The Helsinki Process that helped thaw the Cold War was in focus at a seminar on North Korea’s human rights and nuclear issues at the Korea Policy Foundation building in Seoul on Nov. 20.

The seminar was attended by 10 leading South Korean experts on the North, including Lee In-bae, Korea Polytechnic College Gangseo Campus president. Lee gave a lecture on what should be done on the North Korean human rights and nuclear threat issues.

“Closely monitoring the unfolding human rights situations and nuclear threats coming out of North Korea, one historical precedent crossed my mind,” he said, referring to the Helsinki Process.

The process arose in the early 1970s to thaw icy relations between the communist East and democratic West. The CSCE ― a centerpiece conference launched by the U.S., the erstwhile Soviet Union, Britain and France ― is credited with advancing human rights and reducing the communist bloc’s nuclear arsenal.

Thirty-five participating NATO and Warsaw Pact countries produced a final act, which covered areas of sovereignty, territory, international law, economic cooperation and human rights and freedoms. The communist countries also agreed to include a human rights clause to secure financial aid from the West.

“Although the CSCE initially served the ‘strategic interests’ of the superpowers, the direction it took in its development was unforeseen,” Lee said. “Human rights, originally in the backstage, took center stage on the agenda, led by nonaligned nations that wanted a bigger piece of the pie in the negotiations.”

Lee said that despite lacking executive powers, the act served as an “international norm” locking countries into a web of accountability.

“International agreement was fundamental in pressuring the Soviet bloc to improve its human rights,” he said.

As the communist states started suppressing the human rights groups, U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s self-proclaimed human rights administration launched a moral offensive against the move. The Eastern bloc countered the U.S. criticism by referring to Principle 6 of the Helsinki Act, which ratified nonintervention in domestic politics.

To break the stalemate, the two sides agreed on a trust-building initiative at the 1984 Conference on Confidence and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, which negotiated steps to retrench military confrontation and nuclear arms.

At a time when all eyes are on restarting the six-party talks for denuclearizing North Korea, Lee said that increasing and sustaining international pressure on the communist country, rather than using “strategic patience,” will be pivotal.

“Although we cannot be certain that pressuring North Korea on human rights will force it to drop its nuclear programs, our efforts must be comprehensive and steadfast,” Lee said.

Lee added, “The international community should adopt a double track of engaging and containing the recalcitrant regime. Internationally we must pressure North Korea, while between the two Koreas, we should maintain our dialogue.”

Scholars are now discussing the benefits of a Northeast Asian version of the Helsinki Process, in line with President Park Geun-hye’s Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative.

On a practical level, Lee proposed a series of cooperative development projects, which will empower North Koreans by giving them self-sufficiency and a means of survival. He also suggested having a “human rights ambassador” in the Unification Ministry to liaise with international organizations.

Yonsei University Wonju Campus visiting professor and former unification vice minister Um Jong-sik said that it was critical to halt North’s current nuclear capabilities from developing. In Um’s view, only national unification can put an end to North Korea’s desire to be a nuclear state.

He emphasized that a significant ideological divide existed within South Korean politics, preventing a grand bargain between the ruling and opposition parties.

“The conservatives emphasized political and social rights while the progressives prioritized basic living rights,” he said.

“An integrative approach using carrots and sticks is needed, forcing the regime to disfavor the nuclear option.”

Youido Institute policy adviser Nam Geun-woo said that nurturing a middle class capable of forming an alternative force inside North Korea was necessary.

“The Helsinki Process worked because there were alternative forces in Eastern Europe acting as agents of social upheaval. The development of nascent markets allowed them to accumulate wealth, eventually bringing about democratization and bourgeois revolution.”

Nam stressed that the North Korean “red capitalists,” who amassed fortunes by trading with China and colluding with government officials, will play a vital role during its society’s transformation.

SGI Corporation chairman Yoo Wan-ryung echoed Nam’s view, saying that “Rewards must be given for each human rights improvement. We can provide financial aid for every gulag that is disbanded.”

119 Safety Foundation chairman and former employment and labor minister Yim Tae-hee said, “When I was a minister, many labor-management disputes reached dead ends because both sides were bullheaded in their approach. The unionists demanded management rights while the company sought to dismantle the union.”

“As such conflicts were hardly resolved at the corporate level, hoping to defeat another country using a policy is a pipe dream. No regime in history was toppled without bloodshed,” he noted. “The spirit of the Helsinki Process laid in recognizing and cooperating with the other side. South Korean society must form a broad consensus to solve the North Korean dilemma.”

By Joel Lee (joel@heraldcorp.com)