South Korea's policy puzzle: Lee's top aides divided over 'two states' approach to North
Published: 05 Oct. 2025, 07:00
Updated: 06 Oct. 2025, 14:10
-
- SEO JI-EUN
- [email protected]
Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI
![A South Korean flag in Daeseong-dong and a North Korean flag in Kijong-dong flutter in the western front of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Paju, Gyeonggi, on Sept. 22. South Korea is grappling with how to define its relationship with the North. [YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/10/06/44ac347a-51ec-40d1-b919-02e1507d5135.jpg)
A South Korean flag in Daeseong-dong and a North Korean flag in Kijong-dong flutter in the western front of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Paju, Gyeonggi, on Sept. 22. South Korea is grappling with how to define its relationship with the North. [YONHAP]
[EXPLAINER]
The head of South Korea’s Unification Ministry and the country's top security adviser have aired starkly differing views on North Korea policy. While one sees North and South Korea as “two states,” the other opposes this viewpoint — an issue that is stirring debate over what course the government will take on Pyongyang.
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young told reporters on Sept. 25 that South and North Korea are "already two states, even in international legal terms." Chung emphasized it as a de facto reality, noting the two Koreas’ simultaneous admission to the United Nations in 1991 and decades of separate governance.
“We must transform the hostile two-state relationship into a peaceful two-state relationship,” he said, suggesting a pragmatic approach to coexistence.
While accompanying the president to New York for the UN General Assembly, however, National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac drew a red line through the so-called two states theory.
Wi said flatly, while speaking to reporters on Sept. 23, “The government does not support nor recognize the notion of two states," stressing that under South Korea’s Constitution and the 1991 inter-Korean Basic Agreement, the South and North are not separate countries but rather parts of one Korean nation in a “temporary special relationship” until reunification.
Wi’s remarks underscored the traditional stance long held by officials in the “alliance camp,” mostly from diplomatic circles, that Seoul can't formally acknowledge North Korea as a separate state without undermining the legal premise of eventual unification.
Such contrasting messages from two of President Lee Jae Myung’s top aides — one advocating a “peaceful two-state” approach, the other rejecting any endorsement of “two states” — have highlighted internal divisions regarding views on Pyongyang.
Experts caution that if these internal disagreements persist, it could send the wrong signal to North Korea and the international community, causing confusion.
![Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, left, and National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac speak after attending a ceremony for newly appointed Cabinet members at the presidential office in Yongsan, central Seoul, on July 28. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/10/06/b0b90284-cd50-4e31-8ff0-873cab4cf331.jpg)
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, left, and National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac speak after attending a ceremony for newly appointed Cabinet members at the presidential office in Yongsan, central Seoul, on July 28. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]
Why is the 'two-state' theory so contentious?
The debate over viewing North and South Korea as two separate states is not new.
Since both Koreas joined the UN simultaneously in 1991, they have undeniably functioned as two distinct countries in the international community. Each has its own government, military and UN seat.
South Korea’s official unification formula, the National Community Unification Plan, envisions a gradual process with three stages — reconciliation and cooperation, a North–South confederation and final unification into one state — with the middle stage essentially consisting of “two systems, two governments” coexisting in a confederal arrangement before full unity.
The crux lies in the fear that accepting the reality of two states, even temporarily, could weaken the ultimate commitment to reunification.
Article 3 of South Korea’s Constitution proclaims one indivisible Korean nation and territory.
Moreover, in the 1991 Inter-Korean Basic Agreement, both sides agreed to regard their relationship not as international but as a special intra-national relationship.
Conservatives have long been wary that talk of “two states” plays into the hands of those who might want to cement the division of the peninsula. During the Cold War, Seoul vehemently opposed any “two Koreas” policy that might legitimize North Korea as a separate state. The phrase “two-state theory” in today’s context carries that baggage.
Critics of Chung’s latest remarks argue that calling the Koreas “two states” risks crossing a symbolic line.
The conservative opposition People Power Party (PPP) criticized Chung for language that “makes it seem the Unification Minister has given up on reunification.” The party warned that aligning with a two-state concept could breach the Basic Agreement’s spirit and even require amending the constitution’s territorial clause.
Chung, however, says that the recognition of two governments doesn't mean accepting "permanent division."
Chung cited opinion surveys showing that over half of South Koreans — around 50 to 60 percent — consider North Korea an independent state in practical terms. In his view, South Korea must deal with the North as it exists — a sovereign entity — in order to reduce tensions.
He compared the view to West Germany’s approach during the Cold War: Bonn signed a Basic Treaty in 1972 with East Germany acknowledging it as a state and normalizing relations “until eventual reunification,” which came in 1990.
Cho Han-bum, a senior research fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU), however, downplayed the gap between Chung and Wi as largely rhetorical.
"Chung's language is about stressing reality, while Wi's is simply [to exercise restraint] by not saying it," Cho said, suggesting the two officials’ ultimate goals remain the same despite different wording.
![North Korean leader Kim Jong-un delivers a speech at the 13th Session of the 14th Supreme People’s Assembly held in Pyongyang from Sept. 20 to 21 in a photo released by the North's official Korean Central News Agency on Sept. 22. [NEWS1]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/10/06/63a5f18e-4c8c-4c82-94b7-7e3ec3591477.jpg)
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un delivers a speech at the 13th Session of the 14th Supreme People’s Assembly held in Pyongyang from Sept. 20 to 21 in a photo released by the North's official Korean Central News Agency on Sept. 22. [NEWS1]
What is North Korea's view?
The renewed “two states” controversy in Seoul comes on the heels of North Korea itself declaring that the peninsula effectively consists of two states — a statement highlighting its hostility toward the South.
In late 2023, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un officially pronounced that “the two Koreas are two states hostile to each other,” abandoning Pyongyang’s previous stance of eventual peaceful unification.
In a speech to parliament, the North's Kim even called for a constitutional amendment to designate South Korea as the “number one hostile state,” and North Korea’s Supreme People’s Assembly decreed in January 2024 that “the reunification of Korea can never be achieved with the Republic of Korea.”
For decades, even amid conflicts, the North had maintained reunification on its terms as a core ideological goal, but Kim’s new line signaled that Pyongyang now embraces permanent division, backed by its nuclear arsenal. It is against this backdrop that Chung called to turn the hostile two-state framework into a peaceful two-state framework.
Pyongyang, for its part, has not publicly responded in detail to Seoul’s semantic debate on “two states,” but is likely to view any South Korean overture calling for a “peaceful two states” with skepticism or scorn. North Korean media frequently derides proposals from the South's politicians as either insincere or as plots to weaken the North.
KINU's Cho cautioned that Kim has little incentive to engage simply because Seoul proposes peaceful coexistence.
Still, some experts note that Chung’s framing somewhat mirrors what Kim has asserted, but attempts to put a positive spin on it.
"If inter-Korean communication channels are restored and trust is built," Yang Moo-jin, a professor emeritus at the University of North Korean Studies, said, adding, "North Korea could eventually walk back its hostile stance."
![South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung addresses the 80th United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York on Sept. 23. [REUTERS/YONHAP]](https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/data/photo/2025/10/06/4bc92145-8213-4f1d-bd1e-f377572bbd37.jpg)
South Korea's President Lee Jae Myung addresses the 80th United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York on Sept. 23. [REUTERS/YONHAP]
Policy implications: Unity or mixed signals?
The public split between Chung and Wi has sparked a broader discussion among Seoul’s policy circles and international observers about the implications on South Korea’s North Korea strategy.
In his keynote address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 23, President Lee outlined three principles of peaceful coexistence with North Korea. These are to respect the North Korean regime and its system, to avoid pursuing unification by absorption and to refrain from any hostile acts.
Lee also proposed what he calls the “END Initiative” — standing for exchange, normalization and denuclearization — aiming to end the state of war and hostility on the Korean Peninsula. In practical terms, the initiative closely aligns with the peaceful two-state concept but stops short of any explicit “two-state” endorsement.
The South's policy stance on the issue also matters to its allies and the wider international community.
With U.S. President Donald Trump back in office, Seoul sees a chance to leverage Washington’s engagement as a "pacemaker" with another Kim-Trump summit being floated. That adds urgency for Seoul to have its policy house in order.
Analysts warn that mixed signals at the top could undermine the credibility and consistency of Seoul’s policy, as well as weakening Seoul’s bargaining position in any future negotiations.
“Differences of opinion can always exist [...] but the government must send out a single message," said Kim Jae-chun, a professor of international relations at the Graduate School of International Studies at Sogang University.
"Right now, that is not happening, so from the outside it looks as if South Korea's Pyongyang policy has no direction," Kim said. "Policy is all about quality."
BY SEO JI-EUN [[email protected]]
with the Korea JoongAng Daily
To write comments, please log in to one of the accounts.
Standards Board Policy (0/250자)