Why Peace Treaty at This Juncture?

By Heo Mane

The political situation around the Korean Peninsula is becoming more complicated with many expected and unexpected things occurring at the same time. Denuclearization of the peninsula has remained unresolved since the 1992 declaration of a nuclear-free peninsula.

The Bill Clinton administration and South Korea failed to resolve the issue with the 1994 Geneva Framework Agreement on North Korea's denuclearization.

The six nations agreed to take coordinated steps to implement the issue with the principle of commitment for commitment and action for action, but neither concrete commitments nor actions have taken place so far.

The third session of the fifth round of the six-party talks witnessed productive discussions aimed at implementing the September 2005 Joint Statement, but it also failed to bring any definitive solutions to denuclearization.

As a result, the first and second actions seeking the implementation of the joint statement, too, came to a deadlock.

With continued failures of denuclearization, why has North Korea continued to propose a peace treaty? What are the reclusive communist regime's intentions?

A peace treaty would be welcome in the sense that it will end the tragic 1950-53 Korean War and restore lasting peace and stability on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia as a whole.

in contrast to the proposal, North Korea conducted its second atomic bomb test and launched its long-range missiles early last year.

The North fired artillery shells near the Northern Limit Line (NLL), the de-facto maritime border in the West Sea, for three consecutive days in late January. Moreover, the so-called ``Juche'' country is suspected of having sold missiles and related technologies to some countries in the Middle East.

The Pyongyang regime has, however, continued to ask Washington to lift U.S. as well as U.N. sanctions against the communist country for its nuclear test and launch of missiles.

The international community has paid no attention to claims put forth by the North because they are contradictory and provocative in nature, which may even put the fragile peace in Northeast Asia into peril.

Faced with such actions by the North, however, the South has restrained itself from taking military action while firing only warning shots in reply to the North's artillery salvos.

The Seoul government has taken a series of measured actions by warning that it would launch a pre-emptive attack on the North if Pyongyang shows clear signs of attacking the South with its nuclear weapons.

These remarks are justifiable as any sovereign state has the right to protect itself against outside hostile actions. It is beyond our understanding that the North has defined the warning as a declaration of war.

The North Korean People's Army said that it considered Seoul's words an ``open declaration of war'' and threatened to take ``stern military actions.''

If such contradictory and provocative actions were aimed at concluding a peace treaty and at the same time neutralizing sanctions imposed upon Pyongyang, they would turn out to be a farce anytime soon.

In order for a genuine peace treaty to be concluded between North and South Korea, there are at least four conditions that must be met first.

First and foremost, Seoul and Pyongyang must take the primary role to address a peace treaty with the U.S., China and Russia as backing powers only.

Second, Pyongyang must take concrete actions to give up its nuclear programs. Otherwise, there will exist an asymmetric strategic balance between Seoul and Pyongyang.

It will surely continue to increase tension and mistrust, escalating an arms race. Perhaps, it will prompt a nuclear weapons race in Northeast Asia.

Third, Pyongyang will have to return to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), under which it must agree to abide by all regulations of nonproliferation, disable all nuclear development facilities, and dispose of nuclear weapons under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

This is the only way to realize the goal of a nuclear-free peninsula.

Fourth, Pyongyang must return to the international community in which it should agree to respect international law and norms. This change will lead the regime to become a respectful member of the community.

North Korea's efforts for a peace treaty will certainly be discounted if it does not meet the above conditions and moreover, especially if it attempts to exclude the Republic of Korea.

It should be kept in mind that a peace treaty cannot be discussed in the six-party talks because it was proposed by the concerned parties to be dealt with at a separate forum, in which Seoul and Pyongyang become, in my conviction, the only two irreversible and direct partners.

The above-mentioned attitude and spirit are the sole way to get a peace treaty crafted by the hands of both Koreas, which will exclude any foreign influence on or future possible plots for another division of the Korean Peninsula.

The writer is a professor emeritus at Pusan National University in Busan. He is also president of the Korea-EU Center. He can be reached at mane398@naver.com. The views expressed in the above article are the author's own and do not reflect the opinions of The Korea Times.