Mar/Apr 2013 - Korean War Veterans Association

16
Recognition of the Ongoing Nature of the
Korean War from 1953 to Date
By John Gavel
Does an armistice end a war? Is there still an armistice
in effect? How will peace be achieved? What is the
appropriate way to view duty in Korea, peacetime or
wartime?
Does an armistice end a war?
An armistice is not a peace treaty. While the objective of
an armistice agreement is to bring about a cease-fire, a halt to
hostilities, that halt may be indefinite or for a specified period
of time only. An armistice agreement does not terminate
the state of war between the belligerents. A state of war continues
to exist with all of its implications for the belligerents
and for the neutrals.
In the only other instance in which this issue has arisen,
the 1949 armistices between Israel and the Arab States, peace
treaties have expressly superseded the armistices between
Egypt and Israel and Egypt and Jordan. Syria has continued
to maintain that it is in a state of war with Israel despite the
armistice.
Sixteen nations signed a Joint Policy Declaration supporting
the armistice and pledging that if there is a renewal of the
armed attack, challenging again the principles of the UN, we
should again be united and prompt to resist.
Is there still an armistice in effect?
First, let us address the armistice agreement itself, then the
efforts to enforce it.
Clause 62, Article V, of the Armistice Agreement says that
it shall remain in effect until expressly superseded either by
mutually acceptable amendments and additions or by an
appropriate agreement for a peaceful settlement at a political
level between both sides.
Article 5 on the South-North Agreement in Principle states
that South and North will make every effort together to
replace the current Armistice Agreement by a permanent
peace settlement and must follow the current Armistice
Agreement.
Provisions and mechanisms of the agreement have not survived
totally intact. When one side ignored provisions, notice
was given that the other side would no longer abide by them.
Unified Command’s report A/3631 in 1957 announced that in
order to maintain the relative military balance in the face of
violation by the Communist side of subparagraph 13(d), it
was relieved of compliance with this provision in order to
prevent the resumption of war in Korea rather than invite it.
The UNC intends to fully observe the ceasefire provision and
all other provisions, as it has in the past.
In the 1990s, North Korea openly concentrated on ending
the Armistice Agreement system, including the MAC and
NNSC. After refusal of MAC meetings in 1991, North Korea
requested General Officer (GO) talks between the United
States and North Korea in March 1995. This suggestion
The defense structure in Korea was eventually
overtaken by the professional growth
and development of the Republic of Korea’s
(ROK) armed forces. It is remarkable that
control of ROK forces in peacetime and
wartime was ceded to the U.S. from 1950
almost to date.
divulged North Korea’s intention to ignore the UNC.
However, it could not avoid accepting a February 1998
amendment by the UNC and ROK Ministry of National
Defense (MND) that the GO Talks are not between the
United States and North Korea, but between the UNC and
North Korea.
GO Talks were held 15 times through 2003, and carried
out the role of maintaining the Armistice Agreement and the
function of managing crises in Korea.
In 1993 Poland and Czechoslovakia withdrew from Korea
because of the political upheavals in Eastern Europe. Today,
five Swiss representatives and five Swedish representatives
stationed in Panmunjom, South Korea are on duty for the
NNSC. Presently, their main task is to show a presence at the
inner Korean border and demonstrate that the cease-fire is
still in force.
Occasionally, Polish delegates attend the meetings at
Panmunjom, albeit through South Korea, as Poland has
changed sides politically.
North Korea formally withdrew from the MAC in 1994
and had previously declared the NNSC defunct in 1991. In
February 1996, North Korea recommended a so-called “U.S.-
DPRK Temporary Agreement and Military Authority,” and
even declared that it had abandoned its responsibility to
maintain the DMZ.
In October 1996, the Security Council made its most
definitive statement on the status of the armistice since its
original resolutions in the early 1950s. The President of the
Council made a statement on behalf of the Council, which
“urge[d] that the Korean Armistice Agreement should be
fully observed” and “stress[ed] that the Armistice Agreement
shall remain in force until it is replaced by a new peace
mechanism.”
All members of the Council, including the United States
and China, i.e., two of the principal belligerents whose generals
signed the Armistice, approved the statement. This
statement was intended to effectively refute any suggestion
that the armistice is no longer in full force and effect. North
Korea responded by denouncing the armistice agreement in
March - April 2013
The Graybeards