Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Geopolitical Diary: South Korea Following its Own Path on the North
Stratfor Morning Intelligence Brief, 23 Apr 07
South Korea and North Korea issued a 10-point statement on Sunday
at the conclusion of the 13th meeting of the Inter-Korean Economic
Cooperation Promotion Committee. The statement lays out a series of
steps for the two Koreas, including a May test run of the
inter-Korean rail lines, the delivery of 400,000 tons of rice to
North Korea, a swap of raw materials for North Korean light
industry in return for mineral resources from the North, and a
series of follow-on meetings. Like the recent six-party agreement,
the inter-Korean economic statement lays out specific dates for
many of these items, rather than leaving the implementation
ambiguous or the subject of future meetings.
In specifying dates, there is an unwritten sequence to the
subsequent elements of the overall deal. The delivery of rice, for
example, is contingent upon the test of the inter-Korean railway.
In this manner, unlike more general agreements, verifiable steps
must be taken before any additional progress can be made. This
system of deal-making with North Korea has its advantages --
locking in the North Korean action prior to offering Pyongyang a
reward. But it also has its problems, as seen in the current delay
by North Korea in shutting down the Yongbyon nuclear reactor due to
a series of delays in the U.S. release of North Korean funds at
Banco Delta Asia in Macao. Of course, as seen in the past, it is
just as easy for either side to walk away from the deal completely.
If there is any commitment to fulfillment, however, setting dates
seems at least a slightly more effective way of locking North Korea
into the negotiated framework.
On April 27-28, the two sides will meet to finalize preparations
for the inter-Korean rail test, with the actual tests to take place
May 17. Previous agreements to test the rail lines failed when
North Korea backed out at the last minute, stirring speculation in
the South of trouble in Pyongyang, where elements of the military
consider the rail crossing a potential breach of security and
defensive secrecy. However, this seems somewhat unlikely, given
that roads paralleling the rail lines already are in operation, and
there is extensive aerial and satellite surveillance of North
Korean defensive lines. Rather, it is more likely Pyongyang is
simply not yet prepared to deal with a more active rail link
between the two Koreas, finding the slow movement of tourist buses
and supply trucks more manageable.
For South Korea, the rail test is perhaps the most significant
element of the whole agreement. Seoul has been eager to develop a
land-link to China, Russia and beyond, ending its current status as
a near island and perhaps gaining new trade routes not dependent
upon the sea -- and therefore not vulnerable to competitors using
the same routes. A test of the train would also provide a tangible
example of inter-Korean cooperation, justifying the government's
efforts since the inter-Korean summit of 2000 to economically link
the two Koreas.
Meanwhile, on May 2-4, the two sides will meet to make final
arrangements for a swap of raw materials. South Korea will supply
materials for North Korean light industry, including shoe, clothing
and soap manufacturing, and in return North Korea will grant Seoul
access to North Korean magnesite and zinc deposits in South
Korean-financed mining operations. The material trade would begin
"sometime in June." This, and further items are all more ambiguous,
listing only a month rather than a date, as the first step -- the
rail test -- must be completed before any of these other processes
begin.
In early May, the two sides will meet to discuss ways to control
flooding in the Imjin River (of key concern to South Korean
agriculture near the border). Later in May, they will discuss
telecommunications and other improvements in the Kaesong industrial
complex. In June, they kick off discussions of joint natural
resource development in third countries, perhaps regarding minerals
or even natural gas, though few details are available. (North
Korea's rumored resumption of diplomatic ties with Myanmar, severed
after a North Korean bomber blew up Burmese officials in 1983 while
trying to assassinate South Korean officials, might hint at
Pyongyang's interest not only in closer relations with the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but also getting a piece of
Myanmar's gas reserves).
Also in June, the two sides will discuss a raft of bilateral
cooperation issues, ranging from natural disaster prevention to
fisheries to business arbitration and inter-Korean immigration
committees. And in July the Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation
Promotion Committee meets for its 14th session.
The very clear dates on the rail issue, and the more ambiguous
dates for all the rest, emphasize Seoul's view that the
inter-Korean railway is paramount in its North Korean policy. The
rail lines are the economic links, not only between the Koreas, but
between Seoul and the rest of Eurasia. It is a critical part of
South Korea's long-term plan to develop as the economic and trade
hub of East Asia, the point where sea and air traffic and land
transportation meet. And after being snubbed at least twice before,
Seoul will not allow another delay.
Conspicuously absent from the deal is any mention of North Korea's
nuclear program, or of Pyongyang's delay in implementing the
February six-party agreement. The issue did come up in discussions,
and triggered one of North Korea's expected tantrums, with the
North's negotiators reportedly storming out of the room when the
nuclear issue was raised. Of course Pyongyang came back, and Seoul
justified the lack of mention in the final document by letting the
media know the issue was discussed and that the rice aid to the
North would be "difficult" to deliver if Pyongyang does not move on
its commitments in the six-party talks.
While Seoul paid lip service to the nuclear issue, it, like
Pyongyang, to some degree views these economic bilateral deals as
separate from the nuclear issue entirely. South Korea has its own
short- and long-term goals in its North Korea policy, and nothing
Seoul does will be able to denuclearize North Korea. Rather, Seoul
sees the responsibility for the nuclear issue falling in the laps
of the United States and China. After all, they are nuclear powers
themselves, and they are the signatories to the 1953 armistice, not
South Korea. Seoul wants to see progress on the nuclear issue, but
is unwilling to let its own North Korean policy of gradual economic
integration be held hostage by a nuclear issue it has little
control over. Seoul likes its seat at the six-party table, but it
also wants to move on its own bilateral path with Pyongyang.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.