*Pyongyang and Seoul are not far from Dorasan Station on the inter-Korean border ⓒiStock
Il Young Jeong
Research Professor_Institute of Social Sciences_Sogang University
Recently, the Ministry of Unification of South Korea reported its plan to start new discussions on unification measures to the President. The South Korean government’s official unification plan is the “National Community Unification Formula”. This unification plan was proposed by then-President Kim Young-sam on August 15, 1994.
The Ministry of Unification announced that it would propose a new unification plan in 2024 in commemoration of the "30th anniversary of the National Community Unification Formula." The situation around the Korean Peninsula and inter-Korean relations have changed beyond recognition over the past 30 years. As such, it seems there is no avoiding discussions on new unification measures. In this article, I would like to ask questions about necessary concerns before discussing new unification measures. Chiefly, I would like to discuss 1) the role of civil society in unification discussions, 2) the issue of unification through discrete ‘phases,’ and 3) the limits of discussing territorial unification.
As of 2023, what has changed since 1994?
The Korean Peninsula of today is extremely different from the Korean Peninsula of 1994 when the National Community Unification Formula was created. First, let’s look at how the international situation has changed. The Cold War began to thaw in the late 1980s. The Soviet Union collapsed and socialist countries in Eastern Europe embarked on the road to change. Around this time, the Roh Tae-woo government established diplomatic relations with socialist countries such as the Soviet Union and China through its policy of Nordpolitik. South Korea also led a new shift on the Korean Peninsula, culminating in the signing of the 1991 “Inter-Korean Basic Agreement”.
However, things look rather different now in 2023. The U.S.-centered world order has been threatened by China and Russia, and the U.S.-China conflict seems to be expanding across the globe and across sectors. The U.S.-China conflict and the war in Ukraine evoke memories of the Cold War and a time when the Northern Triangle (North Korea, China, Russia) and the Southern Triangle (South Korea, the U.S, Japan) confronted each other on the Korean Peninsula. However, these conflicts are expanding beyond the realm of traditional security into the multidimensional realm of the fourth industrial revolution.
Second, we are dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea. The North Korean nuclear crisis, triggered in 1993, seemed to be the last chance at survival for a North Korea collapsing under the death of Kim Il-sung and dire food shortages. The U.S.-North Korea Geneva agreement in October 1994 was like a strategy to try and soften the landing for North Korea’s seemingly pending collapse.
Yet as of 2023, North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. No one officially recognizes North Korea as a nuclear power, but no nation denies that North Korea has nuclear weapons. Now we have to deal with a nuclear-armed North Korea. The bigger problem, however, is that after US-DPRK talks in Hanoi broke down in 2019, North Korea declared that it would guarantee its own safety through nuclear weapons rather than through an agreement with the US.
Third, unification is no longer an indisputable goal with absolute support from the Korean people. The South Korean people's support for unification has continuously declined over the years. According to the 2021 Unification Consciousness Survey conducted by the Seoul National University Institute for Unification and Peace, 44.6% of respondents said that "unification is necessary," while 26% said it was "not necessary." This result represents a 19.2% decrease (from 63.8% to 44.6%) compared to the same question in 2007.
According to the National Barometer Survey(NBS) on July 14th, 2022, respondents saying “[we] would be fine to continue living as they are, without unification" (56%) outnumbered respondent who answered "we must have unification" (41%). In addition, regarding options for a future inter-Korean system, "two countries with free travel in between" received the most votes (52%), while "a unified single country" received only 18%. Support for peaceful coexistence is increasingly popular with younger generations.
Key concerns before discussing a unification plan
There was a time when "unification" always topped the annual "New Year's Wish" survey. Now, unification has long since disappeared from New Year's wishes, and the situation on the peninsula is not good. Scratch that - the situation is worse than ever.
Let's accept our current reality and talk about unification. First, unification is no longer a foregone conclusion. Accepting this fact requires us to place more value on social discussions about unification. Unification is no longer just a political agenda. Unification is a task for all members of Korean society on both sides of the peninsula, and these members have the right and responsibility to play a clear role in this discussion.
Professor Baek Nak-cheong, who has emphasized the concept of 'unification with citizen participation,’ said that since unification is "a gradual process, the possibility of participation by ordinary citizens" will increase the longer the process takes. Baek also highlighted that "the distinction between 'process' and 'end point' itself is ambiguous, and that the concrete details of unification were likely to change in response to the degree and nature of civil participation and develop into unification through opening.” (Baek Nak-cheong, <어디가 중도이며 어째서 변혁인가> Changbi Publishers, 2009). For those of us living on the Korean Peninsula, unification is our problem.
Considering the vast range of opinions about unification, we cannot neglect to mention issues in how we handle education about unification and North Korea. In our current public education system, education about unification and North Korea are not included in the standard subjects. We need to improve from our current state in which many Koreans debate unification without understanding North Korea.
Second, it is unrealistic to attempt to break down and systematize the process of unification in a time like now when the situation on the peninsula has deteriorated. It is necessary to devise principles and implementation strategies for unification that reflect the changed environment. We need to focus on the early stages of unification and be flexible in the middle and final stages so as best to reflect the reality on the peninsula.
As mentioned earlier, public support for peaceful coexistence between the two Koreas has been increasing. This is the result of the complex combination and interplay between the current situation on the Korean Peninsula, inter-Korean relations, North Korea’s own situation, and the Korean people's perception of unification. To make Korean unification into a reality, we must focus on how to move from an initial stage of peaceful coexistence to realizing an inter-Korean union.
Third, we need to break free of the closed-mindedness of territorial unification. Gone are the days when physical space defined inter-Korean relations, much less international relations. It has been a long time since cultural content from each of the two Koreas has successfully secretly crossed the inter-Korean border. It has also been a long time since families of the two Koreas were first connected through mobile communication. But will that be all? In the digital space, the two Koreas are already experiencing a taste of unification thanks to various actors.
In discussing unification plans, how do we define the various unification experiments that are already being carried out in the new, digital arena? Of course, unification will be based on territorial unification. However, the process of unification is already ongoing in various invisible spaces. I have previously suggested the use of digital space as a space for exchange and cooperation between the two Koreas (‘Let's Build a Digital Platform on the Korean Peninsula’). Technology will inevitably lead to situations that the authorities of North and South Korea cannot control. Our unification planning and preparation need to be able to embrace these changes.
Additionally, we should answer the question of “Can we discuss reunification with a nuclear armed North Korea?” This is also a subject of open debate. However, it is clear that denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is a question that must be solved in the process of unification. This is essential to establishing a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and, further, peace in Northeast Asia. (I intend to write a separate article on plans for denuclearizing the peninsula specifically.)
Looking forward to a productive discussion on plans for unification
The South Korean government’s official plan for unification is currently the “National Community Unification Formula”. Now, in discussing new unification measures, it is important to first consider how these new plans will recognize and reflect the changed situation on the peninsula. Unification is a positive agenda for Korean society and the Korean people. Let's work to break away from ideology and factional logic and prepare a productive discussion of unification that maps out a path towards national reconciliation and prosperity.
*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.
*This article is a column published in OhmyNews. https://omn.kr/20281
Comments
Post a Comment