Loading ...
Song Min-Soon will visit the United States next month to discuss a Korean War peace treaty to replace the armistice. There has already been, and there will be much more, talk on the role of US forces on the Korean peninsula after the signing of a peace treaty.
On Friday, Foreign Minister Song stated that US forces will remain committed on the Korean Peninsula after the signing of a Peace Treaty. Indeed, if there ever were conflict on the Korean peninsula, US assistance would be essential.
However, arguably, the support of other coalition partners would also prove important. Other coalition partners not only aid US forces in niche military roles, but also provide greater credibility to the use of force. What has not been considered in Korean debate regarding a Korean War Peace Treaty is the fact that while US forces would remain committed after the signing, other coalition partners that were involved in the Korean War would not.
On the same day that representatives of the UN Command signed the Korean War Armistice in Kaesong, the sixteen states that sent troops to the Korean War under the UN flag signed the ”Joint Policy Declaration Concerning the Armistice in Korea”, far away in Washington. The Joint Policy Declaration confirmed the resolve of the signatories to resist any new armed attack, in the interest of world peace and in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
This declaration is in diplomatic terms, something of a wild card. Arguably, it does not legally require the signatories to defend South Korea, but it does give them the legal justification to do so, should South Korea’s security be threatened. If the Armistice is replaced by a Peace Treaty, the Joint Policy Declaration becomes void.
Accordingly, signing a Peace Treaty has substantial implications that must be thought through. South Korea only has one security partner. In comparison, other regional middle powers have diversified security relationships. Singapore, for example, has formal arrangements with the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the United States as well as the ASEAN structure. Australia has formal arrangements with New Zealand, the US, UK, Japan and Indonesia. Should the United States leave, for whatever reason, the neighbourhood is a damned ugly place for a middle power.
Has the South Korean Government fully thought through the implications of a Peace Treaty? I really think we need to be certain that North Korea’s nuclear programs are fully dismantled before we sign a Korean War Peace Treaty – because calling for world help will never be as easy as it was in 1950…
As usual, there’ll be plenty more discussion on this at Marmot’s Hole - though just like Korean language debate, there will probably be no mention of those other states that also made guarantees to Korean security.
Share This
6 responses so far ↓
1 Kimmi // Oct 29, 2007 at 2:33 pm
This is the dichotomy between ‘serving the great’ and ‘self-reliance’ that has filled Korean political movements since opening. Nobody ever thought that there existed something between the two. If its not ‘serving the great’ or ‘self reliant’ then it is neglected – just the same as as those other powers that contributed are neglected.
2 Brendon Carr (Korea Law Blog) // Oct 29, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I’m all for diversified relationships, but let’s get real. What is the actual, practical value of a security relationship with New Zealand? And what is the actual, practical possibility of Korea forging a real, robust bilateral (not triangulated through the US) defense relationship with the only other regional power — Japan? Japan ought to be Korea’s natural ally to warding off Chinese power.
As long as the domestic politics of Korea encourage guys like Bee Man, Korea is going to find itself quite isolated and vulnerable indeed.
3 RRRRRRRRRRRRR All Blacks // Oct 29, 2007 at 3:28 pm
If they have a deal with the Kiwis their defence might get as bit better – and they could get better tactics in attack too. They could even make it through to the knock-out stage. We are talking Rugby here right?
4 Brendon Carr (Korea Law Blog) // Oct 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm
If facing down threats to national security required a scary-face-and-war-chant danceoff, New Zealand would have something to offer alliance partners.
5 dilworth // Oct 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I guess the point I am trying to make is that a peace treaty does not improve South Korean security. It not only risks South Korea ultimately losing US support (as Brendan points out at Marmots Hole), but it also makes it relatively harder for the ROK and US to engage partners in defense of South Korea, given that an already existing legal justification would be lost.
6 Prof. Tim Birdsong // Nov 24, 2010 at 9:48 am
Practice national unity in the south before unification with the north.
I look for every opportunity to unite the free democratic Koreans in the south, and around the world, at a level equal to or greater than the unity achieved during the 2002 World Cup, centering on the Hong-ik in-Gan (HiiG) principle and philosophy of unification and world peace. The recent G20 summit, for example, was an opportunity to unite all the Korean people and strengthen “Koreanness”, the most powerful tool for world peace the Korean people possess. Koreanness makes Korea a superpower. HiiG, which translates into English as Devotion to the Welfare of Humankind, makes Korea a moral superpower when put into practice through constant acts of public service. When every Korean man, woman and child devote themselves to the welfare of humankind and to world peace, the world will help bring peace to the Korean peninsula.
ilovehiig@yahoo.com
SKYPE: prof.tim
Leave a Comment