An interview with MOFAT minister

This year, during which the first-ever inter-Korean summit was held, Korea has undergone many substantial changes not only in South-North relations but also in national diplomacy.

On the sideline of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in July, South and North Korean foreign ministers held talks for the first time, and the United Nations adopted a joint resolution calling for peace on the Korean peninsula.

Since Pyongyang came out with a positive step toward improving relations with Washington, there took place a subtle change in the triangular relationship between the South and North Korea and Seoul's traditional ally, the United States. Hence, Korea's diplomacy toward the four major powers -- the United States, China, Russia and Japan -- for peace and stability on the peninsula increasingly has become important and burdensome, as well.

This reporter met with Foreign Affairs-Trade Minister Lee Joung-Binn, commander of Korean diplomacy. The minister revealed that the government had made an official proposal to the North through a certain inter-Korean channel, asking for the resumption of four-party peace talks involving the South and North Korea, the United States and China for building a peace mechanism on the Korean peninsula. He also said that the government would endeavor to revise the U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in the direction to ensure far more advantageous stipulations in the pact, compared with those between the United States and Japan.

Q: Some people have pointed out that there is some friction in the Seoul-Washington coordination with regard to their relations with North Korea since the mid-June South-North summit.

A: I don't agree with the opinion. They must have misunderstood the process and contents of the bilateral policy coordination. The two governments had conducted ample mutual consultations on bilateral issues beforehand and afterward. Regarding whatever proposals were made from the North, the two allies have discussed in detail even the terminology of their contents.

Q: Have you any plan to meet again with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-Sun? Is there a separate hotline between the two ministers since their first meeting?

A: We had no discussions for holding mutual meetings on a regular basis. We have sent documents regarding the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the Asia-Europe Meeting through the North Korean representative mission in the U.N.

Q: Has Seoul officially proposed to the North the resumption of the four-party peace talks? If it did, what was the response?

A: Immediately after President Kim Dae-Jung made the proposal during his stay in Singapore, his ministry took a follow-up step. But I cannot disclose for now through whom such a proposition was conveyed to the North. The North Korean reaction was that it would just consider the resumption of the talks.

Q: If and when the four-party talks tackle the question of building a peace regime on the peninsula, will the inter-Korean defense talks deal with the issue of tension reduction exclusively?

A: The defense ministerial dialogue is a consultative forum on bilateral defense matters in order to implement the June-15 Inter-Korean Joint Declaration. As the four-party parley will not handle all problems concerning Korea, the two dialogue channels will be operated in a supplementation manner. And consultations are due as to whether the four-party talks will follow the past pattern of their operation or undertake a change in format in conformity with the new situation in the wake of the South-North summit. Since the dialogue venue was opened between Seoul and Pyongyang, the four-party conference would be different from the past.

Q: It is said that the SOFA revision talks are rough sailing.

A: A consensus has been built between the leaderships of the two countries on the need for concluding the revision talks as soon as possible. This is because the revision is essential for the healthy development of Korea-U.S. relations and for providing favorable conditions for the long-term U.S. military presence in Korea. This is not the matter to be determined by the whim of some working-level officials. Efforts are being exerted to produce far more advantageous pact than that of United States and Japan. The environment clause in it will be better than Japan's.

Q: There are criticisms that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been dragged around by China and Japan on the matters of the proposed Dalai Lama visit to Seoul and the revisions of the Japanese history textbooks.

A: China regards the Dalai Lama as the leader of the exile government for Tibetan independence, while Korea regards him as a religious leader. There is a large disparity in their respective viewpoints. The ministry is in a position to comply with the wish of the people, while precluding diplomatic disputes over the matter.

As for the Japanese history textbooks, the Tokyo government is in trouble. The Japanese government holds a view that the textbook question could raise diplomatic friction with Korea. The Korean government was informed that the Tokyo government is trying to persuade the writers of the new history books, as it is not in a position to force them to do so.

Asked about his comment on some criticism that President Kim has had too many overseas trips but that his internal achievements stopped short of his visits overseas, Minister Lee answered that such critical views are derived from the notion that summit diplomacy is a kind of an overseas junket, adding that now is the time when the summit leaders personally take charge of outstanding diplomatic issues. The minister further noted that the outcome of the summit diplomacy will enhance the state's international credibility, that is a great "invisible asset" to the people.