Reasons Why the Inter-Korean Military Agreement Has Not Been Scrapped

The North Koreans have repeatedly violated the Inter-Korean military agreement signed in 2018. However, experts have cautioned Seoul from ending the agreement for the following reasons:

South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo, front row left and North Korean Minister of the People’s Armed Forces No Kwang-chol, front row right, shake hands after signing an inter-Korean military agreement during the inter-Korean summit between South Korean President Moon Jae-in, back row left, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang, Sept. 19, 2018. Joint Press Corps

“The agreement establishes guardrails that could prevent incidents from escalating into crises, however imperfect they may be. There is some utility in having buffer zones,” said Naoko Aoki, an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation who specializes in East Asian security issues.

The CMA has instituted buffer zones between the two Koreas by prohibiting hostility on land, sea and air near the border. Specifically, the two sides are restricted from conducting live-fire artillery drills within five kilometers of the Military Demarcation Line (MDL). Plus, no-fly zones have been implemented along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), along with a ban on the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles, helicopters and other aircraft within 40 kilometers of the MDL.

“Given the current tensions (between the two Koreas), it is unlikely that another agreement like this can be drawn up in the foreseeable future, so that should be taken into consideration,” she added.

Terence Roehrig, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, echoed this sentiment, stating, “Though North Korea has violated the agreement on several occasions and is not adhering to the spirit of the CMA, South Korea is better off with the agreement in place than walking away from it.”

Roehrig added that security concerns regarding North Korea’s non-compliance with the CMA are relatively minor compared to the security and political costs of ending the agreement, which would undercut the broader goal of promoting long-term stability on the Korean Peninsula.

The absence of the military agreement would lead to increased belligerence from North Korea, analysts believe.

“Pyongyang would craft a narrative portraying Seoul as the aggressor, using South Korea’s suspension of the military agreement to justify its military provocations,” Roehrig said. 

In that sense, Aoki suggested that South Korea should further use the idea of suspending the CMA as political leverage against North Korea, instead of actually taking actions to scrap it, saying, “North Korea’s violation of the agreement makes it a problematic actor, so South Korea has the moral high ground.”

Korea Times

You can read more at the link.