Ahead of the presidential election, debate over the Kaesong Industrial Park is expected to kick into high gear this year as leading contenders call for a resuscitation of the symbol of inter-Korean rapprochement.

One year after the park’s closure, the issue remains highly contentious across society, with cross-border exchanges at a standstill and the losses of 123 forced-out South Korean firms snowballing. 


The complex, meanwhile, was only the last of a growing list of instruments for inter-Korean cooperation that fell victim to Pyongyang’s unbridled nuclear and missile provocations. The sanctions regime has become broader, more comprehensive and multifaceted, both worldwide and regionally.

Without progress on North Korean denuclearization, a move to reopen may require Seoul to undermine its own argument that some of the proceeds from Kaesong have been siphoned off for military uses, officials say.

Differing views

As the one year anniversary drew near, leading presidential candidates showed a slight disparity in their views over the complex’s resumption.

The tradition has been that conservative parties back a hardline approach focusing on sanctions and pressure, whereas the liberal opposition call for dialogue and cooperation as incentives for North Korea to change tack.

But the line has blurred.

Opposition frontrunner Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party of Korea and Seongnam Mayor Lee Jae-myung argue for the park’s immediate reopening. Others, including opposition big shots such as South Chungcheong Gov. An Hee-jung and former People’s Party chair Ahn Cheol-soo, have a more reserved stance, saying they support the joint factory operation in principle but its immediate reopening is implausible.

Moon, who served in the administration of late progressive President Roh Moo-hyun, went a step further, saying on his Facebook account Thursday that if elected, he will scale up the industrial complex tenfold to 66 million square meters. Lee blasted the closure as a breach of the law that made way for its establishment, saying it has pushed the businesses “to the brink of bankruptcy.”

At a seminar last month, An said a South Korean leader cannot decide to reopen the park at a time when the international community is tightening sanctions against the communist state, and thus collective discussions are needed before making the decision. But his spokesman Park Soo-hyun said more recently that the governor, if elected, will pursue its resumption, siding with the companies and their workers.

Ahn has raised “practical difficulties” for a speedy restart due to UN sanctions, saying he would seek “comprehensive talks” with Pyongyang to deal with the nuclear and Kaesong issues altogether.

“Look at the UN sanctions, there are difficulties regarding our cash payment and items that could go into and come out of (the North),” he told reporters last Thursday, apparently referring to a UN resolution banning “bulk cash” transfers. “If we don’t follow the sanctions, we would be sanctioned too.”

The view was echoed by conservative contenders such as Rep. Yoo Seong-min and Gyeonggi Gov. Nam Kyung-pil of the Bareun Party, which spun off from the ruling Saenuri Party.

“Before North Korea changes course in the nuclear and missile issues, it would be hard to make progress on economic and humanitarian exchanges,” Yoo said at a conference with foreign correspondents on Friday.

Consensus mismatch

Whether a restart of the Kaesong complex would constitute a violation of UN Security Council resolutions remains a source of contention. But they include a few possible snags other than the bulk cash clause, such as one that forbids member countries from opening branches of their financial institutions within the North.

As for the next South Korean president, a greater challenge would be to match domestic sentiment with international consensus.

In a recent poll commissioned by the National Assembly to Gallup Korea, nearly 76 percent of the respondents said the complex’s shutdown did not contribute to peace on the peninsula and the development of inter-Korean relations. Almost 55 percent supported its reopening, while around 35 percent said in favor of its closure.

But if Seoul unilaterally reopens the complex, it would not only trigger controversy over a sanctions breach but also face difficulties in rallying other countries behind a fresh international resolution should Pyongyang stage another major provocation.

Mindful of the controversy, Unification Ministry spokesperson Jeong Joon-hee said that the shutdown is likely to have dealt a “substantial blow” to the regime by cutting a cash flow amounting to $100 million a year.

“(The decision) has provided a chance for the US, Japan, European Union, Australia and other nations to strengthen their individual sanctions, and played a decisive role in inducing the international community’s strong pressure,” he told reporters Friday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck also said a day earlier that without clearing concerns over the regime’s diversion of Kaesong profits, a restart would only cause controversy over a possible violation of UNSC resolutions.

“Whether you like it or not, as we have come this far on this global sanctions and pressure drive, it would be unwise for us to announce the park’s resumption or sell it as an election pledge,” a Seoul official said, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

“While it’s important to maintain flexibility toward its reopening, we need to leave it as our leverage for future inter-Korean talks, since we would have to raise the nuclear issue as part of the agenda.” 

By Shin Hyon-hee (heeshin@heraldcorp.com)