What Seoul calls a minor move could destabilize alliance
North Korea and China would likely benefit from ending war
While the Moon Jae-in administration is aiming to declare an end to the Korean War before the upcoming presidential election in March, U.S. experts on North Korea are calling it premature. They are warning that it would endanger Seoul’s national security and provide justification for the dismantling of the United Nations Command, which North Korea and China would prefer.
One of the key reasons for concern among experts is because conditions have not been met yet. They also questioned the true purpose behind the South Korean government in downplaying the significance of the end-of-war declaration, which would only benefit the North under the current situation.
Cho Hyun, South Korean ambassador to the United Nations, told lawmakers from the South Korean National Assembly that “denuclearization [of North Korea] is a goal that we must achieve and I think that the end-of-war declaration could be a starting point for it” on October 11. South Korean National Security Advisor Seo Hoon met with his U.S. counterpart Jake Sullivan the following day in Washington and said they discussed this issue thoroughly. “Regarding the end-of-war declaration, we explained our thinking to the United States and we agreed on discussing this issue closely.” The White House’s National Security Council released a press statement on this meeting and said Sullivan and Seo urged North Korea to get involved in serious and continuous diplomacy to move toward the complete denuclearization of North Korea. However, the NSC’s statement did not mention the end-of-war declaration as the South Korean side emphasized.
This is not the first time that the Moon Jae-in administration has tried to persuade the U.S. government to declare an end to the war. This issue was mentioned at the first summit between Moon and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un on April 27, 2018. In the so-called Panmunjom Declaration, Moon and Kim said they will work toward declaring an end to the war by the end of that year, which marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement. North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho made a speech at the UN in September 2018 where he said “the end-of-war declaration is nothing but a political statement but the United States has been opposing it.” At first, the Trump administration appeared to be open to discussing the issue, but it has not gained much attention since the collapse of the second summit between Trump and Kim at Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2019. Despite the slowdown, the Moon administration has been repeating North Korea’s statement that the declaration is just a “political statement” that would help in establishing a peace regime and eventually denuclearization.
Voice of America interviewed various U.S. experts on Korean Peninsula issues, including former commanders of U.S. Forces Korea. They expressed their concerns that declaring the end of the war at this point where no change has been made near the border militarily, would be premature. It is not just a piece of paper, or a political statement, as Seoul and Pyongyang continue to argue it as.
“An end of war declaration cannot be viewed as just a political statement, it must be viewed as a condition that requires changes to the positioning of the North Korean Army,” General (Ret.) Burwell Bell told the VOA. “We all know that over 70% of the ground force capability of North Korea is in relatively close proximity to the demilitarized zone [DMZ]. Further, the north’s forward deployment of cannon and missile artillery which threatens Seoul directly amounts to a serious daily provocation.”
General (Ret.) James Thurman described an end-of-war declaration as a political statement that is different from a peace agreement, which is an unrealistic approach.
“Clearly, there needs to be a negotiated peace treaty that has sufficient details to get out of Armistice conditions. I think a simple political statement is not sufficient. The devil is in the details on this.”
General Bell also added that “I tie together any end of war declaration together with the negotiation of a peace treaty — they cannot be separated as long as North Korean military forces directly threaten the Republic of Korea with a no-notice general offensive attack capability.”
“Just as with a peace treaty, any end of war declaration must be accompanied with a significant demonstration of good faith by the North Koreans in moving their forward deployed military away from the DMZ to positions that no longer threaten the Republic of Korea with a surprise attack. This principle should not be compromised in any way.”
Professor Bruce Bechtol at Angelo State University, who worked as an intelligence officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), told the VOA that President Moon Jae-in’s previous attempts to rekindle relations with North have all failed and he is trying his best to achieve one last goal of a peace regime, which seems the most plausible goal at this point. “This is the reason why the South Korean government is pushing the United States to agree to talks on ending the armistice with North Korea,” said Bechtol. “If this occurred, it would mean that Moon Jae-in might actually have a ‘success’ to point to in his inter-Korean dealings as part of his legacy. And thus, this is the real ‘urgency’ that is behind this suddenly being pushed so hard.”
Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who served in the Central Intelligence Agency and the DIA, told the VOA, that the South Korean government is trying to downplay the significance of the end-of-war declaration to convince the United States to sign it. “They [South Korea] say it is a political document, it would have no impact on security in the Korean peninsula,” Klingner said. “And my response is ‘well, if it would have no impact what’s the utility of it? What’s the purpose?’ and they can’t respond to that.”
Klingner added that a peace declaration would have no impact on actually reducing the North Korean threat, especially its conventional threat. However, it could create a false sense of peace that would lead to misperceptions. “The danger is that it could lead to misperceptions that if the war is over, why do we have a defense treaty [between the U.S.-ROK],” he said. “Why do we have U.S. forces [in South Korea], why do we have an extended deterrence guarantee and others.”
