남북 양측이 11일 당국회담 수석대표 '격(格)'을 놓고 대립하던 끝에 타협에 실패, 12일 서울에서 열릴 예정이던 박근혜 정 부 출범 후 첫 남북 회담이 무산됐다.
김형석 통일부 대변인은 이날 저녁 긴급 브리핑에서 "북측이 우리 수석대표의 급을 문제삼으면서 북측 대표단의 파견을 보류한다고 일방적으로 통보해 왔다"고 회 담 무산 사실을 발표했다.
우리측은 김남식 통일부 차관을, 북측은 강지영 조국평화통일위원회(조평통) 서기국 국장을 각각 수석대표로 하는 5명씩으로 구성된 대표단을 선정해 서로 통보했다.
하루 앞으로 다가온 회담이 수석대표 급 문제로 전격 무산됨에 따라 남북간에 앞으로 치열한 책임공방이 벌어질 것으로 예상된다.
그러나 서울에서 열릴 당국회담이 일단 무산됐지만 남북 모두 대화 필요성을 인 식하고 있다는 점에서 타협이 조만간 이뤄져 회담 개최에 다시 합의할 가능성도 있는 것으로 관측된다.
정부는 북한의 대남기구인 조평통에는 공석인 위원장과 부위원장 여러 명이 있어 이보다 하위직책인 서기국장을 남북관계를 총괄하는 통일장관과 같은 급 인사로 주장하는 것은 옳지 않은 것으로 평가했다.
또 김양건 노동당 통일전선부장이 수석대표로 나서지 않는 상황에서 통일부 장관보다 차관이 회담에 나서는 것이 격에 맞는 것으로 판단한 것으로 알려졌다.
양측은 이날 낮 1시께 판문점 연락관을 통해 각 5명의 대표단 명단을 교환했다.
이후 북측은 우리측이 제시한 수석대표에 대해 이의를 제기, 양측간 전화 협의를 계속 벌여왔다.
정부 당국자는 "남북 양측 모두 원래 제시한 수석대표를 고수하며 수정제의를 하지 않은 채 맞서 12일 회담이 무산됐다"고 밝혔다.
이와 관련, 김 대변인은 "9일부터 10일까지 실무접촉 이후 우리측은 북측에 대해 당장 명단을 알려달라고 수차례 요구했지만 북측은 명단의 동시교환을 고집했다"고 지적했다.
김 대변인은 "북측은 우리측이 수석대표를 차관급으로 교체한 것은 남북당국회담에 대한 우롱이고 실무접촉에 대한 왜곡으로서 엄중한 도발로 간주하고 북측 대표 단 파견을 보류한다면서 무산 책임은 전적으로 우리 당국에 있다고 통보했다"고 전했다.
그는 "정부는 북한의 이런 입장에 대해 매우 유감스럽게 생각한다"면서 "남북문제를 책임지고 협의•해결할 수 있는 우리측 당국자인 차관의 격을 문제 삼아 예정된 남북 당국간 대화까지 거부하는건 전혀 사리에 맞지 않는다"고 비판했다.
정부 당국자는 "현 상황에서 북한이 내세운 단장의 권한을 판단할 때 가장 격에 맞는 대화 상대방은 우리 통일차관이라 생각했고 입장에 변함없다"며 "정부는 남북간 문제를 대화로 해결한다는데 변함없다"고 밝혔다.
<관련 영문 기사>
Koreas cancel talks at last minute
A conference room at the Grand Hilton Seoul hotel, the planned venue for the high-level government talks between the two Koreas, is empty Tuesday. The two sides canceled the talks scheduled for Wedensday. (Yonhap News)
The two Koreas on Tuesday canceled their planned meeting due to irreconcilable differences over the level of their delegations.
The cancellation, just one day before the opening of what would be the first high-level government talks since 2007, is expected to deal a blow on the resurgent mood for reconciliation.
The two-day meeting was to be held in Seoul to discuss the resumptions of the joint industrial park in Gaeseong, tours to Mount Geumgang and reunions of separated families, and other pending issues.
“North Korea announced that its delegation will not be sent, making an issue of the level of our chief negotiator,” Unification Ministry spokesman Kim Hyung-suk told reporters.
He added that the lists of each side’s five-member delegation were exchanged at 1 p.m.
“Immediately after the lists were exchanged, the North raised an issue about the head of our delegation, saying that the talks cannot be held unless a minister-level official leads our side.”
The two sides exchanged barbs, blaming each other for the cancellation.
“The government deeply regrets North’s attitude. It makes no sense for the North to reject the inter-Korean governmental talks due to the level of our delegation,” Kim said.
He cited the North as saying the South’s change of delegation is a provocation.
Seoul had chosen Vice Unification Minister Kim Nam-sik to head the delegation after North Korea rejected its suggestion of holding the talks between minister-level officials.
South Korea’s first choice to lead the delegation was Unification Minister Ryoo Kihl-jae, but the change was made after North Korea implied during the working-level talks that were concluded on Monday that Kim Yang-gon, head of the North’s United Front Department of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, would not be heading its delegation.
The North’s delegation was to be led by Kang Ji-yong, an official at the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland, whom Pyongyang claimed is an “upper-level” official. According to Seoul, however, Kang’s post within the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland is significantly lower than that of a minister.
The two-day meeting came as the South seeks to kick-start its trust-building drive while the North is striving to mitigate international pressure over its nuclear program.
The Park Geun-hye government had planned to approach lighter issues including humanitarian ones before moving onto tougher issues such as security as part of its step-by-step trust-building process.
But Pyongyang was expected to seek to deal with a comprehensive range of issues including jointly hosting the events to mark the June 15 inter-Korean declaration signed in 2000 and the July 4 joint statement signed in 1972, and exchanging civilians.
The focus of the talks was expected to be on reviving bilateral economic cooperation that virtually ended after the suspension of the Gaeseong industrial complex in April. The so-called May 24 measures, put in place after the North’s torpedoing of the corvette Cheonan in March 2010, had also seriously diminished bilateral cooperation.
For the cash-strapped North, reactivating the factory park is critical as it seeks to shore up the moribund economy and address chronic food shortages which could add to public anger over the fledgling Kim Jong-un regime.
The Gaeseong complex was a vital source of hard foreign currency for the regime, which has been put under deeper international isolation following its nuclear test in February and long-range rocket launch in December.
For its part, Seoul was expected to demand that Pyongyang sign a legally binding commitment for it to be held responsible should it unilaterally suspend the operation of the industrial park where 123 South Korean firms had run its labor-intensive factories.
The resumption of the tours to the mountain resort off the North’s east coast is a more complicated issue as Seoul has sought to secure Pyongyang’s guarantee to ensure the safety of tourists.
The tour program was halted after a North Korean solider shot dead a South Korean tourist who strayed into an off-limits zone around the resort in July 2008.
Over the issue of jointly celebrating the landmark joint inter-Korean declarations, the two sides also remained at odds in the run up to the talks that failed to be held.
Pyongyang appears to prioritize those events as it believes the joint celebrations would be to uphold the late former leaders’ wishes. Some critics here argue the events could be utilized to fuel conflicts in an ideologically divided South Korea.
Attention is also being drawn to whether Seoul would lift the May 24 measures under which it imposed bans on South Koreans traveling to the North, inter-Korean trade, new investments in the North and North Korean ships operating in the South.
Experts said when there was no progress in the North’s denuclearization efforts, it would be burdensome for Seoul to lift these sanctions. Some argue that lifting the measures would run counter to and weaken international sanctions to punish the North for its nuclear development.
By Song Sang-ho and Choi He-suk
(sshluck@heraldcorp.com)
(cheesuk@heraldcorp.com)
