Posted October. 02, 2000 15:09,
The third South-North ministerial talks issued joint statements for the press, but the two sides issued their own versions denoting different contents. This raises a credibility crisis about the talks altogether. The situation probably was the result of the fact that they somehow wanted to give the impression to the press that the talks have made some progress despite their failures.
One of the core contents contained in the joint statements relates to the establishment of a Promotion Committee for South-North Economic Cooperation. Seoul's version of the joint statements sounds as if the two sides had agreed to establish in due consultations the PCSNEC for the expansion of mutual economic exchanges and the coordination of the issues arising therewith.
However, Pyongyang's media broadcast its summarized version of the joint statements that both sides agreed to study the installing of committees like a PCSNEC if such a need arises in the course of both Koreas' expanded cooperative relations.
Also, Seoul's press release clearly indicates restoration of the Seoul-Pyongyang soccer matches, and exchange of university students and professors, as specific instances of their agreements for inter-Korean exchanges in social, cultural and sports fields, but the North's broadcast did not make any mention about these.
Our government officials reportedly explained that the use of different expressions in the press release was something both sides agreed on. This was, according to our officials, due to the North's refusal to put the agreements clearly into writing because of the North's domestic considerations, but the Pyongyang delegation agreed with Seoul delegation on the need both for a PCSNEC and inter-Korean social, cultural and sports exchanges.
Clearly, such a style of agreement is not what we call an agreement between the two governments. Granted, the unique South-North relations do not exactly correspond to normal relations between two different nation-states, but they do maintain mutually different regimes and systems. Thus, they must have observed the minimum of established norms and formalities of inter-governmental agreements.
So it appears that the time has come for a comprehensive review and review of the procedures and formalities of the inter-Korean talks.
A related problem is that the two sides hold meetings without deciding the agenda and the talks' schedule. Meetings need not be repeated if they lack substance in terms of both their contents and formalities.
It should be recalled here that the establishment of reunion centers for separated families as mutually agreed in lieu of Seoul's repatriation of pro-North Korea long-term political prisoners, has so far shown no progress. Nor is it likely to make any progress for confirmation of the life or death of separated family members, although this was also agreed at the occasion of North Korea Workers Party secretary Kim Yong-Sun's visit here to complete before the end of this year.
In particular, North Korea Defense Chairman Kim Jung-Il assured us of the speedy progress of the talks from the third inter-Korean ministerial meeting, but the results turned out to be opposite to such assurance.
We suspect that the Kim Dae-Jung administration appears unduly eager to produce results or accomplishments in view of its untruthful press release of the joint statement that contained the contents as if both sides fully agreed on.
The food assistance to the North, the administration argues, is a humanitarian aid that should not involve any considerations about the principle of mutuality and reciprocity Seoul professed to hold in its relations with the North. By the same token, then, the North also must respond to the South's humanitarian proposals and demands.
Against such a backdrop, the political parties and their leaders should do all they can to hold parliamentary sessions as soon as possible in order to review any progress in inter-Korean talks on such issues as food aid to the North. Thus, they should be able to squarely assess the merits and demerits and to weigh the gains and losses in our inter-Korean relations.