Speeches and Transcripts

THE PROCESS OF PEACE ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA

Remarks at the Second Hankyoreh-Busan International Symposium
Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
Busan, Korea

November 25, 2006

Alexander Vershbow

Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this panel.  It’s always a pleasure to visit Busan, which made such a great impression as the host of APEC 2005.  On my last visit in October, I was overwhelmed by the glamour and fireworks on the opening night of the Busan International Film Festival.  While this audience lacks the dazzle of Korea’s famous movie stars, I know we have some of the brightest minds in the country and the region gathered here today.  I would like to congratulate Mr. Min Byung-suk, chairman of the Hankyoreh Foundation for Reunification and Culture, and the City of Busan for organizing this impressive symposium, which allows me to be a part of this panel with my esteemed colleagues, Ambassador Gleb Ivashentsov of the Russian Federation and Ambassador Shotaro Oshima of Japan.  Let me also thank Ambassador Chun Young-woo for his excellent opening presentation and Professor Ahn Chul-hyun for chairing the panel.

One of the goals of this symposium is to seek and promote ways to bring lasting peace to the Korean Peninsula and to Northeast Asia.  This goal is one the United States shares with you.  I am sure that all of you are just as heartened as I am that the Six-Party Talks are due to resume soon.  As Ambassador Chun has emphasized, enormous challenges lie ahead, but the United States is committed to a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear issue that could pave the way to a transformation of security relations in this region.

But first, I’d like to take a moment to contemplate the concept of “peace.”  Many politicians, philosophers, religious leaders, and even scientists have pondered this subject.  A few of them have noted that peace is not just a goal – it is a process.  As a diplomat I appreciate this sentiment, since my career has been devoted to this very process.

I believe that President John F. Kennedy had the same idea in mind when he said that “Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures.”  President Kennedy acknowledged that peacemakers must have resolve and steadfast determination.  He also noted that peace is part of a continual evolution, one that requires the breaking down of old conceptions and the building up of new structures and new paradigms.

Peace: A Gradual Process

In regard to the Korean Peninsula, the first part of President Kennedy’s quote, that “peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process,” applies now as much as it did 53 years ago when the Korean War ended.

As you all know, after the Korean War a peace treaty was never signed.  Since then, thankfully, war has not broken out on the Korean Peninsula.  This is a huge accomplishment in itself, given the number of incidents that have taken place at the DMZ, the Northern Limit Line, and even in other countries, as in 1983, when North Koreans bombed a ceremonial event in Rangoon, Burma, killing four ROK cabinet members, two presidential advisors, and Korea’s Ambassador to Burma.  Keeping peace in the wake of these provocations – which continued well into the 1990s – has been a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, requiring patience and resolve.

U.S. Has Been a Force for Peace

I firmly believe that the strength and deterrence provided by the U.S.-ROK alliance has helped keep peace on the Korean Peninsula.  Since the 1950s, South Korea has changed, the region has changed, and the world has changed.  However, the fundamental commitment of the United States and the Republic of Korea to their common security has remained the same.  Against the backdrop of the North Korean nuclear test, there should be no doubt that the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea is unyielding and unequivocal.  In recent weeks, this commitment has been reaffirmed by the highest officials of my government.

U.S. Pursuit of Peaceful Denuclearization

Another illustration of the patience and resolve required to keep peace on the Peninsula and in the region can be seen in our two countries’ efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.  These efforts date back to the early 1990s.  In 1992 South Korea reached an agreement with North Korea to make the Korean Peninsula nuclear free, and in 1994, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework, which offered North Korea a path to normal diplomatic relations and the provision of two light-water reactors in exchange for a freeze and eventual dismantlement of its nuclear programs.  Regrettably, North Korea failed to honor both of these agreements, covertly continuing to develop nuclear explosives, secretly acquiring the capability for uranium enrichment, and ultimately announcing its possession of nuclear weapons.

More recently, by signing the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement of the Six Party Talks, Pyongyang pledged once more to eliminate all its nuclear weapons and nuclear programs in return for commitments by the other parties to provide security assurances, energy cooperation, economic assistance and normalization of relations.  But again, rather than working to implement the agreement, North Korea took the opposite course, boycotting the negotiations for more than a year, conducting provocative missile launches and, finally, exploding a nuclear device on October 9.

So, as you can see, despite moments of promise, negotiations on denuclearization have been a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, and North Korea’s sincerity is open to question.  But even after the October 9 nuclear test, the United States remains committed to achieving denuclearization through diplomacy and implementation of the September 2005 Joint Statement.  As Ambassador Chun has suggested, we need to test North Korea’s intentions at the bargaining table.

International Cooperation

Fortunately, South Korea and the United States are not alone in their pursuit of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.  Indeed, the international community wants the same thing.  This was apparent when, the morning after North Korea’s nuclear test, the foreign ministers of South Korea, Japan, China, Russia and the United States held a conference call to plan a common approach.  A few days later, after more intense consultations, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1718.  Legally binding under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Resolution demands that North Korea fulfill its obligations to denuclearize under the 2005 Joint Statement; and it imposes sanctions that will remain in force until North Korea fulfills the demands of the international community.  The strong will of the international community was demonstrated again last week during the APEC meetings in Hanoi, when the leaders of 21 economies adopted a Chairman’s statement stressing the need for full implementation of UNSC Resolution 1718 and calling for concrete and effective steps toward full implementation of the Joint Statement and the early resumption of the Six Party Talks.

Gradually Changing Opinions, Slowly Eroding Old Barriers

As a professional diplomat, I know what a tough task we face in convincing North Korea to give up its nuclear program.  However, I would argue that this is not a hopeless task.  If we revisit President Kennedy’s quote, where he equated peace to “gradually changing opinions” and “slowly eroding old barriers,” I believe this statement is absolutely relevant to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.  Although China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia have all had differences in the past, all of us realize that we must find a common solution to the North Korean nuclear issue.  When you look at the region’s recent history, it’s amazing that China – which fought in the Korean War – is now very much aligned with South Korea and the United States (as well as with Japan and Russia) in working to convince the North Koreans to return to the Six-Party Talks and implement the September 2005 Joint Statement.

Quietly Building New Structures

President Kennedy spoke about “quietly building new structures” as part of the peace process.  I believe Resolution 1718 is a good example of a new structure, because it calls upon all states to take cooperative action to prevent the transfer of nuclear and other WMD technologies to and from the DPRK.  The means to this end include the inspection of cargo to and from the DPRK in accordance with countries’ respective national laws and consistent with international law.  In this regard, the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI, is another example of a new structure that the international community is building.  PSI’s Statement of Interdiction Principles has been endorsed by 80 countries.  One of PSI’s strengths is that it enables countries to leverage laws that are already in place to prevent suspicious materials from being traded and transported.

PSI is a voluntary program with each nation participating according to its capacity and domestic laws and regulations.  PSI will complement individual nations’ efforts to implement Resolution 1718 and, thereby, help ensure that North Korea understands the consequences if it continues down its current path, rather than returning to the path of denuclearization.  Thus, we welcome South Korea’s announcement that it “supports the purpose and principles of PSI” and we look forward to greater South Korean participation in PSI activities in the future.

Paving the Way for Progress in the Six Party Talks

We hope that North Korea has been listening to the unified message that the international community has been sending through UNSC Resolution 1718 and cooperative efforts to prevent WMD proliferation.   When the Six Party Talks resume, it is essential that North Korea arrive ready to begin the process of implementing its commitments under the 2005 Joint Statement.  Early, concrete actions will be needed if Pyongyang hopes to convince the other parties that it is serious about eliminating its nuclear weapons and its nuclear programs.  If the North is ready to carry out its side of the bargain, we and our partners are ready to carry out our commitments as well.  We are now coordinating on the details so that the first round of talks is well prepared and quick results can be achieved.  (In fact, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill will by flying back to the region on Sunday for further consultations with his counterparts.)

As Ambassador Chun has stressed, progress toward denuclearization will permit us to make parallel progress toward the conclusion of a permanent peace regime that would end the Korean War and create a framework for peace, stability and normal relations between North Korea and the rest of the world.  That would also open the way toward the establishment of a cooperative security structure in Northeast Asia, one that seeks to integrate North Korea rather than ostracize it.

The creation of the Six-Party Talks was a groundbreaking structure, one that has helped sow the seed for collaboration and partnership among the countries of the region.  As Secretary Rice said in a speech in Washington one month ago, “...the unprecedented cooperation that is emerging among the countries of Northeast Asia and the leverage that this cooperation provides would have been far, far less likely to emerge had the United States adopted a bilateral approach to North Korea.  This cooperation provides our best chance to get North Korea to make the right choice and dismantle its nuclear programs.”  Cooperation, I would add, together with the “resolve and steadfast determination” that President Kennedy spoke about.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address this group, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.