Intentionally or not, North Korea has split South Koreans into two major political and ideological camps ― progressives and conservatives. The ongoing third-generational power succession in Pyongyang is dividing even the progressives relatively sympathetic to the socialist regime into two groups ― vocal critics and tacit endorsers.
The Democratic Labor Party (DLP) is most conspicuous in representing the latter type. The DLP’s leader, Rep. Lee Jung-hee, recently said, ``It is my and the party’s judgment not to comment” (on the power transfer). The DLP’s avoidance of this issue is not very surprising given the track records of the pro-Pyongyang party, yet it is still disappointing for more than a few reasons.
Open criticism of the nepotism in the North will certainly aggravate the already sour relationship between the two Koreas, as Rep. Lee said. But the DLP is not the government but a political party, the foremost duty of which is to make its official position clear on any issue, rather than worrying about Seoul’s diplomacy. Failure to do so only gives the impression that it endorses the anachronistic development in the world’s first communist dynasty.
In private, some DLP officials and its supporters are more outspoken in approving the power change, citing the need for considering the special situations Pyongyang is in ― decades of U.S. economic sanctions ― as well as several cases of nepotistic succession in other countries.
True, few countries could have maintained a normal state under half a century of economic isolation, and the hereditary power succession may not be an ``absolute evil,” as similar examples are seen elsewhere.
But what matters is the result of the first father-to-son succession in the reclusive regime ― economic collapse and perennial hunger.
It is the duty of all South Koreans to save its northern brethren by preventing its repetition and inducing the North to reform and openness. But the less than legitimate power structure in the North would only end up tightening the domestic control, exacerbate the isolationist policy and deepening dependency on China. One should not need to regard criticism of Pyongyang as meddling in its internal affairs. Nor should the tolerance of a different ideological system mean the blind acceptance of what’s unacceptable committed by the latter.
In short, South Koreans with any sense of national and historical responsibility ought to criticize the unprecedented socialist kingdom. Any pro-Pyongyang policy must be the means, not the goal. Or in other words, it is the North Korean public ― not its leadership ― the South should rescue from the current hardship.
Besides, no progressives or liberals should turn a blind eye to the destruction of their core values, such as basic rights and respect of individuals over the whole. The domestic progressives’ failure to look straight at what’s happening in North Korea has sharply eroded their political grounds, only helping to enhance the conservatives’ moral superiority.
This is not to support the conservative Lee Myung-bak administration’s approach toward North Korea is right. The incumbent government is far too mired in moral indignation, and makes value-based judgment. But it is time for Seoul to face the reality as it is, and make political judgment.
In short, neither overlooking the North’s problems nor blindly antagonizing Pyongyang can be the answer. Seoul must criticize its North Korean counterparts, but provide generous economic aid to change North Koreans first, and make it eventually spread to its leadership. Even the former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who was most hawkish toward the Soviet Union, didn’t spare humanitarian aid toward the latter, saying, ``Hunger knows no politics.”
South Korea must be positive in taking the inter-Korean leadership. Again, the sunshine policy is the answer.