Messages of peace written by vistors hang from a tree in the exhibition center of Aegibong Peace Ecopark in Gimpo, South Korea, in February. File Photo by Thomas Maresca/UPI | License Photo
The recent 56th South Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) and the 2024 U.S.-ROK Foreign and Defense Ministerial Meeting (“2+2”) have underscored the resilient alliance between the United States and South Korea. These meetings, which convene high-level foreign and defense officials from both nations, reflect an evolving commitment not only to regional stability but also to the long-standing vision of a free, unified Korea.
In an era when North Korea’s provocations are met with skepticism, both in the United States and globally, these bilateral efforts emphasize that the dream of a unified Korean Peninsula should not be written off as a relic of the past. Instead, it is a realistic, achievable goal — albeit one that requires a renewed approach to policy, diplomacy, and public sentiment on both sides of the Pacific. Advertisement
The robust agenda of the 56th SCM covered defense strategies, alliance coordination, and joint responses to North Korean threats. The reaffirmed support for denuclearization and the advancement of Korea-U.S. military cooperation signals a clear, unified stance against the risks posed by Pyongyang’s growing missile and nuclear capabilities. In the the light of recent missile tests and cyber-attacks attributed to North Korea, South Korean and U.S. officials are doubling down on their deterrence posture, reassuring allies and adversaries alike that they stand ready to defend peace and stability on the Peninsula. Advertisement
Yet, while these security-focused dialogues remain paramount, the path to a unified Korea — a notion historically dismissed as utopian or strategically impractical — was also reaffirmed in subtle, meaningful ways. At the heart of these discussions was a shared commitment to human rights and freedom, a commitment that implicitly advances the aspiration for a reunified Korea.
From Washington’s perspective, however, overcoming the dismissiveness surrounding Korean unification requires a shift in public opinion as much as it does in policy circles. Most importantly, now is the time to embrace South Korea’s new 8.15 Unification Doctrine and find ways to support it.
The evolution of the U.S.-South Korea alliance: Security and beyond
At the core of the U.S.-South Korea relationship has been a strong military alliance, evolving from a defense arrangement during the Cold War to a comprehensive strategic partnership. The Security Consultative Meeting has become a cornerstone of this alliance, providing a forum where both nations can update, refine, and coordinate their defense strategies in response to North Korea’s nuclear program. The recent 2+2 ministerial meeting allowed diplomats to explore non-military avenues of cooperation that reinforce mutual interests in human rights, economic resilience, and regional stability.
The U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense and their South Korean counterparts clearly outlined the consequences of North Korea’s nuclear threats. The joint communique emphasized a shared stance on “extended deterrence,” a term referring to the United States’ commitment to using its full range of military capabilities to defend South Korea. The expansion of joint military exercises, cybersecurity collaboration, and intelligence-sharing demonstrate that the alliance is prepared to meet contemporary challenges. This unity, however, extends beyond the battlefield, as both nations seek not only to manage threats but to ultimately create conditions that could lead to a unified Korea. Advertisement
While the leaders of both countries rightly seek peaceful unification, strategists recognize that the planning for such unification must be given priority. Although peaceful unification planning is extremely complex, the work to prepare for it can be applied in all other contingencies that might lead to unification, including war and regime collapse. Importantly, peaceful unification planning gives South Korea the moral high ground and provides the foundation for a coordinated information strategy to defeat Kim Jong Un’s political warfare strategy.
Public dismissiveness and policy inertia in the United States
Unification, as a goal, suffers from an identity crisis in Washington. While successive U.S. administrations have paid lip service to it, the prospect often fades in the face of complex geopolitical realities. North Korea is viewed as an intractable adversary, and the prospect of unification appears daunting. However, the assumption that North Korea will always remain a hermit kingdom with a nuclear arsenal shackles American policymakers to a status quo approach that neither challenges Pyongyang nor inspires real solutions for the North Korean people.
Among the American public, dismissiveness toward unification can be attributed to a lack of understanding about the conditions faced by those in North Korea. Often portrayed in stark terms, North Korea is less frequently seen through a human lens that recognizes the aspiration of its people to one day live in freedom. South Korean and American leaders face the task of shifting the narrative to envision unification as an achievable outcome of diplomacy, resilience, and active policy engagement. Advertisement
Overcoming skepticism through leadership
Recent developments, such as the 2024 U.S.-ROK Ministerial Meeting, building on the statements from the 2023 Camp David Trilateral Summit, mark a promising shift in discourse. By framing the alliance as a moral as well as a military partnership, both governments signal that Korean unification is a goal tied to universal values of freedom and justice. The challenge now is to convert these symbolic gestures into action, transforming unification from a passive ideal to an active policy objective.
To make unification viable, the United States must demonstrate not only resolve but creativity. Rather than viewing North Korea solely as a security threat, U.S. policymakers should work with South Korea to craft a long-term strategy that integrates diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic tools. Public awareness campaigns, policy dialogues, and intergovernmental initiatives can galvanize American support for unification in parallel with South Korean efforts to galvanize support among the Korean people in both the North and South, helping dispel the notion that Korea’s division is permanent.
A vision for the future
The 56th SCM and 2+2 meetings highlight that unification is not merely a Korean aspiration but a shared vision between allies. As the United States and South Korea reaffirm their commitments, they confront a broader truth: a unified Korea is not just a geopolitical aim; it is a quest for human dignity. Through sustained engagement, policy innovation, and a focus on the human dimension, South Korean and American leaders can overcome unification dismissiveness, shaping a future in which a free, unified Korea becomes a reality. Advertisement
The only way to end the Kim regime’s nuclear program and military threats, as well as its human rights abuses and crimes against humanity, is through unification and the establishment of a free and unified Korea that is secure and stable, non-nuclear, and economically vibrant. It should have a liberal constitutional form of government based on individual liberty, rule of law, and human rights as determined by the Korean people.
Someday, in the not too distant future, there can be a new nation, a United Republic of Korea (U-ROK).
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 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.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Advertisement
