The recent rise of territorial disputes in East Asia marks a perilous new phase in the international relations of the region. At the same time, it presents an opportunity to build peace among the various East Asian nations, particularly between the two Koreas. In fact, Dokdo and the integrity of Korea’s national historical record are among the few causes that can unite South Korea and North Korea with a common Korean rallying cry. It is ironic and regrettable that the two Koreas have been fighting for these same causes without coordinating their actions.
All Koreans in both halves of the Korean peninsula agree on the following: 1. Dokdo is Korean territory; 2. Japan’s denial of and refusal to apologize for its aggression against Korea, including the “comfort women” (more correctly, “sex slaves”) issue, is unacceptable; and 3. China’s effort to paint Goguryo as a Chinese kingdom is also unacceptable. The absolute Korean consensus on the above is the one constant that holds in both halves of the Korean peninsula regardless of changes in regime, differences in politics, ideology, religion or socioeconomic background. However, the two Koreas have failed to translate this consensus into an opportunity to fight together in the international arena for their common Korean national interest. This failure has meant the loss of a golden opportunity to build better inter-Korean relations.
The two Koreas have been lodging protests against Japan and China over these issues without ever issuing a formal joint statement of protest. The two Koreas have been operating commissions composed of scholars and experts to accumulate evidence and press the case on these issues without sharing each other’s work or making a common case. The two Koreas’ failure to present a common front on these issues vis--vis Japan and China and in the international arena has diminished their collective bargaining power and afforded room for the great powers to play them against each other in a “divide and conquer” strategy.
The current adverse state of inter-Korean relations needs a breakthrough, and a breakthrough is more likely if it is in an area where both Koreas can cooperate in a positive-sum game without a loss of face or detriment to each other’s interests. The two Koreas can start by forming a joint commission to share their respective expertise on these issues and form a common front. As the two sides build trust and mutual understanding on these issues which unite all Koreans, they can move on to build trust on other issues such as economic cooperation and national security. With inter-Korean relations founded on a solid bedrock of mutual trust and consensus on these core Korean national interests, inter-Korean relations are more likely to endure the ups and downs caused by shifting political, economic and national security considerations.
Germany was able to achieve reunification, in part because the two German states kept up a steady flow of mutual exchange and, on the part of the ex-West Germany, a consistent policy framework toward the ex-East Germany regardless of regime changes in the ex-West Germany. In the case of Korea, a lack of consistency in South Korea’s policy towards North Korea, partly caused by the politicization of this policy that has fueled partisan politics, has combined with North Korea’s record of provocations and irresponsible rhetoric against South Korea to undermine inter-Korean relations.
South Korea’s policy towards North Korea under the current South Korean government has been closer to an all-or-nothing policy of stopping all inter-Korean exchanges, including the economic and cultural, each time there has been an inter-Korean political crisis. Without a shared understanding and collaboration with North Korea on the unchanging common Korean core interests such as Dokdo, South Korea is more likely to adopt this policy in the future whenever there is an inter-Korean political crisis.
Peaceful Korean reunification is in the interest of everyone, including China and Japan, as a military conflict on the Korean peninsula could quickly escalate and drag the great powers into a zero-sum and mutually-destructive conflict against their will. A peaceful reunified Korea can serve as an anchor of stability in East Asia and exert a calming and moderating influence on her neighbors.
One of the early signs that the Cold War in Europe was drawing to an end was when a visionary leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, called for a “common European home” at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is about time that visionary leaders in East Asia stepped forward with calls for a “common East Asian home” that overcomes the current trends towards competitive nationalism and provides for regional peace and prosperity.
Such a “common East Asian home” is not possible with a divided Korean peninsula that fuels inter-Korean rivalry and invites Great Power intervention. It seems clear that a foundation for a common East Asian home is a “common Korean home.” It is high time that visionary leaders in both halves of the Korean peninsula stepped forward with calls for a “common Korean home” that ensures Korea’s territorial integrity and provides for Korea’s peaceful reunification.
By Lee Jong-soo
Lee Jong-soo is senior managing director at the Brock Group in New York. The opinions expressed in this article are solely the author’s own. ― Ed.
