North Korea’s insistence on a ‘peace treaty’ aims only to divert attention from its nuclear programme
Donald Kirk says North Korea’s demand for peace talks to end a war that’s already ended must not be entertained if its nuclear ambitions are off limits
Talk about a “peace treaty” for ending the Korean war rests on several contradictions. Foremost is the oft-repeated line that we’re still “technically at war”. War means shooting, bombing, killing. The Korean war ended in July 1953 with the signing of a truce or armistice. We’ve had numerous bloody “incidents” since then, but so far no more real war.
How can the North demand a ‘peace treaty’ while spewing forth rhetoric about turning South Korea into ‘a sea of fire’ and sending a nuclear-tipped rocket all the way to Washington DC?
So why do people keep insisting on a “peace treaty” to “end” the war that’s already ended?
The calls have come loudest and longest from North Korea, but how can the North demand a “peace treaty” while spewing forth rhetoric about turning South Korea into “a sea of fire” and sending a nuclear-tipped rocket all the way to Washington DC to destroy the White House?
Who, for that matter, should consider a response to demands for a treaty when North Korea won’t consider halting its programme for building nuclear warheads and missiles, despite sanctions passed by the UN Security Council with the unanimous support of all members?
Sadly, North Korea’s demands for a treaty have won the support not only of the Chinese but also of a number of academics and so-called peace groups in the United States and elsewhere.
They blame America for its reluctance to enter talks with the North while Pyongyang issues insults and diatribes along with serious threats.
Most disheartening, North Korea’s pleas for talks about a “peace treaty” are getting through.