The June summit seems likely to go down in history as the mot promising event for both Koreas since World War II. One must e cautious. Other hopeful advances in North-South relations in the past were subsequently aborted. Yet the meetings between Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il resulted in more substantive agreements than in earlier dialogues, and the atmosphere surrounding the discussions was more positive, suggesting that both sides earnestly wanted a favorable outcome. The next crucial phase will lie in the implementation of the agreements.
The five-point Joint Declaration signed on June 14 dealt with both specific and more general matters. The re-establishment of visits by divided families was pledged, with August 15, Liberation Day, set as a target date. The release of long-term political prisoners in the South who had refused to renounce Communism is also to be given prompt attention. On the economic front, cooperation was pledged, underwriting the North’s strong interest in both aid and investment as well as trade with the South Advances in the cultural realm, and with respect to such critical fields as the environment and health were also pledged Specifically, joint planning with regard to the forthcoming Olympics was promised.
As was anticipated, these were the areas where agreement could be most easily reached, and where implementation could get under way rapidly. On the broader issues, the pledges were more general, and some harkened back to earlier agreements. For example, it was asserted that reunification was a task to be undertaken by the two Koreas independently. The complex issue of what form reunification should take induced prolonged discussion, with a final statement to the effect that the South’s concept of Commonwealth and the North’s commitment to Confederation had common principles. The degree of centralized authority versus that to be held by two autonomous governments provoked differences, but the north, initially holding to more centralization, was persuaded to accept the principle of greater autonomy, given the international implications of a singe federated state.
Virtually all pertinent issues wee reportedly raised in the course of the discussions, including questions concerning DPRK nuclear and missile programs, the U.S. troop presence in the ROK, and the National Security Law.
An evaluation of the Summit, however, must rest less on the specific subjects discussed and the promises made, and more upon whether a process has been set in motion that will enable continuous, in-depth exploration o specific steps to be taken and the resolution of outstanding issues on all fronts. This will require not only a second Summit, as has been pledged, but the creation of working level committees devoted to specific issues, as was earlier attempted. A broadening of non-governmental contacts devoted to North-South dialogue would also be helpful. The building of trust, so crucial to the North-South relationship, can only take place over time, and as agreements on specific issues are achieved.
The near-term focus must be upon those matters that are most susceptible to resolution or reduction of difference. Given the enormous gap between the two Koreas with respect to political and economic systems, it is unrealistic to seek reunification soon. Such an event could only occur were the North to collapse or a conflict ensue. Neither of these events is desired by the ROK, or by any of the major nations involved with Korea. Patience is thus required, with a distinction being made between different types of issues as to timing and energy expended.
Another aspect of the recent Summit warrants attention, namely, the atmosphere created by the Northern hosts, and more particularly, the newly created image of Kim Jong-il. Chairman Kim has long been regarded by most outside observers as reclusive, intelligent but limited in his interest in, or knowledge of issues beyond those involving domestic concerns, and bordering on the eccentric. On this occasion, Kim went to great lengths to change that image. He was exceedingly forthcoming to President Kim, meeting him at the airport, ushering him into his car, repeatedly pictured smiling and engaged in animated conversation, and playing a key role in the negotiations. Moreover, he made certain that a vast number of North Korean citizens greeted President Kim and his wife in an exuberant manner. Thus, the atmospherics of the Summit were perhaps as important as its substance in conveying the North’s (and Chairman Kim’s) desire for a new beginning to the relationship.
Unquestionably, the leaders of both Koreas have been keenly aware of the fact that this Summit had important implications for their relations with other nations, especially the major powers involved with the Korean issue. One of President Kim Dae-jung’s signal accomplishments has been the improvements he has achieved in relations with Japan, China and Russia while still preserving a close alliance with the United States. He was aware of the desire of the U.S. and japan that issues relating to DPRK military activities be at least raised. Chairman Kim, for his part, had visited Beijing just prior to the Summit, signaling the DPRK desire to improve its relations with old allies—Russia as well as China—after a period of doubt and misgivings that commenced at the beginning of the 1990s. Putin’s forth-coming visit to Pyongyang is another indication of the new atmosphere. The North, moreover, has been vigorous in the recent past in seeking diplomatic relations with a number of European and Asian nations, with some success.
In broad terms, the North has given increasing evidence in the recent past that it is determined to engage in economic change t home and an abandonment of isolation in terms of its foreign policy. The questions that remain are the crucial ones of the timing and the extent of change. Nevertheless, the success of the Summit must be viewed as one product of the new commitments. And this success, if sustained, is very likely to influence the future policies of such key nations as the United States and Japan. For example, the further lifting of economic sanctions on the DPRK by the United States is reportedly imminent.
In sum, cautious optimism is warranted concerning the future of relations between the ROK and the DPRK. A new determination by both parties seems apparent; the international environment is conducive to positive advances; and a process has been established, albeit, loosely, for the implementation of the joint agreement. Some issues will prove very difficult to resolve; retreats as well as advances may well occur; the broad goals epitomized by reunification are not likely to e realized soon; and domestic events in both Koreas will have a major impact upon the relationship. However, the potentials for peace and development on the Korean peninsula are greater than at any time in the past fifty-five years.

The writer is a professor emeritus at University of California, Berkeley.