[The Editors' Verdict] What Did the Country Do?

Young-gi Cho, Special Professor at the Graduate School of Political Science, Kookmin University · Chairman of the Advanced Unification Research Association, Korea Peninsula Advancement Foundation

On the 22nd of last month, a public official in his 40s from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries went missing while performing official duties near the Northern Limit Line (NLL) in the West Sea and was later shot and killed by North Korean soldiers. The confirmation of North Korea's atrocity once again shocked the entire nation and caused great pain. Then, on the 5th, a handwritten letter from the official’s son titled “What did the country do when my father was killed?” intensified the public’s grief. The son’s letter has also awakened the question of “What is the nation?” Even without citing each article of the constitution, the primary duty of the state is to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The constitutional spirit dictates that this duty must take precedence over any other state function, and trusting in the state’s fulfillment of this constitutional responsibility, citizens willingly pay taxes.

However, since the official went missing on the 21st of last month until he was shot and burned by North Korean forces, there are many doubts about whether the government faithfully fulfilled its national duty. These doubts stem from the government’s attitude toward its citizens and its policy toward North Korea. The government’s seemingly fabricated announcement of voluntary defection(?) and passive rescue efforts, as well as the government and ruling party’s attitude of being grateful(?) for a single notification from North Korea, are the causes. In particular, the president’s neglect of the responsibility to protect citizens and the form and attitude of the apology to the public are subjects of criticism.

The belated apology from the president six days after the incident was problematic, and its form seemed disrespectful to the public. Especially, the format of the apology through opening remarks at the Blue House senior secretaries and aides meeting makes one question, “Is this really respectful to the people?” Instead of an indirect apology through the senior secretaries meeting, the president should have comforted the public with a direct apology for “failing to protect the people” and reassured them by presenting a confident plan to prevent recurrence. Because the form, timing, and content of the apology did not meet public expectations, it is evaluated as a reluctant apology lacking sincerity. Behind this harsh evaluation lies suspicion that the lives of citizens were undervalued due to the declaration of the end of the war.

On the early morning of the 23rd of last month, President Moon Jae-in delivered a keynote speech at the United Nations General Assembly emphasizing the need for a declaration of the end of the war. Although it was a pre-recorded film planned long ago, it is hard not to question whether sending out a call for a declaration of the end of the war immediately after North Korea’s atrocity was the right choice. The slogan “People first” was again shown to be meaningless in front of North Korea. When the apology letter from Kim Jong-un of North Korea’s United Front Department was delivered on the 25th, the government and ruling party’s attitude shifted from condemning North Korea to defending it. The government and ruling party highlighted the “early apology from Kim Jong-un and the fact that it included two expressions of regret,” portraying it as a very unusual phenomenon, thereby showing an attitude of defending and submitting to North Korea. The ruling party diluted and nullified the core content of condemning North Korea and absurdly proceeded to (automatically) submit the “Resolution urging the declaration of the end of the war” and the “Resolution urging individual tourism.” This submissive attitude of the government and ruling party toward North Korea was unbearable to witness. It is no wonder that sarcastic remarks like “Is this even a country?” are rampant in society.

The content of the notification from the United Front Department shows not only a lack of sincerity in the apology but also a condescending attitude toward South Korea in many places. The United Front Department’s counterpart is the Ministry of Unification. However, the United Front Department deliberately sent the notification to the Blue House. This reflects North Korea’s intention to belittle South Korea by observing the government and ruling party’s tendency to weaken themselves whenever facing North Korea. Just as opening the door to inter-Korean dialogue is important, so is maintaining a dignified protocol. Showing an attitude of being grateful for North Korea’s condescension is a self-destructive act that damages the national dignity of the Republic of Korea.

In response to the son’s desperate plea, on the 5th, the president expressed sympathy, saying, “I understand the heart of a son who lost his father. I am also heartbroken,” but the validity of this sympathy lasted only two days. Two days later, in a keynote speech at the Korea Society, a U.S.-Korea friendship organization, the president again brought up the card of the declaration of the end of the war, casting doubt on the sincerity of his sympathy. This obsession with the declaration of the end of the war seems to prioritize improving inter-Korean relations over protecting the people. However, in the current situation where North Korea’s nuclear threat remains, the declaration of the end of the war is an illusion. Therefore, now is the time to prepare a confident strategy for North Korea policy, not a declaration of the end of the war. Only then can the desperate cry of “What did the country do?” be silenced.

Jo Young-gi, Special Professor at the Graduate School of Political Science, Kookmin University & Chairman of the Advanced Unification Research Association, Korea Advanced Institute for Unification