SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The rival Koreas today traded counterproposals over where to meet for talks Sunday, as mutual interest in mending abysmal ties clashed with mistrust stemming from years of animosity and hard-line stances.
South Korea’s suggestion that officials meet in a truce village straddling the heavily armed border between the countries came hours after Pyongyang said it favors holding talks in its border city of Kaesong.
South Korea on Thursday had suggested high-level talks Wednesday in Seoul, but North Korea said today it wanted lower-level talks first because the countries’ “relations have been stalemated for years and mistrust has reached the extremity.”
Two officials with Seoul’s Unification Ministry said South Korea made the latest proposal through a crossborder Red Cross communications line newly reopened by the North. The South Korean officials spoke on condition of anonymity, citing office policy.
Pyongyang didn’t immediately respond to Seoul’s most recent offer, but even the restoration of the Red Cross line in the truce village of Panmunjom signals an easing of tensions. The line, used for exchanging messages on humanitarian and other issues, was shut down by the North in March during a weeks-long period of animosity marked by North Korean threats of war and South Korean vows of counterstrikes.
Today’s developments followed the countries’ agreement a day earlier to hold talks on issues including reopening a jointly run industrial complex in Kaesong that had been the last symbol of inter-Korean cooperation before it closed this spring.
The news was welcomed on both sides of the world’s most heavily fortified border. Kwak Sok Gyong, a Pyongyang resident, told The Associated Press that the North’s announcement “reflects what people want in both north and south. I think the relations between north and south should be improved as soon as possible.”
In Seoul, Park Gyeong-hyun, a 17- year-old student, said the Koreas have many unresolved problems, such as families separated by the Korean War six decades ago. “So I view the talks as a positive thing because the relationship between the two Koreas will get better if the talks go well.”
Officials in Seoul said it wasn’t yet clear what Sunday’s proposed talks will focus on, if they happen. Such meetings in the past have involved lower-level officials charged with ironing out administrative details and reporting back to their bosses. The next step would be higher-level talks.
The last government-level contact between the Koreas on their peninsula took place in February 2011 at Panmunjom, according to the South’s Unification Ministry, which deals with North Korea issues.
The mood on the Korean Peninsula has been tense since North Korean leader Kim Jong Il died in December 2011 and his son, Kim Jong Un, took over. Pyongyang, which is estimated to have a handful of crude nuclear devices, has committed a drumbeat of acts over the last year that Washington, Seoul and others deem provocative.
The proposed talks could represent a change in North Korea’s approach, analysts said, or could simply be an effort to ease international demands that it end its development of nuclear weapons, a topic crucial to Washington but not a part of envisioned inter- Korean meetings.
The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less