Diverging Positions on Declaration to End Korean War

National Intelligence Service (NIS) Chief Kim Man-bok defended Cheong Wa Dae October 30, as some in the government and academia continue to criticize the government about the form and timing of the “declaration to end the Korean War by three or four parties” agreed upon at the inter-Korean summit last month.

They point out that the government’s call for a declaration ending the war without denuclearization on the Korean peninsula, and that the government is obsessed with achieving something for the sake of its legacy.

Kim argued in a piece posted on the www.korea.net website, “As parties to the armistice agreed to have negotiations for a peace treaty in an appropriate forum in the September joint statement agreed to in 2005, and in the 2007 February agreement, it is only natural to start the peace process with a declaration ending the war.”

Cheong Wa Dae and NIS Want to Keep Momentum-

Kim also said, “Such a declaration should be pushed ahead with in consideration for the will and circumstances of parties. For parties who need confidence building, in particular, such a declaration is very useful as a tool to build confidence prior to establishing a full-fledged peace regime.”

He added, “There is no fixed way to make a declaration ending the war. As long as the declaration can contribute to establishing a peace regime on the peninsula, its timing and form should not restrict us.”

In response, Kim Tae-hyo, politics and diplomacy professor at Sungkyunkwan University, said, “The U.S., a party to the declaration, requires verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons as precondition and clearly equated such a declaration to a peace treaty. It is inappropriate in many ways that the head of the national intelligence body makes a politically controversial argument.”

Foreign Ministry Searching for a Happy Medium-

The Foreign Ministry seems to have been taken aback by Cheong Wa Dae and the NIS forcefully pushing ahead with a declaration to end the war. But, internally, it still sticks to its initial position that it is not right both in legal and logical sense that the presidential office works to make such declaration when the political and military consent needed for a peace regime on the peninsula is lacking. However, it also signals that it could find a happy medium between the positions of Cheong Wa Dae and the White House by a flexible interpretation of the meaning of the declaration.

Foreign Minister Song Min-soon said yesterday, “There is a point when an issue started from working levels requires political momentum. We are open to the possibility that the level of dialogue could go up on that stage.”

The U.S. Sticks to Principles-

The official position of the U.S. regarding this issue is that a “complete and verifiable dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and programs” is the prerequisite for discussion on a declaration to end the war or a peace regime. For this reason, U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow said, “I don’t think it is possible to make a declaration to end the war by year’s end.”

Song might deliver Cheong Wa Dae’s “strong will” to make such a declaration in talks with his U.S. counterpart Condoleezza Rice scheduled for November 7. However, there is a slim chance the U.S. will accept a “political event,” violating its aforementioned “principles.”

triplets@donga.com