President Yoon Suk Yeol’s newly unveiled “Aug. 15 Unification Doctrine” is loaded with lofty goals for “freedom-based unification” without any acknowledgement of the formidable challenges ahead.

Unfortunately, it is more arbitrariness from a leader wanting in analysis and foresight. What the nation has heard lacks feasible action plans and consideration for regional geopolitics conducive to inter-Korean peace and reconciliation, let alone his would-be counterpart in the process.

Inter-Korean dialogue is frozen. Without a thaw, how can the deep chasms separating the two Koreas – political, economic, social, cultural, etc. – be bridged? What should be done to resolve the pressing issue of denuclearization? And what efforts should be made to elicit the crucial cooperation by major powers in the region?

Does Yoon ever think of these problems at all? Given the spiraling down of inter-Korean ties to the lowest level in decades under his presidency, one cannot but wonder.

The vision is ambitious: “a unified Republic of Korea,” a country full of happiness where people’s freedom and safety are guaranteed; a strong and prosperous country soaring through creativity and innovation; and a country that contributes to global peace and prosperity while spearheading international harmony and development.

The road map that Yoon presented in his National Liberation Day speech last month constitutes three key tasks: ensuring that the South Korean people possess the values and capabilities needed to pursue freedom-based unification; changing the minds of the North Korean people to make them desire a freedom-based unification; and standing in solidarity with the international community.

But in his speech, Yoon immediately tarnished the first task by blaming what he perceived as “antifreedom, antiunification forces” within the country. “Pseudo-intellectuals and demagogues package and circulate fake news to destroy the values and order of a free society by deluding people,” he argued. “Our people must be armed with the power of truth and fight back.”

Yoon seemingly believes that hostile internal forces undermine his pursuit of inter-Korean rapprochement, which is questionable. Whoever he regards as these “dark forces,” he has consistently antagonized the opposition parties, even though they form the majority in the National Assembly and their support is vital in materializing his vision of unification. He has even disparaged those who seek dialogue with the North as the “anti-state forces deluded by fake peace.”

Whereas Yoon’s first key undertaking can estrange his critics at home, his second key undertaking will likely further alienate the already antagonistic North Korean leadership. He proposed “a more proactive, multifaceted approach to extend the value of freedom to the frozen kingdom” and help its people to improve their human rights situation substantially.

Yoon offered to push humanitarian aid -- in the form of food and health care -- for vulnerable segments of the North’s population, including infants, women, the elderly and people with disabilities, but without explaining how he would deliver such aid amid the stalled South-North relations. He further proposed expanding the North Koreans’ right of access to information so that they will be able to use various channels to secure outside information, an idea that is sure to provoke the regime in Pyongyang.

Yoon did not elaborate on how information access could be expanded for the people in the self-isolated North. Instead, he quoted North Korean defectors saying that “our radio and TV broadcasts helped make them aware of the false propaganda and instigations emanating from the North Korean regime.” He thus indicated that his administration has no intention of discontinuing the ongoing cross-border balloon campaigns by both sides, heightening tensions.

Does this suggest that Yoon hopes for insurgencies from the bottom of the North Korean population, leading to a regime collapse and subsequent unification by absorption? Apparently so, despite the repeated denials by key officials.

Intriguingly, Yoon then declared that his administration will “keep the door to inter-Korean dialogue wide open.” He proposed that authorities from both Koreas establish an inter-Korean working group to take up any issue. “Dialogue and cooperation can bring about substantive progress in inter-Korean relations,” he said, urging North Korean authorities to respond to his proposal.

Contrary to expectations voiced by his key personnel, Pyongyang has remained silent, a stark difference from its immediate, angry rebuttal to Yoon’s “Audacious Initiative” two years ago. Responding to his proposal to help rebuild the North’s devastated economy if Pyongyang starts taking concrete steps toward denuclearization, Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, rejected it with, “No one barters its destiny for corn cake.”

Their immature content aside, Yoon’s initiatives in Korean Peninsula issues have critical flaws in that they are arbitrary and complacent. Before publicly announcing his plans, Yoon should try to create the right atmosphere through broad consultations with leaders of opposition parties and civil society as well as experts in concerned fields. Such a softening process -- hopefully including behind-the-scenes negotiations with North Korean authorities -- would increase the possibility of success.

Toward that purpose, Yoon should first endeavor to start dialogue with the opposition. It is common sense that without empathy and consensus at home, one cannot hope for success in diplomacy. More importantly, he could modify his risky vision for drastic change on the peninsula, opting for a safer and peaceful process.

Lee Kyong-hee

Lee Kyong-hee is a former editor-in-chief of The Korea Herald. The views expressed here are the writer's own. -- Ed.