The second inter-Korean high-level talks in
the end never materialized. On Sunday, Seoul’s Ministry
of Unification spokesman said in a press briefing, “It
appears the inter-Korean high-level talks have virtually been called off.” The government also issued a statement under the name of the
unification minister saying “This is irrational
behavior in which they [North Korea] only think of their so-called highest
dignity [Kim leadership],” which seems to suggest it is
unlikely dialogue will take place anytime soon. With this, inter-Korean ties
that had seemingly taken a new turn, following the surprise visit made by the
North’s delegation led by Hwang Pyong So on October
4th, have come to a standstill.
Were the leaflets the problem?
On the surface, the source of conflict that
led to the cancellation sprung from anti-North Korea leaflet campaigns
conducted by civic groups in the South. Pyongyang asserted it will only hold
talks if the campaigns are halted, while Seoul argued it has not legal grounds
to restrict actions taken by the civic groups. The statement issued by the
North’s Committee for Peaceful Reunification of the
Fatherland on the 1st, which dealt the final blow to the talks, and the South’s ensuing statement on the 2nd, both addressed the issue of the
leaflet campaign as a core point of disagreement.
However, there is one aspect of this
dispute that raises eyebrows. The leaflet campaign, which now seems to have
become the greatest source of conflict between the two Koreas, is something
that has continued on for the past decade. If it is not just recently that they
fired up this campaign, and it’s only now becoming such
a problem, doesn’t this suggest there is another reason
it is receiving such attention?
Leaflets as part of NK’s overall policy towards South
Some have suggested Pyongyang has been hung
up on this issue since Chuseok season in September, when leader Kim Jong Eun
stumbled across a leaflet in Wonsan [on the country’s
east coast near the border with the South] and in full-blown rage ordered
something be done to address the issue. However, officials in the South said on
the day the leaflets were said to have landed in Wonsan, Kim was not in that
area. On top of that, around the Chuseok holiday, winds did not blow north,
leading the government to believe that even if the flyers were sent off they
would not have landed in that area to being with.
It seems more likely that the leaflet
campaign problem manifested not from an isolated incident but rather stemmed
from Pyongyang’s overall policy towards the South.
Ever since President Park Geun Hye took
office in the South, North Korea has at every opportunity demanded Seoul lift
its May 24th sanctions and restart tours to the Mt. Geumgang Resort in the North
[suspended in 2008 after a South Korean tourist was shot dead]. They have been
bringing up these issues as the first step towards improving South-North
relations, while trying to understand what President Park’s key North Korea policy ‘the Trust-Building
Process on the Korean Peninsula’ actually means.
Despite Pyongyang’s
objectives, their demands have not been well received by Seoul. While the Park
administration spoke of building trust, it focused more on smaller levels of
cooperation such as offering aid for agriculture, mothers and children’s healthcare, and expanding exchanges in sports, rather than
offering a clear answer on more “fundamental issues” such as the May 24th sanctions. Given that the sanctions cannot be
lifted without finding closure on the issue of the naval corvette torpedoed by
North Korea [a claim Pyongyang refutes], Seoul has yet to forward a clear
message on if it intends to lift the sanctions or not. From Pyongyang’s perspective, this would raise questions as to whether Seoul really
has the determination to improve inter-Korean relations.
NK trying to read Seoul’s willingness to improve relations
Pyongyang has been raising issue with the
leaflet campaigns since September and pointing to the inter-Korean agreement
made earlier in the year during high-level talks to halt mutual slander. Since
it was a deal struck between the two countries, North Korea’s approach of linking it to operations conducted by civic groups in
the South seems to be overreach. However, this tactic, in fact, reflects
Pyongyang’s intention of gauging Seoul’s willingness to make progress in relations.
After expressing interest in improving
bilateral ties through Hwang Pyong So and his delegation’s trip to Incheon, the North went on to provoke the South with
skirmishes at the NLL [Northern Limit Line] in the West Sea, along the military
demarcation line, and by firing machine gun rounds towards Yeoncheon. While
doing so, it threw in the spotlight the issue of military tensions and leaflet
campaigns, which was likely to see how far Seoul would go to improve relations
ahead of the high-level talks.
However, Seoul failed to move beyond its
position of saying, “The May 24th sanctions can also be
discussed between the two Koreas.” Even in meetings
with the press, the government simply repeated its position in principle
saying, “If the second round of high-level talks take
place, we want it be an opportunity for the two Koreas to candidly discuss
things.” If halting the leaflet campaign was impossible
under the South’s rule of democracy, Seoul should have
given a different sign that it is still willing to engage, but it failed to do
so. From Pyongyang’s point of view, it is no surprise
it had doubts about what it would be able to obtain through the high-level
talks.
Seoul needs to send clearer message to
Pyongyang
Without North Korea’s nuclear issue resolved, inter-Korean relations cannot be on a
track of improvement indefinitely. However, in a deadlock such as this, if the
South also sees the need to make progress, it has to set specific goals on how
much it wants to move forward and send a message accordingly to Pyongyang. It
is a misjudgment to think it can resolve the deadlock by saying “let’s just meet and talk” without giving the North a clear sign of what underlying intention
it has. It needs to acknowledge that when it comes to inter-Korean talks, the
weighing of “gain and loss” still comes ahead of ‘trust.’
*Viewpoints expressed in Guest Columns are not necessarily that of Daily NK.
