박근혜 대통령이 10일 오전 청와대에서 열린 수석비서관회의에서 현안에 대해 발언하고 있다. (연합뉴스)
10일 새벽, 남북은 12일부터 1박 2일간 ‘남북당국회담’을 서울에서 열기로 합의했다. 9일 오전부터 판문점에서 열린 실무접촉에서 이번 회담 공식명칭을 ‘남북당국회담’으로 정했으며 북측 대표단은 경의선 육로를 통해 방문키로 했다. 2년 4개월 만에 재개되는 당국간 회담이다.
하지만 양측은 회담 의제와 수석대표의 급에 합의를 하지 못해 합의문이 아니라 각 발표문을 발표했다.
남북은 회담 장소•날짜•일정 등은 초반에 쉽게 합의했다. 또 남측이 제안한 개성공단 재가동, 금강산 관광 재개, 이산 가족 상봉 추진은 무리 없이 찬성했으나, 북측은 ‘6•15공동선언과 7•4공동성명 기념문제, 민간내왕과 접촉, 협력사업 추진 문제’를 적시해야 한다고 주장했다.
현재 보수 진영은 공동 기념 사업을 추진하는 과정에서 우리측 내 이데올로기 대립이 심화할 것을 우려해 반대하고 있다. 한반도 비핵화 문제와 천안함•연평도 피격 사건을 심도 있게 다루지 못하여 보수 진영에서 반발할 가능성도 무시할 수 없다.
대표단 구성과 관련해 남측은 5인 대표단을 꾸리고 수석은 “남북 문제를 책임지고 해결할 수 있는 당국자를 하기로 했다”고 발표한 반면, 북측은 “상급 당국자가 하기로 했다”고 밝혔다. 따라서 우리 측의 바람대로 김양건 노동당 통일부전선부당이 회담에 나설지 여부는 불투명하게 됐다.
천해성 통일부 통일정책실장은 이날 브리핑에서 “남북당국회담 한번으로 지금 제기되고 있는 모든 남북간 현안이 다 협의•해결되고 타결되기는 현실적으로 어렵다”며 “합의하기 쉽고 의견 절충이 쉬운 것부터 하나씩 해결해 나가는 방향으로 회담에 임할 것”이라고 밝혔다.
천 실장에 의하면 이번 당국회담은 기존 남북 장관급회담과는 별개이며, 회담의 명칭을 기존의 ‘남북 장관급 회담’에서 ‘남북당국회담’으로 변화시킨 것을 두고 “새로운 시대, 새로운 남북관계, 새로운 남북대화의 정립이라는 차원에서 (북측과) 의견의 접근을 이뤘다”고 말했다.
박근혜 대통령은 이날 오전 청와대에서 수석비서관회의를 주재하고 ”지난주에 북한이 우리가 제안했던 당국 간 회담을 수용해서 앞으로 남북 간에 회담이 발전적으로 잘 진행되기 바란다“고 말했다.
통일 연구원의 박형중 선임 연구원은 남측이 당국 회담을 정례화해 한반도 신뢰 프로세스의 반석으로 삼을 것이라고 분석했다.
“우리 정부는 북핵 문제에도 불구하고 한반도 신뢰 프로세스에 의거해 대화로 남북 관계를 증진하려고 한다”며 “따라서 정부는 한반도 비핵화를 강하게 요구하는 동시에 인도적 지원으로 남북 관계 증진을 도모할 수 있다”고 말했다.
“버락 오바마 미국 대통령과 시진핑 중국 국가주석도 북한을 핵보유국으로 인정할 수 없다는 인식을 공유한 상황에서 한반도 내 긴장을 야기하는 기존 전략은 사용할 수 없게 되었다” 며 “(당국 회담으로) 남측과 관계 개선 의지를 보여 대중, 대미 관계를 개선하려는 노력으로 보인다”도 말했다. (코리아 헤럴드 송상호 기자/ 번역 이상주 인턴 기자)
Seoul seeks to capitalize on upcoming talks for trust-building
Two Koreas agree to hold two-day government talks Wednesday; remain at odds over delegation chief, agenda
Seoul is striving to capitalize on the two-day government talks with Pyongyang, slated to begin Wednesday in Seoul, to restore bilateral ties and begin its peninsular trust-building process in earnest.
Following the 18-hour-long working-level talks that ended on Monday morning, the two Koreas agreed to hold the “high-level” talks, but failed to narrow their differences over the agenda and who would lead their five-member delegations.
Chun Hae-sung, the chief of Seoul’s Unification Ministry’s policy bureau who led the South Korean delegation for the talks, painted a positive outlook for the forthcoming talks, stressing Seoul would work step by step to address issues that were easy to reach agreement on first.
During a meeting of her senior secretaries at Cheong Wa Dae, President Park Geun-hye also expressed hopes that the bilateral talks, which would be the first since 2007, would proceed well in a “progressive” fashion.
But some observers remained skeptical over the talks as the two sides still remain at odds over how to resolve a series of pending issues such as the reopening of the industrial park in Gaeseong and tourism in Mount Geumgang.
On top of that, who will lead each delegation was a bone of contention during the working-level talks held at the inter-Korean border village of Panmunjeom.
Seoul demanded that its delegation will be led by Unification Minister Ryu Kihl-jae and the North Korean side should be headed by Kim Yang-gon, the director of the North Korean United Front Department in charge of South Korean affairs.
But Pyongyang expressed opposition to it, insisting it should be headed by a high-level official -- a reason why what was initially proposed as a ministerial meeting turned into a “high-level” government meeting.
“The North Korean side made the proposal to call the talks a government meeting (instead of a ministerial meeting), and we agreed to that from the perspective that we both seek to set new inter-Korean relations and talks for a new era,” Chun told reporters.
He called the talks a new type of inter-Korean dialogue, adding that the forthcoming talks would be separate from the conventional ministers’ talks.
Issuing two different statements following the marathon working-level talks, the two sides also showed their differences over the agenda.
Seoul’s statement said the two Koreas would consult over “pending urgent” issues such as the resumption of the Gaeseong park, tours to Mount Geumgang and reunions of families separated after the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
But Pyongyang added to that list issues of jointly holding celebratory events to mark the 13th anniversary of the June 15 South-North Joint Declaration and the 1972 July 4th North-South Joint Statement. Some conservatives here have opposed the joint celebration of the events due to the possibility of their fomenting internal ideological conflicts here.
Pointing out that all these issues would not be settled through this week’s meeting, Chun said the two sides would be able to lead their talks in a “constructive” direction should both sides focus on holding “practical” discussions.
At the upcoming talks, both sides are expected to take caution over the issue of denuclearizing the North as the intractable security issue could hamper the mood for dialogue.
But from Seoul’s perspective, holding talks only about the industrial park and tourism in the mountain resort could draw a public backlash, particularly from conservatives. The talks come after presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping clarified their opposition to a nuclear-armed North Korea during their first summit in California last week.
In light of that, observers believe whoever leads the South Korean delegation may touch on the denuclearization issue during a keynote speech and urge the North to return to the long-stalled multilateral aid-for-denuclearization talks.
Park Hyeong-jung, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification, said Seoul is likely to seek to regularize such a government meeting with Pyongyang to boost the trust-building drive.
“Seoul seeks to push forward the bilateral ties through dialogue despite the nuclear issue under the trust-building initiative. So while minimizing tension and presenting a strong opposition to its nuclear armament, Seoul could seek ways to mend fences wit the North by offering humanitarian assistance and others,” he said.
“From the North Korean perspective, it can no longer use the tactic of raising tension at a time when pressure from both China and the U.S. is escalating on it to give up the nuclear program. So it would seek to show to the world that it is trying to improve ties with Seoul, which would help it enhance ties with Beijing and Washington.”
By Song Sang-ho
(
sshluck@heraldcorp.com)