Concept of "peace regime" on Korean Peninsula needs clarification: Experts
- 6 years ago
How to build peace on the Korean Peninsula was one of the major discussion points at this year's Jeju Forum,.... where hundreds of opinion leaders and officials gathered earlier this week.
But the notion of a "peace regime," needs clarification, according to our Oh Soo-young who sat down with experts on the issue.
Establishing lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula was one of the agreements made between U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, earlier this month.
But building this so-called 'peace regime' may be easier said than done, according to experts at South Korea's Jeju Forum, who believe the term is too vague.
"A peace regime, I think that is just some kind of naming a greater role of China and the U.S. to make sure the two Koreas are sort of demobilizing maybe in sync. Since they use the word regime, that does suggest some kind of normalized institutions so maybe there will be some kind of overwatch institution, maybe the UN will have some greater role. Inspectors would help... Some kind of a deal in the NLL would be great as well because that's where there were clashes in the past.
But such steps to establish peace, including a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War,... may be premature at this point,... without first clearing up specific details of the denuclearization process,... which some experts believe the Trump-Kim statement failed to achieve.
"They (North Koreans) will not go to zero. They will probably get some cuts over caps in nukes and missiles. I think we should bargain for that and I think that's one of the things we should exchange in the peace treaty. But if the demands are what the Americans have said, CVID, where the North Koreans give up everything if the demand is they completely go to zero before peace treaty that will never happen and we will have no peace treaty.If the normalization of North Korea is where we are going we will have to take place with some kind of nuclear weapon"
On the other hand, those like China who support Pyongyang's phased and synchronized approach to dismantling its nukes believe that peace and denuclearization are two sides of the same coin.
"I think China's concern is especially how to build up the peace regime. What kind of peace regime? What kind of general security? What kind of international verification? What kind of inspection? All must have China's rule to play... And if the U.S. is reluctant to provide normal diplomatic relations with N. Korea and provide with other powers a security guarantee, I don't think this would resolve N. Korea's issue of accountability."
Seoul has, throughout the years, often mentioned the building of a peace regime,... loosely defining it as a state of coexistence with political, military and economic trust,... and no more threat of war between the two Koreas.
But turning theory into practice requires clarification of what the goals are and which parties will be involved.
Oh Sooyoung, Arirang News, Jeju.
But the notion of a "peace regime," needs clarification, according to our Oh Soo-young who sat down with experts on the issue.
Establishing lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula was one of the agreements made between U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, earlier this month.
But building this so-called 'peace regime' may be easier said than done, according to experts at South Korea's Jeju Forum, who believe the term is too vague.
"A peace regime, I think that is just some kind of naming a greater role of China and the U.S. to make sure the two Koreas are sort of demobilizing maybe in sync. Since they use the word regime, that does suggest some kind of normalized institutions so maybe there will be some kind of overwatch institution, maybe the UN will have some greater role. Inspectors would help... Some kind of a deal in the NLL would be great as well because that's where there were clashes in the past.
But such steps to establish peace, including a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War,... may be premature at this point,... without first clearing up specific details of the denuclearization process,... which some experts believe the Trump-Kim statement failed to achieve.
"They (North Koreans) will not go to zero. They will probably get some cuts over caps in nukes and missiles. I think we should bargain for that and I think that's one of the things we should exchange in the peace treaty. But if the demands are what the Americans have said, CVID, where the North Koreans give up everything if the demand is they completely go to zero before peace treaty that will never happen and we will have no peace treaty.If the normalization of North Korea is where we are going we will have to take place with some kind of nuclear weapon"
On the other hand, those like China who support Pyongyang's phased and synchronized approach to dismantling its nukes believe that peace and denuclearization are two sides of the same coin.
"I think China's concern is especially how to build up the peace regime. What kind of peace regime? What kind of general security? What kind of international verification? What kind of inspection? All must have China's rule to play... And if the U.S. is reluctant to provide normal diplomatic relations with N. Korea and provide with other powers a security guarantee, I don't think this would resolve N. Korea's issue of accountability."
Seoul has, throughout the years, often mentioned the building of a peace regime,... loosely defining it as a state of coexistence with political, military and economic trust,... and no more threat of war between the two Koreas.
But turning theory into practice requires clarification of what the goals are and which parties will be involved.
Oh Sooyoung, Arirang News, Jeju.