Whether to lift blanket sanctions Seoul imposed on Pyongyang in 2010 in retaliation for a deadly naval attack has emerged as a sensitive topic here, as the two sides are gearing up for the resumption of high-level dialogue.
North Korea has made a couple of provocative acts since it sent a delegation of top officials to South Korea on Oct. 4 and agreed to resume high-level talks in early November at the latest. Despite recent exchanges of fire across sea and land borders, neither side seems ready to ditch the opportunity to reopen bilateral dialogue.
The conciliatory mood created by the surprise visit by the high-powered North Korean delegation heightened calls ― mainly from liberal politicians ― to ease or lift the sanctions that suspended virtually all inter-Korean exchanges and trade. Critics said the punitive measures have done little to change the North’s attitude, but have only increased the impoverished regime’s reliance on China.
But conservative figures have called for the sanctions to remain intact until Pyongyang admits to and apologizes for its torpedo attack on a South Korean warship, which killed 46 sailors.
President Park Geun-hye’s government has maintained the sanctions it inherited from the previous administration under President Lee Myung-bak. But it appears to find it increasingly difficult to proceed with Park’s initiatives to lay the groundwork for inter-Korean unification while doing so.
Pyongyang has insisted that Seoul should lift the measures taken two months after the naval attack in March 2010, if substantial progress is to be made in relations between the two Koreas. The North is expected to put this demand at the top of the agenda for the planned high-level talks.
Any major shift in Seoul’s position could hardly be possible as long as Pyongyang refuses to accept responsibility for the deadly sinking. But it may also be unwise to adhere to the strict implementation of the sanctions, narrowing the options for dealing with the North.
Park seemed to have taken into account this tactical consideration when she said Monday the two Koreas should settle the issue of lifting the sanctions through “sincere dialogue.” It marked the first time she has mentioned the possibility of lifting the sanctions since taking office in February last year.
Presiding over a meeting of a blue-ribbon committee set up to make preparations for the eventual unification, she hoped the planned high-level contact would serve as an opportunity to improve inter-Korean ties. Her remarks that suggested some flexibility on discussing Pyongyang’s immediate concern may help draw the recalcitrant regime into more serious and fruitful talks with Seoul.
Park seems poised to push for what some commentators here have termed “critical engagement” with the North ― seeking dialogue proactively while not shying away from addressing its human rights issues and nuclear weapons programs.
But going down this path will be far from easy.
Pyongyang might interpret Seoul’s flexible attitude as a sign of impatience, as Park’s five-year term is nearing its halfway point. It is conceivable that the North would threaten to abort the resumed talks if pressured to take responsible measures regarding the sinking of the Cheonan. Its recent provocations may be connected to its attempts to nullify the disputed western sea border and block South Korean civic groups from flying anti-Pyongyang leaflets into the North in the process of inter-Korean dialogue.
Taking a flexible approach is necessary for carrying forward talks with the North and promoting stability on the Korean Peninsula. But it should still be recalled that unprincipled dialogue in the past had only exacerbated, not reduced problems with the North.
Seoul officials need to draw a broader strategic map that gives them more flexibility without sacrificing their principles, by matching Pyongyang’s needs and acts with the options at hand in the most specific manner. Consideration may be given to easing the sanctions in several phases.
