South Korean Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young recently announced his intention to restart inter-Korean dialogue by restoring the Sept. 19, 2018, inter-Korean military agreement. Chung argued that rebuilding military trust was essential to repair the currently severed inter-Korean relationship. While this sounds reasonable on the surface—dialogue does require mechanisms and causes—the real question is whether calling for the agreement’s restoration makes sense without first examining why it collapsed and who bears responsibility.
The Sept. 19, 2018, inter-Korean military agreement was designed to ease tensions and build trust between the two Koreas, but North Korea’s unilateral violations and provocations rendered it effectively meaningless. Simply calling for the agreement’s restoration risks obscuring North Korea’s mistakes and essentially pardoning Pyongyang. We must critically examine whether repeatedly extending olive branches to North Korea without principles—in the name of dialogue—actually contributes to Korean Peninsula peace.
A flawed agreement from the start
An annex to the 2018 inter-Korean summit, the Sept. 19 military agreement focused on removing guard posts from the DMZ, establishing a no-fly zone near the border, and suspending hostile acts at sea. Though presented as a symbol of reduced military tensions following the leaders’ political agreement, the deal had clear structural flaws: it excluded North Korean nuclear and missile programs, lacked reciprocity, and provided no means to verify compliance or punish violations.
The agreement ultimately harmed South Korea’s security through unilateral disarmament and intelligence-gathering restrictions, failing to ensure South Korea’s safety despite its peaceful rhetoric.
North Korea’s blatant violations were the primary cause of the agreement’s collapse. Despite the deal, North Korea continued firing short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and completely violated the agreement’s spirit by explosively demolishing the inter-Korean liaison office in Kaesong in 2020. After 2022, North Korea’s launch of tactical nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and repeated artillery fire escalated military tensions further.
North Korea’s surprise DMZ gunfire and drone infiltrations made inter-Korean military clashes a real possibility. South Korea’s decision to suspend the agreement was an unavoidable response to these violations. The responsibility for destroying the Sept. 19 agreement clearly lies with North Korea. Calling for restoration while ignoring this reality is a dangerous approach that muddles accountability.
Dialogue requires more than agreements
Chung’s “cause for dialogue” amounts to political rhetoric. Meaningful dialogue depends more on North Korea’s attitude changes than on any agreement. Establishing conditions for dialogue requires at minimum some trust, but North Korea has gone beyond merely shredding the agreement to regularly engaging in military provocations. Restoring the agreement would more likely justify North Korea’s irresponsibility than open doors to dialogue.
North Korea has already demonstrated through its actions that it has no intention of honoring agreements. Arguments that restoring the deal would open the floodgates to inter-Korean dialogue rest on weak foundations and could result in South Korea imposing additional security limitations on itself—violating the current administration’s “pragmatic” approach.
As previous South Korean governments have learned, North Korea uses dialogue tactically, signing agreements when necessary and violating or ignoring them when convenient. If South Korea calls for restoring the agreement, North Korea will present this as a diplomatic and psychological victory for regime propaganda. Rather than leading to substantive improvements in inter-Korean relations, this approach will likely weaken South Korea’s negotiating leverage.
A better path forward
True peace and trust-building in inter-Korean relations must be built on principles and reciprocity. Rather than the political slogan of restoring the Sept. 19 agreement, we need a precise evaluation of North Korea’s violations and pressure on Pyongyang to take responsibility.
While restoring the agreement is unrealistic and risks giving North Korea a free pass, completely ignoring inter-Korean relations and leaving them severed will inevitably increase tensions. Instead of restoring the agreement, pursuing humanitarian exchanges—which carry less political baggage and can generate domestic consensus—would be more effective.
Regularizing family reunions
Separated families represent the most direct harm from Korea’s division and urgently need resolution as survivors rapidly age. According to the Ministry of Unification, 98,981 of the 134,484 reunion applicants registered between 1988 and July 31 have died—73.6% of all applicants. Among survivors, 84.4% are 70 or older.
The 2018 Mount Kumgang family reunion profoundly impacted people on both sides of the DMZ, but efforts to hold regular meetings have since stalled. Using teleconferencing technology and video message exchanges could enable family contact without physical movement. The two Koreas must restart Red Cross talks and, working with the International Red Cross, regularize reunions through various methods including teleconferencing, video messages, and letters.
Food and medical aid through international agencies
North Korea’s food and public health crises threaten its people’s survival and health rights, requiring humanitarian responses separate from political considerations. South Korean leadership on aid could secure moral legitimacy internationally. In the 2000s, South Korea provided food aid through the World Food Programme while cooperating with the World Health Organization on medicine supplies. Going forward, South Korea should expand conditional aid—complete with monitoring systems—through international agencies, prioritizing North Korea’s most vulnerable populations like infants and pregnant mothers.
Joint disaster response and reforestation
Cross-border disasters like climate-driven floods, droughts, forest fires, and epidemics affect both Koreas, making cooperation mutually beneficial and trust-building. The 2019 Goseong forest fire demonstrated the need for joint North-South responses.
NASA’s August release of 2024 global forestry and land use data revealed North Korea’s decade-long reforestation efforts from 2015-2024. The project began when Kim Jong Un called for turning the country into “golden mountains” and “treasure mountains” in his 2015 New Year’s address. Analysis showed North Korea planted 1.22 million hectares of forest over 10 years—72.7% of the 1.68 million hectare target.
An Inter-Korean Centre for Forest Cooperation could serve as a base for North Korea’s reforestation efforts and joint disaster response, expanding into a platform for forest fire and flood response plus reforestation and technology sharing. We need systems for joint disaster response through shared survey teams, emergency supplies, and technology.
Preventing political misuse
Most importantly, additional verification mechanisms must ensure humanitarian exchanges aren’t misused as North Korean political propaganda tools. We need systematic on-ground verification through transparent aid distribution via trilateral cooperation with international agencies and joint North-South monitoring systems. Aid conditions must clearly state that exchanges will be temporarily suspended during military provocations. With these mechanisms, humanitarian exchanges can serve purely as channels for improving people’s lives.
North Korea likely won’t accept this proposal. However, we must continue making this proposal and building supportive environments regardless of who leads South Korea.
Calls to restore the Sept. 19 inter-Korean military agreement claim this will open dialogue pathways, but this seriously risks ignoring North Korea’s repeated violations and provocations. Rather than restoring the agreement, humanitarian exchanges that directly improve lives are more urgent and effective, including regular separated family reunions, expanded food and medical aid through international agencies, and cooperative disaster response and reforestation systems.
Ultimately, Korean Peninsula peace and substantive inter-Korean relations must begin with principled, trust-based humanitarian cooperation—not restoring the Sept. 19 agreement or pursuing ephemeral political slogans. The South Korean government must abandon rhetorical approaches that ignore North Korea’s behavior and reestablish inter-Korean relations through policies delivering concrete benefits to people on both sides.