The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

[skuthorp]

Frm wiki: "The Korean Armistice Agreement is an agreement signed by U.S. Army Lieutenant General William Harrison, Jr., representing the United Nations Command and North Korean General Nam Il, representing the North Korean People's Army and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army.^[1] The agreement was signed on July 27, 1953 and was designed to "insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved."^[2] No "final peaceful settlement" has been achieved yet as of 2013. The signed armistice restored the border between the two nations near the 38th parallel, created the Korean Demilitarized Zone, put into force a cease-fire, and finalized repatriation of prisoners of war."

I was thinking, seeing there has never been a 'peace treaty' signed, is there still a formal state of war existing between the UN and NK, and maybe China as well? In which case if NK makes a move is the UN, as presently constituted, obligated to resume hostilities as well or only the nations that were involved in the original war? I know it's a theoretical argument but I think it may muddy the water in the eyes of the general public. My brother, a Korean Vet., just rolled his eyes and shook his head and said, "They should have finished it when they had the chance". Someone here has already remarked about 'maybe McArthur had it right' ,but another nuke might have brought on WW2 part 2 at that time.

[Gerarddm]

Re: The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

MacArthur did not have it right. And yes, a format state of war continues to exist without a peace treaty.

I believe there is language in the armistice agreement that prohibits unilaterally pulling out of the arrangement, an interesting fragile fig leaf.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Re: The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

The US is not in South Korea because there never has been a peace treaty. It's there because North Korea has always been run by bunch of crazy dictators that are a danger to client states of ours.
Also South Korea is a handy place to have bases for the US to project power in Asia and in the Southern Ocean.
So don't look a gift horse in the mouth. US troops in Asia are watching your back,too.

[skuthorp]

Re: The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

I was most interested in the theoretical legalities of the situation, and I understand our PM has already declared 'our support' for SK, whatever that actually means in the present dilemma.

[Landrith]

Re: The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

I think the Koreas would have unified under George W. Bush but we nipped it early in the bud. Supposedly because of West Germany's experience absorbing the non productive citizens of the East. It may have been the largest tragic blunder of modern international relations by an administration that regularly set the standard.

I think the South could have expanded their economy with the labor and demand. China would have faced real competition economically in manufacturing goods for the rest of the world. Competition that would have prevented their current bubble and caused them to be managed more effectively by us. But, Cheney never stopped seeking World War III.

[genglandoh]

Re: The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

I think the Koreas would have unified under George W. Bush but we nipped it early in the bud. Supposedly because of West Germany's experience absorbing the non productive citizens of the East. It may have been the largest tragic blunder of modern international relations by an administration that regularly set the standard.

I think the South could have expanded their economy with the labor and demand. China would have faced real competition economically in manufacturing goods for the rest of the world. Competition that would have prevented their current bubble and caused them to be managed more effectively by us. But, Cheney never stopped seeking World War III.

Can you explain why you think the Koreas would have unified under George Bush and what did he do to stop it?

I just do not remember this.
Thank you in advance.

[Landrith]

Re: The Korean armistice, 60 years on.

It was called the Sunshine Policy (I am sure we backed the S. Korean political opposition to it, also)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Policy

We of course were focused on nuke talks with the North and we had to kill it:

"20 October: North-South Korea talks in Pyongyang are undermined by the North's nuclear programme "admission". US Secretary of State Colin Powell says further US aid to North Korea is now in doubt. The North adopts a mercurial stance, at one moment defiantly defending its "right" to weapons development and at the next offering to halt nuclear programmes in return for aid and the signing of a "non-aggression" pact with the US. It argues that the US has not kept to its side of the Agreed Framework, as the construction of the light water reactors - due to be completed in 2003 - is now years behind schedule."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_North_Korea_nuclear_program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea–United_States_relations#North_Korea_policy_under_George_W._Bush