International Symposium on Korea Issues was held in Postdam, Germany from Nov.11 thru 14, 2013 under the sponsorship of Korean-German United Association. There were many presentations from international scholars, experts including north, south Korea, and overseas Koreans.-editor's note

Int'l Conference on Korean Peninsula in Postdam, German

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present Situation of Inter-Korea Relations

and Ways to Its Improvement

 

Prof. JONG Ki-phung, DPRK

 

 

The situation on the Korean Peninsula, which had been worsened to the extreme early this year, came back to the phase of relaxation at the initiative of the DPRK government.

Dialogues resumed between the north and the south and Kaesong Industrial Park has gone back into normal operation after 160 days of suspension.

It was also planned to have reunion of separated families and relatives in Mt. Kumgang on the autumn festival day and open the inter-Korean working-level talks for the resumption of tourism of Mt. Kumgang.

Unfortunately, however, the north-south relations have got worse again and the situation on the Korean Peninsula has returned to acute confrontation.

The root-cause lies in the reckless anti-DPRK confrontation rackets kicked off one after the other in the north against the development of overall situation.

First; the south Korean authorities have intolerably turned up their nose at the sincere efforts of the DPR Korea dedicated to dialogues and peace.

They maliciously claimed that the north had put Kaesong Industrial Park into normal operation not for sincere dialogues and peace, but for money and maintenance of its system.

The present ruler of south Korea let loose a ridiculous remark that Kaesong Industrial Park was put to re-operation “because of her patient adherence to the principle”.

She was followed by the reunification minister, the foreign minister and other high-rankers of south Korea who asserted about the draw in the fierce mental tug of war between the north and the south.

The south Korean ruler went the length to say that the improvement of north-south relations should not be expected, and that she would control the speed awaiting the change in the north.

In coincidence, the conservative press and mass media widely misled the public opinion that the north had knelt down and their pressure on the north had paid off.

In the last-ditch attempt, they threw mud to our supreme dignity and spread leaflets over the areas of the north.

The south Korean military have decided to involve psychological warfare agents of the United States in the South Korea-US joint military exercises to expand the anti-DPRK psychological warfare from next year, and to develop next generation mobile transmission devices which can transmit radio and TV signals simultaneously to the whole area of the north and sophisticated leaflet-bomb launchers.

It is as clear as a day that nerve-touching vituperations and acts against the counterpart of the dialogue affect the north-south relations.

Second; Park Geun Hye “government” wholly denies our system and overtly reveals its ulterior intention to do harm to it.

In the relations between the north and the south, each of which has its own ideology and system different to the other, confrontation is naturally unavoidable if one attempts to force its ideology and system upon the other and destroy it.

Denial of our system finds its concentrated expression in the so-called “purge of the forces following the north” now underway in south Korea.

The “purge of the pro-north forces” is, in essence, to drive out all the people who advocate reconciliation with the north by labeling them as those who try to “collapse the system of the south, and thus destroy the foundation for inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation.

The conservative authorities of south Korea has accused the progressive political parties aspiring after independence and reunification as “pro-north” organization and fabricated the case of “plotting internal disturbances” in a vicious attempt to dismantle them.

In south Korea posting of criticism against the “government”, dropping of credit ranking of the economy, the minute of the summit talks of the previous “president” and anti-“government” demonstrations are all labeled as “pro-north propaganda”, “pro-north opinion”, “pro-north action” and what not.

On September 9 this year, the national day of DPR Korea, Park Geun Hye openingly directed a drama of appointing governors of North and South Phyongan Provinces and North Hamgyong Province.

Widely spreading in south Korea is the speculation about the collapse of system in the north.

The south Korean “government” has gone so far as to involve ignorant foreign anti-DPRK elements to spread the rumor that the system in the north is so unstable that the south should be full ready for its collapse, and has divided their jurisdiction over the areas in the north.

This frenzy is uprooting the foundation for dialogues and reconciliation between the north and the south.

Third; Park Geun Hye “government” stages dangerous anti-DPRK war drills one after the other behind the screen of dialogue.

At the height of north-south dialogues, the south Korean military staged the “Ulji Freedom Guardian” war exercise in collaboration with the United States, calling in the US B-52 strategic bombers.

The south Korean military war-hawks, on their frequent field inspections of the frontier units, ordered them to get fully ready for a war without being carried away by the north’s tactical offensive for dialogues, arguing that the north would attack the south in 3 years.

In the celebration of the “Day of south Korean Army” on October 1 this year, Park Geun Hye let loose a spate of anti-DPRK vindictive that the south should never tolerated “someone’s” provocation, that the north’s line of promoting the development of nuclear forces and the economy simultaneously is an illusion, and that they would make the north’s nukes and missiles useless.

At the 45th session of south Korea-US annual security consultation, the US and south Korean brass-hats signed the so-called “tailored deterrence strategy” which envisages the preemptive strike on the nuclear and missile bases of the north.

In October this year, the south Korean authorities staged an anti-DPRK war drill with the US nuclear aircraft carrier “George Washington” operating in the South and West Seas of Korea.

This clearly shows that Park Geun Hye “government” pursues confrontation with the north behind the screen of much touted “dialogues” and “confidence building”.

These factors has plunged the inter-Korean relations again into dilemma, and the situation on the Korean peninsula into acute tension.

Then, what are the ways to improve the worsened north-south relations?

First, the south Korean authorities should opt for independence, free from their policy of depending on foreign forces.

It is not possible at all to improve the inter-Korean relations by depending on the foreign forces who are responsible for the Korea’s division and deterioration of north-south relations.

In particular, the United States does whatever possible to tense the Korean situation to find a pretext for their domination of, and interference in the Korean Peninsula and the rest of Asia.

It is none other than the United States which instigates Park Geun Hye “government” to inter-Korean confrontation.

When the DPRK’s active effort for dialogues and peace led to the re-opening of Kaesong Industrial Park and the adoption of final agreement for normalization of its operation at the North-South working-level talks, the United States put pressure on Park Geun Hye “government” not to be led by the north.

A number of high-ranking officials of the United States urged Park Geun Hye “government” not to have dialogues unless the north make commitment to denuclearization, saying that they were doubtful whether the inter-Korean dialogues would be helpful to the realization of their strategic goal.

Several good opportunities have been lost for improvement of north-south relations because the south Korean authorities have tried to tune the development of inter-Korean relations to the principle of priority to south Korea-US alliance.

The inter-Korean relations continue to go from bad to worse after Park Geun Hye took office all owing to the south Korean authorities’ policy of depending on foreign forces and the intentional moves of the United States to foil its improvement.

Therefore, the north-south relations can improve as desired by the whole nation only when the south Korean authorities free themselves from dependence on foreign forces and follow the road of independence.

Second; the south Korean authorities should abandon their evil inclination to system confrontation with DPPR Korea.

It is recognized by the whole world that our socialist system based on the single-hearted unity behind its great leader and Songun policy is as firm as a rock. Any attempt to destroy it is something like trying to break a rock by throwing an egg.

History proves that all the forces who had pursued system confrontation with the wild ambition for unification through absorption faced were doomed to miserable end.

But Lee Myung Bak “government” clinged to the strategy of waiting for the system collapse in the north, and now Park Geun Hye “government” clamours that it would hasten the collapse.

Long ago, the north and the south adopted the July 4 Joint Declaration and the historical North-South Joint Declaration, in which they have agreed to respect each other’s ideology and system and refrain from slandering each other and pursuing confrontation.

So long as the south Korean authorities approach the inter-Korean relations with hostility against our system, we can neither avoid confrontation and war, nor realize peaceful co-existence.

Likewise, so long as the south harbors hostility against the north and slanders it, the environment for reconciliation and cooperation will never come true.

We strongly urge the south Korean authorities to stop defaming our system, particularly, our supreme dignity.

Third; the south should refrain from forcing unilateral denuclearization upon the north.

If the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is to be solved, it is imperative to resolve its origin: the United States should put an end to nuclear threat against us, stop all anti-DPRK nuclear war drills and pull its troops out of south Korean with all its nuclear weapons.

When Park Geun Hye initiated the “confidence-building process”, she said that “north’s abandonment of nuclear programme” was not its precondition, but she availed all possible opportunities to announce that they could never tolerate the north’s nuclear programme.

They are now more frantically staging nuclear war exercises against the north, driving the danger of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula to the extreme.

The previous ruler of south Korea Lee Myung Bak set the “north’s abandonment of nuclear programme as a precondition for inter-Korean relations, thus plunging the relations between the north and the south to catastrophe.

The prevention of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula is wholly attributable to the fact that we possess the powerful self-defensive nuclear force

Therefore, the south Korean authorities should show sincerity to the improvement of inter-Korean relations instead of following the United States and forcing the north to give up its nuclear programme first.

I would like to conclude my speech by expressing my hope that the foreign and overseas Korean participants in this conference have a clear understanding of who is responsible for the aggravation of tension on the Korean Peninsula and dynamically step up international solidarity activities for peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.

Thank you

 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Cause of Division and Ways for Peace on Korean Peninsula

 

Dr. PAK Yong chol, Deputy Director,

DPRK Institute for Fatherland’s Reunification

 

If we are to find out the correct ways to ensure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the cause of Korea’s division.

The Korean nation who has long lived as a homogeneous nation in the same territory was halved neither through a civilian war nor by the international convention pertaining to a defeated nation.

Korea suffers from the division of the nation and its territory wholly because of the foreign forces.

The possibility of Korea’s division was first offered by the Japanese imperialists who had occupied Korea and turned it into its colony. Then, the possibility was turned into reality by the United States.

It is the United States which arbitrarily drew the 38゜parallel line across the country.

The Soviet Union declared war against Japan on August 8, 1945 near the end of the World War II and Japan expressed its will to surrender.

On August 10, the United States called an emergency meeting of 3 departments – the Department of State, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy – to discuss the division of Korea into two, one part under the US domination and the other under the Soviet domination.

In his reminiscences, the then US President Truman wrote: Korea’s division was never put on the agenda of an international meeting.

It is really a deplorable tragedy that the Korean nation, not such a defeated nation as Japan which had inflicted unfathomable holocaust upon humanity but only a victim, was divided into two through bargaining of big powers.

Some people argue that the cause of Korea’s division is the “left-right confrontation” within the nation, but in reality, the confrontation between different ideologies and systems existing on the Korean Peninsula is not the cause of division but the result of division imposed by the United States.

After the liberation of Korea from the Japanese colonial rule, even in presence of foreign troops in the north and the south of Korean Peninsula, the entire Korean nation in both parts of the country unanimously aspired after the establishment of a unified government.

Nevertheless, on November 14, 1947 the United States arbitrarily put the Korean issue on the UN agenda, and at the 2nd session of UN General Assembly, they railroaded the motion of organizing the UN Provisional Committee on Korea which they instigated to cook up a separate pro-US “government” in the south of Korea.

Against the US moves to fabricate a separate “government”, the entire Korean nation in the north and the south had an all-Korea general election on August 25, 1948.

In the northern half of Korea 212 deputies were elected through direct election, and in the southern half of Korea 1 080 people’s representatives were selected through signing of the list, who then gathered in Haeju to elect 360 deputies.

In September 1948 the 1st session of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPR Korea was held in Pyongyang, which announced the establishment of the unified government.

At the initiative of the DPRK government to withdraw all foreign troops from the Korean Peninsula, all the Soviet troops stationing in the northern half of Korea went back home by December 1948, but the United States refused to pull its troops out of south Korea and concocted the separate pro-US “government”.

This resulted in the existence of the DPR Korea, a legitimate government representing the whole nation, and of the separate pro-US “government” in the southern half of Korea.

Afterwards, the war ignited by the United States on June 25, 1950 drew the military demarcation line on the Korean Peninsula, fixing Korea’s division physically.

Third; Korea’s division is protracted by the presence of US troops in south Korea and the US moves to obstruct Korea’s reunification.

Article 60 of the Korean Armistice Agreement stipulates that within 3 months after its entry into force, representatives of the signatory parties shall hold a political meeting to discuss and agree on the issue of withdrawing all foreign troops from Korea and making peaceful settlement of the Korea question.

However, the United States deliberately disrupted the preliminary talks at Panmunjon for convening a political meeting, and in April 1954, at the ministerial meeting held in Geneva, they opposed the DPRK proposal to withdraw all foreign troops from Korea and establish a unified government through free general election.

In the 1970s the north and the south adopted the July 4 Joint Statement and had high-ranking talks. The United States obstructed this process clamouring “there may be talks for unification but integration of north and south is inconceivable”. Then, it made up the scenarios of “simultaneous UN membership of the north and the south” and “separate UN membership of the south” to fix Korea’s division internationally.

The eternal President of the DPR Korea great Generalissimo Kim Il Sung consistently adhered to the principle of One Korea and made strenuous efforts for its realization: he put forward the 3 principles of national reunification in the 1970s, the proposal of founding the Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo in the 1980s and the 10-point Programme for Great Unity of the Whole Nation in the 1990s.

Nevertheless, Korea remained divided due to the persistent US moves to keep it divided and increase tension there. Accordingly, confrontation and danger of war increased on the Korean Peninsula.

On the basis of the causes of national division, we can define the following ways for durable peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

First; the United States should give up its hostile policy towards the DPR Korea and sign peace pact with it.

Today the hostile policy and moves of the United States to stifle the DPR Korea represent a major factor that disturbs peace on the Korean Peninsula.

We have done everything possible for peace, including dialogues with the US and adoption of a series of agreements, but with the change of the government in the US, the process of reconciliation with it has always returned to zero.

The United States, not contended with the DPR Korea following the independent road free from any great power, has pursued the policy of power for more than half a century, imposing military threat and economic sanctions and pressure.

US sanctions and pressure upon the DPR Korea has reached the extreme.

The DPRK policy was to concentrate all efforts to economic construction on the basis of the self-defensive war deterrence so that the Korean people would no longer tighten their belts.

But the United States kicked off the frenzy of sanctions taking issue with the DPRK’s peaceful and transparent launch of a satellite based on the international space convention and other international laws.

The United States has ferociously violated the sovereignty of the north and persistently pursued the policy of isolating and stifling the north taking issue with our launch of satellite. Heedless of the principle of simultaneous action, it has increased unilateral sanctions against us and disrupted the 6-party talks, thus trigging off the evil cycle of distrust.

This clearly shows that unless the United States give up its hostile policy towards the DPR Korea and replace the unstable armistice agreement with a peace treaty, it is impossible to talk about peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Second; all anti-DPRK war drills should be stopped at once.

The history of inter-Korean relations shows that the situation on the rise always goes down again whenever there is a joint war drill with foreign forces.

It is a common sense that the war hardware and mobility have reached such an incomparable level of development that there no longer exist a purely defensive drill and military exercises presuppose offensive.

The United States incessantly stage tens of nuclear war drills against the DPRK every year under the cloak of annual defensive drills.

The anti-DPRK war drills of different codenames known to the world number over 18 000.

This year, too, the United States and south Korea staged Key Resolve, Foal Eagle and Ulji Freedom Guardian and other codenamed military exercises – over 50 in all – with the involvement of nuclear aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, strategic bombers, stealth fighters and other nuclear strike means.

There are some hot spots in the world, but there is no such place as the Korean Peninsula where the United States stages one nuclear war drill after another every year by enlisting huge armed forces and nuclear strike means.

All these war exercises should be stopped at once to ensure peace.

Third; the north-south joint declarations should be respected and implemented to the letter.

In the 21st century the north and the south had the historical summit meeting for the first time in the history of division, which led to the adoption of June 15 Joint Declaration, the landmark for reconciliation, cooperation, peace and reunification, and of October 4 Declaration for former’s implementation.

When these declarations were adopted, the atmosphere of reconciliation and cooperation prevailed over the country, and the entire Korean nation and the world were given the hope for peace and reunification.

But since conservative Lee Myung Bak “government” ruled south Korea, the period in which the north-south relations developed favorably with the adoption of June 15 Joint Declaration and October 4 Declaration has been labeled as a “lost decade” and the inter-Korean relations has worsened to the extreme.

Park Geun Hye “government” has deleted the implementation of declarations from their north Korea policy and the situation on the Korean Peninsula gets worse than ever before.

Park Geun Hye “government” advertizes about confidence building between the north and south through so-called “confidence-building process”, but the process implies that the DPR Korea should first give up its nuclear programme. This kind of confrontation policy will lead us to nowhere.

Implementation of June 15 Joint Declaration and October 4 Declaration is the only way to ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula.

I do hope that all foreign and overseas Korean participants have a clear understanding of who is to blame for Korea’s division and what should be done first to ensure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

Thank you.

 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Global Ecumenical Initiative

for Peace and Reconciliation in Korea

 

Rev. Sung-koog M. Hahm, PhD (USA)

 

 

I. Opening Remarks

In this brief presentation, I would like to delineate the global ecumenical initiatives for peace and reconciliation in Korea. For three decades, various global Christian denominations and ecumenical councils of churches have participated in the struggles for Korean Christians for peaceful reunification in Korea. It has been a rocky road but by prodding relentlessly the global ecumenical communities for Christian response to Korea’s peaceful reunification, there has been good progress made.

In this presentation, I will be outlining the various Korean Christian insistences for global churches to take up the issues related to the divisions, and for possible peaceful reunification efforts.  In conclusion I will try to sum up the new directions for the United States policy toward Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia. In the final section, I will touch upon the immoral and unethical aspects of United States policy toward the Korean peninsula over the last six decades. Global ecumenical religious communities are challenging the United States Government for more salient and humane approaches toward a sustainable and lasting peace and reunification of Korea.

II. Global Christian Church Initiative.

In February 1982, the National Council of Churches in Korea (NCCK)  attempted to establish a Committee for Reunification Affairs. Due to interference by the South Korean government, however, NCCK was not able to establish it. In March 21-23 and May 23-25, 1982 NCCK tried twice to establish this Committee. However, again due to government interference, it could not be established.

During consultation between the NCCK and the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCCCUSA) in March 21-24, 1984, General Secretary Kim So Yong of the NCCK made a strong plea to the world-wide communions, particularly, to the NCCCUSA and the World Council of Churches (WCC), stating that the most important mission priority for Korean Christians is to deal with the national reunification mandate. General Secretary Kim So Yong made a further plea that it is a Christian responsibility for the world-wide Christian churches to rally around the peaceful reunification of Korea.

The Kwangju massacre in 1980 and subsequent perpetuation of military dictatorship convinced South Korean Christians that their human rights and democracy movements could not be won without accomplishing a national reunification.

The churches in South Korea began to raise issues of Christian responsibility for peace and reunification through consultation with the ecumenical partners of the United States, Japan, Germany, and other countries including the World Council of Churches. These ecumenical support of the world-wide churches encouraged Korean churches to do their task with courage and determination.

The World Council of Churches began to take on Korean issues. The document of the WCC stated that the division was the source of evil, like an original sin, and that the true path to peace and reunification was the overcoming of division and the achieving of reconciliation and mutual trust through the meetings and exchanges between North and South Koreas.

Under the sponsorship of the WCC, for the first time since the division, the Christian Federation of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK -North Korea) and the National Council of Churches in Korea (South Korea) began to establish mutual trust through various meetings and consultations.

On October, 1984, the Christian Federation of North Korea was not able to attend the Dosanso meeting in Japan, but they sent a congratulatory telegram. Since that time, there have been several opportunities for delegates from both South and North Korean churches in different locations to strengthen mutual trust and friendship based on Christian faith.

In Glion, Switzerland, on September 2-5, 1986, Christians from North and South Korea with ecumenical partners met and shared holy communion together and studied the Bible, discussed the issue of Christian responsibility and the tasks for peace and reunification for the first time.

It may be good to share with you that during the centennial celebration of the establishment of Korean Methodism in 1985, the Korean Methodist Church adopted a historic statement as follows:

“Faced as we are with the forty years of tragic division on the Korean peninsula, we express our longing for unification of the nation in any form possible through peaceful means at the earliest possible time.

This must be done through establishing a democratic political structure based upon freedom and human rights, and must be fulfilled by working toward the establishment of a just society built for the sake of the People.  We commit the whole strength of the Korean Methodist Church to the peaceful reunification of our country.”

At the General Conference of The United Methodist Church, for the first time, a resolution on “Korea-peace, Justice and Reunification” was adopted. It stated that “in support of the Korean people and in cooperation with partner Christian groups, it is recommended that the United Methodist Church, its members, churches, annual conferences, and agencies undertake the following actions through education, public advocacy and support of programs furthering justices, peace and reunification. And the following actions are proposed:

1)  engage in prayers of penitence and petition;

2)  urge all governments to exercise their influence for peace and reunification;

3)  the peaceful reunification of Korea should be a formal  United States policy goal;

4)  a peace treaty should be signed;

5)  remove economic sanctions against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea);

6)  encourage a consistent, bipartisan and long-range United States policy regarding the Korean peninsula.

It is also very important that on November 6, 1988, the NCCCUSA adopted an important policy statement on “Peace and the Reunification of Korea.” Since the division of Korea in 1945, for the first time, the churches in the United States affirmed peace and reunification in Korea. Some of us felt that it was a bit late.  Nevertheless, we were happy that the churches in the United States finally came around to adopt a statement of peace and reunification of Korea by NCCCUSA’s Governing Board in  Evanston, Illinois, on November 6, 1988.

The statement states that “the Korean people, whether they live in South or North, desire to restore the uniting that was theirs for more than a thousand years before the end of World War II…The churches and government of the United States must hear the plea of the Korean people for reunification…Our nation is the only foreign country which still retains an armed military presence on the peninsula. Therefore, we must assume today particular responsibilities for assisting all Koreans who strive to overcome division by peaceful means… As Christians, we regard the need to overcome division not primarily from diplomatic or military perspectives, but rather from the side of a suffering, divided people whose pain we are coming to know well…We confess that we share responsibility for their plight and for this we are truly sorry.”  The statement further states a biblical and theological rationale that we are in Christ reconciling all people as God’s children. The Spirit seeks to draw all people into one and inspires all people to show forth the fruits of the work of the Spirit.  The God who blesses the peacemakers and calls us the ministry of healing and reconciliation gives us hope that division can be overcome, even against the greatest odds.”

(pp. 1-2, the NCCCUSA Policy Statement on “Peace and the Reunification of Korea.”)

As you can see, world-wide ecumenical councils encouraged and facilitated for Korean Christians to grapple with their mission priority issue on national reconciliation. Since the 1980s, Christians in the North and the South have met in Pyoungyang as well as in Seoul for fellowship, worship and strategic discussion on national reconciliation.

III. Concluding Remarks on the New Directions for U.S. Policy

For more than sixty years, relations between the United States and North Korea have been marked by hostility, misunderstanding and deep mutual suspicion. Along the demilitarized zone (DMZ), South Korea and the United States have faced off against North Korean long-range artillery and missiles that can devastate Seoul, only thirty-seven miles to the south. As South Koreans are fearful of a North Korean attack, North Koreans are also fearful of United States and South Korean military maneuvers.

With harsh reality of a dangerous and ongoing military stand-off, it is perhaps not surprising that the United States and North Korea are still legally in a state of war and have lived under a mere ceasefire –the l953 Armistice which should be replaced with a Peace Treaty. By offering the prospect of a fundamental settlement of all outstanding disputes with North Korea, it is important that the United States would radically improve and change the political conditions for negotiations. As history of negotiating with North Korea demonstrates, improvements in political conditions almost always precede and facilitate agreements on security-related issues. There are many in the west taking the view that North Korea may ultimately refuse to abandon its nuclear weapons program, no matter what incentives and pressures the United States brings to bear in negotiations. However, for those of us who have been in contact with North Koreans, believe that North Korea will enter negotiations and seek agreement for its own national interests.

Today, sixty years after the Korean War, there is still no peace treaty and the United States still maintains enough conventional and nuclear forces in and around North Korea to destroy the North Korean regime with a preemptive strike. North Koreans, fully knowing the impact of war, want peace more than any other nation.  In the final analysis, North Korea will take a strategic decision for security, political and economic returns in a larger negotiation. To resolve the nuclear issue as well as to lay the foundation for lasting peace on the Peninsula and in the region, the United States must try to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with North Korea.

Global ecumenical Christian councils and member denominations have been calling upon the United States Government to affirm formally that it is a policy goal of the United States to support the peaceful reunification of Korea. Ecumenical communities believe that the time has come for the United States Government to develop a relationship with North Korea, and that the United States promotes and respects the full sovereignty of the Korean people.

Global Christian religious communities consider the present United States government policy on Korea is immoral and unsustainable for lasting peace in Korea and Northeast Asia. For long term peace in Korea and Asia, the United States Government should be engaged in a comprehensive settlement with North Korea and other related partners.

 

Thank you.

 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

 

                                            Peaceful settlement of disputes

                                         for getting Peace in Corean Peninsula

                                                         BY: Nguyen Dac Nhu-Mai

Nguyen Dac Nhu-Mai

                                             (Historian of International Relations -  Member of the Advisory Committee to the Corean International Forum)

 

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

 

I wish to inform you about debates and discussions that we had during the 2nd International Conference of Corea, in Paris on April 20, 2013, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the armistice of the Panmunjom related to Peace in Corea  which came to the conclusion as follows: the importance is given to the right to information and that the fight for international law is "a citizen fight". All participants of the Paris Conference put forward that people have to act on their own governments so that peace be assured to Corean people in respect of their independence and their right to free determination (1).

 

Indeed, here in Potsdam, the very place for International Settlement in the past, I wish to suggest that we focus on "Article IV of the 1953 Agreement of the armistice of Pan Mun Jon" for resolving disputes in the framework of international regulations, the question being peaceful solution allowed to the problem of the division into two of the Corean unit that needs to be resolved and in the same time, to seek the good prospect of the member countries of the Security Council, appointed annually, but not only among the permanent members.

 

In respect for international regulations in Article IV:

Article IV. Recommendations to the governments of both parties

To ensure the peaceful settlement of the Corean question, the Force Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the Governments countries and the two interested parties that within three months after the signature and entry into force of the Armistice Agreement, representatives designated by the two sides meet in a conference organized on policy at higher level in order to solve, through negotiations, the issue of withdrawal out of Corea of all foreign forces and the peaceful settlement of the Corean question. These recommendations are set out ways on both sides (China and North Corea on the one hand, and the other hand, UN) to advocate to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides (the governments of North and South) for Peaceful settlement of any dispute.

 

Chapter VI of UN Charter dealing with the peaceful settlement

 

To require the good “offices” of the Security System of the UN it is advisable to apply the heart of the spirit of the Charter which is Chapter VI of the Charter (5), dealing with the "peaceful settlement of disputes".

The application of the provisions of Chapter VI, as a decision of the Security Council other than procedural matters, based on a collective decision. This must be taken by "an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring in the votes of all permanent members", provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52 a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting "(Article 27).

 

In guise of conclusions

 

For the return of Peace in the Corean Peninsula and the settlement of disputes it seems important to strengthen the actions on :

1)  Review Article IV of the Panmunjom armistice of 1953 respecting international regulations.

2) Use the good “offices” of the Security System of the UN (3) with the application of Chapter VI of the Charter (5), dealing with the "peaceful settlement of disputes".

The application of the provisions of Chapter VI, as a decision of the Security Council other than procedural matters, based on a collective decision. This must be taken by "an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring in the votes of all permanent members", provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52 a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting "(Article 27).

 

At Potsdam, it is hoped that a "resolution" be strongly recommended and hold up by all the participants and subsequently brought to the UN by a collective Corean representatives compound of North  and  South Coreans, and the Diaspora.

Notes

 

1) Nguyen Dac Nhu-Mai : Impact of the culture of Peace on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Panmunjon Armistice Agreement of 1953  in The 2nd International Conference of Corea, Paris April 20, 2013, organized by the Corean Alliance for Independent Reunification and Democracy (Organizing Committee of the Corean International Forum) on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement of 1953.  See publication  in THE FRONT No. 16 of May 2013, pp. 46-49. See also publications of all participants'papers in THE FRONT idem. 

 

2) Chapter VI defines the role of the Security Council on conflict prevention in the context of a non-coercive action based on the consent of the parties.
in: http://www.operationspaix.net/23-resources/details-lexique/chapitre-vi.html

 

3) Roland Weyl : Probably the celebration of the anniversary of Panmunjom must lead not to lament that there has not been a peace treaty but the recommendations of the agreements have not yet been applied in the hope that the UN which is a signatory brings his good offices, as well as representatives of more neutral than the United States member countries. in  l'Humanité August 13, 2013.

//////////////////////////////

 

The  Withdrawal     of     the   US    Troops :

National Independence and Guaranty for Global

BY: Patrick Kuentzmann

 

Imagine a relatively small country, with less than 50 million inhabitants but located at a strategic place, at the extremity of the Eurasian continent, thus being a door to penetrate this large continental space. On the territory of this country, almost 30 000 US troops have stationned for several decades after the US rushed into a war opposing the country and its neighbor. One day, the leader of the country wants to recover the full sovereignty on all its territory and not to let anymore its own forces at the disposal of its US ally. Firmly resolved to recover a genuine political and military independence, the leader orders the closure of all the US bases and all the US troops have to pull out of the country. Of course, conservative medias criticize such a decision, saying that is "not grateful" toward the "liberators" of the country. Furthermore, these medias point that the presence of the US troops on the national soil was a guaranty against the risk of a communist agression. On the contrary, according to other medias, the new autonomy would prevent the involvement of the country in a war for the US interests.

That might be the scenario for a future withdrawal of the US forces from South Korea. That happened in France in 1966 when the President of the French Republic Charles de Gaulle decided that France would withdraw from North Atlantic Treaty Organization's integrated military structure.

The situation in France in 1966 has some common characteristics with the situatiion in South Korea in 2013. But the geopolitical contexts are quite different and France escaped from US control by using others means than those South Korea should use to do so.

 

The withdrawal of the US troop as a new declaration of independence

A withdrawal of the US troops from South Korea would mean a new declaration of independence for this country, that would be a good thing per se. That would be a good thing for the global peace too. National independence and global peace were two major arguments when France decided that it would withdraw from NATO's integrated military structure and close the US military bases on its territory.

In 1966, the withdrawal of the US troops from France happened after a deep revision of the French military and foreign policy caused by the recent autonomous French nuclear deterrent (on February 13, 1960 the first French nuclear device exploded in Sahara desert). Let's add the personnal prestige of then President of the French Republic Charles de Gaulle and the old dispute opposing de Gaulle and the ''Anglo-Saxons''.

When General de Gaulle led the Free French Forces during World War II and the German occupation of France (1940-1944), he opposed, with success, the so-called "Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories" (AMGOT), an English-American project of implementing a military rule in France after its liberation. When de Gaulle became President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic in 1944 he pursued a balanced foreign policy with the United States and the Soviet Union. On November 17, 1945, de Gaulle said in a public speech that "a French policy of equilibrium between two very great powers" would be "absolutely necessary for the sake of the country and even for the sake of the peace". In 1946, de Gaulle left power and, when the Cold War began, France chose the US side and entered the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949.

Back to power in 1958, de Gaulle wanted to recover the full sovereignty of France, while the East-West relations were evolving quickly, especially after the recent major achievments of the Soviet Union in the military and space

fields : explosion of an A-bomb in 1949, explosion of a H-bomb in 1953, launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957, meaning the Soviet Union could from now reach the US mainland with its nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, in the early 1960s, the US Administration spelled out its doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD), turning obvious the limits of the US "nuclear umbrella" : Could the United Stated sacrifice its European allies in a war against the Soviet Union? Could the United States risk its own existence in order to protect Western Europe? Furthermore, according to Washington, solidarity between Western countries shouldn't have been limited to the North Atlantic area but extended to all East-West matters, anywhere in the world.

So, France had to escape from a US control while the continual pursuit of global hegemony by the United States could drag its allies in a war they didn't want to make and not for their vital interests.

Driven by the new autonomy offered by the holding of nuclear weapons, President de Gaulle freed France from the US supervision by withdrawing the country from NATO's integrated military structure, amid several dramatic diplomatic moves :

- on January 27, 1964, France was the first occidental country to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China;

- on June 30, 1966, in Moscow, de Gaulle gave a speech, which was broadcast on Soviet radio and television, saying "Soviet and French, we can take each other by the hand" in order to ensure "that our ancient continent, united and no longer divided, resumes the vital role which is its due, in the interests of the equilibrium, the progress and the peace of the world";

- on September 1, 1966, in Phnom Penh, he stated that the conflict in Vietnam "will have no military solution" and called "the act of renouncing [by the United States] a distant expedition once it appears unprofitable and unjustifiable and of substituting for it an international arrangement organizing the peace and development of an important region of the world";

- on July 24, 1967, in Montreal, near the United States, de Gaulle caused a diplomatic uproar with Canada and inflamed the Quebec sovereignty movement by ending his address with these words : "Long live free Quebec!"...

Regarding the withdrawal from NATO's integrated military structure, Charles de Gaulle (which was reelected three months before, receiving 55 % of the vote in the first direct presidential election in France since 1848) announced his decision to the US President Lyndon Johnson on March 7, 1966. France, de Gaulle said, "is determined to regain on her whole territory the full exercise of her sovereignty, at present diminished by the permanent presence of allied military elements or by the use which is made of her airspace; to cease her participation in the integrated commands; and no longer to place her forces at the disposal of NATO." But France "is ready to reach agreement with them as to the military facilities to be accorded mutually in the event of a conflict in which she would take part on their side". To sum up, France "had considered herself compelled to modify the form of [the] Alliance, without altering its substance."

One year later, on March 14, 1967, the withdrawal of the US troops from France was complete and the US Forces Command in Europe and Allied Forces Supreme Command in Europe transferred from Saint-Germain-en-Laye (west of Paris) to Mons, Belgium. The United States pulled 27 000 troops and 37 000 employees out of France and closed 30 military bases on the French territory.

Nowadays, if South Korea wants to deeply revise its alliance with the United States, it would have to follow a road a little bit different from the road the France followed fifty years ago.

 

Firstly, the characteristics of a new political and military autonomy can't be the same in France in 1966 and in South Korea in 2013, especially because of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, South Korea could state loud and clear its desire for independence and could escape from a US control by other means, for example :

- by regaining peacetime and wartime operational control of the South Korean forces ;

- by engaging in inter-Korean dialogue for an eventual reunification of Korea, according to the spirit of “by-the- Korean-people-themselves”, and by fully implementing the North-South Declarations of June 15, 2000 and October 4, 2007.

Secondly, today's South Korean leaders don't have the personnal prestige of French President de Gaulle and they don't have an old dispute with the United States concerning its project for the after-war administration of South Korea. In 1944, General de Gaulle, then leader of the Free French Forces, opposed, with success, the implementation in France of the "Allied Military Government for Occupied Territories" by the United States. By comparison, after its liberation in 1945 from the colonial rule of Japan, Korea was divided and the so-called "United States Army Military Government in Korea" (USAMGIK) was implemented in its southern part. USAMGIK was the official ruling body of the southern half of the Korean Peninsula from September 8, 1945 to August 15, 1948. Many of the foundations for the today's South Korea were laid during this period.

Another important point, France in 1966 and South Korea in 2013, although sharing some common characteristics, occupy different places in US strategic views.

 

Different places for France and South Korea in US geostrategic views

When the United States pulled its troops out of France in 1966, the United States didn't remove its troops from Western Europe and it sent them to other European allied countries, sometimes closer to the Soviet ennemy. While the United States were seeking global hegemony, US strategists were at this time mostly inspired by the conceptions of Halford John Mackinder (1861–1947), an English geographer who is regarded as one of the founding fathers of both geopolitics and geostrategy. In 1919, Mackinder wrote : "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland [the middle of the Eurasian continent, Russia]; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island [the supercontinent constituted by Europe, Asia and Africa]; Who rules the World Island commands the World."

Nowadays, Eastern Asia is replacing Western Europe as a "pivot" for America's power, as underlined the US Defense Statregic Guidance released in January 2012 : "US economic and security interests are inextricably linked to developments in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia, creating a mix of evolving challenges and opportunities. Accordingly, while the US military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region."

When the Bush Administration came into office in early 2001, it wanted to resurrect the permanent-dominance doctrine spelled out in the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for fiscal years 1994-99, the first formal statement of US strategic goals in the post-Soviet era. According to the DPG, the primary aim of US strategy would be to bar the rise of any future competitor that might challenge America's overwhelming military superiority. So, since the early 2000s, China has been identified by the United States as its main future strategic advsersary, and South Korea is the only settlement of the US ground forces in the Eastern part of the Eurasian continent, near China.

The US Navy is planning to send 60 % of its naval units to the Asia-Pacific area by 2020, with, among other things, 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, 20 assault ships, 50 nuclear-powered attack submarine, more or less.

Furthermore, the US Navy has the capacity to ensure the permanent presence of its fleet on all the oceans, in order to exercise control over the strategic flows and to intervene quickly everywhere in the world, thanks to a naval bases network on the US territory and in its allied countries. This global network allows the United States to preposition and to supply joint military units in anticipation of future conflicts, and the largest bases are able to maintain and repare ships so they don't have to sail back regularly to the United States.

Yet when we observe the trade and economic flows, we can see that the United States is less relying on imports and on maritime flows, compared to European and Asian countries : the United States imports approximatively 60 % of its fuel from the American continent, the US openness ratio (ratio of foreign trade to GDP) is lower than in Europe, and the US growth is dependent mainly on US domestic consumption. To the contrary, China is dependent on exports. So, it can be said that the maritime power of the United States is less intended to ensure its own supplies than to exercise control over the supplies of any future competitor.

China relies on the US market to sell its products, but the dependence of the United States on China has been growing for several years : in 2009, China became the main foreign holder of US debt, followed by Japan, and the total value of US Treasury bonds held by China reached $1.3 trillion in October 2013 (out of a total US public debt of $16.8 trillion). The Chinese investments in US public debt have been promoted by the strong trade surplus made by China, especially since China entered the World Trade Organisation in December 2001 and since the Chinese currency has been undervalued.

Here are two paradoxal points :

Firstly, in the bipolar world of the 1960s, when the American block opposed the Soviet block, the United States was more sure of its own power than it is in the unipolar world of the post-Cold War era, where the US superpower is affraid of emerging powers that could challenge US global hegemony, especially China.

Secondly, by financing the US debt, China is financing its containment by the United States. But, given the high amount of US Treasury bonds it holds, China is also worried about the risk of default by the US government on its debt and could seek a disconnection of the Chinese economy from the US economy, hasting the coming of a ''de- Americanized'' world in which the US dollar is no longer the international reserve currency.

On october 13, 2013, the Chinese official news agency Xinhua clearly stated : 'Instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas, instigating regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies.'

It is a dangerous game that may lead to a major conflict between a declining power and an emerging power, and Korea is on the front line as the only bridgehead for the United States in the Eastern part of the Eurasian continent, top priority for the US defense. Any loss of the influence of the United States in Eastern Asia, an area on which it is always more dependent, would represent an unbearable risk, and the Korean Peninsula is one of the keys for the control over Eastern Asia. In other words, a permanent peace in Korea and, with stronger reason, a reunified Korea, out of which the foreign troops would be pulled, represent a major geopolitical risk for the US superpower seeking to maintain its global hegemony.

In October 1953, the United States and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) signed a Mutual Defense Treaty. This Treaty is a threat for peace in Korean Peninsula because Article III stipulates : ''Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.''

Precisely, in 1966, French President de Gaulle didn't want France to be dragged in such a conflict not in accordance with its national interest and decided that France would withdraw from NATO's integrated military structure (in 2009, France returned into full membership, including rejoining the integrated military command).

In South Korea, the Combined Forces Command (CFC) between the US forces and the South Korean forces may be deeply revised in the coming years : in 1994, the United States transferred the peacetime operational control of South Korean forces to South Korea, and the wartime operational control should be transferred to South Korea by 2015. That would be a major change, while, according to its new defense strategy, the United States is planning to send 60 % of its oversea forces to the Asia-Pacific area by 2020. So, there is growing interest by the United States in another military structure, namely the United Nations Command (UNC) in Korea, established by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 adopted on July 7, 1950. The United States would like to transform the UNC into a "multinational forces command" which would serve as a matrix of the Asian version of NATO, relying on the existing alliances between the United States and South Korea and between the United States and Japan.

So, a permanent peace regime in Korea, including the withdrawal of the US troops from Korea, meets a major challenge : in Korea, replacing the 1953 cease-fire agreement with a permanent comprehensive peace settlement implies that the United Nations Command would be dismantled. But the United Nations Command is now at the center of the US plans, according to the new US strategy in Asia.

In such a context, North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs give a pretext for the US strategists to keep the US ground forces in South Korea, near the Chinese territory. The Obama administration's ''Strategic Patience'' policy towards Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is in line with the policy pursued by the worst neoconservative hawks who served in the Bush administration, for example, John Bolton, who served as Under Secretary of State for Arms control and International Security from 2001 to 2005, and as Ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006.

On March 17, 2008, Bolton wrote in the Wall Street Journal that ''President Bush should [rectify] the Six-Party concessions and put North Korea back under international pressure—efforts that would be welcomed by Japan, and South Korea's new, far more realistic President Lee Myung-bak''. Here are the five steps to take, according to Bolton:

1) Declare North Korea's repeated refusal to honor its commitments unacceptable. 2) Suspend the Six-Party Talks, and reconvene talks without North Korea, allowing Japan, South Korea and the

United States to begin applying real pressure to China.

3) Strengthen international pressure on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, by reminding Russia and China to comply with the sanctions imposed on North Korea by UN Security Council Resolutions.

4) Squeeze North Korea economically. 5) Prepare contingency plans for humanitarian relief in the event of increased North Korean refugee flows or a

regime collapse.

So, in an absolutely cynical way, the US neoconservatives declare they want to provoke a humanitarian crisis in North Korea that will require the United States to respond by sending its troops as near as possible to the border with China.

But Bolton and his neoconservative friends seem to have forgotten one important point : North Korea's nuclear program is a consequence, not the cause, of the absence of peace on the Korean Peninsula. So, a ''complete, verifiable and irreversible'' dismantlement of the DPRK's nuclear weapons program can only be accomplished after the conclusion of a Peace Treaty formally ending the Korean War between belligerents : the United States of America (although US General Harrison signed the Korean Armistice Agreement on behalf of the United Nations Command) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The Korean Peninsula looks like a geopolitical subduction zone. In geology, subduction is the process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate and sinks into the mantle as the plates converge. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones. These areas are subject to many earthquakes, which are caused by the interactions between the subducting slab and the mantle. As it happens, one tectonic plate is the United States, the other tectonic plate is China, and convergent boundaries are countries like Korea, with a lot of earthquakes to come.

Korea is often considered to be a ''shrimp amongst whales''. Today, Korea is at risk to be dragged, and crushed, in a conflict over stakes that go far beyond Korea. In this context, a new declaration of Korean independence would be a good thing, for Korea and for the whole world. This new declaration of independence could consist of an in- depth inter-Korean dialogue, following on from the North-South Declarations of June 15, 2000 and October 4, 2007, and of a deep re-examination of the alliance between South Korea and the United States, by revising the CFC or the ''renewed'' UNC, with a short term goal : the withdrawal of the US troops from South Korea. In South Korea, those who want to recover the full sovereignty of their country could take inspiration from the 1966 French precedent, while keeping in mind the differences between the two situations. The most important point is to oppose the US attempt to make South Korea a bridgehead for a coming and devastating conflict against China.

In conclusion, let's free ourselves again from time and space with an imaginary dialogue between the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and French President Charles de Gaulle :

– ''If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.'(Madeleine Albright interviewed by NBC, on February 19, 1998)

– ''No chance that the peoples of Asia will subject themselves to the law of the foreigner who comes from the other shores of the Pacific, whatever his intentions, however powerful his weapons.'' (Charles de Gaulle in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, on September 1, 1966)

 

Main references :

Dominique Vidal, '' L’Alliance atlantique à la recherche de nouvelles missions - Ce que voulait de Gaulle en 1966 '', Le Monde diplomatique, April 2008

Michael T. Klare, "Target China: The Emerging US-China Conflict", Japan Focus, April 19, 2006 Pierre Royer, Géopolitique des mers et des océans, collection Major, PUF, 2012

Laboratoire européen d'anticipation politique, '' La désaméricanisation du monde a commencé – émergence de solutions vers un monde multipolaire d’ici 2015 '', Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin, N°78, October 15, 2013

 

U.S.-DPRK Peace Treaty

=Benefit to the U.S.=

 

Moon J. Pak

(November 13, 2013)

 

 

The three year long Korean War had nearly completely devastated the Korean Peninsula. The war that had caused the two million casualties ended in a ceasefire on July 27, 1953, 60 years ago, by an Armistice Treaty signed in a small village called Panmunjom near DMZ (Demilitarized Zone).  The Koreans on the peninsula numbering 30 million at the time, who fought this war of proxy, entangled in the cold war between the super powers, not fully understanding the political ideologies involved in the conflict, roamed on the war-torn land hungry, cold, poor and powerless. 

 

The Korea, although located in a geopolitically critical area in Northeast Asia, had been able to maintain its sovereignty over 5,000 years of its history, during which time although enmeshed in countless foreign invasions, was able to maintain its ethnic identity, cultural uniqueness and territorial integrity at least on the peninsula.

 

However, the corruption, ignorance and social injustice rampant in the last days of the feudal Lee Dynasty, resulted in the 36 years of Japanese colonial occupation that began in 1910. The end of the WWII had resulted in the division of the country between the North and South by the decisions of the victorious Allied Powers (Yalta and Potsdam Agreements), thus sowing the seed of the Korean War.

 

The Panmunjom Armistice Accord brought the ceasefire on the peninsula. The Treaty had a clause that defined that within three months, there will be a signing of the Peace Treaty between the signatories, mainly the U.S., China and North Korea. In spite of the persistent request from the North in the past 60 years, this promise was never carried out by the U.S.

 

In spite of this continued division and the threat of resumption of the war, the Korean peninsula in the past 60 years has seen a remarkable and almost miraculous economic development. The combined population has increased to 70 million strong, and at least in the South its GDP has grown to approaching 11^th of the world and average life span approaching 80 years of age.  In national defense, it has a combined armed force of 1.5 million, and in North it has nuclear arms with missile technology providing the country with the firm deterrence from any foreign threat.

 

 A new era has begun on Korean peninsula that could also bring peace and prosperity in the entire Northeast Asia, and for this reason it is essential that there be peace and improved relationship between the two Koreas for which the Peace Treaty and normalization of the international relationship between North Korea and the United States is an absolute prerequisite.

 

In the past half century, U.S. policy on North Korea has shown a lack of consistency and firm basic principles. It was characterized by a hegemony-based unilateral approach demonizing the North without attention to the details of the relationship based on true historical background. It was also based on unrealistic and baseless expectation that the regime is doomed to collapse eventually.

 

The U.S. policy on North Korea, or for that matter on the entire Korean peninsula, will have to be based on mutual respect, equal partnership and taking under consideration that the peninsular re-unification is the ultimate goal of all Korean people. By entering into a peaceful normalized international relationship with North Korea which in turn expedite the establishment of a peaceful normalized relationship between the two Koreas, U.S. could gain the benefit of becoming a trusted and respected partner in Northeast Asia, including Koreas, China and Japan.

 

In the past half century, U.S. has been involved in one war after another; Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian War, Iraqi War, Afghanistan War, followed by a series of conflicts in Mideast. It has damaged the country’s perception in the world and also the national purpose established by its founding fathers. It has been feared by others as a hegemonic, imperialistic, militaristic and dangerous superpower. Ending the Korean War by converting existing Armistice Treaty into a Peace Treaty, U.S. will regain her long lost international respect and trust, and more importantly return to a country as envisioned by its founding fathers.

 

The half century of war has had a tremendous negative effect on U.S. economy. Piling up of crushing national debt, economic depression almost comparable to the period of 1930’s, record widening of gaps between the rich and poor resulting in social instability. The Peace Treaty with North Korea thus ending the enmity with the country may become the first step away from its war economy and a move toward the return of prosperity and social stability in the U.S.

It has been said that the 21^st century is opened by China. Its rapid development and metamorphosis are gaining momentum unprecedented in human history. In this context, the role of the United States as the leading power in economy, military, technology and culture should not be the one competing against them or deterring their emergence, or fearing their future power. It should rather look upon the developing China in a futuristic peaceful framework based on friendship and partnership. It should be ready to assist China’s development, provide companionship, leadership and even partnership in many international affairs. In this context, it becomes clear that the stable peaceful relationship between the U.S. and the Korea, both North and South will be a great geopolitical benefit to the U.S.

 

In other words, U.S. Asia Pivot Policy might be an essential and natural direction for the country, except that it must not be a military pivoting but a peaceful, friendly and socio-economic and cultural pivoting.

 

Korea has been a closest neighbor of the China by history, geography, and culture in the past 5,000 years. The relationship had often been tumultuous and also often politically delicate. Koreans respect China but Koreans also suspect China. By normalizing relationship with North Korea and promoting the peaceful re-unification of the two Koreas, thus ensuring the emergence in the peninsula of a militarily strong, technically advanced, economically well-endowed partner, U.S. will gain a tremendous benefit in the formulation and conduct of its China policy.

 

Lastly, one of the major benefits of Peace Treaty with North Korea and subsequent normalization of the relationship with both Koreas to the U.S. is its implication on her economy. The re-unification of the two Koreas will bring about, 70 million combined population, composed of highly trained and motivated work force from both sides, limitless and varied mineral resources from North, wealth of capitals and known, highly developed  technical resources from South, and needless to say, access to the world’s largest market right across the border.

 

“The Miracle of Han River” could be repeated as the “Miracle of Daedong River” The U.S. could be an essential and active partner in this epochal event on the peninsula. Furthermore, through its partnership with Koreas, it will participate in the China’s development as well as the future economic enterprises involving Manchuria, Siberia, vast undeveloped areas known to be rich in natural resources with endless energy potential.

 

Ending the Korean War; converting the Armistice Treaty into a Peace Treaty with North Korea and promoting the reconciliation between the two Koreas, therefore will have a tremendous beneficial effect on the future of the United States.

 

=End=

 

Moon J. Pak, M.D., Ph.D.

Senior VP, Korean American National Coordinating Council (KANCC)

Chairman, US-DPRK Medical Science Exchange Committee (UDMEDEX)