"Security agreements between North and South Korea have had a disconcerting tendency to break down within a short time, and the confidence-building that should result from implementation of these agreements has never been achieved. The Basic Agreement between North and South Korea, which took effect in 1992, provided a partial blueprint for achieving broad restructuring of security relations and a more stable order in Northeast Asia. The ROK Government has repeatedly declared its readiness to resume discussions with North Korea to advance the unfinished agenda defined in the Basic Agreement and the Denuclearization Agreement, each of which provides much that could contribute to a peace system in the Korean peninsula. One obstacle to progress has been North Korea's insistence that a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice agreement should be negotiated between North Korea and the United States. The South Korean and U.S. governments have insisted that a peace treaty should be negotiated between North and South Korea. A peace system based on agreements codifying certain security arrangements would be the most feasible next step toward lasting peace in the Korean peninsula. Peace and stability could be promoted through a series of interrelated measures that would be the functional equivalent of a peace treaty. Both North and South Koreans have spoken of a "peace system" and both sides share some similar ideas about the contents of such a system. The United States also would be very much engaged in one aspect the regulation of arms and armed forces in the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, a commission similar to the South-North Joint Military Commission established in the Basic Agreement would be authorized to deal with compliance questions. This would require examination of the continued relevance of the Military Armistice Commission and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, as well as other arrangements established by the 1953 armistice agreement."
Strategic Forum No.29