[Reporter’s Notebook] Lim Jongseok and the 'Two-State Theory': Does He Still Trust North Korea?

A 'Unification Activist' Suggests Following North Korea's Rejection of Unification
An Idea Wrapped in 'Peace' but Threatening Constitutional Values
Relying on North Korean Goodwill Led to Nuclear Development... Principles Must Be Upheld

"Unification, let's not do it." This resembles the words spoken by North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un ten months ago. This is the story of Lim Jong-seok, former Chief of Staff at the Blue House, who has long identified himself as a 'unification activist.' At a time when North Korea is preparing to amend its constitution to 'abolish unification,' it suddenly proposes accepting the 'two-state theory.' Even his own Democratic Party seems reluctant and has drawn a line. They fail to explain to the people, who have felt the divide between South and North, why this is a dangerous claim.

For the third chairman of the National Council of Student Representatives, who led Lim Soo-kyung's visit to North Korea and belongs to the 586 generation, this will be a special memory. He entered Yeouido with a background in the activist movement that shouted for 'national unification' and even served as the Presidential Chief of Staff. He is a prominent politician who must have fully considered the repercussions of his remarks. When such a person suggests giving up on unification, there must be a reason. Blindly trusting the pretext of 'peace' could lead to facing even greater threats.

Does recognizing North Korea as a state guarantee peace? The regional dynamics say otherwise. North Korea's dependence on China and Russia is likely to deepen immediately. This opens the door for China and Russia to openly intervene in the Korean Peninsula. If a force like the Trump administration comes to power in the U.S., scenarios such as 'Korea passing' with North Korea-U.S. normalization are possible.

The 'peaceful two-state theory' is an idea that undermines constitutional rights. It divides the territory in half and turns North Korea's nuclear deterrence into 'interference in internal affairs' by other countries. It also overlooks the sacrifices and hopes embedded in the constitutional mission of 'unification.' It abandons hundreds of abductees, detainees, and prisoners of war. There will be no grounds to protect North Korean residents either.

We have all experienced the results of relying on goodwill for peace. North Korea repaid the 'Sunshine Policy' with nuclear development. That group, which refuses flood aid and fires missiles, has already defined inter-Korean relations as a 'state of war.' The moment the line crossed by trash balloons becomes the 'border,' that is precisely when we must prepare for war.

Distrust in unification has grown over generations. Clearly, there is a need to consider new methodologies. But that does not mean shaking the consensus protected by the people and history. It is absurd that a South Korean politician would create a justification for the 'abolition of unification,' which even North Korean leaders cannot explain.

No matter how bleak the situation, there are 'principles' that must be upheld. East Germany claimed to be an 'individual state' like present-day North Korea, but West Germany did not accept it. West Germany also clearly maintained the constitutional obligation to protect East German residents. History has judged that this principled stance ultimately hastened unification.