* Many thanks to Mark Selden, Jiyul Kim, Charles Armstrong and John Feffer for their very helpful and incisive comments on various drafts of the article.

[1] USA Today “China Inspects North Korean Cargo; Australia Ban Ships from Its Ports” October 16, 2006.

[2] Thom Shanker and Martin Fackler, “South Korea Says It Will Continue Projects in North,” New York Times, October 19, 1006.

[3] Glen Kessler and Dafna Linzer, “Rice Trip to Push Full Sanctions for North Korea,” Washington Post, October 17, 2006

[4] Le Tian, “Prudence Key to Resolving Nuclear Issue,” China Daily, October 21, 2006

[5] Kim Dae-jung delivered these comments during a lecture entitled, “The Realities of the Korean Peninsula and the Four Powers” at Chonnam National University on October 11, 2006. The speech was reprinted in Korean newspapers and internet sites the following day. See excerpts.

[6] The Poll was conducted by “Joins P'unghyang-gae” (research.joins.com) polling company and published in the Joogang Ilbo, October 13, 2006.

[7] Norimitsu Onishi, “Tough Talk From Seoul, if Little Will for a Fight,” New York Times, October 10, 2006.

[8] Ryu Jin, “Seoul to Keep Mt. Kumgang Project Going,” Korea Times, October 18, 2006.

[9] Park Song-wu, “Vershbow Wants Seoul to Cut Economic Ties with North Korea,” The Korea Times, October 18, 2006.

[10] Jin Dae-woong, “Uri lawmakers opposed expanded PSI role,” Korea Herald, October 14, 2006.

[11] The issue also exposes the deep generational divide in South Korean society between older and younger South Koreans. Since the liberation of Korea in 1945, the right- left ideological divide, along with regionalism, has defined South Korean politics. However, the term “South-South conflict,” (nam-nam galtung) is different from previous political divisions in the past as its origins have to do specifically with conflicts within South Korean society over policy toward North Korea. Generally speaking, the term “South-South conflict” came into use as part of the media's lexicon after the June 2000 inter-Korean summit. Thereafter, it has gained widespread use with the inauguration of Roh Mu-hyun's government in 2002. By and large, the so-called “386 generation” (those who were born in the 1960s and came of age in the 1980s), support an active engagement policy approach toward North Korea. This approach differs from that of the older generation of Koreans who grew up during the Korean War and its aftermath, and for whom the experience of the North-South conflict is still a living memory. While it is a misnomer to characterize conservatives as being against engagement per se, they differ from progressives in their insistence on having much more stringent checks on South Korea's dealings with the North.

[12] “Park Keun-hae: pukhan daemunae chukul dunun opda [We Cannot Die Because of North Korea],” Choson Ilbo, October 18, 2006.

[13] “DJ: haetpyolchongch'aek silp'aenun’ : haekuihan iron” [Kim Dae Jung: The failure of the Sunshine Policy: An Outrageous Viewpoint]. Choson Ilbo, October 11, 2006.

[14] “‘Pukhaeksatae kachang k'un ch'eakim” mikuk 43%, pukhan 37%’ “[Main Responsibility for North Korea's Nuclear Tests: The United States, 43 %; North Korea, 37 %]. KBS poll published in OhmyNews, October 17, 2006.

[15] “South Korean Opinion Polls: Majority Favors Nuclear Weapons; 1980s Generation Question U.S. Ties,” WMD Insights: Issues and Viewpoints in the International Media (Dec/Jam 2006 Issue).

[16] Jin Dae-woong, “Uri lawmakers Opposed to Expanded PSI Role,” Korea Herald, October 14, 2005.

[17] David Kang makes a similar point in his oped piece, “A Better Strategy” Washington Post, November 28, 2005.