Three meanings of the end-of-war declaration

In his speech at the U.N. General Assembly this year, President Moon Jae-in emphasized that the declaration of an end to the Korean War is an important starting point for making a new order of "reconciliation and cooperation" on the Korean Peninsula, and urged the international community to join forces in supporting an end-of-war declaration.

Immediately after President Moon's remarks, North Korean vice foreign minister Ri Thae-song said on Sept. 24 that an end-of-war declaration would be "premature," but on the same day, Kim Yo-jong, who holds the title of the vice department director of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party, acknowledged the necessity and significance of the declaration, saying that it was an "admirable idea."

On Sept. 22, the U.S. State Department said that the U.S. is ready to meet with North Korea without preconditions, and urged North Korea to respond positively. China also expressed its support for an early end to the state of war on the Korean Peninsula and expressed its position that it would fulfill its due role as a party in the Armistice Agreement.

At this point, I would like to examine what meaning the pursuit of an end-of-war declaration has as a political declaration to end the state of war on the Korean Peninsula.

First, the end-of-war declaration is a very meaningful measure as a gateway to peace for the two Koreas, and as a catalyst for negotiations on denuclearization. Concluding a peace treaty in order to establish a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula has been planned since the time of the Armistice Agreement, and was agreed upon by the leaders of the two Koreas in the Panmunjeom Declaration in 2018. The end-of-war declaration, a political declaration in the process of going toward a peace treaty, can serve as an important momentum for dialogue.

In addition, the end-of-war declaration could provide political momentum as a facilitator for denuclearization. North Korea has demanded the removal of military threats and security guarantees as conditions for denuclearization. The end-of-war declaration can serve as an initial measure to these demands. Some people express concerns that North Korea might not implement denuclearization measures after the declaration, but the series of processes involving the end-of-war declaration and the peace treaty, as well as the establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and North Korea, cannot be separated from the denuclearization process, and a virtuous circle of denuclearization and the establishment of peace can be created with an end-of-war declaration.

Second, the declaration to end the Korean War is a useful step in that it makes it possible to promote mutual trust without more economic costs or a radical shift in military affairs immediately. The DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesperson's statement (July 2018) put considerable emphasis on how important that declaration was: "As for the issue of announcing an end-of-war declaration at an early date, it is the first process of diffusing tension and establishing a lasting peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and at the same time, it constitutes the first factor in creating trust between the DPRK and the U.S." At that time, North Korea appeared less interested in the ongoing stalemate. As North Korea appreciates the value of the end-of-war declaration as a confidence-building measure, we might finally be able to find common ground through the next dialogue.

Some say that the end-of-war declaration would weaken the South Korea-U.S. alliance and lead to calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. As mentioned earlier, the end-of-war declaration won't cause an immediately radical shift in military affairs. Further, the armistice agreement will be kept until the peace treaty will be signed. Regardless, an end-of-war declaration saying that U.S. forces remain in Korea is a matter that the South Korea-U.S. alliance must decide as part of the consistent position of our government.

Third, the end-of-war declaration will keep North Korea from being able to justify nuclear development and the creation of military tensions. The Permanent Representative of the DPRK to the United Nations said in the U.N. General Assembly (Sept. 27) that "DPRK-U.S. relations are not merely the relations between unfriendly countries without diplomatic relations but between belligerent countries that are legally in a state of war." He argued that "it is because our state is growing (a) reliable deterrent that can control the hostile forces in their attempts for military invasion." Once the Korean War is officially declared over, the notion of there being "belligerent countries" becomes meaningless. Therefore, the end-of-war declaration could weaken the justification and basis for further conflict or advancement of North Korea's nuclear capacity, contributing to the maintenance of the stability on the Korean Peninsula.

In terms of peace on the Korean Peninsula and improvement of inter-Korean relations, consistent efforts irrelevant to the interests of any political group are needed. The government should continue with pursuing the end-of-war declaration until the end of its term. Besides the restoration of the inter-Korean communication lines, I hope that North Korea takes one step further and responds to the discussion on the end-of-war declaration with a future-oriented perspective.

Yang Moo-jin (yangmj@kyungnam.ac.kr) is a professor at the University of North Korean Studies and the vice chair of the Korean Association of North Korean Studies. He is also a standing committee member of the National Unification Advisory Council and a policy consultant at the Ministry of Unification.