Are we moving away from unification as main national objective?

Two years ago, when North Korean leader Kim Jong-un made what he called a “final and crucial decision” to give up on the reunification of the two Koreas, we on this side of the DMZ didn’t know what to make of it.

But now, having had time to think, is South Korea slowly swinging around to the obvious — that the commitment to unify with a neighbor that doesn’t want us risks violation of our democratic principles?

In case we were not sure, last month, at the Workers’ Party of Korea’s 9th Party Congress in Pyongyang, Kim doubled down on the “two states” doctrine, and unpleasantly characterizing we innocents over here as the enemy.

In his address, Kim proclaimed the need to “draw a historical line under the abnormal relationship” that has persisted on the peninsula for nearly 80 years and to redefine inter-Korean ties as those between “the most hostile of states.” South Koreans are no longer misguided compatriots awaiting liberation. They are that worst of creatures — and I don’t wish to offend readers by using the “f” word — but, yes, they’re foreigners.

As mentioned, South Korean political leaders and policy analysts struggled to respond when this first came out. People wondered, was he bluffing? Would the posture change if he were to be removed? Who knows? As a result, the constitutional commitment to peaceful reunification has remained intact and public discourse continues to assume that unification is the ultimate aspiration of the Korean nation.

When some people did venture the obvious — a marriage cannot be forced when one party thinks the other is ugly and has bad breath, and perhaps Seoul should reconsider its own long-standing objective — they were branded as "fellow travelers," or worse. That wasn’t so unreasonable, because the first people and groups to pivot, here in the South as well as the U.S., were just that.

But it’s been hard to talk about this sensibly because the taboo around questioning unification remains powerful. But the strategic environment is changing fast.

For example, last week’s address by President Lee Jae Myung, commemorating the March 1 Independence Movement against Japanese colonial rule, was heavy with the language of peace and coexistence and short on unification.

The president called for realizing “the dream of peace and coexistence that our forebears earnestly yearned for.” He urged an end to hostility and confrontation, and pledged to “usher in a Korean Peninsula of peaceful coexistence and shared prosperity.”

Normally peace means unification. But conspicuously, unification was not the centerpiece.

There was a pragmatic reason why. Lee wants to talk and it’s hard to talk with someone who is scared. Hard as it is for us to see it, unification is scary for the party that doesn’t want it. We don’t have to act aggressive for them to reach for their mace. The fact it’s written into the Constitution makes our smiles from across the border appear malevolent.

That was why Lee emphasized respect for the North’s system. The only mention of the “u” word came in his vow to not pursue “any form of unification by absorption.”

What he wanted, he said, was practical measures to reduce military tensions, restore trust and resume dialogue.

Lee went further and dissed our side’s rights activists, labeling their drone incursion into North Korea as a grave threat to peace. It won’t happen again, he promised.

He promised that Seoul would work to turn the Korean War Armistice into a peace regime. “What?” you might say. “There’s still no Korean War peace?” Yes. The South and its U.S. ally have always resisted because Pyongyang has always demanded it. That and because they see it as the first step towards the removal of the U.S. defense shield.

So, if Lee is not shy about adopting this long-standing position held by North Korea — and that is not to say it’s a bad idea purely for that reason — are we witnessing a quiet shift away towards acceptance of a more recent one? In other words, is this downplaying of unification taking us in the direction of no unification?

It would be premature to declare the end of unification as an official goal. The Constitution still speaks of peaceful unification, and no major party has proposed removing that language. Moreover, public opinion remains complex. Many South Koreans express ambivalence about the costs and feasibility of unification, yet hesitate to abandon the idea altogether.

But perhaps a subtle recalibration is underway. When the North categorically rejects unification and defines the South as an enemy state, insisting on unification as the organizing principle of policy risks strategic incoherence.

President Lee’s speech suggests a pragmatic pivot. By foregrounding coexistence over absorption and dialogue over destiny, he may be signaling that peace rather than unification will be the operational priority.

If unification does come one day, it will not be through coercion or wishful thinking but through conditions that do not presently exist.

Michael Breen (mike.breen@insightcomms.com) is the author of "The New Koreans.” The views expressed here are his own.