Koreas might finally sign armistice (US pushing treaty)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | November 6, 2003 | Shane Green Herald Correspondent in Tokyo

[dead]

The United States is reportedly proposing a treaty that would finally bring peace to the Korean peninsula 50 years after the end of the Korean War, as part of the deal to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis.

North and South Korea are still technically at war because South Korea did not sign the armistice that ended the conflict in 1953.

Japan's Nikkei financial newspaper reported yesterday that Washington had proposed the peace treaty in talks with North Korea earlier this year.

The treaty would be signed by the original armistice signatories - North Korea, the US and China. South Korea and Japan would also be included.

The agreement would depend on North Korea ending its nuclear arms program and resolving concerns about its missile capability, as well as its biological and chemical weapons program. It would also set down how the two Koreas should co-exist.

The US has flagged the possibility of a regional security guarantee for North Korea, something it has said it will consider.

But the US will demand a verifiable end to North Korea's nuclear program before making commitments to Pyongyang. It is determined to avoid a repeat of the 1994 deal negotiated by the Clinton administration, under which the North gave up its nuclear ambitions in return for substantial energy aid, including two light-water nuclear reactors.

That deal was voided last October when North Korea admitted having a clandestine nuclear program. Yesterday, the program to build the reactors also appeared to be dead.

Reports from New York said the US had convinced Asian and European members of the Korean Energy Development Organisation to suspend the building of the reactors.

The developments come as intense diplomatic efforts continue to convene peace talks on the nuclear crisis by the end of next month. They will be the third round of six-nation talks organised by China, which has played a central role in attempting to solve the crisis.

[CanisMajor2002]

"Trust but verify"...repeatedly. :)

[Semper Paratus]

Once more onto this merry-go-round.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

An armistice is not the same thing as a peace treaty. An armistice is essentially a permanent "cease fire" agreement with provisions to assure the security of the signatories. A peace treaty is more comprehensive and results in the establishment or restoration of normal diplomatic and economic relations between the signatories.

[joey703]

im sorry, but what does a piece of paper mean to north korea?