Washington’s reluctance to declare an end to the Korean War until after North Korea abandons its nuclear arsenal might put it at odds not only with Pyongyang, but also with allies in South Korea.
The 1950 to 1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty, leaving the US-led UN forces technically still at war with North Korea.
Friday last week marked the 65th anniversary of the truce, which was commemorated by the UN Command in a ceremony in the fortified demilitarized zone that has divided the two Koreas since the war.
North Korean veterans of the war, which left more than 1.2 million dead, gathered in Pyongyang for a conference.
In their April summit, the leaders of North and South Korea agreed to work this year with the US and China, which also played a major role in the war, to replace the armistice with a peace agreement.
In June, US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un signed a statement saying they would seek “to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity,” using the initials of the North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Kim has broadly committed to the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” if the US and its allies drop their “hostile” policies, and the North has made clear it sees an official end to the state of war as crucial to lowering tensions.
However, many experts and officials in Washington fear that signing a peace deal first could erode the international pressure they believe led Kim to negotiate.
It could also endanger the decades-long US military alliance with South Korea and might undermine the justification for the US troops based on the peninsula.
“Broadly speaking, one side wants denuclearization first, normalization of relations later, and the other wants normalization of relations first, then denuclearization later,” International Crisis Group senior adviser Christopher Green said.
North Korea has said it has taken steps to halt its nuclear development, including placing a moratorium on missile and nuclear bomb testing, demolishing its only known nuclear test site and dismantling a rocket facility.
US officials have praised the moves, but remain skeptical.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday last week told the US Congress that North Korea was continuing to produce fuel for nuclear bombs.
A spokesperson for the US Department of State said that while “peace on the Korean Peninsula is a goal shared by the world,” the international community would not accept a nuclear-armed North Korea.
“As we have stated before, we are committed to building a peace mechanism with the goal of replacing the armistice agreement when North Korea has denuclearized,” the spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement.
Pyongyang has in recent weeks renewed calls for a declaration of the end of the war, calling it the “first process for peace” and a key way the US could add heft to its guarantees of security.
“The adoption of the declaration on the termination of war is the first and foremost process in the light of ending the extreme hostility and establishing new relations between the DPRK and the US,” North Korean state media said in a statement on Tuesday last week.
After Pompeo visited Pyongyang in June for talks, state media quoted a spokesman for the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticizing the US delegation for not mentioning the idea of a peaceful regime.
“It seems quite obvious that even if North Korea is negotiating sincerely, they aren’t going to be willing to give up their nuclear capacity in the absence of a peace system that gives them regime security,” Green said.
Many officials in Washington appeared concerned that an early declaration of peace could lead to the collapse of the US-South Korea alliance with calls for US troops to leave the Korean Peninsula, he added.
South Korean leaders in 1953 opposed the idea of a truce that left the peninsula divided and were not signatories to the armistice.
The treaty was signed by the commander of North Korea’s army, the US commander of the UN Command and the commander of the “Chinese people’s volunteers.”
While South Korean officials have said that they are committed to the full denuclearization of North Korea, they have shown more flexibility in the timing of a peace agreement than their US allies.
South Korean Unification Minister Cho Myoung-gyon on Tuesday last week said that it is possible to declare an end to war this year.
“We are in consultations with the North and the United States in that direction,” he told a legislative session, adding that a three-way declaration would be part of an initial phase of denuclearization.
China has said it is open to participating in the process.
Meeting North Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Ri Yong-ho in Pyongyang on Thursday last week, Chinese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kong Xuanyou (孔鉉佑) said China supported the reconciliation process between North Korea and the US, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
China is willing to work hard with all sides to promote the process of establishing a “peace mechanism” for the Korean Peninsula, Kong added, without elaborating.
Additional reporting by Hyonhee Shin in Seoul and Ben Blanchard in Beijing
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers