Diplomacy Beyond Coexistence: Korea’s 1945 Division – OpEd
The recent characterisation by South Korea’s Unification Minister of President Lee Jae-myung’s approach as one of “political peaceful coexistence” presents a pragmatic strategy for navigating tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
The division of Korea into North and South remains a topic of discussion, yet the actual reason behind this division is not fully understood. Foreign intervention during this period created the division which continues to affect all aspects of inter-Korean relations because of Cold War competition. The main issue on the Korean Peninsula requires more than just coexistence management because it needs to resolve the violent division which created two artificial sovereign states from a single unified nation. International law acknowledges both North and South Korea as official entities, yet this legal validation does not resolve the ongoing historical trauma and constitutional conflicts, and strategic uncertainties. The policy framework needs to address the core issue of this wound while establishing a path toward justice and reconciliation, and future reunification.
The period before 1945 saw Korea actively participating in international affairs through various political groups which fought for both independence and self-rule. The Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea, based in Shanghai during 1919, worked to build a democratic republic while fighting for complete national independence. The Korean Communist Party established itself in 1925 as a secret organisation which followed Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Several independence networks operated in Manchuria and China, and the United States, through the actions of nationalists and anarchists, and diaspora activists. The Korean secret societies, together with student-led groups, worked to defend Korean culture while fighting against Japanese colonial domination in the country. The local groups established the fundamental principles for post-liberation governance, although their different perspectives were eliminated by the harsh realities of Cold War international politics. The modern history of Korea became a tragedy because Koreans expressed their desire for independence, which external powers then eliminated through their strategic actions.
The division of Korea was not a consequence of internal conflict; rather, it was unilaterally imposed by the United States and the Soviet Union in the aftermath of Japan’s surrender. In August 1945, Korea was divided at the 38th parallel into occupation zones, with the U.S. controlling the southern region and the USSR occupying the north. The Soviet and American zones became permanently separated because the proposed joint trusteeship failed to materialise due to rising Cold War tensions and Korean opposition.
By 1948, two rival, foreign-backed governments had emerged: the Republic of Korea (ROK) in Seoul and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in Pyongyang. The division served no purpose of Korean self-determination because it created enduring suffering and family separation and identity fragmentation, and an ongoing dispute about national history, which affects current diplomatic and security strategies. The Korean War from 1950 to 1953 established a permanent division between North and South Korea through a heavily fortified border that continues to affect people psychologically to this day.
The area continues to exist as a political boundary that four major powers control through their ongoing presence, which creates instability in the region. The United States created the division line while developing the ROK into a democratic-capitalist system and continues to station major military forces in the country. The Soviet Union backed the DPRK’s creation and its beliefs, while Russia maintains strategic support for the country after the Soviet Union dissolved.
China maintained military support for the DPRK throughout the Korean War and remains the foundation of North Korean economic and political stability. The colonial rule of Japan established conditions for resistance and division, which still create tension in bilateral relations because of unaddressed historical grievances. Throughout history, the participating powers have continued their efforts to establish and perpetuate both the separation and its resulting consequences. The conflicting interests between these nations have created more instability in the region through military expansion and diplomatic breakdowns, which continue to divide the area rather than bring peace.
The diplomatic environment contains various intricate components. The United Nations granted membership to both Koreas in 1991, which established their equal position as sovereign states under international law. The Montevideo Convention does not include these two countries as signatories, yet they fulfil all the traditional requirements for statehood through their permanent population and defined territory and functioning government and international relations capabilities.
Kim Jong-un declared in 2023 that North and South Korea have distinct populations, which indicates a permanent separation that makes reunification both legally and emotionally more difficult. The current situation marks a major shift from previous decades of North Korean statements, which used propagandistic language to suggest future unification. The North Korean refusal to participate in any form of symbolic unification creates doubts about the future of South-North Korean relations and the South Korean Constitution.
South Korea’s constitution enshrines reunification as a national goal. The DPRK’s status as a permanent equal member of the UN Security Council violates this mandate. The establishment of separate entities through peaceful coexistence creates a threat because it fails to create any route toward justice or unity between these entities. The policy lacks strategic direction because it does not specify whether it functions as a short-term tactical measure or a long-term doctrinal shift. The failure to resolve constitutional and historical disagreements makes coexistence an empty term that signifies inaction. The South Korean state must decide between practical North Korea relations and its duty to represent the entire Korean nation as its official government.
The future challenges will prove to be quite challenging. The geopolitical environment now displays rising hostility toward all reconciliation efforts. The rising competition between the United States and China has made the Korean Peninsula more vulnerable to becoming a major conflict zone. The situation becomes more complex because Russia has improved its ties with North Korea. The internal operations of North and South Korea create additional challenges for their relationship.
The political division in the South makes it difficult to establish a unified policy, yet the Northern government depends on keeping up its animosity toward both the South and America to stay alive. Time naturally causes family members to lose their emotional bonds with each other. Young people who have never experienced unification will most likely see the current division as an everlasting reality. People used to dream about reunification, but this dream has become less important to them. The evaluation process needs to establish permanent ethical requirements for reunification while understanding the core factors that lead to current social fragmentation.
A way forward requires both realism and vision. The dual-track policy needs to start peacebuilding and engagement work right away while maintaining continuous progress toward transitional justice. The framework for coexistence needs to follow constitutional principles while preventing human rights violations and nuclear threats, and establish clear diplomatic positions for both friends and enemies. The division of 1945 happened through external forces, which continue to serve as the main unresolved matter in Korean diplomatic relations. A strategic roadmap requires knowledge of past events because it needs to understand how major powers created the current situation, yet it should not disregard Korean independence. The process of reconciliation and reunification needs a thorough historical examination instead of empty declarations.
Despite the historical interventions and ongoing strategic rivalries of the four major powers, the Korean people retain agency. Above all, the central issue is not coexistence; it is the unresolved division of 1945. North and South Korea stay connected through their common historical ties and linguistic heritage, and shared cultural heritage, even though they have been apart for many years. Any future vision needs to preserve our shared ancestry instead of attempting to eliminate it. The development of policies requires understanding current geopolitical situations while maintaining the fundamental fact that Koreans form a single unified nation. The peninsula requires a combination of practicality with moral standards to create a future which surpasses crisis management and brings genuine recovery.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.
References
- Chang, K. (2025). A Fractured Liberation: Korea under U.S. Occupation. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Suh, C. (2025). Diasporic Politics in the Age of Decolonisation: Korean Independence and the U.S. Military Occupation of Korea, 1945–1948. Diplomatic History, 49(4), 576–602. https://doi.org/10.1093/dh/dhaf043
- Richey, M., Panda, J. P., & Tizzard, D. A. (Eds.). (2025). The Future of the Korean Peninsula: Korea 2032 and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
