Reality check on NLL

With less than two months before the Dec. 19 presidential election, the controversy over the Northern Limit Line (NLL) persists as a campaign issue in Korea.

This controversy was sparked by an allegation from a member of the ruling Saenuri Party that former president Roh Moo-hyun gave up the South’s claim on the NLL during “a secret meeting with Kim Jong-il in 2007.”

The Saenuri Party and its candidate Park Geun-hye pressed opposition candidate Moon Jae-in, who served as chief of staff for Roh, to clarify the allegation against Roh. In response, Moon and other former officials of the Roh administration strongly denied the allegation. The former President said to an audience in Seoul a few days after his return from his meeting with Kim that he did not “touch on” the NLL.

Yet, the Saenuri Party still demands a public disclosure of the transcript of that meeting. The Democratic United Party (DUP) demands that the Saenuri Party’s whistleblower identify and disclose the transcript that he claims he had read. It is all about election politics.

Public access to classified information, prior to its declassification date, requires approval from the National Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote. As a compromise, it was proposed that selected members of the Intelligence Committee of the National Assembly be allowed to read the transcript in question to discover the truth behind Roh’s statement.

Regarding the NLL, Park sees it as a territorial boundary that must be protected at all costs. Both the DUP’s Moon and independent Ahn Cheol-soo say they are committed to the defense of the NLL. However, none of the three has discussed the origin and problematic nature of the sea border.

The NLL is an unsettled issue between the two Koreas and is not accepted by international law. Unlike the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) as defined in the 1953 Armistice Agreement that serves as the boundary between the two Koreas, the NLL was declared unilaterally by the United Nations Command (UNC) one month after the armistice was signed. There was no record showing that the UNC had notified North Korea of this line and the North has never agreed to it.

Then UNC commander Gen. Mark Clark drew the line to control South Korean vessels from navigating closer to the North’s side. The North had agreed that the five islets in the West Sea ―including Yeonpyeong and Baengnyeong ― would remain under UNC and South Korean control. Belatedly, the North complained about the NLL, which it said was drawn to stop defections of South Korean vessels to the North.

The NLL was drawn under the old notion of a territorial waters limit of 3 nautical miles. In 1955 North Korea claimed a 12-mile limit from its coast line, which was later internationally accepted to define territorial waters. In 1977, the North claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 nautical miles and a 50-mile military boundary zone around the islands in control of South Korea. These claims were rejected by the South.

The South and the UNC have maintained that the NLL is a non-negotiable, practical maritime demarcation separating two military forces that has existed for the past 60 years. As unification minister Yu Woo-ik said this week, all successive governments in the South have held a consistent position on the NLL, although the South has suffered a high loss of life in several naval clashes that have occurred along the sea boundary.

The Basic North South Agreement signed in December 1991 during the Roh Tae-woo government stipulated that the two sides will continue to discuss the settlement of the NLL, while observing the MDL and “the areas that have been under the jurisdiction of each side” until then.

The United States takes an equivocal position on the NLL, while it strongly backs South Korea’s response to North Korean provocations on the West Sea. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea or the principles of “non-encroachment” does not apply to the situation involving the NLL. Recently released documents show U.S. officials, including Henry Kissinger in 1975, having trouble identifying the legal basis for the NLL.

What Roh Moo-hyun did to gloss over the NLL issue was a creative approach. In October 2007, the North and the South agreed to establish a “joint peace and fishing zone” to allow the free passage of vessels on the troubled sea. However, the North may have viewed this proposal as the termination of the NLL. This interpretation may explain the recent claim by the North that the NLL no longer exists as the result of inter-Korean agreements.

It is hard for any candidate to give up the NLL which is viewed as a territorial boundary. But the NLL is not a border that defines the limit of South Korea’s territorial water. It is not supported by the South’s constitution or by international practice. It is viewed differently depending on whether the two sides are regarded as two independent countries or as a temporally divided nation moving toward unification.

The NLL issue will not go away as long as Korea remains divided. This has to be settled through negotiation with the North Koreans, no matter who is elected as president. When it is settled, the two sides will be able to avoid a repetition of deadly clashes that occurred in the West Sea at a lower cost of defense investment. What’s your take?

The writer is a research professor of the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and a visiting professor at the University of North Korean Studies. He is also an ICAS fellow. Reach him at tong.kim8@yahoo.com. <The Korea Times/Tong Kim>