Path Theto Case Peace for a Peace Agreement to End the Korean War Korea Peace Now! Women Mobilizing to End the War | February 2021 Path to Peace: The Case for a Peace Agreement to End the Korean War February 2021 Korea Peace Now! Women Mobilizing to End the War, a global campaign to end the Korean War, produced the present report to assess how a peace-first approach can resolve the security crisis on the Korean Peninsula. This report is a collective work that benefited from Korea Peace Now! would also like to thank Kevin Gray, months of consensus-building and input. Ph.D., Professor of International Relations at the University Korea Peace Now! would like to acknowledge of Sussex; Suzy Kim, Ph.D., Professor of Korean History in particular Henri Féron, Senior Fellow at the at Rutgers University; and Paul Liem, Korea Policy Center for International Policy, as project lead. Institute, who contributed their feedback and review. This report is the collective work of the following people: External contributions were made by Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, Senior Fellow and Military Expert at Defense Ray Acheson, Director of Reaching Critical Will, Women’s Priorities; Jessica Lee, Senior Research Fellow on East International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Asia at Quincy Institute; Adam Mount, Senior Fellow and Christine Ahn, Executive Director, Women Director of the Defense Posture Project at the Federation Cross DMZ (Chapter V, “Why Women Should of American Scientists; and Hazel Smith, Professorial Be Involved in the Peace Process”) Research Associate at SOAS, University of London. Kozue Akibayashi, Professor at Doshisha University, These external contributions are strictly independent former International President of Women’s International from the Korea Peace Now! campaign and represent League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) (Chapter V, the personal views of the contributors. Their affiliations “Why Women Should Be Involved in the Peace Process”) are for identifying purposes only and do not represent the views of those institutions unless specified. Elizabeth Beavers, Advocacy Advisor, Women Cross DMZ (Chapter III, “The Implications of a Peace Agreement for Human Rights”) Edited by Kathleen Richards Maria Butler, Director of Global Programmes, Women’s Copyedited by Anne Louise Mahoney International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Designed by Brian Breneman Youngmi Cho, Executive Director of Korean Women’s Movement for Peace (Chapter V, “Why Women Should Be Involved in the Peace Process”) Korea Peace Now! Women Mobilizing to End the War is a global coalition of women’s peace organizations – Korean Henri Féron, Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy Women’s Movement for Peace, Women’s International Catherine Killough, Advocacy and Leadership League for Peace and Freedom, and Women Cross Coordinator, Women Cross DMZ DMZ – calling for an end to the Korean War with a peace Gwyn Kirk, Ph.D. (Chapter V, “Why Women agreement and women’s inclusion in the peace processes. Should Be Involved in the Peace Process”) YouKyoung Ko, Consultant, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) Hyun Lee, US National Organizer, Women Cross DMZ Marie O’Reilly, Gender, Peace and Security Consultant (Chapter V, “Why Women Should Be Involved in the Peace Process”) Kathleen Richards, Communications Director, Women Cross DMZ 2 PATH TO PEACE: THE CASE FOR A PEACE AGREEMENT TO END THE KOREAN WAR Executive Summary Despite years of negotiations, the United States, North A peace agreement would reduce the risk of nuclear Korea, and South Korea remain locked in a dangerous war and facilitate talks on disarmament or arms control. standoff. This stalemate perpetuates the worsening secu- A peace agreement that ends the wartime status quo and rity crisis on the Korean Peninsula, which poses an exis- enables the normalization of US–North Korean relations tential threat to millions of people. may create the conditions for more effective engagement This crisis is a direct result of the unresolved Korean on denuclearization by curbing the security risks fueling War, which was halted only by a fragile armistice and is North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. A peace agree- the root cause of tensions and hostilities on the Korean ment would not legally imply recognition of North Korea Peninsula. The unresolved state of the Korean War fuels as a “nuclear weapons state.” increasing militarization and carries major political and The unresolved Korean War has had a negative human economic costs. rights impact on all parties. Governments have diverted Attempts to force North Korea’s unilateral denucle- resources toward militarism and away from people’s wel- arization through pressure have continuously failed. fare and have imposed restrictions on civil liberties in the To assess how a peace-first approach can help resolve name of security. Pressure has failed to improve human the security crisis on the Korean Peninsula, the Korea rights. While a peace agreement to resolve the Korean Peace Now! campaign has produced the present report War is not a panacea, it would improve people’s lives, sap to examine the political and legal ramifications of a the militarism that undergirds abuses, and create the con- peace agreement. The authors examine the implications ditions to engage more effectively on human rights. that a peace agreement would have on top US prior- A peace agreement would also improve the national ities, including the nuclear dispute, the human rights security of South Korea and the United States and create situation, and the US–South Korean alliance. Addi- space to recalibrate their relationship in ways that better tionally, the report highlights the legal and practical fit contemporary circumstances and interests. A peace reasons for including women in a peace process to end agreement would not legally imply the end of the alliance the Korean War. or a withdrawal of US troops, unless otherwise specified. It would imply dissolution of the Armistice and the “UN Key Findings Command.” Women have a particular stake in resolving the Korean The first step in resolving the armed standoff should be War due to the gendered impacts of war and militarism. to agree to forgo use of force in its resolution. This mutu- Despite a rich history of organizing through grassroots DRAFT ally beneficial ground rule would sap the tensions driving action on the Peninsula and internationally, only very few the main security risks, the uncontrolled militarization, have been invited to formal peacemaking initiatives. Sev- and the human costs of war. eral sources of international law, including the Women, A peace agreement including the United States and Peace, and Security framework, mandate women’s inclu- the two Koreas would bindingly end the state of war, sion. Research shows that such inclusion contributes to recognizing that wartime rights to use force have ended more durable peace. once and for all. Other commonly proposed instruments, The report recommends that the United States, South such as end-of-war declarations, nonaggression agree- Korea, and North Korea immediately conclude a fair and ments, or normalization agreements, do not necessarily binding peace agreement that acts as a final settlement of end a state of war. the war and serves as a foundation for a peace regime. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 4 PATH TO PEACE: THE CASE FOR A PEACE AGREEMENT TO END THE KOREAN WAR Table of Contents Introduction 7 I. Why the Armistice Should Be Replaced with a Peace Agreement 9 What Is a Peace Agreement? 11 Parties to a Peace Agreement 12 II.The Implications of a Peace Agreement for Denuclearization 15 Background: The Nuclear Dimension of the Korean War 15 Application: Peace as Nuclear De-escalation 18 III. The Implications of a Peace Agreement for Human Rights 21 IV. The Implications of a Peace Agreement for US–ROK Relations 25 V. Why Women Should Be Involved in the Peace Process 31 VI. Recommendations 37 Annex I: Ratification of a Peace Agreement 39 US Ratification 39 South Korean Ratification 40 North Korean Ratification 40 External Contributions 41 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 6 PATH TO PEACE: THE CASE FOR A PEACE AGREEMENT TO END THE KOREAN WAR Introduction Despite several meetings between the leaders of the United States and North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea/DPRK) in recent years, the two countries have failed to make meaningful progress in negotiations on peace and denuclearization. This stale- mate perpetuates the worsening security crisis on the Korean Peninsula, which has remained a vexing prob- lem for current and past US administrations and poses an existential threat to millions of people on the Korean Peninsula, in Northeast Asia and the United States, and around the world. For the last 30 years, the United States has tried to force North Korea to unilaterally denuclearize. While there have been some agreements, these eventually col- lapsed, and over time both sides increasingly hardened their position. The more the United States engaged in a coercive diplomacy leveraging military shows of force, economic sanctions, and diplomatic isolation, the more North Korea pursued economic self-reliance and nu- clear weapons development. Despite being one of the most isolated, pressured, and sanctioned countries in the world, North Korea now has more nuclear weap- ons than ever, and its intercontinental ballistic missiles may have the capability to strike anywhere on the US mainland.1 The United States and North Korea came dangerous- Declaration, in which they committed to establish “new In April 2018, ly close to military action in 2017,2 when US President U.S.-DPRK relations” based on “peace and prosperity.”6 South Korean Donald Trump threatened to “totally destroy North Those declarations also included a commitment to work President Moon Jae-in and North DRAFT 3 Korea” and Pyongyang responded that its “rocket” toward the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Korean leader 4 would inevitably “visit” the US mainland.