Prof. Jae Chun Choe teaches at Seoul National University where he is a professor at the School of Biological Sciences. He received his PhD from Harvard University and had taught at Tufts University and the University of Michigan before returning to Korea . He is also a research associate at the Harvard Museum of Natural History. He is an author of numerous articles and books on the ecology and evolution of social behavior and mating systems. He has received the Asian Environmental Award in 2002 for his effort in promoting public awareness of environmental issues through his newspaper columns and public lectures.

HAQ: According to proponents of the preservation of the DMZ, it is known to be a rich repository of biodiversity. Could you go into more detail about what constitutes this biodiversity and what specific benefits are to be expected implementing an ecologically-sensitive policy in this area?

CHOE: At the present time we do not have the exact measure of biodiversity in the DMZ, because all nature surveys thus far have been conducted not in the interior but in the vicinities. Nonetheless, it is generally believed that the DMZ harbors approximately 1/3 (nearly 1,000 species) of the total plant biodiversity, 1/5 (more than 60 species) of birds, and 1/2 (30~40 species) of mammals on the Korean peninsula. The DMZ and its border areas also provide a critically important stopover for a number of migratory birds. Among them are three of the world’s most endangered birds: the red-crowned crane, the white-naped crane, and the black-billed spoonbill. Its ecological importance is immeasurable.

HAQ: Aside from policy-makers, how does the general South Korean public feel about the case for preserving the DMZ and how much of it is related to their aspirations for unification in the future?

CHOE: Ecological awareness of the general South Korean public has increased tremendously in recent years. I can say with confidence that it certainly surpasses the level of awareness policy-makers and government officials seem to have at this moment. Most people in Korea would support the idea of preserving the DMZ as a nature reserve. When it mingles with issues of unification, however, it is very difficult for anyone to voice environmental concerns that might be construed as an obstacle to the unification process. Patriotism suddenly overthrows environmentalism. It is not an easy task.

HAQ: Why is there heightened awareness now for the preservation of the DMZ and is this in any way a result of the policy of engagement vis-à-vis North Korea (“Sunshine policy”) initiated by the Kim Daejung administration (1998-2003)?  

CHOE: Preservation of the DMZ became the talk of the town more or less out of desperation. We know that we do not have much time. If we don’t mobilize soon, the biodiversity of the DMZ will be lost forever. Many think that the Sunshine policy of the Kim Daejung administration has laid out the groundwork for the implementation of the DMZ policy as we now know. But I personally think that the policy has hurt rather than helped the preservation of the DMZ biodiversity by hurrying the negotiation process for dubious political purposes and with emphasis on economic development. It may have provided a stage for future talks but in reality it is killing the diversity. However ironic it may sound, peace brings death to the DMZ. Quickened peace-building will surely turn out to be deadly.  

HAQ: How did pre-Kim Daejung administrations in Korea deal with this issue?  

CHOE: The Kim Daejung administration was not the first one to deal with the issue of the DMZ preservation. Previous administrations have also made many plans and attempts. The most noteworthy was the suggestion put forward by the former President Kim Youngsam on 15 August 1994 , which clearly stated the plan to convert the DMZ into a nature park. The Kim Daejung administration opened up a peace channel that has had little to do with the DMZ issue.  

HAQ: How willing is North Korea to cooperate with the South in preserving this area? Is it realistic at all to expect this kind of cooperation? How can the North Korean government be led to believe that this is also a matter upon which the two Korean governments must work together?

CHOE: The important thing is to convince the North Korean government that preserving biodiversity in the DMZ will bring military stability and economic prosperity to the North as well. Let me focus on the second issue. At least in the South, people are beginning to understand that tourism offers far greater added value than traditional smokestack industries. The South Korean government has been and still is putting an enormous effort to bring international tourists to Korea . I am not certain that it is a well-directed policy though. Korea is a small and beautiful country, but there are many beautiful places in the world. To date most foreigners who have been to Korea have visited Panmunjum among other places. Even in a unified Korea , I think that the biggest attraction Korea could offer is the history of the last divided nation and its unexpectedly-acquired environmental treasure in the former DMZ. Nothing short of keeping people away from nature is sufficient for nature to heal itself. Nowhere is this more evident than in the DMZ. Since the armistice agreement made on 27 July 1953 only a half a century has passed. Before the Korean War the natural environment on the Korean peninsula was already being threatened due to widespread hunger. The war not only made the lives of the people worse but also that of wildlife. In these few years, however, this ‘no man’s land’ has made a miraculous comeback as one of the most ‘bio-diverse’ areas in temperate regions. If Korea fails to make money out of this, I don’t know where else Koreans can. Computer chips, cars, ships? But for how long and at what cost?

HAQ: Why, in any case, would the two Koreas be willing to forgo the potential economic benefits to be gained from the Gyeongui-Donghae Railway Project in favor of the preservation of wildlife in the DMZ? What kind of specific economic benefit is expected from this project?

CHOE: As we speak, both the Gyeongui and Donghae Railways are being connected. It seems too late to stop them. What worries me is that many more railways and roads are waiting to be re-connected as the unification process goes on. Two more disconnected railways, and six national roads and as many as 6-8 provincial roads are the candidates. Roads through nature always lead to death. The DMZ in fact is not that large an area. It is a narrow strip of land 248 kilometers in length and only 4 kilometers in width. Ecologists have learned that much biodiversity is lost if you cut up a natural habitat into smaller fragments. The effects of such habitat fragmentation have been documented widely and thoroughly. If we have any intention or dream of preserving a reasonable level of biodiversity and utilize it for purpose of eco-tourism, we’d better think about this seriously. In addition, I want to add my sincere hope that someday we can re-build the Gyeongui and Donghae Railways as overpasses so that the animals trapped in the DMZ can freely move to the coastal areas once again.

HAQ: Do you feel that South Korea ’s engagement policy towards the North has been too much driven by economic or political motivations? If so, what alternative policies coming from which other political forces would work better as far as environmental issues between the North and South are concerned?

CHOE: Yes, very definitely so. Even if I accept that the Sunshine policy was among the best options we could adopt at the time, I don’t think it is a policy we can keep forever. At the start of the Rho Muhyun administration I suggested ‘the Green policy’ as an alternative to the Sunshine policy. The color green symbolizes nature as well as prosperity. Rather than giving financial support to the North more or less unconditionally, the Green policy will help North Korea implement a self-supporting system. It is a policy of helping the one who helps itself. The transition in welfare policy in the United States may provide a good case study. From an environmental viewpoint, I can suggest that we can begin with the greening of North Korean mountains. We have done it in the South and achieved economic growth along with it. Surely, the North should be able to do it as well.

HAQ: Tell us about what is being said about the preservation of the DMZ in international academic and policy circles.

CHOE: Many international organizations such as UNEP, UNDP, IUCN and UNESCO unanimously support the idea of making the DMZ as a peace park or nature reserve. Recently the DMZ Forum has been active in organizing symposia and raising public awareness. Professor Ke Chung Kim of Pennsylvania State University and Professor Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University, both active members of the Forum, have written an op-ed article on the DMZ that appeared in The New York Times on December 10, 2002, in which they called for North and South Korea to discuss the issue of developing the DMZ into a ‘peace park.’ During the summer of 2003 I had a chat with Ed Wilson about this issue. We half-jokingly came up with the idea of naming the park either ‘ Kim Jungil Park ’ or “ Kim Ilsung Park .’ Why not? If that can get attention from the North, why not?

HAQ: What policy proposals are you putting forward for a more environment-friendly highway construction? What would be the anticipated “extra” cost of pursuing more environmentally-friendly policies, such as the underpass/overpass roads proposal in the NY Times article?

CHOE: As I said before, we may not be able to do anything about the two railways that have been re-connected. But for all railways and roads that may get re-connected in the future, I demand in no uncertain terms that they be built in the form of an overpass or underpass. This is highly feasible since such roads would extend over a length of only 4 kilometers. South Korea is about to embrace the age of high-speed bullet trains which will start running on the first day of this April 2004. Much of the country’s high-speed rails have been built on huge overpasses and about half the length is under ground. We have the technology. We only need the will. I have not calculated the cost myself, but we should be able to do it.

HAQ: You argue that the DMZ has important environmental implications outside of Korea as well. What exactly are these and what stake do neighboring countries ( China , Russia , etc.) have in supporting the preservation of this area?

CHOE: The DMZ provides home for as much as 20% of the world’s red-crowned cranes, 50% of the world’s white-naped cranes, and perhaps 90% of the world’s black-faced spoonbills. These are among the most critically endangered species of birds. People have drawn lines between nations but nature does not know of such borders. The three nations, China , Japan , and South Korea , have recently formed a joint ecological society called the East Asian Federation of Ecological Societies (EAFES) to promote cooperation among three nations in ecological research and environmental protection. Eventually we would like to include ecological societies of other neighboring countries, most notably Russia . The DMZ is not only a Korean issue. It concerns the entire Far East .

HAQ: How does the proposed environmental policy towards DMZ fit into South Korea ’s general policy towards the environment? Is environmentalism generally an important political issue in South Korea ?

CHOE: As I said before, environmental awareness and knowledge of the general public in South Korea , are in my opinion, excellent. We have many active environmental NGOs and their activities are well publicized, but I am afraid that environmentalism is not yet an important political issue. It always takes the backseat to economic issues. I have suggested that the DMZ issue be put on any diplomatic tables that discuss peace between the two Koreas but it hasn’t really happened yet.

HAQ: How does conservation of the DMZ fit into the military goals of the DMZ? Would this compromise the defensive capabilities of South Korea ?

CHOE: Johan Galtung, Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Hawaii and the European Peace University as well as the founder of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), has proposed to convert the DMZ into the ZoP (Zone of Peace). He suggested to hoist the flags of both South and North Korea in the ZoP. Then, it becomes a sort of zona inejecutable, the zone where a precise boundary can not be established between the two states, or the zone of shared stewardship.. I think that’s a great idea. Of course, we need to come up with a peace-building code of conduct that both Koreas can observe. A mutual peace-making effort is a stronger defense than barbed-wire fences and mines. 

HAQ: Who would be responsible for the environmental policy? An international group? A joint committee of North and South Koreans? Is there a constant danger that environmental issues would become another politicized issue that creates even more tension between the countries?

CHOE: I am a firm believer that we, by which I mean the people of South and North Korea , should always be at the center of and be responsible for any unification and peace-building effort. I hope that the governments of both Koreas begin talks to form a joint committee immediately. The committee should consist of not only government officials but also ecologists, business people, and possibly NGO representatives. That way we can minimize the possibility that the DMZ project becomes a political issue. It would be even better if we form an additional committee, say an advisory committee, consisting of representatives from such international organizations as UNEP, UNDP, IUCN and UNESCO.

HAQ: Who would finance the conservation efforts? Who would be accorded rights of access to this area? Would the decision to assert control over the DMZ under the banner of environmentalism lead to disputes over property rights to the region either now or in the future?

CHOE: Although the ecological importance of the DMZ extends beyond the borders of Korea , I still think that we, the Koreans, should assume the financial burden of the conservation project. Considering the economic situation in the North, I am afraid that much if not all of the burden will fall onto the South. I do hope that environmentally inclined funding agencies such as WWF, the Getty foundation, Nature Conservancy, and others will join the effort. On the issue of who takes control over the shared DMZ, we can take heuristic lessons from the establishment of two international parks, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Peace Park at the border between Botswana and South Africa and Cordillera del Condor Peace Park between Peru and Ecuador . One important difference we must note here. Unlike these previous cases, which were essentially the problem of ‘two states, two nations,’ the DMZ case is the problem of ‘one nation, two states.’ In the long run, the latter should have a brighter future.