This article is by Seo Ji-eun and read by an artificial voice.



[EXPLAINER]

The head of South Korea's Unification Ministry and the country's top security adviser have aired starkly differing views on North Korea policy. While one sees North and South Korea as "two states," the other opposes this viewpoint - an issue that is stirring debate over what course the government will take on Pyongyang.

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young told reporters on Sept. 25 that South and North Korea are "already two states, even in international legal terms." Chung emphasized it as a de facto reality, noting the two Koreas' simultaneous admission to the United Nations in 1991 and decades of separate governance.

"We must transform the hostile two-state relationship into a peaceful two-state relationship," he said, suggesting a pragmatic approach to coexistence.

While accompanying the president to New York for the UN General Assembly, however, National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac drew a red line through the so-called two states theory.

Wi said flatly, while speaking to reporters on Sept. 23, "The government does not support nor recognize the notion of two states," stressing that under South Korea's Constitution and the 1991 inter-Korean Basic Agreement, the South and North are not separate countries but rather parts of one Korean nation in a "temporary special relationship" until reunification.

Wi's remarks underscored the traditional stance long held by officials in the "alliance camp," mostly from diplomatic circles, that Seoul can't formally acknowledge North Korea as a separate state without undermining the legal premise of eventual unification.

Such contrasting messages from two of President Lee Jae Myung's top aides - one advocating a "peaceful two-state" approach, the other rejecting any endorsement of "two states" - have highlighted internal divisions regarding views on Pyongyang. Experts caution that if these internal disagreements persist, it could send the wrong signal to North Korea and the international community, causing confusion.



Why is the 'two-state' theory so contentious?

The debate over viewing North and South Korea as two separate states is not new.

Since both Koreas joined the UN simultaneously in 1991, they have undeniably functioned as two distinct countries in the international community. Each has its own government, military and UN seat.

South Korea's official unification formula, the National Community Unification Plan, envisions a gradual process with three stages - reconciliation and cooperation, a North-South confederation and final unification into one state - with the middle stage essentially consisting of "two systems, two governments" coexisting in a confederal arrangement before full unity.

The crux lies in the fear that accepting the reality of two states, even temporarily, could weaken the ultimate commitment to reunification.

Article 3 of South Korea's Constitution proclaims one indivisible Korean nation and territory.

Moreover, in the 1991 Inter-Korean Basic Agreement, both sides agreed to regard their relationship not as international but as a special intra-national relationship.

Conservatives have long been wary that talk of "two states" plays into the hands of those who might want to cement the division of the peninsula. During the Cold War, Seoul vehemently opposed any "two Koreas" policy that might legitimize North Korea as a separate state. The phrase "two-state theory" in today's context carries that baggage.

Critics of Chung's latest remarks argue that calling the Koreas "two states" risks crossing a symbolic line.

The conservative opposition People Power Party (PPP) criticized Chung for language that "makes it seem the Unification Minister has given up on reunification." The party warned that aligning with a two-state concept could breach the Basic Agreement's spirit and even require amending the constitution's territorial clause.

Chung, however, says that the recognition of two governments ...