Follow us on social

google cta
19864802878_e976c341a7_o-scaled

It’s time to end the forever war on the Korean Peninsula

On the 70th anniversary of the armistice, a new call for a peace treaty between Washington and Pyongyang

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

This article is part of our weeklong series commemorating the 70th Anniversary of the Korean War armistice, July 27, 1953.

When talking about “war” in the year 2023, most people will immediately think of Ukraine and then possibly mention Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, or Afghanistan. Very few people would think of Korea first when the word “war” is mentioned, let alone when talking about a “forever war,” a term many, including current U.S. President Joe Biden, use to describe the war in Afghanistan. 

The war on the Korean Peninsula, however, has been ongoing for over 70 years. Just because there is no active fighting taking place does not mean there is peace. Fighting ceased in 1953, three years after the start of the war, as a result of an Armistice Agreement, not a peace treaty. While signing such a treaty has not been a priority over the last seven decades, the increasingly volatile and risky military situation on the Korean Peninsula can no longer be ignored.  

The Korean War broke out on June 25, 1950 when the North invaded the South in hopes of quickly reunifying the country under Kim Il-sung’s leadership. The North’s plan was foiled, however, when President Truman announced the intervention of the U.S. in the war two days later. The United Nations Command (UNC) was subsequently established on July 7, 1950, which resulted in 22 countries contributing various forms of support to South Korea throughout the war. 

With the help of the U.S.-led UNC, the South quickly gained the upper hand and was able to drive North Korean forces back north of the 38th parallel by mid-September. The tide of the war changed again, however, when China sent troops to support North Korea in late November. After a series of back-and-forth wins and losses, fighting stalled around the 38th parallel in May 1951. Peace talks then commenced in July which ultimately resulted in the Armistice Agreement signed on July 27, 1953. 

Although the fighting between North and South ended on paper, various provocations and military incidents continued throughout the Cold War period. Some examples include the 1968 Blue House raid when North Korean agents tried to assassinate South Korean President Park Chung-hee; the 1976 Axe Murder Incident when North Korean soldiers killed two US Army officers; the 1983 Rangoon Bombing when North Korean agents attempted to assassinate South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan; and the 1987 bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 by two North Korean agents. 

As inter-Korean diplomacy gained momentum in the 1990s, provocations by North Korea started to diminish. This was followed by significant progress towards peace in 2000 when the leaders of the two Koreas met for their first summit. 

But despite such progress, North Korean provocations continued and evolved into more threatening actions culminating in its first-ever nuclear test in October 2006. That year marked a pivotal moment in the history of the Korean War.  The nation that was once considered significantly inferior to South Korea in almost every aspect had acquired the ultimate means of defense and attack: nuclear weapons.    

That the two sides have avoided the resumption of all-out conflict since the Armistice does not mean this grim possibility is non-existent. In fact, the frequency of military provocations has sharply increased over the past year, with the North firing over 90 missiles in 2022 alone. For its part, South Korea’s increasing military cooperation with the United States and Japan, combined with powerful voices in Seoul calling for its own nuclear weapons program, has not helped defuse the situation. 

For decades, deterrence efforts have failed to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear and missile programs. The time to achieve denuclearization through deterrence and unilateral demands has passed. The focus must now be placed squarely on arms control and accepting the reality that North Korea has indeed become a nuclear state. Without taking this first basic step, resuming diplomacy—let alone getting to a peace treaty—will be highly difficult. 

Once this step is taken, however, regular communication and negotiations can follow. These efforts should also go hand in hand with steps to expand the scope of U.S.-DPRK relations with the goal of normalizing diplomatic ties. 

The reason why the United States is at the center of this issue is because the Armistice Treaty was signed by North Korea, China, and the United States. South Korea never signed the Armistice and, as such, has no official say in whether a peace treaty will be signed or not. The decision ultimately falls to Washington and Pyongyang (China has previously expressed support for ending the Korean War). 

Still, this does not mean there is no place for Seoul in this process. One way South Korea can help is to play a facilitating role in improving U.S.-North Korea ties and resuming inter-Korean dialogue to lower tensions, build trust, increase cross-border exchanges, and establish bilateral relations based on a strong foundation. The current Yoon Suk-yeol administration should build on the efforts made by the previous Moon Jae-in government instead of expanding military drills and engaging in repeated tit-for-tat provocations with the North. These provocations could easily lead to accidents and misunderstandings that could trigger the resumption of full-blown war. None of this serves South Korea’s national interests.  

With every year that goes by without a peace treaty, North Korea continues the development of ever more advanced nuclear weapons, missiles, and military technology. The resumption of conflict on the peninsula in current times could lead to a catastrophic nuclear war that would affect the entire world, not just Northeast Asia. The United States can no longer afford to be distracted by other global issues, as pressing as they may be. 

The situation on the peninsula demands resolution, and the only way to ensure lasting peace is by ending the Korean War and signing a peace treaty.


General Mark W. Clark at the signing of the Korean War Armistice in July, 1953. (U.S. Marine Corps/ CC BY 2.0)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

keep readingShow less
Starmer, Macron, Merz G7
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and António Costa, President of the European Council at the G7 world leaders summit in Kananaskis, June 15, 2025. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street

The Europeans pushing the NATO poison pill

Europe

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity surrounding Ukraine has revealed a stark transatlantic divide. While high level American and Ukrainian officials have been negotiating the U.S. peace plan in Geneva, European powers have been scrambling to influence a process from which they risk being sidelined.

While Europe has to be eventually involved in a settlement of the biggest war on its territory after World War II, so far it’s been acting more like a spoiler than a constructive player.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig
Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Saudi leans in hard to get UAE out of Sudan civil war

Middle East

As Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), swept through Washington last week, the agenda was predictably packed with deals: a trillion-dollar investment pledge, access to advanced F-35 fighter jets, and coveted American AI technology dominated the headlines. Yet tucked within these transactions was a significant development for the civil war in Sudan.

Speaking at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum President Donald Trump said that Sudan “was not on my charts,” viewing the conflict as “just something that was crazy and out of control” until the Saudi leader pressed the issue. “His majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan,” Trump recounted, adding that MBS framed it as an opportunity for greatness.

The crown prince’s intervention highlights a crucial new reality that the path to peace, or continued war, in Sudan now runs even more directly through the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The fate of Sudan is being forged in the Gulf, and its future will be decided by which side has more sway in Trump’s White House.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.