What Seoul must do to achieve peaceful coexistence with North Korea

What Seoul must do to achieve peaceful coexistence with North Korea

South Korea needs to restore communication channels, end the policy see-saw and ensure official rhetoric is consistent with policy objectives

3 -MIN READ

Listen

Dr Gabriela Bernal is a North Korea analyst based in Seoul, South Korea.

Published: 4:30pm, 3 Jun 2026

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.

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.

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.