Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

DATE=8/13/02

TYPE=INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

TITLE=KONGDAN OH

NUMBER=3-291

BYLINE=TODD GROSSHANS

DATELINE=

INTERNET=

/// EDITORS: THIS INTERVIEW IS AVAILABLE IN DALET UNDER SOD/ENGLISH NEWS NOW INTERVIEWS IN THE FOLDER FOR TODAY OR YESTERDAY ///

HOST: North and South Korea have completed a second day of high-level talks in Seoul, following Monday's successful resumption of a dialogue stalled since last November. Both sides report progress on key issues. V-O-A News Now's Todd Grosshans spoke with Kongdan Oh, a research staff member with the Institute for Defense Analyses in Alexandria, Virginia, about some of the issues and what each side is looking for if and when reconciliation takes place:

MS. OH: The major issues are, maybe the most immediate issue is that, if you remember the June 2000 summit between President Kim Dae-Jung of South Korea and North Korea leader Kim Jong-Il, at the end of the summit, their study said that the two Koreas will live in a peaceful situation without having any conflicts or skirmishes. But in three years, June of this year, on the west coast, the two Koreas had a naval conflict. So I think the promise they would really implement. So I think that is the most immediate question. But the other question is how do the two Koreas really sit down at the table to pull up the real reconciliation and cooperation to put together for the economic improvement of North Korea?

MR. GROSSHANS: Isn't it true that North Korea has far more to gain from these reconciliation talks than South Korea?

MS. OH: Yes. I think, basically, South Korea was a very generous donor of almost unconditional assistance to North Korea. I think North Korea will gain nothing but positive gain from dealing with South Korea. But for some reason of domestic politics and their very strange mentality, they were the one who usually broke the relationship. Maybe the most important thing is that the leadership factor, Kim Jong-Il, is hard to predict. Sometimes he likes to do "A" and sometimes he changes that "A" policy overnight. So I think the unpredictability of this leader is a major factor.

I think also the other factors are the external factors, such as the current U.S. and North Korean relationship is not in good shape. So sometimes North Korea looks at the U.S. and they punish South Korea, and that's another factor. And a third factor is that the North Korean leader and the military constantly needs an enemy, because they live in a siege mentality as an endangered species, as a unique communist country that is isolated in today's world. So sometimes they try to make some kind of conflict to make their domestic consolidation and to tell the people to stand by and work hard.

So all of these combined factors together, sometimes they break the old relationships.

MR. GROSSHANS: What exactly is South Korea going to get out of this?

MS. OH: I think it's very hard to understand for most Americans why South Korea is constantly pushing reconciliation even at the risk of losing the business. I must say that maybe South Korea sees North Korea not just as a divided enemy on the other side of the Korean Peninsula, but also the poor brothers and sisters suffering in such economic difficulty. In that case, maybe to go through the reconciliation and helping them is ultimately creating the environment for the two Koreas to be united for some long future. I think that is what South Korea is trying to do.

MR. GROSSHANS: Wouldn't eventual reconciliation and reuniting of the two Koreas be a huge economic drain on South Korea if it were ever to get that far?

MS. OH: Well, that's a very important question, and I agree with you. I think, basically, the economic drain and maybe the economic burden will be huge. But at the same time, if you ask the other side the question, that is, if they remain divided and constantly engaged in hostile confrontations, will that be also very expensive, particularly when China is emerging, Japan is still the number three economy, and Russia is maybe is going through the rapid conversion and becoming a capitalist country, in that case, why do the two Koreas live in confrontation, spending the national energy only in the warlike situation?

So I think in the short term, yes, it may be an economic drain. But for the long term, I think the economy gains.

HOST: Kongdan Oh is a research staff member with the Institute for Defense Analyses in Alexandria, Virginia. She spoke with VOA News Now's Todd Grosshans.

NEB/VNN