COMMENT Towards a co-operative
Korean partnership By Leonid A
Petrov
(This is an updated version of a
speech given by Leonid A Petrov at the Regional
Meeting of the ROK National Unification Advisory
Council in Sydney, October 28, 2011.)
In March 2008, the then newly-elected
Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd declared his
foreign policy philosophy and promised that
"during the course of the next three years, the
world will see an increasingly activist Australian
international policy in areas where we believe we
may be able to make a positive difference".
Rudd assured the audience that the new
Australian government was committed to the
principle of "creative middle-power
diplomacy" as the best means
of enhancing Australia's national interests.
Since then, Australia has already made
great steps forward in departing from the
one-sided conservative foreign policy of the John
Howard years. The Australian Labor Party now
proudly states that its foreign policy platform is
based on the three pillars - alliance with the
United States, active membership of the United
Nations, and comprehensive engagement with Asia -
that manifest realism, liberal internationalism,
and regionalism.
Given this approach, how
can Australia develop a comprehensive and
co-operative partnership with the two Koreas and
contribute to the building of peace and prosperity
in the Asia-Pacific region?
In April 2011,
while visiting Seoul, Australia's Prime Minister
Julia Gillard admitted that "China, Japan and
Korea are countries of vital strategic and
economic importance in the Asia-Pacific region and
to Australia. They are Australia's top three
export destinations and three of Australia's top
four trading partners overall."
But at the
Korean War memorial in Kapyong (the place of
fierce fighting between Australians and Chinese),
she brushed off the prospects for resuming
demilitarization talks with North Korea, saying,
"There's no point just saying 'sit down and talk',
if the talks are not going to achieve anything."
Despite the pledge for a balanced regional
partnership, Australia maintains strong relations
with the Republic of Korea (ROK) but minimal
relations with the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (DPRK). While maintaining formal diplomatic
links, Canberra has little plans to open its
embassy in Pyongyang.
Most bilateral
cooperation with the North has been put on hold by
the Australian side "until the nuclear-weapon
crisis is resolved". The closure of the DPRK's
embassy in Canberra in 2008 seemed to be a logical
outcome of this freeze in relations. There is
little discussion of the future of Australia-DPRK
relations in the media. Reports on trade with
North Korea produced by the Australian government
reflect a pessimistic posture.
Certainly,
the DPRK is not an ordinary state and its social
order is unique in today's world. To deal with
North Korea successfully we must remember and
understand Cold War history and its consequences
for the region. The reality of the inter-Korean
conflict must be taken into account whenever we
try to engage in dialogue or cooperation.
Sensibility and understanding in dealing with
Korea and Koreans are as important as first-hand
knowledge of their country, language and culture.
Sadly, preoccupation with pragmatism and allied
solidarity left Australia-Korea relations
lopsided.
To be pragmatic means to
understand that regime change in North Korea,
despite the long-standing predictions, cannot
happen in current circumstances. The Korean War
has never ended, and as long as regional powers
help one side of the divided Korea and bully the
other, the division of Korea will continue.
Without our full diplomatic recognition,
solid security assurance, and fair economic
treatment the DPRK will not follow China or
Vietnam's examples in market reforms and
democratization. Instead, North Korea will remain
consolidated ideologically with no room for
political freedom or economic liberalism.
The demise of its supreme leader, Kim
Jong-il, has already triggered the power
succession process, which may open new
opportunities for negotiations. We also know that
man-made and natural disasters began hitting North
Korea again, leaving the population weakened and
desperate.
The fall in grain production
around the world and rising international grain
prices have also put international food donors
into a difficult situation. Last year the World
Food Program (WFP) warned that North Korea would
need massive food aid in the coming months to
avert widespread hunger caused by severe floods,
economic sanctions, and ineffective diplomacy.
In the meantime, inter-Korean relations
have deteriorated to a level previously known only
in the Cold War era. The sinking of the
Cheonan corvette and the shelling of
Yeonpyeong Island are commonly attributed to
Pyongyang’s "erratic and dangerous behavior", but
are rarely associated with Seoul’s actions in the
disputed waters around the controversial
Northern-Limit Line.
Neither of these
incidents would have occurred if the agreements of
the June 2000 and October 2007 Inter-Korean
summits had been implemented. The Peace and
Prosperity (or "Sunshine") Policy had prioritized
economic and humanitarian cooperation over
political and military considerations, and was
quite effective.
These days, South Korean
producers dump millions of tons of quality food
that could bring famine relief to their brethren
in the North. I think that it would be much wiser
for the ROK government to assume more active
responsibility for the wellbeing of the people
residing in the territories which will sooner or
later become part of the unified Korea. Similarly,
an Australia that routinely helps the flood
victims in Myanmar and drought victims in
Afghanistan could more actively assist the
impoverished people of North Korea. Wouldn't it be
better if the Labor government in Canberra,
together with administrations in Seoul and
Pyongyang could cement the foundation for a new
balanced relationship?
As the first step
towards ending the war in Northeast Asia, the
mutual recognition of both the ROK and DPRK is
necessary. Although both governments understand
the pros and cons of peaceful co-existence, the
Cold War mentality that dominates the region does
not permit such an option. In order to resolve the
Korean knot both competing states in the North and
South should dismantle the thesis of exclusive
legitimacy on the peninsula, on which the whole
building of their respective identities and
statehood are founded. Sadly, as long as the
ideology of nationalism permeates their domestic
politics, I don't think it is possible.
Confrontation will continue indefinitely
until the regional powers decide to interrupt the
vicious circle and change the paradigm of
relations. But to make this situation sustainable,
a special status (neutral and non-nuclear) should
be given to the Korean peninsula with no place for
foreign troops or conflicting alliances. Only this
would stop the century-long foreign rivalry for
domination in Korea, and help the Koreans
reconcile.
While the Cold War mentality
rules inter-Korean relations and limits contacts
between the people of North and South Korea to an
absolute minimum, it is impossible to expect much
support from below either. The best example of
balance between the grassroot initiative and
government actions was achieved during the 10
years of "Sunshine" policy.
Its main
principles were: "Give first, take later" and
"easy tasks first, difficult tasks later". It’s
time to understand that there is no alternative to
such policy, and the sooner the ROK government
resumes it the brighter will be the future for
Korea and Koreans.
Differences in
political views and economic systems must not
divide but should rather enhance the value of
partnership and help complement each other's
strengths. By intensifying diplomatic ties and
expanding economic cooperation with both halves of
divided Korea we can make a significant
contribution to the peaceful resolution of the
nuclear problem and prepare the basis for durable
peace and prosperity in the region.
Leonid A Petrov (PhD), is a
Lecturer in Korean studies at the School of
Languages and Cultures, The Faculty of Arts and
Social Sciences, The University of Sydney.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
