[Global NK Interview] Director Lee Sang-hyun (Sejong Institute)

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4XcKsWl2Yw

Global NK Zoom & Connect [Interview] meets directly with leading Korean researchers studying North Korea to understand the current state of North Korea research through their voices. In this issue, we spoke with Director Lee Sang-hyun of the Sejong Institute, a research institution that meticulously analyzes the changing security environment and develops alternatives to contribute to the development of the nation and society, about the future prospects of unification in Korea. This was an interview that clearly conveyed the role of the Sejong Institute, a private think tank that strives to enhance the quality of domestic research by achieving outstanding accomplishments in the fields of unification, diplomacy, and regional studies.

■ Author: Lee Sang-hyun_ Graduated from Seoul National University with a degree in Diplomacy and received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is currently the Director of the Sejong Institute and head of the American Studies Center, and serves as the President of the Korean Nuclear Policy Society (KNPS). He is also a board member of the Korean Institute for Nuclear Material Management (INMM-K), a member of the National Security Panel at the East Asia Institute, and a member of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (APLN). He has held positions such as researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, Policy Planning Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, visiting researcher at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (ISDP), and visiting fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington D.C. His recent major publications include "The New International Order and Korean Diplomacy Strategy" (2021, co-authored), "The New Diplomacy and Security Equation: Network Competition and Strategic Culture" (2020, co-authored), "National Identity and Korea-China-Japan Relations" (2020, co-authored), "US-China Hegemonic Competition and the Korean Peninsula" (2020), "The Trump Administration's Nuclear Policy: Implications for the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime and the North Korean Nuclear Issue" (2019), "Understanding Contemporary ROK-US Relations" (2019, co-authored), "The Trump Administration's National Security Strategy (NSS): Implications for International Affairs and the Korean Peninsula" (2018), "A Peaceful and Prosperous Korean Peninsula: Realizing Peace on the Korean Peninsula and International Cooperation" (2018, co-authored), "The New US Administration and ROK-US Relations" (2017, co-authored), "Five Years of the Kim Jong-un Regime: Diagnosing North Korea" (2017, co-authored), and "Changes in the Northeast Asian International Order and Our Response Strategies" (2017, co-authored).

Video Transcript

Hello, this is Lee Sang-hyun, Director of the Sejong Institute. It's nice to meet you online. Although the Korean War ended, North Korea and South Korea remain in a state of hostility. Fundamentally, the entire Korean Peninsula is in a state of armistice, not a peace treaty. This armistice state persists, and as North and South Korea have developed disparate systems, the hostility has, in a sense, deepened and continues. Of course, the issue of inter-Korean relations is not isolated; as you know, the international system itself is in a state of considerable flux.

The Cold War ended, but why is the international system still in flux? A new variable has emerged: the US-China strategic competition. The US and China are now in an era of competition, engaging in strategic rivalry and competing over values and systems. In this context, the Korean Peninsula is inevitably situated between the US and China. To elaborate, while the US is a key player, China also maintains close ties with North Korea. Therefore, while the world has become bipolar, the persistence of the armistice regime on the Korean Peninsula, the structure of the international system, and, above all, North Korea's own self-reliance have led to ongoing conflicts, large and small, between the North and South.

Therefore, for peace to be truly realized on the Korean Peninsula, North Korea must also move towards peace, and our North Korea policy and the geopolitical conditions must align for peace to be achieved. A declaration of the end of the war is, literally, a confirmation and proclamation by North and South Korea and the participating countries that the Korean War has ended. For such a declaration to occur, the hostile relationship on the Korean Peninsula must be resolved, and progress must be made on the North Korean nuclear issue. Only then will the conditions be met.

In fact, when our government proposed the end-of-war declaration, North Korea initially responded positively, viewing it as a good policy. However, they attached conditions: the cessation of hostile policies, the suspension of ROK-US joint military exercises, and the lifting of sanctions. This is their stance. Furthermore, there is a slight difference in perspective between South Korea and the US. Our government believes the end-of-war declaration is a political and symbolic declaration without legal or binding force. However, the US is concerned about the possibility of North Korea exploiting the declaration. Specifically, after the declaration, North Korea might argue that if the war has ended, why should US forces remain in Korea, demanding their withdrawal. They might also argue that since the state of hostility between North and South has ended, why should joint military exercises continue. Therefore, for an end-of-war declaration to materialize, it cannot be solely dependent on North and South Korea; it requires the consent of the relevant stakeholders.

It is desirable to proceed in a manner that gains the agreement of the US and China, in particular. However, this has not been achieved so far. One of the primary reasons is that the conditions set forth by North Korea are currently difficult to meet. Moreover, due to the strategic competition between the US and China, there is little incentive for them to cooperate on the Korean Peninsula issue. Consequently, even if the South Korean government strongly advocates for an end-of-war declaration, neighboring countries show little interest, and North Korea itself

shows little positive response. This is the reason. Ultimately, the question of whether North Korea truly desires a state of peace will be the biggest determining factor. As a way to gain some response from North Korea, it is likely that North Korea is facing significant economic and public health challenges due to COVID-19. If we can draw North Korea out through humanitarian aid, that would be a step forward. However, North Korea's official policy is that there are no confirmed COVID-19 cases and zero deaths, thus international aid is unnecessary, and they have shut their doors. This approach is currently ineffective.

In any case, North Korea has acknowledged past issues, so our government must continue to persuade them, and especially the US and China, the relevant stakeholders. This effort must be pursued in parallel. Looking back at past governments, conservative and progressive administrations have had different approaches. Progressive governments tended to focus on engagement with North Korea, while conservative governments prioritized security. However, unification requires North Korea's cooperation. This is a fundamental aspect.

Looking at the policies of past governments, one regrettable reality is that public discussions on unification have become increasingly scarce, public opinion on unification has declined, and especially among the younger generation, the perception of unification is much weaker than in the past. Therefore, in such circumstances, a unification policy that solely focuses on North Korea will be ineffective. North Korea is currently pursuing a parallel development of nuclear weapons and the economy, aiming to become a strong nation in its own way.

In such a situation, no matter how much we advocate for unification, it cannot happen without preparation. Therefore, if our government is to pursue a proper unification policy, the approach of solely focusing on North Korea has reached its limit. Instead, we must work with the international community to create a path for North Korea's survival, providing various forms of assistance and revitalizing North Korea's economy through international financial support. This is what I believe constitutes a truly comprehensive and holistic unification strategy that can lead to unification.

I believe there is a lack of sincerity in the policy. If our government, free from partisan or factional ties and with the genuine consensus of the entire Korean people and a strong will for unification, persuades the US and China, neither the US nor China would oppose it. However, there is already considerable division within our own society regarding the existence of unification, and significant differences exist between conservative and progressive governments. Furthermore, the Korean people themselves are divided on the issue of unification.

Without internal unity and a clear desire for unification, it becomes difficult to persuade neighboring countries, let alone North Korea. Therefore, for a good unification policy, achieving consensus within our own society—whether our people truly desire unification with one heart and one mind—must be the starting point of any unification policy. Inter-Korean relations do not seem to be a simple matter.

North Korea is playing the US against China, and China is also observing the US-China dynamic. South Korea is looking at North Korea, and North Korea is looking at South Korea. Each has its own agenda, which is the current situation on the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, for the next government to pursue a desirable North Korea policy and resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, it must adopt a more comprehensive and strategic mindset than in the past. While engaging with North Korea, we must also lead the way in managing trilateral relations involving North Korea, the US, and China. The Korean Peninsula issue is, in a sense, a highly explosive three-dimensional game. We must manage relations between North and South, relations between North Korea and the US, and relations between North Korea and China, as well as the role of international organizations like the UN in providing financial and economic assistance to North Korea. When these three dimensions of effort are well-coordinated, they can create synergy and bring about unification sooner.

The possibility of unification ultimately depends on whether North and South Korea are willing. If our people, both North and South, truly desire unification and wish for it to be achieved peacefully, then no one in the world can stop it. Therefore, the path to unification is not a solitary one; it begins with consensus within our own society and the determination of North and South Korea. Only then can unification be achieved. To move in that direction, our government must make greater efforts in policy formulation, persuade neighboring countries, and, naturally, significantly strengthen efforts to improve inter-Korean relations.

The Sejong Institute is a leading private research institute. We also conduct government-funded research, but we are fundamentally a private research institution. As such, we are free from the constraints of any particular administration or party and operate independently for the benefit of the nation. Therefore, one could say we provide a basis for objective and rational policy research. However, private think tanks like the Sejong Institute in Korea face limitations in terms of financial resources and operational scope compared to government-funded research institutions.

For example, in countries like the United States, private think tanks are very active, but in Korea, the environment for think tanks to establish themselves is quite challenging. Therefore, public understanding of the activities of private think tanks needs to increase, and the government should recognize them as excellent researchers who accomplish what the government cannot, and provide support for their activities. This is my opinion. Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, think tank activities are severely restricted.

However, international activities are gradually resuming through online platforms. It is somewhat disappointing that my tenure as director coincides with this challenging period, limiting our activities. On the other hand, what is rewarding is coordinating the overall research activities as director and, in my own way, enhancing the international standing of the Sejong Institute by designing and implementing strategies. I believe this is the most rewarding aspect of our work.