Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young [Photo=Yonhap News]

There are clear reasons why Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young must step down.

The issue concerning Minister Jeong is not a mere slip of the tongue or a political attack from the opposition. It is a significant matter that reveals how the Minister of Unification of the Republic of Korea understands the constitutional order of unification, how he has explained the basis for his remarks regarding North Korea's nuclear program, and what attitude he has taken in response to the issues raised by the National Assembly, the representatives of the people.

First, it is an insult to the Constitution.

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea explicitly states that it establishes and pursues peaceful unification policies based on the basic order of liberal democracy. The Minister of Unification is a cabinet member who carries out unification policies within this constitutional order.

However, Minister Jeong stated at a youth advisory group event that "the concept of unification is violent, and what is immediately needed is the institutionalization of peace." He has also pursued public discourse on the issue of referring to North Korea as 'Joseon'.

For the Minister of Unification to define unification as a "violent concept" and to attempt to initiate public discussion at the government level on North Korea's self-designation is not a mere issue of expression.

It is a matter that shakes the very reason for the existence of the Ministry of Unification and the constitutional order of the Republic of Korea.

Minister Jeong's remarks appear to be intertwined with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's "two-state theory of hostility."

Kim Jong Un defined inter-Korean relations not as relations between compatriots but as a hostile two-state relationship, and North Korea has since moved in a direction that erases the concepts of unification and nationhood.

In this context, for the Minister of Unification of the Republic of Korea to call the concept of unification violent and to propose public discussion on referring to North Korea as 'Joseon' is a dangerous signal. Minister Jeong must explain how this differs from Kim Jong Un's two-state theory.

Second, it is a false explanation.

During a session of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, Minister Jeong mentioned Guseong along with Yeongbyeon and Gangseon as the location of North Korea's uranium enrichment facilities.

At the time, he seemed to base his explanation on a report from IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. However, according to relevant reports, the IAEA Director General's remarks included Yeongbyeon and Gangseon, but not Guseong.

While suspicions about the Guseong region have been raised for a long time, it was not a matter officially confirmed by South Korean or US authorities. Despite this, Minister Jeong stated it definitively in an official setting.

The problem lies in the subsequent explanation process. When it became clear that Guseong was not mentioned in the IAEA's remarks, the Ministry of Unification explained that they were providing a comprehensive overview of North Korea's nuclear facilities based on the IAEA Director General's remarks, the announcement of overseas research institutions, and media reports.

Initially, he spoke as if leaning on the authority of the IAEA, but once that basis faltered, he broadened the scope of his explanation to include data from private research institutions and media reports.

This is closer to a shift in the basis of the explanation rather than a reinforcement of it. Remarks about North Korea's nuclear facilities are a matter involving national security and information-sharing systems. If the minister's explanation is so shaky on such an issue, what are the people to believe?

Third, it is an arrogant attitude.

The reason the opposition submitted a motion for dismissal is not to blindly follow the United States. It is to ask whether the Minister of Unification's public remarks have burdened the South Korea-US information-sharing system, whether the basis for those remarks was accurate, and whether the minister is properly representing the constitutional principles of unification.

However, instead of answering these questions, Minister Jeong responded to the opposition by asking, "Are you a US Congressman?" and "Your pro-American sentiment is excessive."

The attitude of labeling the National Assembly's oversight and questioning as "pro-Americanism" is a complete disregard for the responsibilities of a cabinet member.

Members of the National Assembly are representatives of the people. Is questioning national security issues by the people's representatives considered pro-Americanism?

If so, what should we call the attitude of Minister Jeong, who undermines the unification principles of the Republic of Korea's Constitution and reveals a view of unification that seems to align with Kim Jong Un's two-state theory?

By Minister Jeong's own standards, it would be difficult to avoid criticism of being pro-North Korean.

Those who label others must also be prepared to accept the labels that come back to them.

The essence of this controversy is not the United States. It is the words of Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-young.

In the controversy over the Guseong remarks, the facts were shaken. In the controversy over the 'Joseon' designation, the boundaries of national identity were shaken. In the remark "unification is a violent concept," the Minister of Unification's understanding of his duties was shaken.

Despite this, Minister Jeong chose to shift the frame rather than offer explanations. To questions about the facts, he responded that the information was publicly available. To questions about the constitutional order, he deflected with the word "peace." And to the National Assembly holding him accountable, he applied the label of "pro-Americanism."

The Minister of Unification is not a peace activist for North Korea. He is a cabinet member who carries out unification policies under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

Peace cannot be a word that erases unification. An explanation of public information cannot be an excuse for inaccurate remarks. And the label of "pro-Americanism" cannot be a shield to neutralize the oversight power of the National Assembly.

The longer Minister Jeong remains in his position, the more the Ministry of Unification will appear to be a ministry that dismantles the concept of unification, rather than one that prepares for it.

He treated the Constitution lightly, offered explanations that did not align with the facts, and applied the label of "pro-Americanism" to the representatives of the people.

None of these are minor issues. What is needed now is not another explanation, but his resignation.