‘Lee’s North Korea policy has been principled yet inflexible’

Experts call for constant efforts to bring about dialogue and exchanges


President Lee Myung-bak’s policy toward North Korea has got mixed scorecards as conservatives hail his principled, consistent approach and liberals blame his inflexibility for deepened bilateral animosity.

Experts say whoever succeeds him next February will face the tough challenge of trying to resume dialogue and restore ties while maintaining policy consistency to fend off the North’s nuclear ambition that threatens regional peace.

Lee has adopted a reciprocal policy linking Seoul’s aid to the North to denuclearization as he recognized his liberal predecessors’ unconditional aid to Pyongyang was diverted only to strengthen its military while starving its people.

Since taking office in February 2008, Lee has implemented the “policy of mutual benefit and common prosperity.” Seen as much tougher than former Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun’s engagement policies, his policy has angered the North.

Lee initially introduced the “Vision 3000: Denuclearization and Openness” policy under which Seoul pledged to help it achieve $3,000 per-capita GDP in line with its denuclearization efforts. But his government refrained from using the policy name as the North strongly protested it.

Washington’s firm support has added to his resolve to maintain the policy. U.S. President Barack Obama has reiterated there would be “no reward for bad behavior,” stressing the allies would break the North’s old pattern of launching provocations and winning rewards.

The allies’ tougher stance came as the North continued its provocations. The North test-fired a long-range missile in April 2009 and conducted the second nuclear test the next month, sending shockwaves across the country and beyond.

The test launch of the Taepodong-2 missile with an estimated range of longer than 6,000 km ended in failure. But the rocket traveled some 3,200 km from the North’s launch site of Musudanri in North Hamgyeong Province.

The North with its continuing development of missiles and nuclear weapons is becoming a “direct threat” to the U.S., then U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during his visit to China in January 2011.

Amid growing animosity between the two Koreas, the North shot dead a South Korean tourist who strayed into an off-limits zone around the Mount Geumgang resort in July 2008. Seoul halted the tour program and demanded an investigation into the shooting and full-scale safety measures for the resumption of the tour.

The trips to the resort were a symbol of inter-Korean reconciliation following an agreement in the first-ever Seoul-Pyongyang summit in 2000 and an important source of foreign currency for the North.

The bilateral ties plunged to their lowest after the North torpedoed the South Korean corvette Cheonan in March 2010, killing 46 sailors. Pyongyang denies its responsibility. Following the incident, Seoul banned all exchanges and cooperation with Pyongyang under the so-called May 24 measures.

With the South smarting from the deadly attack, the North went ahead with another provocation in November the same year. It shelled the frontline island of Yeonpyeong near the tense inter-Korean sea border and killed two marines and two civilians.


Principled yet unfruitful

Lee’s commitment to the reciprocal policy despite escalating criticism for deepened tension was praise-worthy as it, to some extent, tamed the wayward North, experts said. But they noted there were no outcomes in terms of tension reduction.

“Lee was elected as the public discontent and distrust grew over the decade-old liberal engagement policy -- too much appeasement,” said Lee Cho-won, politics professor at Chun-Ang University.

“Before his presidency, the South appeared to have only appeased the North and have been dragged on in its favor. In my view, Lee’s policy changed that and his principle helped the North grow out of its old habit (of provoking and getting concessions).”

Jo Dong-ho, a North Korea expert at Ewha Womans University, expressed regret over Lee being inflexible in his policy implementation and thus blocking chances to improve strained ties.

“There were strong provocations by the North. But he has stuck too much to his principle. No matter how good a principle is, there should have been some flexibility (employed as things have changed),” he said.

In particular, the Lee administration’s failure to abide by the agreements the Kim and Roh governments struck in 2000 and 2007 during their summits has contributed to the distrust between the two Koreas.

“When any conflict flares up, the two sides could seek a resolution or find common ground through high-level talks. But the channels did not work during Lee’s presidency. The Roh administration agreed during the 2007 summit to run such channels,” said Chin Hee-gwan, a unification professor at Inje University.

Chin added that the governance structure in which the state authorities determine all inter-Korean exchanges including those in the civilian realm made reconciliation more difficult.

“Following the May 24 measures, exchanges in the civilian sector have also been made difficult. The government’s unilateral decision affected independent, apolitical activities by civilians and the nongovernmental organizations. This should change,” he said.

Chin also doubted the Lee government’s willingness for inter-Korean cooperation, stressing that politics and economic cooperation should have been separated, though the reality was quite challenging.

“The former governments had shown their willingness for improved ties and they grabbed the opportunity when it came around. But it appeared that Lee did not show sufficient intent to move the relationship forward,” he said.

“When Seoul wants to improve ties at a time it wants, regardless of Pyongyang’s situations, it is quite difficult to move in the same direction. We should make constant efforts with sincerity.”

Cho Bong-hyun, senior researcher at the Industrial Bank of Korea Research Institute, said that during Lee’s presidency, the foundation for inter-Korean economic cooperation has eroded amid political and military tension, which has made Pyongyang more reliant on China for aid.

“Political tension has gotten into the way of economic cooperation. More than 1,000 small and medium-sized firms have done cross-border business. Many of them were driven into insolvency or are now teetering on the brink of bankruptcy,” he said.

“The inter-Korean animosity has also, to some extent, caused jitters for foreign investors. Amid this situation, Pyongyang has relied more on China, which has, in turn, gained greater influence over its impoverished ally.”


Need to restore ties

The three major presidential candidates, regardless of their political orientation, converge on the need to shore up inter-Korean trust through dialogue.

Rep. Park Geun-hye of the ruling Saenuri Party has announced a trust-building peninsular peace process. Rep. Moon Jae-in of the main opposition Democratic United Party and independent Ahn Cheon-soo also stressed the resumption of talks and more economic cooperation.

Some argue that their pledges toward more engagement appears to be populist while others say this highlights the public recognition that Lee’s strict reciprocity-focused policy should change.

Jo of Ewha Womans University advised that the new president should not designate any name for his or her policy as it is likely to limit flexibility under the political framework inherent in the name.

“The moment you name it, you will get caught in (political) bickering over it,” said Jo.

While Lee titled his policy one of mutual benefit and common prosperity, Kim called his the policy of reconciliation and cooperation with Roh calling his the policy of peace and prosperity.

“Such a name kind of reveals South Korea’s policy strategy to the North. Under the name or principle, it would be quite difficult to maneuver flexibly as things change in a game with a difficult partner,” said Jo.

Cho Bong-hyun of the IBK said that the new government should think about establishing institutions to insulate inter-Korean cooperation and exchanges from politicking.

“We should institutionalize bilateral cooperation. Under such a stable framework, we can perhaps find a joint venture to advance into the northern markets such as Russia -- based on cooperation that combines the North’s resources and cheap labor, and the South’s technology and capital. This model could lead to a synergic effect,” he said.

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)