Concerns and skepticism persist over Seoul’s policy direction and future cross-border relations since President Park Geun-hye broke a taboo by warning of “regime collapse” in North Korea.
During her parliamentary address Tuesday, Park in effect demanded North Korean leader Kim Jong-un make a choice: Abandon nuclear weapons or face the demise of the communist system. The recent pullout from the Gaeseong industrial park is only the “beginning” of “strong and effective” steps for a change to be taken by Seoul and the international community, she said.
 |
| President Park Geun-hye speaks during the National Security Council’s emergency meeting held upon North Korea’s long-range rocket launch on Feb. 7. (Yonhap) |
The speech heralded a sweeping shift from her much-trumpeted trustpolitik vision that had been marked by a blend of solid deterrence and dialogue since her inauguration three years ago.
Having singled out “pressure” as the centerpiece of this year’s North Korea policy, Seoul is now expected to further toughen its line, with the door for talks likely to stay shut.
But the abrupt turnaround sparked criticism that without a well-thought-out strategy and detailed action plans, as well as close cooperation with key regional partners, it may backfire on Seoul and raise the chances of another major provocation, including limited attacks on South Korea.
“Pressure is mostly intended to make Kim realize that his parallel pursuit of nuclear and economic development is not working, and bring him back to the negotiating table. But if the dialogue part is missing, it will be very hard to convince the international community,” a diplomatic source said, asking for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
While Pyongyang deserves punishment for the latest nuclear and missile tests, such a hard-line approach would firm up the backing by Russia and China of the Kim regime, said said Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korean studies professor at Dongguk University in Seoul.
Thus it could further complicate the already drawn-out sanctions discussions at the U.N. Security Council given that possible major turmoil within its destitute neighbor and a consequent refugee exodus appear to remain the top source of anxiety especially for Beijing.
Another source of concern is what the Unification Ministry called an “inevitable” severance of humanitarian assistance in addition to private-level exchanges. This represented a major reversal in the administration’s long-held principles toward humanitarian aid, as well as Park’s own vow during the speech “never to face away” from the dire livelihoods of the rank-and-file North Koreans.
“The president appears to have decided that she will break its nuclear ambitions and make a regime change happen through omnidirectional pressure on the North, but whether it will prove effective is a different matter,” Koh said.
“Given the deepening mutual mistrust, it would be extremely difficult to redefine inter-Korean ties throughout her remaining presidency, and a local provocation and armed clash cannot be ruled out, unless the sides manage to hold meaningful talks such as for a China-mediated exchange of a nuclear moratorium and a peace treaty, which is no less easy.”
The U.S., another core stakeholder, is also showing few signs of forsaking its “strategic patience” policy, which has been dubbed a failure by many experts around Washington and Seoul, especially after Pyongyang’s Jan. 6 atomic blast and Feb. 7 long-range rocket test.
Though the State Department on Wednesday expressed the U.S.’ support for Park’s “principled and firm approach,” spokesman Mark Toner said strategic patience is a “really big-picture foreign policy concept” and “valid approach in some cases.”
“I think there’s also a realization given the past actions, and these are being pursued not only bilaterally or unilaterally, rather, but also within the Security Council, of the need for additional actions on North Korea,” he said at a news briefing.
In his own parliamentary address Thursday, Ahn Cheol-soo, cohead of the minor opposition People’s Party, lashed out at the burst of the “regime collapse” discourse among not just the president and ruling party but also some from the opposition.
“This does not help to tackle our security worries or bring peace and stability to the peninsula, or even a unification,” Ahn said.
“The people know that a sudden change and unification could be a disaster, not a bonanza. What we need is a practical approach instead of an ideological one,” he added, referring to Park’s 2014 drive portraying unification as a “bonanza” for all Koreans.
Kim Chong-in, interim chairman of the main opposition The Minjoo Party of Korea, who formerly was an economic adviser to Park, has also said in a media interview that the president’s argument that South Korean cash given to the Gaeseong industrial park has been used to fund the North’s nuclear and missile programs was “incomprehensible.” He called for the administration to provide evidence and reasonable logic behind its decision to shutter the project.
By Shin Hyon-hee (heeshin@heraldcorp.com)
