Johan Galtung and Jae-Bong Lee
KOREA: The Twisting Roads to Unification

Table of Contents

Preface and Dedication

Prologue Korea: A TRANSCEND Perspective, August 1972-May 1998

Chapter 1: Four Koreas-Two Scenarios: Collapse and Cooperation 2+3
1.1 On Korean Mentality, the T+40 Hypothesis and the "Big Powers"
1.2 The Four Koreas: Korea North and South, Soft and Hard
1.3 Negative Scenario: Unification by Absorption of North Korea
1.4 Positive Scenario: Cooperation, Rail & Road, and 2 + 3
1.5 Conclusion: How Would the World React?

Chapter 2: Concrete Proposals
2.1 Proposal: A PeaceTrain Japan-Korea-China-Russia-Europe
2.2 Proposal: North Korea in the 2002 FIFA Football Games
2.3 Proposal: Beyond "Normalization": Peacebuilding Japan-Korea
2.4 Proposal: From a Demilitarized Zone to a Zone of Peace
2.5 Proposal: Points for Dialogue with President Kim Dae-Jung

Chapter 3: Reconciliation Japan-North Korea
3.1 The Tokyo-Pyongyang Negotiations: Some Reflections
3.2 State-State Normalization Japan-DPRK: The Basic Themes

Chapter 4: The Six Party Talks
4.1 US Negotiation Style and the Six Party Talks Over Korea
4.2 The Six-Party Talks Over Korea
4.3 Peace and Unification on the Korean Peninsula
4.4 The Trilateral Conflict USA-North Korea-South Korea

Chapter 5: The Korean Peace Prize
5.1 On the Future of the Korean Peninsula
Accepting the Korean Peace Prize, Written Version
5.2 The Korean Peninsula: Two Scenarios
Accepting the Korean Peace Prize, Spoken Version

Chapter 6: Toward Nonviolent Unification of Korea
6.1 The End of the Cold War and Instability in East Asia
6.2 Continuous Conflicts for Korean Unification and Violent Politics in Two Koreas
6.3 The Collapse of North Korea is Neither Likely Nor Desirable for Koreans
6.4 Peace Building on the Korean Peninsula and Economic Cooperation in East Asia
6.5 Toward Peace and Unification in the Era of Globalization and Localization

Chapter 7: Why South Korea's President Kim Dae-Jung Became Friends With North Korea's Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Il

Chapter 8: A New Cold War in East Asia and Peace on the Korean Peninsula
8.1 The Second Cold War?
8.2 Background of a New Cold War: China's Rapid Rise
8.3 US Check and Containment against China
8.4 China's Reaction to US Check and Containment
8.5 Toward Peace and Unification of the Korean Peninsula in a New Cold War Era

Chapter 9: The Deployment of Nuclear Weapons in South Korea and North Korea's Nuclear Development: Achieving the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Deployment of Nuclear Weapons by the U.S.F.K.
9.2.1 The Background and Reasoning Behind Deployment
9.2.2 The Preparations for Nuclear Weapons Deployment
9.2.3 Timing of the Initial Deployment of Nuclear Weapons
9.3 North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Development
9.3.1 North Korean Response to Nuclear Deployment in South Korea
9.3.2 The Background on North Korea's Nuclear Development
9.4 Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula
9.4.1 South Korean Perceptions on Nuclear Weapons
9.4.2 A Change of Paradigm to Achieve North Korean Nuclear Dismantlement

Chapter 10: The Lee Myung-Bak Administration's Policy Toward North Korea: Denuclearization First and Foremost
10.1 President Lee Myung-Bak's North Korea Policy
10.2 North Korea's Reaction to the Lee Myung-Bak Administration's Policy
10.3 Prospects and Problems of the Lee Myung-Bak Administration's North Korea Policy
10.4 Toward Peace on the Korean Peninsula in the 21st Century

Epilogue: Six Decades Later It Is Time for Peace

Appendix I: A Chronology of Relevant Events

Appendix II: Memoranda of Understanding South-North Korea

Johan Galtung and Jae-Bong Lee
KOREA: The Twisting Roads to Unification

Epiloge: Six Decades Later It Is Time For Peace

Johan Galtung
Han S. Park

The Democratic Republic of North Korea (DPRK) is not a Hermit Kingdom or even in reality a member of the axis of evil. It is, however, a marginalized nation attempting to weave its way through the current of international politics independent of the major influences of traditional hegemonic powers. The DPRK is not perfect, nor would they claim themselves to be, however, the reality of their presence is a far cry from the bogeymen of international politics they are often portrayed to be. Marginalized nations have a tendency to view those who marginalize them as hostile and are therefore likely to respond in ways adverse to those intended by the isolating nation(s). The entire Korean Peninsula has been a conflict frozen in time since the signing of the armistice on the 27th of July 1953. This current state of affairs is costly to all parties involved, particularly to the people of the DPRK.
While we are opposed to the use and development of nuclear weapons for any reason, we understand the logic of their development by the DPRK as a means to encourage the world to take them seriously. The DPRK in recent years has shown a willingness to engage both the United States and the Republic of Korea in negotiations that would see an end to the hostilities on the peninsula. Yet as a precondition for negotiations the DPRK has time and time again been asked to sacrifice their core principles and sovereign rights as a nation. Both of us have on numerous occasions traveled to the DPRK to engage political officials and have been consistently told of their desire and willingness to more fully enter into the community of nations. They have, however, stressed they are not willing to compromise on their rights as a sovereign state. We are therefore brought to the critical impasse present in modern international politics. Yet, we find that many of the issues on the peninsula are not zero-sum and instead offer a solid pathway towards peace. For this reason we implore all parties involved to shift their framing of the situation from one oriented towards security to one of peace.
Below we have outlined six core points of the peace paradigm, which we believe could serve as a foundation for a lasting peace on the peninsula.
First, we feel it is necessary to send humanitarian aid and food immediately and unconditionally to the people of the DPRK. The current humanitarian situation is such that without significant food aid in the coming weeks there is the possibility of mass starvation. We believe that allowing this mass starvation to occur would constitute a violation of moral and ethical principles of the international community and would only serve to further delay peace. An unconditional gesture of food aid would provide a solid first step towards bringing all the parties to the table. It is from the position of power that genuine conciliatory gestures derive their true meaning.
Second, the Korean War must end. It is one of the longest wars in history and it is time for all parties to bring it to a successful conclusion. A formal peace treaty recognizing the sovereign rights of all involved parties should replace the armistice agreement.
Third, Washington and Seoul should accept Pyongyang's proposal for dialogues at the highest levels. This would enable leaders to tackle such issues as the proliferation of nuclear weapons at the appropriate decision-making level.
Fourth, inter-Korean rapprochement must not be delayed. Previous skirmishes along the border and violations of trust should not be stumbling blocks for peace and understanding. To require culpability in past acts serves only to increase future animosity.
Fifth, disputed territorial waters on the West Sea of the peninsula must be dealt with immediately to avoid further mutual hostilities. We feel the area can be used jointly in a peaceful manner.
Sixth, we feel it is of paramount importance to allow the thousands of families separated by the tragic legacy of war to be reunited with one another. We see this as a strong step towards creating inter-Korean unity and trust.
It is our experience that lasting peace is best brought about when all parties are willing to engage in reconciliation. Our discussions and visits to the DRPK have revealed to us a nation ready to engage in peace. It is for this reason we implore Washington and Seoul to make a strong effort to move this process forward.

Johan Galtung, Dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies and Founder of TRANSCEND International is the winner of the 6th DMZ Korean Peace Prize 2010.

Han S. Park is University Professor of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, Director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues, and the 2010 winner of the Gandhi, King, Ikeda Community Builder's Peace Prize.

[Formulas like "The Korean Community", or "One Korea, Two Systems"--with open borders--might be useful on the way to a future united Korea as federation or unitary state.]