[Global NK North Korea Reading] Ha Young-sun Edition (Part 3: Korean Peninsula Unification and South Korea's Security Interests)

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cZ7dCiHpzI

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Overview

In this [Global NK North Korea Reading] Ha Young-sun Edition (Part 3: Korean Peninsula Unification and South Korea's Security Interests), Ha Young-sun, Chairman of the East Asia Institute (EAI) and Professor Emeritus at Seoul National University, discusses the spatial and temporal meanings of the unification issue and the concept of unification in the 21st century.

As part of its Global North Korea project, EAI has been conducting 'Global NK North Korea Reading: North Korea Stories Told by Experts (hereinafter referred to as Global NK North Korea Reading)' through video interviews with domestic and international experts. The project aims to provide timely and in-depth analysis of current issues through Q&A sessions with experts in relevant fields. The content of this interview represents the personal opinions of the interviewee and does not reflect the position of the East Asia Institute. Please cite the source when quoting Global NK North Korea Reading.

Video Script

Lastly, I would like to ask for your views on unification. I want to ask a very fundamental question: how much will unification contribute to South Korea's security? What must be protected in this regard? I want to look at it a bit more broadly: is unification necessary for us? Why do we say, 'Our wish is unification'? This is probably the first question. If it is necessary, then what kind of unification is needed? This might be the second question. Personally, I have a few thoughts. First, I think the spatial meaning of unification is very important. Second, the temporal meaning is important. What do I mean by spatial meaning? When did unification become important? If we look back at history, unification, both in the East and West, and the concept of unification that we commonly use today in the context of the North-South Korean unification, emerged with the advent of Western modernity. Unification became important with the establishment of the modern nation-state system. It was argued that unification was necessary for the people of a region to make a living, and for a certain political order. Thus, countries like Great Britain, France, and later Germany were unified. It was believed that unification would allow for more efficient overcoming of poverty and the fear of death. In the mid-19th century, when the West came to Korea, we also emphasized this, and unification in the modern sense became important for us. However, in the process of experiencing division, we underwent unification under Japanese colonial rule, and after Japan's defeat in World War II, we were divided again due to the Cold War. This has become a very late homework assignment for us. Personally, I believe that the most important issue for us in the 21st century is not unification, although it is important. The reason is that the factor that most critically determines the fate of the people living on the Korean Peninsula in the 21st century is how the Asia-Pacific order is unified or how it is constructed. The impact on us will be overwhelmingly large. It's easy to think about this. If we consider unification, North and South Korea combined have a population of about 77 million, with a per capita income of around $30,000 for the South and $1,000 for the North. Even if these are combined, it will be difficult to achieve explosive growth in the Asia-Pacific region simply by merging economies.

Conversely, if we consider the Asia-Pacific region, with China's rapid growth, its economy is moving from $10,000 to $20,000 per capita at a very fast pace. Even looking at the current situation, China's economy is about $15 trillion, the US's is $20 trillion, Japan's is $5 trillion, and ours is $1.5 trillion. Southeast Asia is about $1 trillion. If we combine these regions, the total exceeds $40 trillion, and the global economy is less than $100 trillion. This means 50% to 60% of the global economy is concentrated in this region. It is clear as day that how much of this power we can utilize will critically determine our fate. Even though the sun is shining right in front of us, we keep thinking, 'This is what we should prioritize.' Therefore, I strongly believe that we must prioritize securing our survival and development rights within this newly forming Asia-Pacific order. This is what the younger generation should strive for.

Second, unification. I think the second is domestic unification. To exhibit dynamism, as you know, the South has a much greater power in many aspects. Nevertheless, the reason we cannot converge this power into one is that it is difficult to mobilize strength easily. If we could explode this power into one, we could exert tremendous force. However, from an external perspective, foreigners might think, 'Is there an internal conflict?' If this is the case, the effort to sublimate this is perhaps the second unification. Third is North-South unification. Fourth, if we consider it, it might be beyond the Asia-Pacific space, such as the newly emerging cyberspace, as we are doing now. How can we expand our influence in cyberspace? These are efforts that require thinking about spatial situations. If we achieve unification in these five areas, everything will be resolved. We will find new breakthroughs in the Asia-Pacific space, and our relationships will improve. This is a matter of changing the direction of our thinking. Currently, if we consider how to utilize the distribution of power in the world, the second point is that we must consider unification in terms of time. As I mentioned briefly earlier, unification is a very modern concept. Of course, unification existed in ancient times, such as the unification of the Three Kingdoms, and China's unification in Asia. However, the unification we are discussing in the media refers to the unification of the modern nation-state or ethnic state. This is a recent phenomenon. However, are the contents of unification all the same? Especially since we are divided, what is the concept of unification in the North, and what is the concept of unification in the South? Furthermore, among the older generation in the South, is their concept of unification the same as that of the younger generation? Given these diverse concepts of unification, what kind of unification should we pursue in the 21st century? I think I have preempted the question.

If we are to resolve this, my usual thought is that the new generation in the 21st century needs to have a slightly new concept of unification. I believe a new concept of unification that goes beyond the traditional meaning of North or South unification is necessary. Personally, when I explain this, I suggest the need for a new concept like 'network unification.' For example, the concept of unification held by the North, as seen in the political landscape of South Korea since 1945, has been expressed as military unification. In the 1960s, it became difficult to achieve unification through force, so the North considered unification through revolution, combining the three revolutionary capabilities. In the South, the priority was economic development. The principle was not 'military first' but 'economy first.' What was the result? The result is that South Korea has relatively secured a solid economic foundation.

Conversely, the path chosen by the North, paradoxically, even with its choice of nuclear weapons and three revolutionary capabilities, has not been able to overcome the economic challenges due to various sanctions. If this is the case, which unification plan should be chosen between the North's and the South's? I don't think the new generation necessarily has to choose. This is because the protagonists, the stage, the acting, and the narrative of the 21st century are already changing. Therefore, unification that fits this context will be needed. What kind of unification am I talking about? I believe that if unification occurs between the North and South, which currently have a population of 77 million, both the South and the North will face significant difficulties. So, what is a more desirable method? Is it not more feasible to achieve unification through a process where the North quickly develops into an advanced or developed country, thereby reducing the economic and socio-political gaps between the two Koreas? The 'network unification' I mentioned earlier implies that the North and the South, each as protagonists, pursue their own survival and development, and simultaneously, instead of being in an adversarial relationship, they become integrated in a networked manner. Externally, this could represent a very preliminary state of national integration. Simultaneously, in such a case, it would go beyond the Korean Peninsula and extend to external relations with Japan, China, the US, Russia, and other countries. This is no longer an era where we can talk solely about sovereignty.

This is very 19th century thinking. To use a common expression, the 21st century already embodies the concept of shared sovereignty. In English, 'shared sovereignty' is a term that reflects this idea. Europe is trying to implement this, and Canada and the US are already doing so. In this context, the North and South should develop their own sovereignty, survival, and development rights healthily. The question is how to guide North Korea in that direction. This requires a phased approach. Second, while maintaining their individual existences, they should manage their external relations together. Finally, external relations should no longer be based on a zero-sum game, as expressed by North Korea, or on the idea of always winning. The idea of 'not losing' is very 19th century thinking.

If we are to proceed with this, my usual thinking is that the new generation of the 21st century needs to have a somewhat new perspective on unification. I believe a new vision of unification, beyond the traditional sense of North or South, is needed. Personally, when I explain this, I suggest the need for a new concept like 'network unification.' This is because the North's perspective on unification, even looking back from 1945, has historically been expressed as military unification, as seen in the political landscape of South Korea. In the 1960s, it became clear that military force alone would not suffice. Therefore, the North considered 'revolutionary unification,' combining the three revolutionary capacities. Meanwhile, South Korea at the time prioritized economic development as a prerequisite for unification, focusing on economic strength rather than military might. What was the result? Consequently, South Korea has established a relatively stronger economic foundation.

The path chosen by the North, paradoxically, along with the path chosen by the South, namely nuclear weapons plus the three revolutionary capacities, has led to a situation where it cannot achieve economic prosperity today amidst various sanctions. If this is the case, then the question arises: which unification plan should be chosen between the North's and the South's? I don't think the new generation necessarily agrees with this. This is because the protagonists of the 21st century, their movements, stages, and performances are already changing. Therefore, a suitable approach will be needed. What kind of unification am I referring to? In my opinion, if North and South Korea, currently numbering 80 million people, were to unify someday, both the South and the North would face significant difficulties. So, what approach is more desirable? It would be more desirable if the North were to quickly pursue a path toward becoming a developed or advanced country, thereby reducing the economic and socio-political gaps between the two sides.

How can we resolve this? Our neighbors, Japan, China, and the US, are larger than us. Can new ideas emerge from Korea or the Korean Peninsula that encompass all of them and move forward together? The 'network unification' I advocate suggests that for the 21st century, the concept of 'unification under heaven' should be re-envisioned. I want to tell the new generation to think more broadly than just North-South unification. If this is the case, is it not necessary to pursue unification efforts that go beyond the current conflicts between Seoul and Pyongyang, or between the ruling party and the opposition? I believe that we need to think about unification in terms of new axes of time and space. When we use the term 'we' often, it is important to consider what 'we' truly means. This will be the way for young people to discuss unification more effectively and healthily.

This is a very 19th-century way of thinking. To use a common expression, the 21st century already embodies the concept of shared sovereignty. In English, 'shared sovereignty' is a term that reflects this idea. Europe is trying to implement this, and Canada and the US are already doing so. In this context, the North and South should develop their own sovereignty, survival, and development rights healthily. The question is how to guide North Korea in that direction. This requires a phased approach. Second, while maintaining their individual existences, they should manage their external relations together. Finally, external relations should no longer be based on a zero-sum game, as expressed by North Korea, or on the idea of always winning. The idea of 'not losing' is very 19th-century thinking.

How can we resolve this? Our neighbors, Japan, China, and the US, are larger than us. Can new ideas emerge from Korea or the Korean Peninsula that encompass all of them and move forward together? The 'network unification' I advocate suggests that for the 21st century, the concept of 'unification under heaven' should be re-envisioned. I want to tell the new generation to think more broadly than just North-South unification. If this is the case, is it not necessary to pursue unification efforts that go beyond the current conflicts between Seoul and Pyongyang, or between the ruling party and the opposition? I believe that we need to think about unification in terms of new axes of time and space. When we use the term 'we' often, it is important to consider what 'we' truly means. This will be the way for young people to discuss unification more effectively and healthily.

Yes, and therefore, I am reminded once again of the need for the four major strategic pillars presented by Global N.K. Thank you, President Ha Young-sun, for your insightful remarks. This concludes our special feature on unification with President Ha Young-sun from Global N.K. We look forward to your subscriptions and likes.