DENVER, Colorado -- “North Korea’s announcement to suspend the denuclearization works is undeniably linked to the U.S. presidential election. North Korea wants to wait and see until the next U.S. president is decided, and then begin negotiation,” Representative Eni Faleomavaega, chairman of the U.S. House Asia-Pacific subcommittee, said on Aug. 26. “It is very unfortunate that the North has suspended the denuclearization works of its facilities.”
In his exclusive interview with the JoongAng Ilbo, Faleomavaega spoke about his views on the Korean Peninsula issues. Faleomavaega spoke to the newspaper in Denver, Colorado during the Democratic Convention, where he attended as a super delegate.

“Only four months are left before President George W. Bush goes out of his office,” Faleomavaega said. “It is hard for the Bush administration to engage in any meaningful development. The North probably knows this, so it has made such an announcement.”

Faleomavaega was also scheduled to attend the J-Global Forum as a keynote speaker. The forum, 11th of its kinds, was to take place at the Seoul’s Shilla Hotel from Aug. 31 to Sept. 1. The JoongAng Ilbo hosted the event.
Faleomavaega is one of the first supporters of Senator Barack Obama, slated to become the official Democratic presidential candidate at the convention on Aug. 28. “If Obama becomes the president, he will be engaged in a wider scope of active diplomacy to resolve the nuclear issue,” Faleomavaega said.

Q: North Korea has caused a problem once again.

A: The United States did not remove North Korea from its list of the state sponsors of terrorism because the North did not accept the U.S. demand of through and sweeping verification. The North justified its suspension of denuclearization activities with the delay in the removal from the terrorist blacklist, but I don’t agree with that. I think that is Pyongyang’s tactic to earn some time before the U.S. presidential election.

Q: What will be the Bush administration’s reaction?

A: The answer is simple. There is too little to do, and it is also too late to do anything. The Bush administration may have some dialogue with the North during its remaining term, but it is hard to see any meaningful development. The ball will be in the court of the next U.S. administration.

Q: Is there a need to hold a hearing over the nuclear issue during the lame duck session?

A: I will review the possibility. But the lame duck Congressional session only deals with extremely important matters, so we will have to wait and see.

Q: Do you think Obama will better resolve the nuclear crisis?

A: I think he will. He has completely different thinking and style from Bush. Bush once labeled the North an axis of evil and stopped dialogue, and then resumed the talks only later. Obama is willing to engage in active diplomacy whether the other side is a democratic country or not. The Republicans have said Obama’s proposal to talk with leaders of the axis of evil a naïve idea, but what he really means is that he wants to open up the diplomatic channels. Sanctions alone will not resolve any problem.

Q: Despite the low approval rating of Bush, Obama has not overwhelmed Senator John McCain of the Republican Party. Obama’s naming of Senator Joseph Biden as a running mate doesn’t appear to change the situation.

A: Public opinion changes easily and often. I believe in the voters’ judgment over the opinion polls. With his expertise in foreign affairs and security, Biden will be a good guide for Obama. The two will bring the victory to the Democrats.

Q: Obama has said he will talk to the leaders of the axis of evil if he becomes the president. Will he meet with Kim Jong-il, the chairman of the North’s National Defense Commission?

A: I cannot give you an answer right now. But what’s clear I hat Obama’s diplomacy will be in different dimension. Bush has wasted time during the early days of his term and began his diplomacy belatedly, but Obama will activate his dialogue channels with the North from the beginning. Whether it is a democratic country or not, Obama wants to talk to them to resolve problems. Look at the example of Bill Clinton. During his term, then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright was sent to Pyongyang for talks. President John F. Kennedy also resolved the Cuban missile crisis by talking with the Soviet Union. The Republicans said we are too soft to the North, but that’s absurd. As soon as China escalated tensions in the Taiwan Strait, it was President Clinton who sent the U.S. troops to sternly counter the action.

Q: What do you think about Japan’s territorial claim over Dokdo?

A: I understand the issue very well, but it is too sensitive for me to speak about it as the chairman of House Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific. Korea and Japan are both extremely important allies to the United States. I hope the two countries will resolve the issue peacefully.

Q: What will be the fate of the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement? Bush said it will try to get it ratified during the U.S. Congressional lame duck session.

A: The administration may have such a plan, but the Congress and the Democrats cannot address the issue lightly. Many sensitive and complex issues are interlocked in this FTA. Most of all, the Bush administration has ignored the congress and the Democratic Party when it signed the deal with South Korea. They also failed to reflect the labor community’s positions. And yet, the administration calls the Democratic Party an anti-FTA party. That is unfair.

Q: Some in Korea worry that the free trade agreement will be pronounced dead after Obama becomes the president.

A: Obama’s principle is that any FTA should be fair. He thinks not only the United States, but also Korea should be treated fairly.

Q: Will Obama ask for re-negotiation of the auto industry in the FTA if he wins the election?

A: Korea must understand that Michigan is one of the most important places in the U.S. presidential election. Tens of thousands have lost jobs there. The Democratic Party is emphasizing fair trade because of that. South Korea and the United States need more flexibility over the FTA.

Q: Some in South Korea are worried about the strategic elasticity of the U.S. troops, a concept that the forces will be redeployed to other conflict areas.

A: Korea must not be mistaken. Korea is not the only country that will be influenced by the strategic elasticity. Since the Cold War has ended a long time ago, the U.S. forces around the world must be redeployed under a new principle.

Q: Does the Democratic Party support the strategic elasticity?

A: Foreign affairs and security are a nonpartisan issue. Bush may have acted partisanly, but the Democratic Party approaches such matters with an open attitude.

Q: China has demonstrated its power through the Beijing Olympic Games. Is the United States cautious about China?

A: It is true that such a perspective exists. It is true that we cannot ignore the 1.3 billion population of China and its extremely fast economic growth. I, however, do not agree with the view that China is a new threat to the United States. Asia, including China, is incredibly important for the United States and the international community. If the United States reacts to China with hostility, the prosperity and peace of Asia will be threatened and the United States will have to waste its energy and power. The United States and China must become trusting partners.

By Lee Sang-il, Washington Correspondent of the JoongAng Ilbo