North Korea reiterated its demand Thursday for the United States to agree to declare an end to the 1950-53 Korean War, saying that it would help bring in peace and create mutual trust.
Declaring an end to the Korean War is “the demand of our time” and will be the “first process” toward a peace and security guarantee, the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the Workers’ Party of Korea, said in a commentary.
The newspaper added that it is “abnormal” to see distrust and animosity going on between the North and the U.S. even now, saying that it is time to take action toward declaring an end to the war. [Yonhap]
You can read more at the link, but the Kim regime wants to end the Korean War and get a peace treaty signed because then that would justify demands to withdraw USFK from the peninsula. With the end of the US-ROK alliance the ROK and North Korea can move forward with their confederation idea which will essentially lead to unification on the Kim regime’s terms.
However, the Trump administration has made it clear that no peace treaty will be offered until real denuclearization happens. Over the coming year I guess we will see who blinks first.
I’ve always been for an official end to the war w/o conditions JUST TO GET THE NORTH & ITS APOLOGISTS TO STFU. They blame everything abt NK’s behavior on the “ongoing” war.
“Radios tuned only to state channel? Because there’s still just an armistice, didn’t you know?” https://t.co/hZhdFgqnXh
It seems to me people are getting way ahead of themselves in regards to the upcoming Inter-Korean Summit ending the Korean War:
South and North Korea are discussing plans to announce an official end to the military conflict between the two countries that are still technically at war, the Munhwa Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unidentified South Korean official.
At next week’s summit between South Korea President Moon Jae-in and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un, the two neighbors may release a joint statement saying they will seek to ease military tension and to end confrontation, according to the report. [Bloomberg]
Before people get all euphoric about the end of the Korean War it is important to realize South Korea cannot negotiate an end to the Korean War because they are not a signatory to the Armistice Agreement. They will need China, the United States, and United Nations to agree to it as well. So what exactly is being negotiated?:
“We are devising and discussing various ways to develop the security situation surrounding the peninsula into a permanent peace regime,” the official said on condition of anonymity. “One such way may be changing the armistice agreement to a peace treaty, and we are reviewing the possibility of it.”
But he said South Korea alone cannot decide on ending the war as the issue requires close discussion with countries directly involved, including North Korea.
Although the armistice was signed by North Korea, China and the United Nations Command, without South Korea, the official said it is undeniable South Korea is one of the countries directly involved.
“But the two Koreas alone cannot decide on signing a peace treaty, so we may have to seek a three-party or four-party agreement if necessary.”
He noted that when Moon’s special envoys visited Pyongyang in March, Kim himself said his country would not take military action against the South.
“In the joint declaration to be announced by Moon and Kim after the summit, we want to include an agreement to ban hostilities, although it is not known yet whether we can use the term ‘end of the war,'” the official said. “However, we expect to include such an agreement in some form of expression.” [Korea Times]
That is the key term being negotiated, “a ban on hostilities”. I would be surprised if President Trump signs up for a peace treaty ending the war without verifiable denuclearization by North Korea. The Kim regime probably understands this as well. I think what the Kim regime may be trying to do is at least get an agreement to ban hostilities in order to make it more difficult for President Trump to launch a strike when they inevitably break whatever agreement they sign up for.
If the past is any indication of the future, they will break the agreement after receiving the aid they want and blame the US or ROK for its failure for some imaginary reason. The ban on hostilities could then possibly constrain the US President from responding militarily while the Kim regime continues to break the agreement. If the US does strike anyway the Kim regime can then claim that the US broke the hostility agreement and thus justify them expanding their nuclear program and taking whatever hostilities they want. In the minds of the Kim regime, they win either way.
I foresee this being the opening gesture by the Moon administration towards some kind of freeze deal with North Korea that has a growing chorus from experts and the media:
President Moon Jae-in speaks about peace on the Korean Peninsula, inter-Korean relations and unification at the old city hall of Berlin, Germany, Thursday. The non-profit Korber Foundation invited the President to the event. / Yonhap
President Moon Jae-in said Thursday he will seek to pursue a peace treaty with North Korea, taking a step forward for inter-Korean reconciliation despite Pyongyang’s test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) two days earlier.
Moon’s pledge comes after North Korea and China have repeatedly called for the signing of a peace treaty with the United States to formally end the Korean War and settle the security crisis on the peninsula.
The President appeared to be seeking U.S. support in his push for a peace treaty as the U.S., on behalf of the United Nations, signed the 1953 armistice agreement with North Korea and China. South Korea was not among the signatories.
“We should make a peace treaty joined by all relevant parties at the end of the Korean War to settle a lasting peace on the peninsula,” Moon said during his Korean-language invitational speech at the Korber Foundation, a nonprofit think tank in Berlin. “I will take a comprehensive approach to North Koream nuclear issues to pursue the peace treaty along with complete denuclearization (in the region.)” [Korea Times]
You can read more at the link, but remember North Korea does not want peace, it wants peace treaty negotiations. There is a big difference.
Professor John Delury from Yonsei University begins his opinion piece in the Washington Post by bringing up the old “Fireball Seoul™” scenario after any US strike on North Korea’s nuclear and missile program:
John Delury
President Trump’s missile strike on Syria won plaudits from commentators on the left and right, with some of the enthusiasm spilling over into the debate about a “military solution” when it comes to North Korea. The comparison, like much of the administration’s rhetoric about Korea, is dangerously misleading. There is no way to hit North Korea without being hit back harder. There is no military means to “preempt” its capabilities — nuclear and otherwise — with a “surgical” strike. Any use of force to degrade its weapons program would start a war, the costs of which would be staggering.
Maybe in the era of America First, we don’t care about death and destruction being visited on the 10 million people who live in Seoul, within North Korean artillery and short-range missile range.
First of all I am not advocating for a limited strike right now when there are other options still yet to be used. However, a limited strike like we saw in Syria that perhaps targets North Korea’s submarine base in Sinpo where they are developing submarine launched ballistic missiles in violation of United Nations resolution does not necessarily mean the Kim regime will destroy Seoul in response.
The first thing the Kim regime cares about is maintaining their power. Launching a massive artillery barrage on Seoul or destroying Incheon International Airport will cause a regime change war in response that they know they cannot win. The Fireball Seoul™ scenario only comes in to play if the Kim regime feels the intent of the strike is to remove the regime. There has been no talk of a strike to remove the regime, just talk of limit strikes against Kim’s nuclear and weapons programs.
Regardless here is what Professor Delury says the Trump administration should do:
Instead, the prudent move would be to open direct talks with Pyongyang that start by negotiating a freeze on the fissile-material production cycle, return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and moratorium on testing nuclear devices and long-range ballistic missiles (including satellite launches). In return, the United States should at least entertain Pyongyang’s standing request for suspension of joint military exercises with South Korea. Kim may be willing to accept something less, such as an adjustment in scale. Or he may be open to a different kind of trade — initiating talks to convert the 1953 Armistice Agreement into a proper peace treaty to end the Korean War, for example. The only way to probe these options is to get to the table. With two months of large-scale exercises coming to a close, now is a good time to do so. [Washington Post]
You can read more at the link, but Professor Delury goes on to claim that Kim Jong-un ultimately wants economic development and actually calls him the “developmental dictator”. Unfortunately he provides no evidence to support this claim.
Anyway that is besides the point, the reason the Kim regime has been persistent about seeking a peace treaty with the US is because it would then call into question the continued existence of the US-ROK alliance. The North Koreans have tried for decades to drive a wedge between the ROK and the US and a peace treaty is one way they try and do this. It is the same rationale of why they try to get joint US-ROK military exercises cancelled, to drive a wedge between the US and the ROK.
The Kim regime knows that any chance of reunification on North Korean terms is dependent on separating the US from the ROK and ultimately the withdrawal of the US military from South Korea. Without the US military backing South Korea then Professor Delury’s Fireball Seoul™ scenario becomes much more real.
Whenever noted North Korean scholar Dr. Andrei Lankov writes something I take notice. In his latest op-ed published in Bloomberg he is advocating that the incoming Trump administration negotiate a deal for a nuclear and missile freeze with North Korea:
Finally, some observers seem to hold out hope that Trump, a self-described “great” dealmaker, might be able to talk Kim out of his nukes in direct negotiations. This, too, is a futile idea. U.S. and North Korean interests are fundamentally incompatible. North Korean leaders fear that giving up their nukes would leave them dangerously vulnerable; they only too well remember what happened to Moammar Qaddafi after he negotiated away his nuclear program.
The truth is that for more than a decade, there’s been no real chance of fully eliminating the North’s nuclear program. Even now, though, the U.S. could negotiate something better than the current situation: a verifiable freeze on nuclear and missile testing, before North Korea develops an ICBM.
Of course, Kim isn’t going to restrain himself for free. In return, he will demand many things — a hefty aid package, above all, but also political concessions, including a formal peace treaty. No doubt his regime will probably try to cheat.
The opponents of such a compromise will describe it as a terrible precedent, even blackmail — and they may be right. Unlike Iran, North Korea will remain a nuclear power even after signing such a deal. But the alternatives — either a major war that drags in the U.S. and China, or a fully armed North with the proven capacity to attack the U.S. mainland — are worse. As long as there’s still a chance of striking such a compromise, the new U.S. President should be doing everything he can to seize it. [Bloomberg]
I do not see the point of a nuclear freeze in return for a bunch of free goodies to the Kim regime in return for something that even Dr. Lankov admits they will try and cheat on. Plus by agreeing to sign a peace treaty with North Korea that puts into question the entire existence of the US-ROK alliance which is why the Kim regime has been pressing so hard for it. The Kim regime knows they have no chance of reunifying the peninsula on their terms as long as the US-ROK alliance is in place.
It seems to me a peace treaty should not be part of a freeze deal and whatever deal that is signed should include robust inspections and the risk of a retaliatory bombing strike if it is not complied with. The risk of war on the peninsula by noncompliance by the Kim regime would give motivation to the Chinese to make sure the Kim regime is complying with the deal.
If there is one thing the Kim regime is persistent in pursuing is a peace treaty with the US to end the Korean War. The reason they are persistent is that a formal peace treaty would then call into question the continued existence of the US-ROK alliance. The North Koreans have tried for decades to drive a wedge between the ROK and the US and a peace treaty is one way they try and do this:
North Korea has called on the United States to sign a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, without commenting on the summit talks between President Park Geun-hye and U.S. President Barack Obama.
The North’s official Korean Central News Agency quoted the North’s Foreign Ministry as saying in a statement that Pyongyang and Washington could remove the source of war and put an end to the nuclear arms race by building trust.
The ministry reportedly said that one way to establish peace on the Korean Peninsula is for the North to bolster its defense capability based on nuclear weapons, while another way is for Washington to abandon its hostile policy toward Pyongyang and accept the North’s call for a peace treaty to replace the armistice agreement.
The statement came 20 hours after the South Korea-U.S. summit, in which Park and Obama called for the North’s denuclearization. [KBS World Radio]
.jpg?resize=640%2C401)
