Font size: 
However, Lee, of the conservative Grand National Party, has taken a firm stance toward his northern neighbor by pledging "not to shy away from criticizing North Korea," especially in terms of human rights and denuclearization. He also stressed in a recent interview that, although he would take a flexible approach toward inter-Korean relations, the South Korea-U.S. alliance would take precedence. With Lee in power, it will be easier for Japan and the United States to put pressure on the North with the support of the South securely in place.
Known for his pursuit of friendly relationships with neighboring countries, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is especially willing to warm his country's frozen relationship with South Korea. This is an opportunity for the Fukuda administration, which inherited two conflicting pressures in handling the issue of the Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s.
Domestically, Fukuda faces the people's demands that the issue be resolved, but the South Korean government has warned that a confrontational attitude from Japan might undermine current negotiations in the six-party talks. Regardless of South Korea's position, it seems risky for Japan to persist on this issue as a member of the talks. However, with the advent of a more human rights-minded government in South Korea, Japan can expect relief from South Korean pressure to avoid the abduction issue.
On the other hand, the Bush administration was uncomfortable with the two former South Korean governments, who distanced themselves from U.S. policy and held their own summit meetings with the North in 2000 and 2007. Washington has sometimes bluntly complained that Seoul was undermining the efforts of the six-party talks by pursuing its own conciliatory path with the North. Therefore, the Lee government's hard-line stance toward the North comes as good news. The United States can now expect to apply, with the support of South Korea and Japan, more effective pressure on the North.
Pyongyang seems to realize that its cooperation in the denuclearization process is necessary for the regime's survival. Therefore stronger pressure on the North, cooperatively designed by South Korea, the United States and Japan, could be expected to improve chances for denuclearization. However, this expectation could develop into a long-term risk looming over the Korean peninsula and over Northeast Asia.
Basically, the expectation would be valid only to the extent that the North considers its compliance with those three powers' demands as necessary for its survival. However, this expectation could come to nothing, as many precedents have carved in the North's mind a belief that it can always stall for time by playing a "threat card," – threatening to withdraw from the six-party talks. Repetition of this type of failure is the worst and most unacceptable outcome.
Most importantly, from the broader perspective, a "triangular coalition" between the three democratic countries could reshape the current picture of Northeast Asia, bringing a revival of tensions on the order of the Cold War in Northeast Asia, with the U.S.-led coalition of democratic capitalist countries challenging the socialist-communist countries of Russia and China.
Although China has not declared its intention to expand its clout as a military, political and economic power player, it has taken a course aimed at achieving such a vision, leaving the world to accept the reality and devise plans to address a newly rising China. Neither has Putin's Russia remained passively in the background. Putin, still wielding a strong grip on power in Russia, has not hesitated to stand up to the United States and criticize its international actions.
China and Russia seem to share a common perception that U.S. supremacy is waning, based on their evaluation of the situation U.S. forces have been facing in Iraq. A three-way democratic coalition could provoke China and Russia to strengthen their defense systems in response to a potential military threat. They could continue to upgrade the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which recently conducted military exercises with Central Asian states in central Russia, as their coalition.
In this regard, instead of forming this triangular coalition, the most desirable alternative is that South Korea, Japan and the United States seek a two-level approach in building peace on the Korean peninsula with the long-term consideration of stability and peace in Northeast Asia.
The starting point should be repairing broken trust between South Korea and Japan, and between South Korea and the United States, not within the triangular framework. This is the more urgent task. South Korea and Japan should clear up mutual mistrust based on nationalistic emotional tensions and pursue a new political vision that includes their partnership in forming the East Asian Community.
As for South Korea and the United States, the two should devise a common political vision that would serve the Korean peninsula as a whole. As revealed in the discord that has arisen within the six-party talks over the North Korean nuclear issue, they have different policy priorities in denuclearization and building stable relationships with the North. These priorities are ultimately connected with their own security concerns: denuclearization related to security of the North American continent on the one hand, and on the other, stability with the safety of Seoul and South Korea in mind.
The agreement reached on Feb. 13, 2006 in the six-party talks narrowed the interest gap between South Korea and the United States on denuclearization and economic cooperation with the North. The two should build on this to devise common political goals.
To address long-term peace in Northeast Asia as well as on the Korean peninsula, the most desirable path would be to establish a multilateral security cooperation system with China and Russia. This would avoid the danger a triangular coalition might bring. It would open multilateral diplomatic channels among the major players in Northeast Asia and help avert unnecessary military tensions over any unexpected developments in the area.
According to Kim Keun-sik, a professor in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Kyungnam University in Masan, South Korea, the six-party talks included a consensus that the forum could serve as a regional multilateral framework for security at the time the parties issued their September 2005 statement. Through this statement, the member countries have already "committed to joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in Northeast Asia."
This indicates that the six-party framework, currently undertaking denuclearization on the Korean peninsula, has already obtained the member countries' subjective agreement to extend its purpose in the future. This depends on the current members of the six-party talks continuing their efforts despite many breakdowns in negotiations.
Most recently, although North Korea missed a deadline by failing to provide disclosure of its nuclear programs, all members of the six-party talks seem willing to tolerate this and maintain their expectation that the current denuclearization process will proceed. In this sense, the foundation for a multilateral security cooperation system is already laid.
