Korea, U.S. Policies Differ on North

The presidents of Korea and the U.S. have stuck to the mutual agreement by adopting the joint statement on May 2003 in Washington and joint declaration of November 2005 in Gyeongju while they have had six meetings since 2003.

However, with repeated dissonance in policies between Korea and U.S. and provocation of North Korea, the agreements of these two documents have been partly violated or damaged although the basis of the principle of discarding nuclear weapons of North Korea and the Korea-U.S. alliance is still undoubtedly solid.

Both sides of the Gyeongju joint declaration-

Despite the conflicts in deciding the date of providing North Korea with a light water reactor in Six Party Talks, the agreement reached at the six-party talks on September 19, 2005 in Beijing has been evaluated as significant progress after the Gyeongju joint declaration was pulled off.

However, North Korea disregarded the talks and kept criticizing U.S. sanctions on finance. The U.S. also concluded that North Korea does not have a plan to return to Six Party Talks. The agreements, focused on improving the existing truce structure to peace structure on the basis of active talks has become a mere scrap of paper.

What the Gyeongju joint declaration has achieved is an establishment of a center for strategic cabinet-level talks. Korea and U.S. have held the first meeting this January, and Korea agreed to the flexible operation principle allowing dispatches of U.S. troops in Korea to other places if needed.

The joint statement made in May 2003 when President Roh Moo-hyun’s first visit to the U.S took place, strongly emphasized the importance of the Korea-U.S. alliance. It is elucidated that those two countries shares the same values of democracy, human rights and market economy, and it was stated that the Korea-U.S. alliance and affiliated U.S. troops perform an essential role in maintaining peace and prosperity in Northeastern Asia.

The outstanding point of this statement was that U.S. will take further steps if possible threats of North Korea increase. This was interpreted U.S. will take a new measure of pressing North Korea. In fact, since May 2003, North Korea has increased menace with provocative actions such as declaration of possessing nuclear weapons on February 2005 and missile launch on July 2006. However, Korea and U.S. have barely agreed to take ‘further steps’ in the concrete.

The principle assuring food support to North Korea regardless of political climate is also compromised. However, U.S. stopped supporting on the ground that there is no transparency on the process of food distribution. Korea also denied giving rice support immediately after the missile experiment of North Korea on political-military reasons.

srkim@donga.com