|
Yoon Young-kwan, South Korea's foreign minister, spoke to
Andrew Ward, the FT's correspondent in Seoul and Victor Mallet, chief Asia
correspondent. This is a transcript of the interview.
FT: What is the delay with the talks on the North Korean nuclear issue
being arranged by China, and are you worried by it? The negotiations were
supposed to be in August, then in September and now perhaps even later.
Mr Yoon: I wouldn't say that I'm worried with this delay. Sooner or
later the North Korean side will respond. The timing of the answers seems to be
a little slower than we expected.
FT: The Americans seem to be getting impatient with North Korea on this
and have suggested taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council. How
do you feel about that?
Mr Yoon: It may be better if we can resolve this issue through
diplomatic channels outside the UN framework. That's actually what we are
doing - Korea, Japan, the US and China. Whether we will discuss this issue in
the UN or not will be better decided after we have something from the North
Korean side.
FT: So the North Koreans haven't replied to the Chinese
approaches?
Mr Yoon: I think so, yes - we haven't got a response from the North
Korean side. [But] there are some talks going on between the Chinese side and
the North Korean side.
FT: Are the North Koreans playing for time, while they develop nuclear
weapons?
Mr Yoon: So far I don't have any clues or indications which support me
saying they are playing the game of timing by intentionally slowing down.
FT: And why do you believe the UN Security Council is not the place to
discuss this?
Mr Yoon: I didn't say that it's wrong to discuss this issue in the UN.
What I'm saying is that the timing is important. In diplomacy what matters most
is the timing. There are major diplomatic efforts going on between the countries
concerned at the moment. I think it better for us to resolve this outside the UN
framework.
FT: What can be offered to the North Koreans in these
negotiations?
Mr Yoon: They are concerned about their security, so we will have to
talk through how we can take care of their concerns. Once a dialogue begins that
issue probably has to be addressed. Another issue is economic assistance. That
issue is also important. That's why we keep saying it's important for Korea to
be included in this multilateral dialogue.
FT: One way to put pressure on North Korea is through economic pressure or
sanctions, which is a path being followed by the Americans. Why are you not keen
on that?
Mr Yoon: In essence our government understands the need to control
illegal activities. At the same time we are considering what kind of impact that
effort has on North Korea's own negotiation process. We have to exhaust all the
diplomatic means first and after exhausting all diplomatic means we can consider
what other steps we can take to change North Korea's behaviour.
FT: Other governments are very concerned about the North Korean nuclear
crisis, but you seem quite relaxed.
Mr Yoon: I define the current state as one in which we have to exhaust
all the diplomatic means first, and after exhausting all the diplomatic means we
can talk about other measures we can adopt to change the North Korean
behaviour.
FT: Doesn't that mean you're giving in to North Korean blackmail?
Mr Yoon: I disagree. If North Korea insists on developing nuclear
weapons, then after all diplomatic means have been exhausted we will closely
concert with Japan and the US government on what further measures we can take.
The reason we do not like to talk about further steps is because the current
situation is in a phase when we can focus on diplomatic means.
FT: And what should the North Koreans be offering you? Obviously you want
them to dismantle their nuclear programme, but is there some earlier step they
could take - a moratorium, say?
Mr Yoon: Once the talks begin, I think there will be a kind of middle
phase or some kind of step by step approach, and we'll try to discuss what kind
of step by step approach will be implemented. The Korean government has already
proposed a road map to the US government and Japan. I think our Korean people
are very much concerned about this situation, because if, or once, the North
Koreans have their own nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, then
that will change the whole picture of security relations in east Asia. This will
inevitably change the security situation of South Korea, and will begin to
affect their lives in various ways. And many Koreans recognise this kind of
possible development and they are worried about that.
The only thing is, we don't want to be panicking because this kind of
situation could negatively affect the economic situation - stock markets and
people's psychology. We want to be cool and calm in meeting these challenges.
People outside South Korea may think that South Koreans are indifferent about
North Korea's options, but I think that's a somewhat wrong judgment.
FT: The "sunshine policy" of Kim Dae-jung, and the successor "peace and
prosperity policy" of the new government towards North Korea may have softened
South Korean attitudes to the north, but they do not seem to have received any
response from North Korea. Instead, they are developing nuclear weapons. Is that
not a disappointment?
Mr Yoon: During the previous government, this nuclear issue was in
some sense resolved through the 1994 agreement. Before October last year [when
North Korea admitted to the US that it was developing nuclear weapons in breach
of the 1994 agreement] and after October last year the situation is totally
different. [But] Economic cooperation will continue to help them adopt market
principles. Last July they adopted free price mechanisms. That's one piece of
evidence that they are also very serious about changing the management style of
their economy. It's a kind of mid- and long-term approach.
The dilemma we are facing is that to pursue the mid- and long-term policies
you need some kind of favourable security environment - and the development of
nuclear weapons has very much weakened this security environment. That's why we
are struggling to resolve this issue as soon as possible.
Many Koreans also maintain that if we keep this kind of linkage with the
North Koreans, if this economic relationship deepens, we can have a channel
through which we can talk with the North Koreans, through which we can ask them
to give up their nuclear options.
FT: What would cause you to abandon your engagement policy? Is there a red
line that the North Koreans shouldn't cross?
Mr Yoon: If the North Koreans insist on developing nuclear options,
probably we will have to think about other methods.
/END/ <Financial
Times>
| 
