(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on June 15)

Koreas and America: Competitive raising of tension leads to mutual destruction

President Lee Myung-bak's four-day visit to the United States starting today
comes at a most delicate moment for both countries.

On Saturday, North Korea responded to new, tougher United Nations sanctions by
defiantly vowing to push ahead with its nuclear programs, saying it will begin
"weaponizing" all of its plutonium stockpiles and even add a new formula of
uranium enrichment, and take "resolute" military action against efforts to
blockade the Stalinist country.
Pyongyang deserves little sympathy. Attempting to get out of its political and
economic quagmire through securing weapons of mass destruction is neither
justifiable for global peace nor even a good national strategy in practical
terms. Nothing illustrates this better than the U.N. Security Council's latest
resolution to punish the North's bad behavior.
Of course, the isolationist country might as well "feel (all this) is somewhat
unfair," as former President Kim Dae-jung said Thursday ??? tacitly referring to
the U.S. recalcitrance toward full engagement despite the North's repeated and
unrequited courtship. But it defies the understanding of even objective watchers
why Pyongyang opted to stay out of U.S. President Barack Obama's round of
reconciliatory diplomacy with old foes, however urgent it might have felt to
solidify the power base for waning Kim Jong-il and his son and heir apparent,
Jong-un.
That the North fell into its own trap of hastiness does not mean that Washington
has been doing everything right, even since President Obama took office.
Foreigners could hardly take issue with what cynics call Obama's "one-and-a-half
peace strategy" ??? doing all he can to attain peace in the Middle East while
remaining content with simply preventing war in Northeast Asia. If America has
its own reasons for not fully engaging the communist country on the northern half
of the Korean Peninsula, others can't help it, either.
Yet Obama should see what the similar strategy of his predecessor has attained
??? North Korea's emergence as a nuclear power ??? which Washington acknowledges
internally and denies externally. If the United States sticks to a sanctions-only
strategy, no country in the world can keep Pyongyang, armed with nearly the
world's largest deposits of uranium and possibly the technology to enrich it,
from becoming a "mass producer" of atomic weapons by the time the U.S. leader
ends his first term at the latest.
What matters is what role Seoul should play at this moment. President Lee, in an
interview with one of the most conservative U.S. dailies, has just said he would
push for a "five-party" meeting that excludes North Korea.
It is more than just regrettable that a South Korean President is taking the lead
in further provoking the North by trying to deepen the latter's isolation,
instead of trying to dissuade others like Japan, which has been a wet blanket
throughout the process. It's true, the North has pledged not to return to the
multilateral dialogue table, but taking those statements at face value would be
either brainless or heartless.
Lee then ruled out the possibility of an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula,
meaning he is bracing for a limited conflict. A leader should only take his or
her country to war if it is justifiable and inevitable. We are skeptical that
most Koreans ??? except for some ultra-rightists ??? would think Korea should get
involved in another fratricidal war, large or small, at this moment.
If the incumbent government can rest assured that there would be no full-scale
war here, that may ironically be thanks to the engagement policy of the past
decade. Which is why Seoul should return to the spirits of the June 15 Joint
Declaration. We just hope the government did not schedule the President's
departure date to coincide with the anniversary of the 2000 summit.
(END)