hankyoreh

By Kim Yeon-chul, Inje University professor

Last month, White House national security advisor Thomas Donilon said that anyone who doubts US President Barack Obama’s commitment to dialogue [with North Korea] needs to look no further than Burma. With its back to the wall, North Korea is waiting for the US to offer an exit strategy, but the US is telling the North to look at Myanmar.

In Jan. 2005, under then-US President George Bush, Myanmar (also called Burma) was one of the countries that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice decried as an “outpost of tyranny.” How is it that a country like that could have changed into a model of good behavior?

The country’s prospects transformed when a popular election brought the Thein Sein government into power in Mar. 2011. Thein Sein was elected with the support of the military junta, and the junta still held the power behind the scenes. The new government then took unprecedented steps to bring about democratic reforms. The government carried out measures to increase civil liberties by freeing political prisoners, entering peace talks with armed anti-government groups, and allowing peaceful demonstrations. It also starting moving toward real economic reform and liberalization, attracting foreign investment and reforming the financial market.

Myanmar still has a long way to go, but it is difficult to deny that the country has made a break with the past and embarked on a new path of development.

What could have made that possible? There are two important factors here: the US rediscovered Myanmar’s strategic value, and the Myanmar military junta also recognized the opportunity for new development.

The Obama government’s decision to send an envoy to Myanmar and initiate dialogue in 2009 was connected with the ‘pivot to Asia’ policy of the US. The US had reassessed Myanmar’s geopolitical value for providing a counter to China. Myanmar is a country that lies between China and India, and it is also a strategic maritime stronghold connecting the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The Bush administration was too obsessed with moral diplomacy to see this, but the Obama administration’s search for a strategic response to the rise of China allowed it to.

But there is an even more important factor here: the Myanmar military junta was willing to sense a chance for change, then take advantage of that opportunity. The junta used American overtures as a chance to bring about this change. When the junta conceded a portion of its political power in exchange for receiving a guarantee of its survival, it transformed into a force for modernization that took the lead in economic development.

No doubt the junta also felt the burden of the country’s dependence on China, which it had no choice but to increase due to the sanctions of the US and other Western countries.

Starting in 2012, the US appointed an official ambassador to Myanmar and began providing aid, and it is planning to lift all economic sanctions in 2014. What better example could there be of a thawing of relations?

What lessons can North Korea learn from the model of Myanmar? The recent history of the two countries is different, and there are also clear differences in their political systems and their geopolitical situations. We must be careful not to make a rash generalization.

However, where we stand today, there is one question I would like to ask. Has the US ever given any thought to North Korea’s strategic value? In geopolitical terms, could North Korea become as valuable for Northeast Asia as Pakistan is for the Middle East, and as Myanmar is for Southeast Asia?

The same is true for South Korea. Our North Korea policy should not be based on moralistic ideas, but rather on North Korea’s strategic value. Inter-Korean relations are essential for our political and economic survival. Furthermore, we must not forget that North Korea is our bridge to economic expansion in China and Russia.

The key variable is still North Korea, which must be willing to change. Its leaders must have at least the same awareness of the need to transform its development strategy that the Myanmar military junta had. If the North is not willing to change, it will not be given an opportunity to do so.

The recent behavior of the North has been desperate. It is patently absurd for the North to declare the end of denuclearization on the Korean peninsula and then criticize the US and South Korea for increasing their deterrence. South Koreans are getting tired of North Korea’s continuously harsh rhetoric.

The North needs to accept reality. In terms of South Korean policy toward the North, a chasm is yawning between the strategic need for an improvement in relations between the Koreas and deterioration in the South Korean public’s perception of the North. This is why the North must understand that it is no longer as easy as it once was to turn intensification of a crisis into an opportunity for negotiations. Does the North want to change? If it does, it needs to show it is willing to do so.

The views presented in this column are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Hankyoreh.　

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]