Looking back at the Korea summit

Lung-chu Chen

The Pyongyang Summit came to a full conclusion on June 15, setting the stage for peace on the Korean Peninsula. The historic meeting once again highlighted that fact that communication and dialogue have replaced war and confrontation in the post-Cold War era. This irreversible development has far-reaching significance for Northeast Asia, the two sides across the Taiwan Strait and even all of Asia.

The joint declaration by the two Koreas listed the five-point consensus reached at the summit: reducing tensions on the Peninsula; self-reliance in resolving the reunification question; promoting the reunion of families separated during the Korean War; cooperation and exchanges in various areas; and Kim Jong-il's (金正日) return visit to Seoul.

The question Koreans are most concerned with -- the reunion of families -- was finally resolved. Over a million Koreans remain separated from their families. Clearly, making progress on reuniting these families should be seen as one of the summit's great achievements.

The declaration avoided some sensitive issues, such as the US military presence in the South and the development of nuclear weapons and missiles in the North. However, East Asian powers are now initiating another wave of struggles for their respective interests, given that:

* North Korea informed China about the summit beforehand;

* South Korea didn't publicly discuss its summit plans, keeping even East Asia's economic power, Japan, in the dark;

* South Korea deliberately ignored US suggestions during the summit preparations; and

* the speaker of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly, Kim Young-nam (金永南), warned that Korean unification would brook no external interference.

Even though Japan approved of the summit, it remains nervous about the role the US is to play in East Asia. Although the declaration didn't mention the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, Seoul's support for peaceful unification leaves the US with a very weak rationale for its continued military presence.

The waning US influence in the region and the pro-China foreign policy of both Koreas make Japan's position even more isolated. It is possible though, that all this will prompt the US and Japan to strengthen their security pact and increase their military power to contain China.

US President Bill Clinton said he was very pleased about the summit. However, as international analysts noted, the North has shown no signs of slowing its development of nuclear weapons and missiles, which still pose a military threat to the US and East Asia. The US can't abandon the strategic deployment of its missile defense system. But the fact that both Koreas want the US to reduce its political, economic and military power in the Peninsula has made a future withdrawal of US troops in South Korea and Japan obvious. In any case, the summit will have an impact on the US' pivotal status in Asia.

For Russia, the summit was more beneficial. Throughout the Cold War, Moscow was North Korea's main political and economic partner. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, however, Russia and North Korea have been facing serious economic crises. Therefore, Seoul's economic aid to the North, the easing of US economic sanctions and Pyongyang's own opening up to the outside world are all factors helping Russia develop its economic ties with the Far East.

The greatest beneficiary of the summit, however, appears to be China. North Korea's pro-Beijing foreign policy and the increasingly pro-China tilt of South Korea have put Beijing in a favorable geographical position -- letting it get one step closer in its bid to become Asia's hegemonist. Still, China cannot ignore the international trend towards peaceful resolution of conflicts; otherwise the "China threat" theory will become reality.

Kim Dae-jung's (金大中) "Sunshine Policy," the approval of the people on both sides, Pyongyang's goodwill and its treatment of the South as an equal have all helped ease tensions between the two Koreas. In contrast, by continuing to insist on its "one China" principle, Beijing has completely disregarded the goodwill and sincerity of Taiwan's new government.

"If the two Koreas can do it, why can't the two sides across the Taiwan Strait?" has been an oft-repeated question of late. The answer is because China has insisted on its unilateral interests; it has failed to respond to Taiwan's goodwill; and it is not prepared to treat Taiwan as an equal. Now it the time for the PRC to follow the global trend of reconciliation, abide by the UN Charter's principle of resolving disputes peacefully, abandon its old Cold War thinking and relate to Taiwan on a basis of parity and mutual benefit.

Only then can we maintain peace in the Strait, the Asia Pacific and the entire world. Only then can we promote co-existence and shared prosperity for Taiwan and China.

Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the Chen Lung-chu New Century Foundation.