President Lee Jae-myung is answering reporters' questions at a press conference for foreign media titled 'A Year of New Democracy' held at the Yeongbin-gwan of the Blue House on December 3rd. 2025.12.3 [Presidential Office Communication Photo Journalists]  

President Lee Jae-myung stated during a press conference with foreign media on the 3rd that he could "apologize if North Korea was provoked." Setting aside the political controversy, it is necessary to examine the underlying perception behind this statement. The President's view of North Korea determines the direction of national security policy.

Looking at the President's statements chronologically since his inauguration, a common thread emerges. It is the interpretation of inter-Korean relations not as a matter of power between states, but as a "psychological issue within the same ethnic group." The statements are clear and repetitive, indicating a consistent perception rather than an isolated remark.

A representative example is the expression, "Even if the government changes, the nation remains one." In international politics, states operate based on interests and power. However, here, ethnic sentiment takes precedence. This is where the language of security becomes emotional rather than strategic.

Around Armed Forces Day, the President stated, "Military conflict is not victory, but a tragedy for the nation." War occurs when the balance of power collapses. Deterrence is the mechanism that maintains that balance. However, when the President explains this in emotional terms, strategic judgment has less room to maneuver. Conflict transforms from a structural issue into a wound.

Regarding sanctions against North Korea, the phrase "deepens national confrontation" also emerged. Sanctions are a tool in international politics to change the behavior of the opposing party. However, here, sanctions are interpreted not as a strategic objective but as an emotional issue. An emotion-centered approach is consistent, but it fails to explain policy effectiveness.

The recent statement about "apology" at the foreign press conference appears to be the culmination of this trend. Conflict is interpreted not as a result of strategic calculation, but as a psychological provocation by the South. In this way, security moves from the realm of calculation to the realm of emotion.

The statements since inauguration can be summarized as follows:

First, North Korea is not a strategic external entity but a member of the nation internally.

Second, conflict is not a structure but an emotional wound.

Third, peace is not deterrence but psychological recovery.

This perspective is often referred to as a 'nationalist historiography'.

The problem is that this perspective does not align with North Korea's current strategic shift. In the past, North Korea promoted the expression "Our People Together." At that time, emotional national narratives had a certain effect. However, recently, Kim Jong-un has officially proposed the "two-state theory." This signifies an intention to view North and South as two sovereign entities. This is a position that negates peaceful unification.

North Korea today no longer uses the language of ethnic sentiment. Instead, it employs the language of state realism. This raises questions about what practical effect an approach that seeks to persuade such a North Korea with emotional national rhetoric can have. It is as if the South Korean government is using language that even North Korea has abandoned.

Comparing this with past presidents reveals a distinct difference.

Kim Dae-jung pursued engagement under the condition of deterrence. Roh Moo-hyun sought autonomy while acknowledging the alliance structure. Moon Jae-in viewed extended deterrence as a condition for peace. All of them explained peace in the language of strategy. Only Lee Jae-myung explains peace in the language of emotion.

This perspective also does not align with America's strategic flexibility.

The United States desires predictable partners. An emotion-centered approach reduces predictability. This is linked to alliance stability. Ultimately, it can weaken strategic trust. To apply an individual's ideology to the position of president, a validity review by advisors must be conducted. Therefore, in the cases of Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in, they expressed these separately.

This is where the purpose of the Presidential Secretariat disappears. Perhaps the expressions are being used knowingly.

"Why did Lee Jae-myung make the statement about apology?"

If this approach is not persuasive to North Korea and its language is out of sync with the United States, what is its practical significance? The conclusion is simple: the statement is aimed at domestic political effects, not diplomatic strategy.

This is why some are calling the statement 'emotional manipulation for domestic politics'.

#LeeJaeMyung #NorthKoreaPolicy #SecurityView #Nationalism #TwoStateTheory #KimJongUn #StrategicFlexibility #Deterrence #KoreanPeninsulaSecurity #AnalysisArticle