Korea Partition and Hostility

Partition and hostility has kept the two Koreas divided and distinct for decades. There is a debate over whether multilateral solutions are necessary in order to reunite the peninsula or whether it can still be achieved through bilateral negotiations. Bilateral solutions are between only the two countries involved, but multilateral solutions require at least one third party foreign power as an external guarantor. Although this is still a topic of debate, if we compare the two methods in a historical context, we see that there is a historical justification for multilateralism that dates back to the end of the Korean War in 1953.

In 1991, the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-Aggression, and Exchanges and Co-operation Between the North and the South, or the Basic Agreement, was one of the first formal diplomatic attempts to bilaterally reduce hostility and gradually end the partition. Both sides pledged, “to exert joint efforts to achieve peaceful unification.”1 However, there was a problem with the Basic Agreement that was the same problem with most bilateral negotiations between North and South Korea; there was no legal basis or binding for the agreement and, therefore, no way to enforce it.

Multilateral peace negotiations also have been attempted and are at work in the peninsula such as the six-party talks of 2003-2009 between the US, China, Russia, Japan, North and South Korea. Although each party has their own motives for taking part, the overall goal is the denuclearization of North Korea and the finding of “common ground on which to build a foundation for a peace regime on the Korean peninsula.”2

There have been multiple bilateral efforts besides the Basic Agreement towards non-aggression and cooperation such as the Joint Communiqué of 1972 and the summit meetings of 2000 between Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il; however, they all fell through due to one side failing to honor the agreement for lack of consequence. So far, the main theme in bilateralism...