قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Why the ceasefire of the Korean War is still important

Why the ceasefire of the Korean War is still important



The Korean ceasefire agreement was signed 65 years ago on Friday and ended negotiations involving 158 meetings over two years and 17 days – the longest negotiated truce in modern history. These protracted talks proved to be very costly: during the negotiation period, United Nations forces suffered 1

40,000 deaths and the US lost 8,000 soldiers.

Nonetheless, the agreement has maintained relative peace on the Korean peninsula for six years, making America's most important alliance and allowing South Korea's notable rise to prosperity. It continues to shape the political and military situation in East Asia in a unique way. Without understanding this ceasefire, the current efforts at peace and unity on the Korean Peninsula have little chance.

In 1953, the Korean Conflict commemorated the "static front" of World War I and threatened to escalate into a third world war. With the prospect of an apparent military victory farther and farther away, US military commanders, including President Dwight D. Eisenhower, favored a truce as the second-best solution. On July 27, military authorities from China, North Korea and the US signed an agreement that ended hostilities but failed to reach a full peace treaty. These included the cessation of military operations, the repatriation of prisoners of war and the creation of the notorious demarcation line and demilitarized zone (DMZ).

Remarkably, South Korea itself was not a signatory to the agreement; President Syngman Rhee refused to sign a treaty that divided Korea. But with the Chinese and North Korean armies gathering over the DMZ, the US and South Korea signed a formal mutual defense agreement within months of the ceasefire. Congress ratified the alliance the following year. This treaty has created the strategic basis for security relations between the US and South Korea. This relationship has developed into a broad and deep partnership based on a shared commitment to ideals such as democracy and freedom.

It also had pronounced economic benefits. Initially, the US conditioned economic aid to South Korea, which averaged 14.9 percent of GDP between 1953 and 1960, with Seoul's truce. As the South Korean economy began to develop in the 1970s, it stole away from foreign aid and built its own political and economic defense against threats from the north, reaching a per-capita purchasing power par value of $ 38,300 in 2017. slightly higher than in Spain. To date, the Alliance has been helping to bolster Korea's tremendous financial security, significantly boosting investor confidence, and enabling public budgets and debt levels to be envied in any advanced country

In a televised speech after the ceasefire was signed, Eisenhower said: "We have won a truce on a single battlefield – not peace in the world – we must not loosen our vigilance or stop our search." Similarly, General Mark W. Clark, the UN commander said, "The conflict is not be over until the governments concerned have found a firm political solution. "

The settlement, of course, has proved elusive for six decades. But the ceasefire of 1953 teaches us that principled diplomacy, backed by credible military strength, can still steer the negotiations in a favorable direction. It is also a reminder of how much North Korea will benefit from its openness to foreign trade and investment as well as membership in global institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. With the support of the US, it could thrive as well as the South.

The current round of nuclear talks looks just as challenging and controversial as its predecessors. If North Korea decides to join the international community and resolutely seek the chance of prosperity, the promise of the 1953 ceasefire could nonetheless be fulfilled.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors or Bloomberg's LP and Its Owners

To connect with the author of this story:
Thomas Byrne at thomas.byrne@koreasociety. org

To contact the responsible editor for this story:
Timothy Lavin at tlavin1@bloomberg.net


Source link