The contradictory messaging in the pursuit of 'peaceful coexistence'

On the anniversary of Korea’s Liberation Day, President Lee Jae Myung reaffirmed his government’s desire for peaceful coexistence with North Korea. For the past year, Lee’s government has endeavored to restore diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang through reassurance of its commitment to ending mutual hostility, disavowing unification by absorption, and mutual respect for each other’s political systems.

Though likely not coordinated with Seoul, U.S. President Donald Trump also drew media attention this month by expressing similar sentiment in favor of peaceful engagement with Kim Jong-un’s regime. Reducing the scale of the recent Korea-U.S. military exercise in August, Trump repeated his claim that he has a good relationship with the North Korean leader and said he planned to meet with Kim later this year. Much of the news speculation and analysis since then has been on whether Pyongyang would respond to Seoul and Washington’s overtures.

My puzzle, however, is on the ultimate objective of the diplomatic engagement. Even if a peaceful coexistence is achieved with Pyongyang, is it the preferred final outcome for Seoul and Washington? Or is peaceful coexistence the means by which to achieve a different geopolitical outcome?

During the Cold War, there were attempts to establish peaceful coexistence, or détente, between the two superpowers. Cold War diplomacy, however, could not provide a clear resolution of the ideological competition between the two blocs. Soviet Union Premier Nikita Khrushchev boasted internationally that the communist bloc’s superior advancement would eventually leave the West “behind in the dust” (This claim was translated in the West as “We will bury you!”). U.S. administrations continued to criticize the Soviet bloc’s domestic politics and human rights records, demanding that the communist leadership “tear down the wall.”

The advocacy for “peaceful coexistence” has starkly different implications depending on whether it is seen as a strategic means or as a strategic outcome. It could signify a geopolitical outcome where states are accepting of each other’s political system and values. In contrast, it could instead signify countries’ attempt to “peacefully” demonstrate the superiority of their own political system and promote political changes in others’.

Past inter-Korean diplomacy has also experienced such conflict in its long-term objective. In South Korean politics, the “sunshine diplomacy” has generally been interpreted as friendly engagement with North Korea. Yet, the very incorporation of the diplomatic strategy’s title from Aesop’s Fable has implied an ulterior objective. The diplomacy, if it faithfully applies the fable’s analogy, seeks to “warm up” North Korea to eventually “take off” its restrictive political system and adopt liberalization.

Today, Seoul and Washington’s renewed diplomatic efforts to achieve peaceful relations with Pyongyang raise the familiar challenge of mixed messages on their long-term strategic aspiration. When affirming a desire for “peaceful coexistence,” are Seoul and Washington pledging legitimization of Pyongyang’s nondemocratic, illiberal political system? Or expressing hope that, under a peaceful geopolitical environment, it would become easier to politically transform and eventually reunify North Korea with the South

Within the field of international relations, there is long-enduring debate on whether a state’s political typology should matter in geopolitics. Many scholars, for example, have criticized the West’s promotion of democracy in other continents as subjective and counterproductive. The challenge, however, is that international politics is inevitably tied to domestic politics. The political values and perceptions of citizens in the West, “liberal democracies,” influence their governments’ foreign policies toward illiberal countries.

For example, China’s suppression of the Tiananmen Square Protests in 1989 compelled the U.S. and other Western countries to at least temporarily impose economic sanctions on Beijing. Even after the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan, Western countries did not recognize the regime, due to controversy over its political treatment of citizens. Despite accusations of hypocrisy, so long as contemporary liberal democracies continue to affirm that there is a universal standard of human rights and ethical values, it becomes politically difficult for their governments to unequivocally justify violations of these rights in other countries. While endeavoring to maintain peace with non-democratic regimes, democratic governments may be obligated to reassure their citizens that there are peaceful, long-term strategies to bring about the former’s political transformation in those regimes.

Authoritarian or nondemocratic regimes are usually aware of the democratic countries’ contradictory rhetoric in proposing peaceful coexistence. Sometimes, authoritarian regimes tolerate the rhetoric, as Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping did when he encouraged China to “observe calmly and respond with composure” to international criticisms after the Tiananmen Square protest. Other authoritarian regimes, however, have reacted to foreign criticisms or even encouragements for improvements in their domestic politics as hostile behaviors against their regime's security.

Unfortunately for Seoul and Washington, Pyongyang’s current diplomatic perception conveys distrust and hostility toward their intentions. Advocating “hostile two-state” relations with South Korea, Kim’s regime seeks to prevent even peaceful cultural and economic interactions with South Korean society, regarding such interactions as alternative threats of its absorption into the South.

Even if Kim’s regime agrees to the resumption of diplomacy, Lee Jae Myung and Trump face a political dilemma in constructing their messages on peaceful coexistence. Going beyond the suspension of military hostility, can Seoul and Washington commit to the political legitimization of North Korea’s regime? If not, Seoul and Washington may have to challenge Pyongyang to accept that ideological competition is necessary for peaceful coexistence among states with different political systems.

In today’s international affairs, maintaining peace among democratic and non-democratic states poses a difficult task. Even so, perhaps the hope for a “peaceful victory” or “peaceful transformation” toward democracy and human rights should not be abandoned but instead included as an extension of the quest for long-term peace on the Korean Peninsula and beyond.

Lee Jong-eun (Jong.Lee@ngu.edu) is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University. Prior to this, he served as a Republic of Korea Air Force intelligence officer.