It was a unique co-operation between two bitter foes: an industrial park that combined South Korean capital with 54,000 North Korean workers.

這是兩個(gè)宿敵之間一項(xiàng)獨(dú)特的合作項(xiàng)目：一個(gè)融合了韓國資本與5.4萬名朝鮮工人的工業(yè)園。

Now Seoul’s decision to shut the Kaesong park, 10km inside North Korean territory, has thrown into doubt the prospects for the 124 companies operating there — as well as the future co-operation between the Koreas and the stability of the divided peninsula.

如今，首爾方面決定關(guān)閉位于朝韓邊境以北10公里的開城工業(yè)園(Kaesong Industrial Complex)，這項(xiàng)決定不僅給在園區(qū)運(yùn)營的124家企業(yè)的前景打上了問號(hào)，還給朝韓之間未來的合作以及這個(gè)分裂的半島的穩(wěn)定蒙上了陰影。

“Litigation will be our last resort,” says Ok Sung-seek, who runs a clothing business at Kaesong and is vice-chairman of an investors’ association. “We trusted the [South Korean] government and invested there, not just for profits, but also to help the effort towards reunification.”

“不得已的話我們只能起訴，”在開城工業(yè)園經(jīng)營制衣業(yè)務(wù)、同時(shí)擔(dān)任一家投資者協(xié)會(huì)副會(huì)長的Ok Sung-seek說，“我們信任（韓國）政府，在這里進(jìn)行投資，不只為了獲得利潤，也是為了幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)統(tǒng)一。”

Last week’s “complete shutdown” of Kaesong came three days after Pyongyang breached international sanctions by testing a nuclear bomb and launching a long-range rocket.

首爾方面上周宣布“徹底關(guān)閉”開城工業(yè)園，是對此前平壤方面違反國際制裁決議進(jìn)行核彈試驗(yàn)和發(fā)射遠(yuǎn)程火箭的回應(yīng)。

The government of Park Geun-hye, which has taken a stern approach to the security threat from North Korea, said it closed the complex to cut off a source of funding for Pyongyang’s increasingly dangerous nuclear programme. But liberal politicians say it has destroyed a unique means of promoting economic and ideological change in the North.

面對朝鮮對韓國國家安全構(gòu)成的威脅，樸槿惠(Park Geun-hye)政府作出了嚴(yán)厲的回應(yīng)，稱關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園是為了切斷平壤方面越來越危險(xiǎn)的核計(jì)劃的資金來源。但開明派政治人士表示，此舉毀掉了促成朝鮮經(jīng)濟(jì)與意識(shí)形態(tài)轉(zhuǎn)變的一項(xiàng)獨(dú)特手段。

The park, opened in 2004, was born out of the first inter-Korean summit in 2000 at the outset of the “sunshine policy” pursued by two successive liberal South Korean administrations.

于2004年啟動(dòng)的開城工業(yè)園是2000年首次韓朝峰會(huì)的成果。2000年，韓國開始對朝推行“陽光政策”(sunshine policy)，這一政策為連續(xù)兩屆開明派韓國政府所奉行。

But the project’s growth was slower than hoped, coming mostly from small companies in labour-intensive “sunset” industries such as clothing manufacturing. New investment was suspended altogether by then South Korean president Lee Myung-bak in 2010, after an investigation found North Korea had sunk one of the South’s naval vessels.

但開城工業(yè)園項(xiàng)目的發(fā)展速度并不盡如人意，園區(qū)的發(fā)展主要來自成衣制造等勞動(dòng)密集型“夕陽”產(chǎn)業(yè)的小企業(yè)。2010年，在一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)朝鮮擊沉了一艘韓國軍艦后，時(shí)任韓國總統(tǒng)的李明博(Lee Myung-bak)全面中止了對該園區(qū)的新投資。

Mr Lee resisted calls to close the park, despite complaints from some conservatives that the “wages” of the workers were paid by employers to Pyongyang.

李明博抵制住了關(guān)于關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園的呼聲，盡管一些保守派人士抱怨稱，雇主們將朝鮮工人的“工資”付給了平壤方面。

In 2024, when Pyongyang shut down Kaesong amid bilateral tensions, the two governments agreed “to guarantee the normal operation of the complex, [which was] not to be affected by inter-Korean situations under any circumstances”.

2024年，當(dāng)平壤方面因朝韓雙邊關(guān)系緊張關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園時(shí)，兩國政府一致同意“保證園區(qū)正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，（園區(qū)）在任何情況下都不會(huì)受朝韓局勢影響”。

Seoul has justified its decision to reverse this pledge by saying the Won616bn ($506m) that flowed into North Korea helped fund nuclear weapon and missile development.

首爾方面為自己破除這一承諾找了一個(gè)理由，稱流入朝鮮的6160億韓元（合5.06億美元）資助了朝鮮的核武與導(dǎo)彈研發(fā)。

Hong Yong-pyo, unification minister, said this week 70 per cent of the money had been used for nuclear and missile development by Kim Jong Un’s regime.

韓國統(tǒng)一部部長洪容杓(Hong Yong-pyo)本周表示，這筆錢有70%被金正恩(Kim Jong Un)政權(quán)用于核武與導(dǎo)彈研發(fā)。

But when lawmakers pushed him for evidence to back the claim, noting that Seoul could have breached UN sanctions if it knowingly funded the North’s nuclear programme, he said the government did not have any. The ministry later backtracked on this and said it had evidence that could not be disclosed.

但當(dāng)韓國國會(huì)議員敦促洪容杓拿出證據(jù)支持其說法時(shí)（議員們指出，如果韓國政府在知情的情況下資助了朝鮮的核計(jì)劃，那它可能已經(jīng)違反了聯(lián)合國的制裁決議），他表示，政府手中并沒有任何證據(jù)。韓國統(tǒng)一部后來修正了這一聲明，表示有證據(jù)、但不能公開。

The confusion, which has prompted calls for Mr Hong’s resignation, has distracted from the real question, says Chun Yung-woo, head of the Korean Peninsula Future Forum, a think-tank.

智庫“朝鮮半島未來論壇”(Korean Peninsula Future Forum)負(fù)責(zé)人千英宇(Chun Yung-woo)表示，這種混亂（已引發(fā)了要求洪容杓辭職的呼聲）分散了對真正問題的注意力。

“It doesn’t make a difference whether Kim Jong Un uses money from this or that pocket,” he says. The industrial park had to be closed, he insists, to bolster South Korea’s diplomatic position as it pushes China and others to impose tougher sanctions against North Korea.

他說：“金正恩用的是這個(gè)兜里的錢還是那個(gè)兜里的錢并不重要。”他堅(jiān)稱，開城工業(yè)園必須關(guān)閉，如此才能強(qiáng)化韓國的外交立場。目前，韓國正推動(dòng)中國及其他國家對朝實(shí)施更嚴(yán)厲的制裁。

“How can we ask other countries to impose a secondary boycott on Chinese companies doing business with North Korea without closing Kaesong?” he asks.

“如果不關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園，我們怎么能要求其他國家對與朝鮮做生意的中國企業(yè)實(shí)施間接抵制呢？”他反問道。

Tensions are likely to rise further in March when South Korea and the US begin their annual joint military exercises, which Pyongyang condemns as practice for invasion. “Shutting down all these channels is dangerous,” says Kim Jae-chun, a professor at Sogang University, adding that Kaesong would not be open again “for a long while”, if at all, given that South Korea had in effect condemned the logic for the project as long as North Korea pursues nuclear weapons. “I think South Korea raised the bar too high,” he says. “It is implausible for the North Korean government to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction altogether.”

今年3月，緊張局勢很可能進(jìn)一步加劇。屆時(shí)，韓國與美國將展開年度聯(lián)合軍事演習(xí)。平壤方面譴責(zé)這些演習(xí)是為入侵朝鮮做演練。韓國西江大學(xué)(Sogang University)教授Kim Jae-chun表示：“關(guān)閉所有此類溝通渠道是危險(xiǎn)的。”他補(bǔ)充說，開城工業(yè)園要想重開可能要等上“很長一段時(shí)間”——前提是真能重開的話——原因是韓國事實(shí)上已經(jīng)宣稱，在朝鮮研發(fā)核武器的情況下該項(xiàng)目已無存在的道理。“我認(rèn)為韓國將門檻抬得太高。”他說，“朝鮮政府不可能完全放棄這些大規(guī)模殺傷性武器。”

The impact of a permanent shutdown at Kaesong would be cushioned for Mr Ok by insurance payments and government compensation, but he believes it would be a disaster for his 300 North Korean employees.

對Ok Sung-seek來說，保險(xiǎn)賠付和政府補(bǔ)償將會(huì)緩解開城工業(yè)園永久關(guān)閉給他造成的沖擊。但他認(rèn)為，永久性關(guān)閉對他的300名朝鮮雇員來說將是一場災(zāi)難。

“I believe a significant amount of money has been going to the workers,” he says, while conceding that he has never been told how much they receive.

他說：“我相信很大一部分錢到了這些工人手中。”但他也承認(rèn)，他從未被告知他們拿到了多少錢。

In the years after he set up his factory in 2007, Mr Ok says, his workers — initially skinny and malnourished — became healthier. But when he returned after the five-month shutdown in 2024, that progress had sharply reversed.

Ok Sung-seek說，2007年設(shè)廠后的幾年里，他手下的工人從最初的皮包骨頭、營養(yǎng)不良變得健康起來。但在2024年，當(dāng)他在園區(qū)關(guān)閉5個(gè)月后回到這里時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)這一態(tài)勢已急劇逆轉(zhuǎn)。

“Everyone seemed to have lost weight,” he says. “They were going back to how they looked at the beginning.”

“每個(gè)人看上去都變瘦了，”他說，“他們又變回了剛來時(shí)的樣子。”

It was a unique co-operation between two bitter foes: an industrial park that combined South Korean capital with 54,000 North Korean workers.

這是兩個(gè)宿敵之間一項(xiàng)獨(dú)特的合作項(xiàng)目：一個(gè)融合了韓國資本與5.4萬名朝鮮工人的工業(yè)園。

Now Seoul’s decision to shut the Kaesong park, 10km inside North Korean territory, has thrown into doubt the prospects for the 124 companies operating there — as well as the future co-operation between the Koreas and the stability of the divided peninsula.

如今，首爾方面決定關(guān)閉位于朝韓邊境以北10公里的開城工業(yè)園(Kaesong Industrial Complex)，這項(xiàng)決定不僅給在園區(qū)運(yùn)營的124家企業(yè)的前景打上了問號(hào)，還給朝韓之間未來的合作以及這個(gè)分裂的半島的穩(wěn)定蒙上了陰影。

“Litigation will be our last resort,” says Ok Sung-seek, who runs a clothing business at Kaesong and is vice-chairman of an investors’ association. “We trusted the [South Korean] government and invested there, not just for profits, but also to help the effort towards reunification.”

“不得已的話我們只能起訴，”在開城工業(yè)園經(jīng)營制衣業(yè)務(wù)、同時(shí)擔(dān)任一家投資者協(xié)會(huì)副會(huì)長的Ok Sung-seek說，“我們信任（韓國）政府，在這里進(jìn)行投資，不只為了獲得利潤，也是為了幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)統(tǒng)一。”

Last week’s “complete shutdown” of Kaesong came three days after Pyongyang breached international sanctions by testing a nuclear bomb and launching a long-range rocket.

首爾方面上周宣布“徹底關(guān)閉”開城工業(yè)園，是對此前平壤方面違反國際制裁決議進(jìn)行核彈試驗(yàn)和發(fā)射遠(yuǎn)程火箭的回應(yīng)。

The government of Park Geun-hye, which has taken a stern approach to the security threat from North Korea, said it closed the complex to cut off a source of funding for Pyongyang’s increasingly dangerous nuclear programme. But liberal politicians say it has destroyed a unique means of promoting economic and ideological change in the North.

面對朝鮮對韓國國家安全構(gòu)成的威脅，樸槿惠(Park Geun-hye)政府作出了嚴(yán)厲的回應(yīng)，稱關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園是為了切斷平壤方面越來越危險(xiǎn)的核計(jì)劃的資金來源。但開明派政治人士表示，此舉毀掉了促成朝鮮經(jīng)濟(jì)與意識(shí)形態(tài)轉(zhuǎn)變的一項(xiàng)獨(dú)特手段。

The park, opened in 2004, was born out of the first inter-Korean summit in 2000 at the outset of the “sunshine policy” pursued by two successive liberal South Korean administrations.

于2004年啟動(dòng)的開城工業(yè)園是2000年首次韓朝峰會(huì)的成果。2000年，韓國開始對朝推行“陽光政策”(sunshine policy)，這一政策為連續(xù)兩屆開明派韓國政府所奉行。

But the project’s growth was slower than hoped, coming mostly from small companies in labour-intensive “sunset” industries such as clothing manufacturing. New investment was suspended altogether by then South Korean president Lee Myung-bak in 2010, after an investigation found North Korea had sunk one of the South’s naval vessels.

但開城工業(yè)園項(xiàng)目的發(fā)展速度并不盡如人意，園區(qū)的發(fā)展主要來自成衣制造等勞動(dòng)密集型“夕陽”產(chǎn)業(yè)的小企業(yè)。2010年，在一項(xiàng)調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)朝鮮擊沉了一艘韓國軍艦后，時(shí)任韓國總統(tǒng)的李明博(Lee Myung-bak)全面中止了對該園區(qū)的新投資。

Mr Lee resisted calls to close the park, despite complaints from some conservatives that the “wages” of the workers were paid by employers to Pyongyang.

李明博抵制住了關(guān)于關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園的呼聲，盡管一些保守派人士抱怨稱，雇主們將朝鮮工人的“工資”付給了平壤方面。

In 2024, when Pyongyang shut down Kaesong amid bilateral tensions, the two governments agreed “to guarantee the normal operation of the complex, [which was] not to be affected by inter-Korean situations under any circumstances”.

2024年，當(dāng)平壤方面因朝韓雙邊關(guān)系緊張關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園時(shí)，兩國政府一致同意“保證園區(qū)正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，（園區(qū)）在任何情況下都不會(huì)受朝韓局勢影響”。

Seoul has justified its decision to reverse this pledge by saying the Won616bn ($506m) that flowed into North Korea helped fund nuclear weapon and missile development.

首爾方面為自己破除這一承諾找了一個(gè)理由，稱流入朝鮮的6160億韓元（合5.06億美元）資助了朝鮮的核武與導(dǎo)彈研發(fā)。

Hong Yong-pyo, unification minister, said this week 70 per cent of the money had been used for nuclear and missile development by Kim Jong Un’s regime.

韓國統(tǒng)一部部長洪容杓(Hong Yong-pyo)本周表示，這筆錢有70%被金正恩(Kim Jong Un)政權(quán)用于核武與導(dǎo)彈研發(fā)。

But when lawmakers pushed him for evidence to back the claim, noting that Seoul could have breached UN sanctions if it knowingly funded the North’s nuclear programme, he said the government did not have any. The ministry later backtracked on this and said it had evidence that could not be disclosed.

但當(dāng)韓國國會(huì)議員敦促洪容杓拿出證據(jù)支持其說法時(shí)（議員們指出，如果韓國政府在知情的情況下資助了朝鮮的核計(jì)劃，那它可能已經(jīng)違反了聯(lián)合國的制裁決議），他表示，政府手中并沒有任何證據(jù)。韓國統(tǒng)一部后來修正了這一聲明，表示有證據(jù)、但不能公開。

The confusion, which has prompted calls for Mr Hong’s resignation, has distracted from the real question, says Chun Yung-woo, head of the Korean Peninsula Future Forum, a think-tank.

智庫“朝鮮半島未來論壇”(Korean Peninsula Future Forum)負(fù)責(zé)人千英宇(Chun Yung-woo)表示，這種混亂（已引發(fā)了要求洪容杓辭職的呼聲）分散了對真正問題的注意力。

“It doesn’t make a difference whether Kim Jong Un uses money from this or that pocket,” he says. The industrial park had to be closed, he insists, to bolster South Korea’s diplomatic position as it pushes China and others to impose tougher sanctions against North Korea.

他說：“金正恩用的是這個(gè)兜里的錢還是那個(gè)兜里的錢并不重要。”他堅(jiān)稱，開城工業(yè)園必須關(guān)閉，如此才能強(qiáng)化韓國的外交立場。目前，韓國正推動(dòng)中國及其他國家對朝實(shí)施更嚴(yán)厲的制裁。

“How can we ask other countries to impose a secondary boycott on Chinese companies doing business with North Korea without closing Kaesong?” he asks.

“如果不關(guān)閉開城工業(yè)園，我們怎么能要求其他國家對與朝鮮做生意的中國企業(yè)實(shí)施間接抵制呢？”他反問道。

Tensions are likely to rise further in March when South Korea and the US begin their annual joint military exercises, which Pyongyang condemns as practice for invasion. “Shutting down all these channels is dangerous,” says Kim Jae-chun, a professor at Sogang University, adding that Kaesong would not be open again “for a long while”, if at all, given that South Korea had in effect condemned the logic for the project as long as North Korea pursues nuclear weapons. “I think South Korea raised the bar too high,” he says. “It is implausible for the North Korean government to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction altogether.”

今年3月，緊張局勢很可能進(jìn)一步加劇。屆時(shí)，韓國與美國將展開年度聯(lián)合軍事演習(xí)。平壤方面譴責(zé)這些演習(xí)是為入侵朝鮮做演練。韓國西江大學(xué)(Sogang University)教授Kim Jae-chun表示：“關(guān)閉所有此類溝通渠道是危險(xiǎn)的。”他補(bǔ)充說，開城工業(yè)園要想重開可能要等上“很長一段時(shí)間”——前提是真能重開的話——原因是韓國事實(shí)上已經(jīng)宣稱，在朝鮮研發(fā)核武器的情況下該項(xiàng)目已無存在的道理。“我認(rèn)為韓國將門檻抬得太高。”他說，“朝鮮政府不可能完全放棄這些大規(guī)模殺傷性武器。”

The impact of a permanent shutdown at Kaesong would be cushioned for Mr Ok by insurance payments and government compensation, but he believes it would be a disaster for his 300 North Korean employees.

對Ok Sung-seek來說，保險(xiǎn)賠付和政府補(bǔ)償將會(huì)緩解開城工業(yè)園永久關(guān)閉給他造成的沖擊。但他認(rèn)為，永久性關(guān)閉對他的300名朝鮮雇員來說將是一場災(zāi)難。

“I believe a significant amount of money has been going to the workers,” he says, while conceding that he has never been told how much they receive.

他說：“我相信很大一部分錢到了這些工人手中。”但他也承認(rèn)，他從未被告知他們拿到了多少錢。

In the years after he set up his factory in 2007, Mr Ok says, his workers — initially skinny and malnourished — became healthier. But when he returned after the five-month shutdown in 2024, that progress had sharply reversed.

Ok Sung-seek說，2007年設(shè)廠后的幾年里，他手下的工人從最初的皮包骨頭、營養(yǎng)不良變得健康起來。但在2024年，當(dāng)他在園區(qū)關(guān)閉5個(gè)月后回到這里時(shí)，發(fā)現(xiàn)這一態(tài)勢已急劇逆轉(zhuǎn)。

“Everyone seemed to have lost weight,” he says. “They were going back to how they looked at the beginning.”

“每個(gè)人看上去都變瘦了，”他說，“他們又變回了剛來時(shí)的樣子。”