유명환 외교통상부 장관


North Korea, if it goes through with a rocket launch, may open the door for Seoul to consider full-fledged membership in a Washington-led campaign to combat weapons proliferation, Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said.

"That is a possibility because the Proliferation Security Initiative is aimed at containing weapons of mass destruction, and if North Korea develops and attains such capabilities, there will be a need to prevent proliferation. So from this point of view, the launch may raise the need to review full membership," Yu said on Friday.

Calls may rise from both home and abroad, the minister noted, should Pyongyang go through with a planned launch of what it claims to be a satellite - the Gwangmyeongseong-2 - but is widely believed to be a long-range missile.

The North last week signaled that the launch was imminent by notifying international maritime and aviation agencies of the estimated satellite coordinates.

But reflecting the lingering controversy over the PSI membership - the move would likely further inflame the North, one of the main target nations of the program - Yu said that the government would have to exercise prudence due to the "unique peninsular circumstances."

Seoul is currently on observer status, and the previous government had put off full membership, citing such circumstances. Recently, however, an increasing number of scholars and officials have voiced the need to fully participate, calling membership one of the few significant leverages left for Seoul in dealing with Pyongyang and its brinkmanship.

Despite strong international warnings toward the North, Yu said, the communist state appears likely to go ahead with the launch to achieve a variety of goals, running the gamut from regime stability to rattling the United States and South Korea.

"But the North would be further isolated internationally. There is a reason why the North has chosen the path it did, and while it may achieve its goal, there will be consequences to suffer, and the North will be bracing for them," the minister noted.

He reiterated that for both Seoul and Washington, not to mention the United Nations, it would make no difference whether the North launches a missile or satellite because either would violate the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718. The resolution was adopted shortly after Pyongyang's 2006 nuclear test and bans any activity by the North related to nuclear or ballistic missile development.

The sanctions that accompanied the resolution have become slack due to past anticipation that the six-party talks aimed at the North's denuclearization may be effective. The talks have been deadlocked since December.

Critics have pointed out that even if the security council meets following North's launch, there could be discord, mostly due to objections from Russia and China, both long-time allies of Pyongyang.

"Japan, Russia, China and the United States all have their own concerns and stances, and we cannot criticize this. It is important that they find a common denominator. What is significant is that China and Russia also firmly believe that North Korea's persistence in developing intercontinental ballistic missiles are not helpful to international peace and security. It would be based on this belief that they would by all means seek to halt North Korea's develpment plans," Yu said.

The prospects for the six-party talks reopening remain uncertain, mostly due to North Korea's imminent launch. The minister said, however, that the talks would eventually have to begin again, and that dialogue with the North must resume even if it implements the launch.

"The North would be sanctioned, but we cannot say it is the end of the world and walk away from the North even after the missile launch because we still need to finalize Pyongyang's nuclear disablement process," Yu said.

There could be separate bilateral missile talks between the United States and North Korea, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently hinted, but Yu said further six-party discussion would be necessary.

"For now, there is the possibility of the missile agenda being dealt with in the six-party framework. But there are some pros and cons to consider. If Washington deals with the missile issue on a completely different track, some of the focus would be shifted (from the six-nation talks), so discussion is necessary to decide which approach would be more effective," he said.

"For now, it seems that there would be an opportunity for Washington and Pyongyang to hold discussions within the six-party framework. The six-party talks involve not only all six nations, but also bilateral working-group discussions, so there is room for variety."

Missile talks between Washington and Pyongyang were halted in 2001 under former U.S. president George W. Bush.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly emphasized that the six-party framework will remain the driving force for ending North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Regarding mounting calls from Washington for Seoul to dispatch its troops to support anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan, the minister spoke in cautious tones, citing the uncertain public sentiment.

"What we need to remember is that we cannot decide on the dispatch just because the government wants to. It is a matter hinging on public sentiment and the National Assembly. For now, we should concentrate on civilian level cooperation, while seeking what contributions we may more actively pursue on both military and non-military terms. We are frankly not quite confident about the public reaction, and about how such a dispatch may be received by the people, and how the National Assembly would react," he said. "If we fail to attain parliamentary approval, there is nothing we can do. At the moment, we are only thinking of what reconstruction efforts we may offer on the civilian level," he said.

Seoul faced a tremendous public backlash when it sent troops to Iraq under former President Roh Moo-hyun who successfully implemented four extensions of the dispatch.

But the need for a bigger and possibly combatant presence in Afghanistan may rise under the upgraded version of the alliance with Washington.

The two nations are expected to issue a declaration to further develop what the allies now call the "21st Century Strategic Alliance."

Lee is expected to meet with his U.S. counterpart in London next month for the G20 summit to discuss these and other pending security and bilateral issues.

The two nations also are holding discussions to coordinate a separate summit before the year is out, Yu said.

By Kim Ji-hyun ( jemmie@heraldm.com )

[HERALD INTERVIEW]'Security Council decision will hold the key'

Following are the questions and answers of the interview with Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan. -- Ed.

Korea Herald: What counter measures would follow North Korea's missile launch?

Yu Myung-hwan: The United Nations Security Council will discuss the measures. We have to see to what extent and what the contents would be, but there already is in place the Resolution 1718, which stipulates that the North should refrain from all activities related to intercontinental ballistic missiles. So even if the North says it has launched a satellite, it would regardlessly be in violation of the resolution because (both the missile and satellite) use the same technology and same launch projectile. There is no room for doubt (that it is not in violation.)

The Security Council's resolution is to keep North Korea from developing long-range rocket capability, regardless of whether it is a missile or a satellite. It is not a matter of if it is acceptable if the North fires a satellite. The resolution takes issue with the fact that the North, which has developed nuclear capabilities, is attempting to develop long-range rockets. Nobody would fear if the North fires a missile when it has no nuclear capacity. It would not make sense to develop such a costly intercontinental ballistic missile to mount a conventional bomb. It would make some sense to mount a conventional weapon on a short-range missile, but it is unimaginable to launch a three-phase rocket with a conventional warhead attached. It is because North Korea possesses nuclear capability that the Security Council issued the resolution banning the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The essence is not to develop long-range rockets, a three-phase rocket.

KH: How are South Korea, the United States and Japan working together to handle North Korea's missile launch attempt. Especially with the United States, is South Korea on the same page?

Yu: The Security Council would immediately call a meeting and discuss the specific measures they could consider. With the United States, we are still discussing the options. Our agreement so far is that the Security Council decision would hold the key. The allies would take necessary action on the sanctions, based on that decision. Our measures would be adjusted based on the council decision.

KH: Do you believe Russia and China would participate in the sanctions?

Yu: Russia and China would take part in the United Nations discussions. But as for the degree or extent of the sanctions, Japan, Russia, China and the United States have different thoughts. We can not criticize them for this because they have different views, concerns and stances. It is important that they find a common denominator amidst that. What is significant is that China and Russia also firmly believe that North Korea's persistence in developing intercontinental ballistic missiles are not helpful to international peace and security. It would be based on this belief that they would by all means seek to halt North Korea's development plans. That is what diplomacy is about. And bilateral discussions at the United Nations will also be needed, along with discussions within the six-party framework. North Korea has imposed a complicated task. There is a reason why the North has chosen the path it did, and while it may achieve its goal, there will be consequences to suffer, and the North will be bracing for them. It will also become increasingly isolated in international society. There is a reason why the North has chosen the path it did, and while it may achieve its goal, there will be consequences to suffer, and the North will be bracing for them.

KH: The South Korean government is partially taking part in the Proliferation Security Initiative and symphathizes with its principles. Would North Korea's missile launch serve as an occasion for Seoul to consider becoming a full-fledged member?

Yu: That is a possibility. If North Korea develops weapons of mass destruction and attains the capabilities, there will be a need to prevent the proliferation of that capacity. From this point of view, the launch may raise the need to review full membership. But the catch is that we need to consider the "special circumstances" of the Korean peninsula so it could arouse some controversy. We would have to be prudent because it would require policy consideration. We have yet to reach a decision. But (if the North launches the missile) there would be increased calls from public and media to seek extra effort to prevent proliferation. If the North becomes successful in intercontinental ballistic missiles, we also may see increased calls from the international society as well via the United Nations.

KH: Secretary of state Hilary Clinton mentioned the need for "missile talks" with North Korea after her recent meeting with her Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi. How would this be conducted?

Yu: We are yet uncertain of the modality of such talks. The missile talks were conducted purely in the form of bilateral talks towards the end of the Bill Clinton government, but after that the six-party process commenced and the Barack Obama government has made it clear that it would proactively support the six-nation talks because it believes it to be a critical framework for resolving the nuclear problem. So we would have to discuss with Washington the formality and modality of missile talks.

For now, there is the possibility of the missile agenda being dealt within the six-party framework. There are some pros and cons to consider. If Washington deals with the missile issue on a completely different track, some of the focus would be shifted (from the six-nation talks) so we would have to consider and discuss the pros and cons involved. For now, there would be an opportunity for Washington and Pyongyang to hold discussions within the six-party framework. The six-party talks involve not only the talks between all six nations, but also bilateral working-group discussions, so there is room for variety. Discussions among the related parties would be necessary to decide whether it would be more effective to discuss the missile issue wihin the six-party talks or on a separate basis.

The formality of the missile talks, if any, would be quite flexible. There would be no need to insist on one specific modality.

KH: Do you believe the United States and Japan would intercept North Korea's missile?

Yu: From a general point of view, any nation, in a situation where the lives and safety of its people could be endangered due to territorial violations, may feel obliged to take countermeasures.

KH: What are your predictions for when the six-party talks would resume, and prospects?

Yu: If North Korea launches its missile, there would be the countermeasures to consider, so the six-party talks would be affected. For now, it is difficult to predict when the talks would start. But because there would be two separate issues to deal with -- the missile and nuclear agenda -- we expect to face a more difficult and complicated situation. We would like to see short-term results, but we believe we would need more time. Another issue is whether the North would agree to the talks. There are too many factors of uncertainties at this point.

KH: Will President Lee Myung-bak hold a summit with U.S. President Barack Obama at the G-20 financial conference in London next month? What are the plans for future mutual visits between the two leaders?

Yu: We believe President Lee will meet with President Obama on the sidelines of the G-20 meeting. We decided to hold further discussions through our mutual diplomatic channels on when President Lee or President Obama could manage separate visits. The final decision is pending, but the two presidents are expected to meet separately before the year's end. They also may meet at the APEC meeting in November.

KH: The Obama and Lee administrations are seeking to adopt a declaration on the future vision of the bilateral alliance. What is the progress so far?

Yu: To further develop the 21st century strategic alliance, the government is in discussion for specifically laying out the vision declaration to buttress future-oriented ties.

KH: Washington has been upping calls for Seoul to step up global peacekeeping efforts to uphold the 21st century strategic alliance. How will Seoul react if Washington continues to expect a troop dispatch to Afghanistan?

Yu: There have been questions on whether Secretary Clinton raised the issue during her recent visit to Seoul, but she did not. What we have to discuss for now is sending police, necessary equipment, training support, agricultural and medical support. What we need to remember is that we can not decide on the dispatch just because the government wants to. It is a matter hinging on public sentiment and the National Assembly. It would be difficult to reach those stages. So for now, we should concentrate on civilian level cooperation, while seeking what contributions we may more actively pursue on both military and non-military terms.

We are frankly not quite confident about the public reaction. How such a dispatch may be received by the people, and how the National Assembly would react. If we fail to attain parliamentary approval, there is nothing we can do. At the moment, we are only thinking of what reconstruction efforts we may offer on the civilian level.

KH: What are the goal, desired effect and future action plans for President Lee's "New Asia Initiative?"

Yu: South Korea, now that it has reinforced its diplomatic relations with the neighboring four nations, is ready for and in need of widening the nation's diplomatic horizon by seeking full-fledged cooperative ties with all Asian nations.

We believe South Korea should capitalize on its unique position to help represent the Asian world in international society and work for their benefits by acting as a bridge connecting the developed and underdeveloped nations. In particular, Seoul would be ideal in playing such a role on global issues such as efforts for resolving the worldwide economic crisis and climate change.

For this goal, we will be working closely together with like-minded Asian nations to strengthen a cooperative network with them via multilateral diplomatic vehicles. The South Korea-ASEAN summit Seoul will host in June are part of such efforts, in addition to President Lee's latest agreements with New Zealand and Australia for starting free trade agreement discussions. South Korea will seek to become an Asian hub for such trade pacts by establishing free trade agreements with key Asian counteparts.

By Kim Ji-hyun ( jemmie@heraldm.com )

출 처: 코리아헤럴드  09/3/16