ED DMZ jurisdiction dispute
South Korean soldiers stand guard during a media tour at the Joint Security Area on the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in the border village of Panmunjeom in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, March 3. Reuters-Yonhap
UNC, Korean government should consult closely on flexible management of access to DMZ
Recent bills from the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) proposing that the South Korean government have more leeway to approve nonmilitary access and use of the southern parts of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas, and Unification Minister Chung Dong-young's support for the legislation, have created a war of nerves.
The DMZ is a buffer zone, created when North and South Korea ended the 1950-53 conflict with an armistice, and is administered by the United Nations Command (UNC) to keep the two Koreas apart and prevent clashes.
There has been criticism of the UNC's strict management of South Korea's access to the DMZ in past administrations. During the 2017-22 Moon Jae-in administration, requests for access to survey sites for government-led inter-Korean railway and civilian access were denied in 2018. Calls grew for the UNC to be more accommodating to South Korean peace-related access.
One of the proposed DPK bills suggests that the UNC maintain overall control but allow the Ministry of Unification to grant approval for civilian access.
In response, the UNC issued a rare public statement seemingly rebuffing the DPK's "DMZ bills." On Dec. 16, the UNC said that it administers the buffer zone through the UNC Military Armistice Commission (UNCMAC) and cited a specific provision: "Civil administration and relief in part of the Demilitarized Zone which is south of the Military Demarcation Line shall be the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command."
The unification minister then commented on Dec. 18, saying, "the complete control by the UNC of South Korean land does not sit well with the general public sentiment."
The UNC was created in 1950 through a U.N. Security Council resolution after the outbreak of the Korean War. With the war ending with an armistice rather than a peace treaty, the UNC was one of the signatories and designated by that armistice to control a buffer zone to prevent clashes and maintain peace. The UNC is focused primarily on military control and operations in the DMZ, leading the South Korean government to seek room for more flexible operations. Nearly eight decades since the armistice was signed, South Korea has developed into an advanced economy and major global player, and it is reasonable for it to seek to become a driver of peace rather than sitting in the passenger seat. This sentiment for peace and expanded inter-Korean cooperation is understandable.
However, peace also rests on a set of legal frameworks and institutions. Lt. Gen. Chun In-bum (retired), former commander of the Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Command, noted in his column for this paper that a principle in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is "pacta sunt servanda," which states that agreements must be honored and states are not free to unilaterally reinterpret or alter the implementation of binding agreements. In that respect, the ongoing war of nerves should be replaced by dialogue and close consultation.
South Korea naturally desires a forward-looking peace initiative as a sovereign nation. However, any such initiative must carefully navigate the complex web of international legal perspectives vs. domestic laws, ongoing military alliances and North Korea's growing disengagement. The UNC is a U.S.-led multinational command that has contributed to peace on the peninsula. Still, many in Korea were left puzzled to understand the UNC's decisions this year, including denial of access to Cardinal Lazzaro You Heung-sik and the belated approval for South Korea's first deputy director of the National Security Office.
Differences should be worked out through dialogue and engagement, which necessitates an openness from both sides, including the UNC. It should also be noted that the unification ministry's flurry of ambitious peace initiatives proposed with regard to the UNC potentially bring it into conflict with the foreign and defense ministries. The most important question that must be asked is how do any of these proposals or ideas from either side serve the public interest? Internal cohesion and consensus on the part of South Korea are necessary in laying the groundwork for constructive consultations with the UNC.