 |
||||||||
|
Hubert Pirker chairs the European Parliament's delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula. Pirker, a former teacher of mathematics, was first elected to the Austrian Parliament from the Christian Democrat Party in 1990. He served in the European Parliament from 1999-2004, and was returned in February 2006. OhmyNews spoke with him at the Shilla Hotel in Seoul, where he was attending a conference to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.
To start out with, please tell us a bit about the delegation on relations with the Korean Peninsula; when was it founded, what's its purpose, who are its members?
Because of the importance of the relations between the EU and the Republic of Korea, in 2004 we started a new delegation especially responsible for relations with the Korean Peninsula. Years ago, we had a delegation dealing with the Republic of Korea, but it was together with relations with ASEAN. So we choose now to have a separate delegation for South Korea. The background is that we are the largest foreign investor in Korea, and we are the second largest export market for the Koreas.
The members are mixed, coming from different kinds of fields. Mostly well experienced with relations toward Northeast Asia. One very important member is the chairman of the delegation responsible for relations with Japan. This helps to bring together the delegations responsible for the relations between the whole Korean Peninsula and Japan. There are 24 members altogether.
The EU seems to adhere to strong principles regarding the North Korean problem. For instance, in the UN resolution, while supporting sanctions on North Korea, the EU wanted to exempt humanitarian aid. On the other hand, couldn't it be said that because you aren't heavily involved in the Korean problem, you have room for a broader policy?
I think you're right. On the one side, I would say that everyone is involved in North Korea. This is the last communist gulag, with nuclear weapons. This is a very explosive, dangerous situation for the whole world. So therefore it's important to give support from the whole international community to try our best to solve the problem. Therefore we are engaged.
Another point is that we were asked, especially by our Korean friends, to be more politically involved in solving this problem. As you mentioned, we are not part of the six-party talks; that is clear. However, if there is a necessity, and we are asked to give help, we are able to do so. We are engaged, we are doing it, because we were asked to. We are showing that we are giving help, via food security. This program means that we are helping the people themselves, and having also some control over what's going on. This is the activity undertaken by the European Union.
But everything depends on the developments on the North Korean side, by the regime itself. If there is no success there will be no help. The problem for us is always the balancing of pressure on the government and help to the people.
Because of North Korea's own restrictions, EU countries were the only ones that were allowed to have NGO representatives resident in Pyongyang. A couple of years ago, however, North Korea kicked out most of those NGOs as well. What were the reasons behind the expulsion, and do you see any possibility of European NGOs resuming activities there in the near future?
First I would say we are totally different situation compared with years ago. On the one side, very negative, they have nuclear weapons. So it affects both sides. The other side is that the results of the regime's development approach are very, very negative. They need help. And for us, it's a chance, I would say, to open the door for new talks. But always making clear first, there must be some changes going in the direction of a democratic way. It will take a long time, but they need to show progress on humanitarian rights, and then we can give a bit of support.
As we mentioned during today's meetings, opening the door for talks is always the way to bring about a new kind of policy in such a country as North Korea. So there's a bit of hope.
That brings up another point, which is always the dilemma in dealing with North Korea. Europe is known for promoting international standards on such things as peace, nonproliferation, and human rights. But some critics say that engaging North Korea on the nuclear issue just legitimizes the government and ignores the human rights issue. How do you reconcile these competing priorities?
We always want to avoid this impression. This is not the way we would like to go. First of all, we are always going the same way that the international society is going. If there are sanctions, all our countries follow the sanctions. So we show very clearly that there is a lot of pressure against this horrible government. And at the highest level -- last October, one day after the explosion, the European Parliament made a direct statement that made clear what is going on vis-a-vis North Korea, and that we are totally supporting the sanctions. But if they want to go a new way in North Korea, we would give support to the people there. This is also the way that is being pursued by international society.
Europe has the experience of the Helsinki process in dealing with human rights in the former Soviet bloc. Do you think such a process can also be applied in North Korea?
Maybe; no one knows. North Korea is very different, and much more closed to outsiders. So nobody knows really the best strategy, and there is no real example we have in mind. But we try our best to solve the problems for the people living underneath this horrible regime in North Korea. And so, I think, there is a bit of a chance to open the door for a new way. I hope we can use it in the interest of the whole region, and the world. But it depends on the North.
South Korea, China, the U.S., and Japan all obviously have very strong interests in the North Korean nuclear issue, which can make solving the problem more difficult. The EU on the contrary seems in a strong position to play a mediating role, but thus far hasn't done so. Is there any thought of actively stepping forward in the future?
I think so. We are a bit more active in this process. We could act more or less as a facilitator if the Koreans ask us to facilitate. Because we are as good a friend today as the Americans, for example. They are strongly involved, and have changed their line now. But the European Union is more or less on a softer way, with the experiences we have within the union, regarding our relations between the different member states and third countries. So maybe the experience we have in Europe could give a bit of help, if there is a need and if we are asked.
According to UN Resolution 1718, the EU stopped luxury good exports to North Korea. You also agreed to halt transactions in nuclear-related goods and freeze any assets related to the nuclear program. What has been North Korea's reaction to this? How much backing is there for this policy, and do you think it has any effect?
First, the resolution of the Security Council is supported totally. We are going the same way, we are following the same line, as I mentioned earlier. How effective it is; if you have special goods only for the high level communists in North Korea, then it is part of the sanctions. But it doesn't change, I think, a lot. This is the direction of the special rules. It's more to show to common people there are sanctions against this regime, the representatives of this regime.
What does the EU think of the Kaesong Industrial Complex? Is there any interest in investing there by European companies?
I would recommend. I recently visited the Kaesong Complex in November last year. Now there are hundreds of workers -- the number of workers has doubled from the previous year, and for me, this is not because of economic reasons, but political ones.
Our problem is that between the people in North Korea and the people from outside there is absolutely no communication, no system that allows communication, that shows what is really going on in the outside world. Maybe this is the first and important chance. There are more than 12,000 people working there, coming from the other parts of North Korea daily, who see a bit of the real outside world, and shows the reality, that the working situation is excellent there, better than other companies in Europe or America even. So if people working there see, “This is the reality outside my country,” they bring back other information to their families back home.
So this is a soft and slowly working process; if they learn new information, real information, about the West, maybe there will be a bit of undermining of the regime. So it's only one of the stones, but maybe it could be the cornerstone.
There's been talk about an ROK-EU FTA in the future. I'm sure you know that one of the issues in the U.S.-ROK FTA has been the question of goods produced in Kaesong. Would the EU similarly want to exempt goods from Kaesong from inclusion in an FTA?
It's not necessary to specially exclude the Kaesong complex from this free trade agreement. If you look at the amount of products produced in Kaesong and compare it to the volume of export goods to Europe, it's a small, small problem.
Would you require any special conditions for European companies to invest in Kaesong?
Up to now there was no discussion about this special project coming from the Kaesong complex going out. I wouldn't expect any problems about this.
©2007 OhmyNews
Source: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=352812&rel_no=1
To start out with, please tell us a bit about the delegation on relations with the Korean Peninsula; when was it founded, what's its purpose, who are its members?
Because of the importance of the relations between the EU and the Republic of Korea, in 2004 we started a new delegation especially responsible for relations with the Korean Peninsula. Years ago, we had a delegation dealing with the Republic of Korea, but it was together with relations with ASEAN. So we choose now to have a separate delegation for South Korea. The background is that we are the largest foreign investor in Korea, and we are the second largest export market for the Koreas.
The members are mixed, coming from different kinds of fields. Mostly well experienced with relations toward Northeast Asia. One very important member is the chairman of the delegation responsible for relations with Japan. This helps to bring together the delegations responsible for the relations between the whole Korean Peninsula and Japan. There are 24 members altogether.
The EU seems to adhere to strong principles regarding the North Korean problem. For instance, in the UN resolution, while supporting sanctions on North Korea, the EU wanted to exempt humanitarian aid. On the other hand, couldn't it be said that because you aren't heavily involved in the Korean problem, you have room for a broader policy?
I think you're right. On the one side, I would say that everyone is involved in North Korea. This is the last communist gulag, with nuclear weapons. This is a very explosive, dangerous situation for the whole world. So therefore it's important to give support from the whole international community to try our best to solve the problem. Therefore we are engaged.
Another point is that we were asked, especially by our Korean friends, to be more politically involved in solving this problem. As you mentioned, we are not part of the six-party talks; that is clear. However, if there is a necessity, and we are asked to give help, we are able to do so. We are engaged, we are doing it, because we were asked to. We are showing that we are giving help, via food security. This program means that we are helping the people themselves, and having also some control over what's going on. This is the activity undertaken by the European Union.
But everything depends on the developments on the North Korean side, by the regime itself. If there is no success there will be no help. The problem for us is always the balancing of pressure on the government and help to the people.
Because of North Korea's own restrictions, EU countries were the only ones that were allowed to have NGO representatives resident in Pyongyang. A couple of years ago, however, North Korea kicked out most of those NGOs as well. What were the reasons behind the expulsion, and do you see any possibility of European NGOs resuming activities there in the near future?
First I would say we are totally different situation compared with years ago. On the one side, very negative, they have nuclear weapons. So it affects both sides. The other side is that the results of the regime's development approach are very, very negative. They need help. And for us, it's a chance, I would say, to open the door for new talks. But always making clear first, there must be some changes going in the direction of a democratic way. It will take a long time, but they need to show progress on humanitarian rights, and then we can give a bit of support.
As we mentioned during today's meetings, opening the door for talks is always the way to bring about a new kind of policy in such a country as North Korea. So there's a bit of hope.
That brings up another point, which is always the dilemma in dealing with North Korea. Europe is known for promoting international standards on such things as peace, nonproliferation, and human rights. But some critics say that engaging North Korea on the nuclear issue just legitimizes the government and ignores the human rights issue. How do you reconcile these competing priorities?
We always want to avoid this impression. This is not the way we would like to go. First of all, we are always going the same way that the international society is going. If there are sanctions, all our countries follow the sanctions. So we show very clearly that there is a lot of pressure against this horrible government. And at the highest level -- last October, one day after the explosion, the European Parliament made a direct statement that made clear what is going on vis-a-vis North Korea, and that we are totally supporting the sanctions. But if they want to go a new way in North Korea, we would give support to the people there. This is also the way that is being pursued by international society.
Europe has the experience of the Helsinki process in dealing with human rights in the former Soviet bloc. Do you think such a process can also be applied in North Korea?
Maybe; no one knows. North Korea is very different, and much more closed to outsiders. So nobody knows really the best strategy, and there is no real example we have in mind. But we try our best to solve the problems for the people living underneath this horrible regime in North Korea. And so, I think, there is a bit of a chance to open the door for a new way. I hope we can use it in the interest of the whole region, and the world. But it depends on the North.
South Korea, China, the U.S., and Japan all obviously have very strong interests in the North Korean nuclear issue, which can make solving the problem more difficult. The EU on the contrary seems in a strong position to play a mediating role, but thus far hasn't done so. Is there any thought of actively stepping forward in the future?
I think so. We are a bit more active in this process. We could act more or less as a facilitator if the Koreans ask us to facilitate. Because we are as good a friend today as the Americans, for example. They are strongly involved, and have changed their line now. But the European Union is more or less on a softer way, with the experiences we have within the union, regarding our relations between the different member states and third countries. So maybe the experience we have in Europe could give a bit of help, if there is a need and if we are asked.
According to UN Resolution 1718, the EU stopped luxury good exports to North Korea. You also agreed to halt transactions in nuclear-related goods and freeze any assets related to the nuclear program. What has been North Korea's reaction to this? How much backing is there for this policy, and do you think it has any effect?
First, the resolution of the Security Council is supported totally. We are going the same way, we are following the same line, as I mentioned earlier. How effective it is; if you have special goods only for the high level communists in North Korea, then it is part of the sanctions. But it doesn't change, I think, a lot. This is the direction of the special rules. It's more to show to common people there are sanctions against this regime, the representatives of this regime.
What does the EU think of the Kaesong Industrial Complex? Is there any interest in investing there by European companies?
I would recommend. I recently visited the Kaesong Complex in November last year. Now there are hundreds of workers -- the number of workers has doubled from the previous year, and for me, this is not because of economic reasons, but political ones.
Our problem is that between the people in North Korea and the people from outside there is absolutely no communication, no system that allows communication, that shows what is really going on in the outside world. Maybe this is the first and important chance. There are more than 12,000 people working there, coming from the other parts of North Korea daily, who see a bit of the real outside world, and shows the reality, that the working situation is excellent there, better than other companies in Europe or America even. So if people working there see, “This is the reality outside my country,” they bring back other information to their families back home.
So this is a soft and slowly working process; if they learn new information, real information, about the West, maybe there will be a bit of undermining of the regime. So it's only one of the stones, but maybe it could be the cornerstone.
There's been talk about an ROK-EU FTA in the future. I'm sure you know that one of the issues in the U.S.-ROK FTA has been the question of goods produced in Kaesong. Would the EU similarly want to exempt goods from Kaesong from inclusion in an FTA?
It's not necessary to specially exclude the Kaesong complex from this free trade agreement. If you look at the amount of products produced in Kaesong and compare it to the volume of export goods to Europe, it's a small, small problem.
Would you require any special conditions for European companies to invest in Kaesong?
Up to now there was no discussion about this special project coming from the Kaesong complex going out. I wouldn't expect any problems about this.
©2007 OhmyNews
Source: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=352812&rel_no=1
