The Unwelcome Trio: the dangerous, the ignorant, and the strange

[정일영]

[The Korean Odyssey]

*The Forgotten Dialogue Between North and South Korea: Is Unification an Impossible Dream? @iStock

Il Young Jeong

Research Professor_Institute of Social Sciences_Sogang University

There was a movie titled The Good, the Bad, the Weird, set in Manchuria during the Japanese colonial period. Recently, another trio has emerged on the Korean Peninsula: the dangerous one, the ignorant one, and the strange one. These terms refer to Kim Jong-un, Yoon Suk-yeol, and Im Jong-seok. 

Kim Jong-un, the "Dangerous One"

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un claims his development of nuclear weapons is for self-defense. However, he now threatens the people of South Korea, saying he could launch nuclear weapons toward the South. By denying the ethnic kinship between North and South and threatening peace on the Korean Peninsula, Kim Jong-un is indeed a “dangerous one.”

Furthermore, Kim portrays the relationship between North and South Korea as one between two hostile, warring states. In a speech at the Workers' Party of Korea’s Central Committee meeting on December 30, 2023, Kim argued that the inter-Korean relationship "is no longer that of a shared nation, but that of two hostile states, two warring countries.“

In his address to the Supreme People’s Assembly on January 15, he even advocated for the removal of terms like "independence, peaceful unification, and national unity" from the constitution. Kim’s assertion of a "hostile two-state relationship" disregards the will of the people on both sides and endangers peace on the peninsula(Interpreting Kim Jong-un's Statement on the 'Hostile Two-State Relationship' Regarding Inter-Korean Relations).

Another reason Kim Jong-un is "dangerous" is that he is endangering himself. Denying the unification principles handed down by his predecessors, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, is a dangerous move for a North Korean leader, as his political legitimacy rests solely on being their descendant.

Yoon Suk-yeol, the "Ignorant One"

President Yoon Suk-yeol introduced his "unification doctrine" during his August 15 Liberation Day address. He emphasized that "complete liberation remains an unfinished task, to be realized only when a unified nation of freedom, democracy, and sovereignty is established across the entire Korean Peninsula." However, Yoon's unification doctrine is, in fact, a product of ignorance.

Yoon’s "unification doctrine" had been prepared since his administration began in 2022. It was meant to build upon the Korean National Community Unification Formula, which was introduced 30 years ago. After two and a half years of preparation, the result was disastrous.

The unification doctrine openly mocked the Korean National Community Unification Formula, revealing a clear intention for reunification through absorption. Notably, the strategy for "inter-Korean relations" was entirely omitted, leaving only strategies focused on domestic, North Korean, and international efforts(The South Korean government's unification doctrine is deeply disappointing). At a time when the economic risks of the Korean Peninsula were hurting South Korea’s global standing, the plan offered no approach to handling inter-Korean relations.

Yoon often speaks of "freedom, democracy, and human rights," but it’s doubtful that he has deeply reflected on what these values truly mean. Under his government, South Korea’s freedom, human rights, and democracy are more threatened than ever. A 2024 report from the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Sweden categorized South Korea as a nation experiencing "democratic backsliding.“

Did Yoon, during his career as a prosecutor, ever take time to reflect deeply on the values of freedom and democracy? Probably not. Every time his ignorant mouth speaks of freedom, democracy, human rights, or unification, these noble ideals seem to lose more of their true significance.

Im Jong-seok, the "Strange One"

The immediate reason for writing this piece is this "strange one," Im Jong-seok. He is a former Chief of Staff in the Moon Jae-in administration and the person who led two inter-Korean summits in 2018. 

However, on September 19, 2024, during the 6th anniversary event commemorating the Pyongyang Joint Declaration in Gwangju, he made a "bombshell declaration." He opened his speech with the words, "Let’s not pursue unification," and went on to advocate for accepting "two nations," as North Korea has proposed.

As expected, the major media outlets used "Let’s not pursue unification" as their headline. Let’s break down what he meant behind these provocative words. After all, his argument should be conveyed as it is.

Im Jong-seok suggested that, just as the Roh Tae-woo administration pragmatically adapted to the international situation at the end of the Cold War and promoted Northern diplomacy, we should abandon unrealistic discussions on unification and accept the reality that both Koreas are independent nations exercising sovereignty in the international community. However, unlike Kim Jong-un’s "hostile two-state relationship," he advocated for "two peaceful, national states" that "respect each other, help one another, and live happily together."

He proposed that South Korea accept this reality of "two peaceful states" and remove unification from the constitution, laws, and policies. He suggested abolishing Article 3 of the constitution, which defines South Korea’s territory as the entire Korean Peninsula, and called for the repeal of the National Security Law, the dissolution of the Ministry of Unification, and shelving of the Korean National Community Unification Formula.

He also argued that because the premise of unification hinders active peace measures and reconciliation, we should "shelve unification discussions entirely" for about 30 years.

Criticism of the Strange One’s Argument

While I have previously analyzed and written articles about the “Dangerous One” and the “Ignorant One,” I now offer a separate critique of the “Strange One’s” argument.

#1. The Manner of Raising the Issue

First, we must address the way Im Jong-seok presented his claim for the so-called "two peaceful states." His argument is certainly one that can be debated within South Korean society, and, in fact, the idea of "two peaceful states" has been cautiously discussed within progressive circles. However, it was cowardly of him to deliver this claim at the 9.19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration Commemoration, as if representing the authority of former President Moon Jae-in and the dignitaries present.

There are already suspicions that his claim may have been coordinated with former President Moon beforehand. The preamble of the 9.19 Pyongyang Joint Declaration emphasizes the commitment to "work toward fulfilling the aspirations and desires of all Korean people to advance inter-Korean relations toward unification." By making a unilateral declaration that rejects unification without any reasonable discussion, Im has tarnished the spirit of the Pyongyang Declaration.

#2. Does Abandoning Unification Bring Peace?

Second, Im Jong-seok argues that because the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) are already recognized as two separate states in the international community, we should accept this “reality.” This argument has been made before and may seem compelling in some ways, as this approach could lead to more effective methods of achieving peace and unification. I, too, believe that acknowledging the reality of "two peaceful states" may eventually become necessary. But not now. Why?

As Im himself mentioned, the Roh Tae-woo administration quickly adapted to the international dynamics of the post-Cold War era by pursuing Northern diplomacy. However, today the situation is the opposite, with conflicts around the Korean Peninsula intensifying. At a time when tensions between the U.S., China, and Russia are rising, his argument for "cooperation and peaceful coexistence" seems far too complacent.

South Korea’s influence on inter-Korean issues has stemmed from the "special relationship" between the North and South, as established in the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement. This agreement acknowledges that the North-South relationship is not one between two states, but a "special relationship temporarily formed during the process toward unification." Recognizing North Korea as a separate state in a time of ongoing conflict on the peninsula would mean abandoning this "special relationship" and forfeiting South Korea’s leverage.

There are no guarantees that unification is inherently good, as he suggests. However, setting aside the debate over whether unification is right or how it should be achieved, we must recognize that, in order to exert influence over Korean Peninsula issues, and to create what Im calls "irreversible peace," South Korea must leverage this special relationship. Now is not the time to leave peace on the Korean Peninsula in the hands of anarchic international politics. We must ask ourselves whether it is even possible to "abandon unification and choose peace," and do so with cold objectivity.

#3. Rejection of Unification

Lastly, we need to reconsider Im Jong-seok’s claim that shelving unification will lead to an agreement on peace because both North and South Koreans supposedly harbor strong resistance to the idea of unification. Im cites the actions and words of the “Dangerous One” and the “Ignorant One” as evidence. But the real question is what the people of North and South Korea think. Do the people of both Koreas really reject unification, as he claims? I disagree.

I do not believe that Kim Jong-un’s "hostile two-state relationship" is entirely accepted within North Korean society(Interpreting Kim Jong-un's Statement on the 'Hostile Two-State Relationship' Regarding Inter-Korean Relations). Kim’s position poses a dangerous challenge to the ideology of his predecessors, and North Koreans may not easily accept it either.

Is unification truly a cause of strong resistance among South Koreans? Again, I disagree. Certainly, since the inauguration of the Yoon administration, public sentiment regarding unification in South Korea is at an all-time low. However, support for unification remains significantly higher than opposition, even in these troubled times. Ironically, despite the worst inter-Korean relations in recent history, unification still garners substantial support. If younger generations are developing resistance to unification, it is largely the fault of the older generation.

Im Jong-seok suggests "sealing off" discussions on unification and leaving the future of the peninsula to future generations. This is an utterly irresponsible suggestion. It is true that discussions on unification by the government and the older generation should include the opinions of future generations and create space for their decisions. However, delaying unification for 30 years and leaving it for future generations to "figure out later" is no different than saying, "We’ll deal with it when our national pension fund runs out.“

Im Jong-seok’s proposal for “two states” is now part of the ongoing conversation, and it is a topic that should continue to be discussed. However, the manner in which he raised this issue and the logic he employed could provide ammunition to far-right groups and media outlets that seek to label advocates of peaceful unification as anti-unification forces. I hope that, moving forward, a rational and productive debate about peace and unification on the Korean Peninsula will take place, regardless of ideological affiliations, whether progressive or conservative.

*IL-Young Jeong is a research professor at Sogang University in Seoul. His key research interests include North Korea's social control system, inter-Korean relations, and peace on the Korean Peninsula.