• North Korea Quits Nuclear Arms Treaty (Post, Jan. 10) • N. Koreans Meet With Richardson (Post, Jan. 10) • Anti-U.S. Sentiment Deepens in S. Korea (Post, Jan. 9) • World: North Korea section • World: South Korea section • Talk: washingtonpost.com message boards • Live Online Transcripts • Subscribe to washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters • mywashingtonpost. com -- customized news, traffic, weather and more

North Korea: South Korean Perspective
With Paul Kim
Former Director of the Korean-American Peace Institute
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003; 1 p.m. ET

Amidst preparation for war with Iraq, North Korea has added to global concern by admitting that nuclear facilities have been reactivated and expelling U.N. monitors. Renewing the nuclear arms program have caused a breach between the U.S. and the Korean peninsula.

Many South Koreans have a split voice on their views of North Korea. Increasingly, Koreans have expressed anti-U.S. sentiment and others still believe that U.S. presence provides mediation and security.

Paul Kim, former director of the Korean-American Peace Institute, discusses the Korean perspective on the Korean penninsula and U.S. policy.

As director of the Korean-American Peace Institute, a community peace organization, Kim has written occasional analyses of the issues affecting US-Korea relations and has spoken on various news programs about current crisis surrounding North Korean nuclear program. On January 5, 2003, he was a guest on an NPR call-in program “PowerPoint” (host: Carmen Burns), speaking on the topic of “Iraq and North Korea: Double Standard?” He has also been interviewed by various Pacifica stations. He has visited North Korea four times.

Kim also served as the executive director of Korea Church Coalition for Peace, Justice and Reunification (KCC) from 1991-1997. KCC was an ecumenical agency made up of major Christian denominations and Catholic orders whose mandate was to enable American Christian churches and individuals to advocate for peace and reunification of Korea through community education and policy advocacy. Currently, he is a doctoral candidate in theology at Princeton Theological Seminary and serves a local United Methodist Church in northern New Jersey.

The transcript follows below.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Kim: Is this simply a case of Korean pride run amok? I can't help remembering the 1988 Korean Olympic boxer who sat down in the ring and refused to leave because he didn't agree that he'd lost the match. Is this whole nuclear threat based on the North Korean's "hurt feelings" that the rest of the world doesn't treat them with the respect that they think they deserve?

Paul Kim: Well, we can think of North Korea as irrational or a child that is playing a prank. But I think it would be better to see them as they really are: they are serious negotiators with a strange way of neogitating. They feel they have not been heard by the Bush Administration so they are trying to send a signal.

Long Beach, Calif.: What was the relationship between North and South Korea prior to the Japanese
"Annexation" of Korea in the 1890's? Which part of Korea suffered the most under the rule of the "Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

Paul Kim: Well, Korea was annexed in 1910; and it was a one country. Actually it was the "Empire of Korea" when Japan colonized it. During the colonial period, the Japanese developed the northern half since there were more natural resources in that part. The southern part of Korea has more agricultural land (of course, keeping in mind that Korea is 75% mountainous). But all of Korea and the Korean people suffered a lot under the Japanese.

Fairbanks, Alaska: Don’t most Koreans realize that this anti-American feeling that they’re fostering is somewhat juvenile, extremely hypocritical and ultimately very dangerous?

Juvenile: I understand that one of the reasons for their increasing dislike of America is the fact that one of their Olympic short-track skaters was disqualified during the Winter Games at Salt Lake City and an American won the gold medal in that event. Don’t they realize that it was a Canadian referee who disqualified the South Korea skater? Why get mad at a whole country because of a lousy game? What if Italy or Spain hated Korea for the bad refereeing during the 2002 World Cup? It is simply childish.

Hypocritical: The young South Koreans have animosity towards the U.S., but they still desire to study here and live here. They also imitate the music, the trends and other fads. They color their hair blond and wear hip-hop clothes. How can they hate us and yet want to be so much like us?

Dangerous: Don’t the South Koreans know that Kim Jung Il is laying a trap for them. He talks about unification and Koreans being one. He allows some relatives to meet each other. Yet, this is all to convince South Koreans that he is not dangerous. Yet, South Koreans, especially the young ones, forget or seem to ignore that he has starved and killed millions of his countrymen. If North Korea is not so dangerous, why are hundreds, if not thousands, of North Koreans trying to escape via China to South Korea? Kim Jung Il is trying to set the South Koreans against the U.S. to eventually dominate the whole peninsula. Wake up South Korea!

Why do South Koreans believe what they believe? Is it biased and narrow minded journalists and media reports? Is it the government who is stoking anti-American sentiments to get leverage during SOFA negotiations, but now realize that these sentiments are getting out of hand? Their feelings do not seem rationale given the realities involved.

washingtonpost.com: Anti-U.S. Sentiment Deepens in S. Korea (Post, Jan. 9)

Paul Kim: Well, this is a difficult question. So called "anti-American" sentiments is not something new in US-Korea relations. But I think it is not helpful to just label Koreans "juvenile" or "hypocritical." Relationships between countries are always changing; and especially when it is felt that a "foreign" country is above "law", any red-blooded American would be up in arms. Korean people are some of the most literate and well-read; and recent American policies on Korean peninsula are seen as arbitrary and perhaps not to be best interest of Korean people. The way for American policy is to persuade the Koreans that this isn't so: that we have their best interest in heart as well as our own security concerns.

Reston, Va.: Mr. Kim,

I have a crazy notion that now might be the right time to negotiate reunification of the Korean peninsula. As diplomats from North Korea come to the table to negotiate food shipments, power plant construction, and weapons proliferation, I say hit them up with ending the Korean conflict all together. Reunifying the Koreas will eliminate all the problems that Kim Jong Il's people face and raise his status as the man who brought all of Korea together after 50 years of separation. As Kim looks for a face-saving opportunity, giving him the opportunity to go down in history as the greatest Korean ever could satisfy his ego to the point where he would be willing to give up power. After all, he is the only one we need to convince in order to make it happen, so even if the odds are 1 in a 100, isn't it worth the shot?

Paul Kim: If it happens as you say, Hallelujah and Thank God!

Long Beach, Calif.: North Korea is constantly being portrayed as being in a "time-warp". Should we transport ourselves into a 1950's mindset in order to be in line with their thinking?

Paul Kim: Good question.
The problem is North Korea is trying to get out of the "time warp" (the Cold War wasn't good for their country: think about trying to stand up to US in terms of security!) while they feel that policymakers in Washington are trying them in that "time warp." It is time to put behind the Cold War mentality, but somehow policymakers always see North Korea - as that country which started the Korean War - which happened 50 years ago. We should be forward thinking in our policy making when it comes to Korea.

Millersville, Md.: Why is North Korea doing this when he knows it presents an ultimatum to the rest of the world. Lastly, why hasn't S. Korea, China, and Russia, taken a harsher position with N Korea since all in the area don't wan them to have nuclear wepons.

Paul Kim: Perhaps, the countries surrounding North Korea recognize that the central motivation for North Korean policymaking is "regime survival" and that North Korea sees the US as its biggest threat, especially after 9/11 when President Bush named North Korea a member of the "axis of evil". When that happened, North Korea took that as a sign that US was not interested in following the guidelines of the 1994 Agreed Framework which was to lead to a political reconciliation between the US and North Korea (NK). In October of 2000, top NK officials had met with Clinton people and made an official declaration that both countries did not entertain "hostile intentions" toward each other. I believe North Korea realizes that nuclear weapons will give them no advantage - perhaps a "security" blanket against US pre-emptive strike. But it does not feed their people nor help in their economic development -which is what they sorely need. But they want to be guaranteed that US will not attack them, and being named a member of the "axis of evil" does not guarantee them that.

Reston, Va.: It seems that whatever the resolution to the current North Korean crisis, one outcome will be the American military disengagement from South Korea. My sense is that many Americans want to see our troops come home, especially in the face of the increasingly strident villification of the United States in the South. Do you see this coming to pass and when?

Paul Kim: The hope is that US troops can come hope when their goals is accomplished: to act as a deterrent to a new NK attack (the last one being 1950). If NK and SK can reach an agreement for peace, and both declare that US presence is no longer needed, then US should disengage militarily. I'm not sure when. Perhaps as soon as US and NK signs a non-aggression pact, and perhaps when US and SK engineers and workers are in NK helping them to develop.

Bethesda, Md.: Hi Mr Kim,

Do you also think if South Korea sways away from being a US puppet, that the chances are greater for reunification? I know USA does force its policies to its allies and they should all "think" like Americans. I believe the new President elect has the same feelings?

Paul Kim: The recent show of "anti-Americanism" perhaps is a reflection of this sense: that US policy in Korea is geared towards fulfilling American interests, without taking in South Korean interests. For example, when President Bush came in office, one of the first things he did was to disparage President Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy," without realizing fully what it would mean. President-elect Roh has promised to follow Kim's sunshine policy as well as work closely with Washington. However, he wants the Korean policy to be good for the Korean people - and not be swayed by Washington's politics, which sways from calling North Korea an axis of evil and then says they do not have any intention of attacking them. Seoul feels that the US policy on Korea needs to be more consistent.

College Park, Md.: Mr. Kim,

How much of the current situation is because of the new Korean administration and a general desire for reconciliation with the North, and how much of it is a result of specific incidents involving US soldiers, like the traffic accident where two people were run over?

Paul Kim: Good question. I think the tension between US and ROK goes back at least 10 years. In 1990-1 when NK and SK signed a de-nuclearization pact, and US announced withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Korea, NK and SK were ready to get the past behind them. But then President Bush decided it was going too fast and stopped South Korea and Japan from their fast track negotiations towards normalization. The result of that brake job was the first NK nuke crisis which was averted by Carter's visit. So there has always been a desire on part of countries surrounding the Korean peninsula to reach some sort of reconciliation with North Korea and put the past behind them. It seems US has the hardest time dealing with this reality.

Now, the situation has changed. And the surrounding countries, including SK and Japan are leading the way towards negotiations. Which is good. And NOrth Korea seems to realize that they need to do that, whereas in the past, it always wanted to talk to US first.

Seattle, Wash.: How in the world does a Stalinist regime, said to be possibly the most closed, repressive society in the world, willingly reunify with a democracy? Other than, of course, subjugating the democracy...

Paul Kim: Well, it will take time. Look at China, and of course Tianenmen Square. NK seems to have chosen the Chinese model. There are no other models, except to see NK implode. But this isn't something anybody in that part of the world wants. If you were to go to China today, it would be hard to say it is a "Stalinist" society, although many of the poeople's "political" actions are still controlled. So change is possible, no?

Chicago, Ill.: First, thank you for your attention to my question. I appreciate your thoughts.
Second, a brief background to my question: Recently ROK has enjoyed at least three positive experiences which help boost national self-esteem in my opinion. These are the overcoming of the IMF crisis first among Asian countries involved, ROK President Kim's opening of dialogue with DPRK President Kim and his "sunshine policy," and the recent World Cup soccer victories. These understandably combine to newly refresh the ROK national self-esteem, and puts it in a positive light for the whole world.

Yet more recently, there has been an outpouring of nationalistic emotion against the united states, apparently primarily by the younger generation. This is also very understandable in light of the events of the last 93 years in Korea as a whole, beginning in 1920 with Japanese aggression, then the unbearable frustrations following liberation and the creation of division into North and South Korea, with constant foreign intervention all along.

The outpouring of emotion against the USA undermines the positive gains ROK has made recently vis-a-vis the whole world. Moreover, it more seriously alienates those in the US.

Here's my question: Why does not President Noh discourage the demonstrations, which will ultimately backfire on ROK itself? My feeling is that not discouraging them is a big mistake on his part for a number of reasons.

Paul Kim: For the past century, Korea as a nation has struggled with the issue of sovereignty. And it seems to me that in this new millennium, many are taking a serious look at US-Korea relations. From what I have heard from the recent demonstrations in Korea, it is not a virulent anti-Americanism we hear in other parts of the world. Rather, it is a call for a mature relationship between two nations: so that it is no longer, "Washington has sniffles and Seoul has the flu" kind of relationship. President Kim and P-Elect Roh both have said that the SOFA needs to be looked at again. In addition, Korean people realize that they have a positive role to play in what happens on the Korean peninsula. In 1992-4 when the US was ready to take preemptive strikes against Pyongyang, it was pretty much a one-sided decision-making (thankfully, cool heads in Seoul and then in DC prevailed). There was US trying to make the argument that starting another war in Korea would be beneficial to all, especially the South, with the promise that the missile defense system will help protect Seoul.

It is going to take more engaged and serious policymaking in DC to convince the Koreans that US policy is going to help them. This is an advance - and a good thing for both sides.

Jersey City, NJ: What's the relationship between the north and lt's "closest ally" China? Can we expect something from China? Is China playing a role in this matter?

Paul Kim: Very much so. That is why US has been focusing on influencing NK through China in recent years. Given the large border between the two - and its historic ties, China does not want to see NK collapse, nor be attacked. So if China had its way, it'd want NK to follow its steps and move towards development; but since China also has great economic ties to SK, it wants the two countries to be in peace.

In the current crisis, China has called on Washington to reach some kind of official non-aggression pact with the North and called on North to keep by its international commitments to non-proliferation.

South Windsor, Conn.: Mr. Kim,
What seems to be a more logical approach to negotiating with the DPRK. On one hand, a unified response seems to make sense with the international community having reached a consensus. On the other, do you see any benefit to the fractured foreign policies different counries use? Current talks and summits still do not have me convinced of any serious combined effort. Korea-US and Russia-Japan talks - why can't we have Korea-US-Russian-Japan-China talks?

Paul Kim: Anything is possible. But the fact remains that there is a good structure in place to resolve the current crisis: 1994 Agreed Framework. By keeping to it, both sides will get what they need, and the world can have some peace. But in the post-9/11 cliimate, Washington has retched up its attack on terrorism and has included North Korea in it, which has made NK feeling very insecure about the 1994 Agreement. When Bush stopped the shipment of heavy fuel oil (costing around $ 300 million), NK took that to mean that they were back to square one.

It is time for both sides to return to the table, and to this agreed framework -despite the problems. The international community sees that there is this guideline - and are callingon both sides to return to the table. After all, we went through the crisis once before in 1991-94 and I don't think any of the international playere want to revisit it again. That is why IAEA and the other leading countries are tryuing to encourage diplomatic efforts.

Woodbridge, Va.: We know that North Korea does not and will not negotiate in good faith or abide by its agreements. We know that if North Korea develops a sufficient quantity of nuclear weapons, they will sell some. We cannot allow that. Short of an Osirak-style strike, what alternative is there?

Paul Kim: I'm not sure how you can make that kind of a judgement. The 1994 Agreed Framework was working well. Even the Bush Admin has not said the NK have developed a weapon, nor even tried to reprocess uranium; they had bought the material.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration began to dismantle the 1994 AGreement, and moved the goal post.

So who's to say who doesn't negotiate in good faith. One question is to ask who has more to lose if the 1994 aGreed Framework doesn't work. I'd think it is North Korea, since they really need to have Western aid and technology to survive in the term term

Rockville, Md.: If the US signed a non-aggression pact with DPNK tomorrow and, simultaneously, American troops pulled out of South Korea, how do you think North Korea would adjust its reunification strategy with South Korea?

Paul Kim: Well, I don't think it's going to work like that. Even if it did, we seem to forget that there are only 37,000 US army in Korea, and that the South Korean army is no wimp: it has a whopping 670,000 plus reserves. Not only that the South Korean defense budget, in real $, is almost 10 times larger than the NK, at least for the past 10 years. That is why NK was forced to negotiation. So even if US pulls out, it isn't like there is no gate on the chicken coop. And NK isn't stupid. It isn't 1950. US presence is pervasive, and we have our boys in Okinawa and elsewhere nearby.

Alexandria, Va.: Mr. Kim,

One basic question: Should we be more worried about the situation in Korea presently than Iraq?

Paul Kim: I think we should be more worried about Al-Quaeda than either of them. After all, they are the ones who carried out the 9/11, not Iraq nor North Korea.

Washington, DC: Politics aside, isn't the U.S. the primary reason that South Korea has been able to prosper? Do those spewing anti-American sentiment have any idea what Korea would be like if the primary market for Kia, Hyundai, Dae Woo, GoldStar, etc. were to stop buying from them?

Paul Kim: Again, Koreans would be acting foolish if anti-Americanism were made its foreign policy. But it is a fact that US-Korea policy neesd to be reformulated, and Washington needs to take the concerns of the Korean people to heart, rather than treating them like a pawn in their global war against terrorism.

Falls Church, Va.: Mr. Kim,

Good day sir. There is growing concern, regarding the increasing animosity towards the American military presence in S. Korea, particularly, after the unfortunate accident involving the death of the 2 young ladies. What do you see, as the best way for our government, to mend it's relationship, with the Korean people? Is it still possible to salvage our countries ties?

Paul Kim: The last round of anti-Americanism came during Washington's support of military dictators in Korea. And it was a good thing to remind Washington that human rights are human rights everywhere.

This current round is about equality in relationship. And it seems to me Washington and Seoul should see themselves as equals. Seoul should be treated like Tokyo. But as of now, at least among many policy makers, there is a tendency to treat Korea as a Cold War outpost.

Somewhere, USA: What about China? Why, in your opinion, hasn't China been a more forceful player here? Certainly, China can't like the prospect of another Nuclear power on its border, nor can it like that the Japanese may feel it necessary to consider nuclear weapons themselves in the face of a North Korean Threat. Further, China wants markets and trading partners...more likely now with the South than effective with the North. So, why isn't China being more proactive in this situation?

Paul Kim: Well, the 1994 AGreed Framework was between the US and NK, not with China. But China has been playing an important role; it has been NK's greatest supporter in terms of fuel and grain during the past 10 years.

Leesburg, Va.: Just how brainwashed are the North Korean people? From what I read the are constantly pummeled with propaganda but it has to be quite evident to them by their growling stomachs that they do not live in the paradise the government says they do.

Paul Kim: From having visited there, it isn't a matter of being brainwashed (perhaps the level of our being brainwashed by billion dollars worth of ads has greater impact on us), but living in a society that is fairly regimented. But the last decade has seen great changes for the better, and it is improving. I think it is bad policy to think that the other person cannot change, when facts tell us that they are changing!

Paul Kim: Hey folks
Thanks for all your questions. Sorry I couldn't get to all of them. Remind leaders everywhere that talking first never hurt. If need more info, you may want to check out www.nautilus.com I think they have the most objective as well as comprehensive info on the situation in Korea.
Thanks
Paul Kim

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Worldwatch: State of the World 2003, 2 p.m. ET
'South Pacific': Director and Actors, 3 p.m. ET

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

Automatically Update Page    |   Get New Responses   |   Submit Question