DPRK Government's three-point proposal for establishment of a new peace mechanism Taking into account the United States' Korean policy and the current state of DPRK-Us relations, the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea initiated a three-point proposal for establishment of a new peace mechanism, in order to urgently arrange for, at least, and institutional device aimed at preventing an armed conflict and war on the Korean peninsula. It was made public on 22 February 1996 in a press statement of a spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry. The spokesman said: The obsolete armistice system, an outcome of the cold war, has never been conducive to the peace on the Korean peninsula since it was established, but used only as a tool testifying to the hostile relations between the DPRK and the United States and the United Nations. Moreover, the function of the Military Armistice Commission, which had served as a sole tool supervising the implementation of the Armistice Agreement, was paralyzed due to the United States' one- sided step. As signatories to the Armistice Agreement, the DPRK and the United States assume a noble responsibility for prevention of another war on the Korean peninsula and overall peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. The DPRK persistently holds that a peace agreement be signed between the DPRK and the United States in order to arrange for a device which ensures a complete, comprehensive and durable peace on the Korean peninsula. But, with the United States' Korean policy and the current state of DPRK-US relations taken into account, the DPRK deems it necessary to urgently arrange for an institutional device at least to deter an armed conflict and war on the Korean peninsula. In this respect, the DPRK Government offers the following extensive proposal for establishment of a new peace mechanism on the Korean peninsula: Firstly, a tentative agreement should be signed between the DPRK and the United States in order to prevent and armed conflict and a danger of war on the Korean peninsula and keep up the state of armistice in a peaceful way. This agreement will provide for the management of the Military Demarcation Line and the Demilitarized Zone, the method of settling armed conflicts and accidents, the formation, duties and authority of a joint military body, the amendment and supplement of the tentative agreement and other issues on maintenance of security order. The tentative agreement will replace the Armistice Agreement until a complete peace agreement is concluded. Secondly, a DPRK-US joint military body should be organized and operated in Panmunjom to replace the Military Armistice Commission for implementation of the tentative agreement and its supervision. Thirdly, negotiations should be held at a concerned level to discuss the conclusion of the tentative agreement and organize the DPRK-US joint military body. If the DPRK's proposal is carried into effect now that an agreement on non-aggression was already adopted between the north and south of Korea and the north- south joint military body has been inaugurated, a turning point will be made in easing tension and achieving peace on the Korean peninsula and a precondition be provided for confederal reunification. The DPRK's proposal is a realistic initiative that accords entirely with interests of the signatories to the Korean Armistice Agreement as well as all parties concerned. The United States should affirmatively respond to the DPRK's initiative which reflects its generosity and peaceful stand.-0- KPA Panmunjom Mission's memorandum on Korean armistice system The Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People's Army made public a memorandum on March 8 disclosing the real state of the Korean armistice system in connection with the fact that the United States, far from showing an affirmative response to the DPRK's new proposal for establishing a peace mechanism, is spreading rumors that the preservation of the outdated armistice agreement will contribute to the security in the Korean peninsula. The United States is signatory to the Korean Armistice Agreement (KAA). Included in the KAA signed on 27 July 1953 were necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of hostilities and armed conflicts in the Korean peninsula until the Korean question is solved in a peaceful way. Recalling that the DPRK has consistently made sincere efforts to turn the armistice into a lasting peace, strictly observing the KAA, the memorandum cited materials to prove that the United States has tried to break it. It said: The U.S. side refused to implement paragraphs of the KAA on peaceful solution to the Korean question. It went the length of scrapping paragraphs prohibiting introduction of military equipment and combat materials. It brought preliminary talks to a rupture, thus making it impossible to implement Paragraph 60 stipulating that, within three months after the KAA is signed, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held to settle through negotiation the questions of withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc. It also torpedoed the Geneva meeting on the Korean question in April 1954. It illegally introduced huge combat materials into south Korea in wanton violation of Subparagraph 13D of the KAA. Many of 63 paragraphs of KAA's five articles including those on composition of the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) and its functions and authority were torn up by the U.S. side. What remain unscrapped are nine paragraphs included in Article 1 9Military Demarcation Line and Demilitarized Zone). These paragraphs are also reduced to ones which are only recorded in the agreement and, in actuality, they play no effective role. As a result, the KAA has become a mere sheet of paper which is useless in preserving peace in the Korean peninsula. From the first days of formation of the MAC, the U.S. side has made very conceivable effort to paralyze its function; at MAC meetings it called for convening "regular meetings" and "extraordinary meetings" which was not specified in the agreement and went the length of arguing that the number of MAC meetings be reduced to once in six months and meetings of chief secretaries to once a month. As a consequence, cases of violations of the armistice failed to be handled promptly. Whenever they found themselves in a tight corner at meetings for their criminal acts, the U.S. side unilaterally withdrew from the conference room only to rupture discussions on issues raised. To make matters worse, they claimed that cases of violations of the agreement should be handled by means of information through telephone notes and documents. It has destroyed the function and role of the armistice supervisory tool in a systematic way before it appointed, on 25 March 1991, a general of the south Korean army as "senior member of the UN forces Side" to the MAC, a man who had no qualifications and competence. As a result, the MAC has been completely paralyzed. The U.S. side hindered activities of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC) for the mere reason that it was a factor obstructing its arms buildup and tenaciously maneuvered to make it dissolved. In addition, it resorted to vicious moves to abuse delegations of the NNSC for its military and political purpose. On 28 April 1994 the Government of the DPRK put forward an epochal proposal to replace the KAA with a new peace agreement. It installed the Panmunjom Mission of the KPA in accordance with the proposal. The United States has not yet showed any affirmative response to the DPRK's magnanimous proposal for establishing a new peace mechanism. It must not mistake this offer for one begging for peace. Option does not belong only to the United States. We will take a final and active measure to replace the old armistice system with a new device in case the U.S. drags on time, refusing to accede to our proposal for negotiation.-0-