09-151.pdf

At the meeting convened on November 14, the North urged
repatriation of the corpses, but since the South claimed that there was
no evidence to prove that they were soldiers, the issue could not be
resolved through the MAC but at government level. The North argued
that to handle the issue as a political one was to abandon implementation
of the Armistice Agreement. The UNC/MAC claimed that the
North, by unilaterally withdrawing from the MAC in April 1994, had
severely violated the agreement. At the meeting held on November 19,
the North urged repatriation of the bodies through a military body,
while the South again asserted a solution at government level since
there was no rule to repatriate killed agents through the MAC and no
such practice. The South Korean representative claimed that if the
North really wanted repatriation, it should provide a convincing
excuse and a promise to the government to prevent a recurrence.
At the meeting convened on November 26, the North urged that
repatriation should take place through a military body at Panmunjom
and that the issue should not be abused for political purposes. The
South maintained its position that the issue should be resolved at
government level. At the meeting held on December 3, the North
claimed that, with regard to the repatriation issue, the Armistice
Agreement should not be used for political purposes, while the South
urged a solution at government level. At the final meeting held on
December 17, the North still claimed that the repatriation issue should
not be abused politically and that the corpses should be unconditionally
returned. Besides the MAC, the US State Department Country Director
for Korea and North Korea’s Director General of American affairs met
on nine separate days in December to resolve the issue. 344
344_ Harrison, op. cit., p. 21; Kukpang chôngbo ponbu, ibid., 1997, pp. 127-132;
North Korea Incapacitates the MAC and the NNSC in the 1990s
447