hankyoreh

The medalists from South Korea, North Korea and China for mixed doubles table tennis pose for a photo on the podium at the Paris Olympics on July 30, 2024. (pool photo)

Looking at the cold, hard facts, inter-Korean relations passed the point of no return somewhere between August 2018 and May 2022, during the latter half of the Moon Jae-in administration. But even as inter-Korean relations deteriorated, many people still held onto the hope that the bridge hadn’t been burned. Since the Yoon Suk-yeol administration took power in May 2022, however, hostile sentiments have worsened, and some say that the bridge has collapsed. The foundations for inter-Korean reconciliation that existed before have been completely leveled. 
 
The facts tell us that such a diagnosis is not over the top. Since the first official inter-Korean summit in 1971, the period between summits has continued to grow longer. There hasn’t been a single inter-Korean summit since the sports summit of December 2018. 

The Moon administration holds the record for the longest period of time without holding an inter-Korean summit: 29 months. The Yoon administration hit 26 months this past July. At the current trajectory, it will certainly break the Moon administration’s record. On the other side of the Pacific, the Joe Biden administration looks like it will end its term without engaging in any dialogue whatsoever with Choson.* (See editor’s note below)

Dialogue is not the only thing that has been discontinued. There have been zero instances of inter-Korean travel by boat, plane or railway since 2019. Since 2021, no car has crossed the inter-Korean border, meaning no human has made the trip. This is the longest period of discontinued inter-Korean travel since Statistics Korea began collecting data in 1989. 

As the number of living Koreans with family members across the border continues to dwindle, the cultural and psychological bonds between the two Koreans are also fading. Yet not all metrics have fallen to absolute zero. While human interaction, cooperation and trade are absent, the two Koreas continue to exchange balloons filled with waste and political language. Meanwhile, loudspeakers continue to disrupt the DMZ’s characteristic silence as they blast messages northward.  

What’s going on? Hostile sentiments between the two Koreas grow more intense by the day. It’s not an exaggeration to say that inter-Korean relations are the worst they’ve been since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991. Not only have exchange and dialogue disappeared, the two countries are now openly referring to each other as “enemies” while they escalate the level of their threats. 

Geographically, we are next-door neighbors. Politically, however, we couldn’t be further apart. This political difference displaces the people of the Korean Peninsula into tragedy. Both the physical proximity and the political estrangement are represented in the balloon launches and loudspeaker broadcasts, which have only triggered people’s sense of disgust on both sides of the border. We can fill balloons with propaganda leaflets or waste and launch them across the border. We can wheel loudspeakers to the border and blast rhetoric to the other side. We can do these things because we are close. We also do such things because we are estranged. 

We need to view the situation from a more fundamental perspective. The biggest issue in contemporary inter-Korean relations is that the “old regime” is quickly deteriorating, while the “new regime” is completely mysterious and unpredictable. The old regime was reflected in the inter-Korean relationship that lasted from the July 4 South-North Joint Communiqué of 1972 to the Sept. 19 comprehensive military agreement of 2018. 

Although this relationship was always unstable, and exhibited several rocky moments, it was never as hostile as inter-Korean relations are today, where dialogue has been completely halted. Never before had the option of reigniting the conversation been cleanly swept off the table. The general premise was that no matter how bad things get, both sides ultimately seek a form of reunification. This premise has now been shattered. 

If that’s the old regime, what’s the new one? Nobody knows yet, but those who look carefully can find a general outline. Both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea attained UN membership in August 1991. At this point, the international community officially recognized the two Koreas as separate countries. Yet both countries still clung to their respective ethno-national concepts of “a unified Korean people,” with each side refusing to relent to the other’s vision of reunification. Having failed to resolve their post-war hostilities, the two Koreas could not address each other on a nation-to-nation basis. 

Last year, however, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un made the unprecedented declaration that inter-Korean relations have become “completely fixed into the relations between two states hostile to each other and the relations between two belligerent states,” abandoning the ethno-nationalist vision of his predecessors. 

The Yoon administration responded by calling Kim’s statements “anti-nationalist” and “anti-unification,” intensifying his calls for unification via a “northward march of freedom” and the instillation of liberal democracy in Choson. Such moments contain the origins of the chaos and confusion we’re experiencing. Looking to shed the policies of his predecessors, Kim Jong-un is becoming more hostile toward South Korea in his campaign to construct a new regime, while the Yoon administration is resurrecting the hostilities of the old regime. 

Media reports also show that South Korea is stuck in the old regime. When South Korea established relations with Cuba in February 2024, a lot of outlets claimed that the only UN member nation that South Korea has not established relations with is Syria. Yet this is incorrect, for North Korea is also a UN member. 

During the opening ceremony of the 2024 Paris Olympics, one of the announcers mistakenly referred to South Korea as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” the official name of North Korea. South Korean journalists all reported that “South Korea” had mistakenly been introduced as “North Korea.” Yet technically speaking, this is also inaccurate. Obviously, Olympic organizers made a huge mistake, but perhaps the international community shares some responsibility, for everybody around the world has grown so accustomed to the name “North Korea” that they forget that Choson exists as its own separate state, according to international law. 

Earlier, I assessed that both literal and figurative bridges connecting the two Koreas have crumbled. If that is the case, what should we do? While accepting the status quo may be the easy way out, the problems surrounding inter-Korean relations haven’t disappeared from the face of the earth, nor will they any time soon.

Since the two countries share the same land, rivers, sea and sky, animals can easily spread infectious diseases across the border, and major rainfall or major droughts will create problems about both the abundance and lack of water. Also, the pollution in the DMZ, an absolute treasure trove of biodiversity, created by the ceaseless back-and-forth of leaflets, trash-filled balloons, and noise, is threatening all kinds of life. 

Those are not the only things we should be preoccupied with, however. The two Koreas share geopolitical fault lines where maritime and land-based forces are constantly butting heads. So if movement surrounding geopolitical faults intensifies, earthquakes or other major conflicts will inevitably occur on the Korean Peninsula. 

It is impossible for us to completely turn our backs on one another since we are too close geographically and inhabit spots that are far too sensitive from a geopolitical view. Moving the country to another location simply because we are unhappy with who we share our borders with isn’t plausible either.

We may have our good days and our bad days, but when we are neighbors who need to coexist with each other no matter what, we need to spend a lot of time pondering how we should start to solve various problems. Now, it is time for us to think about whether we wish to mend the broken bridge, or if we will focus on building a new one from scratch.

I believe we should lean toward the latter. Rather than concentrating on resurrecting old systems, I believe it is better to discover new ones. In order for that to happen, we should start by embracing the concept of a “post-North Korea.”

I came up with that term when I was commissioned by the quarterly journal Hwanghae Review to write a piece for their 2024 spring issue that would “start a new conversation concerning the disastrous failure of inter-Korean relations and peace on the Korean Peninsula.”

The term suggests that we should no longer rely on preconceived notions of North Korea, but see the country for what it is now in the present: Choson. Considering inter-Korean relations from an international relations point of view, we should no longer insist that the two countries have a “special interim relationship stemming from the process toward reunification,” but approach North Korea like we would any other foreign country. While the various agreements and rules based on the “special interim relationship” between the two countries have fallen through, we should create a new international order based on the UN Charter that both South Korea and Choson will be happy with.

This approach will bring instantaneous changes as well as make sure that we secure a different future for ourselves. Firstly, this will change the landscape of the international sports scene.

Starting in fall of 2023, whenever South Korean reporters would refer to DPRK athletes as “North Korean,” DPRK officials would protest, causing awkwardness and hostility to ensue.

If the South Korean press uses “Choson” to refer to the DPRK, Choson athletes have no reason to refuse to answer, and the atmosphere at press conferences will be a lot more mellow. Since opportunities for South Korea and Choson to interact outside of sport have dwindled significantly, the change this will bring is not small.

International regulations can be utilized to solve conflict surrounding the exchange of propaganda leaflets and trash-filled balloons, as well as the issue of loudspeaker broadcasts. Of course, such actions should be stopped regardless of international norms.

We should also remember that such actions, which are characterized by hostility and fueled by emphasizing the “special relations” between the two Koreas, violate the UN Charter, the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Civil Aviation Organization airport code, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

It is in this context that, given the breakdown in inter-Korean relations, we can argue that international agreements provide the basis for coexistence and conflict prevention.

One of the biggest benefits that come with the concept of “post-North Korea” is that it will enable us to bring about change that is favorable to us. Up until now, we have kept quiet about feats that have raised Korea’s international standing because of possible ties to North Korea or refused to discuss them after labeling them as acts of betrayal. However, if we surrender our initial preconception of North Korea and recognize Choson as an independent country, many changes will take place. 

Both South Korea and Choson are members of the UN, and the fact that one member state designates another as a state enemy is not in line with the UN’s universal values.

By amending or scrapping its National Security Act, South Korea will be able to enhance its standing as a liberal democracy, which has been recommended by both the UN Human Rights Council and the US State Department. While this argument may seem to disregard national security, the solution here is to change the National Security Act so that there will be legal consequences for any country that violates South Korea’s sovereignty and security, instead of singling out Choson as a rogue state. This approach is one already adopted by many other countries.

We have wasted too much energy as a country and as a society on upholding the special relationship between the two Koreas, as can be seen in the theory calling for unification by force in the case of an emergency, which can be seen as a violent manifestation of the special relationship theory.

If we ignore this argument entirely, we could go a long way toward transforming Korea, which is facing multiple complex crises. This would make possible increased funding for the livelihood of the people by reducing the defense budget, which is skyrocketing out of proportion. The introduction of a military recruitment system as opposed to mandatory military service would make way for active discussions on core issues of South Korean society such as inequality, gender issues, low birth rates, and the sharp decline in the working-age population. Scaling back the US-South Korea joint military drills, which are by far the largest in the world, would reduce military tensions and greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the theory calling for unification by force in the case of an emergency is not in line with the UN Charter, which calls on members to “respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of other states.” The same goes for Choson’s declaration that it will use force in times of war to absorb South Korea. Therefore, if South Korea and Choson revise their military strategies to comply with the UN Charter, it could fundamentally change the paradigm of inter-Korean relations.

The change brought in inter-Korean relations by recognizing each other as two separate countries will also allow a new approach to the issue of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. 

While complete denuclearization has been emphasized in dialogue surrounding nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, internationally, the concept of nuclear-weapon-free zones is more widespread.

Nuclear-weapon-free zones allow countries within the specific zone to receive international guarantees to realize denuclearization through treaties. If South Korea and Choson sign a treaty to make the Korean Peninsula a nuclear-weapon-free zone, both countries will be able to seek international legal guarantees from the five international nuclear powers on the non-use, non-threat, and non-deployment of nuclear weapons.

As such, learning to embrace the concept of “post-North Korea” and accepting the fact that the two Koreas are two very different countries can put a variety of issues on the table for discussion. The concept can also be used to slowly alleviate hostility toward one another to avoid the possibility of military conflict and waste fewer resources — tangible and intangible — to support the country we perceive North Korea to be. Instead, we can use such resources to solve our own problems. Not only will this benefit us and allow progress in line with universal values to take place, but it will also bring harmony to inter-Korean relations and peace to the Korean Peninsula.

This is not completely at odds with the hope of reunification, as, in the long run, such tactics could help us establish a supranational political organization like the European Union.

By Cheong Wook-sik, director of the Hankyoreh Peace Institute and director of the Peace Network

*Editor’s note: For more on why the author uses “Choson” to refer to North Korea, see his column: ‘Choson’: Is it time we start referring to N. Korea in its own terms?

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]

(Getty Images Bank)