The Vice Department Director of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister, Kim Yo Jong recently hinted at Pyongyang’s willingness to hold Inter-Korea Peace Talks to mutually end the Korean War. It is a welcome move but what goes behind this sudden interest?
Peace with Conditions applied
Kim Yo Jong’ statement came as a reply to South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s renewed calls for ending the Korean War at the 76th United Nations General Assembly meeting earlier this week.
Kim dubbed impartiality, end of a hostile policy towards the North and mutual respect as the prerequisites for peace talks.
She justified Pyongyang’s “self defensive actions” in the Peninsula and blamed the United States and South Korea for their “illogical and childish” denunciation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea which are a “disregard of and challenge to the sovereignty of the DPRK”.
She enlisted a few suggestions for improving relations which includes the reestablishment of the North-South Liaison office which Pyongyang bombed in June 2020 , Convening an Inter-Korea Summit as well as the “timely declaration of the significant termination of the War”.
Kim’s statement succeeds and precedes some interesting events. A week before the statement, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea conducted two missile tests after a break of six months,which included the newly developed strategic cruise missile and two railway borne ballistic missiles. For the first time, Seoul too tested an indigenously developed ballistic missile which President Moon justified as a response to North’s “asymmetric capabilities”. Before Kim displayed willingness for dialogue, North Korea’s Vice Foreign Minister Ri Thae Song had rejected Seoul’s calls for ending the Korean War, claiming it to be a “smokescreen covering up the US hostile policy”.
After the statement was published, Japan and South Korea alleged North Korea of firing an unidentified projectile, possibly a ballistic missile, from the Jagang Mountains into the East Sea at 6:40am local time (21:40 GMT) on September 27 . This third missile test preceded Pyongyang’s UNGA address by less than an hour. The DPRK’s UN Ambassador Kim Song vehemently criticised Washington’s “anachronistic hostile policy” towards Pyongyang and stated that North Korea would “willingly” respond if the US permanently ends joint military exercises with the South and scraps its hostile policy in a “bold and complete manner” which he added, did not appear to be the case. Ambassador Kim further stated that the Korean War had not officially ended and the possibility of a new war on the Peninsula was controlled “not by US’ mercy” but by his nation’s increasing ability to act as a “reliable deterrent against hostile forces”.
On Our Terms
These events paint an interesting though a complex picture. On the one hand, Pyongyang displays willingness to sit at the high table after a bitter war of words and severing of communication lines with Seoul while on the other, its actions further add to the instability on the Peninsula. These actions can be understood as the DPRK’s attempts to compel Seoul, Tokyo and Washington to initiate a peace dialogue with it but on terms favourable to Pyongyang.
All previous multilateral attempts to denuclearise North Korea have broken down due to Washington’s non negotiable stance that Pyongyang de-nuclearises before sanctions could be lifted and North Korea’s insistence that sanctions be lifted first which when denied, follows yet another missile test as a display of its disagreement. For decades, this cycle has reduced all hopes of negotiations to a stalemate and Pyongyang is right to judge that the US is nowhere close to transforming its North Korea policy.
US President Joe Biden began his presidency by carrying out a thorough review of policy options with the DPRK and recognised that the previous four regimes had failed to achieve denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. The process concluded that complete denuclearisation would remain the Biden administration’s goal and Washington would be “open to and will explore diplomacy”. However,it would neither adopt Obama’s strategic patience or Trump’s grand bargain and rather opt for a “calibrated, practical approach” while dealing with the DPRK. North Korea has also voiced its opposition to the recent AUKUS deal between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States under which Washington and London would grant Canberra nuclear powered submarines. While the move is targeted to counter China’s claims in the South China Sea, it strengthens powers in Pyongyang’s neighborhood which do not view it favourably. This explains the North’s paranoia but its willingness for peace talks are linked to a much greater domestic challenge, a matter of its very survival.
Crumbling Inside
While the coronavirus pandemic has severely jolted economies worldwide, it has pushed North Korea in its worst economic crisis till date which reversed the 0.4% growth rate achieved in 2019, the first expansion in the past three years.
South Korea’s Central Bank, the Bank of Korea (BOK) publishes the most reliable data on Pyongyang’s economic statistics. The BOK reported that recently North Korea’s GDP contracted by 4.9%. While the share of industrial output declined from 28% to 5.9%, output of agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors fell by 7.6%. The service sector shrank by 4.0%. Trade volume which comprised 21.9% of the GDP in 2016 slid to 2.9% in 2020. The exports of non sanctioned items such as watches and wigs decreased by 86.3% and 92.7% respectively.
The BOK blamed Pyongyang’s harsh lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus; strict quarantine measures; ban on domestic travel; United Nations sanctions as well as natural calamities and bad weather conditions for the worsening state of the economy.
Pyongyang faced an extremely severe food crisis with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reporting that food shortage amounted to 860,000 tonnes this year. Prices of food sharply rose as the cost of a packet of coffee went up to $100. Prices of rice and corn too increased tremendously. The situation worsened after Pyongyang closed its borders to trade with China,its biggest source of trade and aid.
Furthermore, as of 2019, 11 million people which amounts to over 43% of the population are malnourished. Over 60% of North Koreans live in absolute poverty. International sanctions on North Korea which include United Nations sanctions as well as unilateral sanctions put by the United States, have severely impacted the DPRK’s economy with over 4000 lives lost due to delays caused by sanctions on necessary materials and aid.
Though official State data is not available in the public domain, it is obvious the pandemic has further worsened the condition. Peace talks to lift sanctions hence, become a necessity for Pyongyang to ensure its survival.
A Decade in Power
Other than an immediate necessity, initiating peace talks on its own terms is favourable for North Korea for another reason political in nature as Kim Jong Un inches closer to celebrating his tenth year as the Supreme leader. The Party propaganda machine has already glossed over the burgeoning economic crisis to celebrate ’10 Years of Great Revolutionary Leadership’. Unlike his father and grandfather, Kim Jong Un,who assumed power in December 2011, has largely remained absent from grassroots organisations or holding leadership positions prior to succeeding his father at the highest position. Nor does he have any big achievement associated with his name. Though the authoritarian nature of the North Korean state leaves next to no space for political changes owing to public opinion, ensuring the support of the people is crucial for the sustenance of the North Korean regime in the long run,for no matter how authoritative a regime is, it rests as much on consent as on coercion. Getting South Korea, the United States and Japan to agree for peace talks on its own terms would not only enhance and justify the mandate of the Workers’ Party of Korea to rule but would also add sheen to Kim Jong Un’s persona as a capable leader.
Winds of change down South
Approach towards North Korea forms a major election debate in South Korea. As Seoul prepares to elect a new President in 2022, the possibility of the Inter-Korea talks is bound to affect the course of the electoral process.
Though Moon Jae-in can not contest following the South Korean Constitution which limits the Presidency to a single term, the ability to bring North Korea to the table will enhance his stature. Moon’s attempts to negotiate with Pyongyang have often been dubbed as the ‘Moonshine Policy‘, comparable to former President and Noble Peace Laureate Kim Dae Jung’s ‘Sunshine Policy’. Moon has often drawn flak from Conservatives for ‘appeasing’ North Korea and was also blamed whenever the talks broke down. If the talks succeed to mark a step ahead in denuclearisation or even if it stops at formally ending the Korean War, Moon would join the ranks of not only one of South Korea’s greatest leaders but also one of the greatest peacemakers known to the world.
It would also benefit his liberal Democratic Party of Korea which reportedly performs well in elections whenever signs of peace with Pyongyang appear.
On the other hand, if the talks fail to materialise yet again, the Conservatives in general and People’s Power Party in particular would benefit. Though a Conservative government too would have to negotiate with North Korea considering the rapid acceleration of arms proliferation, it would not be as willing to compromise as the Liberals and the talks might end in a stalemate.
Negotiations with Pyongyang are also crucial for Japan and the United States. Public Opinion in Tokyo has been against the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in its inability to contain the spread of the coronavirus as well as to revive the sluggish economic growth. Steps towards denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula might at least allay the security concerns among the populace.
The image of the United States as a global power on the other hand, has suffered a severe blow after its irresponsible withdrawal from Afghanistan. If Washington manages to negotiate with Pyongyang on successful terms, it might not just help in correcting the United States’ image but might also help Biden in carving a niche in the history of American diplomacy.
Balmy Breeze or A Storm?
In her statement, Kim Yo Jong stated that she could not predict if the offer for the talks would result in a “balmy breeze or a storm”. Either way, it depends as much on Pyongyang as on Seoul, Washington and Tokyo.
It is time the North Korean regime acts responsibly in accordance with the norms of international politics. Denuclearisation is essential,for nuclear proliferation not only aggravates the threat of unimaginable destruction but also raises the bar of tolerance for more lethal weapons.
However, Pyongyang’s concerns must also be taken into account. All previous attempts broke down due to the United States’ ,particularly the Republicans’ non-negotiable condition that North Korea de-nuclearises before sanctions could be lifted. Washington has also refused to commit to its own arms reduction and now is encouraging allies in the vicinity of North Korea such as South Korea and Australia to nuclearise.
Left with very few allies (probably just one,China) after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 and crippled with sanctions, North Korea does live in a world which views it unfavourably.
At present, Pyongyang neither enjoys a diplomatic nor an economic clout to negotiate on its own terms and nuclear proliferation is its only bargaining point. Hence, it scares other countries, with much higher stakes in stability in the region, into negotiation.
The point is not to show any clemency towards Pyongyang which has left no stone unturned in stirring instability not to forget its gruesome human rights record, but it must be realised that its call for being treated equally is not unjustified by the standards of international relations. A mutual commitment to arms reduction is not just beneficial to both sides but is the only practical way to get Pyongyang to commit.
As noted above, Sanctions have consistently failed to deter Pyongyang from nuclear proliferation and have only emboldened the North Korean regime to make it a rallying point for gaining support by playing the victim card,further radicalising its stance. It is the innocent North Korean civilians who bear the brunt of these sanctions. Both sides must arrive at a mutual agreement to restore peace and stability, this time with a firm commitment to make this world a better place.
