A formal end to the Korean War?
Report: US, China, and both Koreas agree to launch talks for a peace treaty to replace 52-year cease-fire.
North Korea
renewed its call for an official end to the half-century-old Korean War Tuesday. The communist regime has recently stepped up efforts to argue that a formal peace treaty — rather than the longstanding cease-fire — would give momentum to the stalled six-party nuclear talks and go a long way toward convincing them to scrap their nuclear program.
North Korea may be a step closer to that goal, according to a
Korea Times report.
The Korea Times reported Monday that both Koreas, along with China and the US, will soon begin
discussions to formalize peace.
The four nations, which participated in the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programs with Japan and Russia in the past weeks, agreed to launch a separate four-way forum to discuss the matter, an official involved in the talks said on condition of anonymity. ...
Experts say the replacement of the 52-year-long cease-fire would mean a springboard for not only an eternal peace on the peninsula but also a normalized relationship between North Korea and the US.
On Sunday the six nations announced a three-week recess to their discussions concerning North Korea's nuclear capabilities. The talks have been aimed at persuading North Korea to renounce nuclear weapons. North Korea, which President Bush declared part of a global "axis of evil," says Pyongyang needs such weapons as a deterrent against US aggression.
While combat between North Korea, backed by China, and South Korea, supported by the US and UN, ceased with the signing of an armistice treaty in 1953, the Korean War has never technically ended. The lack of a true peace treaty and the US military presence across the border in South Korea may reinforce the North's military mindset. North Korea still considers itself in
an ongoing war, writes Nicholas Eberstadt in the magazine of conservative think tank
The American Enterprise Institute.
The war for which North Korea has prepared is not some theoretical contingency���in the view of North Korean leaders, their country is at war today, here and now. ... From Pyongyang's standpoint, the Korean War is ongoing ��� and North Korea's leadership is committed to an unconditional victory, however long that may take, however much that may cost. The neutralization of the United States and removal of the US alliance system in Korea is essential from Pyongyang's perspective.
North Korea underscored
its desire for a peace treaty before the most recent round of nuclear talks began and suggested that such a treaty would end the nuclear impasse, according to a
Reuters report.
"Replacing the cease-fire mechanism by a peace mechanism on the Korean peninsula would lead to putting an end to the US hostile policy toward [North Korea], which spawned the nuclear issue and the former's nuclear threat, and automatically result in the denuclearization of the peninsula," a foreign ministry spokesman said in the report carried by KCNA [North Korea's official news agency].
The Korea Times notes that, despite North Korea's insistence on a peace treaty, it has tried to exclude South Korea from peace talks in the past on the grounds that South Korea did not sign the 1953 armistice treaty. That treaty was signed by North Korea, China, and the US-led United Nations Command.
Larry Wortzel of the conservative
Heritage Foundation uses a similar rationale in arguing why the US should not negotiate a peace treaty with the North Koreans. In
a May 2001 policy research piece, he argues that because it was a UN commander who signed the armistice, it is the United Nations, not the United States, who should sign the prospective peace treaty.
US Army General Mark W. Clark, Commander in Chief of the United Nations Command, and representatives from North Korea and China signed a Military Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953--an armistice between North Korean forces and the United Nations, not the United States. The government of South Korea refused to sign the treaty, finding the prospect of a divided Korea unacceptable. ...
The 1953 armistice ending the Korean War was signed by the UN commander; a peace treaty should be an extension of that agreement. Therefore, the Bush Administration should ... insist instead that North Korea sign a peace treaty with the United Nations to formally end the North's 50-year-old hostilities toward the South.
Regardless of whether the UN or the US signs it, such a treaty, though arguably a formality, may be sufficient incentive to overcome
the suspension of the most recent round of North Korean nuclear negotiations.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the North's demand to build light-water reactors, may only have been a tactical move to force a recess.
A senior US official involved in the talks, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it appeared that the North Korean delegation didn't have the authority to go further. Raising the light-water reactor issue appeared to be a way to stall for time, he added.
"I think they ... gave us an offer we had to refuse and create the circumstances for this recess," he said. "One gets the impression people back in Pyongyang have still not dragged themselves over the line to give [their nuclear weapons] up. But I think we're closer than ever before."
It is unclear how the recess will affect the six-party nuclear talks. Though diplomats are optmistic, the
LA Times reports that "it is equally possible that progress made in the last two weeks will be frittered away as the sense of urgency dissipates, particularly given North Korea's mercurial track record."
If the peace treaty negotiations get underway soon, analysts will be watching closely to gauge their effect on the six-party nuclear talks.
Also...
•
Secret terror courts considered (
BBC)
•
Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00 (
NY Times)
•
Bomb explodes on S China bus (
BBC)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Arthur Bright.
|
RSS feed