Home > Opinion > Editorials

Is gov't infighting over North Korea policy reviving the autonomy-alliance divide?

Published: 17 Dec. 2025, 00:00

Jeong Yeon-doo, head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Diplomatic Intelligence Bureau, and Kevin Kim, chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Korea, wait for a meeting to begin during follow-up consultations on the Korea–U.S. summit joint fact sheet at the Foreign Ministry complex in Jongno District, Seoul, on Dec. 16. [JOINT PRESS CORPS]

Tensions between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Unification over control of North Korea policy are escalating. On Tuesday, Seoul and Washington held their first follow-up talks to the South Korea–U.S. summit joint fact sheet, but the Ministry of Unification did not attend. Instead, it held a separate briefing on North Korea policy for members of the diplomatic corps in Seoul and representatives of international organizations. The ministry said it stayed away because issues related to inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation should be discussed directly between the Unification Ministry and the U.S. side. As a result, the first working-level consultation proceeded awkwardly with only the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry present.

The Unification Ministry’s hard line reflects concern that the new consultations could evolve into a revival of the South Korea–U.S. Working Group launched in 2018 under the Moon Jae-in administration. That body was created to strengthen coordination during efforts to advance North Korea’s denuclearization and inter-Korean cooperation. At the time, Seoul was led by the Foreign Ministry. The Unification Ministry argues that Washington’s strict approach to humanitarian aid and other cooperation measures, coupled with what it saw as a passive response by the Foreign Ministry, ultimately stalled inter-Korean engagement.

Those concerns are not without precedent. After North Korea blew up the inter-Korean liaison office in June 2020, Kim Yo-jong, a senior official of the Workers’ Party, blamed the Seoul-Washington Working Group, saying it was imposed by “the United States as the master.” Within South Korea’s ruling camp, the group was even denounced as an “imperial residency,” and it was disbanded just two years after its creation. With the second Donald Trump administration recently announcing new sanctions, the Unification Ministry appears to fear a repeat of that episode and has opted for an outright boycott.

The dispute has since taken on ideological overtones. Six former unification ministers have publicly argued that North Korea policy cannot be entrusted to a Foreign Ministry that lacks understanding of inter-Korean relations. Their intervention has revived the longstanding clash between so-called autonomy-oriented and alliance-oriented camps in Korea’s foreign policy debates.

Amid this turmoil, the presidential office has failed to play its role as coordinator. Denuclearization and inter-Korean cooperation are inseparable issues that require careful alignment across ministries. Yet the presidential office has largely tolerated the independent course taken by Unification Minister Chung Dong-young, who has consistently advocated easing sanctions and scaling back joint South Korea–U.S. military exercises. Only after the dispute boiled over did it reportedly issue a warning urging restraint. National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac said the government would continue efforts to speak with one voice on external issues. Still, the Unification Ministry’s absence from the latest talks raises doubts about whether that message is being heeded.

The government must now recalibrate its North Korea policy through rigorous internal debate led by the presidential office. Once a direction is set, all ministries should present a unified external stance, even if internal disagreements remain. President Lee Jae Myung holds the key. Continued discord within the government will do nothing to advance solutions to the North Korean nuclear issue or to ensure the effective implementation of South Korea–U.S. trade and security agreements.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.