This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/asia/korea-deal-to-defuse-conflict-may-pave-way-for-better-relations-between-north-and-south.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Korean Deal to Defuse Conflict May Pave Way for Better Relations Deal Between North and South Korea Defies Their Mutual Disdain
(about 7 hours later)
SEOUL, South Korea — When South and North Korea reached an agreement on Tuesday after three days of marathon talks, it did more than end a tense military standoff at their border. It also showed that the countries’ two leaders are capable of making a deal, even though their mutual disdain could hardly be more apparent. SEOUL, South Korea — The agreement that ended a tense military standoff on the Korean Peninsula on Tuesday taught a lesson about North-South dynamics: Neither side sees the verbal abuse that the two countries have been heaping on each other’s leaders as any obstacle to doing a deal when it suits their interests.
North Korea’s state-run news outlets have reviled President Park Geun-hye of South Korea, referring to her in recent months as a prostitute. Ms. Park, for her part, has made no secret of her contempt for Kim Jong-un, the North’s young and inexperienced leader, calling his policies “delusional.” Their mutual disdain could hardly be more apparent. State-run news outlets in the North often refer to President Park Geun-hye of South Korea as a prostitute. Ms. Park does not hide her contempt for Kim Jong-un, the North’s young and inexperienced leader, calling his policies “delusional.”
Analysts said the agreement struck Tuesday morning, besides defusing the immediate threat of conflict, opened up the possibility that the relationship could be improved, at least to some degree. Each of them had domestic political reasons to want to show toughness and resolve, analysts said, so the confrontation swiftly escalated to the brink of armed conflict. Then, each leader had reasons to want to appear statesmanlike and in command of events, so an agreement was struck.
“This deal is a real watershed for the two Koreas,” said John Delury, a professor of history at Yonsei University in Seoul who specializes in China and North Korea. “This is a promising beginning.”
At noon Tuesday, in accordance with the deal reached at the village of Panmunjom, South Korea stopped broadcasting propaganda from loudspeakers at the border, the country’s Defense Ministry said. The North had said that it regarded those broadcasts as a challenge to Mr. Kim’s “supreme dignity.”
In return, North Korea agreed to bring back its military from a state of high alert. It also expressed “regret” over the wounding of two South Korean border guards by land mines this month — a highly unusual gesture that, while falling short of the explicit apology Seoul had demanded, South Korean officials interpreted as a face-saving way of apologizing.
The countries also agreed to further talks. And they said they would revive their sporadic program of reuniting older family members who were separated by the Korean War. The drama of those reunions has often led to calls on both sides to ease hostilities.
“Both leaders will interpret the deal in their own different way and claim victory,” said Yang Moo-jin, an analyst at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. “Park Geun-hye says her patient, principled approach on the North has finally worked. Kim Jong-un will say his daring initiative forced the South to a bargain.”“Both leaders will interpret the deal in their own different way and claim victory,” said Yang Moo-jin, an analyst at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. “Park Geun-hye says her patient, principled approach on the North has finally worked. Kim Jong-un will say his daring initiative forced the South to a bargain.”
South and North Korea, of course, have never gotten along smoothly — technically, they have been at war since 1950, the Korean War having ended in a truce rather than a peace treaty. But their relations have been especially testy under their current leaders. Some observers said the agreement opened up at least the possibility that the relationship could now improve to some degree.
Under Mr. Kim, a new leader eager to establish his credentials, North Korea launched a long-range rocket in December 2012 and conducted its third nuclear test the next February, weeks before Ms. Park was sworn into office. When the United Nations responded with more sanctions, his government threatened to annihilate the South “in a nuclear holocaust.” South Korea vowed to “wipe the North off the face of the earth.” “This deal is a real watershed for the two Koreas,” said John Delury, a professor of history at Yonsei University in Seoul who specializes in China and North Korea. “This is a promising beginning.”
Ms. Park’s tough talk helped her image as a leader who did not give in to bombast from Pyongyang, a strategy that appealed to the conservative South Koreans who supported her. But an early casualty of the brinkmanship was the so-called trustpolitik policy she had promised — that is, building trust with North Korea to guide it toward more openness, denuclearization and, eventually, reunification. South Korea kept its side of the bargain at noon on Tuesday, shutting off the propaganda blaring from loudspeakers at the border, according to the Defense Ministry. The North had said the loudspeaker broadcasts affronted Mr. Kim’s “supreme dignity.”
The Panmunjom agreement “allows her to finally put meat on the bones” of that strategy, Mr. Delury said. In return, North Korea relaxed its military from a state of high alert and expressed “regret” over the wounding of two South Korean border guards by land mines this month. The wording fell a bit short of the explicit apology the South had demanded, but South Korea decided it was close enough.
The countries also agreed to hold further talks, and to revive a sporadic program of reunions for families separated by the Korean War. The drama of those reunions has often led to calls on both sides to ease hostilities.
South and North Korea, of course, have never gotten along smoothly — technically, they have been at war since 1950, with combat halted only by a truce, not a peace treaty. But their relations have been especially testy under their current leaders.
Under Mr. Kim, a new leader eager to establish his credentials, North Korea launched a long-range rocket in December 2012 and conducted its third nuclear test the next February, a few weeks before Ms. Park was sworn into office. When the United Nations responded with more sanctions, his government threatened to annihilate the South “in a nuclear holocaust,” and South Korea responded with a promise to “wipe the North off the face of the earth.”
Ms. Park’s tough talk helped her image as a leader who did not give in to bombast from Pyongyang, a strategy that appealed to the conservative South Koreans who supported her. Her approval ratings, battered by her government’s mishandling of a deadly ferry disaster last year and a deadly viral outbreak this year, rose substantially during the military standoff.
But an early casualty of the brinkmanship was the so-called trustpolitik policy she had promised — building trust with North Korea to guide it toward more openness, denuclearization and, eventually, reunification. The agreement on Tuesday “allows her to finally put meat on the bones” of that strategy, Mr. Delury said.
The talks were also a test for Mr. Kim, who is believed to be in his early 30s and who inherited Pyongyang’s totalitarian government from his father, Kim Jong-il, in late 2011.The talks were also a test for Mr. Kim, who is believed to be in his early 30s and who inherited Pyongyang’s totalitarian government from his father, Kim Jong-il, in late 2011.
Mr. Kim has yet to deliver on his bold promise to improve North Korea’s economy, a task seriously hindered by sanctions and the drying up of aid and trade that once flowed from the South. His government remains rooted in the cult of personality that surrounds his family, as evidenced by its jitters over the South’s propaganda broadcasts. And Mr. Kim has yet to meet with another head of state. (He declined an invitation from China, his country’s main ally, to attend ceremonies in Beijing next week to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.) Mr. Kim has yet to deliver on his bold promise to improve North Korea’s economy, a task seriously hindered by sanctions and the drying up of aid and trade that once flowed from the South. His government remains rooted in the cult of personality that surrounds his family, as evidenced by its jitters over the South’s propaganda broadcasts.
But if nothing else, analysts said, the deal showed that despite having purged many of his father’s time-tested advisers, Mr. Kim can oversee a complicated negotiation with South Korea. The Panmunjom talks lasted for days, according to South Korean officials, partly because the North’s negotiators — senior figures in the government — had to leave the bargaining table frequently to consult with Pyongyang. Analysts said the deal showed that despite having purged many of his father’s time-tested advisers, Mr. Kim was able to oversee a complicated negotiation with the South. The talks lasted for days in part because the North’s negotiators — senior figures in the government — had to leave the bargaining table frequently to consult with Pyongyang, South Korean officials said.
“If you look at how this talk came about and how it led to a deal, you get a clear sense that Kim Jong-un has been calculating it carefully,” Mr. Yang said.“If you look at how this talk came about and how it led to a deal, you get a clear sense that Kim Jong-un has been calculating it carefully,” Mr. Yang said.
The latest escalation began with an exchange of fire across the border on Thursday, which the South said the North had started. South Korean officials took that as a warning to stop the loudspeaker broadcasts, which had begun on Aug. 10 in response to the wounding of the border guards days earlier. The North denied starting the exchange of fire, but it also reached out to the South asking for talks. The expression of “regret” over the land mine episode could probably be explained to the North Korean public as a gesture of sympathy rather than an acceptance of responsibility, analysts said. The North’s leaders have framed such concessions that way in the past, the analysts said.
Analysts said the North’s expression of “regret” over the land mines — less than the “clear apology” Ms. Park had demanded — could probably be explained to the North Korean public as an expression of sympathy for an unfortunate episode, not an acceptance of responsibility. The North’s leaders have framed such concessions that way in the past, the analysts said.
“I even doubt that North Korea really cared that much about the South Korean loudspeakers, whose impact is never proven,” said Kim Dong-yup, also of the University of North Korean Studies. “Its outcries about them may very likely have been a ploy to provoke and drag the South into talks.”“I even doubt that North Korea really cared that much about the South Korean loudspeakers, whose impact is never proven,” said Kim Dong-yup, also of the University of North Korean Studies. “Its outcries about them may very likely have been a ploy to provoke and drag the South into talks.”
Analysts said the “regret” compromise could also work for Ms. Park, by deflecting criticism that she is an uncompromising leader who has needlessly provoked the North. Her first meaningful deal with Pyongyang could also help dispel her “image as a paper-pushing type of leader” among her critics, said Lee Byong-chul, a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Cooperation in Seoul. The “regret” compromise could also work for Ms. Park, by deflecting criticism that her rigid stance had made the North more provocative, analysts said. And the deal could help dispel her “image as a paper-pushing type of leader,” said Lee Byong-chul, a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Cooperation in Seoul.
On Tuesday, Ms. Park said the deal had been possible because of her government’s “consistent principle of dealing sternly with the North’s provocations while keeping the door open for dialogue.”On Tuesday, Ms. Park said the deal had been possible because of her government’s “consistent principle of dealing sternly with the North’s provocations while keeping the door open for dialogue.”
Analysts also saw loopholes in the agreement. It says the South will leave off its loudspeakers unless an “abnormal case” develops. South Korean officials said that caveat would discourage further provocations from the North, but the two sides are likely to have very different definitions of abnormal. The South, for example, would view another North Korean nuclear test as an intolerable provocation, but the North would regard it as within the right to self-defense. Analysts saw wiggle room for the South in its promise to leave the loudspeakers turned off unless an “abnormal case” develops. South Korean officials said that caveat would discourage further provocations from the North, but the two sides are likely to have very different definitions of abnormal.
The countries’ willingness to build more trust and cooperation will be tested in the talks that they said would be arranged in the coming weeks. In past moments of brinkmanship, after reaching what seemed to be a breakthrough, the two sides have reverted to haggling and stonewalling, with the North often starting a new cycle of threats and provocations. Their willingness to build trust and cooperation will be tested in the talks that are to be arranged in the next few weeks. In past moments of brinkmanship, after reaching what seemed to be a breakthrough, the two sides have generally reverted to haggling and stonewalling.
“The agreement is like a box with the sign ‘Fragile’ stamped on it,” Mr. Lee said. “Unless handled carefully, it could break at any time.”“The agreement is like a box with the sign ‘Fragile’ stamped on it,” Mr. Lee said. “Unless handled carefully, it could break at any time.”