South Korea's ministry defends 'two-state' language for peaceful coexistence with North Korea
Seoul, May 19
The unification ministry on Tuesday pushed back against criticism that its newly published white paper violates the Constitution, clarifying the controversial 'two-state' language falls under broader peace efforts on the Korean Peninsula.
The ministry characterised the 'two-state' language as an "implementation strategy" to achieve the current administration's policy of peaceful coexistence with North Korea.
"(It) is an implementation strategy to achieve the goal of the policy of peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula -- institutionalisation of peaceful coexistence between South and North Korea," the ministry said in a statement, Yonhap news agency reported.
It underscored its responsibilities of devising such strategies as the main government branch in charge of the peaceful coexistence policy.
The statement came hours after a ministry official told reporters the two-state concept had been shared by Unification Minister Chung Dong-young on previous occasions. The official, however, said the concept was not representative of the policy vision of the entire government but rather of that of the ministry.
In the statement, the ministry explained that the concept does not mean legal recognition of North Korea as a state, but rather respecting the North's system and sovereignty, while recognising its de facto statehood.
"The peaceful two-state (concept) refers to the two states that have simultaneously joined the United Nations under international law, and the two states under a Korean commonwealth of the National Community Unification Formula," it said. "It does not mean recognising North Korea as a legal state."
The National Community Unification Formula is a unification vision unveiled by South Korea in 1994. The three-stage vision calls for the pursuit of reconciliation and cooperation, the creation of a Korean commonwealth and the completion of a unified country.
The paper, released Monday, outlines the Lee Jae Myung government's North Korea policy around three key principles: Seoul respects North Korea's system, does not pursue unification by absorption and will not engage in hostile activities.
It says Seoul seeks peaceful coexistence with North Korea, while still aiming for eventual unification, "given the reality that South and North Korea effectively exist as two states."
The paper also called for transforming Pyongyang's "hostile two-state policy" into a "peaceful two-state" relationship seeking unification, a wording that drew criticism from some who argued it risks legitimising North Korea as a separate sovereign state in violation of the Constitution.
Article 3 of the Constitution stipulates that the territory of the Republic of Korea consists of the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands.
On criticism that such a sensitive issue lacked sufficient public debate before being included in the paper, the official said the ministry would continue to seek a wide range of opinions going forward.
— IANS
Reader Comments
The 'two-state' language might be practical, but it does feel like a departure from the constitutional vision of a unified Korea. I wonder how this will play out diplomatically. As an Indian, I think about how our own Article 370 abrogation showed that constitutional principles can be revisited - but it needs careful deliberation, not just bureaucratic decisions 🤔
Interesting that the ministry said this is an 'implementation strategy' and not representative of the entire government's vision. This reminds me of how different Indian ministries sometimes have their own nuanced positions on Kashmir or cross-border issues. The three principles - respecting North Korea's system, no absorption, no hostile activities - actually sound quite sensible for peace building. But public debate was lacking, that's a fair criticism.
As someone who follows East Asian politics closely, I find the 'National Community Unification Formula' from 1994 quite visionary. The three-stage approach (reconciliation -> commonwealth -> unification) is similar to how India has gradually integrated certain regions. But using 'two-state' language risks normalization of division. It's a tight balance between realism and idealism 🇮🇳
I appreciate the South Korean ministry's transparency in explaining the nuance. The distinction between 'de facto statehood' for practical cooperation versus 'legal recognition' is crucial. Having India's own complicated borders, I can see how such semantic precision matters for diplomacy. But the constitutional concern is valid - Article 3 is clear about the peninsula being one territory. This needs more debate, not just ministry-level decisions.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.