Roundup of Media Reaction to the Inter-Korean Summit on 2-4 Oct

The following is a roundup of North and South Korean and regional media reaction to the summit between the two Koreas, which produced a declaration calling for a permanent peace deal.

North Korea

North Korea’s major state media provided extensive coverage of the inter-Korean summit held in Pyongyang on 2 4 October, including publication of the full text of the joint declaration and much factual reporting and photographs of the movements of the two leaders during the summit.

On 2 October, Korean Central TV said “the warm scene” of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun’s arrival in Pyongyang proved that “nothing can crush our nation’s will for reunification”.

On the same day, central party newspaper Nodong Sinmun asked: “Who else, aside from the respected and beloved General Kim Jong Il, the peerlessly great man can cause such an exciting event?”

On 4 October, Nodong Sinmun’s front page news was that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had visited the state guest house where the South Korean president was staying. The paper also praised the efforts made by Kim Jong Il’s father, Kim Il Sung, in the cause of national reunification, noting that it was “his lifelong cause and ardent desire”.

By 5 October, the North Korean media was upbeat about the results of the summit. Rodong Sinmun carried an article dealing with the “immortal exploits performed by Kim Jong Il in his efforts to enable all Koreans to live in a reunified country”.

But it also said that “capitalist society causes deformed material life, making people corrupt and depraved”. Under capitalism, “all sorts of social vices such as immorality and corruption, fraud and swindling, and violent crimes are rampant, making people shiver in uneasiness and fear,” it added.

The correspondent for the Russian news agency Itar-Tass, who is one of only four foreign journalists with permanent accreditation in North Korea, noted “the wide and active campaign to inform citizens about the summit results” and said it was “indicative of Pyongyang’s firm intention to realize the set goals”.

This is in contrast to North Korea’s coverage of the six-party talks held in Beijing on 28 30 September and the resulting declaration, which by 5 October had only been mentioned by the KCNA news agency, aimed at an international audience.

South Korea

The South Korean media was initially upbeat about the summit before wondering whether President Roh had conceded too much ground.

Seoul’s strongly nationalistic paper Choson Ilbo on 5 October was concerned that President Roh had “essentially two months left in office” and the joint declaration had included “a long and expensive list of obligations that will fall on the shoulders of the next president and the South Korean public”.

It said that reading what economic aid has been promised “makes one breathless”. The paper was worried about the brevity of the declaration on nuclear disarmament and said the text, in calling for the establishment of a “permanent peace regime”, sounded “so hollow”. It was also concerned about the implications for national security that closer relations with the North could have.

The paper’s factual reporting on 5 October focussed on the opposition’s main objection that the declaration “fails to deal with North Korea’s nuclear ambition”. The newspaper also said, in an article eaxmining the summit’s potential impact on the upcoming elections, that “there is a chance that the communist regime could use the prime ministers’ talks to try and meddle in South Korean politics”. The article noted North Korea’s dislike of the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) and said that Kim Jong Il’s government “must be concerned about the prospect of inter-Korean relations if the GNP grabs power”.

An editorial on 5 October in Chungang Ilbo said that for “this grand plan” to work, political, diplomatic and economic capital were needed. It described the declaration as “meaningful because it laid down a direction for peace… and the restoration of brotherhood among people of the same blood” but said the package was “also ambitious and there are countless tasks that must be accomplished to implement it fully”.

Another editorial in the paper said “damage was done” to President Roh’s dignity. “It was Kim Jong Il’s turn to visit the South. Instead of showing humility, Kim acted in a way that could be interpreted as being rude by twice changing the venue”, the paper said.

Newspaper Dong-A Ilbo on 5 October was critical of the declarations saying that “a cycle of ‘economic aid – peace aid’… which is what President Roh has been emphasizing, can never be established”.

But Seoul’s centre-left daily Hankyoreh struck a more positive tone. It reported that following the improved relations between the North and the South, the two nations are set to create their first “official” joint cheering squad to go to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. An editorial described the declaration as an “historic document”.

The paper hailed the declaration as containing “not only the future course of various fields such as the military, peace, economic cooperation, mutual exchanges, humanitarian issues and reunification but also concrete plans to carry them out”.

The national news agency Yonhap said on 4 October that “South Korea’s president pulled off a far-reaching, concrete deal that is expected to lay the groundwork for peace and closer economic cooperation”.

South Korean TV stations provided in-depth reporting on each of the eight points of the declaration on 4 October and positively assessed the declaration.

The state-run KBS 1 TV praised it as an agreement that has “advanced overall North-South relations one step further and solidified the foundation of peace and prosperity” and described the declaration of an end to the Korean war as “a symbolic measure in the interim phase for concluding a peace regime on the Korean peninsula”

The semi-official MBC TV called the agreement “extensive” and the commercial SBS TV highlighted the “concrete” nature of the declaration which it said had made clear the stance of “the main parties concerned” on “ending the war.”

KBS 1 TV stressed that denuclearization was a “prerequisite” to the declaration on ending the Korean war and MBC TV and SBS TV found that reference to the denuclearization issue was “insufficient.”

SBS TV noted that there is “only one sentence” on denuclearization in the declaration, and that it “lacks any further agreement that can only be reached between the heads of state.”

China

The Chinese Communist Party paper Renmin Ribao on 4 October characterized the summit as “a significant step in the North-South Korean peace, reconciliation and cooperation process” while Shanghai’s Jiefang Ribao hailed an “historic leap” for the two Koreas. It said on 3 October that “mutual trust between the North and South has increased”.

Beijing’s Guangming Wang said on 4 October that “this South Korean president, who was elected against all expectations, unexpectedly left a solid step in history. His and the South Korean people’s choice has shown once again that war is not the ultimate choice”.

Hong Kong’s Beijing backed Wen Wei Po, said on 3 October that the summit had “demonstrated to the international community once again that resolving regional conflicts and crises through means of dialogue, exchanges and mediation is more effective than confrontation, blockades, sanctions and coercion”. It directly criticised the US approach to diplomacy and call for an “adjustment” to its policy.

The Taipei Times described President Roh as “a lame-duck” and said the talks had “no meaning for the future”.

“But when the fat sheep comes knocking at the door, the lion would be crazy not to open its mouth” said the paper, suggesting North Korea would benefit from the South’s economic aid.

Japan

Tokyo’s business daily, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, said on 5 October that the declaration was “a result of North and South Korea both giving priority to practical gains”. It gave the credit for the conciliation to “the United States, China, and other concerned countries to improve regional stability, such as the progress made in the six-party talks”.

In a separate article it said that “rushing on to reconciliation with North Korea without resolving the nuclear issue is risky.” The paper also noted that there was no reference to the issue of abductions of Japanese nationals by the North and it meant that “the majority in the government believe that it is premature to see the remarks as progress toward a solution”.

Tokyo daily Mainichi Shimbun said on 5 October that the talks were disadvantageous to South Korea, citing plans for a common fishery zone and “a special zone for peace in the Yellow Sea”. It said the South Korean government “may face criticism for making too many concessions”.

The Asahi Shimbun newspaper said on 5 October that “our impression this time is that the leaders of the two Koreas are meeting primarily for business”. It praised President Roh, saying that he “obviously realizes that improved relations between North Korea and Japan are indispensable to the establishment of peace and security in the region”.

Originally published by BBC Monitoring research in English 05 Oct 07.

(c) 2007 BBC Monitoring Newsfile. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.