Policy Forum

Bruce Cumings, Professor in the History Department and Member of the Committee on International Relations at the University of Chicago and author of the two volume work The Origins of the Korean War and North Korea: Another Country, writes, “North Korea has won and got what it wanted, and what it had suggested in the 1990s: to trade its nuclear programme for aid and normalised ties with the US, a proposition denied and derided in official Washington.”

Zhang Quanyi, an associate professor at the Zhejiang Wanli University in Ningbo, China, and a research fellow at the School of International Studies at Yonsei University, writes, “Both China and Korea have been greatly influenced by Confucianism. What’s more, they share an unhappy history with Japan. In the face of recent moves toward a possible military alliance between the United States, Japan, Australia, India and other countries, China may seek to strengthen its cultural and historical ties with Korea to boost its position in Asia.”

Anthony DiFilippo, Professor of Sociology at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, writes, “Whether or not Ogata and his associates intended to cheat Chongryun is actually quite separate from the question of whether Chongryun and Chongryun Koreans, a minority in Japan that has long been subjected to oppressive and discriminatory treatment, have bore the political brunt of Tokyo’s recent disagreements with Pyongyang on the nuclear, missile and especially the abduction issues.”

Ke Chung Kim, Chair of the DMZ Forum (http://www.dmzforum.org/) and Director of the Center for BioDiversity Research at Pennsylvania State University, writes, “The 2nd Inter-Korean Summit in Pyongyang offers an timely opportunity for the leaders of two Koreas, Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il of the DPRK and President Roh Moo-Hyun of the ROK to forge an ultimate agenda, building environmental security on the Korean peninsula for which the formation of an inter-Korean commission for environmental security should be considered a positive contribution towards peace, prosperity and healthy environment for the Korean people.”

Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Assistance in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service, Emma Chanlett-Avery, Analyst in Asian Affairs in the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service, and Andorra Bruno, Specialist in Immigration Policy in the Domestic Social Policy Division of the Congressional Research Service, write, “Formulating policy toward North Korea has been characterized as deciding among a range of bad options. The following outlines some basic approaches to dealing with North Korea’s human rights and refugee issues advocated by various constituencies, with an analysis of some of the possible diplomatic and security related ramifications. United States policy has adopted elements of several of these strategies in the past and future policies will likely be a combination of approaches.”

Scott Snyder, senior associate with the Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum CSIS, writes, “Despite Kim’s strategic calculus, a second inter-Korean summit draws him further into the public light and diminishes the opacity surrounding the North Korean regime. Kim’s economic needs reveal his dependency on external aid, which should only be given transparently with the full approval of the Korean taxpayer.”

Eric J. Ballbach, research associate of the Korea Communication and Research Center in Berlin, writes, “If we now compare the circumstances and political conditions of the first and the second summit, there appears to be a major similarity, namely the basic fact that both summits occur in a time when North Korea began to emerge from a phase of diplomatic isolation. Differently put: North Korea’s ‘Yes’ to the summit is inseparable connected with external developments in the Northeast Asian region – despite the internal dynamic of inter-Korean relations.”

Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Economy and Society at the University of Vienna, Executive Vice Speaker of the Vienna School of Governance and an Adjunct Professor at Korea University in Seoul, writes, “it is unlikely that the weapons themselves will be scrapped. Nevertheless, stopping their production is a valuable thing and within reach. The reasons behind are, as usual, subject to speculation, and might include a fear of China, a concern over South Korean domestic developments, hunger for economic support and tactical gameplay.”

Georgy Bulychev, Director for Korean Research Programs, Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Moscow, writes, “if the DPRK gains short-term profits (like fostering her stance vis-à-vis the U.S. and receiving economic aid), the South and other interested countries will gain over the long-term. For the South, it is an important step forward on the way towards normalizing relations with the North and strengthening the common potential of the Korean states. Looking from the angle of regional geopolitics, it would provide for stronger stability and growing interaction and coincide with Russia’s priorities.”

Lim Eul-chul, Research Professor at Kyungnam University, writes “no one should be blindly optimistic about the upcoming summit, but if any agreements develop as a result of the meeting, it would mean qualitative development of inter-Korean relations. It would also mean the prospect of huge opportunities in the future for entrepreneurs trying to find a way into North Korean markets, as business with North Korea is already progressing by leaps and bounds.”