Using Multilateralism to
Establish a Peace Regime on the Korean
Peninsula
Julie M. Huner
I. Introduction
Korea has been a divided country for over sixty
years and a country at war for over fifty years. For the first time since the launch of the
Korean War,
there is reason to hope that a permanent peace can be reached relatively soon. Largely due to the efforts of the six-party
talks, the major players (North Korea,
South Korea, China, Japan,
Russia, and the United States),
have found common ground on which to build a foundation for a peace regime on
the Korean peninsula. This peace regime
will be responsible for overseeing the transition of the peninsula from a place
of war to a place of peace and security.
It will occur in three stages, the first of which is the signing of an
inter-Korean peace agreement. The second
stage involves the signing of a multilateral peace treaty by North Korea, South
Korea, China
and the United States. The third stage is the establishment of a
peace management organization which will involve all of the major players and will
be the main force in guiding Korea
into the future. The implementation of
these three stages will officially establish a peace regime on the peninsula.
II. The
Two Koreas
Korea has not always been a divided peninsula. At the end of World War II the peninsula was
divided into two, with the United States
in the South and the Soviet Union in the North. This division may also be considered the
beginning of the push for Korean reunification.
The peninsula has never been able to reunify, and since the time of its
division, the area north of the 38th parallel has been a communist
state and the area to the south has developed inline with the Western
democratic model. The two regions have remained in a condition
of civil war since an invasion by the North on June 25, 1950 which began the
Korean War. A truce signed in 1953
ended large scale warfare, but the two armies have remained in a stalemate and
have kept the attention of the world powers, and particularly the United
States, ever since. The peninsula itself has remained physically
divided by the Demilitarized Zone
which is a tangible reminder of the war that continues to plague Korea.
Presently, the Korean peninsula remains one of the most dangerous flash
points in the world, and is a place where war could erupt with barely any
warning time, putting at risk the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, not
to mention millions of Koreans. Close to two million troops, including 37,000
from the United States, are
on duty in North and South
Korea. The Korean peninsula is concerned not only
with these internal threats, but also with the possibility of external threats.
Geography dealt Korea
a particularly difficult hand because it is located in a strategic yet volatile
neighborhood among the major powers of China,
Japan and Russia. In its two thousand years of recorded history,
Korea has suffered nine
hundred invasions and has also experienced five major periods of foreign
occupation- by China, the
Mongols, Japan, and, after
World War II, the United States
and the Soviet Union. Although the peninsula is no longer under
foreign occupation, the influences of its former occupiers remain a potent
factor in the peninsula’s political, economic and social developments.
Internally,
the two Koreas
have developed asymmetrically. North Korea’s diplomatic isolation, famine, and
economic collapse contrast sharply with the political and economic development
of South Korea. The United States thought that this unbalanced
development on the peninsula served as proof of the effectiveness of the
security arrangements it had created and maintained during the cold war. Thus the United States did not at first recognize
an urgent need for revising the security arrangements after the end of the Cold
War. This inaction by the United States, acquiesced to by the other great
powers, has helped create the situation that exists in Korea today by
preserving the status quo.
Despite
all the challenges that arise in dealing with Korea, the importance of the
peninsula’s geopolitical location remains unchanged and has directly impacted the
great powers’ involvement in Korean affairs.
In the face of these challenges confronting the peninsula, the great powers
cannot delay their attempts to find a solution for peaceful transition of the
status quo on the peninsula. North Korea will be able to avoid change as long
as it can manipulate its bilateral relationships with the United States, Japan,
China and Russia to its
own advantage, which it has managed to do to this point. It is therefore essential that South Korea and the United
States work with Japan,
China and Russia to develop a longer-term strategy for achieving
change in North Korea. Prerequisite to an enduring solution of the
Korean problem is an agreement between the four major powers on how to approach
the future of Korea.
There
are four major options for Korea’s
future being advocated by experts on the subject. One option is the maintenance of the status
quo. This has been the option adopted by some of the
major powers in the past, mostly because it is the easiest approach. So long as North Korea did not escalate its
missile and nuclear weapons programs, the countries ignore any other problems
that arose, such as human rights violations.
But this option has mostly been abandoned recently, first because of North Korea’s
nuclear launch last year, and second because of the progress that has been made
in the most recent rounds of the six-party talks.
The
second option for the future of Korea
is that of military escalation and perhaps an eventual war. This is the option that all parties involved
would like to avoid. The third option is
a regime collapse in North
Korea. This option was advocated by the Bush
administration in its first term, but that approach has changed in the past
year. Instead, the United States
has aligned itself with the other major powers.
The fourth option is the one that has been promoted by both Koreas:
reunification. Although the governments of both countries
have publicly declared their desire to reunify, they both have accepted that
reunification may not be feasible at the present time and that something else
is necessary before reunification will be possible. That necessary “something” is
multilateralism.
III. Multilateralism
Given the pending dangers posed by a nuclear North
Korea and the failures of the past six years to address
the problems in Korea,
a new approach must be found to regain lost ground. The approach thus far, waiting for the North eventually
to capitulate due to political and economic pressure or for the North Korean
regime to collapse, has been a serious miscalculation of the situation. The approach with the best chance of being
successful is one that focuses on multilateral cooperation.
Multilateralism
is a term in international relations that refers to multiple countries working together
on a given issue. A multilateral format in which the
international powers participate will give them a sense of responsibility in
guaranteeing security in Korea
and in promoting regular consultations and policy coordination among the two Koreas
and the international powers. The emergence of a genuine multilateral forum
to deal with the North Korea
nuclear issue may also eventually contribute to the institutionalization of a
regional security arrangement to deal with the peaceful Korean reunification
process.
Multilateral
cooperation among international powers is an essential element to solving the
Korean problem but it is not desirable that the two Koreas take on subordinate roles in
the problem-solving process. It is also
not feasible to consider the two Koreas
independently from their role in Northeast Asia’s
international order. It is important to
note that the major powers do not necessarily have an interest in a reunified Korea. Therefore, realistically, a negotiated re-unification
seems unattainable in the foreseeable future.
What seems to be within the bounds of feasibility is an attempt to
narrow the widening animosity between the two sides before it is too late and
to open the doors of communication among all the major players. The price of inaction may turn out to be not
simply the continuation of the potentially explosive armed confrontation but
also the steady erosion of the deeply rooted bonds that unite the Korean people. A clarification of the interests of the major
players will enable us to see if common ground exists on which the four major
international powers and the two Koreas can devise a viable solution to the
future of Korea.
A. The International Players
Though
it is important to analyze the interests of all players, the interests of the
international players are likely to be different from each other. Therefore, it is important to analyze the
interests of each international player separately and then analyze the
interests together to determine whether there is common ground to build
upon. This common ground will be used to
formulate a strategy among the international players to deal with the Korean
problem.
1. International Players Interests
a. China
The
scenario of North Korea’s
collapse is not in China’s
national interests. A huge flow of refugees into China would likely occur with the collapse of North Korea. China
has supplied North Korea
with substantial economic and political support for some years and has become
the greatest donor country for North
Korea in terms of food and oil. Continued Chinese economic assistance to North Korea
signifies its determination to save the North Korean buffer state. China can effectively utilize this
assistance for leverage in inducing the North to engage in arms control and
peace negotiations with the South. China
can play a crucial role in influencing North Korea’s behavior.
On
the other hand, China is
uncertain about the future of the United States-South Korea military alliance,
the political fate of North
Korea, and the possible fallout from Korean
reunification. Considering the possibility of a military
alliance between a unified and perhaps nationalistic Korea
and the United States, and
fearing the political and economic consequences of a rapid Korean
reunification, China
has clearly ranked stability through status quo above reunification in its
policy calculation.
Currently,
China’s
dominant interest is in a peaceful and stable Korean peninsula, divided or
unified, preferably divided. China
perceives the unification of Korea
with ambivalence: on the one hand, a unified Korea may create stability and
peace on the peninsula over the long run and may eliminate the existence of
external military and political forces in the region. It is also strongly interested in seeing the
peninsula free of any external military presence, divided or unified, but China
is reluctant to play a very active role, yet it is keenly interested in having
a say. The Chinese government prefers a divided Korea, since a unified peninsula would bring
about the possibility of having a nation with U.S.
forces on China’s
border. Officially, China supports Korean unification
as long as this occurs peacefully and through the efforts of the Korean people
themselves.
A
divided Korea has clearly
been advantageous in that it has ensured a weak and preoccupied country on one
of China’s
borders. In contrast, a united Korea would be a strong state that might turn
its attention to unpleasant issues such as Korean interest in incorporating
parts of Chinese territory and areas of Manchuria
with heavily ethnic Korean populations. Financially China
would lose much of a valuable market in South Korea, since the costs of
reunification would make Chinese products unattractive to Korean consumers. China might face an influx of
refuges and be asked to shoulder some of the costs of reunification.
The Chinese
people are sympathetic for the hungry North Koreans.
They also are concerned about the possible flood of refugees that would follow
from a North Korean regime collapse or the outbreak of war on the peninsula. Like the government in China, the Chinese people would
also benefit from security in the region.
Combining these interests with those previously interested, the status
quo rather than reunification is preferable to China.
b. Japan
Japan has a stake in playing a more active role
on Korea
issues. North
Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile program are a threat
to Japan. Japan occupied Korea in 1905 and annexed it as a
Japanese possession in 1910. Japan
then ruled Korea
harshly until its defeat in World War II. Since
the Korean War, Japan sided
with the United States and South Korea
on issues affecting the region. At a
time when other powers are active on Korean issues, Japan does not want to be kept on
the sidelines. A normalization of Japan’s relations with North Korea could bring North Korea considerable economic aid, expanded
trade, private investment flows, additional remittances from North Korean
sympathizers living in Japan,
and an end to Japan’s opposition to North Korean membership in international
financial institutions.
Japan strongly
prefers the status quo over Korean reunification. A united and economically and militarily
strong Korea that has deep
historical hatred against the Japanese nation would necessarily threaten Japan’s
security. Also, a united Korea would certainly be on the
Chinese side in any possible future Sino-Japanese conflict. Japan’s political attitude to
Korean reunification is to stabilize and enhance the division between the North
and South. Japan also has financial concerns
of loss of the southern market and costs of reunification. The status quo on the Korean peninsula with
continued division of the country is the scenario Japan considers in its best
national interests. However, the status
quo with North Korea’s
possession of nuclear weapons and missiles does not serve Japan’s
national interests.
The
Japanese public has come to support a hard-line approach toward North Korea. The public’s attention is almost exclusively
dominated by the abduction issue, with relatively limited focus on the North’s
nuclear weapons programs. Like China, the Japanese public also
fears the potential flood of refugees. When faced with a choice between maintaining
the status quo or Korean reunification, Japan would clearly prefer the
status quo.
c. Russia
For
the Russians, Korea
represents a foreign policy opportunity.
President Putin is eager to utilize diplomatic dexterity to offset the
declining weight of Russia’s
military and economic capabilities, and Korea provides an attractive arena
for his efforts. The Russian government, like China’s, does not want to see U.S. forces on its border. Unlike China
and Japan, Russia would
stand to lose little in the way of trade.
Russia would also
like to regain its influence in North Korea
while developing its relationship with South Korea. The Russian people face the same problems as China and Japan: the potential refugee
problem. Essentially, Russia is believed to want to stop Korean
reunification, and to establish good relations with both Koreas, for its
own strategic and economic interests while also maintaining security in the
region.
d. United States
The United States is the most important
international actor in the drama of Korean conflict, both because of its direct
involvement through the United States- South Korean alliance and the presence
of United States military
forces, as well as because of North Korea’s
perception that the United
States is the ultimate determinant of war
and peace on the peninsula. Therefore the role of the United States seems most vital in
resolving the Korean problem through effective tensions reduction, arms control
and peace-building. The United States understands well the
importance of helping to maintain stability, prevent the emergence of regional
rivalries, and promote the peaceful resolution of differences within and among
regional nations.
A
final wildcard is the continued commitment of the United States populace to expending
the economic, political, and military resources necessary to maintain its
presence. Variables include developments in the war on
terrorism; the United States
fiscal situation; United States
relations with other regional states; and the political military and financial
support of regional allies and friends to help meet United States interests. Opinion polls show a strong foundation of
support for engaging problem countries and for a more serious effort to engage North Korea. Eight in ten Americans reject the approach of
isolating rather than talking to these states. A majority, 51 percent, thinks the North can
be persuaded to give up its weapons by providing it with aid, money, or trade.
A
renewed and intensified policy of engagement is worthwhile because vital United States
interests are at stake. A policy of
enhanced engagement that articulates a positive vision for the Korean peninsula
and Northeast Asia; seeks to rapidly identify common ground with North Korea;
builds productive communication; sets negotiating priorities; establishes
realistic nuclear objectives; and creates a successful, sustained process of
implementation holds the best chance for resolving the crisis and securing
United States interests.
2. Areas of Common Ground
& Agreement among the International Players
North Korea will be able to avoid change as long as it can
manipulate its separate bilateral relationships with the four major
international powers to its own advantage. It is therefore essential that South Korea and the United
States work with Japan,
China and Russia to develop a longer-term strategy for
achieving change in Korea. China,
Japan, and Russia share a common interest in a politically
and socially stable, capitalist Korea,
free of nuclear weapons. Each nation
also prizes the free flow of shipping in the region. All of the nations fear the fallout of regime
collapse or war including the potential flood of refugees as well as other
social and monetary costs of reconstruction that may result from a difficult
political, economic, and social transition on the peninsula. All the major international powers seek a
stable Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
Though
the international players share a common interest in maintaining stability in
the region, each holds that interest for different reasons. China
seeks to maintain the divided Korea
because of its concerns sharing a border with a unified Korea. Japan
prefers the status quo because of its concerns about a stronger, unified Korea. Russia
seeks to avoid reunification because it enjoys being able to influence each Korea
separately. The United States would prefer any
scenario that maintains stability. Currently,
the United States is spread
thin on the military and foreign affairs fronts and would prefer to avoid yet
another confrontation in Korea. For whatever individual reasons each
international player holds, they all would prefer a stable Korea.
B. Domestic Players
Although
the solution of the Korean problem hinges heavily on the extent to which the differences
among the four major international powers are reduced and common ground among
them is reached, the two Koreas
are not completely powerless in causing meaningful changes in the status quo. The tensions associated with division still
have the potential to trigger a new and possible a more devastating Korean war. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that
a majority of Koreans strongly support reunification. The governments of North and South Korea,
although creations of division, proclaim reunification as their goal and yet
little progress toward this goal has been made.
``With the unexpected
and unhappy partition of the Korean nation in 1945, a low-income population
with a single ethnicity, language and heritage was arbitrarily divided in two,
and placed under governments professing radically different political, economic,
and social philosophies.`` After a quarter of a century under radically
different political systems, the two Koreas have become divergent countries
whose common cultural heritage is steadily fading away. It may well be that the North and South
Korean inhabitants now have nothing more than their language and ethnic bonds
in common. It is also a very real possibility that the
intensive hate campaigns in the North may have succeeded in instilling in the
minds of the North Korean people, particularly the youth, a feelings of
estrangement from, even of animosity toward, South Korea. Therefore it is necessary to examine whether
a common ground between the two Koreas
can be found.
1. South Korea’s
Interests
Taking advantage of its superior economic and political position, the
South Korean government has been able to dominate inter-Korean relations,
thereby shaping the way most people in South
Korea and the United States think about
reunification. Peaceful reunification of the Korean
peninsula is the long-term objective of the South Korean government, but
stability is a necessary precondition. The South has decided that with the proper
mix of deterrence, reciprocity, and inducements, the North Korean threat might
be gradually transformed. Through such a gradual transformation, doors
of trade between the two Koreas
will be opened and both countries will benefit economically.
The
South Korean people, though excited about the idea of possible reunification
with relatives across the border, are still concerned about the economic consequences
of reunification. They are also concerned about possible
migration consequences once the border between the two countries is opened; it
is very likely that North Koreans would flood across the border into South Korea. However, the South Koreans
especially do not want the collapse of the North; they realize they are not
ready to bear the tremendous costs associated with regime collapse. South Koreans also worry about the nuclear
issue and possible war with North
Korea should the situation worsen. The majority of South Koreans would prefer
reunification through negotiations rather than absorption by the South after a
North Korean regime collapse.
2. North Korea’s Interests
Early in the 1990s North Korea was abandoned by its former sponsor and
ally, the Soviet Union, which established close relations with South Korea and
then collapsed, and was devalued by its other major sponsor and ally, China,
which became more interested in markets than in Marxism. Without an ally in the region, the North has
recently begun to appreciate the value of the United States, not only as a
deterrent force against the North Korean government, but also as an effective
restraint on South Korea’s unilateral military action, Japanese military
adventure, and China’s regional ambitions. Because a less-dangerous external security
environment would not just benefit South Korea, but would also benefit
the North’s efforts at economic reform, it seems likely that the North Korean
government will be willing to work with other countries to achieve this goal.
The
North Korean people would have the most to gain from reunification. The people of North Korea would benefit from additional
humanitarian aid that would pour into a reunified Korea. They are also the people most likely to severely suffer if the North
Korean regime collapses and yet they will also continue to suffer if the status
quo remains. For the North
Korea people, a slow transition process to a reunified Korea
is the best, if not the only solution.
An additional
consideration in North Korea
is the interests of Kim Jong Il. His
primary interest lies in regime survival. Obviously, Kim Jong Il fears that a reunified
Korea
could mean the end of his regime. On the other hand, if the situation continues
as it is, it is likely that his regime will collapse. At this point, cooperation is in his best
interest because by cooperating with the major powers he is able to also gain
their support. This support will help
his regime survive into the near future.
3. Areas
of Common Ground & Agreement between the Two Koreas
Koreans
pride themselves on racial homogeneity based on an assumption of shared blood,
common origins, culture, and language as well as perceived sharing of a common
history and destiny. Confucianism is another important facet of Korean
culture. The values of patriarchy, respect for one’s
elders, education and position are ideals upheld in both Koreas. Nationalism is another key feature of the
Korean people. The division of Korea, one of the defining features
of both the North and South Korean experience, has kept millions of Koreans
separated from family members.
Both
Koreas
agree that economic cooperation is in both countries’ interest. The two halves of Korea are mutually complementary in
terms of economic potential. The
predominantly agricultural South and the heavily industrial North were meant to
live together, compensating for each others deficiencies. The integration of the two would vastly
enhance the industrial power and potential of all Korea.
Both
countries would also benefit from a permanent peace in the region. A de-escalation of military hostilities would
also open the border between the two countries which would encourage trade and
travel between the two countries. A
permanent peace on the peninsula is the key to a smooth transition to
reunification which both countries have openly claimed is their ultimate
goal.
C. Areas of Common Ground and Agreement among All
the Major Players
A multilateral approach to the Korean problem has most recently been
seen in the six-party talks which include North
Korea, South Korea,
China, Japan, Russian, and the United States. None of the nations involved in the talks
want Korean reunification any time soon.
Even the Koreas
agree that their countries are not ready for a sudden reunification. Instead the nations involved have been
looking for someplace in the middle of the status quo and reunification. In recent talks, the issue of a “peace
regime” has been raised as a new topic among related countries. The Joint Agreement of the 4th six
party talks (September 19, 2005) reconfirmed denuclearization on the Korean
peninsula and suddenly embraced the peace regime issues consistently insisted
upon by the North.
Currently
all major players would like to avoid regime collapse and war and none of them
are ready for a reunified Korea. All of the major players have agreed that a
peace regime is a potential solution to the current problems. It also happens to be the most feasible
solution at this time and is the only solution that meets the needs and
interests of all the major players at this time. Not only will the peace regime create
stability in the region, it will also lay the groundwork for eventually
reunifying Korea.
IV. International
Regime Theory & Peace Regimes
A. International
Regime Theory
To
understand the purpose of a peace regime fully it is first necessary to
understand the role of regimes in the international arena. Regimes are generally viewed as “encompassing
implicit or explicit rules, norms, decision-making procedures, and principles
that imply obligation of a regime’s members and around which actor expectations
converge”. Regimes can also include international
resolutions, treaties and/or agreements. It is crucial to distinguish clearly between
international regimes and mere substantive agreements. Regimes facilitate the making of substantive
agreements by providing a framework of rules, norms, principles and procedures
for negotiation.
There
are generally three approaches to explaining international regimes. Those approaches are liberalism, realism, and
cognitivism. Liberalism and realism are both rational,
interest based while cognitivism is learning based. The liberalist approach holds that countries
share common interests and that regimes facilitate cooperation by creating a
convergence of expectations around these interests. Realists believe that states act in their own
interests and that regimes simply reflect the distribution of power. Cognitivism is sociological rather than
rational and says that states make their decisions through learning. Regardless of the approach used to examine
regimes, the basic effect of regimes is that they facilitate the making of
specific agreements on matters of substantive significance within the
issue-area covered by the regime.
Regimes
contribute to international cooperation, not by making rules that states MUST
follow, but by changing the context within which states make selfish decisions.
Regimes facilitate cooperation by
establishing standards of behavior which signal to all other members that
individual states are cooperating. When all states expect the other participants
to cooperate, the probability of sustaining cooperation increases dramatically.
International
regimes help to make government’s expectations consistent with one
another. Regimes are developed in part
because actors in world politics believe that with such arrangements they will
be able to make mutually beneficial agreements that would be otherwise difficult
or impossible to attain. In other words, regimes are valuable to
governments where, in their absence, certain mutually beneficial agreements
would be impossible to consummate. To summarize, regimes help to create an
environment which will ensure lasting global peace and stability.
B. A Korean Peace Regime
A
peace regime is an evolutionary strategy which emphasizes the creation and
maintenance of international and domestic background conditions conducive to
union rather than the recommendation of explicit reunification terms. This strategy assumes that as policy-makers
become aware of favorable background conditions, they will eventually react by
negotiating appropriate reunification agreements. However, even if reunification is not
achieved, the progress made in the peace regime will be so substantial that all
parties will find a continuation of the regime to be beneficial.
In
order to understand why a peace regime is a good idea for the Korean peninsula,
it is necessary to define a “peace regime”.
A peace regime is a whole range of state-to-state and people-to-people
relationships, all designed to promote security and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula. It is not the same as full reconciliation and
peaceful reunification. In the case of Korea where not all interested
parties agree that reunification is the best solution right now, a peace regime
is much more likely to be agreed upon and is more likely to reflect the
interests of all parties.
The pursuit
of a peace regime on the Korean peninsula had previously been pushed by North
and South Korea
in the form of multilateralism. It
has recently been adopted by the international community in the Six-Party Talks
and has become one of the major goals of the talks. It is one in which the United States and China must also participate directly
in creating because they were both parties to the original armistice treaty at
the end of the Korean War. Although Russia and Japan were not signatories of the
armistice treaty and will not sign the peace treaty, they are expected to take
on a guarantor role of the peace regime at the six-party talks. The effective use of multilateral talks is
intended to transfer the armistice regime, a legacy from the Korean War, to a
peace regime. Building a peace regime is designed to put
hostile relations formed from mutual distrust and confrontation in the past, to
deter war, and to realize permanent peace so that the basis for unification can
be laid.
Establishing
a peace regime in Korea requires three essential
steps. The first step is the creation of
an inter-Korean peace agreement. This agreement would be negotiated and signed
by both Koreas
with the assistance the other members of the multilateral team. It would first and foremost renounce the
armistice treaty and declare and end to the war on the peninsula. It would also lay out the agenda of the peace
regime. Items to be included are a
statement declaring a principle of peace, a pronouncement against war by both Koreas,
and a proclamation of reunification as the ultimate objective of the peace
regime. The second step is the signing of a
multilateral peace treaty. The purpose of the treaty is to end the state
of armistice, declare the war over, and recognize the special relationship that
exists between the two Koreas. The third and final step is to establish and
organize a peace management organization to manage and oversee the
implementation of the peace treaty.
The
Korean peace agreement and multilateral peace treaty should be signed within
the peace forum to officially pronounce annulment of the armistice treaty and
the launch of a peace regime on the peninsula, at which time a peace guarantee
management organization will be formed and managed. This peace guarantee management organization
will be operated to maintain a solid peace state on the Korean peninsula and
intensify the agreements of the peace regime.
1. Signing of an inter-Korean agreement
The
establishment of a durable peace regime on the Korean peninsula entails the
eventual replacement of the current armistice agreement with a peace agreement
between South and North
Korea. The major contents of the peace treaty are
threefold. First, the principle of peace
should be declared. A strong pronouncement against war should be
made by the Koreas
both internally and externally. Second, the assertion that South and North
Korea will not use force against each other, nor invade each other, will stand
as reconfirmation of the non-aggression clause of the inter-Korean basic
agreement. Third, the principle of unification in an
independent way should be proclaimed publicly. Other areas that the Koreas reach an agreement on should
also be included as a sign of their willingness to work together and their
dedication to the peace regime.
2. Signing of a multilateral peace treaty
Once
an inter-Korean peace agreement is signed, a multilateral peace treaty must be
agreed upon. Specific items to be included in the
multilateral peace treaty include: (1) confirming the spirit of agreement in
the inter-Korean basic agreement; (2) acknowledging and respecting the special
relationship between the two Koreas; (3) ending the state of armistice through
legal means and restoring peace; (4) declaring war a thing of the past (legal
immunity for war crimes); (5) setting a non-aggression boundary and replacing
the current military demarcation line with a non-aggression line; (6) taking
actions to build trust through mutual exchange of military information and
personnel; (7) transforming a the DMZ into a peace zone aimed towards peaceful
use; (8) declaring a principle of comprehensive cooperation in passage,
communication and trade; and (9) organizing and establishing a peace management
organization to implement and oversee the peace treaty.
The
treaty could draw on previous documents, particularly the October 2000 joint
communiqué and the September 2005 joint statement of the fourth round of the
six-party talks. Of interest in the first document is
far-reaching language pledging the two countries to a “new direction in their
relations”. As a first step in that direction, the United States and North Korea agreed that “neither
government would have hostile intent toward the other” and committed to
“building a new relationship free from past enmity”. The September 2005 joint declaration, a
reflection of changed circumstances is less far-reaching but includes useful
language on the need to abide by “the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,”
to “respect each other’s sovereignty,” and to “exist peacefully together”.
The
policy of the treaty should be designed with an incentive structure that will
induce North Korea
to make choices in a positive direction, while making it equally clear that the
North will continue to pay a price so long as its policies and actions remain
unchanged. It is unlikely that North Korea
will agree to take significant steps to end missile exports, agree to
inspection and transparency or pull back its artillery, unless substantial
inducements are made clear. These inducements could include significant
package of loans and technical assistance.
United States
sanctions should also be loosened to allow North Korea to engage in
humanitarian trade for fertilizer and technical assistance for the agricultural
sector to recover some degree of food self-sufficiency. Such government-funded assistance should be
pegged to reciprocal North Korean attention to humanitarian issues such as
reunions of families divided by the demilitarized zone.
3. A “peace management organization”
A
peace guarantee management organization agreed upon in advance will be operated
to maintain a solid peace state on the Korean peninsula and intensify the
agreements of the peace regime. Organizing and establishing a peace management
organization is important to successfully implementing the peace treaty. The organization would replace the
non-performing Military Armistice Commission. The members of the peace management
organization would include representatives from the governments of North Korea, South
Korea, China,
Japan, Russia, and the United States. It is desirable that the peace management
organization be locate in the DMZ, and consist of not only military-related
personnel of South and North Korea, but also involve representatives of
countries that have singed the treaty, on the assumption that the Korea peace
treaty is internationally guaranteed. The organization should consider the
involvement of a certain number of civilians as well, to not only reflect the
global trend of civilian participation in the peace movement, but also in
recognition of the fact that peace and war are serious concerns for all.
The organization would also
be responsible for overseeing and initiating educational programs and cultural
exchanges among civilians of all the peace regime member countries. One such program would be the planning of
international conferences for scholars and political leaders as forums to
discuss and debate political, economic, and other issues affecting the peace
regime. Another example would be student exchanges,
both inter-Korean and international. The goal of student exchange programs
is to increase the
participants' understanding and tolerance
of the other cultures.
A specific type of student exchange that
would be beneficial in establishing a peace regime would be a University
Exchange Program. Through the program, North Korea and South Korea would establish sister
universities between themselves and among the international players. The students in these exchanges would attend
university classes and live in on-site dormitories anywhere from a single
semester to an entire education. Once
the program is over, the students would return to their home countries and
share their experiences with their families and communities. This will help increase cultural tolerance
and understanding among the countries participating in the program. It will be especially helpful in establishing
inter-Korean relationships, which in turn will enhance public support for the
peace regime.
The
peace management organization should focus on inter-Korean cultural projects
that are not just short-term, but also long-term. Short-term projects, lasting one to five
years, should focus on inter-Korean sporting competitions or joint parades
during the official ceremonies of international sports events. It could also include exchange of artists, entertainers,
and intellects between the countries. Long-range projects would include participation
in an annual national athletic meet held by the two Koreas
and creation of annual events celebrating Korean history and culture held in
both Koreas
and involving people from the North and the South.
All of these projects
will help the peace management organization encourage communication and
cultural understanding not just between the two Koreas, but also among all the
international players. The projects will
ensure the participation of average citizens, which in turn will create
widespread public support for the peace regime.
Once people see the benefits of the peace regime they will be encouraged
to take an active role in ensuring its continuation and progress into the
future.
C. International
Regime Theory Explains Why A Peace Regime is the Solution to Establishing a Permanent
Peace on the Peninsula Now.
It
is obvious that Korea
is not ready to be unified. However it
is equally obvious that maintaining the status quo is not a viable solution. A
peace regime will give the major powers the best possible solution at this
time. It will establish security on the
peninsula and create a forum for open exchange of ideas and cooperative
negotiations.
After
the peace regime is established, North Korea
will be encouraged to participate actively in the international community and
will be given the responsibility for jointly pursuing the security and peace of
Northeast Asia. The United
States will support the economic modernization of North Korea through direct assistance when
possible, by encouraging the efforts of South Korea and others, and by
opening access to international financial institutions. These things will put North Korea on
an even playing-field with the other major players, which is something that
generally has not been done in the past.
Previously,
when dealing with North Korea,
the other major players put themselves on one side of the table with North Korea on
the other side. The result was that North Korea
often approached such meetings feeling defensive and unwelcome. They were often the “target” of the meetings
rather than participants in the meetings.
A peace regime would take the opposite approach. North Korea would have an equal say
in inter-Korean peace agreement, the multilateral peace treaty, and the peace
management organization. This sense of
equality will inspire North
Korea to approach further six-party talks
with a willingness to cooperate and will make them less likely to violate any
agreements reached by the peace regime.
V. Conclusion
The time to act is now. Korea
has been waiting in a state of war for over fifty years and it will not wait
forever. The end result could be
disastrous if action is not taken by the major players to lead Korea in the
right direction. By utilizing
multilateral cooperation, the major players have the opportunity to establish
peace and stability on the peninsula in the form of a peace regime. The peace regime is the best option because
it will allow all the major players to achieve their individual interests while
creating common interests among the players.
These common interests will be the basis for negotiations and cooperation
now, as well as in the future.