Policy Forum

This is the third essay examining the question of the DPRK’s past behavior in the light of the recently completed ROK-DPRK summit. This essay was contributed by William J. Taylor, Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Taylor examines the psychological profiles that have been constructed and propagated over the years by analysts, and by the DPRK itself, to demonstrate that those outside the DPRK do not know much about its leadership or its intentions. Taylor argues that the DPRK leadership may have bought into Kim Dae-jung’s Sunshine Policy, providing other countries with an opportunity to normalize relations that should not be squandered.

This is the second essay examining the question of the DPRK’s past behavior in the light of the recently completed ROK-DPRK summit. This essay was contributed by Nam Si-uk, professor at Korea University and former publisher of the Munhwa Ilbo in Seoul. Nam questions whether DPRK leader Kim Jong-il’s grand strategy relative to reunification with the ROK still follows a “united front” policy of building alliances with sympathetic factions within the ROK. Nam argues that Kim Jong-il’s attempts at intervention in ROK domestic politics, including the US military presence, gives one reason to be pessimistic about whether Kim Jong-il is sincere about reconciliation. This essay originally appeared in the Korea Times on July 31, as “Is United Front Strategy Still Unchanged?”

This essay was contributed by Aidan Foster-Carter, an honorary senior research fellow in sociology and modern Korea at Leeds University, England. Looking at the Bangkok meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum, Foster-Carter questions whether past and current problems with the DPRK should be simply ignored in the process of improving relations with the DPRK. Foster-Carter cites the DPRK’s unwillingness to acknowledge or apologize for terrorist acts in Burma or for kidnapping ROK and Japanese citizens, not to mention using blackmail to gain economic assistance. He argues that this creates a moral hazard for other countries. A shorter, edited version of this essay was published by the International Herald Tribune on July 27.

Nautilus Institute PFO 00-05: Koreans Take Steps to Solve Their Own Problems PFO 00-05I: August 1, 2000 Response to Han Sung-Joo’s essay, “The Shifting Korean Ideological Divide”: Reconfiguration of the Ideological Divide in South Korea: An Update on the Post-Pyongyang Summit By Mi-kyoung Kim Contents: I. Introduction II. Essay by Mi-kyoung Kim III. Nautilus Invites […]

This article by Timothy L. Savage, Program Officer for Global Peace and Security at the Nautilus Institute, appeared in the Korea Herald on June 21. Savage argues that the summit was an important first step in breaking down the ideological barrier that separates the two Koreas. By embracing Kim Dae-jung, DPRK leader Kim Jong-il signaled a move away from the official designation of the ROK as a puppet state, thus opening up the space to a “Korean” solution to the ongoing problem of the divided peninsula.

Nautilus Institute PFO 00-05: Koreans Take Steps to Solve Their Own Problems PFO 00-05H: July 26, 2000 Responses to “U.S. Responsibility to Support the Korean Accord” By Hwal Woong Lee By Paul Chamberlin & Ralph A. Cossa CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Discussion 1. Comments by Paul Chamberlin 2. Comments by Ralph A. Cossa III. Nautilus […]

Nautilus Institute PFO 00-05: Koreans Take Steps to Solve Their Own Problems Nautilus Institute PFO 00-05: Koreans Take Steps to Solve Their Own Problems PFO 00-05H: July 26, 2000 Responses to “U.S. Responsibility to Support the Korean Accord” By Hwal Woong Lee: By Paul Chamberlin & Ralph A. Cossa CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Discussion 1. […]

This essay was contributed by Han Sung-Joo, Professor of International Relations at Korea University and former ROK Foreign Minister. Han made these remarks at the 50th Anniversary Commemorative Conference on “The Korean War: Forgotten No More,” held at Georgetown University in Washington, DC on June 23. Han reviews the history of ideological shifts in the ROK, noting that the divide between left and right becomes apparent whenever the ROK loosens up politically. He argues that while the ROK-DPRK summit has reinvigorated anti-US sentiment in the ROK, when the euphoria from the summit dies down, most people will realize that the costs of keeping US troops in the ROK is worth it to deter war.

Go to the discussion.

This article by Timothy L. Savage, Program Officer for Global Peace and Security at the Nautilus Institute, appeared in the Korea Herald on June 21. Savage argues that the summit was an important first step in breaking down the ideological barrier that separates the two Koreas. By embracing Kim Dae-jung, DPRK leader Kim Jong-il signaled a move away from the official designation of the ROK as a puppet state, thus opening up the space to a “Korean” solution to the ongoing problem of the divided peninsula.

This essay was contributed by Hwal-Woong Lee, Senior Advisor to Minjok Tongshin (LA-based Korean-American Web Daily). Formerly, Mr Lee served as a Foreign Service Officer of the ROK Foreign Ministry (1956-71), ROK Consul in Los Angeles (1968-71), President of Korea Reunification Forum in LA (1994-95), and Fellow at Korea 2000, an LA-based research council on Korean reunification (1997-99). Lee argues that the US, as the country responsible for the division of the Korean Peninsula and the main supporter of the ROK, has an obligation to support the ROK-DPRK accord. He further argues that the only way to get the DPRK to abandon its weapons programs is to withdraw US troops from the ROK.

Go to the discussion.