Message from North

Koreas should be ready to meet each other half-way

The New Year message from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un attracts our attention more for its style than substance, and for what’s been left unsaid rather than said.

For the first time in 19 years, North Koreans watched their leader deliver the year-opening message on TV instead of reading it in newspapers. It was a symbolic gesture intended to build both on Kim’s charisma and stress his people-conscious leadership, modeled after his grandfather, Kim Il-sung.

As the unification ministry officials pointed out, there was little new in the content of the address, which reemphasized basic needs for military and economic development. More noticeable was that Pyongyang neither denounced South Korea and the United States nor mentioned its nuclear plans, an olive branch for the next governments in Seoul and Washington.

In the part targeted mainly at South Korea, and President-elect Park Geun-hye, Kim opened the way for inter-Korean dialogue, provided the incoming administration is ready to respect joint declarations from the South-North summits of 2000 and 2007, sending the ball into Seoul’s court. Park and her diplomatic aides ought to return the ball, ideally not long after she takes office in late February.

It’s good that Park’s national security advisors are showing guarded optimism regarding Kim’s message and the overall inter-Korean relationship in this regard.

As a candidate, Park differentiated herself from President Lee Myung-bak’s hard-line North Korea policy, saying that she would not stick to the North’s apology for its military provocations in the past five years as a precondition for resuming dialogue, and would respect the spirit ― if not the specifics ― of the summit agreements. All this shows that conditions are ripe for both Koreas to find an exit, and what remains is which side will move first to break the ice.

Both sides should be ready to meet each other half way. Above all, the North must refrain from any further provocations in the form of additional nuclear or missile tests, which will surely drive the doves in both Seoul and Washington into a corner. Park for her part needs to admit the nuclear issue is basically between North Korea and the United States; Pyongyang does not need a missile that can fly 10,000 km to threaten Seoul. It will not be realistically easy to separate military and economic issues, but Park should not repeat the mistake of her predecessor, who ironically saw the North grow to become a nuclear power despite, or because, of his denuclearize-or-nothing policy.

Both Park and Kim are willing to improve ties, and put the improvement of popular livelihood ahead of all else through encouraging economic growth. The two leaders have also inherited Cold War regimes from their fathers. Any breakthrough on this divided peninsula will require nods from their respective allies, and that depends on how eager and tenacious the Koreas and their leaders are. <The Korea Times>