche, we will see.” The Herald called for the South Korean government to not repeat past mistakes by taking “a position consistent with the US” and easing economic sanctions “only when substantial progress is made in denuclearizing the North.” “Agreements to reduce military tension and promote peace are absolutely needed, but prudence and cool-headedness must be maintained until they become a reality. When it comes to security, better safe than sorry,” another Herald editorial explained.
• The conservative Chosun Ilbo was careful to contextualize the denuclearization process as a long road with many opportunities for things to go wrong–or right: “There is no reason to be pessimistic, but blind optimism is uncalled for. What is needed is calm and patience.”
• The Dong-A Ilbo, another conservative paper, called for a firm timeline of the denuclearization processed and warned the South Korean government against being “seen as attempting to rush for diplomatic success or crack international cooperation.” The same editorial expressed hope that Trump “will serve as an honest mediator in ushering in a new order in Northeast Asia and an earnest negotiator in leading a creative diplomacy.”
• The conservative Joongang Daily was more cynical about the prospect of denuclearization, and argued that, “North Korea cannot fundamentally change, as seen in Sunday’s Rodong Sinmun [a North Korean newspaper], which lambasted U.S. democracy. We must not accept Kim’s charm offensive as a transformation. We must not be overly optimistic. It is time for cool heads, along with warm hearts.” The Daily echoed the calls for clear plans of denuclearization and to maintain economic sanctions “until we see progress”: “We are making a strong demand for a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization because the North’s nuclear and missile abilities have advanced far more than in the past and are threatening us. Without addressing the denuclearization issue, no talks between the two Koreas can be meaningful.”

CHINA
At a regularly scheduled press conference following Chairman Kim’s unexpected visit to China, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang explained China’s support for denuclearization efforts: “General Secretary Xi commended the important efforts made by the DPRK for those positive changes that took place on the Korean Peninsula since this year, reiterated China’s relevant principled position and China’s will to continue with its constructive role. Going forward, we stand ready to work with the DPRK and other parties to, in combination with China’s dual-track approach and other parties’ useful advice, strive for the denuclearization, peace and stability of the Peninsula and the long-term peace and stability of this region and the world at large.” Following the Inter-Korean Summit, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “extended its congratulations” to the two countries for the successful outcome and reiterated that “China stands ready to continue to play its positive role to this end.”

• The state-run People’s Daily hailed the Kim-Xi Summit as a success for both the restoration of ties between China and North Korea and getting peace talks back on track: “As long as we grasp the new opportunity created by this historic meeting, intensify communication and mutual trust, we will certainly push China-DPRK relations toward a healthy development path in the long run, inject more energy to solving the Peninsula issue and make new contributions to regional peace, stability and development.”
• The China Daily, a state-supported paper, was optimistic about the potential success of denuclearization while also warning that the process requires patience and flexibility on all sides and that it would be unreasonable to expect North Korea to change overnight: “[C]omplete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization will not happen unless Pyongyang feels confident it is safe without nuclear weapons.” The Daily called for all sides to do their part to keep the ball rolling: “It would be in the interest of all parties, therefore, to keep the positive momentum going, so that no untoward incident prevents permanent peace and prosperity from being restored not only on the peninsula but also in the region and beyond.”
• The nationalist Global Times was quick to warn the US and its allies against undermining the success of the summit: “International society, first of all, the US, South Korea, Japan and the West, should rid themselves of their stereotyped view about a ‘demon’ North Korea and deal with it as a normal country to push it to abandon its nuclear programs. Washington should not regard North Korea’s halt to nuclear and missile tests as a result of its maximum pressure.” Two other Times editorials praised South Korea for acting somewhat independently of the US. One urged the South “to stick with its pursuit instead of being overly obedient to Washington like in the past.” The other argued that, “South Korea and China should push Pyongyang to move toward denuclearization while at the same time pressure Washington, preventing the latter messing up the peninsula issue. Washington should respect the views of countries on or surrounding the peninsula regarding how to solve the North Korea nuclear issue and achieve a permanent peace.”

JAPAN
In response to North Korea’s announcement to end nuclear and ballistic missile tests, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued a statement that read: “I welcome the statement by North Korea as a positive step. But the important point is whether or not it will lead to the complete, verifiable and irreversible abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs as well as other weapons of mass destruction. We will monitor the situation closely.” At a meeting with family members of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea, Prime Minister Abe vowed to “absolutely seize these opportunities to take steps forward on this issue.” Following the Inter-Korean Summit, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs restated that the Summit would not result in any changes in Japanese foreign policy: “The position of the Government of Japan remains unchanged that Japan seeks to normalize its relations with North Korea through comprehensive resolution of outstanding issues of concern, such as the abductions, nuclear and missile issues, as well as settlement of the unfortunate past in accordance with the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration. The Government of Japan continues to closely cooperate among Japan-US-ROK.”

• The progressive Asahi Shimbun suggested the Japanese government prepare itself in the midst of changing dynamics on the Korean Peninsula: “It is important for Japan to start readying itself for possible negotiations to establish a formal diplomatic relationship with North Korea while keeping pressure on the Kim regime to abandon its nuclear arsenal.” The Asahi also urged the Japanese government to assert its positions while it has the chance: “Japan must get actively involved in the efforts to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear arms and become part of the international community. Whether Japan will be sidelined in the process depends on its own diplomacy.”
• The Japan Times was wary of Kim’s “charm offensive” and previous attempts to denuclearize North Korea, and called on the US and South Korea to maintain economic sanctions until denuclearization is achieved: “There is a danger that Trump will be so blinded by his fixation on doing the unprecedented, showing up his predecessors and striking a deal, that he will focus on the words that Kim uses and not on their meaning. […] The immediate danger is that South Korea will be seduced by Kim’s approach and Moon will leave his meeting convinced of the need to resume economic ties to build on the diplomatic momentum.”
• The Mainichi Shimbun encouraged its readers to be open to genuine change on the part of North Korea rather than dismissing the recent events as showmanship: “Looking back on what has happened in the past, it is hard to have faith in North Korea. It is only natural to harbor suspicions that the country will not act in accordance with agreements it signs with other countries. […] It is important to be wary of North Korea, but we must be sensitive to any hints of change.” The Mainichi expressed its concern, however, that Japan is being left out of the denuclearization process despite its stake in the issue: “It is important for Japan to be actively involved, including with the rebuilding of a framework for the Six-Party talks in the future.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun similarly praised the G-7 announcement to maintain economic sanctions for the time being, “The pressure of sanctions should not be eased until after such developments as an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the dismantling of nuclear arms and ballistic missiles, and the transporting of nuclear materials abroad are actually seen.” To this end, the Yomiuri called on Prime Minister Abe to take the initiative and keep Trump on track: “Tokyo and Washington need to assess the real intentions of Kim by analyzing his words and actions during the summit. Encouraging Trump to make an adequate policy judgment would be a pivotal role for Abe.”
  

RUSSIA
In a phone call with President Moon, Russian President Vladimir Putin assured Moon that Russia would continue to do its part in reducing tensions on the peninsula and stressed the “importance of further efforts of all parties involved [in a] political and diplomatic solution.” Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Konstantin Kosachev noted the encouraging turn of inter-Korean dialogue in an interview with TASS, saying, “The resumption of a direct dialogue is encouraging as there is no alternative to it and attempts to talk to each other from a position of strength are bound to fail.”

• Government-funded RT published an article that reported on President Moon’s involvement in the 1976 “axe-murder incident” in the Joint Security Area. RT also highlighted a documentary by its correspondent Anya Parampil on the division of the peninsula and “how some Western countries contributed to the deepening wedge between the rival Koreas.”
• State-owned TASS reported on the South Korean Ambassador’s statements that reiterated the South’s interest in cooperating with Russia over North Korea’s denuclearization following a statement by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov that assured the news agency that Russia was not “falling out” of the process despite not being mentioned in the Panmunjeom Declaration.
• State-owned Sputnik News coverage of the Inter-Korea Summit included an article on South Korean polling company Realmeter’s finding of high levels of trust South Koreans have for North Korea’s promise of denuclearization.
• An otherwise dry report by Dmitry Sudakov, a columnist for the nationalist Pravda Report, was published with the suggestive title “South and North Koreas united: Daydreaming in an ivory tower.”

INDIA
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued the following statement in response to the Inter-Korean Summit’s success: “India welcomes the inter-Korean Summit meeting held at Panmunjom on 27 April 2018. We hope that such engagement will help in reducing tensions and pave the way for lasting peace and reconciliation in the Korean Peninsula. India supports all efforts to bring about peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy. We hope that all efforts to find resolution of the Korean Peninsula issue will also include addressing concerns about the proliferation linkages of DPRK’s nuclear and missile programme.”

• An editorial in the pro-government Daily Pioneer acknowledged that despite his words of conciliation, Chairman Kim “holds the aces for now.” The Pioneer urged President Moon to “keep his powder dry” while engaging diplomatically.
• The opposition-supporting Hindustan Times featured an op-ed by the South Korean Ambassador to India Shin Bongkil which explained the success of the Inter-Korea Summit.
• Former Ambassador of India and Director-General of the Kerala International Centre T.P. Sreenivasan provided analysis of North Korea’s strategy in comparison to India’s own denuclearization negotiations with the US in the 1990s in an op-ed for The Hindu.

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.