In 1951, the Korean
War ended in bloody deadlock. . The Korean War grew out of border disputes
between North and South Korea which were interpreted by many as a clash between
democracy and dictatorial communism. Through the intrusion of foreign
countries, what was a local disturbance was transformed into a wider dispute
with millions of casualties on both sides.
The war was followed by 3 years of
negotiations, which like the war itself ended in stalemate. Although a truce
was obtained, a peace treaty remained elusive. The world has been living with
this situation ever since. After nearly 1 million deaths North Korea has sought
some sort of meaning to the war. Not only did they not achieve their goal of unification
of North and South but also the brutality of the regime and the absence of free
elections has led many to question the very legitimacy of their government. In response,
North Korea has developed nuclear weapons approaching parity with other nuclear
powers. This situation has resulted in a
new cold war with North Korea and its Chinese and Russian backers and with the
United States and its allies as protagonists.
The new reality cries out for a solution.
The October 2, 2017 issue
of Time Magazine contained an article
summarizing the difficulties of convincing North Korea to give up its nuclear
arsenal. The article by Philip Bobbitt was based on a longer work referenced in
the Time article available online at
the Time Website. The article consisted
of a series of impediments to a final solution:
There is nothing the Unite States can do to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, since such
a measure would rob them of their security.
There is nothing the US can do for
North Korea to accomplish the same end, for the same reason.
There is nothing the international community can do regarding sanctions
since it is only the threat of nuclear weapons that prevents regime change.
After expressing these difficulties, the
article suggested another option, which is inherently dangerous. I.e. a direct
attack on North Korea’s nuclear facilities. The author admitted that such an
approach would invite a vengeful North Korean response including the use of
nuclear weapons and possibly a worldwide war involving China and Russia.
The article ended
with a safer alternative, i.e. involvement of China to provide a nuclear guarantee
to Korea to defend its existence and governmental legitimacy. The advantage to
China would be that it could assume the role of a world player and hence raise
its own prestige. With the threat from
the United States removed, North Korea might see itself clear to reducing its
nuclear arsenal. The problem with this solution is resistance by the North
Koreans who are burdened by the weight of memory of an endless and senseless
civil war, consequent to foreign involvement.
Other analysts have contributed suggestions
for further solutions.
On Sept 7.2017 John Badgley
proposed how this situation might be
remedied. He suggested that what the North desired was leverage in dealing with
the rest of the world. A solution to the problem might be to pick up where the
world left off in 1953 and to obtain a peace treaty that would satisfy all
sides. He suggested referral to the United Nations Security Council. Clearly we
must deal with unfinished business.
In conclusion, when
truces are instituted to halt conflicts, peace treaties usual follow to settle
political differences. This was never achieved for the Korean War and we are
left with tragic memories. It may be the
“forgotten war” to us but the North Korean people have not forgotten it. In order
to bring closure, a peace treaty between the combatants is required. However, there is no clear pathway for this
desired outcome other than to accept Korea as a nuclear power. Furthermore one
needs to abandon demonization of the North Norean people and to recognize our
shared humanity. Thus one must recognize the wishes and yearnings of the North Korean
people. Like all people recovering from war they wish to obtain meaning for
their suffering. In addition they desire
aid to reverse the devastating effects of sanctions from the United States whom
they blame for their economic suffering. Many find meaning in their leader Kim Jong
Un, who demands respect from his people and from the rest of the world, based
on military might. For this reason, it is essential for them to retain their
nuclear threat.
We have lived
through this before in our dealings with the Soviet Union. Mutual assured
destruction seems insane but is actually world stabilizing and may be required
for a peace treaty. Since the war was
fought with the consent of the United Nations referral to the United Nations
Security Council seems feasible and advisable. Although Kim Jong Un has been
demonized and has been declared psychotic, there is little evidence for this. Mutual provocations have been proven to have limited
utility. It is time to achieve the peace that we have all yearned for.
