Home > Opinion > Editorials

Separation on Liberation Day eclipses unification

Published: 15 Aug. 2024, 20:15

President Yoon Suk Yeol dictated a vision of unification in his address marking South Korea’s 79th year of freedom from Japanese colonial rule. Korea’s liberation remains “unfinished” as it can only be complete through unification, he said in the Aug. 15 Liberation Day speech. “Only when the freedom we enjoy spreads to the northern territory can liberation truly be complete,” he said as he laid out 337 proposals to North Korea in what he called a unification doctrine.

He is right to argue that true liberation of the Korean people is unification under a free democratic regime and relief for the people in the North, aggrieved under the harsh deprivation of individual rights and dignity.

But to persuade the stubbornly self-absorbed ruling party of the regime, he should have first accepted North Korea as it is and present a more realistic pitch. He also fell short of explaining how the two Koreas can co-exist peacefully before they move to the next integration stage.

Rhetoric like “Freedom must be expanded to the North plagued by impoverishment and starvation” and proposals like energizing the North Korean people’s desire for freedom and unification through greater access to information can only provoke Pyongyang and push it further away from peaceful options. His call for a fight against “anti-freedom” and “anti-unification” rabble-rousers that generate internal conflict was also unnecessary. We welcome the government’s focus on unification, but the devil is in the details.

The Liberation Day ceremony itself was a bigger disappointment as it took place in the absence of opposition members including the National Assembly speaker as well as the Heritage of Korean Independence. The association of independence fighters and their descendants as well as the liberal parties boycotted the government-sponsored ceremony and held their own separately in protest against the government’s appointment of a controversial figure as the head of the Independence Hall of Korea. It is the first time Liberation Day, a symbolic day to stop partisan disputes to promote the spirit of unity, has been splintered by the public sector.

The liberal front and heritage foundation should have withheld their opinions to uphold the national memorial day instead of boycotting the ceremony. Their disapproval of a certain appointment should not have come above national interests.

Speaker Woo Won-shik’s joining of the boycott raises questions about whether he serves as the head of one of the three core branches of the state or as a member of the opposition party. He should have risen above the party and personal view to act as a national leader. His poor choice has set a disgraceful precedent in National Assembly history. The government also shares the responsibility for disappointing the public with a broken Liberation Day with its controversial and stubborn appointment. It must examine its screening mechanism to prevent further clamor over appointments.