Liberation can be completed with unification

Kim Byung-yeon
The author is a professor of economics and head of the Institute of Future Strategy at Seoul National University.

This year marks the 78th anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule. Since her independence, Korea has achieved tremendous accomplishments. The poorest country in the world has become a high-income country comparable to Western Europe. It also implemented democracy. Some even come from the West to learn Korea’s democracy. But something essential is missing. It is because of the division and confrontation between South and North Korea — and the suffering of North Koreans. Liberation without unification cannot be complete.

If we had achieved economic development and democratization without national division, what would we look like now? Korea could have entered the Group of 7 as a country with an economy comparable to Britain and France. The country would have been a great inspiration to developing countries, given its speedy path upwards from a former colony in the first half of the 20th century. But the territorial division was imprinted on the world as a symbol of an incomplete Korea.

Additionally, the risk factor associated with North Korea is at the core of the “Korea Discount.” The risk is far greater after the advancement of the North’s nuclear program and intensifying geopolitical conflicts in the Korean Peninsula. Division restricts Korea’s development and amplifies the risk. Can the insistence on remaining a divided country be valid?

When asked to overcome this division, opponents say they are concerned about the cost. According to a survey by the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, the proportion of Koreans who said unification was necessary fell to 46 percent in 2022 from 64 percent in 2007. The cost of reunification was the main reason.

However, that’s because they don’t know a better way to reunify the country. There are two reunification methods. The first is the radical unification Germany underwent. The second is gradual reunification through economic integration an example of which is the European Union. If reunification occurs suddenly, huge costs cannot be avoided. If two countries with severe income gaps are merged into one country, the tax burden on the richer country will surge in order to support the residents of the poorer country. But if the income gap between the two decreases considerably through the process of economic integration before their reunification, the net income of residents will increase thanks to the integration.

The best path towards unification is “denuclearization to economic cooperation to integration to unification.” This process increases individual welfare and national interests while contributing to peace. Korea’s national community unification plan is also based on gradual unification. But the past conservative administrations implied that they were pursuing radical unification. They failed to answer the “how” and only advocated wishful optimism about the reunification cost and justification for the need to prepare for expected problems. This unsubstantial argument cannot be a policy. The answer is already clear. The government must pursue the best-scenario unification plan as a policy while bracing for a radical reunification.

Unification cannot be achieved by one means alone. Policy measures — such as sanctions, pressure, deterrence, dialogue, exchange, economic cooperation and knowledge sharing — must be linked to each scenario and the short, medium and long-term platforms. At the current denuclearization stage, the Ministry of Unification is close to a “Plan B” ministry. During this period, the ministry must prepare for the resumption of inter-Korean talks or exchange and cooperation while developing policies and accumulating capabilities for integration and reunification.

Leaders must understand the complexity of the ministry’s role. If you think that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs oversees denuclearization, the Ministry of National Defense handles security, and intelligence agencies analyzes North Korea, the role of the Unification Ministry seems insignificant. However, if the aforementioned ministries are experts in certain areas, the Unification Ministry is a generalist. In times of complex crises and volatility, an excellent generalist is needed to understand and integrate all the means and processes of unification. Such a generalist cannot be created in a short period of time. Just like you cannot draw the same dice all the time, the current state can change at any time. It is the fair duty for the leader to prepare for all possibilities. The government will fail again if it ignores the complexity of the North Korean issue and unification and misjudges that there is one master key to North Korea policy. Movements should be identified even under a quiet situation — and the balance should be kept without losing the sense of destination even amid turbulence. When skepticism for unification prevails, politicians will find a way nevertheless. Only a leader whose calling is reunification and who has intellectual knowledge of the complexity involved — not a simple belief — can complete the liberation.

Translation by the Korea JoongAng Daily staff.