Kim Jung-ha
The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.
The term “unification” may soon become taboo in Korea. On June 24, Unification Minister nominee Chung Dong-young told reporters that renaming the Ministry of Unification should be “actively considered,” as peaceful unification must be pursued only on the foundation of peace and stability. His comment appears to reflect the recent stance of North Korea, which has officially discarded the concept of unification.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un declared in a ruling Workers’ Party meeting in December 2023 that inter-Korean relations had “settled into the relationship between two warring states” and that “unification with the Republic of Korea will never be realized.” In January last year, he went further, stating that terms like “unification,” “reconciliation,” and “fellow countrymen” must be “completely removed” from the national discourse.
The sudden reversal of North Korea’s longstanding call for unification prompted even pro-North Korean organizations in the South to remove “unification” from their charters and restructure their organizations. Former presidential chief of staff Im Jong-seok sparked controversy by publicly suggesting, “Let’s not pursue unification.” Now, with a change in government in Seoul, the trend seems to be spreading to the South Korean administration as well.
North Korea, as a dictatorship centered on Kim Jong-un, can change its stance on unification at will. But Korea is a democratic republic. Here, government policies are grounded in the Constitution and cannot be revised unilaterally by the president or the ruling party without a public referendum. In that light, renaming the Ministry of Unification should be approached with the utmost caution. The concept of unification is embedded in Korea’s constitutional identity.
The Constitution’s preamble defines peaceful unification as a national mission. Article 4 states that “the Republic of Korea shall seek unification and formulate and implement a policy of peaceful unification based on the basic order of liberal democracy.” According to Article 66 (Clause 3), the president has a duty to strive for peaceful unification. Article 69 mandates that the president, upon taking office, solemnly pledges to make efforts for peaceful unification. Article 3 goes even further, defining Korea’s territory as “the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands,” underscoring that overcoming division and achieving unification is a constitutional imperative.
In January 2008, Lee Myung-bak’s presidential transition team announced a plan to abolish the Unification Ministry and fold it into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the time, Chung Dong-young, then a former unification minister and a leading figure in the opposition, issued a personal statement in protest. He argued that the ministry symbolized the government’s commitment to national unification and that eliminating it would be tantamount to abandoning that commitment.
Now, nearly two decades later, Chung has been nominated again to head the ministry. While this time, he is suggesting a name change, not the abolition of the ministry, removing the word “unification” from the title could be interpreted as a gesture of alignment with North Korea’s antiunification stance. Much like his past criticism of the former Lee Myung-bak administration, the current move by the Lee Jae Myung government could be seen as a retreat from efforts toward unification.
For the Ministry of Unification, its name is almost everything. Given its limited personnel and budget, there is little reason to maintain it as an independent agency — except for the symbolic weight it carries. That weight stems from the constitutional value of unification and Korea’s responsibility to explain and advocate the legitimacy of peaceful unification on the global stage.
Suppose the ministry is renamed the “Ministry of Inter-Korean Cooperation.” In that case, it may make more sense to relocate it under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, given its reduced scope. After all, cooperation between Korea and the United States is far more extensive, yet no one suggests creating a Ministry of Korea-U.S. Cooperation.
Even “Inter-Korean” cooperation may be problematic. North Korea has increasingly demanded that South Korea refer to it as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Should the ministry then become the “Ministry of ROK-DPRK Cooperation”? The desire to maintain communication with Pyongyang is understandable, but any issue that touches directly on the spirit of the Constitution must go through a broad process of public deliberation.
Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.
