Korean peninsula vs. Bush adm. (1)Will N.K.-U.S. framework change?

(1) Will N.K.-U.S. framework change?
(2) Powell`s Korea policy
(3) Revision of North Korean aid policy
(4) Impact of NMD and TMD
(5) Reduction of U.S. forces in Korea
(6) How to coordinate North Korea policies?
(7) Pressure to rise for market opening

U.S. President-elect George W. Bush will be inaugurated Jan. 20. The launching of the conservative Bush administration is expected to give significant impact on the fast-changing situation on the Korean peninsula. This is the analysis of the Bush administration's Korea policy direction and its potential influence on the tripartite relationship among South and North Korea and the United States. -Ed.

The litmus test to measure the incoming Bush administration's future Korean policy direction is how to deal with the Agreed Framework that was concluded between North Korea and the United States in 1994 in Geneva.

As is indicated by the title "agreed framework," the accord has constituted the foundation for regulating the relationship among the two Koreas and the United States for the past six years. In line with the agreement, Washington has pursued an engagement policy with Pyongyang and the Perry process in an attempt to forestall Pyongyang's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the meantime, Korea has promoted the sunshine policy of the engagement with the North under the initiative of President Kim Dae-Jung.

Such being the case, the alteration of the North Korea - U.S. agreed framework means that the tripartite relations that have been so far developed will be reverted to the original state before 1994. This is to say that their relations could slide into a new phase of tension.

Drawing our concern is the fact that there are rising voices calling for the review of the Geneva agreement even before the inauguration of the Bush administration, which vowed to pursue peace from the stance of strength and thorough reciprocal policy. The U.S. Republican Party has so far raised complaints about the Geneva framework accord, contending that the pact has failed to suspend North Korea's nuclear weapons development program.

The Nihon Geizai Shimbun of Japan reported Jan. 6 that the incoming Bush administration was studying the review of the agreed framework under which two light-water reactors would be provided to Pyongyang in return for its freeze of its nuclear development project.

In this connection U.S. Secretary of State-designate Colin Powell has asserted that the United States would earnestly promote the nation missile defense system and study a plan to replace the light-water reactors under construction in the North with thermal power plants.

Powell's statement means to alter the framework of the Geneva agreement. Although he merely called for the replacement of the light-water reactors with thermal power plants, this poses a grave question of conducting a comprehensive working-level review of the ongoing light-water reactor construction project.

To that end, the existing framework should be renewed and the project being promoted by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization must be overhauled. If thermoelectric plants were pushed ahead in exchange for nuclear reactors, the United States would be relieved from its financial burden to provide substitute fuel to the North. But in this case, KEDO will have to bear burden to supply fuel needed for the proposed thermal plants.

If this should happen, Pyongyang might take steps including the breach of its Geneva agreement concerning the freeze of the nuclear weapons program, in retaliation for the U.S. violation of the bilateral pact. This means the annulment of the Geneva agreed framework. In this event, the present North Korean-U.S. relationship would be entirely changed, and the Perry process calling for comprehensive negotiations with Pyongyang would be interrupted.

Nonetheless, experts forecast that both the Bush administration and the North Korean leadership will avoid this worst-case scenario. This is because the tension building in Northeast Asia due to the breakup of the Geneva accord is not in the best interests of the United States and because the new U.S. administration will find it difficult to work out a viable North Korea policy framework to replace the Perry process.

On the other hand, the North will foresee that if it irritates the United States with the resumption of its nuclear weapons development, it could hardly expect its economic recovery and face a fatal blow on its national survival.

Prof. Suh Dong-Man of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and National Security predicted that if Bush's diplomatic and security team grapple with issues realistically, instead of using past policy positions, it would not undertake any radical policy shift such as the abolition of the Geneva accords. At the same time, depending on Pyongyang's stance of negotiations with Washington, the new U.S. administration's North Korea policy is expected to be influenced.

Kim Young-Sik spear@donga.com