Between Isolation and Reconciliation: The “North Korean Puppet” as a Controversy in South Korean Politics, 1966

IF 0.2 Q4 AREA STUDIES
Do Jein, Mincheol Park
{"title":"Between Isolation and Reconciliation: The “North Korean Puppet” as a Controversy in South Korean Politics, 1966","authors":"Do Jein, Mincheol Park","doi":"10.1353/seo.2020.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The present study examines how the concurrence of multipolarity and North Korean regime consolidation in the mid-1960s pressured South Korean political elites to reconsider the isolation of the “North Korean puppet” (Pukhan koeroe) inherent to unification policy at the time. The Sino-Soviet split, American policy alterations toward China and its impending UN entry in the context of the Vietnam War, and Soviet-American peaceful coexistence ensured the rise of a “Two Korea” view internationally. Meanwhile, North Korea gained the support of nonaligned countries and the Soviet Union, positioned itself to benefit from the boon of China’s rise, and established the monolithic ideological system. These circumstances not only invalidated Seoul’s claim to sole legitimacy (“One Korea”), but fundamentally challenged the inherent premise of isolating the “North Korean puppet” to the point of collapse. In 1966, the pressing need to factor these circumstances into unification policy deliberation produced a head-on partisan collision regarding the feasibility of isolationism, if not the nature of the North Korean communist threat itself. Whereas the ruling Democratic Republication Party’s (DRP) policy of “construction first, unification later” represented a variant of isolationism, the Masses Party’s (MP) criticism of the policy did not clarify the conditions for reconciliation. From the mid-1960s, the notion of North Korea as a passing phenomenon went into irreversible decline, compelling a reformulation of unification policy with respect to anti-communist orthodoxy.","PeriodicalId":41678,"journal":{"name":"Seoul Journal of Korean Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/seo.2020.0007","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seoul Journal of Korean Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/seo.2020.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract:The present study examines how the concurrence of multipolarity and North Korean regime consolidation in the mid-1960s pressured South Korean political elites to reconsider the isolation of the “North Korean puppet” (Pukhan koeroe) inherent to unification policy at the time. The Sino-Soviet split, American policy alterations toward China and its impending UN entry in the context of the Vietnam War, and Soviet-American peaceful coexistence ensured the rise of a “Two Korea” view internationally. Meanwhile, North Korea gained the support of nonaligned countries and the Soviet Union, positioned itself to benefit from the boon of China’s rise, and established the monolithic ideological system. These circumstances not only invalidated Seoul’s claim to sole legitimacy (“One Korea”), but fundamentally challenged the inherent premise of isolating the “North Korean puppet” to the point of collapse. In 1966, the pressing need to factor these circumstances into unification policy deliberation produced a head-on partisan collision regarding the feasibility of isolationism, if not the nature of the North Korean communist threat itself. Whereas the ruling Democratic Republication Party’s (DRP) policy of “construction first, unification later” represented a variant of isolationism, the Masses Party’s (MP) criticism of the policy did not clarify the conditions for reconciliation. From the mid-1960s, the notion of North Korea as a passing phenomenon went into irreversible decline, compelling a reformulation of unification policy with respect to anti-communist orthodoxy.
在孤立与和解之间:1966年作为韩国政治争议的“朝鲜傀儡”
摘要:本研究考察了20世纪60年代中期多极化和朝鲜政权巩固的同时如何迫使韩国政治精英重新考虑当时统一政策所固有的孤立“朝鲜傀儡”(Pukhan koeroe)。中苏分裂、美国对华政策的改变以及中国在越南战争背景下即将加入联合国、苏美和平共处,确保了“两个朝鲜”观点在国际上的兴起。与此同时,朝鲜获得了不结盟国家和苏联的支持,将自己定位为受益于中国崛起的恩惠,并建立了单一的意识形态体系。这种情况不仅使首尔宣称的唯一合法性(“一个朝鲜”)无效,而且从根本上挑战了孤立“朝鲜傀儡”直至崩溃的固有前提。1966年,迫切需要将这些情况纳入统一政策的审议,导致两党就孤立主义的可行性(如果不是朝鲜共产主义威胁本身的性质)产生了正面的冲突。执政的民进党(DRP)的“先建设后统一”政策是一种孤立主义,而大众党(MP)对该政策的批评并没有明确和解的条件。从20世纪60年代中期开始,朝鲜作为一种短暂现象的概念进入了不可逆转的衰退,迫使统一政策重新制定,以反对共产主义的正统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Published twice a year under the auspices of the Kyujanggak Institute for Korean Studies at Seoul National University, the Seoul Journal of Korean Studies (SJKS) publishes original, state of the field research on Korea''s past and present. A peer-refereed journal, the Seoul Journal of Korean Studies is distributed to institutions and scholars both internationally and domestically. Work published by SJKS comprise in-depth research on established topics as well as new areas of concern, including transnational studies, that reconfigure scholarship devoted to Korean culture, history, literature, religion, and the arts. Unique features of this journal include the explicit aim of providing an English language forum to shape the field of Korean studies both in and outside of Korea. In addition to articles that represent state of the field research, the Seoul Journal of Korean Studies publishes an extensive "Book Notes" section that places particular emphasis on introducing the very best in Korean language scholarship to scholars around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信