Gov't mulls renaming Unification Ministry amid changing realities on the Korean Peninsula

Home > National > North Korea

Gov't mulls renaming Unification Ministry amid changing realities on the Korean Peninsula

Published: 03 Jul. 2025, 07:00

SEO JI-EUN
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Minister of Unification nominee Chung Dong-young speaks to reporters as he enters his temporary office in Jongno District, central Seoul, on June 24. [YONHAP]

[KEY PLAYER]

As the Lee Jae Myung administration eyes its first major governmental reorganization, one issue has unexpectedly become a flashpoint: whether South Korea's Ministry of Unification should keep its current name.

At the crux of the debate is whether the word "unification" still reflects the ministry's role — especially in light of North Korea's recent declaration that it no longer sees the South as part of the same nation.

The debate intensified after Chung Dong-young, Lee's nominee for unification minister and a five-term National Assembly lawmaker, suggested on his first day reporting to work on June 24 that the ministry's name should be "actively reconsidered." Chung is no stranger to the role and topic, as he last served as unification minister 20 years ago.

"We must first build peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula," said Chung, "Only on that foundation can unification be pursued."

He drew on a precedent from Cold War Europe, referencing West Germany’s decision to rename its All-German Ministry as the Ministry for Inner-German Relations.

For Chung, the shift would signal a pragmatic reorientation of South Korea's policy focus: from symbolic calls for reunification to practical efforts at peaceful coexistence.

Ministry of Unification in central Seoul [YONHAP]

The man behind the proposal

Chung's stance on renaming the ministry is particularly notable given his history.

Chung is an expert in inter-Korean affairs, having previously served as unification minister during the Roh Moo-hyun administration from 2004 to 2005. He also doubled as chairman of the National Security Council.

During his earlier stint as minister, Chung helped establish the Kaesong Industrial Complex and was a strong advocate for the Sunshine Policy, or Seoul’s engagement-focused approach toward North Korea.

South Korea's Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, left, meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang on June 17, 2005. Chung visited the North Korean capital as head of a South Korean delegation for inter-Korean events marking the fifth anniversary of the inter-Korean summit held in June 2000. [YONHAP]

He even traveled to Pyongyang as a special envoy, holding one-on-one talks with Kim Jong-il. His efforts culminated in the Six-Party Talks Joint Statement in 2005, which called for North Korea's denuclearization and its return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the years since, Chung has remained active in foreign and security affairs, most recently serving as co-chair of the Korea-U.S. Parliamentary Exchange.

Born in Sunchang, North Jeolla, Chung began his career as a journalist, joining public broadcaster MBC in 1978 and spending 18 years in broadcasting before entering politics.

He was elected to the National Assembly for the first time in the 15th general election in 1996 and went on to win five terms, serving as chair of the Uri Party and running as a liberal presidential candidate in 2007. Although he lost to Lee Myung-bak, he returned to politics via a 2009 by-election and continued his legislative career through the 22nd National Assembly.

A new era in inter-Korean relations

Chung's comments appear to align with a growing school of thought in Seoul that argues South Korea’s approach must adapt to the stark reality that North Korea has officially abandoned the goal of unification. In this view, holding on to the term "unification" may no longer be meaningful — and could even be counterproductive — given Pyongyang’s hardened stance.

Since late 2023, North Korea has unambiguously renounced unification, both in rhetoric and action.

During a plenary session of the Workers’ Party of Korea in December, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un declared 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."

Just weeks later, in January 2024, Kim ordered the purging of terms like “unification,” “reconciliation” and “fellow countrymen” from North Korea’s national discourse, alongside constitutional revisions to redefine South Korea as a hostile state and eliminate cross-border symbols of unity.

This photo provided by the North Korean government shows the explosion of an inter-Korean liaison office building in Kaesong, North Korea, on June 16, 2020. South Korea says that North Korea has exploded the inter-Korean liaison office building just north of the tense Korean border. [AP/YONHAP]

All inter-Korean communication lines were severed, joint liaison offices dismantled and key agencies handling North-South affairs were shut down.

Supporters of renaming the ministry argue that the current name not only misrepresents the state of relations but could also be seen by Pyongyang as provocative. Kim had accused Seoul of seeking regime collapse and "unification by absorption."

Appeasement or pragmatism?

The Unification Ministry's status and role have long mirrored the political winds in Seoul.

Established in 1968 under President Park Chung Hee as the National Unification Board, the ministry has never omitted the word "unification" from its name — despite periodic calls for reform.

In 2008, President Lee Myung-bak’s transition team proposed a sweeping government reorganization that included dismantling the ministry and integrating its functions into the Foreign Ministry.

Ironically, it was Chung who issued a scathing rebuke, saying the ministry "symbolizes the government’s will for unification" and that its abolishment would mean “abandoning the new administration's commitment to unification."

Now, two decades after his first tenure as minister, Chung is not calling for the ministry's elimination — but he is advocating a potential redefinition of the ministry’s identity.

Im Jong-seok, former presidential chief of staff for former President Moon Jae-in, also sparked debate last year by suggesting South Korea should no longer pursue reunification.

North Korea’s abrupt and explicit rejection of unification prompted some pro-engagement organizations in the South to move to revise their charters, removing references to unification and restructuring their operations to reflect the changed inter-Korean landscape. They proposed new names for the ministry, such as the Ministry of Inter-Korean Cooperation, the Peace Cooperation Ministry, or the Korean Peninsula Affairs Office.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, right, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un hold hands after watching a large-scale gymnastic and artistic performance at the May Day Stadium in Pyongyang on Sept. 19, 2018. [YONHAP]

Constitutional anchors

Several former officials and scholars warned that removing "unification" from the ministry’s name could amount to a symbolic surrender of South Korea’s constitutional mission.

Kim Yeon-chul, who served as unification minister during the Moon administration, voiced opposition to the idea at a policy forum in Seoul.

“From the standpoint of constitutional integrity, the ministry should retain its current name,” Kim said, adding that “a large-scale functional overhaul would be more appropriate.”

He further argued that the Lee administration should instead publicly clarify that it does not seek “unification by absorption,” a concept that has been heavily criticized by North Korea and cited as justification for Pyongyang’s abandonment of peaceful unification.

South Korea’s Constitution codifies unification not only as a policy goal but as a core national identity.

Article 4 declares 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." Article 66 adds that the president must uphold the duty to pursue peaceful unification, and Article 69 requires the president to take an oath committing to that goal.

Skeptics also question the practical impact of a name change on North Korea policy.

“If North Korea sees strategic benefit, it will [engage with us] regardless of what our ministry is called,” Minister Kim told the Korea JoongAng Daily, adding that it is naive to think they are refusing dialogue "just because of a nameplate."

Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies, argued that renaming the ministry without a constitutional amendment could open the door to the ministry itself becoming a "political football.”

“In an authoritarian state like North Korea, terms like ‘unification’ or ‘reconciliation’ can be erased easily," he said, "but in a democracy like South Korea, such decisions require deliberation and due process.

Yang cautioned that reopening debate over the ministry’s name could deepen both domestic political rifts and tensions with the North. He stressed that, at the outset of a new administration, “there are more urgent priorities” than a name debate.

Chung Dong-young, then-United New Democratic Party presidential candidate, right, tours the Kaesong Industrial Complex on Oct. 17, 2007. [YONHAP]

Peace by other means

Chung recently floated more neutral terms for other inter-Korean initiatives.

He has suggested that the Kaesong Industrial Complex — a landmark inter-Korean economic project now closed — be rebranded as "Kaesong peace city" or a "peace zone."

Chung also announced Wednesday that he had introduced a bill to amend the Assembly to more tightly regulate anti-North Korea leaflet launches near the military demarcation line.

The proposed revisions would require prior notification for any such activity in border areas and empower police to intervene if such actions pose a threat to public order or occur within military operation zones. Failure to comply with prior reporting requirements or government bans could result in legal penalties.

The proposal signals Chung’s broader push for managing inter-Korean relations through de-escalation and institutional safeguards, not only through rhetoric, but also through legislation.

BY SEO JI-EUN [[email protected]]