|
ChloeJoSecondEssay 3 - 10 Jun 2024 - Main.ChloeJo
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
End of War (?)
-- By ChloeJo - 16 Apr 2024 | |
<
< | In Evelyn Waugh's Novel Scoop, Mr. Salter has limited expressions of assent. When Lord Copper was correct, he says, "Definitely." When Copper was wrong, he says, "Up to a point." For instance, "Hong Kong belongs to use?" "Definitely, Lord Copper." Or "What's the capital of Japan, Yokohama, isn't it?" "Up to a point, Lord Copper." | | | | |
<
< | When asked "Has the Korean War ended?" what would Mr. Salter say? Would his answer be "Definitely" or "Up to a point"? | >
> | Preface
Reflecting now, I find myself unsure of what exactly I want to express in this second essay. We discussed war in class, and naturally, my thoughts turned to the Korean War. As an international student from a country where the war technically continues, this topic feels both relevant and personal. I aimed to delve into a more technical and legal subject with my limited knowledge of war that I have learned in Constitutional law class. | | | | |
>
> | Revising this essay, I realized that what I truly want to write about is the “real subject” of the war – honoring my grandfather, a Korean War veteran. His story, and the stories of many like him, are the real subjects of this war. His hearing impairment from handling artillery serves as a constant reminder of the conflict, while news of his recent battle with lung cancer underscores the ongoing state of war. The real subject of the Korean War is not just the political or military maneuvers, but its enduring human impact on those who lived through it. This revision is dedicated to writing about what I genuinely feel is important, not just what I think others want to hear from me. | | | | |
<
< | Historical Background | >
> | Has the Korean War Ended?
After World War II, the Korean Peninsula was divided along the 38th parallel, with a Soviet-backed North and an American-backed South. On June 25, 1950, the Northern Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea, aiming to militarily conquer the South. Fearing that the Soviet Union and Communist China might gain more power, U.S. President Truman sent troops to join a combined United Nations military effort. The war lasted three years and concluded with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement by the United States and China. Despite the cessation of hostile activities, the Korean Peninsula remains divided, with military personnel from both North and South Korea occupying the demilitarized zone. | | | | |
<
< | After World War II, the Soviet-backed government in the North and an American-backed government in the South divided the Korean Peninsula on the 38th parallel. On June 25, 1950, the Northern Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea, aiming to militarily conquer the South. Concerned that the Soviet Union and Communist China might gain more power, President Harry Truman sent troops to a combined United Nations military effort. The war lasted three years and ceased as the United States and China signed the Korean Armistice Agreement. The Korean Peninsula remains divided, with military personnel from both North and South Korea occupying the demilitarized zone. | >
> | Thus, technically, the Korean War has not ended. The document signed in 1953 was an armistice, not a peace treaty, of two other countries. According to the Humanitarian Law Guide, an armistice is a truce, a temporary suspension of hostilities, not a formal end of war. Although the technical meaning of armistice has changed over time, this distinction is crucial because it means that the Korean War is still ongoing. Indeed, both North and South Korean leaders believe that a state of war exists, and both their behaviors and communications with their own people and the international community are consistent with this belief. | | | | |
<
< | Legal Definition of End of War | >
> | At the beginning of the 21st century, the idea of Korean reunification seemed both desirable and possible. From conversations with my grandfather, I have come to understand the deep yearning for reunification among many older Koreans. For those who remember a time before the division, reunification represents a return to a homeland that has been fragmented by decades of conflict. However, the human reality is one of indeterminate separation, ongoing danger, and significant human costs. This makes me question whether we are still the same Korean people we once were, or if decades of division have fundamentally changed us. | | | | |
<
< | de facto war v. de jure war | | | | |
<
< | The law identifying the end of international armed conflict is sparse at best. The Geneva Conventions refer to the end of the conflict with phrases such as “when the last shot has been fired.” However, as with most human relationships, one may end a war unilaterally, but bilateral consent is necessary to establish peace. The material sense of the Korean War may have ended in 1953. Nevertheless, whether the Korean War really ended needs more exploration about the meaning of “armistice”. | >
> | Moving Forward- the "real subjects"
In all honestly, I don’t know the answers to the question of whether reunification is desirable or not – I am not a political analyst or policy expert. The reason why I am writing this essay is to talk about my country and keep my identity as a Korean. As Winston Churchill said, “A nation that forgets its past has no future.” It is my obligation to remember who I am and honor those who protected this country. The stories of the “real subjects” are essential in understanding the true impact of the Korean War and the ongoing struggle for peace and unity. | | | | |
<
< | Application to the Korean War
In the Korean War, the signed document was an armistice, not a peace treaty. What would be the legal effects of the armistice agreement? Does this simply mean a temporary suspension of “active hostilities”? The original meaning of armistice has been limited. The Humanitarian Law Guide states that an armistice is a truce, a temporary suspension of hostilities and thus does not reflect a juridical end of the state of war. However, after World War 1, the armistice changed its characteristic from suspension to cessation. WW1 ended with an armistice in 1918, as the Germans sent a late-night radio message to Marshal Foch, commander-in-chief of the Allied forces, requesting permission to send a delegation through the lines to negotiate an armistice. Germany agreed to the terms of the proposed terms of Allied forces including Article 20 stating that hostilities at sea must cease immediately.
Professor Yoram Dinstein, in War, Aggression, and Self-Defense, claims that the modern definition of an armistice agreement has evolved to mean the termination of a war, as the significance of a peace treaty is lost, and belligerent rights cannot continue. Accordingly, the case of the Korean Armistice Agreement, although it did “not produce peace in the full meaning of the term,” indicates that the Agreement was not intended to be a suspension of hostilities, but rather to be a complete cessation of them, leading to the end of the war. The original language of the Korean Armistice Agreement provides that “the undersigned… in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, … with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, … The Commanders of the opposing sides shall order and enforce a complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea by all armed forces under their control…” 4 U.S.T. at 236, 239 (emphasis added.)
Even though there is some room for debate about whether an armistice agreement terminates a state of war completely, it would be fair to presume that Mr. Salter would answer Korean War has ended “Definitely.”
Signed Peace Treaty
The following question would be then: if the Korean War has ended, then is it necessary to have a signed peace treaty? I don’t know a definite answer to this question but, rather than a passive meaning of the absence of war or armed conflict, it is important to obtain the active meaning of establishing peaceful relations. If only the normalization of relations between South and North Korea is achieved, there is no need for a declaration of peace.
In reality, starting from the declaration of withdrawal from the NPT, North Korea with diplomatic relations with over 160 countries, has been in ongoing conflicts with South Korea, the United States, and Japan. As a nuclear-armed state with long-range missiles, North Korea will be ranked alongside countries like Israel or Pakistan. There is no rational reason for the United States to adhere to its non-aggression treaty, and not only the Korean Peninsula but also the peace of Northeast Asia will be jeopardized.
Therefore, based on the mutual trust accumulated so far, South Korea should induce North Korea towards nuclear peace independently through disclosure, declaration inspection, and verification of nuclear materials, facilities, weapons, and technology. There is little chance that a peace treaty with North Korea without denuclearization will pass through the U.S. Congress, anyway.
The quest for peace on the Korean Peninsula mirrors global struggles for reconciliation and harmony. President Trump’s 2020 Middle East Peace Plan highlights that true reconciliation remains elusive as both sides resist compromise. Any meaningful peace treaty must garner the consent of all parties involved. Until such a consensus of Israel and Palestine is reached, the cycle of conflict and tension is likely to persist. Thus, as we strive for peace in our own lives and communities, let us also advocate for understanding, dialogue, and cooperation, honoring the sacrifices of those who have suffered the consequences of war.
Honoring my Grandfather's Journey
My grandfather, a Korean War veteran, sacrificed his health in service to his country. His hearing impairment from handling artillery serves as a reminder of the enduring scars of war, while news of his recent battle with lung cancer underscores the ongoing costs of conflict.
DPRK's government believes that a state of war exists, and both its behavior and its communications with its own people are consistent with that belief. So surely the answer must be closer to "to a point."
This draft shows by its ending that the real subject is personal, not technical. I think the best way to make it better is to honor that real subject. At the beginning of the century planning for Korean reunification made sense. But the human reality is of indeterminate separation, danger and human cost. That, it seems to me, is what you are really writing about.
| >
> | My grandfather’s experiences serve as a powerful reminder of what has been lost and what can still be achieved, providing a personal lens through which to view the complexities and aspirations of the Korean Peninsula. Preserving the stories of the “real subjects” of war and promoting their healing are crucial steps. My grandfather’s hearing impairment from handling artillery, his recent struggles with lung cancer, and his stories of camaraderie and loss are personal testaments to the enduring impact of the Korean War. These experiences highlight the human cost of conflict and the importance of remembering and learning from our past. They remind us that behind every political and military maneuver are real people with real stories and sacrifices. | | |
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | In writing this essay, I aim to honor my grandfather and all those who have suffered and persevered through this long-standing conflict. I wish to keep their stories alive and reflect on what it means for our future. By remembering our past and understanding the complexities of our present, we can strive to build a future where the Korean Peninsula is no longer a symbol of division and conflict but one of unity and peace. This hope is not just for the sake of a geopolitical ideal but for the countless individuals like my grandfather whose lives have been irrevocably shaped by this war. Ultimately, the task of the future is to ensure that the sacrifices of the past are not forgotten and that we work towards a world where such sacrifices are no longer necessary. It is about fostering understanding, compassion, and cooperation, and finding ways to bridge the divides that have kept us apart for so long. It is about honoring our history while striving for a better, more unified future. My grandfather’s legacy, and that of countless others, demands nothing less. |
|
|
ChloeJoSecondEssay 2 - 18 May 2024 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | End of War (?)
-- By ChloeJo - 16 Apr 2024 | | | Honoring my Grandfather's Journey
My grandfather, a Korean War veteran, sacrificed his health in service to his country. His hearing impairment from handling artillery serves as a reminder of the enduring scars of war, while news of his recent battle with lung cancer underscores the ongoing costs of conflict.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> |
DPRK's government believes that a state of war exists, and both its behavior and its communications with its own people are consistent with that belief. So surely the answer must be closer to "to a point."
This draft shows by its ending that the real subject is personal, not technical. I think the best way to make it better is to honor that real subject. At the beginning of the century planning for Korean reunification made sense. But the human reality is of indeterminate separation, danger and human cost. That, it seems to me, is what you are really writing about.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
ChloeJoSecondEssay 1 - 16 Apr 2024 - Main.ChloeJo
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
End of War (?)
-- By ChloeJo - 16 Apr 2024
In Evelyn Waugh's Novel Scoop, Mr. Salter has limited expressions of assent. When Lord Copper was correct, he says, "Definitely." When Copper was wrong, he says, "Up to a point." For instance, "Hong Kong belongs to use?" "Definitely, Lord Copper." Or "What's the capital of Japan, Yokohama, isn't it?" "Up to a point, Lord Copper."
When asked "Has the Korean War ended?" what would Mr. Salter say? Would his answer be "Definitely" or "Up to a point"?
Historical Background
After World War II, the Soviet-backed government in the North and an American-backed government in the South divided the Korean Peninsula on the 38th parallel. On June 25, 1950, the Northern Korean People’s Army invaded South Korea, aiming to militarily conquer the South. Concerned that the Soviet Union and Communist China might gain more power, President Harry Truman sent troops to a combined United Nations military effort. The war lasted three years and ceased as the United States and China signed the Korean Armistice Agreement. The Korean Peninsula remains divided, with military personnel from both North and South Korea occupying the demilitarized zone.
Legal Definition of End of War
de facto war v. de jure war
The law identifying the end of international armed conflict is sparse at best. The Geneva Conventions refer to the end of the conflict with phrases such as “when the last shot has been fired.” However, as with most human relationships, one may end a war unilaterally, but bilateral consent is necessary to establish peace. The material sense of the Korean War may have ended in 1953. Nevertheless, whether the Korean War really ended needs more exploration about the meaning of “armistice”.
Application to the Korean War
In the Korean War, the signed document was an armistice, not a peace treaty. What would be the legal effects of the armistice agreement? Does this simply mean a temporary suspension of “active hostilities”? The original meaning of armistice has been limited. The Humanitarian Law Guide states that an armistice is a truce, a temporary suspension of hostilities and thus does not reflect a juridical end of the state of war. However, after World War 1, the armistice changed its characteristic from suspension to cessation. WW1 ended with an armistice in 1918, as the Germans sent a late-night radio message to Marshal Foch, commander-in-chief of the Allied forces, requesting permission to send a delegation through the lines to negotiate an armistice. Germany agreed to the terms of the proposed terms of Allied forces including Article 20 stating that hostilities at sea must cease immediately.
Professor Yoram Dinstein, in War, Aggression, and Self-Defense, claims that the modern definition of an armistice agreement has evolved to mean the termination of a war, as the significance of a peace treaty is lost, and belligerent rights cannot continue. Accordingly, the case of the Korean Armistice Agreement, although it did “not produce peace in the full meaning of the term,” indicates that the Agreement was not intended to be a suspension of hostilities, but rather to be a complete cessation of them, leading to the end of the war. The original language of the Korean Armistice Agreement provides that “the undersigned… in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, … with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, … The Commanders of the opposing sides shall order and enforce a complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea by all armed forces under their control…” 4 U.S.T. at 236, 239 (emphasis added.)
Even though there is some room for debate about whether an armistice agreement terminates a state of war completely, it would be fair to presume that Mr. Salter would answer Korean War has ended “Definitely.”
Signed Peace Treaty
The following question would be then: if the Korean War has ended, then is it necessary to have a signed peace treaty? I don’t know a definite answer to this question but, rather than a passive meaning of the absence of war or armed conflict, it is important to obtain the active meaning of establishing peaceful relations. If only the normalization of relations between South and North Korea is achieved, there is no need for a declaration of peace.
In reality, starting from the declaration of withdrawal from the NPT, North Korea with diplomatic relations with over 160 countries, has been in ongoing conflicts with South Korea, the United States, and Japan. As a nuclear-armed state with long-range missiles, North Korea will be ranked alongside countries like Israel or Pakistan. There is no rational reason for the United States to adhere to its non-aggression treaty, and not only the Korean Peninsula but also the peace of Northeast Asia will be jeopardized.
Therefore, based on the mutual trust accumulated so far, South Korea should induce North Korea towards nuclear peace independently through disclosure, declaration inspection, and verification of nuclear materials, facilities, weapons, and technology. There is little chance that a peace treaty with North Korea without denuclearization will pass through the U.S. Congress, anyway.
The quest for peace on the Korean Peninsula mirrors global struggles for reconciliation and harmony. President Trump’s 2020 Middle East Peace Plan highlights that true reconciliation remains elusive as both sides resist compromise. Any meaningful peace treaty must garner the consent of all parties involved. Until such a consensus of Israel and Palestine is reached, the cycle of conflict and tension is likely to persist. Thus, as we strive for peace in our own lives and communities, let us also advocate for understanding, dialogue, and cooperation, honoring the sacrifices of those who have suffered the consequences of war.
Honoring my Grandfather's Journey
My grandfather, a Korean War veteran, sacrificed his health in service to his country. His hearing impairment from handling artillery serves as a reminder of the enduring scars of war, while news of his recent battle with lung cancer underscores the ongoing costs of conflict. |
|
| Revision 3 | r3 - 10 Jun 2024 - 00:43:18 - ChloeJo |
| Revision 2 | r2 - 18 May 2024 - 14:31:27 - EbenMoglen |
| Revision 1 | r1 - 16 Apr 2024 - 17:26:05 - ChloeJo |
|