ED Discord at helm of North policy

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, left, talks with Foreign Minister Cho Hyun during a plenary session of the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, Nov. 28. Yonhap

The Ministry of Unification has taken the extraordinary step of refusing to participate in a follow-up consultative body established after the recent Korea-U.S. summit, triggering an open clash with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

While the foreign ministry has proceeded with regular consultations with the U.S. State Department, the unification ministry has declared that it will handle North Korea-related issues directly with Washington, effectively sidelining its counterpart. This unprecedented discord has once again exposed the long-standing rift between the so-called “autonomy-minded” and “alliance-first” camps within the South Korean government. More troubling still is the apparent absence of effective coordination from the presidential office, which should be serving as the ultimate control tower.

The unification ministry’s resistance cannot be dismissed as mere bureaucratic turf-protection. Its apprehension is rooted in the bitter legacy of the Korea-U.S. Working Group launched in 2018 under the Moon Jae-in administration. Designed to enhance coordination on denuclearization, inter-Korean cooperation and sanctions, the working group in practice functioned as a mechanism through which Washington’s rigid sanctions framework constrained even humanitarian assistance and civilian exchanges between the two Koreas.

The foreign ministry, which led the Korean side, was widely seen as acquiescing to U.S. demands rather than asserting autonomy over Seoul’s policy. The result was a stalemate in inter-Korean relations, culminating in the working group’s quiet dissolution after two and a half years. North Korea’s Kim Yo-jong derided it as a “pro-American noose” that South Korea had placed around its own neck, an assessment that resonated with many in Seoul.

Against this backdrop, the unification ministry’s fear of a second working group is not without justification. Yet its decision to boycott a bilateral consultative framework altogether, and to engage Washington separately from the foreign ministry, is hardly a constructive alternative. Fragmented diplomacy weakens credibility, confuses counterparts and ultimately undermines national leverage. A government cannot just claim strategic coherence when two ministries appear to be competing for primacy in dealing with its most important ally.

The foreign ministry, however, must also reckon with its own shortcomings. For years, “alliance coordination” has too often translated into preemptive alignment with U.S. preferences, even when those preferences narrow South Korea’s room to maneuver on the peninsula. Alliance management does not require policy subordination. When deference becomes habitual, autonomy erodes — and distrust from domestic stakeholders, including the unification ministry, becomes inevitable. A sustainable alliance is built on negotiation and mutual respect, not reflexive compliance.

What elevates this episode from bureaucratic squabble to strategic concern is the passivity of the presidential office. Downplaying the conflict as a “minor difference of views” reflects a dangerous complacency. North Korea policy lies at the intersection of security, diplomacy and inter-Korean relations; it cannot be compartmentalized or delegated without clear overarching direction. With the possibility of renewed U.S.-North Korea high-level talks on the horizon next year, South Korea risks being reduced to a bystander if it fails to present a unified, autonomous voice.

Ultimately, the responsibility rests with President Lee Jae Myung. The presidential office must assert leadership by recalibrating the balance between alliance coordination and policy independence, correcting the foreign ministry’s tendency toward excessive deference while curbing the unification ministry’s unilateralism. Robust internal debate is not a weakness. But once a strategic direction is set, discipline and unity are imperative.

Factional rivalry and inter-ministerial discord serve neither peace on the Korean Peninsula nor South Korea’s national interest. At a moment when regional dynamics are fluid and stakes are high, the government must speak with one voice: confident, coordinated and anchored in its own strategic judgment.