The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Of Yoon’s Korean Unification Vision – Analysis
By Abhishek Sharma
South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol unveiled a new unification vision during the country’s 79th Liberation Day anniversary on 15 August 2024, updating former president Kim Young-sam’s 1994 policy. His unification vision generated significant debate among scholars, receiving both praise and criticism.
Yoon’s vision could not have come at a more strategic moment, as South Korea has the opportunity to show leadership, filling the unification void that followed Kim Jong-un’s two-state announcement. But the moment turned out to be a mixed bag, a collection of good, bad and ugly displays of Yoon’s leadership and foreign policy acumen.
The good part is that Yoon’s unification vision highlighted the importance of freedom and prosperity, envisioning a ‘country full of happiness where people’s freedom and safety are guaranteed’ and ‘a country that contributes to global peace and prosperity while spearheading international harmony and development’. This was a powerful message to send across the 38th parallel, especially after Kim Jong-un’s anti-reunification stance.
Yoon’s proposal to establish an ‘inter-Korean working group’ displayed his commitment to improving inter-Korean ties, encouraging economic cooperation and coordinating disaster and climate change responses. This contrasts with Kim Jong-un, who has systematically dismantled traces of unification by demolishing the arch of unification, closing reunification agencies, banning songs and removing the word reunification from textbooks and public spaces. Yoon’s vision demonstrates his regard for the people of divided Korea despite Kim’s desperate attempt to obliterate any chance of reunification.
Yoon’s unification vision is a fitting strategy to fill the void left after Kim Jong-un renounced reunification — once a core goal of North Korea and a break from his father and grandfather’s dream. This attempt helps Yoon in two ways — allowing him to take control of the unification narrative and keep the hope of reunification for North and South Korean citizens alive.
Yoon now needs to showcase a positive unification vision to the world and emphasise Kim Jong-un’s idiosyncrasies. Amplifying Kim’s pursuit of power would expose his selfishness and highlight that he prioritises his family’s interests over ordinary people’s lives.
The bad part was that Yoon avoided using this critical moment to emphasise and reiterate South Korea’s commitment to a peaceful unification. This reinforces existing doubts in North Korea that the South wants to unify the peninsula by force or through absorption. These doubts fuel the regime change narrative — a key element in propaganda used by Kim Jong-un.
Yoon also said South Korea would improve North Korean citizens’ ‘right to access information’ via different mediums. This attempt could either result in increased inter-Korean tensions, as seen during the trash balloon and pamphlet exchanges episode, or further restrictions on North Korean residents, as North Korea strengthens its digital authoritarian practices.
Following his speech, criticism started pouring in on Yoon’s North Korea unification approach, with many interpreting it as support for regime change. The Yoon administration had to clarify that its ‘vision aims to achieve peaceful unification with North Korea in line with the principles of the Constitution, without resorting to military aggression’.
These doubts emerge from the track record of Yoon’s administration, whose recent actions and statements have made Yoon’s commitment to unification seem shallow. Yoon and his cabinet members have made hawkish remarks about Kim Jong-un that have escalated tensions with his northern neighbour. In 2023, Yoon casually called for a ‘pre-emptive strike’ following a missile test by North Korea. South Korean Defence Minister Shin Won-sik also made unwarranted comments supporting a decapitation strike on the North Korean leader during US–South Korea special forces exercises.
The appointment of Kim Yung-ho — known for his advocacy of regime change and as a North Korean hawk who has criticised all unification policies — as Unification Minister in 2023 further highlighted Yoon’s unserious attitude towards the issue. Under Yoon, the responsibility of the Unification Ministry has been reduced to align with the President’s new right agenda, rather than to follow the mandate of the country’s constitution.
The ugly part of Yoon’s approach was his use of Liberation Day to target the opposition rather than trying to forge consensus on unification — a key aspect of Liberation Day’s legacy. He labelled those opposing his unification agenda as ‘pseudo-intellectuals’, ‘anti-unification’ and ‘anti-freedom’ forces, portraying them as North Korean sympathisers.
Such an attitude increases divisions within South Korea, adding to already strained ties with his opposition and playing into Kim Jong-un’s hands. The domestic fragmentation was evident, as the opposition celebrated Liberation Day in a separate ceremony. Yoon’s statement received condemnation from both left leaning and conservative media.
The new unification vision is a welcome and bold initiative, coming at a time when the reunification idea was losing steam. But instead of reinforcing a strong and shared vision, Yoon used this opportunity to target his opponents and conflate his foreign policy with a unification policy. His administration’s hawkish stance and its actions towards North Korea have only cemented negative perceptions of Yoon. Rather than benefiting from his vision, Yoon has deepened domestic division and strengthened Kim Jong-un’s propaganda.
Moving forward, if Yoon’s objective is to keep alive the hope of togetherness and cross-border unity — as seen in the 2024 Olympic selfie — he must recognise that bipartisan support, backed by a well-considered North Korea policy, is critical.
- About the author: Abhishek Sharma is Research Assistant at the Observer Research Foundation’s Strategic Studies Programme and a PhD Candidate in the Department of East Asian Studies at Delhi University.
- Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum