A joint statement by the United States and North Korea in June 2018 declared that the two countries were committed to building “a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.” Such a peace regime will ultimately require the engagement and cooperation of not just North Korea and the United States, but also South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. This report outlines the perspectives and interests of each of these countries as well as the diplomatic, security, and economic components necessary for a comprehensive peace.

South Korean soldiers, front, and North Korean soldiers, rear, stand guard on either side of the Military Demarcation Line of the Demilitarized Zone dividing the two nations. (Korea Summit Press Pool via New York Times)
South Korean soldiers, front, and North Korean soldiers, rear, stand guard on either side of the Military Demarcation Line of the Demilitarized Zone dividing the two nations. (Korea Summit Press Pool via New York Times)

Summary

Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, few serious efforts have been made to achieve a comprehensive peace on the Korean Peninsula. The unique aspects of the diplomatic engagement between Washington and Pyongyang in 2018 and 2019, however, presented a situation that warranted both greater preparation for a potential peace process and greater vigilance about the potential obstacles and risks. Today, with the collapse of negotiations threatening to further strain US-North Korea relations and increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula, a more earnest and sober discussion about how to build mutual confidence, enhance stability, and strengthen peace is all the more important.

Peace is a process, not an event. A peace regime thus represents a comprehensive framework of declarations, agreements, norms, rules, processes, and institutions aimed at building and sustaining peace.

Six countries—North Korea, South Korea, the United States, China, Japan, and Russia—have substantial interests in a peace regime for the Korean Peninsula. Some of these interests are arguably compatible, including the desire for a stable and nuclear-free Peninsula. Others, such as North Korean human rights and the status of U.S. forces, seem intractable but may present potential for progress. Understanding these interests can shed light on how to approach areas of consensus and divergence during the peacebuilding process.

Certain diplomatic, security, and economic components are necessary for a comprehensive peace on the Korean Peninsula. Denuclearization, sanctions relief, and the U.S. military presence have drawn the most attention, but a peace regime would also need to address other matters—from procedural aspects such as which countries participate and whether a treaty or an executive agreement should be used, to sensitive topics such as human rights, economic assistance, and humanitarian aid, to far-reaching considerations such as the Northern Limit Line, conventional force reductions, and the future of the United Nations Command. This report addresses how U.S. administrations can strategically and realistically approach the challenges and opportunities these issues present, and then offers general principles for incorporating them into a peacebuilding process.

About the Report

This report examines the issues and challenges related to establishing a peace regime—a framework of declarations, agreements, norms, rules, processes, and institutions aimed at building and sustaining peace—on the Korean Peninsula. Supported by the Asia Center at the United States Institute of Peace, the report also addresses how U.S. administrations can strategically and realistically approach these issues.

About the Authors

Frank Aum is senior expert on North Korea in the Asia Center at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Jacob Stokes, Patricia M. Kim, Rachel Vandenbrink, and Jennifer Staats are members of its East and Southeast Asia program teams. Ambassador Joseph Y. Yun is a senior adviser to the Asia Center. Atman M. Trivedi is a managing director at Hills & Company.

Related Publications

North Korean Phone Money: Airtime Transfers as a Precursor to Mobile Payment System

North Korean Phone Money: Airtime Transfers as a Precursor to Mobile Payment System

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

By: Yonho Kim

More than one in five North Koreans have cell phones, and increasingly rely on them to conduct financial transactions. Many of these transactions involve trading cell phone airtime, or “phone money,” for goods and services, and even for offering bribes. This report examines the potential for airtime trading to evolve into a formal mobile money system, which could enhance market activity and stability while providing opportunities for the country to engage with the international community.

Type: Special Report

Economics & Environment

It’s Time for the U.S. To Rethink North Korea Policy

It’s Time for the U.S. To Rethink North Korea Policy

Thursday, September 10, 2020

By: Ashish Kumar Sen

A little over a year ago, U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s third meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was making headlines as much for its historic nature—it was the first time that a sitting U.S. president had set foot in North Korea—as for what it represented about the lack of progress in U.S.-North Korea relations. The next U.S. administration, whether it is led by Trump or former Vice President Joseph Biden, will face a more emboldened regime in Pyongyang and, according to experts, must rethink past failed strategies for dealing with this challenge.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

How to Engage the Enemy: The Case for National Security Diplomacy with North Korea

How to Engage the Enemy: The Case for National Security Diplomacy with North Korea

Thursday, September 3, 2020

By: Van Jackson

To help U.S. policymakers better manage the myriad risks they face on the Korean Peninsula, this report assesses whether and how to pursue national security diplomacy with North Korea. This concept of engagement responds to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 regarding the benefits and risks for US national security. Persistent engagement with North Korea’s national security elites, the report argues, is a policy wager with a large potential upside and very little cost and risk.

Type: Special Report

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

North Korea Blew Up Its Liaison Office with the South. What Now?

North Korea Blew Up Its Liaison Office with the South. What Now?

Thursday, June 18, 2020

By: Frank Aum; Patricia M. Kim

North Korea’s demolition this week of an inter-Korean liaison office that symbolized North-South cooperation marks a new spike in tensions between the countries, and in North Korean frustration with the United States. It was the latest in a string of inflammatory rhetoric and actions directed at Seoul and Washington since the failure of the February 2019 summit in Hanoi between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The building’s demolition renews strains over North Korea’s ongoing development of a nuclear weapons arsenal, the corresponding global sanctions against Pyongyang’s illicit behavior and the 67-year failure to formalize a peace treaty following the Korean War. USIP analysts Patricia Kim and Frank Aum discuss the latest downturn.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications