South Korean president’s Winter Olympics peace dream faces flak from all sides

Haeyoon Kim says between a planned North Korean military parade, ‘bloody nose’ talk in the US and unimpressed South Korean voters, Moon Jae-in’s Olympic gambit is proving anything but peaceful

Reading Time:4 minutes

South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s wishful thinking, reckoning that the international event could be used as a springboard to talks with the stubborn North and expand an opportunity to bring about a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, hardly seems feasible now. Illustration: Craig Stephens

Published: 5:45pm, 6 Feb 2018Updated: 7:34pm, 6 Feb 2018

President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, host of the Pyeongchang 2018 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, must have spent the first month of the New Year feeling ambivalent. None of his Olympics-based initiatives seem to be bringing the peace he has talked about.

Moon initiated his peace drive by inviting North Korea to participate in the Games. His intent was heard loudest at the United Nations General Assembly last September, when he delivered a keynote speech, pledging, “I will make wholehearted endeavours until the end in cooperation with the International Olympic Committee in order to welcome the North Koreans to the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics”. IOC President Thomas Bach chimed in, promising to cover the North Korean athletes’ expenses if they joined the Games. Thanks to these efforts, Kim Jong-un, leader of the communist state, gave the long-awaited “yes” to participation at Pyeongchang, leading to the first inter-Korean talks in almost two years. The IOC announced it would approve of a total of 46 people, composed of 22 athletes and 24 officials (47 North Korean representatives landed in South Korea, the identity of the extra member not yet confirmed).

However, Moon’s wishful thinking, reckoning that the international event could be used as a springboard to talks with the stubborn North and expand an opportunity to bring about a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, hardly seems feasible now. US President Donald Trump, during his first state-of-the-union address last week, said, “Past experience has taught us that complacency and concessions only invite aggression and provocation. I will not repeat the mistakes of the past administrations that got us into this dangerous position.”

On the same day, The Washington Post broke the news that Trump’s presumed first pick to be the US ambassador to Seoul, Victor Cha, had dropped out in the final stage of the nomination process as he reportedly expressed his opposition to Trump’s preference for a “bloody nose” attack on Pyongyang. Cha revealed his stance on the matter through The Post’s opinion section, writing that “the answer is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike”, as this would cost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives.

Washington-based academic Victor Cha caused a stir last week when it was revealed he would not be the US ambassador to South Korea, and that he disagreed with the Trump administration over a limited strike against North Korea. Photo: Yonhap via AP

Don’t the South Koreans get a vote on war with North Korea?

This can be interpreted as Washington’s plans to nominate someone who supports military action against the North. Trump’s decision to drop Cha was taken as proof, at least in the international policy community, of escalating tensions between the US and North Korea, two parties governed by temperamental leaders. Furthermore, recent comments made by US Air Force General Paul J. Selva, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the US military is confident that it can, if necessary, destroy most of Pyongyang’s nuclear facilities, seemingly support the feasibility of the scenario.