South Korea’s civilised stance

Despite its history, the tensions with North Korea and other pressures, South Korea adheres to Article 5 of its constitution, [War, Armed Forces] which states that:

(1) The Republic of Korea endeavors to maintain international peace and renounces all aggressive wars.

(2) The Armed Forces are charged with the sacred mission of national security and the defense of the land and their political neutrality must be maintained. 

The South and North of Korea were separated by a civil war that ended in 1953 and South Korea set up a Ministry of Unification to work for reconciliation. The late president Kim Dae Jung formulated a “sunshine policy” under which South Korea tried to persuade Kim Jong Il’s regime to effect change through economic assistance, moving from confrontation to coexistence and opening up new diplomatic avenues on the Korean Peninsula. 

Goldman Sachs became fully aware of the economic advantages of such co-existence, publishing its findings that reunification could actually be of benefit by providing South Korea with the minerals and labour force its ageing, resource-poor economy needs.

The United States repeatedly presses South Korea to support ‘tough action’ against the North, proposing reduction of the generous aid given, cutting off economic activity and suspension of its citizens’ frequent visits to family and places of interest across the border.

It also wants South Korea to join naval operations, examining and destroying certain categories of heavy artillery, missiles and spare parts being transported to or from North Korea, in accordance with the UN ban imposed after the country conducted its latest nuclear test.

Last year there was an International Consultation on Peace, Reconciliation and Reunification of the Korean Peninsula – infinitely less exciting to the British press than the peccadilloes of royalty or footballers.

Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches spoke:

“Korean reunification was expected by many, as the new generation of South Korean leaders had made great efforts to change old perceptions and move beyond the Cold War era politics of rivalry. During the regime of the late President Kim Dae Jung, the South Korean leaders came forward to build a post-Cold War framework based on shared ethnic ties and cultural values with their northern neighbour. The majority of the Korean people support reunification and a move “from confrontation to community”, reconciling the divided communities . . .”

and ended

 “Today, we witness an unprecedented increase in economic cooperation between the North and the South. More visits of the South Koreans to the North are taking place. Cooperation on joint projects such as reconnection of roads and railways, the Kaesung Industrial Park and tourism at Kumgang, an increase of cultural contacts, joint sporting events, reunion of families and exchanges between different sectors of the Korean societies, are all positive steps that will ultimately lead to reunification.”

Though there have been interruptions to several of these activities following nuclear tests, other incidents and pressures to adopt and adversarial stance, South Korea has done its best to promote good relationships with the North.  We hope that one day its example will be more widely known – and followed.

*

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to South Korea’s civilised stance

  1. A comment from Balsall Heath:

    Buddhism would teach that aggression is pointless as it always leads to suffering.

    Also Korean nationalism would hold the civil war to be a fratricidal struggle, never to be repeated.

  2. greenmuslima says:

    Talking Constitutions… I like article 50 of Iran’s Constitution:

    Article 50 [Preservation of the Environment]
    The preservation of the environment, in which the present as well as the future generations have a right to flourishing social existence, is regarded as a public duty in the Islamic Republic. Economic and other activities that inevitably involve pollution of the environment or cause irreparable damage to it are therefore forbidden.
    source: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ir00000_.html

    How many countries have that (note their Constitution was adopted in 1979, so 8 years BEFORE the Brundland report of 1987 where most now get definition of sustainable development from)? OK, Iran is not ideal (though in all honesty, which country is?), but not at all as bad as portrayed in the media (been there in early 2004 after Bam earthquake in Dec ’03)

    In peace, Rianne

  3. General D’Souza [Mumbai] comments:

    I do believe that reunification would be beneficial to both RSA and NK not only economically but culturally and bring greater stability to the Far East.

    Right now both can afford to behave independently backed as they are by the US and China respectively

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: