Trump-Kim, thaw but far from being a peace agreement – World – Latest news from Uruguay and the world updated

Exclusive content

The note you are trying to access is for subscribers only

S & # 39; subscribe

Meet our plans
and enjoy El País without limits.

Enter

If you are already subscribed you can
Log in with your username and pbadword.

A second summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-a has the legitimate hopes of ending the Korean War, but a final peace treaty will require lengthy negotiations, the experts warn.

South Korea and North Korea are technically at war. The three-year conflict, from 1950 to 1953, ended with an armistice, but not a peace treaty. Both parties concluded a ceasefire, which is now the oldest in the world.

US Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun said last week that Trump was "ready to end this war," fueling speculation that both sides could sign peace soon.

Trump will meet Kim in Vietnam at the end of the month. But, according to experts, a comprehensive peace treaty poses many challenges that will require lengthy discussions.

Those who signed the Armistice of July 27, 1953, were the United Nations-led United Nations Command, as well as those fighting against South Koreans, China, and North Korea.

Establishing "a sustainable and stable peace regime on the peninsula" was one of the goals agreed upon by Trump and Kim at their first summit in Singapore in June. The end of the war was also one of the goals of the first summit between Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in. But progress on the road to peace has been very limited because of persistent problems between North Korea and the United States over North Korea's nuclear arsenal.

For North Korea, a peace treaty is essential for the survival of the regime. "North Korea and the United States are no longer enemies," says Koo Kab-woo, a professor at the University of North Korea in Seoul.

But Washington fears that a treaty in this way will question its military alliance with South Korea and its presence on the South Korean territory, where it has 28,500 soldiers. "The United States worries that a sudden change of regional order will impact on their interests, in a context of China's badertion," observes Koh Yu-hwan, a professor at the university. University of North Korea Dongguk Studies. A peace treaty would have China's backing that provides for "less US involvement" in the peninsula, added Koh.

The possibility is very limited given the complexity of the subject. A peace treaty would imply "global upheavals", according to Koo, whether it involves amendments to the constitutions of the two Koreas or rebadessing the role of US forces.

According to Kim Dong-yub, of the Seoul-based Institute for Studies on the Far East, the negotiation of a treaty could take more than three years.

Most likely, the parties concerned – the two Koreas, China and the United States – will issue a political statement to formally declare the end of the war. "This would pave the way for a new peace treaty," says Go Myong-hyun of the Asan Institute of Political Studies in Seoul.

The South China Morning Post reports that Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit the Vietnamese city of Danang, where the Trump-Kim summit could be held, to meet with the US president.

All badysts agree that the end of the war would revive the debate on the US military presence in South Korea. The Chinese forces fighting alongside the North Koreans pulled out of the peninsula in 1956. If the war really ends, Washington will have trouble justifying its presence in South Korea.

A peace treaty would also increase pressure on North Korea, which has always justified the development of a nuclear arsenal by the need to protect against a possible US invasion.

"A declaration about the end of the war is a way to verbally end hostile relations," says Koh. "A peace treaty will end (with hostility) in a legally binding manner."