South Korea has made peaceful coexistence the central objective of its North Korea policy. As outlined in a recent white paper, Seoul has not formally abandoned reunification but has chosen to prioritise the more immediate and achievable objective of establishing a stable framework for coexistence.
The document articulates three guiding principles: respect for North Korea’s political system, rejection of unification by absorption, and avoidance of hostile actions. Underscoring the urgency of this approach, the foreword notes: “Peace on the Korean peninsula is not a choice for us, but a lifeline.”
At first glance, peaceful coexistence appears more realistic than reunification, a goal Pyongyang abandoned years ago. Yet coexistence should not be mistaken for an easy objective. While North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme is often portrayed as the principal obstacle to peace, more immediate risks stem from other issues, including the absence of communication mechanisms, Seoul’s inconsistent North Korea policy and an increasingly unstable status quo.
Advertisement
The most urgent challenge is the collapse of the inter-Korean communication architecture.
Virtually all institutional mechanisms designed to manage tensions have been dismantled. The inter-Korean liaison office was demolished by Pyongyang in 2020, military hotlines across the demilitarised zone (DMZ) remain largely inactive and a 2018 comprehensive military agreement to reduce the risk of accidental clashes remains suspended.
Advertisement
The dangers are not theoretical. Incidents involving drones crossing into North Korea illustrate the risks – without mechanisms for rapid clarification, signalling or de-escalation, even limited incidents could potentially trigger military responses. In an environment characterised by deep mistrust and limited communication, miscalculation may pose a greater danger than deliberate aggression.
 Â
​Read More