Envisioning Peaceful Coexistence in an Era of Complex Crises on the Korean Peninsula

Jong-cheol Park

Visiting Professor

Daejeon University

1. Complex Crises on the Korean Peninsula and the Two-Hostile-States Theory

The Korean Peninsula is facing a new form of complex crisis. The simultaneous unfolding of international order realignment, climate-driven ecological challenges, shifts in the economic and security environment due to technological transformation, and the North Korean nuclear threat has placed the Peninsula within a multi-layered, compound crisis environment.

These crises are mutually reinforcing, generating amplifying and multiplicative effects. Global, regional, and Peninsula-level dynamics are deeply interconnected, with security, economic, ecological, and science-and-technology domains increasingly overlapping.

The international order is exhibiting characteristics of fragmented multipolarity. Following the end of the Cold War and the period of U.S. unipolar dominance, an unstable multipolar dynamic has emerged amid intensifying U.S.-China strategic competition. In the military domain, competition between the United States and China is unfolding alongside regional conflicts—including the Russia–Ukraine war and crises in the Middle East—which are contributing to the erosion of the international order.

Economically, the weakening of the free trade system has accelerated a restructuring of the global economic order, driven in part by tariff-based policies. The Korean Peninsula lies at the center of these transformations. From both geopolitical and geoeconomic perspectives, it functions as a critical node linking developments across military, economic, and technological domains.

Climate change represents a global-scale crisis that extends beyond environmental concerns to encompass fundamental issues of human survival, including food, water, energy, and industrial systems, and it is exerting direct effects on the Korean Peninsula. It is reshaping South Korea’s ecosystems, economic structure, and energy policy, while North Korea’s structural vulnerabilities—manifested in recurring floods and droughts—are intensifying food insecurity and economic hardship.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution represents an unprecedented wave of transformative change. In particular, technological advances associated with artificial intelligence are generating structural shifts not only in economic and social systems but also in the military domain.

As demonstrated by the Russia–Ukraine war and conflicts in the Middle East, developments in artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and cyber warfare are redefining military capabilities and operational concepts. These advancements are expected to significantly reshape the future security environment of the Korean Peninsula.

At the apex of this complex crisis lies the enduring challenge of the North Korean nuclear issue. After more than three decades of intermittent negotiations and setbacks, North Korea has effectively established itself as a de facto nuclear-armed state.

From a practical standpoint, the issue is unlikely to be resolved in the short term. For North Korea, nuclear weapons are no longer merely a bargaining instrument; they have become a central pillar of regime survival. Pyongyang seeks to leverage its nuclear status to consolidate its identity, enhance its international standing, and assert dominance over the Korean Peninsula.

Furthermore, since advancing the “two hostile states” theory in 2023, North Korea has taken a series of steps to institutionalize this stance. It has dismantled symbolic remnants of inter-Korean exchange and cooperation and implemented legal and institutional measures to formalize adversarial relations. The Ninth Workers’ Party Congress, held in February of this year, reaffirmed this “two hostile states” framework.

North Korea now defines South Korea as a separate and hostile state, effectively excluding inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation from its policy options. This doctrinal shift has exacerbated instability on the Peninsula. The breakdown of inter-Korean relations has weakened crisis-management mechanisms, increasing the risk that accidental incidents could escalate into military confrontation. Moreover, by prioritizing U.S.–North Korea relations in its diplomatic strategy, Pyongyang has further diminished the role of inter-Korean engagement.

2. A Multi-Layered Strategy for Peaceful Coexistence

Addressing the complex crisis on the Korean Peninsula requires a fundamental paradigm shift. This new paradigm entails expanding the domain of coexistence through peace, adopting a long-term strategic perspective, and reconstructing the discourse on unification.

It calls for a strategy that simultaneously counters pressure-centric approaches toward North Korea and manages the risks associated with the “two hostile states” framework. In this context, it is necessary to redefine the concept of peaceful coexistence and to systematize the strategies for its implementation.

Peaceful coexistence entails managing conflicts where they arise to prevent escalation while simultaneously creating interconnected networks of cooperation. It requires establishing cooperative linkages across multiple levels and integrating them into a broader framework that facilitates dialogue and institutionalizes coexistence.

The first pillar of peaceful coexistence is the establishment of a robust crisis-management system for the Korean Peninsula. With arms competition and military signaling becoming increasingly routine, the Peninsula’s crisis index remains elevated.

Accordingly, measures are needed to prevent accidental clashes and reduce military tensions. The phased restoration of the September 19 Military Agreement is essential in this regard. Reestablishing military hotlines, restricting military activities within the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), and reinstating mechanisms to prevent accidental incidents in maritime and aerial domains can serve as critical safety nets for crisis management.

The second pillar is the phased resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue in parallel with the establishment of a peace regime. Given the complexity of the issue and North Korea’s de facto nuclear status, a short-term resolution is unlikely.

A more realistic approach involves the gradual reduction of nuclear risks alongside the development of a comprehensive peace-management framework. This requires the formulation of a phased roadmap encompassing a freeze on nuclear and missile testing, constraints on fissile material production, incremental reductions, and eventual dismantlement.

A key variable in this process is the trajectory of U.S.–North Korea relations. Without progress in bilateral dialogue, achieving breakthroughs on both denuclearization and broader peace efforts will be difficult. U.S.–North Korea dialogue should serve as an entry point for peace-building on the Peninsula, while inter-Korean dialogue functions as a complementary mechanism for expanding cooperation. South Korea should play a facilitative role in creating conditions conducive to U.S.–North Korea engagement, while simultaneously pursuing initiatives to broaden inter-Korean collaboration.

The resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue must proceed in tandem with the transition to a peace regime. These two processes are mutually reinforcing: progress on denuclearization can generate momentum for peace regime formation, while the establishment of a peace regime can provide incentives and pathways for nuclear resolution. Throughout this transition, phased arms-control measures will be necessary to mitigate military risks.

The third pillar is the promotion of cooperative projects linked to climate change and technological transformation. Inter-Korean collaboration in disaster prevention related to climate change represents an urgent priority. This includes sharing hydrological data, providing advance notification of dam discharges, and establishing joint water-resource management systems for shared river basins.

Cooperation in forestry and agriculture is also critical, with pilot initiatives—such as reforestation projects in North Korea and the introduction of smart agriculture systems—offering potential entry points. Additionally, collaboration in renewable energy, including solar and wind power, could generate new momentum for inter-Korean economic engagement.

At the same time, the emergence of the AI era calls for new modalities of inter-Korean cooperation. Initiatives such as establishing data centers in North Korea and jointly operating AI-based early warning systems for disasters and emergencies could advance both technological collaboration and ecological security.

3. Building Domestic and International Infrastructure for Peaceful Coexistence

For a strategy of peaceful coexistence to be effective, several enabling conditions must be met. First, sustained coordination between South Korea and the United States regarding policy objectives and the division of roles is essential. In parallel, establishing a framework for international cooperation that includes China and Russia remains a critical requirement.

Additionally, the strategy for peaceful coexistence must be institutionalized as a medium- to long-term national strategy, supported by coordination across foreign, defense, and unification policy domains to ensure effective implementation. Securing a degree of policy continuity through bipartisan consensus is equally important, as changes in government can undermine international credibility and reduce policy effectiveness.

The vision of peaceful coexistence represents a form of practical strategic wisdom for navigating an era of complex crises. Peace on the Korean Peninsula is unlikely to be achieved in the short term, nor will it result from a single agreement or sudden transformation. Instead, it requires the sustained implementation of a coherent strategy and institutional framework grounded in a medium- to long-term perspective.

It is therefore necessary to design policies that are feasible within realistic constraints and to pursue them consistently. Within the framework of peaceful coexistence, priority should be given to crisis management and tension reduction, while gradually expanding the scope and depth of cooperative initiatives.