The Argument for Ending the Korean War: A European Perspective
Jaehyeon Kim Introduction
‘War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength’, a famous propaganda quote in George Orwell’s 1984, is perhaps more relevant to today’s political landscape than it first seems. The Korean war from 1950 has sustained for over 60 years, and ending this perpetual war is considered by some to be the key step towards achieving peace in the Korean peninsula. This analysis aims to identify the benefits of ending the Korean war from a European viewpoint, dividing the argument into two perspectives, an economic perspective and one from the perspective of world peace and minimising global disputes.
Peace in the Korean peninsula has always been a heavily discussed topic, mostly with the focus on denuclearization. In the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Vietnam 2006, President Bush made clear that “… when the North Korean leader fully discloses and gets rid of his nuclear weapons programs, that we can achieve a new security arrangement in the Korean Peninsula, that we can have the peace that we all long for. …” (U.S. Department of State Archive, President Bush Meets with South Korean President Roh, Sydney, Australia, September 7, 2007.), demanding unilateral denuclearization as a premise to any form of peace. This focus on unilateral denuclearization was also prevalent recently in the ‘Libya model’ discussed by J. Bolton, president Trump’s national security advisor, as well as Vice President Mike Pence, as the US model for North Korea’s denuclearization programme. This reaffirmed the US maximalist perspective of peace; requiring complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement (CVID) denuclearization before any discussion of economic sanctions relief. This strategy has often been criticised as unrealistic from North Korea’s perspective, as it is equivalent to a surrender scenario. Whilst Libya never got achieved anywhere near nuclear weapons, North Korea already has a threatening nuclear technology, and it has been argued that the approach should thus also be different (A technically-informed roadmap for North Korea’s denuclearization, Hecker et al.). It has been suggested that smaller manageable steps should be taken over many phases to first halt nuclearization, then roll-back, and then eventually
eliminate/set limits. The United States Institute of Peace (A Peace Regime for the Korean Peninsula, Aum et al.) also criticised the unproductive nature of unilateral denuclearization and called for actionable measures in less sensitive areas such as limiting nuclear testing and fissile material production in return for security guarantees and time-limited sanctions relief.
However, whilst a diverse range of strategies have been discussed regarding the denuclearization, there has also been criticism regarding such strong focus on denuclearization over of other aspects.
Kim Jin-hyang argued that failures in recent peace talks in the Korean peninsula were owed to failures in the denuclearization strategy, and further claimed that denuclearization policy throughout the past 30 years was a means to maintain division. Denuclearization is a road to peace when carried out worldwide, but enforcing denuclearization on one country could potentially have the opposite effect of peace; it is therefore, in his view, inappropriate to focus on denuclearization of North Korea when discussing peace. He also stated that in order to solve the problem of denuclearization, understanding the context behind the necessity of North Korea’s nuclear weapons was paramount.
Recently, the focus of peace has shifted from denuclearization to ending the Korean war. The Korean war began on 25th June 1950, and was halted through an armistice agreement on 27th July 1953, which aimed to ‘ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.’ (Korean Armistice Agreement). However, this halt
status has persisted ever since, and ending this war has become a major interest to President Moon Jae-in’s and leader Kim Jung-un’s governments. The Panmunjom Declaration of the 2018 inter- Korean summit showed determination in both countries to end the war. It declared to establish a permanent peace regime in the Korean peninsula by eliminating military tension and promoting common prosperity. This was also supported by US president Donald during the 2018 Trump-Kim summit.
The ending of the Korean war is necessary for a multitude of reasons from the perspective of Korea.
Firstly, both countries can end the unstable situation in which they must be prepared to fight at any minute. This allows for easing of military tensions and the reallocation of extortionate military budgets into other sectors in the economy in both countries, for example, in social public
expenditure for South Korea which consistently ranks amongst the bottom of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (12.2% GDP, 2019 – 4th from last).
It also eliminates the fuel for extremist propaganda, Korean McCarthyism and the red scare that has persisted ever since the war, resulting in a stabilising impact on the politics of the country.
Additionally, it is argued by Do Gyung-ook that ending the war is significant as a means to negotiate denuclearization, since peace in the Korean peninsula is arguably threatened by nuclear armament.
This argument, however, could be criticised as failing to take into account the diplomatic role of nuclear weapons in negotiating with China and the US, and so ending the Korean war may not necessarily create an adequate justification for denuclearization. It could also be argued that North Korean nuclear weapons are less of a threat to Korea as it is to the US, and may even be beneficial under a potential future scenario of North and South Korea becoming a reunified nuclear-weapon state to obtain a powerful diplomatic position.
There have also been criticisms against the necessity to end the Korean war. Do Gyung-ook argues that ending the Korean war is not a precondition to peace, and fears that politicisation and obsession of ‘ending the war’ may act as a hindrance. Jae Sung-ho (Legal Character of “the
Declaration of the End of the Korean War” and the Direction of South Korea’s Response) mentions something.
1. The Economic Case for Ending the Korean War from the Perspective of Europe and the UK South Korea’s economy has huge impact on European economies due to the vast economic trading relations that these countries have with South Korea. The European Union has had close economic ties with South Korea since the EU-Republic of Korea free trade agreement (FTA) in 2011, and has had explosive increases in economic cooperation with an increase of 77% of EU exports of goods from 2010 and 2018, making South Korea the eighth largest export destination of EU goods. These close relations have been maintained to this date as they celebrated the recent 10-year anniversary of the EU-Republic of Korea trade agreement in April 2021 where they promised to continue and expand the trade agreements whilst also leading by example in issues of workers’ rights and climate neutrality. UK has also endeavoured to maintain deep economic ties with South Korea following Brexit by signing a UK-South Korea trade to replace the EU-Republic of Korea FTA.
The COVID SARS-2 virus pandemic, whilst setting some economies into great recessions, highlighted South Korea’s economy to be extremely promising. South Korea had one of the highest real GDP growth out of all the OECD countries in the pandemic year of 2020 (-0.9%), a time when other major countries in Europe such as UK, Germany, and France were facing GDP growths of -9.8%, -5.1%, and - 8.2% respectively. With South Korea showcasing such a resilient economy in the height of the pandemic, it is expected that EU and UK would want to increase economic activity with South Korea in the post-pandemic era. As a result, a more stable and prosperous South Korean economy would
be beneficial in accelerating the economic recovery in Europe post-pandemic by continuing and further expanding a large exports market in Korea.
When viewed under the framework of economic relations, concluding the Korean war can have a large positive impact the UK and European countries. South Korea currently spends 2.8% of its GDP on military expenditure (2020), twice that of Germany (1.4%). This corresponds to US$45.7 billion, and is a result of the ongoing war with North Korea. Whilst South Korea ranks number 6 in the world for percentage of GDP spent on military expenditure, it also severely lacks in social care and welfare, characterised by the astonishing 0.84 fertility rate per woman and the 2nd highest suicide rate in the OECD. These are just two examples of how the South Korean society is unsustainable, in quite a literal sense. This means that economic partnerships involving South Korea are also under a timer.
By concluding the Korean war, South Korea can invest what is currently being used as military expenditure to rejuvenate the country and create a more sustainable society, allowing a more long- term economic relationship to prevail between Korea and the EU/UK. South Korea is also a world leader in certain fields such as research and development (R&D) expenditures per capita; this lies very much in the interests of the UK and EU who have historically had high focus on developments in science and technology. Ending the war can reallocate more resources into funding collaborative efforts between these countries in leading the development of frontier technologies.
It can be argued that perhaps just as important as economic activity in the form of exports of goods and services exists the argument regarding foreign investment. The EU is currently South Korea’s biggest foreign direct investor, where foreign direct investment stocks have increased by 112% from 2010 to 2017. Korea has gained increased attention in the field of investment due to the recent successes of various famous companies, as well as the explosion in worldwide exposure of Korean culture in the form of k-dramas, Academy Award-winning Korean films, and kpop groups and idols.
As a result, various sectors ranging from the technology to the entertainment industry have been considered promising from an investment point of view. The largest risk in foreign investment is arguably the unpredictability of a sudden war due to the instability of the current armistice.
Therefore, it is necessary to end the war and create political stability, and it is in the best interest of foreign investors, including European investors to achieve this.
2. The Case for Resolving Disputes around the Globe from the Perspective of Europe and the UK Events that occur in one country often affect future events of other countries. The best example in recent years is the rise of right-wing nationalism across the globe at similar times that led to Brexit in the UK, the rise of Donald Trump in the US, and the rise of various extreme right wing groups in countries such as Germany (where the Alternative to Germany party became the leading opposition) and Spain (where Vox became the second leading opposition). Although these events occurred in different locations around the world, they all occurred within the past 5 years and had the common theme of enmity towards the political establishment and worries regarding globalisation. It shows the importance and responsibility of countries to act with leadership to try to set a positive example for other countries to follow.
The current global community is experiencing various disputes from around the world. There is still perpetual war occurring in countries such as Afghanistan and Yemen. The Congo wars from 1996 to 2003 have left one of the greatest death tolls in the 21st century, whilst Syria is still ongoing with its civil war since 2011. Europe has been facing a large problem with the large influx of immigrants which some view as the leading cause for some of the right-wing nationalist movements mentioned above. Political instability in other societies eventually induces political instability in ours, a natural consequence of the connected nature of the globe. It is therefore necessary for world leaders such
as EU and the UK to actively help in resolving conflict around the world, not as an act of philanthropy or altruism, but for pure self-interest and security.
The Korean war is no different. It is a prime example of a proxy war that occurred during the cold war, and it acts to remind the globe of such a history. The nuclear threat by North Korea is one that everybody from around the world hold their breaths, and has acted to be very politically
destabilising, such as during the exchanges between President Trump and leader Kim Jong-un in which Trump announced to the UN that ‘little rocket man’ is on a suicide mission. As dangerous as the situation could potentially become, it is in the world’s interest, and especially the leaders of the world such as the EU and the UK, to promote stability by ending wars like the Korean war. This does not require a precondition of unilateral denuclearization or something similar; ending the war in itself is in the interest of the world’s leading nations. In doing so, this can create a global peace- seeking atmosphere and inspire other countries to follow a roadmap to peace, making their own countries safer in the process.
Arguably, South Korea is an excellent example to lead world peace. Korea has already shown immense leadership in tackling the COVID pandemic by showing economic resilience and
constructing efficient nationwide virus tracking systems. South Korea has also been the first instance of a group A UNCTAD country being upgraded to a group B one, symbolising an unprecedented showcase of an aid-receiving country developing into an aid-giving one. This marks South Korea as an inspiration within the developing world as it has given hope that a country can become
prosperous without needing to use conventional methods of imperialism. With such leadership that has already been displayed by South Korea recently, the end of the Korean war has the potential to act as an extraordinary symbol of world peace.
Conclusion
This analysis discussed the benefits of ending the Korean war from the European and UK viewpoint.
It makes the argument under two perspectives; an economic perspective, and a global perspective of world peace. Europe can create economic advances as a result of ending the Korean war, as Korea will be able to reallocated the previous military budget into different sectors of the economy such as R&D. The end of the war is symbolic in resolving disputes around the world, which is in the best interest of developed countries in Europe as it helps stabilise the economy (from immigration) as well as the political scenery (reduce right-wing extremism).
To conclude, war is not peace. War is the opposite of peace. In fact, war somewhere else can infringe upon the freedoms of people living elsewhere. It is therefore in the interest of the global community, and especially the developed world, to promote peace and end all wars.
