By Sandip Kumar Mishra
 |
The U.S. State Department indicated its displeasure and said Sept. 23 that it was committed to close coordination with South Korea for a unified response to North Korea. Few other U.S. experts went to the extent of saying that until North Korea's denuclearization and viable peace is established, the replacement of the Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty is not appropriate.
There are two main objections raised to Moon's proposal. One, Moon did not discuss such a move with the U.S. in advance and such a unilateral South Korean proposal might show a gap between the U.S. and South Korean positions that could weaken the alliance and trust between the two countries. In dealing with North Korea, both the U.S. and South Korea must have a coordinated policy to be effective and successful.
Two, dealing with North Korea consists of not only ending the Armistice Agreement but also resolving nuclear and missile issues, as well as the provocative behavior of the North. South Korea should not attempt to have a peace treaty with the North when there is a deadlock between Washington and Pyongyang on the denuclearization issue.
If the important objectives of North Korean denuclearization and the signing of a peace treaty are disconnected from each other, and a peace treaty is made without progress in denuclearization, it might lead to a weakened incentive for North Korea to denuclearize.
However, the objections are not very convincing. To the first objection it could be said that South Korea as an independent country has every right to initiate a policy or take up a decision on its own. Actually, even though South Korea has a security alliance with the U.S., it does not mean that it has to necessarily get prior permission to make a gesture of peace toward North Korea, including suggesting an end to the Armistice Agreement. Reportedly, U.S. President Donald Trump also unilaterally declared after his Singapore summit with Kim Jong-un that the U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises would be postponed. Trump's move at that time was considered to be tactical as it could serve an important purpose in helping North Korean denuclearization.
If Moon has also made a similar unilateral strategic move, it should not be presented as a threat to the South Korean alliance with the U.S. Furthermore, Moon's proposal is not entirely new. He has expressed, since the Panmunjeom Declaration, that South Korea should take the lead in the improvement of inter-Korea relations and leave North Korean denuclearization issues to the U.S. It has been argued that a peace treaty would be useful to bring trust in inter-Korean relations and it might help in the denuclearization process.
Also, to have a coordinated stance with the U.S. does not mean that the U.S. and South Korea need to always have the same stance. The two countries may decide on a division of labor and play their respective roles to gain their desired results in dealing with North Korea.
The view that the issues of North Korean denuclearization and the signing of a peace treaty must be connected is just one way to resolve the North Korean conundrum. It is true that in an ideal situation, attempts must be made to realize both the objectives simultaneously. However, if it's not possible, South Korea is right to consider giving priority to a peace treaty over North Korean denuclearization.
If the "denuclearization first and peace treaty later" approach is not successful, it's a perfectly valid position to have the peace treaty first and expect North Korean denuclearization subsequently. Actually, there are scholars who convincingly argue that North Korea will not give up its nuclear and missile arsenals until its perception of threat is addressed. The nuclear weapons of North Korea are not the disease but a symptom. The disease is the sense of insecurity in North Korea. After the creation of a peace treaty, North Korea might find its nuclear weapons to be unnecessary and might give them up.
Actually in his speech at the UNGA, President Moon categorically spelled out his vision of a peace economy in which "peace can lead to economic cooperation, which, in turn, will reinforce peace, all working in a virtuous cycle." He claimed that "no confrontation has occurred since the inter-Korean Comprehensive Military Agreement was signed" in September 2019. He talked about an end to the war on the peninsula along with a mutual security guarantee and co-prosperity with North Korea and his proposal must be read in its full context.
However, it is perfectly valid to raise questions as to whether Moon's proposal can be realized under present conditions and how such proposals could work. In spite of Moon's committed efforts for better inter-Korea relations so far, changes in North Korean behavior have been less than satisfactory and even though the international community agrees with Moon's proposal, creating a peace treaty with North Korea will not be easy to move forward with.
Sandip Kumar Mishra (sandipmishra10@gmail.com) is an associate professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.
