The need for a new approach to peace-building on the Korean peninsula
Simultaneously discuss North Korea’s denuclearization and a unification-oriented peace regime
Kwak Tae-Hwan August 8th, 2016
FacebookTwitterEmailLinkedInGoogle+PrintShare 0 Comments 0
Following North Korea’s fourth nuclear test and long-range rocket launch in early 2016, the United Nation Security Council adopted stronger and more comprehensive sanctions against North Korea. U. S.-ROK joint military exercises – Key Resolve and Foal Eagle – were then staged from March 7 to April 30, 2016. Soon after, the U.S and ROK governments announced their decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea. As a result, inter-Korean relations are now at their worst in recent years, and the Korean peninsula is, indeed, in a state of the worst crisis situation. What should thus be done to find an exit strategy for reducing high tensions while working towards a peace regime between the Koreas?
https://www.nknews.org/2016/08/the-need-for-a-new-approach-to-peace-building-on-the-korean-peninsula/
The U. S. and the ROK need to design a new road-map for resolving North Korea’s nuclear issue by abandoning the denuclearization-first policy
China recently made a similar proposal, in calling for simultaneous discussions and the resolution of peace-denuclearization issues. Notably, the DPRK also proposed a peace treaty with the United States, just a few days before the Jan. 6, 2016 nuclear test. The U.S. reportedly considered the proposal and made a counter-proposal for denuclearization as part of peace treaty talks. However, Pyongyang rejected it, and then it conducted the fourth nuclear test.
On February 18, 2016, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi proposed to hold new peace treaty talks with North Korea in tandem with denuclearization negotiations. Nevertheless, Washington rejected that suggestion, maintaining that the denuclearization issue remain top priority. As a result, it appears both China and the U.S. seem to support Korean peninsula peace talks in tandem with denuclearization talks, when North Korea is willing to take denuclearization measures prior to talks. But neither China nor the U. S. has spelled out how to denuclearize the DPRK and to build a peace regime on the Korean peninsula in detail.
A THREE-STAGE ROADMAP
Given this deadlock, I would like to propose an alternative three-stage road-map for the achievement of denuclearization and simultaneous building of a peace regime-building on the Korean peninsula.
The first stage: The search for an exit strategy is essential to the alleviation of the current crisis on the Korean peninsula. It is therefore proposed that “Three Party Talks” involving the U. S., the ROK and the DPRK be convened to agree on a moratorium on U. S. -ROK joint military exercises in exchange for a North Korea’s nuclear freeze and shutdown.
At this stage, it would also be essential that the February 29, 2012 agreement (‘Leap Day Deal’) between the U.S. and the DPRK be observed and implemented simultaneously. The core of the 2.29 agreement is North Korea’s moratorium on nuclear testing and long-range missile launching, in exchange for U.S. humanitarian and economic assistance to North Korea. It is thus desirable that Washington be willing to suspend U.S.-ROK joint military exercises, and more importantly, that the Obama administration reengage with North Korea. It is also desirable that President Park Geun-hye be willing to take initiatives to persuade President Obama to take a new, innovative approach to North Korea’s nuclear issue.
The search for an exit strategy is essential to the alleviation of a current crisis on the Korean peninsula
The second stage: If the first stage is successfully completed, the second step will be to resume the long-stalled Six-Party Talks with a goal of implementing the September 19, 2005 and February 13, 2007 statement and agreement, and at the same time for U.S.-DPRK normalization talks and Japan-DPRK normalization talks to commence. The U.S.-DPRK normalization treaty and Japan-DPRK normalization treaty will need to be signed to complete diplomatic cross-recognition among the six states in Northeast Asia.
The third stage: Realization of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the conclusion of a Korean peninsula peace treaty.
Needless to say, essential issues at each stage of this proposal need to be resolved to achieve North Korea’s denuclearization. However, the proposal is simply to introduce a macro-level approach to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, though further research on this issue is necessary. If this initiative is successfully implemented, the survival of the North Korean system will be guaranteed, inter-Korean relations will be friendly, and U.S.-DPRK and Japan-DPRK relations will be normalized. As a result of such an outcome, the DPRK will be free from its siege mentality and there will be no reason for Pyongyang to keep its nuclear weapons, leading to the denuclearization of the peninsula.
Overall, it seems a policy of pressure and tougher sanctions against the DPRK cannot alone resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue. Thus, we must search for an alternative approach to the sanctions/pressure policy toward North Korea. A new initiative of sequential measures in the proposed three-stage formula is therefore designed to resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue via alternative means to the pressure policy toward the DPRK. Thus this approach is not supporting a U. S.-DPRK peace treaty, but moreover a Korean peninsula peace treaty.
CONCLUDING A KOREAN PEACE TREATY
If the deadlocked four-party talks can be reactivated then the issue of building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula can be discussed, though it is a formidable task to create a peace formula acceptable to four parties: the two Koreas, China and the U.S.
A creative formula for building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula is therefore required, and political will of the highest decision-makers will be an essential condition. For no matter how good the formula may be, if there is a lack of political will to implement it, it remains unrealistic. Therefore, it would be necessary for the U.S., China, DPRK and ROK to meet at a Korean peace forum under the Sept. 19 agreement, setting the following six items on their agenda:
First, a peace agreement between the ROK and the DPRK would need to be discussed. The two Koreas would need to reconfirm their intent to implement Article 5 of the Basic Agreement and Article 19 of the Protocol on the Compliance with, and Implementation of Chapter I, South-North Reconciliation of the Basic agreement, in order to transform the armistice into a peace regime on the Korean peninsula. In addition, Chapter II, South-North Non-aggression (Chapters 9-14) of the Basic Agreement and its Protocol need to be implemented in good faith by South and North Korea. If the two Koreas sincerely implement the non-aggression provisions under the inter-Korean basic agreement, it would not be necessary to separately conclude a peace treaty between the two Koreas.
Second, a U.S.-DPRK peace agreement should be placed on the agenda, for since 1974 the DPRK has consistently insisted on a peace treaty with the United States. A peace agreement (not a treaty) between the U.S. and the DPRK must be concluded. The DPRK appeared to abandon a long-standing bilateral peace treaty between the U.S. and the DPRK. In May 2004, DPRK deputy representative to the UN Han Song Ryol suggested that the best way to resolve its nuclear standoff with the U.S. would be to replace the Korean armistice with a trilateral peace treaty ending the Korean War, to be signed by the two Koreas and the United States. It is significant that the DPRK is also interested in concluding a multilateral peace treaty.
Third, a peace agreement between the ROK and China may be on the agenda. The ROK established its diplomatic relations with China in 1992, but after twenty-four years of normalized relations, there is no legal document signed by the two to formally end the Korean War. It therefore seems necessary for the two countries to sign a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War.
Fourth, a peace agreement between China and the United States may also be placed on the agenda. China and the U.S. were also belligerent powers during the Korean War, and yet the two powers have not concluded a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War. It is argued that there is a need to conclude a peace agreement between the two in view of the conflicting security interests of the two powers in the Asia-Pacific region. In this context, it is desirable that a U.S.-China peace agreement could be concluded at a Korean peace forum.
Fifth, political and military confidence-building measures (CBMs) between the two Koreas should be placed on the agenda. The South-North Joint Military Commission needs to be re-activated to implement provisions of the non-aggression agreement as spelled out in Chapter II of the Basic Agreement, which was nullified on Jan. 30, 2009 by the DPRK. The Commission should also discuss relevant issues relating to inter-Korean arms control, CBMs, the reduction of offensive weapons systems, chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and a verification regime.
Sixth, the establishment of an international peace observation mechanism should be placed on the agenda. This international body must enforce a Korean peninsula peace treaty and manage the implementation of agreements among the four parties.
The six items as suggested above could be placed on the agenda at a Korean peace forum under the Sept. 19 and Feb. 13 joint agreements.
At least four connected agreements among the four parties may be agreed upon at such a forum: 1) an ROK-DPRK peace agreement; 2) a U.S.-DPRK peace agreement; 3) a ROK-China peace agreement; and 4) a U.S.-China peace agreement. These four connected agreements will be included under a Korean peninsula peace treaty, which will legally and formally terminate the Korean War. No party will be allowed to demand war guilt, reparations, or the persecution of war criminals as usually demanded in a peace treaty.
No party will be allowed to demand war guilt, reparations, or the persecution of war criminals as usually demanded in a peace treaty
Needless to say, the two Koreas would need to play key roles in transforming the Korean Armistice Agreement into a Korean peninsula peace treaty. The four+ format of the UN formula (a Korean peninsula peace treaty endorsed by the United Nations) should be signed by the leaders of the four parties at the four summit meeting. The peace treaty signed by the four would be based on the principle of a system of collective security, whereby a unification-oriented peace regime on the Korean peninsula will be firmly established. The UN Security Council should endorse a resolution to guarantee the Korean peninsula peace treaty, which should be registered at the UN Secretariat.
The four parties, Russia and Japan (all members of the Six-Party talks) will jointly guarantee a Korean peninsula peace treaty. The next stage would be to develop a multilateral Northeast Asian security body, including Russia and Japan. In this way, there will be a permanent, unification-oriented peace regime on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia.
peace korea photo
Photo by Eric Lafforgue
CONCLUSION
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and a peace regime on the Korean peninsula need to be discussed at the same time. Unless the ROK and DPRK demonstrate their desire to cooperate through sincere deeds by implementing inter-Korean agreements and are willing to make concessions by working together for establishing a peace regime, there is little chance of achieving this goal. On the international level, the four parties at a Korean peace forum are willing to build a peace regime on the Korean peninsula.
Currently icy inter-Korean relations are obstacles to North Korea’s denuclearization and the peace-regime building processes. If the two Koreas continue pursuing their hard-line policies toward each other, peace regime building will make little progress. But there is always hope for improving inter-Korean relations. In the meantime, now is the time to simultaneously discuss both North Korea’s denuclearization and a unification-oriented peace regime building on the Korean peninsula.
Featured image: Eric Lafforgue
Featured Image: Soldier with helmet in Panmunjon DMZ - North Korea by Eric Lafforgue on 2011-09-11 06:04:40
FacebookTwitterEmailLinkedInGoogle+Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kwak Tae-Hwan
Dr. Kwak Tae-Hwan, Professor Emeritus at Eastern Kentucky University, former President of KINU (Korea Institute for National Unification), Chair-Professor and former Director of IFES, Kyungnam University, is a specialist on Northeast Asian affairs, inter-Korean relations and Korean peace and unification issues. He taught international relations over thirty years in at Eastern Kentucky University and Korean universities. Dr. Kwak is a recipient of Global Peace Foundation's 2012 Innovative Scholarship for Peace Award. He has worked more than fifteen NGOs. He is now Chairman, Institute for Korean Peninsula Future Strategies. Chairman of the Korean Peninsula Unification Council through Neutralization, Executive Adviser of the Northeast Asian Community Studies Institute, and President of Korean Unification Strategies Research Council (LA, USA). Dr. Kwak is the author, editor and co-editor of 31 books, including One Korea: Visions of Korean Unification (Routeledge, November, 2016), North Korea and Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia (Ashgate, 2014), etc. He has authored more than 200 articles and is a freelance writer for Korean daily newspapers, monthly magazines, and Internet.
READ MORE A
Simultaneously discuss North Korea’s denuclearization and a unification-oriented peace regime
Kwak Tae-Hwan August 8th, 2016
FacebookTwitterEmailLinkedInGoogle+PrintShare 0 Comments 0
Following North Korea’s fourth nuclear test and long-range rocket launch in early 2016, the United Nation Security Council adopted stronger and more comprehensive sanctions against North Korea. U. S.-ROK joint military exercises – Key Resolve and Foal Eagle – were then staged from March 7 to April 30, 2016. Soon after, the U.S and ROK governments announced their decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea. As a result, inter-Korean relations are now at their worst in recent years, and the Korean peninsula is, indeed, in a state of the worst crisis situation. What should thus be done to find an exit strategy for reducing high tensions while working towards a peace regime between the Koreas?
https://www.nknews.org/2016/08/the-need-for-a-new-approach-to-peace-building-on-the-korean-peninsula/
The U. S. and the ROK need to design a new road-map for resolving North Korea’s nuclear issue by abandoning the denuclearization-first policy
China recently made a similar proposal, in calling for simultaneous discussions and the resolution of peace-denuclearization issues. Notably, the DPRK also proposed a peace treaty with the United States, just a few days before the Jan. 6, 2016 nuclear test. The U.S. reportedly considered the proposal and made a counter-proposal for denuclearization as part of peace treaty talks. However, Pyongyang rejected it, and then it conducted the fourth nuclear test.
On February 18, 2016, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi proposed to hold new peace treaty talks with North Korea in tandem with denuclearization negotiations. Nevertheless, Washington rejected that suggestion, maintaining that the denuclearization issue remain top priority. As a result, it appears both China and the U.S. seem to support Korean peninsula peace talks in tandem with denuclearization talks, when North Korea is willing to take denuclearization measures prior to talks. But neither China nor the U. S. has spelled out how to denuclearize the DPRK and to build a peace regime on the Korean peninsula in detail.
A THREE-STAGE ROADMAP
Given this deadlock, I would like to propose an alternative three-stage road-map for the achievement of denuclearization and simultaneous building of a peace regime-building on the Korean peninsula.
The first stage: The search for an exit strategy is essential to the alleviation of the current crisis on the Korean peninsula. It is therefore proposed that “Three Party Talks” involving the U. S., the ROK and the DPRK be convened to agree on a moratorium on U. S. -ROK joint military exercises in exchange for a North Korea’s nuclear freeze and shutdown.
At this stage, it would also be essential that the February 29, 2012 agreement (‘Leap Day Deal’) between the U.S. and the DPRK be observed and implemented simultaneously. The core of the 2.29 agreement is North Korea’s moratorium on nuclear testing and long-range missile launching, in exchange for U.S. humanitarian and economic assistance to North Korea. It is thus desirable that Washington be willing to suspend U.S.-ROK joint military exercises, and more importantly, that the Obama administration reengage with North Korea. It is also desirable that President Park Geun-hye be willing to take initiatives to persuade President Obama to take a new, innovative approach to North Korea’s nuclear issue.
The search for an exit strategy is essential to the alleviation of a current crisis on the Korean peninsula
The second stage: If the first stage is successfully completed, the second step will be to resume the long-stalled Six-Party Talks with a goal of implementing the September 19, 2005 and February 13, 2007 statement and agreement, and at the same time for U.S.-DPRK normalization talks and Japan-DPRK normalization talks to commence. The U.S.-DPRK normalization treaty and Japan-DPRK normalization treaty will need to be signed to complete diplomatic cross-recognition among the six states in Northeast Asia.
The third stage: Realization of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the conclusion of a Korean peninsula peace treaty.
Needless to say, essential issues at each stage of this proposal need to be resolved to achieve North Korea’s denuclearization. However, the proposal is simply to introduce a macro-level approach to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, though further research on this issue is necessary. If this initiative is successfully implemented, the survival of the North Korean system will be guaranteed, inter-Korean relations will be friendly, and U.S.-DPRK and Japan-DPRK relations will be normalized. As a result of such an outcome, the DPRK will be free from its siege mentality and there will be no reason for Pyongyang to keep its nuclear weapons, leading to the denuclearization of the peninsula.
Overall, it seems a policy of pressure and tougher sanctions against the DPRK cannot alone resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue. Thus, we must search for an alternative approach to the sanctions/pressure policy toward North Korea. A new initiative of sequential measures in the proposed three-stage formula is therefore designed to resolve North Korea’s nuclear issue via alternative means to the pressure policy toward the DPRK. Thus this approach is not supporting a U. S.-DPRK peace treaty, but moreover a Korean peninsula peace treaty.
CONCLUDING A KOREAN PEACE TREATY
If the deadlocked four-party talks can be reactivated then the issue of building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula can be discussed, though it is a formidable task to create a peace formula acceptable to four parties: the two Koreas, China and the U.S.
A creative formula for building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula is therefore required, and political will of the highest decision-makers will be an essential condition. For no matter how good the formula may be, if there is a lack of political will to implement it, it remains unrealistic. Therefore, it would be necessary for the U.S., China, DPRK and ROK to meet at a Korean peace forum under the Sept. 19 agreement, setting the following six items on their agenda:
First, a peace agreement between the ROK and the DPRK would need to be discussed. The two Koreas would need to reconfirm their intent to implement Article 5 of the Basic Agreement and Article 19 of the Protocol on the Compliance with, and Implementation of Chapter I, South-North Reconciliation of the Basic agreement, in order to transform the armistice into a peace regime on the Korean peninsula. In addition, Chapter II, South-North Non-aggression (Chapters 9-14) of the Basic Agreement and its Protocol need to be implemented in good faith by South and North Korea. If the two Koreas sincerely implement the non-aggression provisions under the inter-Korean basic agreement, it would not be necessary to separately conclude a peace treaty between the two Koreas.
Second, a U.S.-DPRK peace agreement should be placed on the agenda, for since 1974 the DPRK has consistently insisted on a peace treaty with the United States. A peace agreement (not a treaty) between the U.S. and the DPRK must be concluded. The DPRK appeared to abandon a long-standing bilateral peace treaty between the U.S. and the DPRK. In May 2004, DPRK deputy representative to the UN Han Song Ryol suggested that the best way to resolve its nuclear standoff with the U.S. would be to replace the Korean armistice with a trilateral peace treaty ending the Korean War, to be signed by the two Koreas and the United States. It is significant that the DPRK is also interested in concluding a multilateral peace treaty.
Third, a peace agreement between the ROK and China may be on the agenda. The ROK established its diplomatic relations with China in 1992, but after twenty-four years of normalized relations, there is no legal document signed by the two to formally end the Korean War. It therefore seems necessary for the two countries to sign a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War.
Fourth, a peace agreement between China and the United States may also be placed on the agenda. China and the U.S. were also belligerent powers during the Korean War, and yet the two powers have not concluded a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War. It is argued that there is a need to conclude a peace agreement between the two in view of the conflicting security interests of the two powers in the Asia-Pacific region. In this context, it is desirable that a U.S.-China peace agreement could be concluded at a Korean peace forum.
Fifth, political and military confidence-building measures (CBMs) between the two Koreas should be placed on the agenda. The South-North Joint Military Commission needs to be re-activated to implement provisions of the non-aggression agreement as spelled out in Chapter II of the Basic Agreement, which was nullified on Jan. 30, 2009 by the DPRK. The Commission should also discuss relevant issues relating to inter-Korean arms control, CBMs, the reduction of offensive weapons systems, chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles and a verification regime.
Sixth, the establishment of an international peace observation mechanism should be placed on the agenda. This international body must enforce a Korean peninsula peace treaty and manage the implementation of agreements among the four parties.
The six items as suggested above could be placed on the agenda at a Korean peace forum under the Sept. 19 and Feb. 13 joint agreements.
At least four connected agreements among the four parties may be agreed upon at such a forum: 1) an ROK-DPRK peace agreement; 2) a U.S.-DPRK peace agreement; 3) a ROK-China peace agreement; and 4) a U.S.-China peace agreement. These four connected agreements will be included under a Korean peninsula peace treaty, which will legally and formally terminate the Korean War. No party will be allowed to demand war guilt, reparations, or the persecution of war criminals as usually demanded in a peace treaty.
No party will be allowed to demand war guilt, reparations, or the persecution of war criminals as usually demanded in a peace treaty
Needless to say, the two Koreas would need to play key roles in transforming the Korean Armistice Agreement into a Korean peninsula peace treaty. The four+ format of the UN formula (a Korean peninsula peace treaty endorsed by the United Nations) should be signed by the leaders of the four parties at the four summit meeting. The peace treaty signed by the four would be based on the principle of a system of collective security, whereby a unification-oriented peace regime on the Korean peninsula will be firmly established. The UN Security Council should endorse a resolution to guarantee the Korean peninsula peace treaty, which should be registered at the UN Secretariat.
The four parties, Russia and Japan (all members of the Six-Party talks) will jointly guarantee a Korean peninsula peace treaty. The next stage would be to develop a multilateral Northeast Asian security body, including Russia and Japan. In this way, there will be a permanent, unification-oriented peace regime on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia.
peace korea photo
Photo by Eric Lafforgue
CONCLUSION
The denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and a peace regime on the Korean peninsula need to be discussed at the same time. Unless the ROK and DPRK demonstrate their desire to cooperate through sincere deeds by implementing inter-Korean agreements and are willing to make concessions by working together for establishing a peace regime, there is little chance of achieving this goal. On the international level, the four parties at a Korean peace forum are willing to build a peace regime on the Korean peninsula.
Currently icy inter-Korean relations are obstacles to North Korea’s denuclearization and the peace-regime building processes. If the two Koreas continue pursuing their hard-line policies toward each other, peace regime building will make little progress. But there is always hope for improving inter-Korean relations. In the meantime, now is the time to simultaneously discuss both North Korea’s denuclearization and a unification-oriented peace regime building on the Korean peninsula.
Featured image: Eric Lafforgue
Featured Image: Soldier with helmet in Panmunjon DMZ - North Korea by Eric Lafforgue on 2011-09-11 06:04:40
FacebookTwitterEmailLinkedInGoogle+Print
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kwak Tae-Hwan
Dr. Kwak Tae-Hwan, Professor Emeritus at Eastern Kentucky University, former President of KINU (Korea Institute for National Unification), Chair-Professor and former Director of IFES, Kyungnam University, is a specialist on Northeast Asian affairs, inter-Korean relations and Korean peace and unification issues. He taught international relations over thirty years in at Eastern Kentucky University and Korean universities. Dr. Kwak is a recipient of Global Peace Foundation's 2012 Innovative Scholarship for Peace Award. He has worked more than fifteen NGOs. He is now Chairman, Institute for Korean Peninsula Future Strategies. Chairman of the Korean Peninsula Unification Council through Neutralization, Executive Adviser of the Northeast Asian Community Studies Institute, and President of Korean Unification Strategies Research Council (LA, USA). Dr. Kwak is the author, editor and co-editor of 31 books, including One Korea: Visions of Korean Unification (Routeledge, November, 2016), North Korea and Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia (Ashgate, 2014), etc. He has authored more than 200 articles and is a freelance writer for Korean daily newspapers, monthly magazines, and Internet.
READ MORE A
No comments:
Post a Comment