Font size: 
However, such a bleak future cannot be concluded so easily. More specifically, although it can be assumed that the North might hide its real intentions behind the scenes, it seems that the ability of the North to resort to such tactics is becoming increasingly constrained. This is primarily because substantial progress, which the North cannot refuse to ignore, has been made with respect to a few key issues: denuclearization, inter-Korean economic cooperation and stability on the Korean peninsula.
Still, some may justifiably maintain that the second summit talks cannot be considered a success because denuclearization, which is strongly and widely recognized as the most critical issue, was not meaningfully dealt with at the meeting. However, through the summit talks, the South and North established closer economic ties based on specific plans for cooperation on economic projects. The projects include the launch of another free economic zone in Hae-ju in addition to Na-jin, the restoration of railroads linking Kae-seong and Shin-eui-ju, and the development of other social overhead capital. This also can be interpreted as providing considerable additional security and stability on the Korean peninsula.
Nevertheless, could the talks still be considered a failure because few elements of denuclearization were discussed? If so, would the inclusion of denuclearization issues have been practical and within the expectations of the main parties?
First, if South Korea had attempted to include the denuclearization issue in the talks, it would have faced the very formidable risk of dissolving the upcoming summit meeting. This is because such an effort could have frozen the pre-talk atmosphere and re-opened a wide crack between the parties unnecessarily. Denuclearization has been reserved for the six-party talks, as the issue ultimately cannot escape dialogue.
Second, what about the United States? On Aug. 7, the U.S. State Department issued a statement welcoming the inter-Korean summit in the hope it would promote peace and security on the Korean peninsula and contribute to the goals of the six-party talks. White House spokesman Tony Snow also showed signs of hope for peace. In this regard, it seems that the United States did not view the inter-Korean dialogue as a dangerous event as long as it would not impact the six-party talks negatively. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack expressed no concern over the summit "affecting in any negative way" the six-party talks. This is because the United States places more importance on the talks, and recognizes them as the main channel for denuclearization negotiations.
Third, for North Korea, since the Geneva Agreement was signed in 1994, the nuclear issue has been exclusively a matter of negotiation between the United States and North Korea. Despite the planned summit talks, the North recently asked the United States to hold military talks that would not include the South. This would mean that the security issues are not included within the inter-Korean process.
All the main parties' standpoints and expectations were taken into account. Thus, it seems reasonable to suppose that it was appropriate not to deal with denuclearization in the summit meeting. It successfully strengthened rather than diminished the prospect of further denuclearization that the six-party talks seek to bring about. Therefore, this summit meeting did achieve something beyond what it actually handled and is clearly not a failure.
--
(Lee Jae Young is a freelance writer and citizen reporter for Ohmynews International. He is currently also studying for a master's degree in Seoul, South Korea. ©Copyright Lee Jae Young.)
