<\/p>\n\n\n\n
South Korean President <\/span>Lee Jae-myung recently stated that <\/span>South Korea would not pursue <\/span>absorption unification with North <\/span>Korea. The position is being <\/span>interpreted as a prioritization of <\/span>peaceful coexistence and stable <\/span>relationship management over <\/span>inter-Korean system competition or a <\/span>one-sided absorption scenario. <\/span>Reactions from the political world and <\/span>academia have varied. Some see it as <\/span>a realistic approach, while <\/span>others worry it could weaken the <\/span>constitutional commitment to <\/span>unification.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n But the debate is missing <\/span>the more important question. Rejecting <\/span>absorption unification is a position <\/span>on one particular method. The <\/span>natural next question follows from <\/span>there: what kind of unification does <\/span>South Korea actually want? And <\/span>in a changed Korean Peninsula, <\/span>what is the goal of unification <\/span>policy? What is needed now is not a <\/span>debate over whether absorption <\/span>unification is good or bad. North Korea <\/span>has already changed the way it <\/span>talks about inter-Korean <\/span>relations, yet South Korea has yet to <\/span>even begin discussing what kind of <\/span>unification it is aiming for.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This <\/span>needs to be clarified first. The phrase <\/span>“absorption unification” appears <\/span>nowhere in the South Korean <\/span>Constitution. Article 4 of the <\/span>Constitution requires the state to <\/span>establish and pursue a peaceful <\/span>unification policy grounded in the <\/span>principles of liberal democracy. In <\/span>other words, the Constitution <\/span>defines the goal of unification, <\/span>not any specific method.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The <\/span>concept of absorption unification <\/span>has long appeared in Korean <\/span>public discourse alongside the <\/span>example of German reunification. <\/span>But it was always one possible <\/span>scenario, never an officially adopted <\/span>national unification plan. <\/span>Characterizing President Lee’s remarks <\/span>as an abandonment of unification or <\/span>a repudiation of the <\/span>Constitution may therefore be an <\/span>overreach. At the same time, <\/span>declaring a rejection of absorption <\/span>unification does not complete a <\/span>unification policy in itself. If a <\/span>specific method is ruled out, the <\/span>government owes the public an <\/span>explanation of what model and path it <\/span>is instead pursuing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n North Korea <\/span>recently amended its constitution to <\/span>remove unification-related <\/span>language and add a new territorial <\/span>clause. It also revised the <\/span>language used to describe <\/span>inter-Korean relations, explicitly <\/span>designating South Korea as a separate <\/span>state. Analysts have noted that <\/span>these changes reflect a shift <\/span>in how North Korea <\/span>conceptualizes its relationship with <\/span>the South.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This does not <\/span>necessarily mean North Korea has <\/span>abandoned unification entirely. <\/span>But one thing is clear: North <\/span>Korea is revising its <\/span>unification discourse and changing the <\/span>language it uses to describe <\/span>inter-Korean relations.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n What is <\/span>striking is that South Korea’s <\/span>debate remains stuck at the <\/span>level of whether or not to pursue <\/span>absorption unification. Meanwhile, <\/span>North Korea has already moved to <\/span>a prior stage, actively <\/span>constructing a new narrative about how <\/span>to define the inter-Korean relationship <\/span>itself. The question South Korea <\/span>actually needs to be asking is not <\/span>about the merits of absorption <\/span>unification, but about how to <\/span>understand and respond to a North Korea <\/span>that has already <\/span>changed. Before debating the method of <\/span>unification, the goal of unification <\/span>and the future shape of <\/span>inter-Korean relations need to be <\/span>reestablished.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Unifica<\/span>tion remains a constitutional <\/span>obligation of the South Korean state. <\/span>But unification policy cannot <\/span>run on aspiration alone. When the other <\/span>side changes, policy must be reviewed <\/span>alongside it.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n South Korean <\/span>unification policy has historically <\/span>developed around the values of <\/span>peace, dialogue, and cooperation. Those <\/span>values remain important. But recent <\/span>shifts in North Korea’s policy toward <\/span>the South, and changes in the <\/span>international environment, suggest <\/span>that existing approaches alone may no <\/span>longer be sufficient.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n This <\/span>concern has been consistently raised <\/span>among North Korean defector <\/span>communities and researchers who have <\/span>long studied the North Korea <\/span>question. Defectors I encounter on the <\/span>ground are picking up on changes in <\/span>North Korea’s internal <\/span>atmosphere and attitudes toward the <\/span>South at a rapid pace. Policy <\/span>discourse, however, remains anchored in <\/span>an older unification framework.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Policy<\/span> must be able to account for reality. <\/span>The wider the gap between the reality <\/span>people experience and the language of <\/span>policy, the weaker public trust in that <\/span>policy will become.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Ruling out <\/span>absorption unification can be a <\/span>starting point, not an ending point. <\/span>What matters now comes <\/span>after that declaration. What kind of <\/span>inter-Korean relationship is South <\/span>Korea pursuing? How far can <\/span>peaceful coexistence realistically go? <\/span>If unification is being prepared for <\/span>over the long term, what conditions and <\/span>processes does that require? And <\/span>within a changing North Korea, what <\/span>role should the Ministry <\/span>of Unification and the government <\/span>play?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The problem is that <\/span>comprehensive government-level <\/span>answers to these questions have not <\/span>been offered. <\/span>Unification policy is not simply a <\/span>declaration. It must present a <\/span>direction and a pathway that the public <\/span>can understand and support.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n If those <\/span>answers are not forthcoming, the <\/span>absorption unification debate risks <\/span>remaining a political sparring <\/span>match. But if the process of finding <\/span>answers begins, this debate could <\/span>instead become the occasion for <\/span>advancing South Korea’s <\/span>unification policy to the next level.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n President Lee <\/span>Jae-myung’s remarks on absorption <\/span>unification are prompting something <\/span>more than a debate over methods. <\/span>They are prompting South Korea to ask <\/span>again what kind of unification it is <\/span>actually pursuing.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n North <\/span>Korea has been amending its <\/span>constitution to revise the <\/span>framework through which it describes <\/span>inter-Korean relations. The <\/span>international order is also changing <\/span>rapidly. In this environment, repeating <\/span>the old unification discourse may <\/span>no longer be adequate to explain the <\/span>present reality.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n What <\/span>matters more than ruling out absorption <\/span>unification is what comes next. South <\/span>Korea must be able to explain to <\/span>the public the goals and principles it <\/span>is pursuing for <\/span>unification, and the realistic path to <\/span>get there. That is the real <\/span>unification debate South Korea needs to <\/span>start having. There have been many <\/span>I. Was absorption unification ever official South Korean policy?<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
II. North Korea is already asking a different question<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
III. Unification policy must be grounded in reality, not aspiration<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
IV. It is time to debate the goal, not just the method<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
V. It is time to redefine what unification means<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n