A Nordic inspiration for sustainable peace on the Korean peninsula?

What is the potential relevance of this for Korea?

Some facts are quite similar between the Nordic region and the East Asian region: a history of animosities and conflicts between the neighbors, and, at the same time a basically common cultural heritage, with common values and norms. Differences between the two regions are many, with size as an obvious and visible one. The two regions are also dealing with the history of conflict in different ways, and, the division between the four countries in the East Asian region is fortified by different and opposing political and ideological positions. 

The similarities and differences between our two regions consists of elements that cannot be changed, but also politically based facts, that that can be altered, if there is political will and popular support. Size and history cannot be changed, while how these facts are dealt with, how they are invested in political ideologies and visions, is a matter of choice, although often hard choices. They are not free to be made, as culture is a harder fact than most people are able to understand.

What we cherish or dislike, see as true or false, good or bad, right or wrong, is to a certain degree affected by our cultural environment. In the Nordic region, even if we at present are living in a post-Christian era, all of us are colored by Lutheran Protestantism in particular. The moral values and the worldview developed based on this northern European Christian faith affect our societal norms, our political thinking, our Constitution and the laws that govern our societies and societal actions. In the East Asian region other religious, moral, and philosophical thoughts make up the backbone of societal constructs. Confucianism is, in my view, a fundamental basis, but Shamanism, Buddhism, and also Christianity, add to the overall pattern that form the basis of social morality, societal life, politics and world outlook of the people in the East Asian region.

Such a sweeping generalization is necessary in order to relate to and open-mindedly discuss issues informed by our heritage, albeit not easy. I have met Korean friends in the South who have a very difficult time accepting Koreans from another province in their own country, not to speak of people from Japan. Their dislike is not based on personal experiences, but on learned ‘truths’. It’s not that there are no reasons for animosities; sad and gruesome historical facts often make it difficult to look ahead and move forwards. Nevertheless, moving forward is necessary and to the benefit of all concerned, and should be a common aim.

Years ago, while visiting North Korea, I had a number of serious conversations with people in my proximity, people with whom I had a positive relationship. I wanted to know if they actually saw their country as a totally new entity, a post-war ‘Kim Il-Sung-land’ with its Juche ideology, untainted by past experiences, including the ‘5000 years of history’, also in the North mentioned with pride. They always said yes, in the first instance. They claimed that their system was totally new and they gave a host of arguments and examples in support of this position. If I expressed a willingness to try and understand this, and respect their view, the dialogue would usually continue. Then I would maintain my own position, which was and is, that we all, to some extent, are cultural constructs, and that even new ideas and political ideologies are in debt to the past, which moreover is a necessity for the new to be rooted and to grow in the local soil. My North Korean dialogue partners could see this point, but were worried if I stressed it too much. “It makes sense, what you are saying”, was the general reaction, “but please do not overstate the importance of the past, our system is created by our leader and he knows what is best for us, like the father in a family…”

The northern half of the peninsula has made an effort to create a self-reliant entity, and to realize this it has fenced itself in and has kept relations with the outside world at a minimum. During the later years of a military build-up on both sides of the demarcation line, and in particular when nuclear ambitions became a military priority for the North Korean leadership, the USA, followed by its allies and most Western powers and the UN Security Council responded with an ever tightening embargo. To the self-imposed isolation is added an externally imposed one. Who gains, except those who fear change? 

Currently it might be difficult to envisage a dialogue as the one described above. A main reason is that the years that have passed since my small and informal survey in Pyongyang have been filled with mutual accusations and hatred, and during the last couple of decades North Korea has been demonized to the extent that it is hard to imagine the existence of normal people ‘up North’. But they are there, and they are not that different from their country fellowmen in the South, or from Japanese and Chinese fellowmen, for that matter. There is a cultural similarity to build on!

A Nordic inspiration to, and possible intervention for, peace and mutual understanding between the Koreas could be based on experiences with Nordic regional cooperation, and, on the newly acquired knowledge about the impact and importance of cultural affinity among people in neighboring countries for the success of regional cooperation. As there are longstanding diplomatic relations between the two Koreas and the Nordic countries, such a humanitarian and long-term involvement should be possible and within the accepted limits of the ongoing embargo, and an activity that aims at a positive solution for all parties concerned.  

Geir Helgesen, Director, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (geir.helgesen@nias.ku.dk)