Korea's (In)Convenient Division

Throughout history, the Korean Peninsula has served as an example of three inevitable matters regarding national interest within world politics: division, defensiveness and political maneuvering. Since the end of the Second World War, Korea was turned into a battleground in terms of strategy thanks to its geographic position, and also into a political hub because we have two drastically different political systems close to each other. 

Since there have been entries where reunification and economy issues have been discussed already, this entry will focus on the matter of division as unnecessary and as something that nowadays (moreover after the demise of communism and the Berlin Wall), is seen as archaic and even out of the question. Together, North and South Korea represent a lot of what is wrong with international politics, peacemaking processes, treaties and the whole definition of 'negotiation' and cooperation. 

Experts on Korea normally have the unintentional obstacle of seeing the situation as something that has no end, or just limit themselves to only analyse the existing scenarios or, predict something that is predictable beforehand. In essence, and in many ways and perspectives, this is a problem within international relations academia, where few policy experts are able to propose concrete or real solutions. 

Sadly, the world needs more action, or at least something close to be a concrete or a possible solution. Excessive emphasis on State or dogmatic discourses, comfort zones and lack of constructive criticism are three big obstacles to eliminate, otherwise the world will continue having wars, human rights violations, divided countries and ironies like the United Nations having a Secretary General from a country which, technically, is still at war. 

The role of the United Nations nowadays is more of a national interest guarantor (the interests of few) rather than a guiding light for cooperation and peace. It is true that it impossible to solve all wrongs of the world only through the actions of few people, but even if such wrongs are not entirely geographically close to us or relevant to our interest or reality, challenging or questioning  dominant narratives can be a good start. 

Regarding this matter of dominant narratives, in both Koreas opinions regarding the war and the whole issue of division are very similar, and in many cases, the same. The two countries followed a different path determined (almost entirely) by the surrounding environment. North Korea started as a 'good' communist state while Mao and the Soviet Union were enjoying some sort of success in their experiment. 

South Korea suffered the burden of war for more than thirty years with dictators, lack of resources and a generalised situation of poverty. In the late eighties however, the situation changed, and in between other wars derived of the ideological struggle during the Cold War, and frustrated nuclear and military ambitions, North Korea declined rapidly, while South Korea grew and turned into an economic power. South Korea has achieved remarkable progress and has continued to develop against all odds. The attitude of Koreans towards work and objectives and most importantly, their cultural values, are their greatest asset. 

Korea has been having a constant characteristic throughout its history which sometimes has been noticeable and others, has been more discrete: foreign intervention. The country has been under very powerful influences, namely China and Japan. Nowadays strong criticism is held against Japan because of the undeniable atrocities and crimes committed during the Second World War, and claims for apologies seem to grow every year. While severity is exercised against Japan, the role of China and the United States is rarely questioned.

Empires and zones influence are never made out of the basis of consensus, or popular will, lest good will. The role of China in the Korean War was preventing the 'enemy' get closer to their border, and the same logic applies for the involvement of the United States. Kim Il Sung was expecting to reunify Korea under communism, something really unthinkable for the White House during that time. 

Japan was under physical and psychological reconstruction, a very convenient circumstance for the allied powers to have some influence in Asia that would suit their interests. Foreign intervention in Asia resulted in a mess, because even after all American casualties in Vietnam, the country ended up being communist, Myanmar ended up being a dictatorship, Korea is still divided and Japan turned into a regional power again, but on different grounds. Bangladesh, India and Pakistan have a lot of issues derived of intervention and also, of cultural matters (some quite unthinkable). The recovery challenge was faced differently by each country.

Korea today represents a small scale model of the Cold War, and even after the demise of communism and the end of the Berlin Wall, the problem in Korea goes beyond division itself. Germans used to say that "The Wall in itself was not the issue, the problem were mental walls". This pretty much explains the problem in Korea: people still regard the United States as a saviour who acted out of good will, and in the North, China is regarded as a permanent ally in spite of openly allowing the entry of North Korean officers to the country to kill dissidents and using them as a buffer state.

Lee Myung Bak said once that 'reunification was inevitable', but eventhough there is some will in Korea to follow the example of Germany, there is still a long way to witness some of the key attitudes seen in both the RFA and the RDA before 1989. Some East Germans were critical about their government, about Ulbricht and Honecker, and even their life style. West Germans were critical towards the wall, occupation, and some did feel sympathy for their fellow nationals. Things like Republikflucht and protest expressed through art, music and literature came later.

In both Koreas nobody is critical towards their governments, except for Japan (in the North being critical towards their leaders is unthinkable), most citizens blindly accept and follow official discourses, and since the generation who survived war is more leaned towards criticism against Japan instead of turning towards those who divided them to their convenience, makes the path for reunification harder, leaning to impossible. In South Korea some people are proud of division, and many also accept the military presence of the United States. North Korea now seems to have the role of a buffer state between China and 'the capitalists'. 

Nevertheless, indoctrination exists in both sides, but with a different face. Accepting foreign influence, occupation or presence is a very delicate symptom of conformity, and if all Koreans (moreover those born after the war) lose that sense of identity, common culture,their values and a shared past, the peninsula will remain as it is. Kim Sung was right when he said that 'The Korean question is a matter that concerns Koreans only', because in the end, the ones who suffer or benefit from negotiations and their outcomes are Koreans. Division and wars (or obeying somebody else's interests, decisions or plans) do not bring any kind of positive outcome on the long term.

Korea, beyond being divided by a line of bombs and mines, it is divided by ideological walls, which have made them believe that division is their natural state, while such state is reduced to a convenience for those who have built the 38 Parallel in their minds. 

Way to Paju, near DMZ (c) Maria Blancas

Unification flag in Sydney 2000 Olympics (c) Hello Magazine