A question for Koreans

By David Tizzard

December marks the seventh anniversary of Kim Jong-un taking power in the DPRK. While the first six years saw a series of moves designed to secure his own personal political authority as well as the nation's wider geopolitical position, 2018 has seen a dramatic change in his image.

This has been the year of Kim Jong-un 'the diplomat'. It started with his New Year's address which had people talking about his clothes and notable absence of many of the country's oft-repeated tropes.

From there quickly followed the country's participation in the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics, Kim's first overseas visit, meeting President Xi in China, the familial scenes with President Moon at the JSA, and this all culminating in a remarkable event: an historic summit in Singapore with American President, Donald Trump.

And yet, the year has not yet finished. President Moon has once more suggested that Chairman Kim make the journey south and visit him here.

As an advocate of diplomacy, I certainly do hope that Chairman Kim meets President Moon in the Republic of Korea. Be it in Seoul or perhaps more symbolically on Jeju Island, this would certainly show a degree of reciprocity that has been lacking on previous occasions.

Nonetheless, doing so would raise a whole host of political and legal issues. It would bring into question the claims from both sides concerning the legitimacy of the other's rule; it also would necessitate a great deal of security, as required by any world leader (perhaps more so).

But it would be a step in the right direction.

As a fascinated observer of Korean developments (admittedly also with Korean family, speaking the language, and studying the politics and history), I often wonder how long the division can or will last.

Visually, the similarities between the two Koreas are easy to see, for they are essentially the same people. Genetically and historically, they share a long and recorded history. Linguistically, certainly at the root level, they speak the same language.

In terms of cuisine, we are fed with images of naengmyun (a cold noodle broth), mushrooms from the north, tangerines from the south, all washed down to the soundtrack of K-Pop and Red Velvet.

Yet where do the differences lie? What is an obstacle that the two countries will have to truly overcome if they are to become one? Or indeed be two that live harmoniously with each other for longer than a summer?

There are countless, but here I present one: the manner in which the government and ruling party seeks to rule. Essentially, the question of how society should operate.

There are no course no correct answers to such a question, and what ones do arise are always contingent on a whole manner of spatial and temporal conditions. But from a historical perspective, three options seem to reoccur frequently: Virtue, freedom, and welfare.

Virtue is that previously espoused by, among others, Aristotle. The notion that a society has a duty to make its citizens better people, morally and humanely.

The more seasoned might recall elements of this in President Park Chung-hee's rule when he sought to create national songs and images designed to promote certain values and ideas among the people.

Conversely, freedom is that which currently operates here in the Republic of Korea. It has been a long and hard-earned path, but now the citizens enjoy a life free from a great deal of state control.

People are able to travel and move around the country at will without limitation. They may express political, religious, societal, or sexual opinions in public and on social media.

Now, Kwanghwamun has become a place at which people raises their voices on a whole variety of topics without the fear of tear gas. More recently, a landmark ruling saw 57 South Koreans released from jail for refusing to complete their military service on grounds of conscientious objection.

Whatever one's personal opinion on any of the above, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Republic of Korea is one that now one that values a predominantly neutral sate and freely choosing self.

Moreover, much of the argument among the various political parties is to be found in the debate regarding how to best allow individuals to pursue the ends that they themselves choose.

The manifestation of this value of freedom, by necessity, comes with a reduction in welfare and virtue control.

In the DPRK, however, the insistence seems to be on welfare. The state provides, theoretically at least, everything for its citizens. Education is not something that costs thousands of dollars: it's free. Health care, food, cultural events, appliances for the house and so on.

Of course there are limits, and we are seeing more and more reports and articles of markets emerging even greater than those that followed the economic slowdown of the late 90s. Yet, the focus is on ― at the doctrinal level ― welfare. This appears, seemingly, at the cost of freedom.

Two Koreas: two different societal values.

My question for the Korean people, therefore, is how does one square this particular circle? How do 80 million people seek to realign two vastly different approaches into one that can exist more peacefully together?

And, moreover, what should be the value that underpins the Korean Peninsula?

David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University.