After half-century of no war, no peace, Koreas may see treaty

On a July morning a lifetime ago, two generals, one in American khaki, the other in North Korean drab, strode into a makeshift building in a no-man's-land, took their seats at separate tables and signed the papers put before them. They left after just 12 minutes, without a handshake, without a word.

The papers said it all: The warring armies would cease fire that night "in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, with its great toil of suffering and bloodshed."

The armistice agreement signed in 1953 at Panmunjom, Korea, did stop the fighting, but it didn't start the peace. Now the last generations to remember the "great toil" may see their war truly come to an end, if the two Koreas achieve the peace settlement proposed last week by their leaders.

The armistice has largely held, and held within it the seeds of diplomatic trouble, of unanswered questions.

Does peace demand a separate treaty between North and South Korea, along with a broader agreement incorporating their two main wartime allies, China and the United States? What about the 15 other belligerents, nations from Belgium to the Philippines that sent small fighting units to Korea at U.S. behest?

Korea scholar Selig S. Harrison said such tricky issues were "kicked down the road for later diplomacy" in last week's vague statements at the Pyongyang meeting between South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

"The United States has not ever formally said we would be a signatory to a peace treaty," noted Harrison, of Washington's Center for International Policy. But, he said, "it's clear China has to be a signatory, and it's clear the U.S. has to be a signatory for North Korea to go along with this whole process."

The prospect of peace talks raises other, ground-level questions, on a peninsula weighed down by 2 million troops facing each other across a hair-trigger front line, the 2.5-mile-wide demilitarized zone, or DMZ.

A major reduction and redeployment of armed forces would be expected to accompany a peace treaty, and that would be a costly operation. "With huge armies confronting each other, the logistics of actually ending the armistice are very difficult," said Korean War historian Bruce Cumings, a University of Chicago Asian specialist.

What's more certain is that peace won't be possible unless North Korea dismantles its nuclear weapons program. That goal looked closer last week with announcement of a major agreement in six-nation disarmament talks.

Much less certain is when Korea, divided by U.S.-Soviet fiat in 1945, might become one nation again.

Pyongyang's communist leaders resist relinquishing their repressive power, and China is assumed to prefer keeping the communist buffer on its northeast. In 2000, in his opening to the north, former South Korean President Kim de-emphasized talk of one nation, in favor of "confederation."

Both veteran analysts focused instead on what Cumings called the "unanticipated" substance of north-south economic deals announced last week: a joint fishing zone; a new joint industrial park in the north; joint shipbuilding; an agreement to ship southern rail freight through North Korea to China.

"Reunification is probably another 20 to 25 years away," added Cumings.