hankyoreh

The government appears to have mixed views about holding three- or four-party talks to declare the end of the Korean War, as agreed upon during the second inter-Korean summit on October 2-4, and having discussions on a peace treaty.

Before October 7, Foreign Minister Song Min-soon and the Presidential spokesperson, Cheon Ho-seon, said the declaration of an end to the war can be discussed prior to the establishment of a peace regime and it is possible to hold the three- or four-party summit this year. The next day, however, Chun Young-woo, the chief negotiator to the six-party talks, expressed a negative view regarding holding a three-party summit, saying that it will be realistically difficult. In contrast to his previous remarks, Cheon agreed with Chun’s view, saying, “It is hard to set the timing because of the six-party talks.”

Moreover, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow, who is considered to reflect the views of the U.S. government, expressed his position that it is not possible to declare an end to the war within this year and the problem can be discussed after North Korea scraps its nuclear programs. Seoul wants to declare an end to the war as soon as possible and start negotiations on the peace regime, while Washington’s position is that complete dismantlement of the North’s nuclear programs comes first.

The sequence of declaring an end to the war and discussing a peace treaty can be seen in terms of international law and international politics. Considering international law, the dominant view is to start negotiations on the peace regime first and then to declare an end to the war.

According to Lee Jang-hee, a legal scholar who is the vice president of Hankook University of Foreign Studies, there are three ways to end a war in international law: unilateral declarations, treaties and joint declarations. “A joint declaration by North and South Korea would be the be the most appropriate,” he said.

A treaty could involve serious issues, including compensation and the need to formally define borders, and could potentially lead to North and South being permanently divided, said Lee, who gave the 1956 joint declaration by Japan and the Soviet Union as an example, the Soviet Union having been left out of the San Francisco treaty that ended the war with the Allies because of the issue of Sakhalin.

Lee said it would not make sense to have an end of hostilities declaration come first. “It would be logically awkward, since a joint declaration would be a way of accomplishing the ultimate goal of ending the war,” he said.

Some observers suggest another approach is possible, namely, to think of an end of hostilities declaration as the start of negotiations on a peace regime.

“Leaders could declare the war over and then follow it up by resolving the issues of international law (afterwards),” said Paek Haksoon, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute. “It would be entirely possible to declare the war over as an expression of political will regarding the start of peace negotiations.” He cited the example of U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who in the course of peace negotiations during the Vietnam War proposed first establishing that the war was over and then going about discussion of the specifics.

And so it would seem that in international law and international politics, declaring the war over could be either a point of departure or an end product. It is something that could be determined through consultation with the nations involved and the timing could be decided according to the progress that is made in denuclearization, if the American position, the most important, is what is accommodated.

In a speech given on October 8, President Roh Moo-hyun said he is “sure the North Korean nuclear issue will be completely resolved at a rapid pace.” That point in time does not appear to be far off.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]