|
Quotes of the day:
“Although I am an advocate of military discipline, I am opposed to the Purssian type of discipline, which makes a man a machine rather than an individual. One reason the American soldier will always be superior to that kind of soldier is that he does not obey blindly, but with intelligent cooperation, interpreting his order by his own judgment.”
– Colonel Warren L. Mabry, US Army, 1921.
"To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
– Oscar Wilde
"The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell."
– Simone Weil
1. How a plain-language pamphlet created America's revolutionary mindset
2. Pentagon officially announces Colby's trip to S. Korea, Japan following NDS release
3. Editorial: Shift in USFK's Role Inevitable; South Korea Must Find Urgent Countermeasures
4. New US defense strategy shifts alliance roles, puts focus on OPCON transfer
5. Kim, Vance establish hotline to prevent misunderstandings over Coupang issue
6. [Exclusive] Osan Air Base security measure raises data breach concerns
7. The Impact of the US National Security Strategy’s Blind Spot on North Korea
8. How North Korea Uses an 80-Year-Old Youth Group to Control Society
9. The Domestic Impediment to Lee Jae-myung’s North Korea Policy
10. Japan and South Korea: Competition and Cooperation
1. How a plain-language pamphlet created America's revolutionary mindset
Summary:
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was an early masterclass in information warfare. It bypassed elites and spoke directly to the population, using plain language to reframe authority, legitimacy, and identity. Paine did not argue policy. He reshaped cognition. By recasting monarchy as immoral and independence as a moral necessity, he aligned narrative, emotion, and reason into a shared mental model. The pamphlet spread horizontally through readings and conversation, creating narrative dominance before military victory was possible. The revolution began when perception shifted, when subjects became citizens, and when a population internalized a new story about who they were and what was required of them.
Comment: Something to reflect upon on a Sunday (especially timely for those of us remaining at home due to this snowstorm). Early American information warfare, cognitive warfare, and narrative intelligence. Emphasis on "plain language."
So let's think about "Common Sense" in the modern era. This is for all the PSYOP, Information Warfare, Public Affairs, and Public Diplomacy practitioners as well as all American patriots who love to study and remember our history.
If cognitive warfare succeeds by redefining legitimacy, how can modern states counter narratives that delegitimize authority without reinforcing them?
What contemporary equivalents to Common Sense exist today, and who controls their distribution in the global information environment? (I am inspired to think about whether such a "pamphlet" could be written by Koreans from or still in the north to inspire those in the north to create the conditions that would help the oppressed to free themselves, De Oppresso Liber)
I have the honor to support the North Korean Young Leaders Assembly led by my good friend and colleague Hyun Sueung Lee. (https://globalpeace.org/one-korea-global-campaign/nkyla/)
I have recommended to them to use the model of John Steinbeck and his book The Moon Is Down (written at the behest of OSS Director MG Wiliam Donovan) as a way to help the Korean people in the north to create the conditions for change inside north Korea. I would like Korean escapees from the north to write similar novels (writing in accordance with Korean custom, history, tradition, and current realities inside north Korea) to help teach the Korean people in the north how to resist, take collective action, and create the conditions for change inside north Korea. Ideally I would like to see a novel written specifically for each province in the north so that the Korean people could see themselves in the novels. Ultimately these novels could be turned into popular dramas for the most influence.
How a plain-language pamphlet created America's revolutionary mindset
wearethemighty.com
Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' gave the Colonists a common cause.
By Daniel Tobias Flint
Published Jan 24, 2026 8:00 AM PST
0
https://www.wearethemighty.com/history/how-a-plain-language-pamphlet-created-americas-revolutionary-mindset/
Get We Are The Mighty’s Weekly Newsletter
Military culture and entertainment direct to your inbox with zero chance of a ‘Reply All’ incident
The American Revolution did not begin with a musket shot. Long before armies marched and cannons thundered, the decisive struggle unfolded in the minds of the colonists themselves. The winter of 1776 marked a turning point not because of a single military victory, but because a fundamental transformation occurred in how Americans understood power, authority, and their place in the world. In January and February of that year, the revolution became not merely a resistance to British policy, but a moral and ideological struggle for independence.
At the center of this transformation stood a modest pamphlet with an extraordinary impact.
Related: This Revolutionary War battle was fought in lard with swords
On January 10, 1776, Thomas Paine published “Common Sense,” a work that shattered lingering hopes of reconciliation with Britain and replaced them with a bold and accessible argument for independence. More than any battle or congressional debate, “Common Sense” ignited what can best be described as a psychological revolution, one that turned subjects into citizens and grievances into destiny.
The Limits of Resistance
The Colonists were in a fighting mood during the Revolutionary War. (U.S. Army/Nathan Winter)
By the beginning of 1776, the American colonies had already endured years of conflict with Great Britain.
Taxes imposed without representation, punitive measures following the Boston Tea Party, and armed clashes at Lexington and Concord had pushed relations to the brink. Yet despite bloodshed and rising tensions, many colonists still clung to the belief that reconciliation remained possible. The prevailing sentiment among colonial leaders was not independence, but redress, an effort to restore what they viewed as their rightful place within the British Empire.
Even after the outbreak of war in 1775, the Continental Congress sent the Olive Branch Petition to King George III, expressing loyalty to the Crown and seeking a peaceful resolution. When the king rejected the petition and declared the colonies in rebellion, disappointment spread quickly, but certainty did not. For many Americans, independence represented a frightening leap into the unknown. Britain was powerful, experienced, and global. The colonies were divided, militarily weak, and politically untested.
What was missing was not anger or courage, but clarity. Colonists needed a compelling answer to a simple but profound question. Why should they become independent at all?
The Power of Plain Language
Thomas Paine had a way of getting his point across. (National Portrait Gallery of London)
Paine provided that answer, not through elite political theory, but through language that ordinary people could understand. An English immigrant of modest means, Paine arrived in America only months before publishing “Common Sense.” He held no political office and possessed no inherited authority. What he possessed was a keen understanding of public sentiment and an exceptional ability to communicate complex ideas with force and clarity.
Unlike previous political writings that relied heavily on classical references and legal arguments, “Common Sense” was direct, emotional, and unapologetic. Paine did not merely criticize British policies. He attacked the very foundation of monarchy itself. He argued that hereditary rule was absurd, unnatural, and incompatible with liberty. Kings, he wrote, were not divinely appointed guardians of order, but flawed men elevated by tradition and force.
By framing monarchy as a corrupt system rather than a misguided institution, Paine shifted the debate entirely. The problem was no longer a particular king or an overreaching parliament. The problem was the system that allowed such concentrated power to exist at all.
A Moral Necessity
Liberty or tyranny? Was there really a choice? (U.S. Air Force/Sarah Post)
One of the most radical aspects of “Common Sense” was its insistence that independence was not only practical, but morally required. Paine portrayed the conflict between Britain and the colonies as a struggle between liberty and tyranny, virtue and corruption. Continued submission to the Crown, he argued, amounted to complicity in oppression.
This moral framing transformed independence from a risky political option into an ethical obligation. To remain tied to Britain was not cautious. It was cowardly. To delay independence was not prudent. It was dangerous. Paine warned that continued reliance on Britain would entangle the colonies in European wars and expose them to endless manipulation by imperial interests.
By recasting the choice in moral terms, Paine stripped away hesitation. Independence was no longer a matter of timing or convenience. It was the only path consistent with the principles colonists claimed to value.
A Pamphlet that Reached the People
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
The impact of “Common Sense” was immediate and remarkable.
Within months, more than 100,000 copies were sold in a population of only a few million. Copies were read aloud in taverns, discussed in churches, and debated in town squares. Even those unable to read encountered its arguments through public readings and everyday conversation.
What made “Common Sense” revolutionary was not only its message, but its audience. Paine spoke directly to farmers, laborers, artisans, and shopkeepers, the very people who would bear the costs of war. He argued that independence was not the concern of elites alone, but a collective cause rooted in shared values and shared destiny.
In doing so, Paine democratized political thought. He asserted that ordinary people were capable of understanding, judging, and shaping their own government. This idea, that legitimacy flows upward from the people rather than downward from authority, would become a defining feature of American political identity.
The Rise in Calls for Independence
If the Colonists needed any inspiration, Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense’ helped to provide it. (Defense Department)
Before January 1776, calls for independence were often cautious and private, voiced quietly among select circles. After “Common Sense,” independence became a public demand. The pamphlet unified diverse colonial grievances such as economic restrictions, political exclusion, and military occupation into a single and compelling conclusion. Separation was inevitable and necessary.
The shift in public opinion was unmistakable. Newspapers echoed Paine’s arguments. Town meetings passed resolutions supporting independence. Colonial assemblies reconsidered the instructions given to their delegates in Congress. What once seemed radical now appeared unavoidable.
This change placed significant pressure on colonial leaders. Many members of the Continental Congress hesitated not because they lacked conviction, but because they feared acting without popular support. “Common Sense” resolved that dilemma. The people were ready, and in many cases, they were leading the way.
Thinking Like a Nation
As the Revolutionary War went on, momentum was building behind the Colonists. (Wikimedia Commons)
By February 1776, the ideological shift began producing tangible consequences. Colonial leaders increasingly thought not as subjects seeking reform, but as statesmen preparing for sovereignty. Conversations turned toward foreign alliances, particularly with France and Spain, long-standing rivals of Britain.
The act of seeking alliances marked a profound transformation. It required acknowledging that the colonies were, in practice if not yet in name, an emerging nation. Diplomacy demanded unity, legitimacy, and a willingness to engage in international politics. It also required confidence that independence was not merely desired, but achievable.
These discussions reflected growing realism. Leaders understood that defeating Britain would likely require foreign support. Yet alliances could only be secured through a clear declaration of intent. No European power would risk war with Britain on behalf of colonies that still claimed loyalty to the Crown.
Ideological commitment and strategic necessity now moved together. Independence was no longer just a philosophical ideal. It had become a requirement for survival.
The Fear of the Unknown
Colonists had some concerns about independence. (Smithsonian American Art Museum)
Despite growing momentum, doubts persisted. Independence promised freedom, but it also carried uncertainty. How would the colonies govern themselves? Could they remain united? Would independence lead to chaos or internal conflict?
Paine addressed these fears directly. He argued that the colonies already functioned independently, managing their own affairs and defending their territory. Government, he insisted, was a human creation designed to serve the people, not an inherited structure that must be preserved regardless of its failures.
By acknowledging uncertainty while rejecting fear, Paine encouraged colonists to imagine a future beyond empire. Independence was not reckless. It was an opportunity to design a better system from the ground up.
A Revolution Before the Declaration
The signing of the Declaration of Independence. (Shutterstock)
The importance of January and February 1776 lies not in legislation or military action, but in transformation. By the time Congress formally debated independence months later, the revolution in the mind had already occurred. The Declaration of Independence would later articulate principles that many colonists already accepted as self-evident.
Related: 6 things you didn’t know about the Declaration of Independence
This ideological shift explains the rapid pace of events in the spring and summer of 1776. When colonial assemblies authorized independence, they were not imposing a radical vision. They were responding to one that had already taken hold among the people.
In this sense, “Common Sense” did not create the revolution, but it clarified and accelerated it. It gave language to frustration, coherence to resistance, and moral weight to action.
Ideas that Made a Nation
America has a reason to celebrate this year. (U.S. Army/Faith Santucci)
The American Revolution was not inevitable. It required bold, uncertain, irreversible choices. In January and February 1776, those choices became possible because colonists began to see themselves differently. They were no longer merely resisting British rule. They were imagining a nation founded on principles rather than tradition, consent rather than inheritance.
Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” did not win battles or sign treaties, but it accomplished something equally decisive. It transformed independence from a whispered possibility into a shared conviction. Before muskets secured liberty on the battlefield, ideas secured it in the hearts and minds of the people.
That intellectual and moral revolution was the true beginning of the United States.
Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty
Contributor
Daniel Flint resides in Jacksonville, Florida. He is a professional historian specializing in American history, an educator, and a dedicated community servant. Originally from Chatham, New York, He earned his Associate in Arts from Hudson Valley Community College and his Bachelor of Arts from Union College, both with a focus on American history. He furthered his education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, obtaining his Class A teaching license.
Since 2009, Daniel has been a U.S. History educator for Duval County Public Schools, bringing history alive for his students. He has been honored as the 2022 Westside High School Teacher of the Year and the 2022 Gilder Lehrman US History Teacher of the Year for Florida. He is passionate about inspiring curiosity and a love for learning in his students.
Learn more about WeAreTheMighty.com Editorial Standards
wearethemighty.com
2. Pentagon officially announces Colby's trip to S. Korea, Japan following NDS release
Summary:
The Pentagon says Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby will travel to South Korea and Japan in the wake of the 2026 National Defense Strategy, framed as advancing POTUS’s “peace through strength” agenda. Seoul expects roughly a three-day visit with meetings on alliance issues such as burden sharing, South Korea’s defense spending, nuclear-powered submarines, and wartime OPCON transition. The NDS language signals “updating” U.S. force posture on the Peninsula and asserts South Korea can take “primary” responsibility to deter north Korea, with U.S. support “critical, but more limited.”
Comment: If I were advising our allies, here are some questions I would like to know the answers to in order to clarify the 2026 NDS in relation to the ROK/US alliance and the Asia-Indo-Pacific.. Unfortunately most of the answers to these questions would likely and rightly remain behind closed doors. These questions are not really ROK specific only but really could be asked by anyone who believes in the importance of the ROK/US alliance to US national security.
1. In operational terms, what does “primary responsibility” mean for the ROK military: command relationships, mission sets, and planning authorities in armistice, crisis, and war?
2. What concrete U.S. capabilities remain “critical” under your “more limited” support construct: ISR, missile defense, long-range fires, nuclear and conventional strike, cyber, space, and special operations? State the minimum package.
3. What specific force posture changes does the NDS envision (and that we will likely see in the Global Force Posture Review) for USFK: end strength, rotational forces, enablers, and theater sustainment, and what are the trigger conditions for each change?
4. How will you prevent a “primary responsibility” narrative from becoming a deterrence signal of U.S. reduced will, especially in the first 72 hours of a north Korean provocation?
5. If north Korea executes a limited attack below the threshold of major war, what is your decision framework for rapid allied response, and what authorities are pre-delegated to commanders?
6. How do you reconcile OPCON transition timelines with credible combined deterrence, and what operational risks are you accepting during the transition window? What is your personal vision of and expectation for OPCON transition?
7. What is your standard for allied burden sharing: percent GDP, readiness outputs, munitions stockpiles, mobilization capacity, and host-nation support, defense industrial cooperation and how will you measure compliance quarterly?
8. What is the combined ROK-US plan to defeat north Korea’s WMD coercion/escalation ladder, including nuclear signaling, counterforce options, and consequence management preparations under contested communications?
9. If a Taiwan contingency occurs, what missions do you expect Korea-based U.S. forces to perform, and what missions do you explicitly rule out, so we can plan without ambiguity? What contributions to a Taiwan contingency would you request from the ROK?
10. What “strategic flexibility” tasks (I prefer strategic agility) do you require from the ROK-US alliance across the Asia-Indo-Pacific: logistics nodes, ammunition production, repair capacity, maritime domain awareness, and air and missile defense integration?
11. What is your position on South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine pursuit as an operational asset for allied sea denial, ISR, and survivable strike support, and what constraints would you impose?
12. How will you harden the alliance against gray-zone coercion and subversion employing information warfare) and sabotage of ports, bases, and defense industry, and who leads counter-hybrid defense in combined planning?
13. If you believe the ROK-US alliance is not strategically central, identify the specific alternative architecture that replaces it, then explain how that alternative preserves deterrence against north Korea while improving U.S. freedom of action in the Asia-Indo-Pacific.
14. Did you sufficiently factor in an understanding of the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime into the elements of the NDS that address the Korean peninsula? Did you sufficiently factor in north Korea's relationship to China and Russia.
15. Given that your book is the basis for the 2026 NDS ("Colby Heavy with a Western Hemisphere twist"), if your force posture changes fail and deterrence breaks, who is the accountable operational owner of that risk, and what is the pre-committed U.S. response you will put in writing today?
I think the ROK side might frame its questions as if they were addressing a "hostile witness." Bridge will put all his lawyer training to good use.
Pentagon officially announces Colby's trip to S. Korea, Japan following NDS release | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · Song Sang-ho · January 25, 2026
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20260125000200315
By Song Sang-ho
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 (Yonhap) -- The Pentagon announced Saturday that Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby will embark on a trip to South Korea and Japan this weekend as part of an effort to advance U.S. President Donald Trump's "peace through strength" agenda.
Colby's trip to the core Asian allies follows the Pentagon's release on Friday of the new National Defense Strategy (NDS), which signals a potential adjustment to U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula and stresses allies' "burden sharing" as the Trump administration seeks to focus on deterring Chinese threats.
"This visit underscores the critical importance of the Indo-Pacific region and our alliances with the Republic of Korea and Japan," the Pentagon said in a press release, referring to South Korea by its official name.
U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby speaks during an event celebrating the Korean National Day and Armed Forces Day in Washington on Nov. 14, 2025. (Yonhap)
Earlier, informed sources in Seoul said that Colby is expected to make a three-day visit to South Korea through Tuesday.
In Seoul, Colby is expected to meet senior Korean defense and security officials for talks on a range of alliance issues, such as Seoul's push to build nuclear-powered submarines and retake wartime operational control from the United States, as well as its commitment to increasing defense spending.
He could also use his trip to brief officials in Seoul and Tokyo on the NDS.
In the latest NDS, the Pentagon said that South Korea is capable of taking "primary" responsibility to deter the North with "critical, but more limited" U.S. support -- a shift that it says is in line with America's interest in "updating" U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula.
In May, the Pentagon said that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth tasked Colby to draw up a new NDS to prioritize raising "burden-sharing" with allies and deterring China threats in the Indo-Pacific.
The NDS outlines the Pentagon's defense objectives and policy direction in line with the National Security Strategy released by the White House in December.
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · Song Sang-ho · January 25, 2026
3. Editorial: Shift in USFK's Role Inevitable; South Korea Must Find Urgent Countermeasures
Summary:
Chosunilbo argues the 2026 NDS makes a shift in USFK’s role unavoidable: South Korea should carry primary responsibility against north Korea’s conventional forces while the United States preserves conventional capacity for China and other contingencies. The editorial says this logic has been building for years due to long range strike, China’s growth, and South Korea’s improved air and naval balance. It warns, however, that force structure and readiness are hollowing out through manpower decline, weakened officer morale, and postponed combined training. “Self-reliant defense” rhetoric, it concludes, is not a plan.
Comment: But we have known this shift was coming since 2017 and the first Trump Administration. If USFK becomes more regionally mobile, what specific combined command, fires, and sustainment functions must remain on-peninsula to contribute to defense in order to preserve credible conventional deterrence in the first 72 hours of a crisis? Of course since the beginning of the OPCON transition process in 2004, the intent has benefor the ROK to develop independent warfighting capabilities. What does that mean and what is the status?
Editorial: Shift in USFK's Role Inevitable; South Korea Must Find Urgent Countermeasures
By The Chosunilbo
Published 2026.01.26. 00:21
Updated 2026.01.26. 00:57https://www.chosun.com/english/opinion-en/2026/01/26/SAUSYELY6FHHXAT2T56LJIPYDY/
U.S. National Defense Strategy NDS
The Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy (NDS) stated, “South Korea must bear primary responsibility for the threat posed by North Korea’s conventional forces.” While the U.S. focuses on deterring North Korea’s nuclear weapons, it plans to deploy U.S. conventional capabilities against other threats, such as those from China. Consequently, changes to the role of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) are inevitable. Troop numbers may decrease, or forces could be redirected to counterbalance China.
This was foreseeable. Even before the Trump administration, the U.S. had adjusted USFK operations in response to technological and geopolitical shifts. Supersonic missiles have normalized long-range strikes, and China’s rapid military growth is a growing concern. The U.S. appears to view South Korea primarily as a frontline surveillance base against China. South Korea’s military has also expanded externally. Its artillery, multiple rocket launchers, and tanks rank among the world’s best, while its air and naval forces have long surpassed North Korea’s. The rationale for maintaining USFK is weakening.
Regardless of U.S. strategic shifts, South Korea must dominate North Korea in conventional military strength. However, while the military has grown externally, it is rotting internally. Troops have decreased by 110,000 over six years, reaching 450,000 last year. The Defense Ministry had planned to maintain 500,000 active-duty soldiers by 2028 but is already short by 50,000. Seventeen army divisions have disappeared over the past two decades. Robots, drones, and AI are supposed to fill the gap, but limitations are clear. Without enough personnel, even advanced weapons cannot be operated.
Morale among officers, who face poor working conditions, has plummeted. With each change in administration, populist policies have raised soldier salaries, narrowing the pay gap between junior officers and conscripted sergeants. Morale has further declined since martial law. Training is sometimes inadequately conducted. The Lee Jaemyung government postponed ROK-US combined training and other exercises last year, citing heatwaves. Training is a critical opportunity to maintain and refine combat readiness, yet it has been delayed under various pretexts.
President Lee Jaemyung, shortly after the U.S. announced its new NDS, stated, “Self-reliant defense is a fundamental principle. It is unacceptable to spend a defense budget 1.4 times that of North Korea’s GDP and still fail to defend ourselves.” While this statement is valid, it is merely a positive self-assessment of the military’s external growth, not a concrete response plan.
Achieving self-reliant defense requires political change. Politicians reduced military service terms to 18 months to gain votes during elections. Without extending service periods or introducing female conscription, the troop shortage cannot be resolved. Innovative measures to boost military morale and conduct proper training without external pressure are essential. As the USFK’s role changes, public perception—that South Korea would face disaster without USFK—must also evolve.
4. New US defense strategy shifts alliance roles, puts focus on OPCON transfer
Summary:
The Korea Times reports the 2026 NDS frames South Korea as able to take “primary responsibility” for deterring north Korea, with “critical but more limited” U.S. support. It argues this language will accelerate two linked debates: strategic flexibility for USFK in the Asia-Indo-Pacific and wartime OPCON transfer under the existing three stage conditions based framework. Seoul has completed initial operational capability and is verifying full operational capability, with a stated goal of OPCON transfer by 2030. Washington reiterates extended deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, while Colby visits Seoul to explain implementation and seek allied buy in.
Comment: What concrete force packages and authorities stay on peninsula post OPCON transfer to prevent “strategic flexibility” from becoming a de facto reduction in conventional warfighting capabilities that provide the foundation for deterrence credibility?
As an aside, has the Pentagon addressed what we believe deters Kim Jong Un? Do we have sufficient understanding of the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime to determine what deters KJU?
New US defense strategy shifts alliance roles, puts focus on OPCON transfer
Text Size
Print
By Bahk Eun-ji
- Published Jan 25, 2026 4:07 pm KST
National Defense Strategy calls for expanded Korean role as Colby arrives in Seoul for alliance talks
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/defense/20260125/new-us-defense-strategy-shifts-alliance-roles-puts-focus-on-opcon-transfer
Soldiers from the Korean Augmentation to the United States Army (KATUSA) and U.S. service members assigned to U.S. Forces Korea salute the national flags during the opening ceremony of KATUSA Friendship Week at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, June 10, 2024, marking the 71st anniversary of the Korea-U.S. alliance. Newsis
A new U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) is expected to accelerate discussions over greater strategic flexibility for U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) and the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) from Washington to Seoul, as the U.S. calls for South Korea to take primary responsibility for deterring North Korea.
The Pentagon on Friday (local time) released its 2026 NDS, which states, “South Korea is capable of taking primary responsibility for deterring North Korea with critical but more limited U.S. support.” According to the strategy, the assessment reflects South Korea’s high defense spending, advanced defense industrial base and conscription system.
The document adds that “this shift in the balance of responsibility is consistent with America’s interest in updating U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula.” The wording points to a new division of roles within the alliance, under which Seoul would play a larger role in conventional deterrence while U.S. forces adjust their posture in line with broader strategic priorities, including deterring China.
The Donald Trump administration has consistently called for USFK’s expanded role in the Indo-Pacific region, with USFK Commander Gen. Xavier Brunson introducing an “east-up” map reflecting America’s view of the peninsula as an important position within the region’s broader strategic landscape.
This new strategy could also accelerate OPCON transfer, a process that began in earnest in the mid-2000s.
The two sides agreed on a conditional transition framework consisting of three stages: initial operational capability, full operational capability and full mission capability.
The allies have completed the first stage and are currently carrying out verification for the second. Although the U.S. defense strategy does not specify a timeline for the transfer, its emphasis on increased allied responsibility is consistent with Seoul’s long-standing view that the process should progress as soon as conditions are met. The Lee Jae Myung administration aims to achieve OPCON transfer by 2030.
The new strategy also states that the U.S. will continue to provide extended deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, even as allies take on greater roles in conventional defense.
As to the NDS, the president reiterated his administration’s emphasis on self-reliant defense. “In an unstable international environment, self-reliant defense is the most basic foundation,” Lee said in a social media post Saturday.
“It makes no sense for a country with the world’s fifth-largest military and defense spending equivalent to 1.4 times North Korea’s GDP (gross domestic product) to be unable to defend itself.”
He also said that “firm self-reliant defense and peace on the Korean Peninsula make sustainable economic growth possible,” linking defense autonomy to broader national interests.
U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby, left, and other members of military leadership wait for the start of a meeting at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., May 5, 2025. AFP-Yonhap
Seoul is expected to receive a detailed explanation about the new strategy as Elbridge Colby, the U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, arrived here on Sunday for a three-day visit. Colby, who played a central role in drafting the new defense strategy, is scheduled to meet senior South Korean officials, including Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back, to explain Washington’s approach and seek cooperation on implementing the new framework.
Ahead of the visit, the U.S. Department of Defense said Colby would travel to South Korea and Japan to promote Trump’s security approach of “peace through strength.” The Pentagon said the trip emphasizes the importance of U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific region as Washington moves to recalibrate deterrence responsibilities among allies.
Colby has repeatedly argued that allies with advanced military capabilities should take greater responsibility for their own conventional defense. Prior to his appointment, he said the U.S. should focus its military resources on missions that require unique American capabilities while encouraging allies to strengthen their regional deterrence roles.
During his visit, Colby is also scheduled to tour Camp Humphreys, the largest U.S. military base overseas. He will travel to Japan following his Korea visit as part of the same regional tour.
5. Kim, Vance establish hotline to prevent misunderstandings over Coupang issue
Summary:
Prime Minister Kim Min-seok tells Korean reporters he reassured Vice President JD Vance that Seoul is not singling out Coupang as regulators investigate a major data breach and labor allegations. Kim says Vance raised questions after U.S. investors petitioned USTR and filed arbitration claims alleging discriminatory treatment and political bias. Kim provided English translations of his full remarks and official releases, emphasized a 33.7 million customer breach and delayed reporting, and said Vance accepted there were legal issues under Korean law. They exchanged direct numbers to create a hotline and prevent escalation.
Comment: Hmmm....I think traditionally a hotline was established between two hostile elements. I cannot recall the VPOTUS as ever having a "hotline." How will Seoul separate legitimate regulatory enforcement from trade and political signaling so this dispute cannot be weaponized against the alliance?
Kim, Vance establish hotline to prevent misunderstandings over Coupang issue
Button Label
Listen
Text Size
Print
By Anna J. Park
- Published Jan 25, 2026 12:35 pm KST
- Updated Jan 25, 2026 4:53 pm KST
Korean PM assures no discriminatory treatment against US-based e-commerce firm
Prime Minister Kim Min-seok, left, and U.S. Vice President JD Vance pose at the White House in Washington, Friday (local time). Courtesy of Prime Minister's Office
In a meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Prime Minister Kim Min-seok emphasized that the Korean government is not treating U.S.-based e-commerce giant Coupang unfairly in its investigation into the company’s massive data breach and other labor-related allegations.
To prevent misunderstanding over the Coupang matter and other diplomatic issues, the two exchanged direct contact numbers to establish a hotline, according to the Prime Minister’s Office on Saturday.
Speaking to Korean correspondents in Washington Friday (local time), Kim said, “Vice President Vance raised several issues of interest, including questions about Coupang ... He asked specifically what problems the U.S. company was facing.”
Their discussion took place a day after two major U.S. investors in Coupang said they petitioned the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate the Korean government for what they call “discriminatory” treatment of the company. They also filed arbitration claims against the Korean government, saying the probe caused billions of dollars in losses.
They also claimed President Lee Jae Myung is anti-U.S. and pro-China and that Kim urged regulators to investigate Coupang “with the same determination used to wipe out mafias” — which the Prime Minister’s Office already clarified was a distortion of Kim’s remarks.
Kim said he explained details about the data leak affecting 33.7 million customers, the company’s delayed report about the breach to the authorities, and the recent unfounded accusations against the president and prime minister.
To counter those claims, Kim said, he provided Vance with English translations of his full remarks and related press releases.
“I made it clear that there has been no discriminatory treatment against U.S. firms (including Coupang),” Kim said. “Vice President Vance expressed his understanding, suggesting that under the Korean legal system there must have been some legal issues involved.”
When asked whether it seemed unusual for the U.S. vice president to mention an issue involving Coupang — a company that is not among America’s major corporations — Kim emphasized the strength of bilateral relations between Korea and the United States.
“Relations between the leaders of Korea and the United States have gone beyond a stage where they could be shaken by the lobbying of any particular company,” Kim said. “The alliance is far stronger than that.”
Kim also criticized Coupang’s conduct as falling short of global standards and even describing it as “anti-American.”
"Rather than adopting an attitude that falls short of both the law and common sense, and trying to resolve the issue in an anti-American and anti-business manner that does not align with the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of their business customers — the Korean public — I would like to advise Coupang to acknowledge the legal problems and work them out through rational business practices," Kim said.
In addition, he said the two sides agreed to maintain close communication going forward, exchanging direct contact numbers and establishing a hotline to prevent misunderstandings.
“Vice President Vance asked that this issue to be managed carefully so it does not lead to misunderstandings or unnecessary escalation between our governments,” Kim said. “I fully agreed with that approach, and told him that we would share factual updates on Coupang’s situation as quickly and transparently as possible.”
6. [Exclusive] Osan Air Base security measure raises data breach concerns
Summary:
New gate-control procedures at Osan Air Base now require ROK Air Force channels to collect reservists’ full resident registration numbers and submit them for entry registration in the US Department of Defense’s DBIDS system. Critics argue this expands sensitive data transfer to a foreign authority without clear Korean consent, deletion rights, or transparency on retention, especially after recent high-profile Korean data breaches. USFK frames the change as “enhanced security procedures” aligned with installation access rules, but the optics risk turning force protection into a political liability. Mishandled, it can erode public trust in combined readiness and complicate SOFA politics.
Comment: Alliance friction. How do we prevent this from causing damage to the alliance?
[Exclusive] Osan Air Base security measure raises data breach concerns
koreaherald.com · Hwang Joo-young · January 25, 2026
https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10662202
After special counsel’s raid last year, US forces tighten security procedures, expanding collection of Korean nationals’ sensitive data
South Korean and US military police record entry logs for vehicles entering Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, on Jan. 5. (Osan Air Base)
Osan Air Base, a key hub for South Korea-US air operations, has become the center of controversy over how sensitive personal data of Korean nationals is handled — raising concerns about consent, oversight and control over when such information is collected and retained by a foreign military authority.
According to multiple sources on Sunday, the South Korean Air Force’s Operations Command headquartered at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, is collecting full resident registration numbers of reservists mobilized for training and submitting them to the US 7th Air Force, which operates the base jointly with South Korean forces.
“In the past, reservists could enter the base under Korean military escort,” a South Korean Air Force official told The Korea Herald, speaking on condition of anonymity. “But since US forces now manage access control, identity verification standards have changed.”
“Previously, the Military Manpower Administration provided only basic information such as name, contact details, and date of birth,” the official added. “Now, US forces are requesting full resident registration numbers.”
The resident registration number is a 13-digit code that serves as South Korea’s primary national ID, similar in function to the US Social Security number. It encodes an individual’s date of birth, gender and place of registration. When combined with a person’s name, it can be used to open bank accounts or obtain mobile phone services, making it highly sensitive.
Under the revised process, the Air Force requests this personal data from the Military Manpower Administration — the agency responsible for managing conscription and reserve forces — about a month before training. The information is then submitted to US forces, who issue base access passes.
Internal documents outlining the procedural changes have already been circulated, another military official said. Approximately six reserve training sessions are held at the base annually, with about 50 reservists participating in each.
Question of consent and control
The controversy centers on where the collected personal data ultimately ends up, how the information is provided, and consent.
Information submitted for base access is stored in the Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS), a US Department of Defense-managed identity and access control system used across US military installations worldwide. US Forces Korea regulations — specifically USFK Instruction 5200.08 — stipulate that the identities of all external visitors are to be registered in the system.
Once DBIDS records the identities of visitors, the data remains in the system even after access to a base ends, making it difficult for ordinary Korean citizens to determine how long their information is retained, how it is used or whether it can be withdrawn.
The 51st Fighter Wing under the US Seventh Air Force, which oversees US facilities at Osan, said the system is intended to enhance gate operations, noting that once information is registered, future access procedures can be “streamlined.”
US Forces Korea also said the data is used solely for “identity verification purposes,” adding that further details could not be disclosed.
Another potential issue is the legality of collecting and handing over the information.
Under Korean law, individuals have the right to be informed about how their personal data is collected, used and managed. They are also entitled to give consent and to define the scope of that consent, as well as to request the correction or deletion of their data.
The law further requires data handlers to collect only the minimum amount of personal information necessary, and to do so in an appropriate manner.
South Korea’s Air Force, meanwhile, has not clarified whether it can lawfully collect and provide sensitive personal data to a foreign military authority without the consent of the individuals concerned.
The Military Manpower Administration also deferred the issue to the Defense Ministry, which said it “sets general policy while operational details are handled by each service.”
Hwang Suk-jin, a professor at Dongguk University’s Graduate School of International Information Security, said the military should consider alternative identification methods.
“Resident registration numbers are classified as highly sensitive personal information. Given that such numbers are extremely difficult to change, it would be more prudent to explore alternative identification methods, such as passport numbers, which can be renewed,” Hwang said.
“With the aftereffects of major data breaches last year at major companies such as Coupang, Lotte Card and KT still lingering, it is worth questioning whether providing resident registration numbers to foreign military authorities without individual consent is appropriate,” he added.
Despite such potential problems, the reservists who would be subject to the new rules will have little choice if the measures are enforced.
Unlike civilian contractors and other voluntary visitors, such as those entering the base for paid work or official events, reservists are mobilized by law rather than by choice and have little room to refuse or negotiate how their personal information is shared.
Those who completed active service in units stationed at Osan, including the Air and Missile Defense Command, the Air Defense Control Command and the Air Force Operations Command, are typically assigned there for reserve training.
Also, reservists may be mobilized to Osan Air Base depending on their former unit, specialty or operational requirements. This includes personnel deemed essential to combined South Korea-US military operations — such as translation, transportation and air operations — even if they are based outside the Osan area.
Changing training locations is difficult. The Military Manpower Administration does not allow transfers based on personal preference, and relevant laws permit changes only under limited circumstances, such as relocation of residence.
Training postponements are limited to unavoidable reasons such as illness, accidents, national examinations or disasters. As a result, concerns over personal data handling alone are unlikely to exempt reservists from attending training.
Similar arrangements exist at other joint facilities, though with notable differences.
Gunsan Air Base, another South Korea-US joint installation in North Jeolla Province, also conducts reserve training on base. However, entry procedures there have reportedly been less stringent.
At Camp Humphreys — the largest overseas US military installation in Asia — reserve training has been conducted since 2023 for former Korean Augmentation to the US Army soldiers, or KATUSA, whose personal data had already been registered during their service with US units.
The next reserve training session at Osan Air Base is scheduled for mid-April. “The enhanced security measures will not affect training schedules or formats,” South Korea’s Air Force and Air Force Operations Command said.
Transfer of gate control
The changes are widely seen as part of a broader restructuring of base access following a special counsel’s raid last year.
Osan Air Base has three entry gates. Until last year, one gate located near South Korean facilities was managed by Korean forces in practice, allowing entry with Korean government or military identification even without US-issued access passes. Reservists attending training at the base also used this gate.
That arrangement changed after a special counsel team investigating insurrection-related allegations linked to former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Dec. 3, 2024, martial law declaration conducted a raid at Osan Air Base in July last year.
The raid was part of an investigation into allegations that the Yoon administration conducted drone operations over North Korea, which investigators say may have been intended to justify his martial law scheme. The special counsel team reportedly entered the base through the Korean-controlled gate.
In response, US forces announced plans to directly control all gates and reorganize access procedures, effectively reclaiming authority over gate control from South Korean forces.
To some, such a move may appear unilateral.
However, under the South Korea-US Status of Forces Agreement, Osan Air Base is classified as a facility provided by South Korea to the United States, granting US forces authority over the base’s operation, security and management.
In October, Lt. Gen. David Iverson, commander of the US Seventh Air Force — who also serves as deputy commander of US Forces Korea and the US co-chair of the SOFA Joint Committee — sent a letter of protest to South Korea’s Foreign Ministry regarding the raid. According to local reports, the letter went unanswered.
US forces have since described the changes as “enhanced security procedures.”
New entry rules initially slated for January are now expected to take effect from mid-February after a grace period. Korean and US personnel are currently jointly stationed at the affected gate.
flylikekite@heraldcorp.com
koreaherald.com · Hwang Joo-young · January 25, 2026
7. The Impact of the US National Security Strategy’s Blind Spot on North Korea
Summary:
Sangsoo Lee argues the new US National Security Strategy sidelines denuclearization and, by shifting deterrence burdens to Seoul, unintentionally fuels arms racing and crisis instability on the peninsula. Pyongyang reads the omission as space to press South Korea, harden its “two hostile states” posture, and probe gray zone seams at the NLL and KADIZ under nuclear cover. Seoul, meanwhile, responds with higher spending, sharper strike options, and renewed debate on indigenous nuclear capabilities, which narrows room for calibrated restraint. Lee’s prescription is disciplined US signaling, allied coordination, and clearer red lines, not restored primacy.
Comment: This article was written before the release of the NDS. Do the words regarding north Korea in the NDS mitigate this alleged "blind spot" in the NSS?
The Impact of the US National Security Strategy’s Blind Spot on North Korea - 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea
38north.org · Hans Horan
https://www.38north.org/2026/01/the-impact-of-the-us-national-security-strategys-blind-spot-on-north-korea/
By shifting deterrence to its allies, Washington is unintentionally accelerating an arms race on the Korean Peninsula and expanding Pyongyang’s strategic leverage.
The latest US National Security Strategy (NSS) reflects a shift in how Washington directs its strategic attention. China remains at the center of the document, but the omission of any reference to North Korean denuclearization is particularly notable, especially since North Korea was treated as a central security concern in previous US doctrine, such as the 2017 NSS.
The silence on this issue is not merely rhetorical, but seems to reflect a deeper reordering of US priorities and a growing willingness to shift the burdens of deterrence and crisis management onto regional allies. In the case of the Korean Peninsula, that burden increasingly falls on South Korea. The result is not a managed transition toward regional stability, but a security environment that is growing more volatile, less predictable, and increasingly prone to escalation.
US Retrenchment Presents Opportunities for Pyongyang
Washington’s strategic shift is especially evident in its approach to the Korean Peninsula. North Korea no longer appears as a central concern within US Indo-Pacific strategy, and references to denuclearization are only confined to bilateral US–ROK fact sheet and US–ROK–Japan trilateral statements. These choices point to a growing expectation that Seoul, rather than Washington, will assume greater responsibility for managing the North Korean challenge.
From Pyongyang’s perspective, the NSS creates additional space to maneuver and reinforces the view that pressure directed at South Korea may produce strategic gains in terms of deterrence leverage and domestic legitimacy. Over the past several years, North Korea has reinforced this view through official speeches, doctrinal changes, and legislative measures that frame inter-Korean relations as fundamentally hostile. Furthermore, North Korea appears to be preparing to formalize a more rigid posture toward South Korea at its upcoming Ninth Party Congress, potentially codifying a “two hostile states” doctrine and revising long-standing territorial provisions.
These developments are not directly caused by US retrenchment. However, Washington’s strategic shift reinforces Pyongyang’s inclination to institutionalize a more confrontational posture toward Seoul.
Altering the Status Quo by Degrees
Against this backdrop, North Korea’s military provocations appear to be part of a broader strategic agenda designed to serve dual purposes. One objective may be to take advantage of a gradual shift in US posture by incrementally challenging South Korea’s long-standing control over contested areas, particularly the Northern Limit Line (NLL) and the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ). Such domains are well-suited for calibrated provocations. Being strategically sensitive yet legally contested, they present a policy dilemma for Seoul: they are difficult to defend decisively without triggering disproportionate escalation.
Given North Korea’s enduring inferiority in conventional capabilities, this approach relies less on force parity than on nuclear-backed coercion. In this setting, escalation dominance plays a greater role than battlefield superiority in constraining South Korean responses and gradually altering the military status quo.
Another objective seems to be generating political strain within South Korea itself. By triggering debates over how Seoul should respond to North Korean provocations, as well as over the credibility of US extended deterrence and the future of the US–ROK alliance, Pyongyang can exploit domestic divisions and alliance asymmetries. Gray-zone pressure functions not only as a means of military signaling, but also as a form of political warfare.
The Limits of Political Constraint
Such a strategy rests on an assumption that is becoming harder to sustain: that South Korea’s response can be politically constrained without altering the underlying military balance on the Peninsula.
The current South Korean administration has announced a significant increase in military spending amid growing US pressure for greater burden-sharing. The government has stated that the annual defense budget will rise by 8.2 percent this year—the largest increase since 2008—citing a broader security environment marked by rising conflict. These moves point to a shift toward a more self-reliant defense posture, reflected in expanded investment in advanced weapons systems and related capabilities. Debate over indigenous nuclear options—once a strategic taboo—has entered the political mainstream, reflecting growing uncertainty about the credibility of US extended deterrence. Interest in nuclear-powered submarines and other advanced strategic assets further points to a broader shift toward enhancing self-reliant deterrence.
North Korean provocations have not restrained South Korea. Instead, they have tended to reinforce these dynamics. Each episode of pressure adds weight to arguments in Seoul for greater autonomy, firmer deterrence, and less tolerance for ambiguity.
When Burden-Shifting Fuels an Arms Race
The absence of North Korea from the US NSS does not diminish the need for clear signaling on the Korean Peninsula. If anything, it heightens the importance of how Washington communicates its strategic intentions. Burden-shifting to allies without clear guardrails is accelerating regional arms competition.
In addition to the NSS, recent US actions on the global stage—ranging from military responses surrounding the Venezuela crisis to statements suggesting that military options remain under consideration in relation to Greenland—have reinforced these dynamics by contributing to perceptions that US strategic decision-making is becoming less predictable and more willing to rely on the use of force.
As these perceptions evolve, US global strategy is shaping security choices on both sides of the Peninsula. For Pyongyang, the recent US military actions are likely to have reinforced a long-standing belief that continued military strengthening offers the most reliable guarantee of regime survival. However, South Korea is also placing greater emphasis on defense buildup, expanded strike capabilities, and more unilateral forms of preparedness, given the current geopolitical trends.This trajectory could entrench a pattern of sustained arms competition on the Korean Peninsula, increasing the risk of crisis instability. This dynamic is especially pronounced around sensitive flashpoints such as the NLL and the KADIZ. In these areas, North Korea may be increasingly incentivized to test and reshape the military status quo, raising the likelihood that South Korean responses—ranging from preemptive measures to more forceful retaliation—move onto more dangerous and destabilizing paths.
What Washington Must Stop Assuming
At the core of this problem lies a set of assumptions that no longer hold. Washington can no longer treat strategic ambiguity as a substitute for active crisis management on the Korean Peninsula. Nor can it assume that delegating deterrence to allies will automatically produce stability, or that North Korea’s provocations can be indefinitely absorbed without structural consequences.
Burden-shifting is not inherently destabilizing. But absent clear guardrails, it creates incentives for risk-taking by all parties—encouraging Pyongyang to test boundaries, Seoul to harden its responses, and regional powers to prepare for spillover.
South Korea cannot be expected to indefinitely absorb gray-zone coercion while maintaining political restraint. As military capabilities expand, domestic tolerance for ambiguity is likely to diminish, narrowing the space for calibrated responses. Measures that once relied on signaling and patience now carry a greater risk of escalation—dynamics that neither Seoul nor Washington may be able to fully control.
Managing this environment does not require restoring US primacy on the Peninsula, but it does demand greater discipline in signaling. Credible intentions must be communicated through consistent senior-level messaging, allied coordination, and crisis-management–focused military posture, with particular clarity around red lines in disputed maritime and airspace zones. Without this, continued pressure to shift burdens is likely to invite further military adventurism. On a peninsula increasingly shaped by arms racing, alliance asymmetries, and great-power entanglement, the costs of miscalculation are set to rise.
38north.org · Hans Horan
8. How North Korea Uses an 80-Year-Old Youth Group to Control Society
Summary:
Bosack argues the Socialist Patriotic Youth League is not pageantry but a core mechanism of rule. The regime uses “organizational life” to place citizens into mandatory state bodies, and the Youth League covers ages roughly 14 to 30, giving Pyongyang a scalable system for mobilization, surveillance, and discipline. It supplies labor through staged “volunteer” drives, provides reliable cadres for local enforcement, and polices ideology and behavior, from dress norms to enforcement of the anti reactionary thought law targeting foreign media and slang. The 80th anniversary rally also primes loyalty and labor ahead of the next Party Congress.
Comment. It is important understand the internal dynamics in north Korea especially if we are going to provide useful information to the Korean people in the north. If the Youth League is the regime’s mass compliance engine, what is the most realistic way to disrupt its coercive functions without increasing collective punishment of the very youth you want to empower?
How North Korea Uses an 80-Year-Old Youth Group to Control Society
The Socialist Patriotic Youth League offers a window into how the North Korean authorities uses state-run organizations to govern.
By Michael MacArthur Bosack
January 22, 2026
https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/how-north-korea-uses-an-80-year-old-youth-group-to-control-society/
In this photo from North Korean state media, leader Kim Jong Un oversees a celebration of the 80th anniversary of the Socialist Patriotic Youth League at Kim Il Sung Stadium, Pyongyang, North Korea, Jan. 17, 2026.
Credit: KCNA
On January 17, North Korea commemorated the 80th anniversary of the “Socialist Patriotic Youth League.” It was a massive event that filled Kim Il Sung stadium with musical performances and cheering crowds. Kim Jong Un posed for photos in the standing room-only stadium and delivered a keynote speech in which he lauded the Youth League’s devotion to the country and called for their continued struggle in support of its policy aims. The league’s chapters around the country followed suit with their own festivities.
On the surface, these commemorations seem like nothing more than another series of rallies meant to celebrate patriotism and loyalty, but behind the fanfare is an 80-year-old system built to preserve an authoritarian way of governance. The Socialist Patriotic Youth League supports key functions of oversight and control, and it offers a window into how the North Korean government uses this and organizations like it to advance its policy implementation.
Authoritarian governments do not form and sustain themselves through power alone. Especially in a country with a population of over 20 million, ruling requires a system that fosters direct support from enough people while instituting controls over others who might push back or undermine those in charge.
Fundamentally, one of the ways the North Korean government maintains compliance and control throughout the country is through “organizational life.” With few exceptions, people are sequestered into different state-run organizations throughout their lives, including any of the following: the Workers’ Party of Korea, the Korean People’s Army, the Workers-Peasants Red Guard, the General Federation of Trade Unions of Korea, the Union of Agricultural Workers, the Socialist Women’s Union of Korea, and the Korean Children’s Union
Then there is the Socialist Patriotic Youth League, which has been around longer than the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea itself. Even in the infancy of the Kim Il Sung regime, Kim and the others in charge understood that the youth would be vital to seizing and maintaining control.
The youth league has gone through a few name changes since 1946. It started as the Democratic Youth League of North Korea (which had a counterpart organization in the South, hence the naming convention). Later, it became known as the League of Socialist Working Youth of Korea and then Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League. In 2016, the Kim Jong Un regime renamed the organization the Kimilsungist-Kimjongilist Youth League, which was a nod to the state-developed ideologies of kimilsungism and kimjongilism. They finally landed on the current title, the Socialist Patriotic Youth League, in 2021.
While it has gone by many names, the function has always been the same: maintain a mechanism for state-run oversight of the country’s teenagers and young adults while also keeping a pool of people readily available for state-mandated activities. This includes both labor for government projects and recruitment of street-level agents in policy implementation.
Given its essential functions for state control, the Socialist Patriotic Youth League is among the most important institutionalized tools for the Kim regime. The league derives its mandate from the Workers’ Party of Korea charter itself – one of the few organizations in North Korea to have such distinction. Although the specifics of its operation are not publicly disclosed, it functions under the stewardship of the Workers’ Party, with the chairman often holding other major roles in the government. There are chapters all over the country that hold regular meetings and carry out guidance delivered from the central government.
Membership is mandatory for 14-to-30-year-olds who do not have other major affiliations, meaning it is a massive organization. That is particularly useful for the regime when it requires extra laborers for state-mandated projects. The process for employing that labor is straightforward: the government will put out a call for workers, and the Socialist Patriotic Youth League officials will organize “volunteer rallies” for youth league members to sign up for the labor activities. This was demonstrated in 2023 when the Kim regime required 100,000 extra laborers for construction of new homes in Pyongyang as part of its Eighth Party Congress construction objectives.
The Socialist Patriotic Youth League will also find zealous adherents to the party line and use them for policing others in the community. These loyalists serve as monitors for the government, calling out behavior that the state has deemed problematic and reporting back to Youth League officials. The youth monitoring starts small and benign, typically associated with inappropriate clothing or fashion. But as things progress, the stakes get higher.
This is particularly relevant for implementation of the “anti-reactionary thought law” passed during the COVID-19 years. Intended to address the influx of external information and behaviors coming from foreign media, this law prohibits the consumption of foreign movies, television shows, and music while also banning the use of slang or borrowed words from abroad. The penalties for this behavior can be severe, with consumption of foreign media resulting in time served at a labor camp, while the consequence for distributing foreign materials could be a death sentence. The Youth League monitors are intended to halt or deter any such behavior under the new law.
Meanwhile, the Youth League officials themselves work to keep their members in line. They can do this through their meetings and regular engagements, although they may receive special instructions from higher authorities to address specific problems. For example, recent reporting from inside North Korea indicated that Socialist Patriotic Youth League officials in Hyesan were trying to crack down on side hustles by threatening members with collective work brigade assignments.
The fact that the Kim Jong Un regime just held a massive rally for the Socialist Patriotic Youth League is unsurprising. It is the 80th anniversary for the organization, and it is common for the government to put on massive events for decennial commemorations. Further, the Ninth Party Congress is forthcoming, and the government compelled many Youth League members to step up labor efforts ahead of this key event. The 80th anniversary festivities were both a culmination of those efforts and a crescendo to the major party meeting that will soon be occurring.
But the anniversary spectacle was also a reminder of how deeply embedded control mechanisms are in North Korean society. The Socialist Patriotic Youth League is not simply a social organization, but a key instrument for mobilization, surveillance, and discipline at scale. By co-opting citizens during their formative years, the state works to preserve a steady supply of labor and loyalty while suppressing deviation as much as possible before anti-regime behaviors can take root. The rallies across the country may have appeared to project unity and enthusiasm, but it ultimately underscored the regime’s enduring reliance on organized compliance to sustain its rule.
Authors
Guest Author
Michael MacArthur Bosack
Michael MacArthur Bosack is the founder of the Parley Policy Initiative and the Special Adviser for Government Relations at the Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies. He previously served as the Deputy Secretary of the United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission in Korea and the Deputy Chief of Government Relations at Headquarters, U.S. Forces, Japan. You can follow him on X (Twitter) @MikeBosack.
9. The Domestic Impediment to Lee Jae-myung’s North Korea Policy
Summary:
Vu argues Lee Jae myung’s north Korea policy is constrained less by Pyongyang than by Seoul’s internal seams. The Unification Ministry, Foreign Ministry, and National Security Office disagree on first principles: whether the two Koreas are effectively two states or one nation in a special relationship, what engagement talks legally signify under South Korea’s constitution, and who owns the policy lead. Friction also surrounds reviving a ROK US working group seen as a de facto veto, and whether Seoul can bypass UNC control of DMZ access under the Armistice framework. Lee has created coordination channels, but chain of command and method remain unsettled.
Comment: This dynamic can potentially upend ROK foreign policy and affect the ROK/US alliance. If Seoul cannot settle the constitutional meaning and command authority of engagement, how can it credibly promise anything to north Korea, or to Washington, that will survive the next internal dispute? I hope the 'three amigos" can work out their differences.
The Domestic Impediment to Lee Jae-myung’s North Korea Policy
Disagreements over North Korea policy between Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young and Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Hyun as well as National Security Advisor Wi Sung-lac risk derailing Lee’s agenda.
By Khang Vu
January 20, 2026
https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/the-domestic-impediment-to-lee-jae-myungs-north-korea-policy/
U.S. President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral meeting with South Korea’s President Lee Jae-myung in the Oval Office, Aug. 25, 2025.
Credit: Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung is doing his best to maintain a diplomatic balancing act among China, Japan, and the United States to push for a revival of inter-Korean talks, but he also has another balancing act to perform at home. Disagreements over North Korea policy between Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young and Minister of Foreign Affairs Cho Hyun as well as National Security Advisor Wi Sung-lac risk derailing Lee’s agenda. The disagreements cover major aspects of Lee’s North Korea policy, including Seoul’s vision of unification, the role of the South Korea-U.S. working group in coordinating the two allies’ respective North Korea policies, and the authority of the United Nations Command (UNC) in administering cross-border exchanges with North Korea.
After North Korea abandoned its goal of unification in January 2024 and adopted a “hostile two-state theory” in October the same year, Lee’s North Korea policy ran into a major political problem – can Seoul treat Pyongyang as a separate state when its constitution does not recognize North Korea? Chung and Wi clashed over this question, with Chung claiming that the two Koreas have already been two states in reality, and the goal of Seoul’s North Korea policy is to turn the hostile two-state relationship into a peaceful one. Wi disagreed. To him, the two Koreas are not two states but two parts of one Korean nation in a special relationship until unification.
Before Lee can resume engagement with the North, he must sort out the political meaning of the talks. Do these talks constitute steps toward unification? Or are they simply diplomatic exchanges between states? Failing to codify what these talks mean politically could be unconstitutional, because South Korea’s constitution commits to peaceful unification.
Another obstacle that Lee must overcome is the quarrel between Chung and Cho over the South Korea-U.S. working group’s role in shaping North Korea policy. The group was established in 2018 under liberal President Moon Jae-in. However, it was often characterized as a U.S. veto over Moon’s North Korea policy because South Korea’s initiatives must obtain Washington’s approval. The group was dissolved in 2021, but it was brought back in December as Lee laid out his vision of engagement with North Korea.
Chung’s Unification Ministry communicated that it would not participate in the group even as Cho’s Foreign Ministry went forward with it. Chung also emphasized that the working group and the Foreign Ministry could not supersede his ministry’s leading role in crafting policy toward North Korea and consulting with the United States on this matter.
The UNC’s authority to administer the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is also subject to an inter-ministerial feud. Chung supported the ruling Democratic Party’s bill to grant the South Korean government the power to approve civilian access to the DMZ for peaceful purposes without authorization from the UNC. Under Moon, the UNC stopped Seoul’s plan to link inter-Korean railways and roads by denying passage over the military demarcation line. Chung wanted his future initiatives to avoid the same fate.
The UNC, however, opposed the bill on the ground that the 1953 Armistice Agreement granted it the sole authority to administer the DMZ. South Korea’s national defense and foreign ministries backed the UNC’s stance on access to the DMZ. Inter-ministerial differences can damage the cohesion of the South Korea-U.S. alliance as the United States heads the UNC and it opposes scaling back military readiness and downplaying the North Korean threat.
Lee has managed to keep the policy disputes from undermining his North Korea vision and the South Korea-U.S. alliance. On the one hand, he launched a vice ministerial-level consultative channel between the unification and foreign ministries to ensure policy cohesion over North Korea. The Unification Ministry affirmed that although it and the Foreign Ministry differed over methods, they would unify their positions on resuming dialogue with Pyongyang. The Unification Ministry also pledged to consult with the United States when necessary.
On the other hand, Lee incorporated Washington into his North Korea vision by praising U.S. President Donald Trump’s role as a “peacemaker” and Trump’s cordial relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Lee supported scaling down joint military exercises with the United States in support of his outreach to Pyongyang. At the same time, he tightened the alliance by investing $150 billion in shipbuilding cooperation with the United States to revive Washington’s naval capacity, which is 232 times less than that of China. Seoul also pledged to buy $25 billion of U.S. military equipment by 2030 and to spend $33 billion on supporting U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).
However, it is uncertain if Lee can patch over the internal feud to put his North Korea vision into practice. Despite Lee’s efforts to mediate between his ministers and advisers, Chung and Wi openly clashed over the possibility of resuming talks with North Korea after Pyongyang condemned South Korean drone incursions into its airspace. Wi also opposed scaling back joint drills to entice Pyongyang back to negotiation.
Lee will need to sort out his chain of command and the responsibility of each ministry in setting the agenda for North Korea if he wants to end inter-ministry disputes. Pyongyang will not trust Seoul’s promise of reward if the foreign or national defense ministries can challenge the Unification Ministry’s policy recommendations.
Other bodies with direct stakes in inter-Korean relations have a say in the inter-ministerial feud too. The UNC can challenge the long-term viability of any cross-border projects by blocking passage via the DMZ. The South Korea-U.S. working group can veto Lee’s North Korea initiatives by stressing denuclearization talks over peace talks, which classes with Lee’s preference for peace talks first. Washington pushing for the USFK to take on an expanded responsibility in deterring threats beyond the Korean Peninsula will clash with Lee’s strategy to win China’s and Russia’s support for his North Korea initiatives via high-speed railway and cross-border bridge projects connecting South Korea to China and Russia via North Korea.
This only makes sorting out each ministry’s responsibility within the bigger picture of Lee’s North Korea policy even more important, as their jobs should be complementary, not competitive, when communicating Seoul’s policy to the United States and the UNC. A mere unified position on North Korea is not enough. These ministries need to agree on the methods as well.
Seoul’s North Korea policy has been subject to the country’s domestic political swing between the liberal and the conservative. But inter-ministry disputes have not been resolved. Lee’s “pragmatic diplomacy” among the major powers has so far insulated Seoul from external turbulence, but he will have to pull off the same feat to calm the internal turbulence within his administration that can threaten his North Korea vision.
Authors
Guest Author
Khang Vu
Khang Vu is a visiting scholar in the Political Science Department at Boston College.
View Profile
10. Japan and South Korea: Competition and Cooperation
Summary:
Kimiya argues Japan and South Korea are learning to compete and cooperate at the same time, because the strategic environment is forcing pragmatism. Lee and Takaichi’s Nara summit was cordial but revealed real divergence. Japan foregrounds trilateral alignment with the United States and “denuclearization of north Korea,” while South Korea stresses broader regional frameworks and “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” China’s coercive tools, including rare earth pressure and tourism restrictions, make economic security cooperation more attractive to both, even as Seoul avoids choosing between Beijing and Tokyo. With U.S. priorities uncertain and north Korea hardening its posture, each side is becoming the other’s most predictable partner.
Comment: Some good news that impacts US national security in the Asia-Indo-Pacific. What concrete bargain can Tokyo and Seoul strike that survives China’s coercion and U.S. burden shifting, without exacerbating the historical friction?
Japan and South Korea: Competition and Cooperation
In a complex world, the two neighbors are gradually coming to a new understanding.
By KIMIYA Tadashi
January 25, 2026
https://thediplomat.com/2026/01/japan-and-south-korea-competition-and-cooperation/
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung and Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae at their summit meeting in Nara Prefecture, Japan, Jan. 13, 2026.
Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan
Earlier this month, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung visited Nara, the hometown of Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae, for a Japan-Korea summit. This marked the third round of talks between the two leaders, following the APEC meeting in Gyeongju, South Korea, in October 2025 and the G20 summit in South Africa in November. Unlike the prior two meetings, which were held on the sidelines of multinational conferences, this was the first instance of the two leaders holding their own summit.
The meeting was not scheduled to discuss any urgent issues, and instead too place amid a friendly atmosphere. Nonetheless, given rising tensions between Japan and China following Takaichi’s remarks in the Diet on the Taiwan issue on November 7, and in light of Lee’s state visit to China and the China-South Korea summit held from January 4 to 7, the summit still attracted considerable attention.
Despite the Chinese government’s demands, Takaichi refused to retract her comments that the Taiwan issue represented a threat to Japan’s survival. This prompted China to restrict tourism to Japan and engage in “economic coercive diplomacy,” which included restrictions on the export of rare earth materials to Japan.
At the China-South Korea summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for joint opposition against Japan, citing both countries’ shared history of being invaded by imperial Japan in the first half of the 20th century. Lee replied that “for South Korea, relations with Japan are just as important as those with China.” A tug-of-war between Japan and China over South Korea is now underway. There were also expectations in parts of Japan that South Korea would show greater sympathy toward Japan, especially given the importance of Japan-U.S.-South Korea security cooperation, based on shared values and security concerns regarding North Korea and China. However, given South Korea’s foreign policy challenge of maximizing its national interests while maintaining stable relations with neighboring countries amid the current complex world order, these expectations were little more than wishful thinking. Lee’s stance of not taking sides between China and Japan represents the best option currently available to South Korea.
This was also a meaningful outcome for Japan. Both Japan and South Korea agreed to pursue discussions on economic security, exploring the possibility of cooperation while recognizing that South Korea, too, could become a target of China’s economic coercive diplomacy. South Korea already has bitter firsthand experience in this regard, having faced retaliation for its THAAD deployment in 2016. Moreover, the Lee administration, which has taken a restrained position on historical issues with Japan, was able to elicit cooperation from the Takaichi administration on historical issues through a humanitarian approach, including collaboration on the identification of the remains of Korean miners who died in the 1942 Chosei underwater coal mine disaster.
However, in a joint announcement, Takaichi emphasized cooperation among Japan, the U.S., and South Korea, using the term “denuclearization of North Korea,” whereas Lee spoke about the importance of the Japan-China-South Korea framework, using the phrase “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” This made clear that Japan and South Korea maintain differing approaches to China and North Korea.
The international environment surrounding Japan and South Korea remains extremely uncertain. First, the Trump administration. The American foreign and security policy establishment has emphasized a China-focused strategy, within which it contextualizes relations with allies such as Japan and South Korea. However, the National Security Strategy released by the Trump administration in November appears to place greater emphasis on deals between the U.S. and China than on relations with its allies. Moreover, as expressed in the so-called “Donroe Doctrine,” it is also seen as prioritizing the Western Hemisphere, while reducing its focus on Asia and Europe. How should Japan and South Korea respond? For both nations, U.S. allies, this poses an extremely difficult strategic challenge.
Second, the Xi Jinping administration. Relations with China, a major regional power, are important for both Japan and South Korea. However, relying solely on China comes with excessive risk. There is, after all, always the chance that China will engage in economic coercive diplomacy, and both countries must also prepare for the risk of a change in the Taiwan status quo by force.
Third, the Kim Jong Un administration in North Korea. In terms of regional peace and security, how should Japan and South Korea manage relations with North Korea, which is actively involved in a “new Cold War” framework of the U.S., Japan, and South Korea versus North Korea, Russia, and China, continues to develop missiles and nuclear weapons, and defines its relationship with South Korea as an “adversarial relationship between two states”?
In this international context, a mutual recognition is gradually taking hold that, while relative, Japan and South Korea are each other’s most predictable and reliable partners. The two nations are the most similar to each other in terms of national power and values, and as a result, their perceptions of the international environment and the national interests that emerge from those perceptions have become more aligned. They have also come to believe that by competing while also cooperating, they can advance their mutual interests. The most recent Japan-South Korea summit reaffirmed this thinking. Future diplomacy should embed it even more firmly.
Authors
Guest Author
KIMIYA Tadashi
KIMIYA Tadashi is a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo.
De Oppresso Liber,
David Maxwell
Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy
https://apstrategy.org/
Executive Director, Korea Regional Review
https://www.upi.com/Korea-Regional-Review/
Editor-at-large, Small Wars Journal
https://smallwarsjournal.com/
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Phone: 202-573-8647
email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
text here
| 
