The OSCE: an Inspiration for Asia
How do you see the Republic of Korea’s role as OSCE Partner for Co-operation?
The Republic of Korea has greatly benefited from its active participation as an Asian Partner for Co-operation for the past two decades. The OSCE has been a major source of inspiration for our endeavour to create a vision of security co-operation for Northeast Asia.
Korea is a middle power situated between four major powers: China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Our neighbours are beset with challenging issues and tensions. The Korean Peninsula remains divided and North Korea’s nuclear ambition continues to pose a serious threat to the region. The security situation, at first sight, may not look promising. However, much could be achieved in this region if we succeeded in establishing a multilateral security mechanism. A stable Northeast Asia would greatly enhance global security and prosperity.
The OSCE has given us some insight as to how we could establish such a security mechanism, using the three C’s concept of security: common, comprehensive and co-operative. It has also demonstrated that, even given a long history of confrontation and hostility, conflicts are never inevitable, and that establishing a sustainable security mechanism among former adversaries is possible through confidence building efforts. What the OSCE has achieved so far in Europe is what the Republic of Korea intends to duplicate in Northeast Asia. I certainly believe that the Republic of Korea, as a middle power, can play the role of a facilitator in this effort, just as Finland played that role in the Helsinki Process.
As an OSCE Partner, Korea contributes to the Organization’s work, to its missions and programmes. Last year, we provided €100,000 to the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, and we will continue to contribute to the Republic of Korea-OSCE Co-operation Fund, as we have for the past four years.
The changing security environment also opens up new areas of co-operation. Modern terrorism, as showcased by foreign terrorist fighters, lone wolf fighters and violent extremism, is now posing a threat in every corner of the world. Cyber security has emerged as a major concern for many countries as well. On this issue, the OSCE is already implementing a set of confidence building measures. This experience will provide a good point of reference to other regions, including Northeast Asia, and represents an opportunity for both regions to work together.
The Republic of Korea has hosted the OSCE Asian Conference four times in Seoul, most recently in early June. It was particularly meaningful to host the Conference this year, since the OSCE is commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. It was also meaningful for me personally, as I was in charge of preparing and hosting the first OSCE Asian Conference back in 2001.
Can you tell us about Korea’s Northeast Asian Peace and Co-operation Initiative?
The Northeast Asia Peace and Co-operation Initiative (NAPCI) is one of the pillars of President Park Geun-hye’s “trust politics”. Another is the Korean Peninsula Trust-Building Process, which focuses on the Korean peninsula. NAPCI is a proposal for a sub-regional co-operative mechanism in a multilateral setting. No similar institution has existed in Northeast Asia up to now.
As I said, the security environment in the region is not very favourable. The six-party talks for the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) have not made any progress. North Korea still hasn't given up its nuclear ambitions and sees its nuclear and missile programmes as vital to the preservation of its regime. These are core issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. Countries in the region have made several proposals for establishing a formal security co-operation mechanism. But they never materialized, because it’s not easy to tackle these very hard security issues directly.
In contemplating more viable options, President Park decided that it would be more realistic and practical to start by discussing soft issues first. For example, nuclear safety, cyber security, natural disaster relief and rescue, energy security and the environment are less sensitive and controversial. Most of the countries share an interest in addressing those problems together.
Fundamentally, there is a trust deficit among countries in the region. This makes it difficult to tackle long-standing and now growing tensions regarding history, territory and maritime security. We had better start by discussing practical matters, soft security issues. By co-operating on these issues, we can build the habit of co-operation and dialogue; I mean a regular dialogue. On the governmental, civilian and academic levels, we need to get together regularly and talk about our common issues, one by one, in a step-by-step approach. We categorize NAPCI as a process-oriented initiative. Process itself can be the goal. Once we start to discuss a common agenda, the process itself can build trust and confidence among the countries.
Unfortunately, although other countries, including the United States, China and Japan, support our idea, North Korea has not responded in kind. Instead, it argues that our initiative is politically motivated to destabilize the regime. North Korea has a major concern regarding the stability of its regime. For our part, it is our genuine intention to promote security and peaceful co-existence, for the time being, until both sides agree on the way to reunify into one. But that is a long-term goal. Until then, we have to build one brick at a time, slowly and gradually, but it will take us a long time. I think it’s a right decision to take actions that are very practical and realistic, given the current situation. Building trust is the number one goal.
Many of the words you are using are familiar in the OSCE context – “building trust”, “co-operation and dialogue”. Can you say something about how the OSCE can be an inspirational model for Northeast Asia and are there perhaps also some differences?
The OSCE’s basic concept of security, as I have mentioned, is very significant. It means working together, in a co-operative manner, on security issues which are all interconnected. That concept should be the norm for all regional security groups. And in principle, nobody objects to transplanting or importing it to our region. But in technical and realistic terms, some countries are not comfortable with applying the concept in certain areas. For example, human rights are a very controversial issue for some. However, all three dimensions of the OSCE’s comprehensive security concept are important and relevant to improving the overall security environment in our region.
Economic interdependence is already well established in our region. China is our number one trading partner. China, Japan, United States, Russia and the Republic of Korea are all interlinked in economic and trade relations. Nevertheless, co-operation on security issues is still rather minimal, not to mention on human rights. For us and for Japan and the United States, dealing with sensitive human rights issues is not a problem. But in North Korea, the human rights situation is dire. Let me give an example. A few weeks ago, the North Korean regime allegedly executed in a grotesque manner its defence chief and senior officials. This shows the regime’s cruelty and confirms the sobering report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on North Korean Human Rights in 2014.
The indivisibility and interconnectivity of security are basic concepts, which we would like to learn from Europe. But until we have favourable conditions for optimizing our co-operative consultative mechanism, trust building and prevention of conflict are our most practical and viable options.
Nuclear safety issues could be a common agenda. In China the number of nuclear power plants is surging, and in North Korea the power plants are in a very weak and dangerous condition. If any accident were to occur at a North Korean nuclear site, it could affect the whole peninsula and the entire region. We have already witnessed the Fukushima incident in 2011. Four years have passed since the incident, but concern about radioactive contamination has not yet dissipated. Japan, at least, is well prepared for such incidents, but in North Korea, a minor accident could spell catastrophe.
So, to answer your question, there are many commonalities. But if we compare the Helsinki process with our NAPCI process, we also notice some important differences. In the 1970’s you had two blocks, East and West, and some neutral countries in the middle, interlocutors between the two sides. In our region, the landscape is different in the sense that it’s not symmetrical. We have no buffer states in between; we are facing each other directly. Political will, as well, is very important. But North Korea is very reluctant to engage in this process because its main concern is the regime’s stability. There are many academics who say that the North Korean authorities suffer from a fear or a phobia, that once they open their society to the outside they will become another ‘Libya.’ We understand their concern to some extent, but without opening their society, they cannot succeed building a viable economy. One must remember that the world is interdependent. For the moment, China is the only country which has normal relations with North Korea, yet even this tie has been weakened, as China is strongly opposed to North Korea’s nuclear ambition.
You have mentioned the Korean Peninsula Trust-Building Process. Could you elaborate?
Distrust lies at the core of the unstable inter-Korean relations. This distrust is mainly the result of a vicious cycle: provocation on the part of North Korea followed by crisis, negotiation and reward. Based upon this analysis, our government adopted the Korean Peninsula Trust-Building Process as its main policy toward North Korea. The key elements of this process are: trust, consistency and robust deterrence.
In March 2014, President Park presented our peace initiative in Dresden, Germany, once a city in the former East Germany. Since German reunification, Dresden has become a modern and vibrant city, and the surrounding region is fully industrialized. Our President’s message was that North Korea can be transformed, just like Dresden.
On the basis of trust politics and our initiative, she made three proposals. First, we would like to expand our humanitarian assistance, to young children and mothers. Most of the children in North Korea suffer from malnutrition. The average height of children and young people is much shorter than in South Korea, even though we are ethnically the same people. This is very troubling. After unification, the two sides will be reintegrated, and this may turn into a major problem. My President therefore proposed humanitarian assistance as an investment for future generations. The humanitarian assistance we provide will help to ease tensions and remove obstacles between the two sides.
The second proposal is to work for co-prosperity. We would like to offer our assistance in rebuilding infrastructure, roads, buildings and communities. This is a non-political and non-sensitive area. And third, we need to focus on an agenda for reintegration. As I said, our two sides have been separated since 1953. And even before that, there was the division of the two sides in 1945, after World War II. The division is almost seventy years old. The North Korean people have been trained in the Communist system, without any contact with the outside world, for a long time. So it is an important task to nurture common culture and education. That is why we are suggesting to North Korea to start exchanges between our people, in the academic and cultural fields. Humanitarian problems, co-prosperity and reintegration are the three basic issues we have to resolve together.
I would like to mention another pillar of Korean diplomacy: the “Eurasia Initiative”, through which we would like to contribute to linking Europe and Asia. This initiative, also proposed by my President, would connect the two continents through a logistics network. A long time ago, there was a Silk Road from China to Europe. We would like to reconnect the two regions and produce a synergy, on the levels of energy, of trade – on all levels. We have not encountered any opposition to this idea. Even Russia and China have welcomed it, because it will contribute to rebuilding the huge areas between Europe and Asia. If we have more exchange between the two sides, surely both will win.
What are some of the recent developments in the trilateral relationship among China, Japan and Korea? There is a growing concern over bilateral tension among them.
As you well know, the Korea-Japan and China-Japan relations have been at odds over some issues, including territorial disputes and revisionism of history. Although Korea stands firm on these issues, we do believe co-operation in other areas is important and should be continued. Thanks to our efforts, the Korea-Japan-China trilateral Foreign Minister’s Meeting, which we chair, was held in Seoul last March after three years’ suspension. More importantly, the three countries agreed to hold a trilateral summit at the earliest convenient time. This is a major development for Northeast Asia, and our Government hopes to further enhance trilateral relations, based on this recent success.
The Republic of Korea has been an OSCE Asian Partner for Co-operation since 1994. The Asian Partners for Co-operation are Afghanistan, Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea and Thailand.