Oct. 28 (UPI) — In the arena of global strategy, few regions are as critical — and as overlooked — as the Korean Peninsula. Yet, an alarming trend among U.S. policymakers has taken hold: “Unification Dismissiveness.” This indifference toward peaceful unification planning not only jeopardizes the long-term security interests of the U.S.-ROK alliance but also undermines the moral imperative of supporting the Korean people’s right to self-determination.
We stand at a historical inflection point, with North Korea actively extinguishing the possibility of peaceful unification, while South Korea has responded with the visionary 8.15 Unification Doctrine. The stakes are too high to remain passive or assume the status quo will hold. As Dwight Eisenhower famously noted, “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” Without a deliberate plan for peaceful unification, the Korean Peninsula risks descending into chaos in the face of potential war, regime collapse, or geopolitical miscalculation. Unification must be the primary objective, driving U.S. policy to ensure astable future that aligns with both American and South Korean interests.
With the confirmed commitment of North Korea People’s Army forces to support Putin’s War in Ukraine, it is likely that the symptoms of unification dismissiveness will grow stronger. This should not distract the U.S. and the ROK/U.S. alliance from the long-term objective of solving the “Korea question,” which is the unnatural division of the peninsula.
The perils of ‘unification dismissiveness’: why the U.S. cannot afford complacency
At a recent seminar speakers repeated a common refrain that peaceful unification is a pipe dream that can never be achieved because Kim Jong Un will never agree. Those who believe that are correct. Yet it illustrates the erroneous yet very common assumption that the approach to peaceful unification can only include agreement by the leaders of the North and South. As a result, any recommendations to conduct peaceful unification planning are simply dismissed. Consequently, effective planning for the acceptable, durable, political arrangements that will protect, and advance U.S. and alliance interests is discarded. The myopic and exclusive focus on denuclearization serves no one’s interests, except Kim Jong Un’s.
Unification: the way out of zero-sum dynamics on the peninsula
The situation between North and South is zero sum. Neither side can acquiesce for obvious reasons; Kim Jong will not give up power and the South Korean leadership will not allow nearly 50 million Koreans in the South to be enslaved in the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State of North Korea. The only option is the establishment of a free and unified Korea that will serve the interests all Koreans on the peninsula (Except for Kim Jong Un).
Kim Jong Un attacks the South’s unification plan as seeking regime change and absorption, but the South should still go ahead and plan for peaceful unification. Such planning provides the foundation for unification through any path that might arise: war, internal instability and regime collapse, or internal change in the North that results in new leadership seeking peaceful unification. No one should be hesitant about calling for peaceful unification that results in a free and unified Korea,We especially if it means that Kim Jong Un will no longer be in power.
We must be clear. The only way to end the nuclear and military threats and the human rights atrocities is through the establishment of a secure, stable, non-nuclear, economically vibrant, free and unified Korea.
Empowering North Koreans: the key to internal change
Getting information into North Korea is the key to change. Information will educate theKorean people in the North about how to conduct collective action to create the conditions for change. Yes, this is a threat to the regime. There should be no fear ina dmitting that because Kim Jong Un already demonstrates that his biggest fear is theKorean people. The existential threat to the regime is the example of the prosperous and free South, since the Korean people in the north desire to live in freedom like their southern brothers and sisters. Change cannot be imposed by external forces or unification will fail. Change must come from within by the Korean people.
Public planning for unification: gaining the moral high ground
An effective strategy requires a clearly defined end state or an acceptable, durable political arrangement. While denuclearization is important it is insufficient, and unattainable if Kim Jong Un remains in power. While he should always be given the chance to change his behavior, the Korean people and the ROK/U.S. alliance cannot depend on the hope that he will.
The ROK 8.15 Unification Doctrine has seized the moral high ground for the people ofKorea. It should be a major consideration for all political, diplomatic, economic, and information activity concerning the Korean peninsula. Meanwhile, the military must continue to deter war and the use of nuclear weapons until the Korean people create the conditions for internal change. The ROK/U.S. military alliance must adopt this as the military end state for its campaign plans: establishing the military and security conditions to support the political process of unification by the Korean people.
Conclusion
There is no middle ground. The only acceptable, durable political arrangement for the Korean Peninsula is unification. Policymakers and strategists in Washington must abandon outdated thinking and embrace the reality that unification – whether through peaceful transition or catastrophic change – is inevitable. A coherent strategy that prioritizes peaceful unification planning is not merely aspirational; it is essential for securing the economic integration and long-term stability of the region. As the Korean people in the North awaken to the knowledge of their inherent rights, the seeds of internal change will sprout. The U.S. must stand with South Korea, proactively shaping a future where unification aligns with the values of freedom, democracy, and human dignity – securing peace not just for the Korean Peninsula, but for the world. Anything less is a betrayal of the principles the U.S. claims to uphold. The only acceptable end state is a United Republic of Korea.
David Maxwell is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel who has spent more than 30 years in the Asia Pacific region. He specializes in Northeast Asian Security Affairs and irregular, unconventional and political warfare. He is Vice President of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy and a Senior Fellow at the Global Peace Foundation. Following retirement, he was Associate Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is on the board of directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the OSS Society, and is a contributing editor to Small Wars Journal.
