*Panmunjom. In the last 70 years, why has the armistice system not eventually transitioned into genuine peace? @iStock
Il Young Jeong
Research Professor_Institute of Social Sciences_Sogang University
July 27, 2023 marked a full 70 years since the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement. While no one could have known it at the time, this armistice went on to become the longest sustained ceasefire in human history. Have we become too comfortable with the armistice system status quo? In the span of the last 70 years, why has the armistice system not eventually transitioned into genuine peace? To answer these questions, I will revisit the history of the ceasefire, identify potential lessons learned, and look for possible routes to not just suspend the war but truly end it.
70 Years That Nobody Saw Coming
On July 27th, 1953, the Commander-in-Chief of United Nations Command (representing the South) and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and the Commander of the Chinese People's volunteers agreed to a “complete cessation of hostilities,” in other words, a close to the Korean War. The text of the agreement is clear that the armistice’s ultimate objective is to end fighting until “a final peaceful settlement is achieved.”
In addition to the cessation of hostilities, the armistice agreement included three additional notable conditions. First, the two Koreas must withdraw 2 kilometers from the division line and establish a demilitarized zone. Second, a military armistice commission (MAC) formed by the warring parties would be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the ceasefire. Third, a Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC) composed of four neutral nations would be responsible for monitoring and tracking arms buildups in both Koreas.
The agreement also laid out prescriptions for the next questions to be addressed in transforming the armistice into an end to the war: “In order to insure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.” This high-level meeting took place in Geneva between April and June 1954, but the prolonged presence of foreign military forces stationed in both Koreas ultimately presented too high a barrier to peace negotiations.
Shortly after the armistice was signed, the US and South Korea adopted the “Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea” on October 1st, 1953. North Korea responded in kind by cementing its relationship with China through “The Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance” in July of 1961. From this time onward, the Korean Peninsula continued to act as a frontline in the Cold War conflict between the US and the Soviet Union and grew into the militarily fraught region we know today.
Inter-Korean Efforts to Move from Ceasefire to Peace
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s and the end of the Cold War presented a fresh opportunity to resolve the issue on the Korean Peninsula. In December of 1991, the “Basic Agreement” between the two Koreas stated, “the two sides shall endeavor together to transform the present state of armistice into a solid state of peace between the South and the North (Article 5).” To this end, the two sides promised they “shall not use force against each other and shall not undertake armed aggression against each other (Article 9). Differences of views and disputes arising between the two sides shall be resolved peacefully through dialogue and negotiation (Article 10).”
Unfortunately, the North Korean nuclear crisis of 1993 sunk these burgeoning hopes for a successful transition to peace. North Korea’s nuclear development became the largest stumbling block to establishing peace on the peninsula. How then to solve the North Korean nuclear issue that continues to plague the peninsula now, thirty years later? I would suggest that declaring an official end to the Korean War would be an essential preliminary step.
Inter-Korean negotiations have attempted to make steps in this direction. The “October 4th Declaration” that resulted from an inter-Korean summit in 2007 declared, “The South and the North both recognize the need to end the current armistice regime and build a permanent peace regime. The South and the North have also agreed to work together to advance the matter of having the leaders of the three or four parties directly concerned to convene on the Peninsula and declare an end to the war.” Similar sentiments about an official end to the war also appeared in the 2018 inter-Korean summits and the resulting “Panmunjom Declaration.” However, talks of ending the war have since failed to progress in recent years as the result of North Korea’s nuclear armament and the rise of a conservative administration in South Korea.
International Efforts to Establish a Post-War Peace on the Peninsula
If inter-Korean discussions of ending the war have slowed down, then what about those same discussions in the international community at large?
Discussion of how to set up peace on the peninsula arises in the US-DPRK “Geneva Agreement” (1994 Agreed Framework) and in the later “US-DPRK Joint Communique” in 2000. The Joint Communique mentioned these discussions, stating, “the two sides agreed there are a variety of available means, including Four Party talks, to reduce tension on the Korean Peninsula and formally end the Korean War by replacing the 1953 Armistice Agreement with permanent peace arrangements.” To this end, the two countries agreed that “as a crucial first step, the two sides stated that neither government would have hostile intent toward the other and confirmed the commitment of both governments to make every effort in the future to build a new relationship free from past enmity.”
The international community has also used the Six Party Talks to try to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue as well as address ways to establish peace on the peninsula. The September 2005 “Joint Statement” of the Six Party Talks referenced this additional objective, saying, “the Six Parties committed to joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in Northeast Asia, and the directly related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum.”
The “February 13th Agreement” of 2007 reaffirmed all parties’ commitments to “make joint efforts for lasting peace and stability in Northeast Asia” and that “the directly related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum.” These promises later resulted in the formation of the Northeast Asia Peace and Security Mechanism (NEAPSM) Working Group.
Despite the discussions about a peace mechanism that were floated amongst the two Koreas, the US, Japan, and Russia, the current North Korean nuclear issue and tensions in North-South and US-China relations have kept these discussions from crossing over into material practice.
Untangling A 70 Year-Old Knot
Peace on the Korean Peninsula is not just about peace for North and South Korea or even just for East Asia, but rather an issue with direct implications for world peace. Resolving lingering issues on the peninsula will be a major task for our generations and will require us to untangle and finally lay to rest the issues that have persisted for the last several decades. Yet, I genuinely believe that peace on the peninsula can be achieved through an official end to the war and peace negotiations. Without an end to the war, however, the peninsula will never be able to extricate itself from the constant looming threat of armed conflict.
If we want peace, we need to begin by engaging in dialogue to negotiate an end to the war and a mechanism for peace. Some may say that it is impossible to negotiate a peace agreement with a nuclear-armed North Korea. To those who prioritize denuclearization, I posit that negotiations to end the Korean War are essential to the goal of denuclearization as well.
The United States is no longer free from the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack. As such, whether it be for the goal of peace on the peninsula itself or to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue for the sake of America’s own security interests, I strongly urge the US government to think carefully about the role the US can and should play in bringing about a long overdue end to the Korean War.
*IL-Young Jeong is a research professor at Sogang University in Seoul. His key research interests include North Korea's social control system, inter-Korean relations, and peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Comments
Post a Comment