In November 2010 a NZ DPRK Society delegation comprising our Deputy Chairman, Dr. Tim Beal accompanied by a former member of the NZ Parliament Matt Robson visited Beijing and Pyongyang.
Tim Beal is an expert on North East Asia and has published two books as well as numerous papers on the DPRK. He maintains a website on geopolitics which monitors current affairs with a special emphasis on Korea.
Matt Robson is a lawyer. As a member of the NZ parliament he was Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control and Associate –Minister for Foreign Affairs responsible for development aid 1999-2002. Nowadays he is active in the Parliamentarians Network For Nuclear Disarmament (PNND) and a Board Member Of Aotearoa Lawyers For Peace (ALP)
The following report on the trip was compiled by Matt Robson.
Fact-Finding Trip to the DPRK, With a Special Emphasis On Nuclear Disarmament
Organised By the NZ DPRK Society 5 – 12 November 2010
Introduction
PNND and ALP were invited by NZ- DPRKS to participate in a fact-finding visit to the DPRK.
The DPRK government did not fund the trip but, via the Korea-NZ Friendship Society, a unit of the government’s Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries, did provide two guides/interpreters.
NZ- DPRKS’ aim is to promote friendship and cooperation between our two countries and as part of that aim tries to disseminate factual information on the DPRK.
It does not act as an advocate for the political system of the DPRK, anymore than its counterpart acts as an advocate for New Zealand’s system.
But it does aim for New Zealand to develop normal and mature bi-lateral relations between our two countries and in so doing to act independently and assist the peace process and to recognise that an attempt is made to use the DPRK, like the South- the Republic of Korea (ROK), as a pawn in a much larger political, economic and strategic game played between much larger players, in particular the United States and China.
ALP/PNND’s purpose was to explore with the appropriate government bodies, agencies, institutions and organisations in the DPRK the most practical ways to cooperated on nuclear disarmament. It was also conceived as a trip whereby the proposal for a North East Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ), promoted by the former Japanese Foreign Minister, could be discussed as well as re- issuing an invitation for parliamentarians of the Supreme People’s National assembly to join PNND and work with colleagues in Parliaments throughout the world on nuclear disarmament initiatives.
Because to get to the DPRK from New Zealand it is necessary to travel through China and collect a visa from the embassy in Beijing, the opportunity was also taken to discuss nuclear disarmament and Chinese views on the conflict on the Korean peninsula and the 6 party talks. This was important given the heightened tension with the sinking of the South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan, a few months ago, for which ROK blamed the DPRK, and the stalemate of the 6 Party Talks.
Both Tim and I are very grateful for all the work put in by Professor Ru Ling, a researcher at Colombia University both for her hard work in setting up the various meetings in Beijing (no easy feat!) from both New York and in Beijing. As well she was at hand to ferry us around and negotiate the Beijing Traffic and in general to advise and counsel. The Chinese embassy in Wellington had also gone into overdrive to ensure that official meetings were scheduled. And of course in all of the these meetings the indefatigable Alyn Ware of PNND and ALP had a hand somewhere and contributed to the fact that meetings happened and were successful.
Synopsis Of The Trip
I was in China for only 3 days in transit to the DPRK. Therefore the report does not pretend to provide an in-depth expert view of official or NGO views in either country. But I hope that it does provide a cross spectrum of viewpoints and facts that is often not evident in the reporting of the issues in mainstream media , whether it be the controlled media of China and the DPRK or the so-called “free media” in the West. Current border tensions and threats of war continue to make the Korean peninsula a world flashpoint. It is important that New Zealand and New Zealanders become informed and that our government adopts a constructive approach to the issue , refraining from the temptation to score political points by succumbing to a polarised view of “angels” on one side and “villains” ( or axis of evil) on the other.
It would pay to give greater consideration to the Chinese positions on these issues. First, China as a next door neighbour is highly informed on the key issues and second, consistently plays the role of peacemaker and conciliator.
New Zealand can play an effective role in promoting and assisting the resolution of conflicts in the region, including the nuclear crisis, but only as an independent actor, using its growing international credibility arising from our nuclear free legislation and leadership in nuclear disarmament initiatives such as the New Agenda Coalition, the International Court of Justice case against nuclear weapons and support for the UN Secretary-General’s Five-Point Plan for nuclear disarmament.
New Zealand has supposedly moved on from being an unquestioning member of the Western nuclear alliance with its discriminatory approach of supporting nuclear weapons in the hands of some countries but not others. NZ now officially promotes a non-discriminatory norm against nuclear weapons globally, and it is this that gives NZ credibility in NE Asia. However, there are some remaining vestiges of our former discriminatory approach that could hamper our role in the region.
We were part of the armed force supporting South Korea in the 1950-53 war and we are a partner in the armistice. Technically, we are still at war. It is time, and would be very constructive, to support the initiatives to have a permanent peace treaty forged. I hope that my report plays some part in the process to get New Zealand behind that initiative and to end the international isolation of the north for the benefit of all Koreans and the world at large.
In the rest of the report I will provide more detail on the meetings held, concentrating on disarmament and peace initiatives.
Tim who has written extensively on the DPRK and is in fact writing a new book to update a previous one, has his own report concentrating on the wider economic and political issues given his far greater knowledge and expertise on these subjects.
My particular brief from PNND and ALP was to explore possibilities of further cooperation with parliamentarians and disarmament organisations on nuclear disarmament initiatives and the possible promotion of a NWFZ for North-East Asia.
Beijing November 3 – 5 2010
In Beijing we had meetings arranged with:
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of Arms Control and Disarmament
- Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament
- Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs
- Chinese Arms Control and Disarmament Association
The topics discussed with all the above were:
- The NPT Review Conference held in May 2010 in New York
- Views on the Obama initiatives for nuclear disarmament
- North East ASIA NWFZ
- Korea
- Encouraging Chinese parliamentarians to join PNND
All of the organisations and representatives listed above had the same or similar views on these topics.
1. NPT Review Conference
Little progress had been made. China is always willing we were informed to take real steps to nuclear disarmament. But it is of the view that the NPT Review Conference achieved little and that other nuclear armed powers, in particular the US, are not sincere in actually disarming.
2. Obama
China supports the UN Secretary –General’s 5-point plan but believes that the biggest obstacle is the United States. It does not believe that President Obama and his administration are sincere. The view is that President Obama is spouting rhetoric. In particular the Chinese view is that the US still wishes to encircle China militarily and that its nuclear arms strategy is geared to that.
3. North East NWFZ
While not dismissing this initiative of the former Japanese Foreign Minister the view was that until the hostility of the US and Japan towards China ended and genuine steps taken to nuclear disarmament, including Ban Ki-Moon’s 5 point plan, then this NWFZ cannot be implemented. Denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and a genuine peace treaty agreed to by the US and the end of US/Japanese/ROK military exercises were also seen as essential preconditions.
The MOF officials raised the recently signed Wellington Declaration (US/NZ) as a sign that New Zealand might be moving away from an independent foreign and military policy to one more closely aligned to the US.
4. Korea
China is keen for the 6 party talks, which it chairs, to resume.
China believes that the US and ROK should drop their preconditions (e.g. DPRK accepting responsibility for the sinking of the Cheonan, abandoning nuclear weapons without negative security assurances and without normalisation of relations.)
China supports the DPRK proposal of denuclearisation of the peninsula and working towards reunification through setting up a federal system. As part of this process, the DPRK which previously accepted weapon inspection requires an absolute security guarantee that it will not be attacked by the United States and its allies.
Denuclearisation of the peninsula would mean that the DPRK would abandon and destroy its nuclear weapons as long as the ROK also declared itself to be nuclear free and withdrew from a nuclear alliance with the US. The DPRK position is that the ROK does station nuclear weapons on its territory although it is generally believed that there are no nuclear weapons on ROK territory.
They see the real target of US pressure, e.g. through military exercises off the Korean peninsula, as China.
They want The DPRK to come out of isolation and want it taken off what was President Bush’s “axis of evil list” and is now, under Obama, a more muted “States of Concern” list.
Until the above occurs China cannot see the DPRK abandoning its nuclear weapon programme. The invasion of Iraq is seen as a justification for the DPRK’s position as it is for China’s .Similarly China cannot take bigger steps to disarmament (although it has a no-first strike pledge, supports NWFZ’s expanding, signed the NPT, supports Ban-Ki Moon’s 5-point plan) until it sees the US taking what it considers t be serious steps to nuclear disarmament.
China recognises that in the US Nuclear Posture Review that President Obama has actually included two of their key demands:
– Lowering the role of nuclear weapons; and
-negotiating further reductions with Russia.
This has been a precondition for China entering nuclear disarmament talks. However, Chinese officials stressed that these proposals have yet to be put into effect. When they are they will take them seriously.
5. PNND
I asked all of those we met with to use whatever influence they had for Chinese deputies to join PNND. I stressed that membership allowed for discussion and a wider appreciation of Chinese viewpoints. There is a fear it seems (although not explicitly stated) that such a group of MPs, independent of government, could be used against China. I stressed that this is not the case but it will take more contact and dialogue with government and parliamentarians to get members and participation.
The Democratic People’s Republic Of Korea 5-12 November 2010
Introduction And General Comments
When invited to be part of this delegation on behalf of PNND I knew that the very fact of going to a country which has been declared to be “evil” and “villainous” and a renegade from the “international community”( a term which means all things to all people) would raise eyebrows.
I was right. But on the other hand a number of friends and colleagues said they were intrigued by the country and would like to visit.
I treated this as a fact finding mission. My major aim was to form as an informed a viewpoint as possible on what possible role New Zealand government and New Zealanders can play in ensuring that here is a peaceful solution to the dangerous conflict that exists between the south and the north and between the United States ( and Japan)and the DPRK.
I was of the view before I went, and reinforced by my visit, that Cold War type politics and blindly following the axis of evil characterisation of the DPRK is not helpful or rational. While there are human rights violations and a deficiency of democracy in the DPRK that can and should be criticised, outright condemnation of the State and a failure to appreciate the genuine security concerns that prompt DPRK’s foreign policy will fail to resolve the conflicts and only push DPRK into an even more defensive position.
These security concerns include the facts that there has been no formal end to the war; that the US has threatened” regime change” in DPRK and has not guaranteed not to attack; that South Korea, Japan and the US continue provocative military exercises off the coast of DPRK including into disputed territorial waters; and that South Korea, Japan and the US maintain a first-use policy for the possible use of nuclear weapons against DPRK. DPRK’s rationale for leaving the NPT and openly developing a nuclear weapons capability was the US/UK invasion of Iraq after the UN had destroyed Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. DPRK therefore announced that it therefore required nuclear weapons in order to deter attack. For without such weapons DPRK would be defenceless as Iraq was.
The small New Zealand-DPRK Society , in which the Rev Don Borrie and Dr Tim Beal of Victoria University, has played a role well beyond its size for many years to bear light on both the DPRK as a society and its political positions.
Unfortunately the lazy position of much of the media and of politicians is to just accept the “axis of evil” viewpoint and save themselves the trouble of actually looking at the facts.
On returning to New Zealand the NZ-DPRK Society has suggested that the government could play a mediating role if it took an independent stance open to the security concerns of all the States involved.
And New Zealand should support:
- Resumption of the 6 Party Talks
- Discussion of the proposals for denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula
- Negotiations for a Peace Treaty to replace the Armistice of 1953
- Pursuing the steps already discussed between the North and the South under the Sunshine Policy of former President Kim of the ROK for peaceful reunification
- Bringing the DPRK out of isolation
The DPRK
Yes it was a shock to be relieved of my mobile phone at Pyongyang Airport. I got it back when I left 7 days later.
Also to experience, after the large modern international airport at Beijing, a capital city’s an airport that was like a New Zealand airport of the 1970’s.
But then that was a good introduction to a country that is in a state of siege, which is not connected by internet and satellite (for the general population) to the outside world and where infrastructure in general, from roads to buildings, is in urgent need of massive capital investment.
We were met by Mr Pak Yong Gun the Secretary General of the Korean-Asia Pacific Exchange and his younger counterpart Mr Hwang Sung Chol Secretary-General of the Korea-New Zealand Friendship Society. They were to be our guides, companions and translators. Mr Pak had been in New Zealand once and in Australia a number of times. He had also studied at the University of British Guyana and had an expert knowledge of Latin America History, culture and politics as well as a broad knowledge of Western Philosophy. Mr Hwang had not been to New Zealand but followed events there closely and had spent 5 years in Tehran as a diplomat. Both had excellent English, a good sense of humour and loved to debate issues with us.
Our hotel was basic but adequate with a friendly and helpful staff. You did need to get up before 7am though to get hot water!!
Walking outside and around the area was no problem but there was not a lot to do and see and shops are functional not showcases.
November 6 – Saturday
Kim Muy Yan Hospital Pyongyang
We were guided by the head of the hospital Dr Jo Won Chol. He and his staff stressed that they provided the best care they could and cooperated with colleagues throughout the country but did not hide that they needed a great deal of investment in equipment, modern technology ,upgrading the buildings and facilities and the latest generation of drugs of all types. They stated that they wanted to collaborate internationally and blamed the international boycott of the DPRK, led by the US, as the basis for their great needs.
They asked me to press for help to obtain third generation antibiotics and updating of their equipment. The governments of Japan and the United States, they advised, have prevented the importation of modern medical technology even when it has been donated from within those countries.
They welcomed sharing of information and assistance from the medical fraternity in New Zealand.
The message: We want to participate fully with the international medical fraternity, we don’t want war, we want to interact with the world and we want peaceful reunification with the south. We would welcome contact and assistance with New Zealand
This was a constant message: we want contact and collaboration with New Zealand.
The University of Science and Technology- Pyongyang
This state of the art university is nearing completion and will eventually hold 2000 of the top students.
The Vice-President is David Kim a Chinese-Korean who is also VP of Yonbian University in China. The University is an initiative of evangelical Christians and most of the staff we met were avowed Christians. The DPRK government accepts this, presumably reluctantly, but this is not atypical. Much of the foreign aid/education involvement in North Korea is Christian.
We met with the VP and members of the international staff. A number are from the United States, teaching everything from Chemistry, IT to English.
The University teaches Business, Life Sciences, Chemistry and Engineering.
Dr Kim stressed, after I explained the focus of PNND that the university was not political and focused on a global vision and objective scholarship.
The Head of Chemistry was a young Korean who had studied at the University of Florida. Walking together, and alone, around the campus he told me that whatever they needed they were getting and that here were great changes going on in general. He said that all Koreans knew that they had to modernise and be part of the world but wanted to do that on their terms and not have the terms imposed.
The head of English was from Holland and had taught in China for many years. But she said that she loved being in the DPRK and was finding it stimulating to teach there and to interact with Korean people and the students.
It was stressed to us that the University would welcome the renewal of scholarships from New Zealand (offered by NZAID but cancelled by government ), teachers from New Zealand and whatever academic collaboration possible.
November 7- Sunday
Bongsu Presbyterian Church Service
The Rev Don Borrie has built a strong relationship with this church in Pyongyang.
I gave greetings from New Zealand to the congregation and this was well received.
The German Ambassador, Gerhard Thiedemann, was in attendance and the following evening he invited us to his home for a discussion.
This allowed us to see more of Pyongyang at night away from our hotel. As foreigners can’t use taxis this provided us with an opportunity to tour another part of the city and to hear the views of the ambassador. Seeing the overloaded and old trams and the lack of lighting confirmed the need for a massive investment in infrastructure.
The ambassador was pessimistic on the possibility of economic development and political change and also did not see much use in foreign investment and joint ventures. Nor did he think that greater development aid and involvement would assist the DPRK to enter the modern world. He was not optimistic about the DPRK moving to nuclear disarmament.
It was interesting to contrast his views with that of a German businessman and his Chinese wife who live in Pyongyang and have had a joint IT company for a number of years. His view is that the regime wants to open up, in a controlled way, and forge contacts globally and that joint ventures like his can play an important part.
November 8 – Monday
Red Cross Society
We had a short “meet and greet” meeting with the international representative from Denmark, Ole Hauge, stationed in Pyongyang, and then met with the 2 young representatives of the Korean sector. They had excellent English so no translation was necessary.
They have much lower government financial help than in the past and so more and more rely on the community. They are allowed to launch independent appeals and are developing a programme to go to corporates.
Their member ship is 1.07 million with a youth wing of 370,000.
They have existed since 1946 and have played an important role in rebuilding from the war and the various natural and other tragedies that have struck the country.
They are an important link with the outside world.
In 2010 they had to cope with 5 floods.
They have a bi-lateral with Norway and would welcome one with New Zealand.
They work well with their counterpart in ROK and the family reunification programme has resumed.
One programme that New Zealand could help with is purchasing family medical kits which cost US$ 15-20.
A power point of their work and history is available.
Institute for Disarmament and Peace
This is a government research institute. We met with Ma Tay Hui a Senior Researcher.
He stressed that peace for DPRK threatened by the invasion threat from US, Japan and ROK. The nuclear weapons held by this alliance and the threat of invasion meant that the DPRK had to develop a nuclear deterrent. The DPRK had been the only one of the 6 parties without nuclear weapons or a nuclear umbrella ( Japan and ROK).
Nuclear disarmament and disarmament in general could only be achieved if:
- 6 Party Talks resumed without conditions
- Agreement on denuclearisation of the whole peninsula (the North would dismantle its nuclear weapon capacity and the South would withdraw from its nuclear weapon alliance with the US and not station any nuclear weapons on its territory)
- A Peace Treaty with guarantees of no invasion
- Peaceful reunification on a federal basis
We asked on what basis the DPRK would judge that the US position had genuinely changed. This question was based on the revised US policy under Obama, the Nuclear Posture Review) whereby the US has reduced the role of nuclear weapons to primarily one to deter other nuclear weapons. He reiterated the steps above, as did almost every other representative and NGO that we met, and said that the DPRK would only be positive about the new US position if they witnessed a genuine commitment, and the steps to prove it, by the US to peaceful reunification of the two Koreas, a Peace Treaty and guarantees of no invasion and in general an end to confrontation and a new era of peaceful cooperation with good relations on all fronts. This would only occur, in his view, if trust was built by positive actions. Then they would have a positive view of Obama’s nuclear disarmament initiatives in general.
A NWFZ for north-east Asia was not seen as feasible until the above was gained. But New Zealand’s anti- nuclear position was understood and respected.
November 9 – Tuesday
Ryunbak Middle School.
We toured the school and met with an English class. The level of English obtained was impressive. This is reflected in the large number ofyounger officials we met who speak good English. This is obviously important for a country that needs engagement with the wider world.
It is also a school that specialises in drama, dance and music. A wonderful concert was put on for us.
Computers are widely used but they are not linked to the internet (and the same in the universities).
Schooling is compulsory and free until 17.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
We met with Kim Chil Soy a senior officer.
Our topics were similar to those discussed at the Institute for Disarmament. The viewpoints were also the same- as with all our meetings.
But the hostility of Japan to the DPRK, along with the US, was stressed
The implementation of the 1990 Agreement with the US has been on hold and the return to this is seen as essential for solving the conflicts.
New Zealand established bi-lateral relations in 2001 and this was seen as positive. The cancellation of the planned NZ ambassadorial visit in June, in response to the sinking of the Cheonan, was a disappointment s was the cancellation of the promised 20 scholarships.
Scholarships were seen as a positive way of building relations and assisting the DPRK at the same time.
DPRK has long had excellent relations with ASEAN and most of its individual members and would welcome excellent relations with New Zealand on all levels from economic, cultural to sport.
Vice-Chairman of National Peace Committee and Deputy to Supreme People’s Assembly – Mon Jo Chol
His views were in accord with those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
I invited him to join with PNND but there was no immediate acceptance.
But he and the Assembly would welcome a visit by New Zealand parliamentarians to discuss issues of mutual concern and to establish closer ties.
Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (NG0) – Kathi Zellweger
Kathi has been in the DPRK for 4 years. She has built up excellent relations with all her local counterparts and officials.
Her NGO concentrates on: environmental sustainability, reafforestation, renewable energy development and ornithological research.
She advocates greater development aid assistance as a positive contribution to change in the DPRK on many levels. She believes that greater integration with the world economy and community is a genuine policy.
Kathy is very pleased with the re-involvement of UNDP and other UN agencies and can only see good coming from this for both the DPRK and for easing tensions in the region.
This was also the opinion of other aid workers who we met at meal times at our hotel. All of them stressed the eagerness of those they worked with to receive their knowledge and assistance and there friendliness. They were keen to encourage a greater level of development aid both from their own countries and internationally.
Kumsong College
This was another high school in Pyongyang with a good English programme. They had recently had an English teacher from New Zealand sponsored by the NZ-DPRK Society. He had been very popular and the students had prepared a slide show of his time there. Knowledge of New Zealand was understandably high because of him as was the level of English of the students.
Plans are underway to send another NZ English teacher.
November 10 – Wednesday
National Reconciliation Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea
The Committee was set up in 1948.
Viewpoints on the causes of conflict and solutions were similar to those of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
However, greater emphasis was laid on the role of the present ruling party of ROK as an obstacle by:
- seeking confrontation e.g. military exercises, disputed border claims, blame for sinking of Cheonan,
- refusing to implement the Sunshine Policy of former President Kim,
- wanting to collapse the North and absorb it into the South.
3 steps for reunification:
- A Peaceful community,
- An Economic Community,
- A National Community.
They were firmly of the opinion that the ROK and US plan a pre-emptive strike- OPLAN 5029.
Cheonan has been used to extend the US Operational Command of ROK military until 2015. ROK has joined the US MD System and continues joint (nuclear armed) military exercises.
Like the other meetings, no hope of a North-East Asia NWFZ seen unless genuine peace, with a Treaty, achieved.
Economists from Academy of Social Sciences
The viewpoint was that until 1980’s DPRK was near the level of developed countries.
Tim and the economists had a vigorous debate on the accuracy of this.
In 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet and East European markets and then with isolation and sanctions development dived leading to what is termed the “Arduous March”.
A firm foundation has been set, we were told, for rapid progress under a policy of maximum self-reliance. The following areas were instanced as proof of this:
- Science and Technology and development of hydro-power to overcome electricity shortages,
- Agriculture advances – 320,000 hectares of land into production since 1998.
Targets:
- Level of production to 1980 levels
- Modernisation on scientific basis
- Technological basis to the economy
- Raise living standards in food and housing
Joint Ventures
Joint Ventures are important and there are 375 in place – China, Hong Kong, Thailand, Russia. Tax rate for JVs is 10%. A separate ministry with its own website now coordinates all JV’s. This is clearly a development that they want and provides and excellent area for increased cooperation with many countries, New Zealand included.
We asked for budget details, including defence spending, but these were not available here or through other enquiries.
The opinion on defence spending (approximately 10.8% of the budget was the estimate) and the need for a nuclear deterrent was that of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Under 19 National Football Team
We met with the team and their coaches at a practice.
They are highly successful. They would welcome matches against a New Zealand side.
November 11 – Thursday
Democratic Lawyers Association, Korean National Peace Committees and International Physicians for Peace
The Secretary-General of the DLA, Ry Kyong Il, had attended a 2009 IALANA Conference and the September 2010 MPI Geneva Meeting.
All of the groups welcomed contact with both the international bodies and their New Zealand counterparts.
Daedongyang Combined Fruit Farm
This was reached after an hour and a half journey. A number of checkpoints, police and army, were encountered on these trips. We had no problems but it indicated the level of security. Other than that there is little evidence of a military presence in Pyongyang and its outskirts that we saw.
This state farm is extremely large and has 2000 employees growing apples and pears and raising pigs.
Army labour is responsible for much of the development.
Large cool stores have been built and expansion is planned.
November 12 – Friday
Departure from DPRK. The return of my cellphone.
Concluding Impressions
The concentration in the DPRK is on economic development and greater integration with the world.
However, this is being attempted while maintaining the political system of the Korean Workers Party as the party in power.
There is recognition of the need to change but the emphasis is that this will be decided in the DPRK and not imposed.
The DPRK regards itself as being threatened militarily and political by a heavily armed and greater population in the ROK, Japan and the US.
The issue of reunification is a key one. The proposal of the DPRK is that the north and the south take steps to reunification gradually, slowly and peacefully by developing a federal system which respects the different systems in the north and the south but extends gradually the areas of cooperation and contact.
Investment and attention is being paid to raising educational achievements particularly in technology and engineering, science, business methods and English.
The negotiating position on ending the conflict is
- peaceful reunification,
- denuclearisation of the entire peninsula (The DPRK offers to turn over its nuclear weapons to a third country),
- a Peace Treaty to replace the armistice of 1953,
- an end to sanctions and isolation.
New Zealand, at both government level and that of civil society can play a positive role in ending the isolation of the DPRK and assisting the easing of tensions.
First, NZ should support the initiative for a NE Asia NWFZ based on the 3+3 model. Such a zone would include key security aspects sought by the differing parties – the DPRK would receive assurances that nuclear weapons would not be threatened or used against them. In return DPRK would agree to forgo its nuclear weapons and accept inspections. Japan and South Korea would also not have nuclear weapons in their territories or have a US nuclear umbrella. The viewpoint of the DPRK is that denuclearisation of the peninsula means just that- mo nuclear weapons in, or threatening the peninsula.
Second, as a participant in the 1950-53 war we are party to the Armistice. It is time for a Peace Treaty. The negotiating of the peace treaty would be an opportunity to discuss and solve the many vexed questions such as border disputes, including in the seas and the islands, fear of being attacked by the ROK and /or US coalition forces, and the nuclear threats from the US/Japan/ROK alliances. Denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, particularly through the establishment of a NE Asia NWFZ, would have more chance of success if attention is given to the larger security issues, possibly through simultaneous negotiations of a Peace Treaty –or a demonstrated commitment by the US/Japan/ROK to such a treaty.
Third, we can provide development aid and have a beneficial influence, well beyond our size (as the Colombo Plan showed), through our aid projects. A good place to start would be the restoration of the promised 20 scholarships and allowing the DPRK to participate in MFAT’s English Training for Officials (ELTO) programme.
Fourth, on the economic front we can explore Joint Ventures and other economic and trade initiatives. Who would have thought when we first recognised China that Fonterra would now be operating dairy farms there? And a Fonterra mission to the DPRK would be a good start.
Fifth, English as a second language is also a prime goal in the DPRK. Let us explore that and benefit countries as well as further eroding the isolation of DPRK and thus enhancing regional and indeed world peace.
Sixth, Our educational institutions, our medical schools, our sporting codes and our cultural bodies can all play a positive role in ending the axis of evil status (now “States of Concern”) of the DPRK and exchanging it for an axis for cooperation and common security.
Seventh, as always, it would be a big step forward if the government broke with cold war policies towards the DPRK and established positive and pragmatic links while not shying away from the right of each to criticise the other fully and frankly if need be.
Matt Robson,
Auckland, NZ,
20 January 2011.
NZ-DPRK Society 