The four-party peace treaty: A creative formula for building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula

The two Koreas have different approaches to peace regime building on the Korean peninsula. South Korea wants to conclude a peace agreement with the North to replace the armistice agreement, because, in Seoul's view, the "real parties" to the armistice agreement are the two Koreas. Pyongyang has rejected this view on the grounds that South Korea was not a signatory to the armistice. On the other hand, Pyongyang is trying to conclude a peace treaty with the US by consistently calling for the dissolution of the UNC and the eventual withdrawal of the US forces from the South. The objectives of this paper are: (1) to discuss the problems of transforming the 1953 Armistice Agreement into a peace regime on the Korean peninsula, (2) to evaluate the four-party talks proposed jointly by the US and the ROK governments, (3) to suggest six agenda items to be discussed at the four-party peace talks, and (4) to make a proposal for a four-party peace treaty formula which could be acceptable to both Koreas, China, and the United States. The author makes three major arguments. First, four-party peace talks are the best approach to peace-regime building on the Korean peninsula. Second, North and South Korea need to compromise on their respective approaches to peace regime building. The South should abandon the principle of a North-South peace agreement, and the North should give up its principle of a US-DPRK peace agreement to replace the Korean armistice agreement. Third, a four-party peace treaty for building a peace regime on the peninsula is the most realistic, rational, and acceptable formula to achieve a permanent peace on the peninsula.