Momentum to Reduce Tensions in the Korean Triangle

Will there be a lessening of tension in the Korean Triangle?

The Opportunity to Reduce Tensions in the Korean Triangle

The possibility of summit talks between the President of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the President of the USA has produced a change in atmosphere from the saber-rattling that had gone on for some months. Since the sabers are sharp and increasingly nuclear, we must build on the current tension-reduction momentum as there is a long distance between talks and a real reduction of tensions. I think that there is a real role that individuals and non-governmental organizations can play in deepening the positive atmosphere in a way that is realistic by reaching out to individuals in the three States that are the “Korean Triangle”: Korea – still divided into two, the USA and the People’s Republic of China.

Martin Wight, one of my professors of international relations at the University of Chicago in 1957, was concerned with analyzing recurrent relations among States. He stressed the importance of what he called the “Strategic Triangle” as being of greater importance than bilateral relations. A strategic triangle requires looking at the range of diplomatic possibilities either to escalate the controversies or to aim to secure a settlement among the three States.

The Korean Triangle is formed by North Korea, China, and the USA, although the USA does not fully represent the Republic of Korea (South Korea). For the USA and China, the Korean issue is only one of the foreign policy concerns. There are China-USA tensions on some other issues such as trade, monetary exchange rates, the South China Sea islands, China’s growing military capabilities and more generally China’s place in the world. While China will not be directly present in a Summit, its position is crucial.

As a practical matter, it is easier to make tension-reduction proposals to those who have a policy-making influence in the USA, South Korea, and China than it is to North Korea where the only sure access is through the Missions to the United Nations in New York and Geneva. For the US, views are easily shared with foreign policy “Think Tanks,” with university departments dealing with Asia and directly to the State Department. The same is true for South Korea and to an increasing extent for China. There are university centers and Chinese non-governmental organizations which are in contact with the Foreign Ministry even if it is difficult to know what influence individuals in such centers have on policymaking.

In the spirit of Don Carlson and Craig Comstock’s book Citizen Summitry. Keeping The Peace When It Matters Too Much To Be Left To Politicians (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1986) we have to use the opportunities we have to propose new approaches. Progress is possible only when people believe that there are possibilities of growth and change.

However, if proposals are impossible to be carried out and thus fail to be acted upon, there are those who say “I told you so, talks will get you nowhere.” Denuclearization, as well as some sort of con-federal structure between the two Korean States ( a process still called by the unlikely term of unification or reunification), are very long-term possibilities. Such proposals do little to reduce the current level of tensions.

More modest proposals may be acted upon and lead to a reduction of tensions. Thus the Association of World Citizens has urged greater possibilities of contacts between families divided by the 1950-1953 Korean War. Also, there are possibilities of economic cooperation and common protection of the environment. The cycle of mutual provocations can be reversed, and longer-term perspectives will encourage creative responses.