The resumption of family reunions is welcome news for the many people who were separated from their loved ones during the Korean War and were not able to meet their families in earlier rounds of reunions. The scenes from earlier reunion events of elderly siblings, cousins and even parents and children reuniting after many years of separation were deeply moving.
However, against the background of this promising news there is a sense of growing detachment amongst young people from the issue of unification. A recent paper comparing attitudes of young people to unification across the last twenty years found that the reunification of families was of marginal interest as a motivator for unification. Whilst unifying a so-called ‘one-people’ remained the most important driving factor amongst young people for wanting unification, other motivations such as ‘economic gains’ and ‘increasing peace’ were growing in importance. In other words, the motivation for unification was increasingly focussed upon a desire to make South Korea stronger rather than reunite divided nation or assist those living in the North. These results suggest that unification for young people would only be acceptable if there were net benefits for South Korea.
As the generation that experienced the Korean War and division slowly passes away, the memories of a unified Korean go with them. Increasingly, young people in the South are defining themselves as South Koreans whose nationalist interests lie only with the country that they have known.
So as we watch the emotional reunions of divided families, we should also think about how we can unify the divided identities of young people in South and North Korea if indeed unification is to be successfully achieved.
The recent passing of Kim Dae Jung and the coverage surrounding the event has once again sparked an interest in discussion on unification policy. Kim Dae Jung’s Sunshine Policy, followed by Roh Moo Hyun’s policy of engagement with the North sparked frank discussion of how to move forward with North-South relations with strong opinions held by all sides. In particular, Kim’s patronage of a policy that actively engaged the North, finally showed that efforts could be made to build bridges between the two governments and peoples without necessarily having to share ideological or moral views.
However, with the arrival of the right-wing Lee Myoung-Bak government, it seemed that the space for discussing engagement with the North narrowed, and once again those who proposed ideas of engagement were labelled ‘leftists’ or North Korean ‘sympathisers’.
With Kim Dae Jung’s passing, and the recent efforts by the North to apparently reach out to the South, there may once again be a space to discuss views that oppose those of the current incumbent government. Whatever view one may hold in regards to Southern policy toward the North, all must agree that the return of frank and public discussions about future policy can only be a good thing.
…a lot of these exchanges are beginning to incorporate more and more North Koreans into the experience. For instance, these twenty-one thousand workers at Kaesong who are North Koreans, eventually are going to go home and tell their families and friends what they experienced. At this point what we’re seeing is very initial steps on the part of North Korea as they try to open up reform and yet maintain control. At the same time, they are being forced into a number of institutional changes and mind-set changes that are the first step forward in this process.
The International Crisis Group has a decent briefing on what they expect LMB will do for the Korean peninsula. Pretty much the same old stuff, including:
Lee is expected to continue South Korea’s efforts at rapprochement with North Korea but to press more firmly for reciprocity than his predecessor. He has outlined a plan to narrow the economic gap by providing the North investment and help in creating an export manufacturing economy. There is widespread consensus in South Korea on engagement with the North, so the only change anticipated under Lee is a greater emphasis on holding Pyongyang to its commitments.
But the value of the piece is in its level of research. Unlike most pieces which rehash research from other sources, ICG has a strong reputation for actually conducting the research itself! Make sure you give it a read!
A guest post by a reader and now once again blogger…
—————————————————————————————-
Dear Fellow Bloggers and Blog Readers,
Greetings. I have enjoyed reading this and other blogs on Korea policy issues. Inspired by the second inter-Korea summit in October and other fast-paced changes that have brought renewed promises for peaceful settlement and further reconciliation in Korean peninsula, the Korea Report blog was re-activated in October after dormancy, with continuous coverage of pertinent news and commentaries. It recently passed fifty postings. [http://koreareport2.blogspot.com/]
Korea Report is dedicated to the reconciliation of peoples and nations affected by the Korean division, a lasting peace in Northeast Asia, and the reunification of Korea. It provides a Korean-American perspective, as a part of the Korean diaspora, on inter-Korean affairs, international relations and policy developments, with a strong desire to support and ensure peace and reconciliation process in Korea. It chronicles and comments on efforts and developments in this regard. I hope this effort will somehow contribute positively to the discussions on the future of Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia.
With Regards,
Editor of Korea Report
Washington, DC
Many suspected that differences in North Korea policy between a Lee Myung-Bak administration and the Roh Moo-Hyun administration were going to be largely cosmetic. Most thought it as an open secret that North Korea policy would largely remain the same… Stability is after all, much more valuable to most South Koreans than any chance of a North Korean collapse.
Well… Nam Sung-Wook, Professor at Korea University and advisor to the President-elect is quoted in the International Herald Tribune (Choe Sang-Hun, “Lee plans to harden Seoul’s line with North Korea, 20 December 2007) as stating:
“For now, you can forget about the October summit agreements. We will review them all from scratch to see if they are justified…the North must realize that we have a new government here and that things will be different”
Interesting times ahead. North Korea policy could well be in for a more significant change than many thought… Read some interesting views on Lee at Marmot’s Hole and DPRK Studies.
Kenneth Quinones, former US State Department North Korea specialist, has a very interesting piece comparing the ‘freeze’ on North Korean nuclear facilities that the Clinton administration sought and the ‘disablement’ on North Korean nuclear facilities that the Bush administration is seeking. Here is a taste:
In November 1994, I accompanied the first U.S. delegation to visit the Yongbyon Nuclear Research Center. As soon as the Agreed Framework had been signed on October 21, 1994, I was directed, as the North Korea Affairs officer, to arrange for a group of American officials and scientists to visit North Korea at the earliest possible time…Once the two sides had agreed upon a general outline of the procedures for the “freeze”, I was put in charge of implementing the agreement. This required that I live and work, together with a small number of American technicians, at the Yongbyon nuclear facility for six months in 1995: January, June, July, August, September and October. This experience enables me to compare the Bush Administration’s “disablement” with the Clinton Administration’s “freeze” of nuclear activities at North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear facility, located approximately 100 kilometers north of Pyongyang.
The Bush Administration’s efforts during the past seven years thus far have accomplished no more than the Clinton Administration’s eighteen months of negotiations accomplished. The difference is that at the end of the eighteen months, the Clinton Administration had a comprehensive agreement with North Korea to end its nuclear program. The Bush Administration, while to be commended for having finally given up its futile coercive tactics and all or nothing goal, is still striving to forge a negotiated end to North Korea’s nuclear programs.
The draw for the 2010 FIFA World Cup preliminary competition was held in Durban over the weekend. And in an announcement that drew gasps from the crowd, both North and South Korea were drawn to compete against each other in Asia’s Group 3, with Jordan and Turkmenistan. Watching how this plays out could be extremely interesting: Only one of the two Koreas will now be able to proceed to the World Cup finals….And it has given me pause to think about the role that sport has historically played in inter-Korean relations.
It is often claimed that sport is one of those few areas of human activity that can, and should, transcend politics. In 1988 the North’s boycott of the Seoul Olympics followed lengthy negotiations between the South, the North and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the North’s desire to co-host the games, which was eventually refused. Unwilling to co-host the limited number of events offered to them by the South and the IOC, the North reverted to Cold War tactics, abandoning its plans to attend the Games. Politics trumps sport.
Gabriel Jonsson, in Towards Korean Reconciliation: Socio-cultural Exchanges and Cooperation provides a comprehensive chronology of notable dates in which politics has not trumped sport.Has politics enabled sport in these cases? Or have these events taken place despite politics?Some of these dates, as detailed by Jonsson, include:
1958 – North Korea proposes joint Korean team for 1960 Olympics
1989 – First inter-Korean football matches played in Pyongyang (October 11), and Seoul (October 23). Jonsoon describes this as the “first real sign of progress” in inter-Korean relations.
1991 – (April-May) A unified Korean team participates in the 41st World Table Tennis Championships in Japan, (May) Permission granted for unified Korean youth soccer team. Televised try-out sessions held in Seoul and Pyongyang, (June) A joint Korean team participates in the 6th World Junior Soccer Championships in Portugal
1993 – (October) North and South Korea participate in the “Seventh General Meeting of the East Asian Athletic Council” in Pyongyang
1994 – (June) Both Koreas participate in the “The Association of East Asian Athletic Meeting in Taiwan.
1999 – (August) First North-South workers’ football matches played in Pyongyang, (September) Televised “Unification Basketball Games” played in Pyongyang, (December) “Unification Basketball Games” played in Seoul
2000 - (July) North and South Korea play table-tennis in Pyongyang, (September – October) South and North Korea march together under the Unification Flag at the opening and closing ceremonies of the Sydney Olympic Games, (October) The sacred fire for South Korea’s National Athletic Games put on at Mt. Keumkang.
2002 - (June) The inauguration ceremony and matches from the Soccer World Cup are televised on North Korean TV, (September) “Unification Soccer” Games in Seoul, (Sep – Oct) North Korea participates in Asian Games held in Busan. North and South Korea march together at opening and closing ceremonies.
2003 – (February) Both Koreas march together at the Asian Winter Games held in Japan, (October) “Unification Basketball Games” held in North Korea televised on SBS.
2004 – (August) Athens Olympics: Both Koreas march together.
2006 – (November) North Korea supports South Korea’s bid for 2014 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.
This match will be an extremely interesting game to watch. Personally, I hope that any game between the two countries is a closely fought one! What do you think? Is this event consequential for inter-Korean relations? Or not? Interestingly, this is not the first time something like this has happened. In the 2006 Asian Games at Doha, South Korea beat North Korea for a semi-final place. You can see highlights from this game below:
Loading ...
provides a comprehensive chronology of notable dates in which politics has not trumped sport.