Merely keeping inter-Korean basic accords could bring peace

The government is reportedly planning to unveil a peace declaration during North Korean Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-Il`s forthcoming visit to Seoul. President Kim Dae-Jung indirectly denied there was any such plan in a panel discussion during his recent visit to the United States. He stated that the question should be discussed in four-party peace talks involving the South and North Korea, the United States and China, the four primary Korean War participants.

According to Article 2-1 of the Vienna Treaty, agreements that are concluded in the names of governments shall be regarded as treaties. Therefore, not only a peace treaty but also the proposed peace declaration and the 1953 Armistice Agreement fall under this category. Although the relationship between South and North Korea cannot be defined as normal state-to-state relations, from this viewpoint, the South-North Basic Agreement reached in 1992 is a kind of international treaty.

As a result of the government`s efforts to promote inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation, their relationship has significantly improved and the terms ``peace declaration`` and ``peace treaty`` have been bandied about more frequently. Nonetheless, there was little discussion about what such agreements would mean or what relationship they would have to the South-North Basic Agreement.

In the first place, a peace treaty is an agreement between belligerent countries to declare an end to hostilities. In the case of the Korean War, the South and North Korea, the United States and China, as the primary participants in the war, have the authority to conclude a peace treaty under international law. Hence, the North Korean overture to sign a peace treaty with the U.S. alone contravenes international rules.

Though the contents of any peace declaration or treaty are important, these contents were already provided in the 1992 inter-Korean basic agreement. The 1973 Vietnamese Peace Treaty, 1978 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty and 1979 Middle East Peace Treaty stipulated mutual non-aggression, prohibition of interference in domestic affairs, the principles of equality and reciprocity as well as peaceful coexistence, peaceful settlement of conflicts in accordance with the United Nations Charter, confidence-building between the warring countries and other means of promoting peace among the parties involved.

In my opinion, there is no need for the South and North Korea to announce a peace declaration when the North Korean leader visits Seoul, since the contents of a peace treaty are embodied in the basic agreement. At this juncture, most important is not for the South and North Korea to conclude any new peace accords but to abide by the existing agreements in a consistent manner.

For instance, if the two sides abide by Article 17 of the basic agreement, which provides for the implementation of free travel and contacts, the pending question of reunions of some 10 million separated family members could be addressed. At the same time, this could lead to a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, the last legacy of the Cold War era.

Kim Kyung-Soo, Chief researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses