Dual-neutrality for the Koreas: a two-pronged approach toward reunification

ABSTRACT

This article builds a novel argument for the unification of the two Korean states by way of a dual neutralisation process. After reviewing the neutralisation concept and the history of neutrality ideas for the peninsula, the authors introduce two historical models that would fit the security needs of both Koreas and their respective security partners. Using a realist framework, it is argued that the “Finlandisation” of the DPRK on the one hand; and the “Austriasation” of the ROK on the other, would not change the de facto security relationships with their patrons, but would create the structural underpinning for future foreign policy compatibility. Assuming other factors remain equal and a solution to internal political division could be brokered, the article proposes a security framework for both states aimed at separately creating the structures for a future unified neutral Korea.

KEYWORDS:

• Korea
• neutrality
• neutralisation
• reunification
• Austria
• Finland
• Asia
• China
• USA

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ju-Hyung Kim for his kind support in researching Korean language newspapers and providing translations for some of the cited materials. The authors bear the sole responsibility for all errors.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In Kwan Hwang, ‘Neutralization: An All-Weather Paradigm for Korean Reunification’, Asian Affairs: An American Review 25, no. 4 (1999).

2 Cyril E. Black et al., Neutralization and World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).

3 Malbone W. Graham, ‘Neutralization as a Movement in International Law’, The American Journal of International Law 21, no. 1 (1927).

4 Antonio S. de Bustamante, ‘The Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Land Warfare’, ibid., 2 (1908); Maartje M. Abbenhuis, An Age of Neutrals: Great Power Politics, 1815–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).

5 Nils Ørvik, The Decline of Neutrality 1914–1941. With Special Reference to the United States and the Northern Neutrals (Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag, 1953), 38–61.

6 Filip Ejdus, ‘Serbia's Military Neutrality: Origins, Effects and Challenges’, Croatian International Relations Review 20, no. 71 (2014).

7 Pascal Lottaz and Tumurjin Ganbaatar, ‘Die Neutralität Der Mongolei: Ein Schönes Pferd’, International 2021.

8 Gordon E. Sherman, ‘The Neutrality of Switzerland’, The American Journal of International Law 12, no. 3 (1918): 471–73.

9 See “Treaty between Her Majesty and the King of Prussia Relative to the Independence and Neutrality of Belgium. Signed at London, August 9, 1870” and “Treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French Relative to the Independence and Neutrality of Belgium. Signed at London, August 11, 1870.” In Treaties and Documents Relative to the Neutrality of the Netherlands and Belgium. wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/nTreaties_and_Documents_Relative_to_the_Neutrality_of_the_Netherlands_and_Belgium. The Swiss and the world conveniently forgot about this defense obligation when in 1914 the First World War broke out.

10 Jürg Martin Gabriel, The American Conception of Neutrality after 1941 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 191–218.

11 German Chancellor Adenauer called this proposal “suicidal” because he wrongly thought that it was Soviet a tactic to undermine Germany. Konrad Adenauer, Erinnerungen 1955–1959 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1967), 474, 480.

The expression was later used in the OSCE-context by the Report “Back to Diplomacy”, Final Report and Recommendations of the Panel of Eminent Persons on European Security as a Common Project (November 2015). https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/2/5/205846.pdf.

12 Andreas Hillgruber, Europa in der Weltpolitik der Nachkriegszeit 1945–1963, (Vienna: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1979), 60–1.

13 Ash Jain, Matthew Kroenig, and Jonas Parello-Plesner, An Alliance of Democracies: From Concept to Reality in an Era of Strategic Competition, vol. Washington DC (Atlantic Council, 2021).

14 Salil Saloni, ‘Indo-Pacific: Aukus and Quad: Beijing’s Response’, SP's Naval Forces, November 22 2021.

15 In a survey sixty to sixtyfive percent of European Union citizens would in a US-Chines conflict rather stay neutral than take sides. European Council on Foreign Relations (January 19, 2021), The crisis of American power: How Europeans see Biden’s America, Policy Brief, https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-crisis-of-american-power-how-europeans-see-bidens-america/.

16 For a short discussion of the text see In Kwan Hwang, ‘A Translation and Critical Review of Yu Kil-Chun's ‘on Neutrality’’, Korean Studies 9 (1985).

17 Sangpil Jin, Surviving Imperial Intrigues: Korea’s Struggle for Neutrality Amid Empires, 1882–1907 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2021).

18 National Security Council Report 81/1, September 9., 1950, cited in Gabriel, American Conception, 151.

19 Jane P. Shapiro, ‘Soviet Policy Towards North Korea and Korean Unification’, Pacific Affairs 48, no. 3 (1975): 338–39; Myung-Ork Park, ‘North Korean Relations with China and the Soviet Union: The Impacts of Changes in the Leadership of the Two Communist Powers on North Korea’ (Eastern Illinois University, 1983); Kil Joo Ban, ‘Making Neutrality Credibly Work: The Nnsc on the Korean Peninsula’, East Asia 37 (2020).

20 Joong Ang IIbo, “North Korea proposed ‘federal neutrality’ to the US through the Soviet Union in 1987,” March 3, 2018, mnews.joins.com/article/22490978#home. For the original documents see archival number of the document in Korean: 24754 722.12 UR/US 미국·소련 정상회담. Washington, DC, 1987.12.8-10 1987–1987 북미과/동구과 2017–0007 14 0001–0222 [Diplomatic documents in 87 years] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gorbachev, Reagan Conferring North Korea Proposal “Neutral Nation and Buffer Zone Declaration.”

21 Dae-Jung Kim, Naui Gil Naui Sasang [My Path, My Thoughts] (Seoul: Han Gilsa, 1994), 362.

22 Donga Ilbo 2004, December 9.

23 Donga Ilbo 2012, July 17.

24 Selig S. Harrison, ‘One Koera?’, Foreign Policy 17 (1974): 62.

25 Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and U.S. Disengagement (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002). Particularly noteworthy is the final chapter “Then and Now: The Case for a Neutral Korea.”

26 In Kwan Hwang, The Neutralized Unification of Korea in Perspective (Cambridge: Schenkman, 1980); One Korea Via Permanent Neutrality: Peaceful Management of Korean Unification (Cambrdige: Schenkman Books, 1987); The United States and Neutral Reunited Korea: Search for a New Basis of American Strategy (Lanham: University Press of America, 1990).

27 Tae-Hwan Kwak and Seung-Ho Joo, ‘The Future of the Korean Peninsula: Unification and Security Options for the 21st Century’, Asian Perspectives 23, no. 2 (1999); One Korea: Visions of Korean Unification (London: Routledge, 2017).

28 Tae-Ryong Yoon, ‘Neutralize or Die: Reshuffling South Korea’s Grand Strategy Cards and the Neutralization of South Korea Alone’, Pacific Focus 30, no. 2 (2015).

29 James E. Auer, ‘The US–Japan Security Treaty and Neutrality for North Korea’, in The Future of North Korea, ed. Tsuneo Akaha (London: Routledge, 2002); Alexandre Mansourov, ‘A Neutral Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? Historical Background, Rationale, and Prospects’, ibid.; James Clay Moltz, ‘Us Policy Interests and the Concept of North Korean Neutrality’, ibid.

30 Xiao Xiong Yi, ‘A Neutralized Korea? The North-South Rapprochement and ChinàS Korea Policy’, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 12, no. 2 (2000); Shiping Tang, ‘A Neutral Reunified Korea: A Chinese View’, The Journal of East Asian Affairs 13, no. 2 (1999).

31 Robert Bedeski, ‘Peace and Neutrality on the Korean Peninsula: A Role for Canada?’ Pacific Affairs 73, no. 4 (2000).

32 Jin, Surviving Imperial Intrigues; ‘Could Permanent Neutrality Be the Answer for Korea?’ East Asia Forum, September 15 2018.

33 ‘Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’, Peking Review 4, no. 28 (1961). Online available in English at www.marxists.org/subject/china/peking-review/1961/PR1961-28a.htm.

34 ‘Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea’, The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy (1953). Available online at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp.

35 Article 1. “The Agreement of Friendship, Coöperation, and Mutual Assistance between The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and The Republic of Finland.” Available in English at http://heninen.net/sopimus/1948_e.htm.

36 Article 4. Ibid.

37 A. Upton, ‘Neutrality: The Finnish Position. By Urho Kekkonen’, International Affairs 47, no. 2 (1971): 414.

38 Michael Gehler, ‘From Non-Alignment to Neutrality? Austria's Transformation During the First East-West Détente, 1953–1958’, Journal of Cold War Studies 7 (2005).

39 Austrian National Council, ‘Constitutional Law on the Neutrality of Austria (26 October 1955).’ Online available in English at https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/670aa09c-4d4b-451a-84f2-23f2f9c8cb06/publishable_en.pdf

40 Wolfgang Müller, A Good Example of Peaceful Coexistence?: The Soviet Union, Austria, and Neutrality, 1955–1991 (Vienna: OAW, 2011).

41 On Swedish security thinking see Thomas Jonter, The Key to Nuclear Restraint: The Swedish Plans to Acquire Nuclear Weapons During the Cold War (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).

42 The US-Japanese Security Treat does not require Japan to commit to the defense of the US. In 2015, the administration of Shinzo Abe, however, “reinterpreted” the constitution to allow for the defense of US assets and personnel if they should be attacked in the vicinity of Japanese forces.

43 William Gallo, ‘Us Rules out Redeploying Tactical Nukes to South Korea’, Voice of America, September 24 2021. www.voanews.com/a/us-rules-out-redeploying-tactical-nukes-to-south-korea/6243767.html.

44 Enkhsaikhan Jargalsaikhan, ‘The Role of Small States in Promoting International Security: The Case of Mongolia’, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 1, no. 2 (2018).

45 Hwang calls these “Interim Stages” toward a unified neutral state. Hwang, ‘Neutralization’, 202–3.

46 Ibid., 201–2.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Pascal Lottaz

Dr. Pascal Lottaz is an Adjunct Researcher for Neutrality Studies at the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study (Tokyo), and Adjunct Professor for European Politics at Temple University Japan Campus. He leads the research network neutralitystudies.com.

Heinz Gärtner

Prof. Dr. Heinz Gärtner is lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Vienna. He was academic director of the Austrian Institute for International Affairs. Among other things, he chairs the advisory board of the International Institute for Peace in Vienna and of the commission Strategy and Security of the Austrian Armed Forces.