Let North Korea in the Olympics
(Bloomberg View) -- This week, South Korea accepted North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's offer of "urgent" talks over his country's participation in the 2018 Olympic Games in Pyeongchang. Although the sudden engagement over what might amount to two figure skaters crossing the border may not seem like a big deal, history suggests that ignoring the entreaty could be a major missed opportunity.
To understand the significance of these talks, it's worth remembering the last time the Olympic Games were held on the Korean peninsula, in 1988. The International Olympic Committee's decision to award the games to Seoul that year came as a surprise. At the time, South Korea was emerging from a coup and bloody demonstrations. Its economy was in tatters, the Soviet bloc was refusing to recognize it diplomatically, and tensions with North Korea were soaring.
It was also a perilous moment for the broader Olympic project. Both the 1980 Moscow Games and the 1984 Los Angeles Games had been tarnished by Cold War-era boycotts. There were serious fears that yet another boycott, this time in support of North Korea, could permanently undermine what legitimacy the Olympic movement still had.
For South Korea's leaders, this presented a risk -- but also an opportunity. If they could successfully shepherd the games, the thinking went, they might rebuild their reputation globally while also placing the North at a strategic disadvantage. That might be worth risking a walkout by countries friendly to Pyongyang.
As it happened, a boycott wasn't what North Korea had in mind. According to a July 1985 memo by an IOC representative, the North's leaders "felt that if they boycotted the Games they would perhaps earn the odium of the whole world and the best way to prove the other side wrong was to ask for a unified team." They ultimately went much further than that, proposing that hosting duties be split between North and South and the games be renamed the "Korea Pyongyang Seoul Olympic Games."
The South was never going to go for that. But wariness over a boycott and the threat of violence at the games did spur counteroffers. The most generous was delivered informally by the IOC in 1986, suggesting that North Korea could host the soccer, archery and table tennis events at the games.
Had the North accepted, it might've alleviated its growing international isolation, at least somewhat. Instead, it spent almost two years pressing for more. That was a strategic error: As negotiations dragged on, the Soviets and their allies undermined the North's position by signaling that they planned to attend the games in any event. Hardliners in the South were more than happy to let negotiations die. A May 1988 memo from an IOC negotiator summed up Seoul's viewpoint as: "Let's humiliate the North with a highly successful Olympics in the South, then we will be able to negotiate from strength."
That, too, turned out to be a miscalculation. The 1988 games were highly successful insofar as they burnished the South's reputation. But humiliating the North only served to strengthen the Kim regime's resolve to withstand international pressure, and build up its military and nuclear capacity. Thirty years later, there's no way to know if sharing even a small part of the 1988 Olympics would've altered that dynamic -- but it's clear that choosing humiliation over cooperation didn't help.
That history was surely on the mind of South Korean President Moon Jae-in last summer, when he proposed a joint North-South Olympic team for Pyeongchang. North Korea rebuffed the overture, noting that organizing a combined team for a 1991 ping-pong tournament required 22 rounds of talks over five months.
As the games approach, however, it's clear that the North is having second thoughts about being excluded from another Olympics hosted by its neighbor. The talks may lead nowhere. But the South should keep an open mind. There are precious few opportunities for the bitter rivals to engage in dialogue and goodwill. And the Olympics provide a rare venue to find common ground -- on a matter that doesn't involve life and death.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Adam Minter is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the author of “Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade.”
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net.
For more columns from Bloomberg View, visit http://www.bloomberg.com/view.
©2018 Bloomberg L.P.
-
Why Amazon And Flipkart Are Struggling To Beat Meesho In India's Smaller Cities
With 274 million users and lowest-cost logistics, Meesho is defending its value commerce crown against giants like Amazon and Flipkart.
-
High US Salaries, No Green Card Certainty: The Financial Calculation Facing Indian H-1B Families
The suspension of PERM processing at eight technology employers does not cancel existing H-1B visas. What it does is force a question many Indian families have been avoiding: is the US salary worth tying your career and family plans to one employer?
-
Swiggy vs Eternal: Food Delivery's Two Rivals Are No Longer In The Same Race
Eternal is building a private AI assistant, dark.ai. Swiggy is still working out how to make Instamart pay, with an operating loss of Rs 895 crore in the July-September quarter while Blinkit stayed profitable.
-
Where You Live Shapes How You Get To Work | The Reason Why
Two-wheelers are the most popular way to get to work in India, accounting for nearly 43% of workplace commutes.
-
Unhedged Position: Can India See An Indonesia-Style Time Correction?
The Nifty is trading below levels it first clocked in 2024. Is there, then, as I have suggested in the headline, potential that the current time correction drags on painfully for the next three-five, even ten years?
-
Navigating Friction And Energy Realities: An Analysis Of Marco Rubio's October Visit To India
Occurring at a critical juncture marked by stalled trade negotiations and escalating geopolitical pressures over global energy supplies, the visit offers a profound window into modern US-India relations.
-
India Exports Capital. Why Not Export Trusteeship?
The big question, then, is whether India can build an institution that global borrowers, investors, banks, and lawyers can trust, even without an Indian connection.
-
France's Economy & Politics Are In Crisis | The Reason Why
Let's look at how the French economy and politics evolved under Nicolas Sarkozy, Franois Hollande and Emmanuel Macron.
-
You May Inherit The Business. You Must Earn Its Credibility.
Succession tests the founder's ability to share authority as much as it tests the next generation's readiness to assume it.
-
Signing Deals Is One Thing; Making Them Work Is Another | The Week In Whys
Sometimes, things don't turn out as planned. Indian companies have lost some bids to rivals, some projects won't produce until 2030.