‘An admirable idea’

What would it really mean?

THERE ARE plenty of caveats in this story. So much so that we’ll wait around—for a year or two, maybe a decade or two—before getting too excited.

South Korea has “effectively” agreed on a draft to “officially” end the Korean War.

South Korea’s foreign minister says that the North Koreans have been “quickly and positively responding” to the proposal.

At a news conference last week, the same foreign minister said the U.S. has “reaffirmed the progress” and that both the U.S. and Seoul have “effectively reached an agreement.” On a draft, that is.

These matters are delicate. So delicate that the war that started in 1950 is still technically on. Lest we forget, the major military operations were only stopped after an armistice, not a peace treaty.

It’s all diplomats can do to keep the tanks from rolling again. Even getting a meeting between leaders of Pyongyang and Seoul is considered a breakthrough agreement worthy of front-page news all over the world.

So now there’s another piece of paper ready to be signed. The world can only hope it will mean something. Eventually.

THE KOREAN Peninsula has been a matchbox since at least 1950. Before that, the Koreans were united in fighting the Japanese. After World War II, Stalin got the top half of the peninsula, the free world the bottom. The place hasn’t had a real peace in a couple of generations. And it’s only become more worrisome as Pyongyang and Lil’ Kim put together their nuclear arsenal.

The agreement to end hostilities was signed in 1953. Sort of. South Korea, believe it or not, is not a signee. And the agreement itself makes it clear that it is nothing like a peace treaty, just a ceasefire. The agreement says so right in its preamble.

Over the years, the two Koreas—and their main allies, Red China and the United States—have had various thaws and cool-downs in relations. The latest action is a thaw. Which beats the alternative.

The U.S. State Department put out a statement that said it has “no hostile intent” toward North Korea. You might think that a given. But North Korea insists on those kinds of statements on frequent occasion.

Last week, for example, leaders above the 38th Parallel said the United States must stop its “hostile” policies before it’ll come to the table again. But when presented with the possibility of an official end to the war, Lil’ Kim’s sister—Kim Yo Jong, thought to be a powerful voice to the throne—said an actual peace treaty was “an admirable idea.”

Considering the source, that could be a big sign of progress.

But even if the two sides, or the four sides, or maybe more than that, get together to sign something along the lines of a bold-faced PEACE TREATY, what would that mean in practice?

It’s doubtful the demilitarized zone will disappear. Both sides still have a lot of reason to mistrust the other. The Americans won’t be coming home— they are a guarantee of South Korea’s existence. The North isn’t going to give up its nuclear weapons program—it is a guarantee of the Kim dynasty’s existence.

Pyongyang saw what happened to East Germany, so it’s doubtful it will open up the gates to its prison. North Korea can’t give up its policy of Songun (“military first”) and improve the lot of its people, for that might lead to greater freedoms and … again, see East Germany. And any “official” end to the war would only be that. The artillery and shock troops and airplanes would still stay on high alert—on both sides. You don’t end 70 years of suspicion with a signature.

So why care about an official peace treaty? Because talking about a peace treaty beats rattling sabers.

We are reminded what a 20th-century war-winner and statesman said about such things:

“Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.”— Winston Churchill

The man knew what he was talking about.