[Global NK Commentary] From Unification to Peaceful Coexistence: A Paradigm Shift in North Korea Policy is Needed

"Our wish is unification"

For decades since the division of the Korean Peninsula, unification has been considered the ultimate goal of North Korea policy that our government must achieve. For instance, the Syngman Rhee administration argued for "unification by force through a northward advance," denying North Korea's statehood and legitimacy based on the logic that "the government of the Republic of Korea is the only legitimate government in the Korean Peninsula recognized by the UN." From the perspective of the Syngman Rhee administration, North Korea was merely a puppet regime illegally occupying the inherent territory of the Republic of Korea, namely "the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands" as defined by the Constitution, and was an entity to be eventually expelled and absorbed through unification.

This official government stance of viewing North Korea as an entity to be eventually expelled and absorbed through unification has been largely maintained in its broad framework by successive governments to this day, despite several constitutional amendments and changes in administration since the Korean War. Notably, the current Constitution, amended in October 1987, not only retains the territorial provision (Article 3) stating "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall be the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands" but also adds Article 4, which stipulates "The Republic of Korea shall pursue unification and shall establish and pursue a peaceful unification policy based on the fundamental order of liberal democracy," thereby specifying unification as a constitutional value that the Republic of Korea must pursue.

Based on these constitutional provisions, successive governments of the Republic of Korea launched after the democratization in 1987 have set unification as the ultimate goal of their North Korea policy, although their approaches to North Korea have varied depending on the nature of the government. For example, the Kim Young-sam administration, launched in 1992, adopted the "Three-Stage Plan for Building a Korean National Community (abbreviated: National Community Unification Plan)," which consisted of Stage 1: Reconciliation and Cooperation, Stage 2: South-North Federation, and Stage 3: Completion of a Unified State, as the government's official unification plan. This formalized the establishment of a single state of 'one people, one nation, one system, one government' through South-North unification as the ultimate goal of our government's North Korea policy. This official government stance has remained largely unchanged in its broad framework over the past 30 years, despite several changes in administration between progressive and conservative governments.

Increasing Negative Perceptions of the Need for Unification

Despite the current Constitution's emphasis on the necessity of unification and the government's official stance, recent public opinion in our society shows a steady increase in negative perceptions regarding the need for unification. In fact, according to the <Unification Consciousness Survey> conducted annually by the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University since 2007,[1] the response that unification is necessary, combining 'very necessary' and 'somewhat necessary,' recorded the highest figure of 63.8% in 2007 and has continuously declined since then, reaching a low of 43.8% in the 2023 survey, the lowest since the survey began in 2007. Conversely, the response that 'unification is not necessary,' combining 'not very necessary' and 'not at all necessary,' increased from 15.1% in 2007 to a high of 29.8% in the 2023 survey (see <Figure 1>).

<Figure 1> Trend of Perceptions on the Necessity of Unification (2007-2023) (Unit: %)

<Figure 2> Trend of Views on Unification (2007-2023) (Unit: %)

Furthermore, regarding views on unification, as shown in <Figure 2>, the proportion of respondents who believe it is better to "wait for conditions to mature and gradually unify" rather than rushing unification is on a downward trend. Conversely, the proportion of respondents who prefer "the current state of division" and those who "are not very interested in unification" are on a steady upward trend. In the 2023 survey, the proportion of respondents who preferred "gradual unification" fell to its lowest level since the survey began in 2007, at 45.2%. In contrast, the proportion who preferred "the current state of division" and those who "are not very interested in unification" rose to their highest levels since the survey began in 2007, at 28.2% and 9.9%, respectively. These trends suggest a growing indifference towards unification in our society and an increasing preference for the current state of division.

Peaceful Coexistence is More Important than Unification

Meanwhile, regarding the goals of North Korea policy, the results of the <Unification Consciousness Survey> show that the vast majority of the public prefers 'peaceful coexistence and peace settlement'—maintaining the division between South and North Korea while ceasing hostility and coexisting peacefully—over 'unification,' where the two Koreas merge into one state. As shown in <Figure 3>, when asked "What do you think should be the most important goal of our government's North Korea policy?", over 60% of respondents chose 'peaceful coexistence and peace settlement,' while only less than 20% responded 'South-North unification.'

<Figure 3> Goals of North Korea Policy (2021-2023) (Unit: %)

Conclusion

The results of the <Unification Consciousness Survey> briefly examined above indicate that as time has passed and generations have changed since the division, negative perceptions and indifference towards the necessity of unification have increased in our society. Furthermore, the vast majority of the public prioritizes 'peaceful coexistence and peace settlement'—maintaining the division between South and North Korea while ceasing hostility and coexisting peacefully—over unification, where the two Koreas merge into one state. Therefore, in this context of changing unification consciousness in our society, what should our government's North Korea policy aim for? Should we continue to emphasize unification as a 'historical mission' that our nation must fulfill, as in the past, and "establish and pursue a peaceful unification policy based on the fundamental order of liberal democracy" as stipulated in the Constitution? Or should we shift the paradigm of North Korea policy to focus on peaceful coexistence in line with the changed circumstances of the times?

First, the survey results suggest that the North Korea policies of successive governments, which have emphasized the establishment of a unified state of 'one people, one nation, one system, one government' as the ultimate goal, need revision. When a majority of the public believes 'unification is unnecessary' and thinks peaceful coexistence should be the goal of North Korea policy, emphasizing unification as 'our nation's historical mission' and a 'constitutional value' our country should pursue seems out of step with the spirit of the times. In particular, given the de facto existence of two states on the Korean Peninsula since the simultaneous admission of South and North Korea to the UN on September 17, 1991, the government's official stance of denying North Korea's statehood based on Article 3 of the Constitution and viewing North Korea as a puppet regime illegally occupying South Korean territory needs to be revised. Reflecting reality, it seems more desirable to recognize North Korea as an independent, separate sovereign state, redefine inter-Korean relations as relations between states, and pursue peaceful coexistence.[2]peaceful coexistence.

Of course, changing the paradigm of North Korea policy from unification to peaceful coexistence by recognizing North Korea's statehood is by no means an easy task. Above all, it requires amending Article 3 of the Constitution, which defines North Korea as part of the territory of the Republic of Korea, and Article 4, which emphasizes unification as a constitutional value that the Republic of Korea should pursue. However, considering the current domestic political situation, such constitutional amendments do not seem feasible. Nevertheless, given the increasing negative perceptions of the need for unification and the growing preference for peaceful coexistence, the North Korea policy of viewing North Korea as an object of (absorptive) unification to be eventually expelled and "crushed" seems inevitably unsustainable in the long run. We must closely watch how our government's North Korea policy evolves amidst changes in inter-Korean relations and the international situation. 

[1]From 2007 to 2023, the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University commissioned Gallup Korea to conduct surveys on perceptions of unification, perceptions of North Korea, and evaluations and attitudes towards the government's North Korea policy, targeting 1,200 adults nationwide. The 2023 survey was conducted from July 4 to July 27 for 24 days using in-person interviews by interviewers targeting 1,200 adults aged 19 and older and younger than 75 residing in 17 cities and provinces nationwide. The survey used a structured questionnaire, and the margin of error was ±2.8% at a 95% confidence level.

[2]Article 3 of the <Act on the Promotion of Inter-Korean Relations>, enacted in 2006 and currently legally defining inter-Korean relations, stipulates the nature of inter-Korean relations as "a special relationship provisionally formed in the process of pursuing unification, not a relationship between states," and defines "transactions between South and North Korea" as "transactions within the nation, not transactions between states."

■ Kim Beom-soo, Director of the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies, Seoul National University. Professor, School of Liberal Arts.

■ Managed and Edited by: Park Ji-soo, EAI Research Fellow

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr