Arya News - Observers say domestic instability in the South has increasingly become entangled with North Korea–related decision-making, often in ways that undermine both deterrence and diplomacy.
SEOUL – One year after South Korea witnessed its first declaration of martial law since 1979, the political aftershocks continue to reverberate — stretching far beyond constitutional law and deep into North Korea policy.
On Dec. 3, 2024, then-President Yoon Suk Yeol stunned the country by declaring emergency martial law, claiming, among other things, that South Korea faced “pro-North Korea and anti-state forces” and accusing the opposition-controlled National Assembly of paralyzing the government.
His decree was rescinded after lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to overturn it hours later.
As the former president stands trial for a separate but linked scandal involving military drones flown toward Pyongyang in October 20204, a deeper question has surfaced: Has South Korea’s polarized domestic politics undermined its ability to sustain a coherent North Korea policy?
On Monday, the Seoul Central District Court opened the first preparatory hearing in the drone case, in which prosecutors allege that Yoon and senior military officials orchestrated covert unmanned aerial vehicle flights into Pyongyang on Oct. 3, 6 and 9, 2024 to provoke a North Korean military response that could justify martial law.
The drones allegedly dropped anti-regime leaflets over central Pyongyang before one crashed near the capital — an incident North Korea publicized at the time, accusing the South of violating its sovereignty.
Days later, the North resumed the “trash balloon” it started in May that year. Between May and late November, the North sent more than 260 balloons laden with garbage across the border and into the South
Observers say the ongoing courtroom battles reflect an uncomfortable truth: Domestic instability in the South has increasingly become entangled with North Korea–related decision making, often in ways that undermine both deterrence and diplomacy.
Dilemma of mixed signals
President Lee Jae Myung has tried to reset the national conversation.
At Tuesday’s event marking the launch of the 22nd National Unification Advisory Council, Lee laid out a three-pillar policy emphasizing: a “Korean Peninsula without war,” a new era of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial inter-Korean cooperation.
Lee reiterated several principles: a nuclear-free peninsula, lowered military tensions, restoration of communication channels and a willingness to act as a catalyst for potential US-North Korea talks. Notably, he avoided using the term “denuclearization,” opting instead for the softer phrase “a Korean Peninsula without nuclear weapons.”
This linguistic shift was deliberate.
According to Lim Eul-chul, professor at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Lee’s speech was “pragmatic,” designed to avoid provoking Pyongyang, which has described even the mention of “denuclearization” as hostile.
But Lim cautioned that the message, while symbolically conciliatory, lacks a strong enough incentive to shift North Korea’s current doctrine of treating the South as a “hostile separate state.” Without concrete inducements, he said, Pyongyang is likely to respond with strategic indifference rather than engagement.
He added that a consistent, principled policy — rather than reactive oscillations — is essential if Seoul hopes to restore credibility and reduce domestic polarization over North Korea.
The North has also defined “denuclearization of the peninsula” as including the withdrawal of US troops and security guarantees.
Under Yoon, North Korea policy veered toward securitization and ideological confrontation, culminating in actions that prosecutors now say involved the manipulation of military assets for political ends.
Under Lee, the pendulum has swung back toward engagement — but without the domestic consensus needed to sustain it.
Such dramatic change in Seoul’s approach to North Korea is nothing new, having been repeated time and again depending on the administration.
Former presidents Kim Dae-jung engaged with Pyongyang, and the policy was carried on in the following Roh Moo-hyun administration. The two conservative administrations that followed took a harder approach, a move sparked by North Korea’s killing of a South Korean tourist in 2008. The flip-flopping has become more frequent in recent years, with the presidency passing between liberal and conservative blocs three times in nine years
Lim explained that Lee’s latest overture reflects “a reconfirmation of principles with strategic flexibility” rather than a new vision. He notes that simply repeating calls for dialogue without stronger incentives is unlikely to break Pyongyang’s current strategy of “strategic disregard.”
“Without powerful inducements, stressing dialogue alone cannot produce real results,” he said.
Lim interprets Lee’s avoidance of the term “denuclearization” as a pragmatic move meant to lower political barriers to talks:
“North Korea has treated the word itself as an obstacle. Using ‘a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula’ creates practical room to maneuver.”
Still, he warns the North may react negatively anyway, since the message ultimately challenges Pyongyang’s nuclear status: “Even without the word ‘denuclearization,’ the North can interpret it as denying its nuclear identity.”
For Lim, the deeper issue is South Korea’s wavering approach.
“Policy must not swing with every provocation. Consistency strengthens credibility, predictive power and domestic cohesion.”
Absent that consistency, Seoul risks sending mixed signals, complicating allied coordination and turning North Korea policy into a recurring tool of political contestation— something laid bare during the chaotic events of 2024.
And though the Lee administration has reached out, North Korea has remained indifferent, saying it has no interest pursuing dialogue with South Korea.
South Korea recently proposed military talks with the North to clarify the Military Demarcation Line after armed North Korean soldiers repeatedly crossed it while clearing land or laying mines. Although the incursions appeared unintentional, Seoul says ambiguity increases the risk of accidental clashes.
Kim Hong-cheol, deputy defense minister for policy, urged Pyongyang to respond swiftly, calling MDL clarification a first step toward restoring military trust.
So far, the North has remained silent.
Deterrence still expands with US backing
Even as President Lee takes a softer approach to North Korea, his government is simultaneously moving to deepen military deterrence — signaling that engagement and strength are not mutually exclusive, but intertwined pillars of Seoul’s strategy.
Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, in video remarks to a Washington forum Wednesday, underscored that diplomacy “must be paired with ironclad deterrence,” especially as North Korea accelerates missile development and strengthens ties with Russia. He noted that the newly released ROK-US fact sheet outlines the most sweeping modernization of the alliance in years.
Under the document, South Korea has committed to raising defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP, one of the highest levels among advanced economies.
Washington, in turn, has formally backed Seoul’s push for nuclear-powered submarines armed with conventional weapons, domestic uranium enrichment for civilian uses, and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing capabilities.
Cho argued that these steps will reshape not only the peninsula’s security environment but also the economic foundations of the alliance, enabling cooperation in shipbuilding, next-generation energy, artificial intelligence, biotech and quantum technologies.
“This is the modernization of the alliance for a new era,” he said. “It strengthens peace while preparing for challenges ahead.”
He also emphasized that deterrence must remain responsive to a rapidly shifting regional landscape — one defined by Russia’s deepening military partnership with North Korea, China’s expanding influence and Japan’s evolving strategic posture. Trilateral cooperation with Tokyo, he added, is now “indispensable.”
Yet the broader message behind Cho’s remarks circles back to the central theme raised by experts such as Lim: A credible North Korea policy requires steadiness. Whether the approach leans toward engagement or pressure, it must be anchored in long-term national strategy — not shifted back and forth as the political pendulum swings.
As the government strengthens defensive capabilities abroad and pursues cautious diplomatic overtures at home, South Korea faces a defining challenge:
Can it maintain a coherent, bipartisan North Korea policy in an era of internal division and external volatility?
The answer will determine not only the stability of the Korean Peninsula but also Seoul’s capacity to navigate a world in which deterrence, diplomacy and domestic politics are more tightly intertwined than ever.