Seminars on North Korea Organized by the Editor

Abstract

The United States and the Two KoreasA Joint Seminar by the Korea Economic Institute of America and the University of Detroit Mercy12:30-17:00, March 23, 2005Commerce & Finance Building, the University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MichiganSix distinguished speakers provided an outstanding overview of the Korea problem and United States-Korea relations at The United States and the Two Koreas, a seminar held at the University of Detroit Mercy (UDM) on March 23, 2005. During the seminar, which was co-hosted by the UDM College of Business Administration Institute for Korean Studies and the Korea Economic Institute (KEI) of Washington, D.C., six distinguished speakers-three provided by UDM and three provided by KEI-presented a variety of information on these topics from both a political and an economic standpoint. Over 80 guests from the business community, the academic community, and the student population attended the seminar.James J. Przystup, Senior Fellow and Research Professor at the National Defense University began the first panel of the seminar, North Korea's Defining Moment, by reviewing the activities that led to the 1994 Agreed Framework, the Sunshine Policy, and today's six-party framework. Mr. Przystup stated that Korea's nuclear strategy is not just a U.S.-North Korea bilateral issue, due to the fact that nuclear proliferation involving the peninsula is a threat to the whole world. Since the six-party talks are currently stalled, in order to move forward there will need to be concessions or pressures. The goals of all of the six parties are the same: no war, no collapse of the current Korean regime, and a de-nuclearized peninsula. However, not all of the six parties prioritize these goals in the same manner. For instance, the threat of a collapse of the Korean regime is greater for South Korea, as they know from their studies of the collapse of East Germany and German reunification. In contrast, China may be more prepared to live with a nuclear Korea as long as the situation remains ambiguous, and for the U.S. the biggest priority is the removal of nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula.Mr. Przystup stated that he does not see any concessions coming from the Bush administration, since they appear to believe that concessions would legitimatize the Korean regime. He also does not believe that Korea will use nuclear weapons, because it is against their best interests to do so. Mr. Przystup went on to clarify that the world should not make the assumption that Korea desires to join the international community. For the Korean elite that makes up the regime, isolation is the best guarantee of their continued prominence.Next to speak was Scott Rembrandt, Director of Research and Academic Affairs of the KEI, who gave the South Korean perspective of the Korean problem. He believes that the current process of having six-party talks is necessary and correct. From South Korean viewpoint, the U.S. needs to be more flexible in its stance. South Koreans see Koreans as weak, in decline, and lacking the will and capacity to attack. Since they therefore see no direct threat from Korea, and due to the fact that they have a cultural alliance bound by blood, they believe that more concessions are necessary than pressures. South Korea would recommend that the U.S. offers more concessions, and avoids any type of roadmap such as that in use for the Middle East. Koreans are less linear and would prefer a buffet of concessions.Mr. Rembrandt went on to discuss the recent Korean Human Rights Act. He sees this as a good-faith effort on the part of the Bush administration, meant to help Korean refugees. However, this Act also masks the desire of the Bush administration to bring about regime change, and that desire will lead to reluctance on the part of Korea to return to negotiations within the framework of the six-party talks. …