“The Need for and Challenges of Institutionalizing Peaceful Coexistence on the Korean Peninsula”

 It analyzes the changing dynamics between North and South Korea and argues that peace on the Korean Peninsula should now be understood as “institutionalized coexistence” rather than reconciliation or reunification.

The paper explains that North Korea has recently shown two contrasting tendencies. On one side, it is strengthening hostility toward South Korea by officially defining inter-Korean relations as those between “two hostile states.” On the other side, it has also shown selective flexibility in reducing tensions, especially in response to South Korea’s apology over the drone incursion incident. According to the author, these actions are not contradictory but part of a dual strategy in which North Korea maintains structural hostility while also controlling the risk of military escalation.

The article highlights that North Korea’s hostile policy is no longer only rhetorical. It has begun reshaping the very structure of inter-Korean relations. Traditional ideas such as reconciliation, cooperation, and unification are being removed from official discourse. Instead, South Korea is increasingly treated as an external security threat that requires continuous management. This shift became more visible after the Workers’ Party of Korea formally described South Korea as a “primary hostile state” and removed unification-related concepts from state policy.

The document also discusses recent institutional changes inside North Korea. Agencies dealing with inter-Korean affairs have been reorganized or downsized, and inter-Korean policy is no longer treated as a separate field but as part of broader national security and foreign policy. According to the paper, this indicates that North Korea sees hostility not as a temporary tactic but as a stable structural condition. As a result, the traditional goal of “improving relations” between the two Koreas has become less realistic. Instead, the key issue is how to manage tensions in a sustainable way.

A major section of the paper focuses on North Korea’s response to the drone incident. South Korean President Lee Jae-myung publicly expressed regret over the incident and called for preventive measures. In response, Kim Yo-jong gave an unusually conciliatory statement, describing the South Korean response as “wise” and “broad-minded.” However, she simultaneously warned South Korea against further contact or provocations. The author interprets this not as a sign of improving relations but as evidence that North Korea wants to carefully manage the level of tension instead of allowing uncontrolled escalation.

The paper argues that this behavior reflects a broader strategy. North Korea appears to recognize that military conflict would be strategically harmful, especially considering its relations with the United States, international sanctions, and domestic economic pressures. Therefore, it seeks to maintain hostility while keeping tensions within manageable limits.

One of the central arguments of the document is that peace on the Korean Peninsula should no longer be viewed mainly as reconciliation or reunification. The traditional approach focused on dialogue, trust-building, and restoring national unity. However, under conditions of “institutionalized hostility,” such goals are increasingly difficult to achieve. The author proposes a new framework based on “coexistence,” where peace means preventing conflict and maintaining stability despite ongoing hostility.

The concept of peace, according to the paper, is shifting from “restoring national homogeneity” to “managing stable division and preventing conflict.” Peace is described not as a final condition but as a continuous process of risk management and institutional design. This means that the Korean Peninsula may enter an era of “adversarial coexistence,” where hostility continues but is carefully controlled to avoid war.

In conclusion, the paper states that the Korean Peninsula is moving toward a new equilibrium characterized by “managed tension within persistent hostility.” The author emphasizes that policymakers should stop relying on outdated assumptions about reconciliation and instead develop realistic mechanisms for conflict management and stability. Peace, therefore, must be treated as an ongoing process requiring innovation, institutional planning, and strategic adaptability.