[lbo-talk] Seligman: Redrawing the line in Korea

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Wed Dec 15 23:03:03 PST 2010


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/opinion/13harrison.html

The New York Times

December 12, 2010

Drawing a Line in the Water

By SELIG S. HARRISON

THE crisis in the Yellow Sea, which was set off by the North Korean

shelling of South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island last month, is probably

mystifying to many Americans. Why did the North fire a deadly artillery

barrage at a sparsely inhabited, relatively insignificant island? Why

has the United States dispatched an entire aircraft-carrier group to

the scene?

<snip>

Can anything be done to put an end to the simmering conflict in the

Yellow Sea? Yes, and the solution could be quite straightforward: the

United States should redraw the disputed sea boundary, called the

Northern Limit Line, moving it slightly to the south.

The Northern Limit Line was so named because it was meant to impose a

limit on any potential South Korean encroachment into North Korea. The

South's president, Syngman Rhee, still dreamed of winning the war -- he

refused to sign the armistice -- and repeatedly vowed to overthrow the

Pyongyang regime.

Rhee's hopes were never realized, but one thing the Northern Limit Line

did was to give the best fishing grounds in the area to South Korea.

It's no coincidence that many of the clashes there have occurred during

the summer crab-fishing season. If the boundary were refashioned in a

more equitable way, tensions would undoubtedly ease.

And, fortunately, President Obama has the authority to redraw the line.

On July 7, 1950, a United Nations Security Council resolution

established the United Nations Command for Korea and designated the

United States as the executive agent, with authority to name its

commander. That original command is still with us today in vestigial

form. It is commanded by Gen. Walter Sharp, who is thus the current

successor to Gen. Mark Clark, who signed the 1953 armistice.

The Obama administration would do well to consult with both Seoul and

Pyongyang on where to best set the new boundary, get an agreement from

both governments to abide by it, and put it on the map. South Korea

should not be given a veto over the redrawing. And North Korea should

be warned that any future provocations on its part like the shelling of

Yeonpyeong will result in swift, appropriate retaliation by the joint

forces of the United States and South Korea.

Ideally, redrawing the line would not only ease the present crisis, but

also set the stage for negotiations among the United States, North

Korea and China on a peace treaty that would replace the temporary

armistice and formally end the Korean War. (Since South Korea did not

sign the armistice, it cannot sign a peace treaty, but North Korea has

agreed that Seoul could be part of a future trilateral peacekeeping

body.)

One possible mechanism to replace the armistice is the "trilateral

peace regime" for the peninsula that has been proposed by North Korea's

principal military spokesman, Gen. Ri Chan-bok. Under the plan, the

armed forces of the United States, North Korea and South Korea would

set up a "mutual security assurance commission." Its role would be to

prevent incidents in the demilitarized zone that could threaten the

peace and to develop arms-control and confidence-building arrangements

on the peninsula. General Ri has said explicitly that the North would

not object to the presence of American forces on the peninsula if the

armistice and the United Nations Command were replaced.

Defusing tensions in the Yellow Sea and keeping the peace at the

demilitarized zone are the prerequisites for pursuing the larger goals

that should govern United States policy in Korea: eliminating nuclear

weapons on the peninsula and establishing normal diplomatic relations

with the Pyongyang regime, all in the aim of reducing the risk of

American involvement in another Korean War.

Selig S. Harrison, the author of "Korean Endgame," is the director of

the Asia program at the Center for International Policy.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list