Policy Forum

Response to “Made in Which Korea?” Response to “Made in Which Korea?” Discussion of Policy Forum Online 05-94A: November 21st, 2005 Response to “Made in Which Korea?” by Andrei Lankov CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Comments by Pilho Park on “Made in which Korea?” III. Nautilus invites your responses Go to “Made in which Korea?” (November […]

The JoongAng Daily News ran this editorial on the challenges of inter-Korean economic cooperation and the Kaesong Industrial Complex. “The economic benefit for both Koreas is estimated to exceed $20 billion a year. Unification Minister Chung Dong-young has spoken of the need to amend the South Korean constitution to recognize North Korean territory. It would be hard to declare the products from Kaesong as goods that are made in South Korea after such an amendment.”

Go to the discussion.

Don Oberdorfer, Distinguished Journalist in Residence and adjunct professor of international relations at the Johns Hopkins University’s Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, wrote: “Despite distrust on the part of some of their superiors in both capitals, these people will tell you, as they have told me, that they have worked well with one another in common purposes in the Six Party Talks, bilateral talks about the U.S. military deployments in Korea and in other instances. To sum up, I believe the U.S.-R.O.K. alliance is in trouble but that it will continue, at least for a while, depending in large part on choices that Koreans decide to make.”

David L. Asher, Adjunct Scholar, Institute for Defense Analyses, Coordinator, North Korea Working Group and Senior Adviser for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, wrote: “The North must cease its dealings with trans-national organized criminals, its illicit export of weapons, its nuclear reprocessing, its threats to engage in nuclear proliferation, etc. Instead it should accept the extremely reasonable terms the US, with the others parties in the talks, have offered for promoting a positive and peaceful transformation of relations in the context of full denuclearization.”

Jeong-jin Lee, wrote the following paper for the IFES Forum, noting: “Since it established a democratic constitution in 1992, Mongolia has shown peaceful transfers of power in four parliamentary elections and four presidential elections. However, the citizens did not give the power to any one group for a long time. After experiencing the governance of both groups for 14 years, the citizens chose a balanced government in 2004. Such peaceful and stabilized transfers of power show that procedural democracy has been established in Mongolia.”

Stephen E. Noerper, Nautilus Institute Senior Associate and former director of the Nautilus Institute’s Washington, DC office, wrote: “Mongolia also stands as a potential harbinger of democracy and transition from a Stalinist economy to North Korea, a mere 1800 miles away. Though the regime of Kim Jong-il has no ready inclination to discuss Mongolia’s political model, it has expressed continued interest in how Mongolia had transitioned to free market capitalism and privatized eighty percent of once state-held assets.”

Chung-in Moon, Professor of political science at Yonsei University in Seoul, writes, “Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that food aid does not exist within a vacuum. It is but one part of a complex and trying effort by the South Korean government to improve inter-Korean relations, reduce military tension and help its North Korean brethren.”

Ha Young-sun, Professor of International Relations at Seoul National University, writes, “If we were to have progress in the discussions on implementing the joint statement in the fifth round of the six-party talks, the key challenge is to make the contradictory relationship between the pillar of nuclear abandonment, which Washington prioritizes, and the pillar of safeguarding the regime, which Pyongyang ultimately wants, complementary.”

Tong Kim, a recently retired State Department official and current research professor at Korea University, writes, “If there were something the North Koreans could choose to resolve first, it would be achieving a normal, friendly relationship of trust with the United States. After that, they believe, there will be no security threat to their regime. If there were something the Americans could choose to resolve first, it would be nuclear dismantlement. So in all agreements, the sequence of measures is an issue. Judging by its language, this deal will be no different.”

Ruediger Frank, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Korea University, Seoul, writes, “Aside from the possibility that this might either be a temporary measure or turn out to be a misunderstanding altogether, such a move calls for some attempts at an interpretation. Would the reintroduction of the 100% PDS coverage be a sign of failure, or of success? Should we be happy or concerned? Here is a fictive dialogue between a pessimist and an optimist to answer these questions.”