UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced at a press conference last week that he is willing to visit North Korea to try to ease tensions heightened recently by that country's expansion and testing of nuclear its capabilities and the UN Security Council's imposition of sanctions.

Compare this proposed trip (not yet agreed to by the North Koreans) to the Secretary-General's trip to Myanmar (Burma) not long ago seeking to mediate differences between Burma's iron-fisted leadership, the democratically elected president long held under house arrest, and the outside world. To put it bluntly, Mr. Ban Ki-moon was stiffed by the Burmese generals. Viewed from the outside, his trip appeared to accomplish nothing. But he made the effort and perhaps there were back-channel communications that we can never know that left a marker of concern, if nothing else.  

In the case of North Korea, his effort to arrange a visit carries, at the very least, the same globally symbolic weight that his presence did in Burma. But there is a difference. The North Korean leadership is equally obsessed with power and equally intransigent, to be sure. However, the Secretary-General is formerly the foreign minister of South Korea and knows the North Korean situation intimately --its issues, challenges, opportunities, language and culture. There is reason to believe that his visit could achieve not a breakthrough but the beginnings of a dialogue of differences, which is a precondition of a dialogue of understanding.

I visited Pyongyang a decade ago and met with government leaders, the Kim Il-sung University president and professors, school teachers and principals, and even attended a protestant church service. I would not wish to overstate what I learned, but several things were evident.

a) It is difficult to exaggerate the human, political and economic costs of a country of 23 million people being totally isolated from the modern world, while enduring the hardships of relentless deprivation, starvation, floods, and a bankrupt ideology enforced with overwhelming military might.

b) The state ideology is buttressed at every turn with massive symbols, ceremonies and displays of national pride, which, in the process, manipulate and degrade the population.

c) Children are prized, just as in South Korea, but they are also starving--for food, obviously, but also for what is beyond their imaginations . . . truth, freedom, justice, and opportunities for personal and social fulfillment. The leaders embrace the tradition of loving their children but not enough to grow them and secure their future.

d) There is a person-to-person level of diplomacy that is probably more accessible than among political leaders of nations. Whether the Secretary-General can (or will attempt) to tap into that is an open question. But consider this. After spending a day of discussions with a philosophy professor, he and I went to dinner. In relaxed conversation he explained how shocking my visit had been for him. His father and a childhood friend were killed in an American air raid and, as he said, "All I've known all my life is that I hate Americans. But now I've met one, and we're alike." With tears streaming down his face, he embraced me.

I have no illusions about the difficulties of connecting to people, and especially leaders, in such places as North Korea and Burma. But it is well known that diplomacy has many faces. In the case of North Korea, I believe that some new access points, diplomatic initiatives, if you will, might include academic, cultural, and social interactions with ordinary U.S. people, beyond those already existing between the people of North and South Korea.

The North Koreans underscored with me ten years ago, as they did in an announcement a few days ago, that they are eager to engage the U.S. in diplomatic discussions. As we have found, such an engagement is fraught with twists and turns, feints and gamesmanship. It may be, however, that even now there are persons in that country still open to what has come to be called "soft diplomacy." I would encourage the Secretary-General to explore this possibility.

-- Ben Ladner