 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 June - 5 July 2000 Issue No. 488 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 29 June - 5 July 2000 Issue No. 488
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Moving with the times
By Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
A few days ago, Israel's public radio announced that shortly before the Israeli pullout from Lebanon, Israel's representative at the United Nations, Yahuda Lancri, received a message from Rifaat Al-Assad asking Israel to help him seize power from his brother in exchange for which he would guarantee to Israel that calm would prevail on its northern borders with Lebanon. Asked whether the news was true, Lancri refused to either confirm or deny it.
If Rifaat did indeed approach the Israelis with such an offer, his conduct would be in stark contrast with that of his late brother, who consistently refused to have any direct dealings with the Israelis. His extremist position was perhaps most graphically illustrated in the latest round of Syrian-Israeli talks earlier this year, where his foreign minister, Farouk Al-Sharaa, did not once shake hands with his Israeli interlocutor, Ehud Barak. The moral of the story is that in societies where moderation is excluded, the pendulum can easily swing from one extreme to another.
Another no less sensational example of the breaking of taboos was last week's summit meeting between Kim Jong Il and Kim Dae Jung, the leaders of North and South Korea respectively. Since the Korean war half a century ago, the two countries have been separated by what is arguably the most heavily fortified border in the world. And, although some two million South Koreans have relatives in the North with whom they have not been in touch since the war ended in 1953, relations between North and South Korea remained non-existent.
The meeting between the two Kims is the first between the leaders of the two Koreas. Throughout its modern history, the ancient Korean nation has not existed as one integral, sovereign state. Occupied by Japan in 1910, it remained under Japanese domination until the end of World War II. After the war, it was divided into a communist state in the North and a pro-western state in the south. For many years, South Korea was ruled by a series of dictators, and it is only recently that a leader with democratic leanings was elected president. Last April, he received an invitation from his North Korean counterpart to visit Pyongyang. Rather than rush into what could well mark a turning point in inter-Korean relations, Kim Dae Jung made intensive preparations for the visit in the context of what he called "Sunshine Politics." For the countries of Asia, the Pyongyang summit is comparable to the fall of the Berlin wall, while for the Arabs it is evocative of Sadat's visit to Jerusalem in 1977.
True, there have been other attempts to effect a reconciliation between Pyongyang and Seoul, once in 1972 and again in 1991, but both failed. However, the chances for a breakthrough this time around are greatly improved, thanks to a confluence of factors. To begin with, the South Korean president has from the outset adopted a much more conciliatory line towards North Korea than his predecessors, running on an electoral platform of working towards a reconciliation with the North. But another even more important factor that helped break the ice was the famine that has devastated North Korea in the last few years as a result of severe climatic disturbances as well as serious economic problems in the most rigid and isolated communist system ever to have existed.
There is also the fact that Kim Jong Il has been unable to maintain the same iron grip over North Korea as his celebrated father, Kim II Sung. Although for some years after he inherited power it was believed in the external world that the new North Korean leader was following in his predecessor's footsteps, it is now clear that circumstances are forcing him to shift to a different line. It is safe to assume that the decision to depart from Kim Il Sung's line provoked bitter infighting at the highest echelons of the country's leadership, and we can expect the secrets of the struggle to surface soon.
Until recently, the key factor which determined the relationship between the two Koreas was ideology. Today, it is being replaced by economics, specifically the breakdown of the North Koran economy, which has forced Kim Jong Il to rethink his country's relationship with the South. When the war broke out between the two Koreas in 1950, their economies were more or less on an equal footing. Now the South Korean economy is 25 times stronger than the North Korean.
Yet another factor which must have figured in Kim Jong Il's decision to open up on the South is the economic success story of another communist country, China. Without in any way departing from its communist orientation, Beijing has combined elements of socialism with elements of capitalism in a winning formula that has achieved unprecedented rates of economic growth.
But experts estimate that for North Korea to catch up with the South a staggering one trillion dollars must be pumped into the economy -- a sum South Korea cannot possibly come up with. Indeed, it far exceeds the amount that was required to cover the discrepancy between the East and West German economies at the time of Germany's reunification.
Nor are the problems facing reunification only of an economic nature. Breaking the wall of animosity that has built up over the years between the two Koreas will require time and patience. The legacy of the past is a bitter one, filled with memories of a savage war, terrorist acts, nuclear ambitions and skirmishes at sea. Thirty-seven thousand American troops are permanently stationed in South Korea, forcing North Korea to maintain a high level of mobilisation at all times. This huge drain on Pyongyang's coffers has contributed in no small measure to the deplorable state of the North Koran economy. There is also the fact that the Americans have invested 60 billion dollars in a military project designed to shield South Korea against missile attacks from the North, a project for which there will be no justification if there is a reconciliation between North and South.
It is true that Washington encouraged the summit meeting between the two leaders. It is also true that it has played a role in alleviating the effects of famine in the North and has called on other nations to do the same. At the same time, however, it has not lifted the sanctions imposed on North Korea since it invaded South Korea in 1950. Moreover, it has branded North Korea a terrorist state and Kim Jong Il the Saddam Hussein of the Far East.
Needless to say, this attitude has earned it the ire of Pyongyang which, only two days after the summit meeting, launched a virulent media campaign against the United States, accusing American imperialism of pursuing a subversive policy aimed at scuttling the reconciliation and destabilising the Korean Peninsula. The campaign was a reaction to Madeleine Albright's statement that there will be no reduction of the American military presence in South Korea in the aftermath of a reconciliation.
Many problems thus stand in the way of reconciliation between the two Koreas, problems that will require more than one summit meeting between their leaders. However warm the meeting turned out to be, however positive the image projected by Kim Jong Il whose performance at the summit revealed a personality very different from what the general public believed it to be, it is clear that a breakthrough toward Korean reunification will not come about in any foreseeable future, even if it has become the frame of reference for both sides.
What is new is that normalisation of relations has become a realistic objective. To avoid any accidental flare-up of tension that can threaten the attainment of that objective, a hot line has been installed between Pyongyang and Seoul. At their summit meeting, the two leaders reached agreement on a number of immediate measures to relieve North Korea's critical shortages, including a consignment of 200 thousand tons of fertiliser and economic aid to the tune of 450 million dollars. Steps have been taken for the reunification of families. And, confirming that the Pyongyang summit is just the first step in an unfolding process, Kim Jong Il has accepted Kim Dae Jung's invitation to visit Seoul in the near future.
For a long time North Korea remained a totally closed society, a defiant anachronism in a world moving inexorably towards ever greater globalisation. After the reunification of Germany, Korea is the only remaining case of one nation divided into two antagonistic states. This unnatural state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely. The Pyongyang summit is a first step in the direction of Korea's emergence as one integral sovereign state in the community of nations, a sign that it is no longer resisting the wind of change unleashed by the globalisation process. What is happening in Korea today can happen in other pockets of resistance to globalisation in the world. A case in point is Syria, a country which, like North Korea, attributes itself to some form of socialism and which, also like North Korea, has so far remained impervious to the new rationale of globalisation. It remains to be seen whether Bashar Al-Assad will follow Kim Jong Il's example in moving away from his father's line or whether the Middle Eastern experiment will be different from the Far Eastern.
