[The Editors' Verdict] The March of Inter-Korean Relations: From Dogmatism and Obstinacy to Common Sense and Courage

The warm breeze that blew through inter-Korean relations around the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics froze within less than a year. Since the breakdown of the Hanoi Summit, North Korea has emphasized ‘self-reliance’ and ‘strengthening self-defense capabilities,’ starting with General Secretary Kim Jong-un’s visit to Mount Baekdu. On the other hand, despite Kim Yo-jong’s statement that ‘the spring days from three years ago are unlikely to return,’ the Moon Jae-in administration has continued diplomatic efforts to revive the momentum of the Korean Peninsula peace process.

Looking back, such fluctuations in inter-Korean relations are not unique to 2018. The march that began with the June 15, 2000 inter-Korean summit has repeatedly stopped and started, and it continues to do so now and likely will in the future. Why can’t inter-Korean relations break free from this chronic vicious cycle? It is worth considering Barbara Tuchman’s argument that while humanity has made remarkable progress outside the realm of governance?extending its influence beyond Earth’s atmosphere into space?governance itself has remained uniquely stagnant without significant advancement over 3,000 years of history.

In “The March of Folly,” Tuchman identifies four types of bad governance as causes of incomprehensible disasters, defeats, or the extinction of states in history. The first type is tyranny or oppression; the second is excessive ambition; the third is incompetence or corruption; and the fourth is dogmatism or obstinacy. Whether these types arise from rational or irrational origins, their combinations have led to the worst outcomes.

Reflecting on the history of inter-Korean relations since the Korean War, the remarks made by General Secretary Kim at the 8th Party Congress last January regarding inter-Korean relations can be seen as an extension of ‘dogmatism and obstinacy’ toward peace on the Korean Peninsula. He stated, “There is no need to show goodwill unilaterally as before, and we should respond only as much as the South reciprocates and moves to implement inter-Korean agreements.” This reflects ‘excessive ambition,’ suggesting that the failure of the Korean Peninsula peace process is South Korea’s fault and that the criteria for maintaining the peace process momentum must be strictly centered on North Korea’s perspective.

The problem lies in the recommendations from politicians and experts that South Korea should adjust its diplomatic and security policies, such as postponing joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises, in response to North Korea’s claims. Perhaps these recommendations resemble the ‘incompetence’ of the Trojan elder Deimoites, who brought the wooden horse into Athena’s temple. On the other hand, another Trojan elder, Capys, argued that since Athena had long favored the Greek army, the horse was a conspiracy and should be immediately burned or smashed with an axe to see what was inside.

What we need now are suggestions like Capys’s, which doubt and scrutinize North Korea’s intentions, rather than policy recommendations like Deimoites’s that naively trust North Korea’s words. Moreover, no matter how rational and desirable the purpose and direction of creating momentum for the Korean Peninsula peace process may be, it is necessary to examine whether the current policy direction might be dogmatic. First, from the perspective of future generations, do the current policy efforts and measures benefit the Korean Peninsula peace process? Second, among feasible options, was this policy chosen? Third, can this policy maintain enough continuity to be separated from the ruler? Now, we hope inter-Korean relations will proceed based on common sense and courage, not dogmatism and obstinacy.

Lee Ho-ryeong, Senior Research Fellow, Korea Institute for Defense Analyses

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.