The following article is an opinion piece by Christine Ahn of Women Cross DMZ, an American nonprofit organization that aims to advance peace on the Korean Peninsula. Views expressed in opinion articles are exclusively the author’s own and do not represent those of NK News.
As the U.S. and South Korea reportedly discuss a formal declaration to end the Korean War, an increasing number of voices in the national security sphere have raised concerns that such a declaration would be both an empty gesture and potentially dangerous move to undermine the U.S.-South Korea alliance.
Contrary to such assertions, however, an end-of-war (EOW) declaration would actually offer an opportunity to improve Korean and American security, and break the diplomatic impasse that has loomed over the Korean Peninsula since 2019. And as history has shown, diplomacy has been the only method to achieve tangible gains in reducing tensions between the U.S. and North Korea — including the DPRK freezing testing and production of its nuclear weapons.
While not a panacea, an EOW declaration would be a vital step toward replacing the 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace. Even China, a signatory to the armistice, supports an EOW declaration, with an official saying it “will contribute to promoting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”
In the Korean context, an EOW declaration is generally framed as a nonbinding political declaration, distinguished from a binding peace agreement that formally ends the Korean War. But according to the report “Path to Peace,” released by the global campaign Korea Peace Now! (of which Women Cross DMZ is a member), an EOW declaration can legally end the state of war if that is what the parties intend it to achieve.
But even if it doesn’t accomplish this, an EOW declaration can still help build political will toward the signing of a binding peace agreement. In other words, an EOW declaration can be a stepping stone toward permanent peace and normalized relations — and that would undoubtedly improve security for both Americans and Koreans.
To do so, an EOW declaration must be accompanied by fundamental shifts in U.S. policy as well as commitments by all sides to reduce hostilities and build trust. That might include steps such as lifting sanctions and stopping provocative military exercises with South Korea, as well as ending the U.S. travel ban on North Korea to allow family reunions, people-to-people exchanges and ease the flow of humanitarian aid.

ADDRESSING CRITICISMS
A peace declaration would not endanger South Korea or the U.S. In fact, as prior agreements have shown, it would help improve the security situation on all sides.
The historic summits in 2018 and 2019 by South Korea, North Korea and the U.S. led to a range of tension-reducing measures — from the DPRK’s self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile testing and North and South Korean soldiers demining portions of the DMZ, to repatriation of U.S. service members remains, release of three detained Americans, reunion of separated families and the establishment of the first joint liaison office.
Arguments that the U.S.-ROK alliance would weaken as a result of ending the Korean War fail to mention that the alliance is not predicated on the state of war but rather based on the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty, which “shall remain in force indefinitely” until either side decides to revoke it. Whether to maintain the alliance is thus ultimately up to South Korea.
However, a state of peace would imply the dissolution of the U.N. Command. Prolonging the presence of the U.N. Command would be destabilizing because it would signal that the U.S. is reserving the right to use force.
Finally, some insist that an EOW declaration must include commitments by North Korea to denuclearize. While we can all agree that denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula is the ultimate goal, the fact of the matter is that the DPRK has shown no willingness to unilaterally disarm, and efforts to force them to agree to such terms have been recipes for failure.
Meanwhile, Pyongyang has only developed more nuclear weapons. The country has shown remarkable resilience to pressure-based tactics such as sanctions and isolation, and military maneuvers only further provoke them.
North Korea has made it clear that denuclearization will require a peace process that includes concrete steps toward a peace treaty. Instead of treating peace as a reward for North Korea’s “bad” behavior, the Biden administration must view it as what it is — something that will benefit the security of all people.
Refusing peace would mean that the parties still want to reserve the right to use force, which could be understood as an implicit threat. And that will only deepen North Korea’s resolve to develop nuclear weapons.



NO OPTION BUT PEACE
To be clear, there is no military option to solve this situation. Any military intervention would undoubtedly lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, if not millions, of people, likely including some of the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed on Korean soil.
It’s hard to imagine there would be any public support for such a war. Surveys show that the majority of Americans support reducing U.S. military engagement around the world, reducing the Pentagon budget and negotiating with our adversaries to avoid war. Regime-change wars do not achieve their objectives and instead only worsen the problem, roping the U.S. into ever most costly and deadly conflicts.
While stoking fear, those who argue against ending seven decades of war fail to offer any other viable solutions to the Korean conflict. Simply insisting that North Korea give in to U.S. demands to denuclearize, and believing that more pressure-based tactics will achieve these goals when there is no evidence to the contrary, is not a viable solution.
The cost of continued failure to negotiate peace is high. The status quo endangers Korean and American lives, both in the dollars wasted in preparation for war and in the increasing risk of a devastating military conflict. The status quo means tens of thousands of elderly Koreans, in the U.S. and on the Korean Peninsula, will die without seeing loved ones from whom they’ve been separated for 70 years.
The Biden administration has a moral and ethical obligation to end America’s oldest “forever war.” Everyone — Koreans and Americans — deserve peace.
The following article is an opinion piece by Christine Ahn of Women Cross DMZ, an American nonprofit organization that aims to advance peace on the Korean Peninsula. Views expressed in opinion articles are exclusively the author’s own and do not represent those of NK News.