This article was originally published by 1945.
As South Korean President Moon Jae In enters the final months of his presidency, he has pushed hard for an ‘end of war declaration’ (EoW), ostensibly to conclude the legally unfinished Korean War (1950-53). There has been extensive discussion of this idea, including at this magazine. ‘EoW declaration’ is a curious locution – in Korean too (종전선언) – because wars traditionally end with a treaty (also a different word in Korean – 조약). The Korean War was paused in mid-1953 by an armistice. That armistice has never been upgraded to a treaty. It is unclear if Moon’s declaration is supposed to replace that armistice, supplement it, be a ‘semi-treaty’ of some sort, or is just symbolic.
There is opposition among conservatives and North Korea hawks both in the US and in South Korea. There is anxiety that the declaration will undercut the rationale for the United Nations Command (UNC) and US Forces Korea (USFK). North Korea has long sought their departure and were a treaty signed, UNC and USFK would presumably dissolve as a result of the treaty’s resolution of the outstanding political and military issues on the peninsula. The declaration does not appear to offer that resolution, but it might lead to pressure to wind down those commands anyway. Hence the trepidation on the right.
Before the parties sign this curious document, Moon should clarify the following:
What, exactly, is the legal status of an ‘End of Declaration’?
No one really knows, and this is likely the major reason for the contention over it. An armistice and a treaty are established tools in diplomacy with reasonably shared meanings among states and international relations professionals. An EoW declaration is not. It appears to be a middle step between an armistice and a treaty, but that is a guess. Here, for example, is a defense of the declaration which simultaneously declares it nonbinding and a legal resolution to the war if the parties so wish it. An EoW declaration must be clearer than that if it is to actually reduce or end the inter-Korean stand-off. There have been so many false starts to ‘peace’ in Korea that Moon should put forward at least a working definition.
If it is just symbolic, then what is the point?
If the EoW side-steps the peninsula’s many outstanding strategic issues – which pretty clearly have not been resolved – then what does it do? If it is not a treaty and simply ratifies the already existing diplomatic status quo – that the armistice has effectively morphed into a stable, if cold, peace – then it is unclear why we need a legally vague, not-actually-a-treaty to verify that. This is the core paradox of the debate: the declaration does not appear to oblige either side to any action, so it appears to be just symbolism. Yet Moon has flogged this idea relentlessly for months, suggesting it must have some real value. Moon needs to clear that fog.
To read more, please click here.
Dr. Robert E. Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly) is a professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science at Pusan National University. Dr. Kelly is now a 1945 Contributing Editor as well.
