Korean NGOs call for social consensus on unification issue

Civil society groups and a recent book look to make unification a popular issue among South Koreans through an appeal to history and greater public engagement.
By Michael Marshall   |   Oct. 1, 2014 at 1:56 PM

SEOUL, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- Rumors that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had been overthrown in a military coup circulated among participants at a conference here on Korean Unification Tuesday. The story came from blogging sites in China. It illustrated a key conference message that change could come at any moment on the Korean peninsula so people should prepare now for unification.

The Global Peace Leadership Conference – Korea 2014 was held to build consensus in South Korean society to prepare for future unification. Action for Korea United, the main organizer, is a coalition of almost 400 religious and civic organizations in South Korea, representing a broad range of views, which are active on North Korean issues. The Korea NGO Association, and the Buddhist-related Korean Sharing Movement were also active organizers.

Participants came from a wide spectrum of Korean society to discuss the theme: "Vision, Principles, and Values for a Unified Korea." They included politicians of both main parties, government officials, scholars, leaders of six main faiths in Korea, and humanitarian aid and human rights groups.

A feature of the conference was the launch of the book, "The Korean Dream: A Vision for a United Korea," by Dr. Hyun Jin Preston Moon, founder and chair of the Global Peace Foundation. It calls for greater public engagement with the unification issue through the activities of civil society organizations working in partnership with government. Dr. Moon and GPF were instrumental in setting up AKU in 2012.

This call was supported by government representatives. "It is time for the people to cooperate with preparing for unification," Vice Minister for Unification, Nam-sik Kim told participants. Representative of the ruling Saenuri party, Sang-hyun Kim, said, "This conference has opened the door for the people to talk about Korean unification."

"The Korean Dream" also looks to Korean history for a framework that can move Koreans past the current division. Dr. Moon explained, "I realized in talking about Korean unification, political leaders and academics were not tapping into that rich wealth of common identity, history and culture that could be the basis of unity for the Korean people, North and South, and in the diaspora community. That became the genesis for this book."

International speakers included Dr. Edwin Feulner, founder of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, Dr. Victor Cha, Korea Chair at the Center of Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, and Professor Feng Zhu of Nanjing University in China.

Dr. Feulner urged the continued importance of the U.S.-South Korea alliance in any move toward unification with South Korea taking the lead.

Professor Zhu said, "International dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region have never been better for the grand enterprise of Korean reunification since the end of the Cold War." He pointed to the growing cooperation between China and South Korea, a reassessment of China's policy on North Korea, and public opinion that was 75 percent in favor of unification under South Korean leadership.

Dr. Cha said that China and South Korea's interests would overlap significantly once China stopped believing it needed North Korea as a buffer state. He did not believe that this might lead to a deal that excluded the U.S. "South Koreans ... know that their outreach to China is only credible if it is grounded in a strong alliance with the U.S."

He concluded by saying unification was something "many of us in this room will witness, perhaps not next week or next year, but certainly within our lifetime."

© 2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
Most Popular
Ukraine's new military doctrine on fast track for approval, says prime minister Ukraine's new military doctrine on fast track for approval, says prime minister
Texas driver allegedly kills girlfriend while in middle of a sex act Texas driver allegedly kills girlfriend while in middle of a sex act
Nikki Haley lead down to 10 points in S.C. re-election Nikki Haley lead down to 10 points in S.C. re-election
Pakistani leader intimately connected to IS Pakistani leader intimately connected to IS
Joran van der Sloot is now a father Joran van der Sloot is now a father
Trending News
Outside View
23 hours

A defining moment in history

By Harlan Ullman   |   Oct. 1, 2014 at 10:59 AM

| License Photo
Make no mistake: in taking the fight to the Islamic State -- aka IS, aka the Enemies of Islam -- President Barack Obama is at a defining moment for his presidency and probably the future.

Perhaps less spectacular than the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet Union a quarter of a century ago or September 11th, the decision to catalyze a global fight against Islamic extremism and terrorism could be as far reaching in consequence. Consider the grounds for this conclusion.

The accumulating grievances dating back to well before the Sykes-Picot secret treaty of 1916 sliced Mesopotamia into indigestible parts have become irreversible thus forcing religious, ethnic, regional, political and ideological schisms to the breaking point. This breaking point has been exacerbated by centuries old Arab and Muslim animosity over Western imperialism and dominance. Turkey and Egypt of course are part of this imbroglio. And the long-standing Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a ticking time bomb.

As a result, at least four consequences have arisen. First, IS has become Frankenstein's monster of the Four New Horsemen of the Apocalypse that threaten mankind. The first rider is failed or failing government. The second is economic despair, disparity and dislocation. Third is radical ideology in this case predominantly religious fanaticism. Fourth is environmental calamity.

IS is the product of the first three. Hence, it is a symptom. For President Obama and the coalition of the willing and the frightened to succeed, action to redress the causes is the only long-term solution. Yet addressing the causes will take decades.

The metaphor is someone whose doctor has informed them of a life-threatening disease and offered two options. The patient can deal with the symptoms to reduce, pain, fever and other conditions hoping for a self-cure that is unlikely to arise. Or, the patient can undergo more radical and difficult treatment. Regarding IS, this is very much where we stand.

Next, fundamental flaws and contradictions that have shaped policy in the U.S., West and Arab Muslim states no longer can be papered over, ignored and hidden away in dark corners. The U.S. must decide how serious a threat IS really is because IS can never be defeated by outside forces alone. And within the region, the U.S. cannot simultaneously defeat Bashar al Assad, IS and restrain Iran's intentions. If IS is to be vanquished, then tacit or de facto alliance with Assad, however unsavory, and the ayatollahs in Tehran must be a concession. To some degree, elegantly discrete diplomacy can mitigate the political risks of Washington being seen even shifting a millimeter towards either Damascus or Tehran.

The Arab and Islamic worlds -- the latter which has never undergone a reformation -- must decide between modernism and medievalism. For Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, the threat of IS to every regime means that the double game of supporting both the west and Salafist and Wahabi radicalism is over. Which is it to be -- survival of the regime and reforms to that end or potential imposition of the most perverse and radical forms of Sharia law along with the demise of the current elite?

Iran and Saudi Arabia must decide whether their mutual antagonisms outweigh the threat of IS. Iraq must decide whether exclusion of the Sunni minority is more important than saving the country. And the Arab and Muslim states must decide that all are more or less united in opposing IS as the greater threat.

Fourth, other states, however distant, are involved and affected. Russia and China have huge internal problems with Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism and Moscow supports Syria. Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are linked to these issues. And Europe with its large Muslim populations is literally a passport away from obscene acts of terror.

Failing to resolve these policy choices and contradictions will mean that containing IS, let alone destroying it, will be a bridge too far. And the new Four Horsemen will be allowed to ride amok and unhindered. That alone must mark a defining point in history.

Of course, IS could implode. This is a strategy to pursue no matter what. Through disinformation, counter-narratives, targeted assassinations and ploys to turn one faction against another, perhaps the disease will cure itself. But do not bet on it.

Regardless of what specific strategies and tactics are followed, one over arching understanding is crucial to success. Unless we appreciate that this is a defining moment possibly in memory, what steps are taken will be insufficient unless we are very lucky. And while it is sometimes better to be lucky than good, this is not one of them. We need to be both lucky and good.
Harlan Ullman is Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business and Senior Advisor at Washington D.C.'s Atlantic Council and Business Executives for National Security. His latest book, due out this fall is A Handful of Bullets: How the Murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand Still Menaces The Peace.

© 2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
Load More