Il Young Jeong
Research Professor_Institute of Social Science_Sogang University
On December 3 of last year, political turmoil erupted in South Korea following the declaration of martial law by former President Yoon Suk-yeol. This crisis ultimately concluded with Yoon's impeachment. Now, South Korea is preparing for an early presidential election. The people’s courageous stand against the coup attempt has safeguarded democracy, and their choice at the ballot box is just one month away.
The daunting array of domestic and international challenges ahead leaves no room for complacency. South Korea now faces a presidential election amid what may be the gravest national crisis in its modern history.
This article proposes policy alternatives concerning the Korean Peninsula that the new government should consider. In particular, it offers suggestions for how inter-Korean relations should be managed going forward.
The Growing Distance Between South and North Korea
Inter-Korean relations today differ markedly from those of the past. There is no meaningful dialogue, nor are there any ongoing exchange or cooperation projects. Yet, the current state is not one of acute military tension or imminent conflict either. Instead, a sense of unprecedented distance has settled over the relationship between the two Koreas.
Since the breakdown of the U.S.–North Korea summit in Hanoi in February 2019, inter-Korean relations have remained effectively frozen. A critical blow came in June 2020, when North Korea demolished the Inter-Korean Liaison Office. This deterioration was further compounded when the Yoon Suk-yeol administration adopted a hardline stance toward the North in the latter half of 2023. By the end of that year, Kim Jong-un escalated the situation by declaring what he termed an "hostile inter-state relationship." As a result, the gap between the two Koreas has widened even further.
The psychological distance between the two Koreas has grown just as much as the physical distance. According to the 2024 November survey on unification attitudes conducted by the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, when asked, “What is North Korea to us?”, the most common response was “a partner for cooperation” at 39.9%. This was followed by “a hostile entity” at 22.3%, “a subject of caution” at 18.6%, and “a competitor” at 8.4%. Notably, the proportion of respondents who viewed the North as a “hostile entity” was the highest since the survey began.
This worsening perception of North Korea is also negatively affecting public attitudes toward unification. The percentage of South Koreans who believe “unification is necessary” has declined steadily from 59.7% in 2018 to a historic low of 36.9% in 2024. Meanwhile, those who believe unification is unnecessary have reached a record high of 35%. Among people in their 20s and 30s, the proportion opposing unification is more than twice that of those supporting it. In terms of the perceived timeline for unification, 39% of respondents said it is “impossible”—the highest figure ever recorded.
How, then, should we understand this growing distance between the South and the North? And how should the new administration make use of this distance in managing inter-Korean relations?
Sometimes, a ‘Proper Distance’ Is Necessary
We often say that maintaining a proper distance is essential in relationships. Whether with friends, romantic partners, or family members, an appropriate level of distance can foster mutual respect and help sustain stable connections. Shouldn’t the same principle apply to inter-Korean relations?
A significant distance has already developed between the two Koreas. Forcing a rapid restoration of closeness or hastily trying to ease the resulting discomfort may lead to conflict. It is now the task of the new administration to acknowledge this distance and focus on managing inter-Korean relations in a stable and pragmatic manner.
Let us revisit the Seoul National University survey mentioned earlier. When asked what the most important goal of the South Korean government’s North Korea policy should be, 63.9% of respondents chose “peaceful coexistence between the two Koreas and the establishment of peace on the Korean Peninsula.” This figure was significantly higher than those who selected “North Korea’s reform and opening, and the formation of an inter-Korean economic community” (21.6%) or “national unification” (14.3%). Furthermore, in response to the statement “North Korea should be regarded as a separate state,” 52.1% agreed, while only 11.3% disagreed.
What the South Korean public wants from the new administration's North Korea and unification policy is clear: peaceful coexistence between the two Koreas and the establishment of lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. The question now is: how can we transform this “proper distance” into a foundation for peaceful coexistence and enduring peace?
Institutionalizing the “Proper Distance” Between the Two Koreas
Where does the instability in inter-Korean relations come from? The Korean Peninsula remains a conflict zone under an armistice, not a peace treaty—meaning the war has technically never ended. The very structure of division inherently breeds instability. A key contributing factor is the lack of institutionalization in inter-Korean relations. In 1991, South and North Korea signed the “Basic Agreement,” in which they declared that their relationship was not that of two states, but a “special relationship” formed in the process toward unification.
This special nature of inter-Korean relations can be effective—when relations are stable. The idea of a “special relationship” has served as a rationale to allow broader flexibility in exchanges and cooperation. However, relations between the two Koreas are not always positive. This makes it all the more essential to institutionalize inter-Korean relations so that they remain stable even amid the ups and downs of regional dynamics.
In fact, the “September 19 Military Agreement,” which the Yoon Suk-yeol administration suspended in June 2024, served as a crucial safeguard for the stable management of inter-Korean ties. The new administration should prioritize restoring this agreement and take immediate steps to halt mutual hostile acts along the Demilitarized Zone.
Next, the institutional frameworks that define inter-Korean relations must be overhauled. First and foremost, domestic laws in both South and North Korea need to be revised to ensure that inter-Korean agreements are upheld. In the aforementioned Seoul National University survey, 65.2% of respondents agreed that past inter-Korean agreements should be honored, compared to 29.9% who disagreed. This suggests that the South Korean public supports institutional stability in inter-Korean relations—even amid ongoing tensions between the two sides.
Furthermore, it is necessary to formally acknowledge the appropriate distance between the two Koreas and conclude a reference treaty that enables mutual peaceful coexistence and co-prosperity on the Korean Peninsula. Similar to how East and West Germany signed the Basic Treaty, South and North Korea could establish a so-called “Inter-Korean Basic Treaty.” Such a treaty would involve mutual recognition and set up a legal and institutional framework to manage relations. Within this structure, exchanges and cooperation could proceed while maintaining a “proper distance” conducive to sustainable coexistence.
“It’s the Economy”? Not Without Peace on the Korean Peninsula!
As in the past, the dominant theme of this presidential election is, without question, the economy. However, this time, we must look at the bigger picture. In the aftermath of the December 3 coup attempt, the foremost tasks are restoring democracy and rebuilding peace on the Korean Peninsula—arguably the greatest geopolitical risk facing the South Korean economy. In the new administration’s efforts to rebuild the Peninsula, peace must be treated as a core national agenda item—on par with economic recovery.
This presidential election must become an opportunity to seriously reflect on how South Korea will restore its democracy and rebuild peace on the Korean Peninsula. More specifically, it should prompt a meaningful search for concrete strategies to reconstruct inter-Korean relations.
*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.
Comments
Post a Comment