“North and South Korea's two-state theory is not good enough” 

The patriots who sacrificed their lives are weeping

Lee Young Jong

Director of the North Korea Center of the

Korea Institute for National Strategy

1. Introduction

Memorial Day is not just an anniversary of remembrance or memory. It is a "Day of Responsibility" that asks back what kind of hardships our proud Republic of Korea was born in and whose identity has been preserved at the expense and dedication, and furthermore, it is a commitment to protect the precious national body.

In this context, when we reflect on the reality of our liberal democratic republic, our heads bow in shame. The communal consensus of liberal democracy and capitalist market economy has long disappeared, and all kinds of confusion, foul play, and disorder are rampant. Above all, the indicators and belief system for achieving a unified state on the Korean Peninsula as the ultimate whole have collapsed, and the expectations seem to be becoming increasingly vague. Eventually, it came to a serious situation in which the constitutional values related to 'unification' were openly ignored.

It was not the permanentization of division that the national spirit tried to protect. During the Korean War, it was a unified nation, not a half-liberal system south of the armistice line, that the ROK and UN forces defended with blood. Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that 'the territory of the Republic of Korea shall be the Korean Peninsula and its annexed islands'. In addition, Article 4 states that "the Republic of Korea aims for unification, and establishes and promotes a peaceful unification policy based on the basic liberal democratic order.“

2. The Ministry of Unification, whose unification policy disappeared

However, North Korea's third-generation hereditary ruler, Kim Jong-un (general secretary and chairman of the State Affairs Commission), established a territorial clause at the Supreme People's Assembly in March and began calling the armistice line the so-called "inter-Korean border." The so-called two-state theory was brought up when the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea argued that it is a relationship between the 'state and the state'. This can be said to be an extension of the first initiative of the hostile line against South Korea, pointing to South Korea as the first main enemy at the plenary session of the Labor Party in December 2023.

Kim Jong-un's "hostile two-state theory" institutionalizes the view that "there are only two mutually hostile countries, Joseon and South Korea," away from the perception that the two Koreas are tentatively divided into a nation-state. The point is summed up in three ways. First, unification is removed from the future goal, secondly, the two Koreas are defined as completely separate countries, and thirdly, South Korea is assumed to be a hostile other rather than a counterparty to unification.

This is a measure that effectively seals the issue of unification in a vacuum. This argument is far removed from the fact that the basic agreement between the two Koreas defines the two Koreas as "tentative special relations aimed at unification."

The problem is that the argument that seems to accept North Korea's hostile two-state theory is also rising within South Korea. And it baffles us that the epicenter of the chaotic disturbance is the ministry in charge of unification policy. Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, who is the head of the group, calls North Korea a "peaceful two-state aimed at unification" and calls it a "Korean" and shows a behavior close to a "Korean relationship."

In the wake of the controversy, the Ministry of Unification claims that "it does not approve North Korea as a legal state, but it is actually an expression that recognizes its nationality." He also spews words that are close to sophistry, such as that they are not unconstitutional and do not contradict previous government policy lines.

3. Unconvincing Unification Ministry behavior

The stay process of North Korea's "My Hometown Women's Soccer Team," which visited South Korea for the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) club competition in May, and the North's behavior revealed during the game clearly showed how serious the two-state theory is throwing confusion into our society. Some expectations and arguments that "reconciliation and exchange through sports" have become old records in the face of Kim Jong Un's hostility toward the South. It also became an opportunity for the blatant denial or attempt to undermine the identity of the Republic of Korea, which is prevalent within our society, to be revealed as it is.

In fact, it was pointed out that the scene was transformed into a site of political and ideological conflict beyond a soccer field as slogans, pickets, and various symbols of the South and North Korean cheering squad were mixed even in the rain on the day of the game. In addition to unilaterally supporting North Korea, the cheering squad came out when "Suwon FC" player Women missed the penalty kick.

When the authorities did not allow the national flag to be brought into the Suwon Sports Complex, a meaningful North Korean defector who was cheering by drawing the shape of the national flag on the drawing paper was restrained by officials. However, the North Korean team took out the North Korean flag and walked on the ground. The Korean national flag cannot be hung in the middle of Korea, and the North Korean flag is fluttering.

The government authorities and a group of reckless people acted as if they were denying the state of the Republic of Korea, and the North Korean women's soccer team's visit to South Korea was excited as if it were a messenger of exchange and cooperation, but the conclusion was disastrous. Watching the North Korean team thoroughly turning away from them not only at the airport entrance but also at the stadium, the biggest sense of shame may have been some forces who were anxious to "cheer for" North Korea.

Contrary to their wishes, North Korea used the soccer team's visit to South Korea as a test to shape and institutionalize Kim Jong-un's hostile policy toward the South. They rejected the framework of inter-Korean exchanges that had been established for more than half a century as a "special relationship aimed at unification" and worked hard to implement the principles and methods they established.

One of them is that they completely ignored the procedures and practices for entry and exit between the two Koreas and took procedures at the level of "state-to-state." The North Korean athletes and executives arrived at Incheon International Airport and went through identification and related procedures with the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' passport. It is the first time that the country has been established, not the between the two Koreas.

Originally, for North Koreans to visit South Korea, a "Visit South Certificate" issued by the Minister of Unification should be issued and a memorandum of personal security of the South Korean Minister of Public Administration and Security or the Commissioner of the National Police Agency should be delivered to the North. And a kind of list of South Korean visitors called "album" and simple personal information will come. Human exchanges have taken place between the two Koreas through such procedures, and North Korea has completely broken them this time and gone through trade immigration procedures between countries. On top of that, it is not known at all what countermeasures the Unification Ministry and Minister Chung of the Lee Jae-myung administration took and insisted on complying with existing practices in North Korea. In fact, it is in line with North Korea's demands.

Minister Chung Dong-young's failure to visit the soccer game can also be said to be the aftermath of North Korea's hostility toward the South and the establishment of a "state-to-state" relationship. As the Minister of Unification, I would have thought that I should watch the inter-Korean sports games on the spot, but that was not the reality. From North Korea's point of view, the coming of the Unification Minister to the match between South Korea and North Korea runs squarely counter to Kim Jong-un's two-state theory, and if he accepts it, not only the squad but also the executives will be severely punished. If North Korea persists, "If Jung Dong-young does not leave, we will boycott the game," it could be a big disgrace. It is in this context that the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism attended the event and the Minister of Unification did not go.

4. Establishment of a unification policy that is faithful to constitutional values

Chung and the Unification Ministry, who have poured 300 million won (3,500,000 U.S. dollars) in taxpayers' money into organizations that unilaterally supported North Korea, are a failure. When it was revealed that an official from the Ministry of Unification visited Suwon FC and delivered 1 million won in encouragement money, soccer fans and public criticism flooded in, saying, "Are you spending a lot of money on cheering for North Korea and spending money on our team?" This is the result of everyone clinging to "looking at North Korea" without principles, and the Ministry of Unification and Minister Chung brought it on themselves. It goes without saying that trust in North Korea's policy has fallen to the ground. This is expected to act as a burden for the government's policy promotion in the future.

Even now, the Lee Jae-myung administration needs to set the principle of unification, which is a constitutional value, for the Republic of Korea, North Korea, and to clarify it to the people. Above all, a clear line should be drawn on both North Korea's hostile two-state theory and its variant, Minister Chung Dong-young's so-called "peaceful two-state theory." Legally, the Inter-Korean Relations Development Act has already nailed "inter-Korean relations are not relations between countries, but special relations," and the Constitution also clearly stipulates unification orientation and liberal democratic basic order. Therefore, it should be noted that the formal adoption of the expression 'two-state relations' in policy and discourse clearly contradicts the Constitution.

In addition, it is necessary to maintain the principle that North Korea can be recognized as a realistic negotiating partner and de facto governing organization, but does not use expressions that recognize it as a 'separate state' under the constitution. At the same time, North Korea's hostile two-state theory should be clearly refuted through diplomatic and security channels, and the international community should continue to explain the Republic of Korea's constitutional position on the unification of the Korean Peninsula. In addition, while expressing a willingness to provide humanitarian aid and exchange and cooperation with North Korea, it should maintain a strategy that combines sanctions, pressure, and normative criticism against North Korea's nuclear and missile development or human rights oppression, as well as attempts to eradicate unification.

In particular, the Unification Minister and high-ranking officials should coolly consider the impact of a single expression on North Korea, the international community and domestic public opinion. We must face the strategic pitfalls hidden in the words 'peace' and 'coexistence', that is, North Korea's offensive to induce and force us to choose false peace while effectively giving up unification.

What we should recall on Memorial Day is that the peace that the national spirit tried to protect was not a "peace of submission and resignation," but a "peace that guarantees freedom and dignity." Memorial Day asks us again. "Whose sacrifice does this freedom and prosperity you enjoy stand on?" The question is also being asked, "What will you give up and choose today for the future of the Korean Peninsula that your ancestors longed for?" The Republic of Korea, which the national territorial decree tried to protect, was not a timid and self-negative country that accepted division as a fait accompli and recognized North Korea's dictatorship as another country. The country they dreamed of was a unified Korea where freedom and human rights, the rule of law and responsibility were rooted throughout the Korean Peninsula.

Memorial Day should be a desperate warning in this ironic situation in which North Korea changes its constitution to constitutionalize the "hostile two-state theory" and our unification minister repeatedly uses the false expression of "peaceful two-state relations." It is true that peace that gave up unification and coexistence that dimmed its identity will not last long.

History and geopolitics do not allow gaps. If we lower the baseline of unification by ourselves, the gap will be filled by North Korea's totalitarianism and the calculations of interests of neighboring powers. In this context, what we need now is not a vague hope that "it will be unified someday," but a cold-headed determination to expand the values and constitutional order of the Republic of Korea, which was protected by the spirit of national security, to the entire Korean Peninsula.

Unification is not an ideal of the distant future, but an ongoing task today that determines what words we use, what policies we choose, and what education and discourse we will build the future through. Memorial Day is sending a silent rebuke and warning to the people who turn a blind eye to its calling. It is our responsibility to set reunification as a national goal of the Republic of Korea again.

Note: The views expressed herein may differ from those of the Hansun Foundation

(※ It's a translation based on machine translation)