By Jongdo Sohn
Director-General, Korean Sharing Movement

Translated  by Sam Lee (Coordinator, Korean Sharing Movement)

The closing matches of the AFC Women’s Champions League, held in Suwon last May, raised questions that extended far beyond the realm of sport. The participation of North Korea’s Naegohyang Women’s Football Club (hereafter Naegohyang FC) marked the first official inter-Korean contact since exchanges were effectively suspended in 2018. It was also any North Koreans’ first official visit to South Korea since Pyongyang redefined inter-Korean relations as those between “two hostile states.” In this sense, the event became a symbolic moment encapsulating present realities on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea’s Naegohyang Women’s Football Club celebrates its victory in the AFC Women’s Champions League (AWCL) final held at Suwon Sports Complex in Gyeonggi Province on May 23. (Source: The Hankyoreh)

For this reason, the Korean Sharing Movement (KSM), in collaboration with the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies (IPUS) at Seoul National University, held a discussion forum in July, “The First Encounter in the Era of Two Hostile States: Questions Raised by the Visit of Naegohyang FC to South Korea.” Indeed, the visit generated a wide range of questions within South Korean society and sparked considerable public debate.

The media also showed significant interest in the first official inter-Korean sporting event in eight years. However, attention focused less on the outcome of the matches than on the controversies that unfolded off the field. Issues such as the formation of a joint cheering squad, the use of the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund, the display of the North Korean flag, and the North Korean team’s request to compete as a team heralding from “Joseon” quickly became subjects of public attention. Some questioned why South Korea should welcome a North Korean delegation, while others emphasized the significance of the encounter itself after years of estrangement. Such contrasting reactions reveal how complex South Korean society’s view of inter-Korean relations remains today.

KSM co-hosted a discussion forum with the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University last July to discuss the impact of the Naegohyang Women’s Football Club’s visit to South Korea on Korean society. (Source: KSM)

Among these controversies, the issue of the official state name drew particular attention. The North Korean delegation requested the use of its official name, “Joseon Minjujuui Inmin Gonghwaguk” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK), a request that prompted further debate in South Korea. It is true that the term “Bukhan” (North Korea) has long been the common designation for the Nortg used in South Korea. In international relations, however, states are generally referred to by their official names. Just as South Korea expects its official name, “Republic of Korea” (ROK), to be used internationally, North Korea likewise maintains that its official designation should be respected.

Respecting a country’s official name does not necessarily imply agreement with its political system or policies. Rather, it reflects a basic diplomatic and human principle: acknowledging the other side as it exists. Dialogue does not begin by denying or erasing the other; it begins by acknowledging the other’s existence. As hostility deepens, the language used to deny the other side often becomes increasingly harsh. Peace, however, begins with the simplest act of acknowledgement.

These debates are closely connected to the realities facing the Korean Peninsula today. Since the division of Korea, South Korean society has long regarded reunification as both a national task and a historical objective. Yet the division has now lasted for more than eight decades. During that time, the two Koreas have developed into separate societies with different political systems, economic structures, cultures, and identities. Particularly for younger generations in South Korea, North Korea is increasingly viewed less as a partner with which reunification must be pursued, but as an unfamiliar neighbor-or even as a separate country.

North Korea has also undergone significant changes. Chairman Kim Jong Un has redefined inter-Korean relations not as those between compatriots, but as relations between “two hostile states.” Although the implications of this shift remain contested, some argue that North Korea has begun to revise its longstanding discourse on reunification. Whatever the interpretation, it is difficult to deny that traditional reunification narratives are losing their influence on both sides of the Korean Peninsula.

This does not mean, however, that the future of the Korean Peninsula must be defined solely by hostility and separation. On the contrary, what is needed today is not an ideological debate over the distant goal of reunification, but a more practical discussion of how peace can be maintained and the conditions for coexistence can be created.

Recent public opinion surveys likewise indicate that South Koreans increasingly regard peaceful coexistence and the establishment of lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula as higher priorities for North Korea policy than reunification. This does not mean that interest in reunification has disappeared. Rather, it suggests a growing recognition that, in the face of persistent nuclear threats and military tensions, preventing war and preserving peace have become the most urgent priorities.

Indeed, the situation on the Korean Peninsula today is more complex than ever. North Korea has made its nuclear capabilities a central pillar of its national strategy and has been strengthening its cooperation with Russia. Inter-Korean dialogue has remained suspended for an extended period, and many of the mechanisms for military confidence-building have been significantly weakened. Under these circumstances, an approach that relies on the expectation of the other side’s collapse or calls for unilateral concessions is unlikely to provide a realistic solution.

For this reason, creating channels of contact is more important than ever. Even when political conflicts persist, the two sides must continue to meet; even when dialogue becomes difficult, channels of exchange should be preserved. As the international community demonstrated during the Cold War, hostility and exchange are not necessary mutually exclusive. Even when states remain in conflict, channels of communication can be maintained through culture, sports, academic exchange, and humanitarian cooperation. Such channels have often helped lay the foundations for peace that formal politics alone could not create.

This is precisely why the recent visit of Naegohyang FC to South Korea was significant. It did not signal an immediate improvement in inter-Korean relations, nor did it mark the beginning of a new era of reconciliation. Its significance lay in demonstrating that, even in an era of routinized hostility,  the two Koreas remain capable of meeting one another.

The controversy surrounding the proposal for a joint cheering squad was particularly revealing in this regard, as it exposed the ways in which South Korean society understands the concept of peace. Some felt uncomfortable cheering for the North Korean team, while others argued that athletes should be seen not as enemies, but as competitors on the field. Despite the differences in their views, what mattered was that the debate itself constituted a process of reflection on the meaning of peace.

Peace is not the absence of conflict. Rather, peace is a condition in which differences in ideas and interests can be managed and resolved through dialogue and contact. In this sense, the recent visit offered a glimpse of a new possibility for inter-Korean relations. Even in the absence of political agreement, spectators came to the stadium, athletes competed under the same rules, and a minimum level of mutual respect was maintained.

The visit of Naegohyang FC to South Korea has come to an end, but the questions it raised remains. Can the two Koreas meet even in an era of hostility? What kind of peace can people build where politics has reached an impasse? And in the reality of eighty years of division, what kind of future will South Korea choose?

The first precondition for peace is the recognition of the other, followed by a commitment not to abandon one another. Rather than erasing the other, it means acknowledging the other’s presence; rather than accepting rupture as inevitable, it means preserving the possibility of encounter. Perhaps that is the most important lesson that Naegohyang FC’s visit to South Korea has left South Koreans with. Even in an era of hostility, people still meet. And peace has always begun with such encounters. That is why no encounter is ever too small to matter.

This coming September, South and North Korea will meet again at the 2026 Asian Games in Aichi and Nagoya, Japan. In the women’s football competition, the two national teams are scheduled to face each other on September 21 at 4:00 p.m. What questions will this encounter—taking place not on the Korean Peninsula, but in a third country—raise for South Korea? Will South Korea see it merely as a match that determines a winner and a loser, or will it remember it as yet another reminder that, even in an age of division, encounters remain possible?