Anti-war protests ahead of Obama's South Korea visit

Updated November 18, 2009 20:38:00

A group of anti-war demonstrators has staged a protest in the South Korean capital Seoul, ahead of US President Barack Obama's arrival in the country. The protestors were voicing their anger at Seoul's plans to re-deploy troops in Afghanistan. Mr Obama, who's just wound up a landmark visit to China, is to meet South Korea's leaders for talks expected to focus heavily on North Korea, which tested a nuclear weapon earlier this year. Climate change and trade issues will also be high on the agenda. As with China, there are few expectations that the talks might yield any major agreements.

Presenter: Karon Snowdon
Speakers: Professor Yun Sin-Jin, Seoul National University; Mattheis Maass, Assistant Professor, International Relations, Yonsei University, South Korea

SNOWDON: Cooperation is the buzzword of diplomacy, in China Mr Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao agreed to cooperate on dealing with North Korea's nuclear program on climate change and bilateral trade. But there were few details released. Publicly the agenda remains much the same in Seoul, but as a major US ally South Korea presents fewer challenges, despite the presence of protestors. In the lead-up to President Obama's arrival peace activists protested against the South Korean government's plans to redeploy troops to Afghanistan next year. And farmers continued to make it clear they don't want either country to ratify the free trade agreement signed back in 2007. More important is how to deal with the threat of North Korea's nuclear program.

Mattheis Maass, Assistant Professor in International Relations at Yonsei University, believes that behind closed doors Washington and Seoul are moving towards a new approach. He says that means accepting that Pyongyang won't abandon its nuclear weapons capability.

MAASS: I do think that it's basically sinking in as we speak across the world, and that includes obviously Washington and Seoul that North Korea is a quasi nuclear state. And I think despite the rhetoric that we're hearing, yes we still want to restart the six-party talks, yes we still want to hold on to the goal to denuclearise North Korea. I think underlying that is a very strong current that basically says look, we've got to move past that, they have nuclear capability, they have demonstrated that and I don't see any grand bargain out there that would be enticing enough for North Korea to give its nuclear status up.

SNOWDON: So what is the next step as far as the US and South Korea are concerned?

MAASS: I think the next step then must be to manage North Korea to reconceptualise North East Asia in a different way, meaning with an additional quasi nuclear state. And I think the focus must shift much more dramatically on issues of proliferation and on capping the arsenal as much as possible.

SNOWDON: So what you're saying is there should be more efforts to bring North Korea into the international community and live with its nuclear program with conditions?

MAASS: Yes absolutely, I think that there should be more engagement but the engagement I think must reflect the changed reality, as bitter a pill as that might be.

SNOWDON: The South Korean government might need some convincing. Its relations with North Korea are at a low ebb after last week's naval clash in which at least one North Korean sailor died. But next month's climate change talks in Copenhagen is one area where President Lee Myung-bak wants to make a mark. A day ago he announced a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. Classified as a developing country despite its membership of the OECD, South Korea isn't obliged to set carbon limits under the Kyoto Protocol. But its heavy steel and petrochemical industries make it the ninth largest polluter.

Yun Sin-jin, Professor of Environmental Management at Seoul National University, says South Korea's 4 per cent is too low. But others, including Australia, should be doing more.

YUN: The developed countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia, those countries emissions targets is not strong. So maybe diplomatically the Korean government does not want to take a strong target I think because there is no reason.