09-151.pdf

Agreement should be the basis for opening passages through the MDL
and the DMZ of the Seoul-Sinûiju railway and the Munsan-Kaesông
road. Technical and military problems related to the partial opening of
the DMZ and that part of the zone under the jurisdiction of the two
Koreas would be resolved in accordance with the Armistice Agreement
on the basis of negotiations. Prior to November 17, five of eleven MAC
secretary meetings held throughout the year had dealt with the partial
opening of the DMZ. At the eleventh meeting called by the KPA held
on November 16, the parties had agreed to ratify this supplement to
the Armistice Agreement at the General Officers’ talks. Thirdly, “The
Agreement between the United Nations Command and the Korean
People’s Army on Opening Some Areas of the DMZ” reached at the
14th round of General Officers’ talks proposed by the UNC held on
September 12, 2002 on opening the eastern railway was also based on
the Armistice Agreement.
Fourthly, North Korea has never declared that it would cancel or
annul the Armistice Agreement, thereby recognizing its existence and
validity. Finally, South Korea has, after prior approval of the UNC and
the KPA, permitted passage across the MDL in line with the agreement’s
provisions. In brief, while the Armistice Agreement did not
work well, it continued to exist legally as a valid international docu-
ment. 356
After the November 17, 2000 agreement had been reached
356_ Hammarström, Rapport för september 2000: Bilaga 1 (n. p., September 29, 2000),
pp. 3-4; Hapch’am chôngbo ponbu, Kunsa chôngjôn wiwônhoe p’yôllam: che 5 chip,,
2001, pp. 149, 159, 161, 162, 163: op. cit., 2003, pp. 30, 42; Jhe, “Chôngjôn
hyôpchông-gwa Nambuk kyoryu hyômnyôk,” 2005, pp. 162-5; Jonsson, ibid., p.
75; Kim (ed.), The Korean DMZ: Reverting beyond Division, 2001, p. 359.
Expanding Relations but Continuing Tension since 2000
469