Since the end of the Cold War, much of the focus of the international community has been on civil conflicts in the global south; Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Cambodia, and even Afghanistan have all been labeled at some point or another as internal civil conflicts, if not genocides. The international community, the UN, the EU, AU, and nation states, as well as individual citizens such as Bono and Al Gore, have all addressed these conflicts in their own unique ways for better or for worse. In most cases these conflicts highlight the inaction of the international community to produce any tangible results; the UN Security Council does still not consider Darfur genocide and so the conflict continues, those who perpetrated the Cambodian Genocide are only now being brought to justice, and Rwandans underwent 100 days of massacre before anything was done to help them. These are the examples of civil conflict that gain international attention for the images of human suffering they may present to the world through media, for their brutality and for the stories that tug at the heartstrings of citizens across the world. Yet another civil conflict exists in the world today; a quiet conflict between one people divided into two nations against their will since 1948 . When the Korean peninsula was divided into the Soviet controlled North and the American controlled South after 35 years of Japanese colonization , the nation was considered “a colonial backwater of little or no significance” . Today, the peninsula is still embattled in a war not ended by the armistice agreement of July 26th, 1953 . Since the end of the Cold War, the two competing nations have been slowly moving closer through the international community that has, especially in recent years, taken a renewed interest in restoring peace to the Korean peninsula. The United States, since the division of the peninsula, has been the prominent world stage actor to be involved in the Korean conflict, as well as other Southeast Asian nations, although the United Nations has not had any significant involvement with the process since the Cold War Ended . It is both a conflict of the Cold War and a conflict of the Post-Cold war era; the war is often called the ‘Forgotten War’ , and it is easy to see, amidst the efforts being made internationally, why the Korean conflict has faded into the shadows.

   For generations of today, who have never known anything but a divided Korean peninsula, the conflict is not seen as civil, but instead between two separate and distinct nations. To many Koreans, this could be nothing farther from the truth. As Gordon Cucullu comments, some Koreans would much rather embrace a unified Korea under communism, rather than the Korean people split apart in two separate nations . The division was lead by the United States; worried that the Soviet forces would occupy the entire peninsula, a territorial partition was a solution, although some thought it to be only temporary . Future Secretary of State Dean Rusk arbitrarily picked the thirty-eighth parallel as the divide; the Soviet Union would accept the surrender of the Japanese above, and the United States would accept below . The United States was not prepared to occupy the southern part of Korea , nor were they prepared for the Soviet controlled North to make the divide along the parallel permanent . This set in motion the beginning of the distinction between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), or North Korea and the Republic of Korea (ROK), or South Korea that would eventually escalate from civil conflict into war, and back into civil conflict in under ten years. By 1950, both North and South Korea had declared themselves independent nations, but claimed that the other belonged under their rule and would not recognize any other Korea . Both sides still thought of themselves as one people divided by two differing ideologies.

   On June 25th, 1950, North Korean forces moved across the thirty-eighth parallel in an attack against their southern democratic kin, forcing the international community to take a stance. With the United States leading the way, United Nations forces moved into the Korean peninsula and came to the aid of the ROK which otherwise would have fallen to the Communist North . At the onset of the armistice in 1953, the United Nations support for the South had accomplished a version of ‘peace’, and so the United States was left to commit themselves economically and politically to their democratic ally. What is often forgotten about the international communities involvement at the time however, is that it was not done out of pure concern for the South Korean people, but more so as another phase of the Cold War in which the Soviet controlled DPRK needed to be stopped . This Cold War policy in which citizens both north and south of the thirty-eighth parallel were used as pawns in the war between the United States and the Soviet Union would continue until the end of the Cold War, when the international community would then again have to address the civil conflict on the Korean peninsula.

   Peace in the Korean peninsula cannot be understood as events between the DPRK and the ROK; they must be first and foremost looked at as the interactions between the foremost international stage actor, the United States, and each nation separately. While talks occur between the North and South, the issues the United States addresses on an international level with each country influences these talks to the point that the U.S. is possibly the most influential actor in determining peace on the peninsula.

   The end of the Cold War brought about a movement for further control and security measures to be put into place around the world to further peace, especially in Northeast Asia . North Korea and the threat it posed to the security of the world once again became an issue in the international community, especially when in 1990 the nation issued threats to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) . The DPRK’s nuclear aspirations were, and still are a direct threat to not only the world, but also the ROK in the view of both the South Korean and United States governments. While it is not true now, at the time the chances of a DPRK attack against the ROK was much less feasible than a U.S. backed nuclear attack from the South against the North . This serves to reinforce the view in North Korea that because of its allegiance with the United States, the South Korean government cannot be trusted, thus stalling peace talks. Yet in 1994, the Geneva Agreed Framework was signed between North Korea and the United States, setting aside some of the political and nuclear tensions that had been standing in the way of peace talks . The nuclear issue once again gained forefront exposure on the international stage when in 2002 the DPRK publicly admitted they had a highly enriched uranium (HEU) program . This announcement went against conditions of the Geneva Agreed Framework, and subsequent Six-Party Talks proved no results, until in 2008 an “Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement” was produced, referring to the Joint Statement from the fourth round of Six Party-Talks in 2005 . Since 2006, when North Korea participated in underground nuclear testing, Chung-in Moon comments,

such developments cannot only jeopardize peace and stability on the Korean peninsula by altering the balance of power between the two Koreas but also severely undermine strategic stability in the region by potentially triggering a nuclear domino effect.


With U.S. interests not only in the Korean peninsula, but elsewhere in Asia, the role of nuclear proliferation amongst failed, or failing states such as the DPRK is alarming. This issue, especially in recent years, has been one of the most important for members of the international community. Negotiating with North Korea is not easy to begin with , and on especially sensitive topics such as nuclear weapons one side can easily jeopardize the process towards peace between North and South Korea.

   While in recent years American policy towards North Korea in regards to its nuclear program has done nothing to ease tensions between the DPRK and ROK, U.S. foreign policy towards South Korea has begun to push the ROK away from their western ally, a shift Hyung Gu Lynn sees as being beneficial to eventual peace . An influx of protests against American “incidents, policies, individuals, statements, and places” has captured attention both in and outside of South Korea. Two U.S. soldiers stationed in the ROK were charged with the deaths of two South Korean schoolgirls with their armored vehicle in 2002 , sparking massive protests in the country. The soldiers were found to be not guilty in the US military court, which under the U.S.-Korea Status of Forces Agreement overrode the need for them to be tried in a South Korean court . The legacy of the Kwangju Massacre in 1980, and the continuing public suspicion over whether American soldiers knew, and did or didn’t take action has also created a growing distrust amongst the public . As time continues, and American soldiers continue to clash with ROK soldiers, tensions internally in the South are heightened. However, these are just incidents that highlight a larger movement within the South Korean people. A generational gap is beginning to change U.S-Korea relations , and how the people view that relationship. A young, highly educated, worldly, and technology savvy generation are beginning to make waves in all realms of Korean society, and their views on war, the United States, and their North Korean neighbors are not the same as those of their parents or grandparents. They are more open to normalizing relations with the DPRK, both economically and politically, and similarities have been made between the youth movement for peace in the divided Korean peninsula, and the youth movement in Israel and Palestine for a harmonious future. Summits between the DPRK and ROK are up, and the North’s propaganda has shown a downturn in anti-ROK sentiment while trade between the two is reaching an all-time high . As the U.S. continues to embroil itself in questionable foreign invasions , and a newer generation questions the accepted U.S. involvement in Korean affairs, the South Korean people are moving away from their dependency on the United States politically and, to a lesser extent economically, and closer with the DPRK.

   Reunification has been topic of discussion since the original separation in 1948. This would require both a formal end to the Korean War in the form of a peace treaty, and to the civil conflict that has divided the peninsula. Several options have been proposed in the past, many of which from within the two nations , which again suggest that they wish to see and end to the conflict. Before the Cold War had ended, DPRK leader Kim Il-Sung had suggested a version of a ‘Democratic Confederal Republic of Korea’, under which “both Koreas would have one seat in the UN, they would unify their currency and foreign policies, but maintain two separate socio-economic systems” . Since the end of the Cold War, various South Korean leaders have suggested plans of peaceful reunification; many are based on a nonviolent approach, while others follow more closely an American functionalist approach . What is worth noting, however, is that while there is western discussion on what should be done to bring peace to the Korean peninsula, the United States has refrained from any official stance on the idea of reunification of the two Koreas, and, Edward Olsen argues, has perhaps gone so far as to oppose it .

   Sixty years of separation has drastically changed the way in which the international community views the Korean peninsula, and how the two separate Korean states view the international community. The United Nations is often seen as the primary actor involving the Korean War, but throughout the civil conflict the United States has played a vital role, both good and bad. It is charged with dividing the peninsula in 1948, and allowing the land north of the thirty-eight parallel to be controlled by the Soviet Union. It came to the aid of the Republic of Korea in 1950 , even though it is argued that it was only out of the Cold War battle for supremacy with the Soviet controlled Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Post-Cold War, the UN faded from the world stage actors involved in the Korean peninsula peace process, which was left mainly to the United States. In recent years, North Korea’s nuclear ambitions has created a new dynamic within relations; the peace process is influenced heavily by U.S. involvement and policy, because of their allegiance with the ROK. The Geneva Agreed Framework in 1994 , and Six-Party Talks have both created more distrust between the two Koreas and the United States, and eased some tensions in the area of nuclear safety. South Korea continues to move away from the U.S, as American foreign policy and actions within the peninsula by soldiers alienate the population . Perhaps one of the most overlooked reasons for the new pro-Korean peace movement is the youth; they are in favor of relations with their kinsmen in the North , and unlike their parents and grandparents have not lived through the Korean War, and parts of the Cold War, so look at the conflict in a very different way. Many Korean citizens both north and south of the thirty-eighth parallel view themselves as one nation , and so it is not a stretch to view what is often classified as the Korean War as a part of a larger Korean civil conflict. In the post-Cold War era, it has been the United States who has influenced the peace process on the peninsula, and for whatever has happened in the past, the prospects for bringing to a close sixty years of division and conflict are perhaps better than ever before.


Works Cited

Chung-in, Moon. “Managing the North Korean Nuclear Quagmire.” The United States and Northeast Asia. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2008.

Cucullu, Gordon. Separated At Birth: How North Korea Became the Evil Twin. Guilford, CN: Lyons Press, 2004.

Cuthbert, Randall. Peace with North Korea. Denver, CO.: Outskirts Press, Inc., 2007.

Haas, Michael. “The Functionalist Approach to Korean Reunification.” Korean Reunification: Alternative Pathways. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1989.

Institute for East Asian Studies, Seoul. Foreign Policy for Peace and Unification. Seoul, KR: Institute for East Asian Studies, 1975.

Lynn, Hyung Gu. Bipolar Orders: The Two Koreas since 1989. . Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing, 2007.

Olsen, Edward. U.S. Policy and the Two Koreas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988.

Sjoberg, Tommie. From Korea And Suez To Iraq. SE: Sekel, 2006.