(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
I have visited South Korea many times, three times over the past year, and have witnessed a significant change in public word, street life and the press. And not least in political life. People dare now! The old people are admittedly still afraid to talk, but the young have become braver.
The dictatorship is far ahead in people's memory – it is still so close. There have been many abuses against the population. It's only months since the last dictator's daughter was removed from power. But it is blowing a new wind across the country. This spring, 9 demonstrated millions of South Koreans (!) In the streets. This "candlelight revolution", hardly mentioned in Norwegian media, brought a new and more peaceful president to power, Moon Jae-in. He wants thugs to the north.
What about dialogue? The Nordic region's foremost East Asia expert Geir Helgesen heads the Nordic Institute for Asia Studies at the University of Copenhagen. I got to join him on a trip in South Korea this summer. "How are people in the North?" Was a not uncommon question from young people we met. "They are ordinary people. A little like you and me, "Helgesen replied, gladly with a smile.
His message is simple: After over 60 years of war, boycott, threats, nuclear race, famine disaster and suffering, is it perhaps time to try something new in relations with North Korea? What about dialogue?
After 67 years of war, boycott and famine, is it perhaps time to take a different approach to North Korea?
The path of peace instead? Norway was involved when Trygve Lie led the UN at the outbreak of the war in Korea 1950, and when Norwegian medical personnel made an effort during the open war up to the ceasefire in 1953. Our new Foreign Minister can start a new era in line with the best in the Norwegian peace tradition. I have formulated twelve questions to the Minister as a warm-up to a new Norwegian policy in the region:
- With the experience of how the nuclear powers of Pakistan, India and Israel are treated by the international community: Is it not understandable that North Korea can believe that they are treated to a different standard than these countries?
- Most countries that now have nuclear weapons and nuclear support equipment (rockets, bases) have tested and used these weapons with tremendous damage to people and the environment for a number of years – not least in the Pacific. What has North Korea done to indicate that they should be treated particularly harshly?
- With NATO and US policy for regime change in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya fresh in memory, and that North Korea is repeatedly referred to as part of an "axis of evil" as well as statements like "all options are on the table" – are Isn't it understandable that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons as well?
- There is a strong hostile military presence (39 US bases in South Korea) and regular force exercises just outside the border of North Korea. Is it unreasonable for North Korea to see this as provocation?
- UNICEF reported that the UN boycott of Iraq 1990 – 2003, among others, cost 500 000 children lives (FAS report 26.1.2013). Are there any calculations or evaluations of the effect our long-standing boycott policy has had on children and civilians in North Korea?
- North Korea is a very closed country. To what extent would you say that NATO members, such as Norway, can rely on the knowledge base of our policy against North Korea being based on sound and solid information?
- For several years, Norway has participated in the punishment and boycott of North Korea. What can be realistically expected by North Korea for the boycott policy to be said to be successful?
- The UN boycott of North Korea (eg UNSCR 2270, 2.3 2016) emphasizes that the boycott measures should not affect civilians. What evaluations have been made by the Norwegian side to ensure that this part of the boycott is complied with?
- Prolonged war and tension have enormous devastating effects on populations – psychological, economic, social and cultural. This applies to Korea, both north and south. Have any assessments been made on these costs after more than 60 years of state of war?
- Korea's history seems to be rooted in a fundamental belief that violence, disobedience, armaments and threats are the only viable means of ensuring peace and prosperity in the area. This has led to hatred, fear, mistrust and revenge, instead of a humanitarian approach and strategies such as confidence building, openness, cultural exchange and solidarity. Do you share this view, and what do you think is the long-term effect of this?
- A research report (from the US PEW Research Center) released this spring could tell that as many as 70 percent of South Koreans fear the United States (!). In what ways does Norway take into account in its policy that the South Koreans also fear the US and their presence in the country? (Note: The survey was conducted before the "Trump effect" could have recorded.)
- After 67 years of state of war and hostility, it is only reasonable that one is actively seeking ways of disarmament and peace in this area. No one inferior to the pope has referred to Norway for an initiative. Which peace-seeking policy do you consider to be the best in the future for Norway?
also read
Time to see Korea
The cry of pain crying
