Unification Ministry white paper sparks controversy over ‘two states’ language

The Ministry of Unification has stirred controversy after stating in an official government document that inter-Korean relations should become a “two-state relationship.”

In the 2026 Unification White Paper released on Monday, the ministry argued that North Korea’s claim of an “hostile two-state relationship” should instead become a “peaceful two-state relationship aimed at unification.”

Although the ministry distinguished its position from Pyongyang’s confrontational approach by emphasizing peaceful co-existence, critics argue that the wording departs from Seoul’s longstanding position that inter-Korean ties are not relations between separate sovereign states but a “special relationship.”

The controversy has grown because the new language also appears to conflict with the Constitution, which defines the entire Korean Peninsula as the territory of South Korea. Critics note that no meaningful public debate or national consensus preceded such a significant policy shift.

The unification white paper, published annually since 1990, serves as the government’s official statement on unification and North Korea policy. The ministry appears to argue that lasting peace requires recognizing North Korea as a dialogue counterpart and institutionalizing peaceful co-existence on that basis.

Yet acknowledging North Korea’s practical existence and formally defining it as a separate state are fundamentally different issues, critics say.

Some also argue that because the international community already recognizes North Korea as a separate country, Seoul should acknowledge that reality as well. But opponents counter that the matter concerns the foundation of Korea’s constitutional order.

Article 3 of the Constitution states that the territory of South Korea consists of “the Korean Peninsula and its adjacent islands.” Article 4 further obligates the state to pursue peaceful unification policies. Critics argue that treating North Korea as a separate state could conflict with both provisions.

The controversy is heightened by the ministry’s own reversal. In last year’s white paper, the ministry criticized North Korea’s “two states” position as something that “abandons a long shared history.” Just one year later, however, the ministry shifted to language partially adopting the same framework.

Critics question whether the government’s position on inter-Korean relations can change whenever North Korea changes its rhetoric. Since the current Constitution and the 1991 Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation, successive conservative and progressive governments have largely maintained the same position on inter-Korean relations.

The Ministry of Unification, critics argue, should clearly explain whether it now intends to revise that longstanding framework.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.