The diplomatic situation on the Korean Peninsula, which seemed to be moving toward the dialogue phase, has once again faced setbacks. Relations between South and North Korea have hit a snag due to the dissolution of the recent cross-border military talks, which would otherwise have jumpstarted the stalled dialogue between the two sides. South and North Korea held working-level military talks in the truce village of Panmunjeom on February 8 and 9, with discussions on the first day lasting over nine hours. Expectations for the talks still lingered through the morning of the second day. Over time, however, the two sides only reaffirmed serious differences on the sinking of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and North Korea’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island last year. The South Korean delegation proposed discussing the attacks on the South Korean warship and the frontline island before moving on to the next stage, while North Korea wanted to address those issues as part of discussions on easing tension, in an apparent move to dodge responsibility for its military provocations. The two sides also took differing views on the rank of the chief representatives for higher-level military talks. This comprised another reason for the breakdown of the talks. Let’s hear from Dr. Hong Hyung-ik from the Sejong Institute.

North Korea proposed that vice defense ministers, not the defense ministers, participate in higher-level military talks. By sending a lower-level official to the talks, the North appears to be avoiding responsibility for the Cheonan incident and the Yeonpyeong shelling. However, South Korea requested a meeting between defense ministers, since the two military provocations by North Korea last year are such a grave concern that the high-ranking military official from the North should apologize for the attacks in a responsible manner. South Korea also suggested a meeting between the North Korean chief of the Korean People’s Army General Staff and the South Korean chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But the North kept insisting on a meeting between vice defense ministers, who are not active-duty soldiers. After all, the two sides failed to narrow their differences. In regards to the date for the military talks, North Korea wanted to hold the talks as early as possible, before the Key Resolve drill between South Korea and the U.S. scheduled for late February. In contrast, Seoul said it should be OK to hold the inter-Korean military talks after the South Korea-U.S. joint military exercise.

The day after the talks fell through, North Korea lashed out at Seoul with strong words in its news media. The state-run Korean Central TV said that North Korea feels no need to continue talks with South Korea because the Seoul government is rejecting dialogue and does not want to improve inter-Korean relations. The Korean Central News Agency also accused South Korea of putting unrealistic issues on the table, shifting the responsibility to Seoul. Colorful condemnatory language reappeared, including the terms, “puppet government” and the “group of traitors,” which the North Korean media hasn’t used for some time. Yet in the initial stage of the working-level talks, North Korea calmly proposed high-level talks and said it would take all measures to resolve any concerns South Korea has about Pyongyang’s role in the military provocations last year. So, why did North Korea make a complete about-face all of a sudden?

It doesn’t seem that North Korea participated in dialogue with Seoul with sincerity. Rather, the North seeks to avoid international criticism and isolation in the wake of its two military attacks on South Korea last year and to facilitate dialogue with the U.S. As the U.S. and China agreed to promote dialogue on the Korean Peninsula during their summit last month, North Korea proposed inter-Korean talks with the purpose of respecting China’s position and allowing it to save face. At the inter-Korean military talks last week, Pyongyang didn’t really consider Seoul’s request for an acknowledgement or apology for the attacks and a promise of preventing a recurrence. The North Korean delegation’s sudden change of attitude could have resulted from an instruction from the leadership in Pyongyang. Through holding a two-day meeting, the North demonstrated its commitment to the talks on the surface. In reality, however, it rejected any kind of agreement. I think North Korea deliberately manipulated the meeting in this fashion.

The South Korean government holds fast to its position that the door for dialogue is still open but North Korea should take a more forward-looking and sincere attitude. U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley also said North Korea missed an opportunity to show sincerity. Both South and North Korea concede the need for dialogue, but some experts predict inter-Korean ties will undergo a cold spell for the time being due to their wide differences on key issues. But Dr. Hong says the possibility of dialogue still remains.

The Key Resolve joint drill will begin at the end of February, so it will be hard for North Korea to restore dialogue momentum until mid-March. In late March, South Korea marks the first anniversary of the Cheonan incident. While the North Korean economy is in extreme distress, the Pyongyang government must ease the nation’s chronic food shortages at least in order to demonstrate to its people the ambitious vision of building a strong and prosperous country next year. If inter-Korean talks are delayed until April, it may be too late for North Korea. So, the North has sufficient reason to hurry. This weekend or early next week, Pyongyang may suggest holding dialogue again.

Two days after the unsuccessful military talks, North Korea’s Asia-Pacific Peace Committee made another proposal for dialogue with South Korea for an improvement in bilateral relations, this time to four South Korean political parties. On February 14, North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly sent a letter to South Korea’s National Assembly, proposing contacts between legislators of the two sides to discuss ways to mend inter-Korean relations. Calling the latest proposals an extension of North Korea’s dialogue offensive, Dr. Hong says the key is whether “sincere dialogue” can elicit a change in North Korea’s attitude, as South Korea and the U.S. hope.

Though lacking sincerity, North Korea continues to propose holding talks with South Korea—between political parties and the legislature most recently. The purpose is to help China, its major ally and aid benefactor, save face and to meet the conditions for negotiations with the U.S, which cites the need for an improvement in inter-Korean relations before holding dialogue with Pyongyang. If North Korea proposes to hold talks with the South yet again, it is highly likely that the two sides will meet at the dialogue table. But holding talks is one thing and reaching an agreement is another. To come to an agreement, it depends on whether North Korea will make some concessions or whether South Korea may accept an ambiguous apology from the North.

At this point in time, the South and North should restore mutual trust as a first step. Only then will they be able to move toward the next phases of dialogue, like high-level inter-Korean military talks and the six-party nuclear negotiations. To this end, North Korea should refrain from criticizing Seoul and show more commitment to dialogue. South Korea, for its part, must figure out Pyongyang’s true intentions and take a more flexible attitude to ease regional tension.



[Interview] Defector Holds Exhibition to Speak up Against N. Korea Artist Song Byeok is explaining his paintings to visitors and handing out pamphlets. A special exhibition was held on January 26 at the Gallery GAIA in the Jongno District, central Seoul. It was Song’s first solo exhibition since he escaped North Korea in 2002. Here in the South, he majored in Oriental painting at the College of Education in Kongju National University and at the Hongik University Graduate School. He said he had gained freedom after near-death experiences, and decided to hold the exhibition in the hope of sharing his feeling about freedom with many other people.

There is a small country called North Korea on this globe. There, the most basic human rights can’t be found. Everyone dreams of freedom, right? Citizens here in South Korea enjoy their individual freedom, while basic human rights, like freedom of speech, of expression and of religion, are not guaranteed in North Korea. Through this exhibition, I hope to help citizens here think once again about the miserable lives of North Korean people across the border.

Entitled “Forever Freedom,” the exhibition presented a total of 30 paintings featuring the past, present and future of North Korea. One painting depicts 15 men, all dressed in white shirts and dark grey pants, struggling to break a red wall with the letters “North Korea” written on it. It criticizes the suppressive North Korean regime. Another painting portrays girls holding the book titled “The Revolution History of Great Leader Kim Il-sung.” The girls in the picture are all smiling brightly and waving their hands but their old shoes are full of holes. This satirizes the reality of North Korea. In addition to the paintings, letters and videos were displayed to help visitors better understand the North Korean situation.

Song’s hometown is in Hwanghae Province. Only ten years ago, his job was to draw propaganda posters in North Korea. But his life completely changed in the summer of 2001 when he crossed the Tumen River with his father to get some food. Unfortunately, the swollen river carried away his father.

I crossed the river with my father just because there was nothing to eat. While my father was floating away, I was straining to save him and I asked for help from the border security. But the authorities put me in shackles and took me to the prison. I felt deep skepticism. I decided to defect to South Korea to live a second life. I was ready to risk my life. Even if I died in the process, I thought I should accept it as my destiny.

After Song lost his father, he was taken to a prison camp. There, he hurt his hand while doing manual labor and he had to cut off the tip of his right index finger above the knuckle. But he never gave up. A year later, he ventured to escape North Korea again and succeeded in coming to South Korea via China. As if reflecting his rough life, many of his paintings show birds and butterflies, the symbol of freedom. Song says he is happy to freely express what he wants to say and paint here in South Korea.

In North Korea, I wasn’t an artist but a worker who drew propaganda posters and wrote slogans to instigate the working class. There is no freedom of expression in North Korea. Even though people were poor and hungry in reality, I had to paint happy people who eat well and live well. Artists here are free to paint anything they like, whether it is pain or happiness. Their works mirror their feelings just as they are. Compared to North Korean painters, South Korean artists are lucky and happy, aren’t they? I put my brush on the white canvas and feel free to express anything I want... That is the happiest moment in my life.

Song is drawing “freedom” and expressing his own creative world through paintings. Today, as always, he is painting “hope” on the canvas, dreaming of a day when South and North Korea become one and the North Korean people achieve genuine freedom.