An Indiana University expert says she's hopeful recent talks between the leaders of North and South Korea will bring greater peace to the region.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met with South Korean President Moon Jae-in for talks and a series of symbolic gestures at the border between the two countries Friday. These talks come after a period of heightened tension last year when North Korea ramped up its long-range missile testing.
Seung-kyung Kim is the Director of IU's Institute for Korean Studies. We spoke with her about her perspective on the historical meeting and what it could mean the future relationship between the two countries.
This conversation has been edited for clarity and conciseness.
Q: Can you summarize the recent developments from talks that have happened in the past couple days?
A: It was quite a surprise for, I think, people who live outside of Korea. I believe there's a bit of a role that China's government played in this. When Kim Jong Un visited Xi Jinping, there were talks about that try not to, you know, really pushing for military tension and also really working on economic problems that North Korea is facing. And who knows whether that was the key issue or not, but obviously Kim Jong-Un thought about what is the best for North Korea and the North Korean people.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in has always been in the position that he wanted to work with North Korea to have a peaceful relationship. The problem before was South Korea has never been in the driver's seat, and so with this meeting, he made it very clear that the South Korean government is going to be one of the main actors in this process, not just the U.S. or China or Russia or Japan.
Q: What are the both sides getting out of this?
Nothing really quite tangible I think. There were talks about peace treaties, ending the war, there were also regular bilateral summits, and people-to-people get-together kind of things. So those are, again, nothing really concrete. So if anybody says well, 'do we have a written thing?' At this point, it may not be able to materialize. But nonetheless, I believe the symbolic meaning of this meeting we cannot discount and what North and South can do together without the other big powers, I think that's very important for both North and South people.
Q: Is there anything to think that, right now, there should be worry for any type of military action, from parties like the U.S., North Korea, or South Korea?
A: I would like to think, again as an individual opinion, I would like to think of it as, this is good faith. I know there [are] a lot of suspicions, especially from the U.S. because of what happened before. Many times, the North Korean government used this kind of occasion to prolong the time and also using this kind of occasion to receive more economic aid and other things. I don't think anybody is disregarding that. There are probably more hawkish people in the U.S. that would suggest this is the time we have to be more militaristic and pressing North Korea. But as a person who was born in Korea and grew up in Korea, as a scholar here, what I would like to suggest, every party involved giving some time for both the North and South Korean governments to be able to work with and to come up with a suggestion that can be acceptable for both parties. After all, North and South Korea are the two parties that are the most intimately involved in this.
And of course, U.S., Russia, China and Japan are all surrounding and also U.S. has great deal of involvement in South Korea at this point. But I do believe, at this point, we should take it as good faith and see where it leads to.
Q: What would it mean if Donald Trump were to meet with Kim Jong Un?
I would think, if Kim Jong Un and Trump met, the U.S. government would probably press more about the promise or written promise for complete denuclearization and a pressing for really pulling back on all those things. And I would think Kim Jong Un may well be asking for American military presence being pulled back, so those are some the issues they can talk about. At the same time, and I keep coming back to this position, the two main actors here, are South and North. So no matter how much the U.S. government is involved and has a stake in it, this is the time to let the two parties, North and South, talk to each other.
