Quotes of the Day:

"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."

- Benjamin Franklin [1706-90]

"Education is a better guard of liberty than a standing army."

- Edward Everett [1794-1865]

"He who opens a school door closes a prison."

- Victor Hugo [1802-85]

1.​ S. Korea, U.S. hold joint air drills after N. Korea's ICBM launch​

2.  N. Korea says it fired Hwasong-15 ICBM at lofted angle

3. Top diplomats of S. Korea, U.S., Japan condemn N. Korean missile launch

4. South Korea’s Enduring Restraint Toward China

5. North conducts 'surprise launching drill' of ICBM, vows tit-for-tat responses to South

6. First team of rescue personnel return to Korea from Turkey

7. [Editorial] Useless firing of an ICBM by North

8. [Interview] Last 'Imjin Scout' brings DMZ warriors to light

9. EU condemns 'reckless' North Korean missile launch

10. Defense white paper: 2 Koreas become official enemies once more

11. South Korea’s First Attempt at Going Nuclear

12. Tensions simmer on peninsula after NK launch, allies’ drills

1. S. Korea, U.S. hold joint air drills after N. Korea's ICBM launch

This may not be a direct reaction to the north's ICBM test. This is an example of the sustained high level of readiness of the combined forces. We can conduct operations at the time and place of your choosing because we are trained and ready to do so.

north Korea should also note that every time it conducts a provocation it not only strengthens the resolve of the ROK/US alliance, it contributes to the improvement of ROK/Japan/US trilateral cooperation, something that neither north Korea (and especially China) does not want.  The regime's political warfare and blackmail diplomacy is failing. It is not able to achieve the objectives desired by Kim Jong Un.

(LEAD) S. Korea, U.S. hold joint air drills after N. Korea's ICBM launch | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 송상호 · February 19, 2023

(ATTN: UPDATES with more details in 7th para)

SEOUL, Feb. 19 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States staged combined air drills, involving at least one U.S. B-1B strategic bomber, on Sunday, Seoul's military said, as North Korea launched a long-range ballistic missile the previous day.

During the drills, F-35A stealth fighters and F-15K jets from the South flew together with U.S. F-16 fighters to escort the B-1B aircraft entering the South's air defense identification zone, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). It did not clarify the number of B-1B aircraft deployed here.

Earlier in the day, the North confirmed that it fired a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile in a "sudden" launching drill aimed at ensuring its nuclear deterrent.

"The training this time demonstrated the South Korea-U.S. combined defense capabilities and posture featuring the alliance's overwhelming forces, through the timely and immediate deployment of the U.S.' extended deterrence assets to the Korean Peninsula," the JCS said in a press release.

It added that the air drills affirmed Washington's "ironclad" commitment to the defense of the peninsula and its extended deterrence pledge.

Extended deterrence means the U.S.' commitment to mobilizing a full range of its military capabilities, including nuclear, to defend its allies.

In the combined drills, the two sides are said to have mobilized some 10 aircraft in total. They flew in a formation over the Yellow Sea, East Sea and then a southern region in the South.

Saturday's missile provocation came as Seoul and Washington plan to conduct a tabletop exercise against the North's nuclear threats this week and the springtime Freedom Shield exercise next month.

In a statement earlier in the day, Kim Yo-jong, the younger sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, warned that the North will carry out a "very powerful and overwhelming" response to any "hostile" acts against Pyongyang.

South Korean and U.S. Air Force aircraft engage in joint air drills over the Yellow Sea on Feb. 1, 2023, in this file photo provided by Seoul's defense ministry. (PHOTO NOT FOR SALE) (Yonhap)

sshluck@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 송상호 · February 19, 2023

2.  N. Korea says it fired Hwasong-15 ICBM at lofted angle

Why a Hwasong 15? DId they convert that to a solid fuel rocket? I am sure the intelligence community can determine if this was a liquid fueled or a solid fueled rocket.​

Do not back down in the face of this rhetoric. To back down or offer concessions means Kim will judge his strategy a success. If we do not back down or appease the regime Kim Jong Un's strategy will continue to fail.

Excerpts:

It marked the North's first ICBM launch since it fired a Hwasong-17 ICBM in November last year.

The North cited "military threats" of the United States and South Korea, which are "getting serious to the extent that can not be overlooked," and it ordered all military units in charge of missile operations to thoroughly maintain a combat readiness posture, the KCNA said.

The North's latest missile launch, its second missile provocation this year, came after it warned Friday the country will take "unprecedentedly persistent and strong" counteractions if Seoul and Washington press ahead with their planned combined military exercises.

The allies are scheduled to conduct a tabletop exercise at the Pentagon this week against the North's potential use of nuclear weapons. They also plan to hold the regular springtime Freedom Shield (FS) exercise next month, alongside concurrent large-scale field drills.

In a separate statement, Kim Yo-jong, a sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, also said the North will carry out a "very powerful and overwhelming" response to any hostile acts against Pyongyang.

"(The U.S.) should stop all the actions posing threats to the security of our state and refuse to tarnish the DPRK's dignity, always thinking twice for its own future security," she said in the English-language statement. DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

She also reaffirmed that the North has "no intention to stand face to face" with the South.

(3rd LD) N. Korea says it fired Hwasong-15 ICBM at lofted angle | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 이치동 · February 19, 2023

(ATTN: UPDATES with unification ministry's statement in paras 12-15)

By Kim Soo-yeon

SEOUL, Feb. 19 (Yonhap) -- North Korea said Sunday it has fired a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at a lofted angle in a "sudden launching" drill aimed at ensuring the country's powerful nuclear deterrent.

"The drill was suddenly organized without previous notice under an emergency firepower combat standby order given at dawn of February 18," the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said in an English-language report.

The missile was launched at the international airport in Pyongyang in the afternoon, with a unit of the Missile General Bureau mobilized, it added.

It flew 989 kilometers for 4,015 seconds at an apogee of 5,768.5 km and landed in the international waters of the East Sea, according to the KCNA.

This photo, carried by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on Feb. 19, 2023, shows the North's launch of a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile on a lofted angle the previous day. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)

It marked the North's first ICBM launch since it fired a Hwasong-17 ICBM in November last year.

The North cited "military threats" of the United States and South Korea, which are "getting serious to the extent that can not be overlooked," and it ordered all military units in charge of missile operations to thoroughly maintain a combat readiness posture, the KCNA said.

The North's latest missile launch, its second missile provocation this year, came after it warned Friday the country will take "unprecedentedly persistent and strong" counteractions if Seoul and Washington press ahead with their planned combined military exercises.

The allies are scheduled to conduct a tabletop exercise at the Pentagon this week against the North's potential use of nuclear weapons. They also plan to hold the regular springtime Freedom Shield (FS) exercise next month, alongside concurrent large-scale field drills.

In a separate statement, Kim Yo-jong, a sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, also said the North will carry out a "very powerful and overwhelming" response to any hostile acts against Pyongyang.

"(The U.S.) should stop all the actions posing threats to the security of our state and refuse to tarnish the DPRK's dignity, always thinking twice for its own future security," she said in the English-language statement. DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

She also reaffirmed that the North has "no intention to stand face to face" with the South.

Seoul's unification ministry "deplored" her threat.

The North's regime is "oblivious" to the fact that its "reckless development of its nuclear and missile programs is responsible for the deterioration of the current security situation," the ministry handling inter-Korean affairs said.

It is deplorable that the North is using "sophistry" to pass the responsibility to the South and the U.S., it added.

If the regime continues provocative acts despite the grave food crisis facing its people, it will only deepen its isolation from the international community, it emphasized.

Observers here raise the possibility of the regime test-firing a solid-fuel ICBM in addition to an attempt to put a spy satellite into orbit.

Meanwhile, the top diplomats of South Korea, the U.S. and Japan had an emergency meeting in Munich on Saturday (local time) on the sidelines of an international security conference.

They condemned the North's latest provocation and vowed their close cooperation in dealing with Pyongyang's threats.

"North Korea will face more powerful sanctions by the international community. We urge the North to immediately stop its provocations and return to denuclearization talks," South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin said in the wake of talks with Antony Blinken of the U.S. and Hayashi Yoshimasa of Japan.

He also said the North's ICBM firing Saturday is a "clear indication" of its intent on additional provocations.

"North Korea could conduct another nuclear test at any time," Park said during a panel discussion of the Munich Security Conference. "In that case, it would be a game changer in terms of North Korea's development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons."

This file photo, carried by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on Feb. 9, 2023, shows the North showcasing Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missiles during a military parade held at Kim Il Sung Square the previous day to mark the 75th founding anniversary of its armed forces. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)

sooyeon@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 이치동 · February 19, 2023

3. Top diplomats of S. Korea, U.S., Japan condemn N. Korean missile launch

​Kim Jong Un may be the driving force behind improving ROK/Japan/US trilateral cooperation.  

(LEAD) Top diplomats of S. Korea, U.S., Japan condemn N. Korean missile launch | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 변덕근 · February 19, 2023

(ATTN: UPDATES with reports of statement from NSC spokesperson in last 5 paras)

By Byun Duk-kun

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 (Yonhap) -- The top diplomats of South Korea, Japan and the United States strongly condemned North Korea's long-range ballistic missile launch Saturday, vowing to take "appropriate action."

South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin said Pyongyang will face "more severe sanctions" by the international community following a trilateral meeting with his U.S. and Japanese counterparts -- Antony Blinken and Yoshimasa Hayashi, respectively -- in Munich, Germany.

South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin (L) and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hold a joint press conference after bilateral talks at the Department of State in Washington on Feb. 3, 2023, in this captured file photo. (PHOTO NOT FOR SALE) (Yonhap)

"The DPRK once again launched a ballistic missile -- this one apparently falling in the exclusive economic zone of Japan," Blinken told a joint press conference at a Munich hotel, according to a script of the press event released by the State Department.

"We call on others to condemn this action, to take appropriate steps, including the effective enforcement of sanctions, and countries that have influence with North Korea should use it to try to move it from the course that it's been on now for the last couple of years," Blinken added.

DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name.

North Korea fired a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) early Saturday (Korea time), marking its first ICBM launch since November.

The latest North Korean missile launch also followed an unprecedented 69 ballistic missile tests in 2022 that included eight ICBM tests.

Blinken insisted that North Korea's provocations will only lead to further isolation of the impoverished country.

"We have been very clear that our commitment to the security of our close allies and partners -- South Korea and Japan -- is ironclad," the top U.S. diplomat was quoted as saying.

"And so the result of these actions by North Korea is simply to even further solidify the work that we do together, the alliance that we share, and our commitment to the defense of our partners and allies," he added.

This photo, carried by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on Feb. 19, 2023, shows the North's launch of a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile at a lofted angle the previous day. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)

The Japanese foreign minister said the three countries, along with other Group of 7 countries, have agreed to "take a robust response, including at the U.N. Security Council."

"So let our three countries work closely together in responding to North Korea's provocations, including through trilateral security cooperation, which aims to enhance deterrence," Hayashi said.

Park said the three countries will continue to strengthen their defense cooperation and joint deterrence.

"The ROK-U.S. alliance will be ironclad, extended deterrence will be strengthened, and ROK-U.S.-Japan security cooperation will be deepened," said Park, referring to South Korea by its official name, the Republic of Korea.

"North Korea will face more severe sanctions by the international community. Pyongyang will gain nothing from its provocations. We urge Pyongyang to immediately cease all provocations and return to denuclearization talks," Park added, according to the State Department.

Blinken also called on North Korea to engage in dialogue, saying, "We have made clear over many, many months that we were prepared to engage with North Korea without any preconditions."

Meanwhile, U.N. National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson condemned the North's latest missile launch, calling it a "flagrant violation" of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions.

"While U.S. INDOPACOM (Indo-Pacific Command) has assessed it did not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, or territory, or to our allies, this launch needlessly raises tensions and risks destabilizing the security situation in the region," Watson said in a released statement.

"It only demonstrates that the DPRK continues to prioritize its unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs over the well-being of its people," she added.

Watson said the U.S. will take all necessary steps to ensure the security of the country and its allies, while urging North Korea to engage in dialogue.

"We urge all countries to condemn these violations and call on the DPRK to cease its destabilizing actions and engage in serious dialogue," the released statement said. "The United States will take all necessary measures to ensure the security of the American homeland and Republic of Korea and Japanese allies."

bdk@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 변덕근 · February 19, 2023​

4. South Korea’s Enduring Restraint Toward China

A view from the Quincy Institute.

Is defending the rules based international order actually a containment policy or is it the right thing to do if you share those values?

Excerpts:

In their analyses of South Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy, some observers argue that Seoul may be poised to pursue a lockstep regional policy in line with the United States due to its value orientation as a liberal democracy. This perspective sees “like-mindedness” as a powerful bond that will eventually get democracies to turn against China.

It is true that South Korea’s value orientation leaves significant room for cooperation with the United States. As Seoul seeks to expand its influence on the global stage among democracies, values-based diplomacy will remain a key component of its foreign policy, with the South Korea-U.S. alliance at the core. Seoul will continue to seek close cooperation with Washington based on values and many shared mutual interests. Even then, there will likely be clear limits on South Korea’s alignment with the United States on China. Short of a direct and extreme Chinese threat to South Korea, it is difficult to imagine that any South Korean administration would be willing to take on the enormous risks involved in pursuing a containment policy.

South Korea’s strong resistance to a “China containment” policy is something U.S. policymakers should keep in mind going forward. Overlooking South Korea’s geostrategic situation and pressuring Seoul’s participation in anti-China containment initiatives can backfire and harm South Korea-U.S. relations.

When Washington urges Seoul to stop doing business with China on the one hand and discriminates against South Korean companies in the U.S. market to favor American industries on the other hand, Seoul cannot help but increasingly feel like a mere chess piece in a great power competition. No wonder the majority of South Koreans, despite their negative feelings about China, support a carefully balanced approach to the China-U.S. rivalry without overly tilting toward Washington.

If a key U.S. ally and a healthy democracy like South Korea, whose economy is based on high-tech production, can exist peacefully on China’s doorstep, maybe U.S. leaders should rethink whether framing Asia as a battlefield for great power struggles against China is really necessary in the first place.

South Korea’s Enduring Restraint Toward China

Despite much bluster on the campaign trail, President Yoon Suk-yeol’s promise to get “tougher on China” has been rhetorical at best.

By James Park

February 18, 2023

thediplomat.com · by James Park · February 18, 2023

Advertisement

When South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was elected in March of last year, many observers saw a China hawk in the making, anticipating that he would abandon the Moon Jae-in administration’s cautious China policy and side closely with Washington to stand against Beijing. Indeed, Yoon’s tough pre-election comments on China, his commitment to deepening security ties with the United States, the strong pro-U.S. sentiment embedded in South Korean right-wing ideology, and the populist temptation to engage in anti-China politics all seemed to make a hardline turn possible.

But nine months into his term, Yoon looks far from a China hawk.

As South Korea walked a fine line between the United States and China in the face of their growing hostility, there were several controversial issues where Seoul sought to tread carefully and maintained a gray stance in recent years. Even under the Yoon administration, South Korea’s position on these issues has not changed much.

One obvious case is the dispute with Beijing over regional missile defense. Seoul walked back Yoon’s election pledge to deploy additional U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile batteries on South Korean soil. Beijing perceived the initial THAAD deployment in 2017 as alliance collusion to weaken its missile capabilities and retaliated by boycotting South Korean goods. Hosting more THAAD batteries would push South Korea deeper into the China-U.S. crossfire, and this risk might have led Seoul to think twice.

Yoon eventually dropped the THAAD pledge, with the defense minister’s explanation that it was a decision “concerning the reality.” Seoul also stated that it has no intention to join a U.S.-led regional missile defense architecture – consistent with the previous administration’s stance.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Another case in point is Seoul’s distancing from the Taiwan issue. Back in August, Yoon refused to meet then-U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she visited Seoul after her controversial trip to Taiwan. The decision was based on “a comprehensive consideration of national interest,” according to the South Korean presidential office. Seoul has been more vocal about China’s assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait recently, but it has also repeatedly assured Beijing of South Korea’s support for “One China” and has refrained from taking any explicitly pro-Taiwan stance.

A third issue is whether South Korea will join the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), a grouping of Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S. aimed in large part at countering China. During his election campaign, Yoon vowed to pursue formal membership in the Quad, and his advisers also initially advocated South Korea’s Quad membership. But the administration now appears to be settling for informal and issue-by-issue cooperation with the Quad on selective areas like climate change and vaccines rather than full integration. This direction would allow Seoul to work with the Quad but stay out of the group’s potential militarization against China.

Last and not least, the Yoon administration has balked at the U.S. policy to isolate China from semiconductor supply chains. Since early 2022, the United States has sought to get major semiconductor hubs around the globe – particularly South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which along with the U.S. are dubbed the “Chip 4” – on board with its initiative to form a chip supply chain that excludes China. But the initiative has moved slowly without much progress in agenda-setting due to strong resistance within the group against its anti-China direction, especially from Seoul.

Advertisement

Stressing the importance of both the U.S. and Chinese markets for the South Korean semiconductor industry, officials in Seoul have reiterated that their government’s involvement in Chip 4 will be calibrated and conditioned in ways that do not harm its partnership with China. The Yoon administration’s semiconductor policy head held multiple meetings with the Chinese ambassador, reassuring him that South Korea does not intend to endorse U.S. export controls against China. While Seoul is enhancing semiconductor cooperation with Washington, it has not turned its back on Beijing, signing a new bilateral agreement to boost supply chain cooperation and communications.

In the end, Yoon’s “tougher on China” image has been rhetorical at best. Behind the rhetoric, the Yoon administration has avoided taking substantive anti-China gestures, and there is no indication that Seoul ever intends to. Looking at the administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, the more likely scenario seems to be that South Korea continues charting a moderate course on China going forward under the Yoon administration.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy’s Careful Approach to China

When it comes to China, South Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy quite sensibly diverges from the U.S. approach, which centers on containment. Seoul does not adopt Washington’s framing of the Indo-Pacific as a battleground between democracy and autocracy, in which China is the main opponent and a near-existential challenge. Instead, Seoul frames the Indo-Pacific as an “inclusive” region where “nations that represent diverse political systems” can peacefully co-exist. Seoul explicitly states that it “does not seek to target or exclude any specific nation” and defines China as a “key regional partner.”

To be sure, Seoul does worry about China’s assertiveness, and South Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy addresses this, such as by upholding the rules-based order, showing support for peace and stability in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, and opposing unilateral attempts to change the status quo by coercion or force. But Seoul avoids directly mentioning China by name, and its general tone vis-à-vis China is notably softer than respective documents by Washington and other relatively hawkish governments like Tokyo.

South Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy also eschews the narrative of extreme competition with China and strongly emphasizes inclusive regional cooperation and engagement. Lamenting how “the rising geopolitical competition has stalled regional cooperation,” Seoul vows to promote an “inclusive economic and technological ecosystem” and prevent the “overwhelming securitization of economic issues.” These references appear to deliberately reject the idea of anti-China decoupling.

The Reasons for Seoul’s Reluctance

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Despite skepticism and suspicion toward China, South Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy overall reflects a strong impulse to maintain positive relations with China based on cooperative engagement, rather than confront China. The apparent resistance toward antagonizing Beijing is fairly self-explanatory; an anti-China policy does more harm than good to South Korea’s comprehensive geostrategic economic and security interests.

In the security realm, antagonizing China could backfire and destabilize South Korea’s security environment. Dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat continues to be South Korea’s top foreign policy priority and requires region-wide cooperation involving Chinese support on sanctions and dialogue. Having hostile security relations with China could further complicate the North Korean nuclear issue and even prompt Beijing to pursue active military cooperation with Pyongyang. Under such circumstances, South Korea might soon find itself on the front lines of a new Cold War.

An anti-China shift in Seoul could also place South Korea in the middle of any conflict over Taiwan. If Seoul deepens its contribution to U.S. forward deployments and extended deterrence capabilities in the Western Pacific and the South Korea-U.S. alliance force posturing becomes more clearly directed at China, Beijing will likely determine that Seoul is committed to defending Taiwan. In this scenario, South Korean territory would face a much greater risk of Chinese missile attacks in a potential Taiwan conflict, which would drag Seoul into what might escalate into a catastrophic major power war.

Advertisement

Unlike some of its neighbors, South Korea does not have territorial disputes with China, and the absence of any direct source of military conflict has kept its security relations with China relatively peaceful. Arguably no South Korean administration would find incentives to break the status quo and lock itself into a permanent state of high tension with Beijing. South Korea has therefore limited its military cooperation with the United States mainly to efforts to deter North Korea. The question of South Korea’s role in a potential Taiwan conflict has also largely remained taboo in Seoul.

South Korea’s reservations about a “China containment” stance extend well beyond the security sphere to the economic and technological realms. Joining U.S. efforts to isolate China from global supply chains and decouple from China could lead to severe economic stagnation caused by unrecoverable large trade deficits.

South Korea is among the world’s most China-dependent economies. Over 40 percent of South Korea’s national income comes from exports, and exports to China account for the largest share by a big margin – a quarter of the total volume. Without its trade with China, South Korea would suffer a major deficit and economic slowdown. Compared to countries like the United States and Japan, which rely less on China for their trade and have strong domestic markets, South Korea has a lot more to lose from economic disputes with China.

The Chinese market’s importance to South Korea’s globally competitive semiconductor industry makes the trade partnership with China even more crucial. Semiconductor exports represent one-fifth of the total South Korean trade income, and 40 percent of them are sold to China. This is only the beginning of the story. South Korea depends heavily on imports to get the rare earth minerals used for its chip production, and an overwhelming 60 percent of those imported rare earth minerals come from China. Over the years, China’s geographic proximity, cheap labor, and resource abundance attracted South Korean tech giants like Samsung and SK Hynix to build factories and produce a large bulk of their memory chips in China.

China has become virtually irreplaceable in South Korea’s economic structure. And this structure cannot be overturned easily. As the South Korean conglomerate SK Hynix CEO said, giving up the Chinese market is simply “impossible” for South Korea. Despite the growing push for anti-China decoupling in Washington, South Korean political elites and business leaders are looking to protect existing bilateral supply chains with China and upgrade the South Korea-China free trade agreement. South Korea is not interested in decoupling and wants to maintain robust economic engagement with China.

South Korea’s Restrained China Policy Is Here to Stay

Ultimately, any South Korean administration, whether conservative or progressive, has to prioritize what is best for the well-being of the country and the people when formulating foreign policy. Yoon’s backtracking on his hawkish campaign promises offers the strongest evidence to date that South Korean leaders doubt that the benefit of pursuing China containment outweighs the cost of shattering the relationship with Beijing. And the consequence has been an enduring continuity of South Korean restraint facing China.

South Korea’s basic geostructural reality of residing next to China in the dangerous Northeast Asian flashpoint and having China as the most imperative economic partner has driven successive governments in Seoul, from the left wing to the right wing, to pursue a regional strategy centered on risk aversion and threat management. Under both the Moon and Yoon administrations, South Korea has sought to hedge the China-U.S. rivalry, do its best version of staying close to Washington without provoking Beijing, and diversify its strategic partnerships to reduce dependence on the two great powers and avoid entrapment in their deepening rivalry. Since the sources of South Korean restraint vis-à-vis China are intrinsically structural (e.g., centered on geography and economic structure), partisan politics and changes of administration are unlikely to trigger a dramatic policy shift in Seoul.

In their analyses of South Korea’s Indo-Pacific strategy, some observers argue that Seoul may be poised to pursue a lockstep regional policy in line with the United States due to its value orientation as a liberal democracy. This perspective sees “like-mindedness” as a powerful bond that will eventually get democracies to turn against China.

It is true that South Korea’s value orientation leaves significant room for cooperation with the United States. As Seoul seeks to expand its influence on the global stage among democracies, values-based diplomacy will remain a key component of its foreign policy, with the South Korea-U.S. alliance at the core. Seoul will continue to seek close cooperation with Washington based on values and many shared mutual interests. Even then, there will likely be clear limits on South Korea’s alignment with the United States on China. Short of a direct and extreme Chinese threat to South Korea, it is difficult to imagine that any South Korean administration would be willing to take on the enormous risks involved in pursuing a containment policy.

South Korea’s strong resistance to a “China containment” policy is something U.S. policymakers should keep in mind going forward. Overlooking South Korea’s geostrategic situation and pressuring Seoul’s participation in anti-China containment initiatives can backfire and harm South Korea-U.S. relations.

When Washington urges Seoul to stop doing business with China on the one hand and discriminates against South Korean companies in the U.S. market to favor American industries on the other hand, Seoul cannot help but increasingly feel like a mere chess piece in a great power competition. No wonder the majority of South Koreans, despite their negative feelings about China, support a carefully balanced approach to the China-U.S. rivalry without overly tilting toward Washington.

If a key U.S. ally and a healthy democracy like South Korea, whose economy is based on high-tech production, can exist peacefully on China’s doorstep, maybe U.S. leaders should rethink whether framing Asia as a battlefield for great power struggles against China is really necessary in the first place.

James Park

James Park is a junior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington D.C.  

thediplomat.com · by James Park · February 18, 2023

5. North conducts 'surprise launching drill' of ICBM, vows tit-for-tat responses to South

Sunday

February 19, 2023

 dictionary + A - A 

North conducts 'surprise launching drill' of ICBM, vows tit-for-tat responses to South

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/02/19/national/northKorea/Korea-North-Korea-Pyongyang/20230219180826152.html

In footage broadcast by the North's state-controlled Korean Central Television, a Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is launched from a transporter erector launcher at Sunan Airport in Pyongyang on Saturday. [YONHAP]

North Korea conducted a “surprise launching drill” of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and vowed heightened tit-for-tat responses to deterrence measures by South Korea and the United States, state media reported Sunday.

The launch prompted the allies to conduct a joint air drill involving a B-1B strategic bomber later Sunday.

The state-controlled Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said in an English-language report that a Hwasong-15 ICBM was fired in a “surprise ICBM launching drill” at Sunan airport in Pyongyang on Saturday afternoon.

Launched at a high angle, the missile flew 989 kilometers (614 miles) for almost 67 minutes, peaking at an altitude of 5,768.5 kilometers, according to the KCNA. 

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) told reporters Saturday that the missile landed in the East Sea.

Video footage captured by a F-15 fighter jet from Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force that was released by Tokyo’s defense ministry showed what appeared to be bright, burning debris from the North Korean ICBM falling off the coast of Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s four main islands. 

The launch is the second time the North has fired a ballistic missile this year, and its first of an ICBM since it successfully tested a Hwasong-17 ICBM last November. 

The KCNA said that the drill demonstrated Pyongyang’s ability to launch a “fatal nuclear counterattack on the hostile forces” and constituted “clear proof of the sure reliability of our powerful physical nuclear deterrent.”

In its reference to the ICBM launch as a “drill,” state media sought to draw attention to the regime’s ability to fire missiles with little warning.

"The drill was suddenly organized without previous notice under an emergency firepower combat standby order given at dawn of February 18," the KCNA said.

Saturday’s test came after North Korea warned Friday that it would undertake “unprecedented strong responses” if the United States and South Korea go ahead with planned military exercises.

Military officials from Seoul and Washington are scheduled to conduct a tabletop exercise at the Pentagon next week based on scenarios in which the North conducts a nuclear attack. 

The allies are also due to hold their regular springtime Freedom Shield exercise next month, as well as large-scale field drills.

On Sunday, Kim Yo-jong, Kim Jong-un’s sister and deputy director of the Workers’ Party propaganda department, warned that the North would “watch every movement of the enemy and take corresponding and very powerful and overwhelming counteraction against its every move hostile to us," in a separate English-language statement carried by KCNA. 

“[The United States] should stop all the actions posing threats to the security of our state and refuse to tarnish the DPRK's dignity, always thinking twice for its own future security,” she said in the statement, referring to the North by the acronym for its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

She also said that the North has “no intention to stand face to face” with the South, echoing Pyongyang’s statements that it will not engage with Seoul, despite the latter’s requests for talks to revive inter-Korean exchanges, such as reunions of family members separated by the 1950-53 Korean War.

Seoul’s Unification Ministry, which is charged with inter-Korean relations, blasted Kim’s statement and blamed the North for escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

“It is deplorable that [North Korea] forgets that its reckless nuclear and missile development is responsible for the deterioration of the current situation, and that it is employing sophistry to shift the blame onto Korea and the United States,” the ministry said in a statement. 

“We warn again that isolation from the international community will only intensify if the North Korean regime continues to provoke and threaten its people's livelihoods and human rights in the face of severe food shortages,” the ministry said, in an apparent reference to recent reports that food insecurity in the North is at its worst since the large-scale famine that took place in the 1990s.

The North’s ICBM launch led South Korea and the United States on Sunday to stage joint air defense exercises, which included F-35A stealth fighters and F-15K jets from the South and U.S. F-16 fighters and a B-1B strategic bomber, to demonstrate Washington’s “ironclad” commitment to defending Seoul.

“The training this time demonstrated the South Korea-U.S. combined defense capabilities and posture featuring the alliance’s overwhelming forces, through the timely and immediate deployment of the U.S. extended deterrence assets to the Korean Peninsula,” the JCS said in a press release.

The foreign ministers of South Korea, the United States and Japan held an emergency meeting on Saturday in Munich on the sidelines of an international security conference and condemned the North’s latest action, vowing their close cooperation to counter the North’s military threat.

“North Korea will face more powerful sanctions by the international community. We urge the North to immediately stop its provocations and return to denuclearization talks,” South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin said after talks with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Japan’s Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa.

The U.S. government also condemned Saturday’s missile launch as “a flagrant violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions” in a statement by White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson.

“While [the US Indo-Pacific Command] has assessed [the launch] did not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, or territory, or to our allies, this launch needlessly raises tensions and risks destabilizing the security situation in the region,” Watson said. 

“It only demonstrates that the DPRK continues to prioritize its unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs over the well-being of its people.”

BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]

6. First team of rescue personnel return to Korea from Turkey

Korea stepped up.

Sunday

February 19, 2023

 dictionary + A - A 

First team of rescue personnel return to Korea from Turkey

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/02/19/national/diplomacy/Korea-Turkey-earthquake/20230219152754550.html

The first round of rescue personnel of the Korea Disaster Relief Team (KDRT) hold a moment of silence for the victims of the devastating earthquake that hit Turkey earlier this month after arriving at Seoul Air Base in Seongnam, Gyeonggi, on Saturday. [FOREIGN MINISTRY]

The first round of 118 Korea Disaster Relief Team (KDRT) personnel returned home Saturday after completing search and rescue operations for the past 10 days following the devastating earthquake in Turkey.  

Their return comes after the second group of KDRT personnel, mainly aiming to provide medical relief and support for displaced people, arrived in Adana Airport in Turkey on a KC-330 military transport aircraft on Friday. 

The first KDRT squad was mostly rescue workers and military personnel. They arrived back at Seoul Air Base in Seongnam, Gyeonggi, early Saturday, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Turkish Ambassador to Seoul Murat Tamer, right, greets Korean rescue workers returning from Turkey at Seoul Air Base in Seongnam, Gyeonggi, on Saturday. [FOREIGN MINISTRY]

They were greeted by Turkish Ambassador to Seoul Murat Tamer and Korean Second Vice Foreign Minister Lee Do-hoon at the airport.

"The people of Turkey will never forget Korea's support for the damages caused by the earthquake," Tamer told the relief team. 

Won Do-yeon, the Foreign Ministry's director-general for development cooperation, who helmed the relief team, reported the completion of operations to the ministry, including its efforts to rescue survivors at quake-stricken sites, recover bodies and cooperate with relief teams from other countries in coordination with Turkish authorities. 

Lee also thanked the personnel for their dedication to completing their mission despite an extremely dangerous situation. 

On Feb. 6, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck southern Turkey and northern Syria, killing more than 46,000 people. 

On Feb. 7, the first round of KDRT personnel departed for Turkey, just a day after the quake, the largest number of relief workers dispatched by Korea in a single day. 

The team rescued eight survivors and recovered 19 bodies during their operations in the country. The team operated in Antakya, the capital of Hatay Province in southeastern Turkey, one the areas hardest hit by the earthquake, completing their mission under severe cold, unstable electricity and water supply and deteriorating security situation, including lootings due to shortage of supplies. 

Some of KDRT's rescue dogs also were injured during the search efforts. 

Korean rescue dogs return after relief efforts in quake-stricken Turkey at Seoul Air Base in Seongnam, Gyeonggi, on Saturday. [NEWS1]

The relief personnel will return to their regular duties next week after undergoing health examinations and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) tests. 

The new 21-member KDRT team has 10 medical professionals — from the National Medical Center, the Korea Foundation for International Healthcare and the Defense Ministry — as well as two Foreign Ministry officials, five personnel from the Korea International Cooperation Agency (Koica), and four members of relief organizations. 

Korea also delivered 1 billion won ($778,000) of supplies, including 1,030 tents, 3,260 blankets and 2,200 sleeping bags, donated by the government and the public sector, as requested by the Turkish government. 

The relief goods were transported on two military aircraft and a commercial flight. 

The new team will be tasked with identifying local health and medical needs and what is needed for longer-term reconstruction and reconstruction efforts through consultations with Turkish authorities.

The second team's mission is expected to last seven days, but could be extended depending on the local circumstances. 

Korea also said it will provide $1 million in humanitarian aid to Syria through an international organization.

Members of the second round of the Korea Disaster Relief Team (KDRT) sent to support recovery efforts in Turkey arrive on a military transport aircraft at Adana, Turkey Friday. [YONHAP]

BY SARAH KIM [kim.sarah@joongang.co.kr]

7. [Editorial] Useless firing of an ICBM by North

north Korea is "busy doing fireworks" in the face of the suffering of the Korean [people living in the north.

Good OpEd that succinctly points out a number of important points.

Sunday

February 19, 2023

 dictionary + A - A 

[Editorial] Useless firing of an ICBM by North

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/02/19/opinion/editorials/North-Korea-ICBM-Hwasong15/20230219195227256.html

On Saturday, North Korea fired a Hwasong-15 ICBM for the first time in 2023. That constitutes a brazen violation of the UN Security Council resolution. After firing 68 missiles, including eight ICBMs, last year, the North is expected to continue its missile provocations this year.

Amid deepening food shortages across the country — and despite the breaking news that Pyongyang even prepares to cut food rationing to each soldier — the recalcitrant regime is busy doing fireworks.

After the ICBM flew 989 kilometers to the East Sea at a maximum altitude of 5,768 kilometers for 66 minutes before plunging into the waters inside Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone, Tokyo was infuriated. If the missile has been fired at a normal angle, it is presumed to have reached the U.S. mainland after flying 14,000 kilometers. However, a video of the descending missile, captured by a Japanese fighter jet, shows its warhead was broken into pieces and vanished from sight after being caught on fire. After an earlier failure on Nov. 3, North Korea fired an enhanced Hwasong-15 ICBM with a lighter warhead. But this time too, the missile seems to have failed to reenter the atmosphere.

After the missile launch, Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, said, “We have no intention to deal with South Korea, but will respond to our enemy overwhelmingly.” The enemy refers to the U.S. “As they [South Koreans] are idiots, we will not have to aim an ICBM at Seoul to awaken them,” she said. Her remarks are aimed to drive a wedge in the South-U.S. alliance on the occasion of its 70th anniversary.

As Seoul and Washington prepare to conduct an exercise to operate the means of U.S. extended deterrence at the Pentagon on Wednesday to prepare for a possible nuclear provocation by North Korea — and as the joint South-U.S. Freedom Shield drill is slated for mid-March — North Korea showed such a strong reaction. A UN Security Council meeting requested by the U.S. and the clear definition of the North Korean regime and military as “our enemy” in the first National Defense Whitepaper from the Yoon Suk Yeol administration also may have played a part.

Shortly after the firing of the ICBM, the government held a National Security Council meeting hosted by National Security Advisor Kim Sun-han. The foreign ministers of South Korea, the U.S. and Japan also raised one voice to denounce the missile provocation while attending the Munich Security Conference 2023. North Korea must understand that it cannot reap any gains from military provocations as they only help consolidate the security cooperation among Seoul, Washington and Tokyo.

Our Ministry of National Defense must carry out its planned exercises as scheduled without being shaken by the North’s threats. Whether it be a nuclear bomb, missile or spy balloon, our military must strengthen defense posture.

8. [Interview] Last 'Imjin Scout' brings DMZ warriors to light

Hooah. Those were the days.

Some overlooked history.

If I were king for a day (or at least advising the Military Committee) I would recommend putting US forces back on the DMZ to conduct combined patrols and rotating with Korean units to spell them and allow them to train South of the DMZ while improving ROK/US tactical and small unit interoperability. And send a powerful message of US commitment to the defense of the ROK.

[Interview] Last 'Imjin Scout' brings DMZ warriors to light

The Korea Times · February 19, 2023

Two soldiers stand guard duty near the military demarcation line in Paju City, Gyeonggi Province in this 2019 file photo. Korea Times file

 By Kang Hyun-kyung

From 1965 to 1991, a group of specially-trained forces conducted perilous missions inside the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing the two Koreas. These warriors were part of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division.

Each team consisted of 10 members and their main duty was patrolling the then-U.S. section of the DMZ. Their DMZ mission continued for three months, then another 10-member team replaced the previous one with another three-month operation inside the buffer area.

The military operation continued all year until the responsibility was transferred to the Korean Army in October 1991.

Soldiers who had participated in the DMZ mission 20 times or more called themselves "Imjin Scouts" ― a name inspired by the very same river that flows from North Korea to the South. Nine out of every 10 Imjin Scouts were Americans. The remaining 10 percent were South Koreans who served in the 2nd Infantry Division as members of the Korean Augmentation to the U.S. Army (KATUSA). These Koreans worked as a team with the U.S. soldiers inside the DMZ.

Moon Kwan-hyun, author of "Imgin Scouts" / Courtesy of Moon Kwan-hyun Moon Kwan-hyun, 55, is one of the later Imjin Scouts.

He calls himself the last Imjin Scout because he is the only Korean in the final DMZ team. Along with other members, he had patrolled inside the DMZ about 30 times during the three months from June to August in 1991.

"Patrolling inside the DMZ was physically demanding," he said in an interview with The Korea Times on Saturday. "I was totally drained at the end of the three-month mission."

During their mission, Imjin Scouts checked whether there were any signs of aggression or infiltration and responded swiftly to any provocations from North Korea. It was a risky mission, particularly during the 1960s when inter-Korean tensions were high enough to be labeled as a "low-intensity conflict" by some U.S. military experts. The term refers to military conflicts just below conventional war.

Moon said Imjin Scouts are lesser known in South Korea.

"There are blanks in Korea's history after the Korean War (1950-53)," he said. "I mean we, Koreans, don't know what happened in Korea's 'Western Corridor' surrounding the outskirts of Seoul and the border city of Paju between 1965 and 1991, because the U.S. military oversaw the DMZ. Little is known about those 26 years in the inter-Korean border area."

For instance, he went on to say that no one knows exactly how many South Korean soldiers and civilians were killed after the 31-member North Korean Forces Unit infiltrated the South in 1968 with a mission to assassinate then-President Park Chung-hee.

"There's no information available other than testimonies from Kim Shin-jo about the incident. But there are several factual errors in his statements," said Moon. He did not specify what kinds of factual errors he was referring to, maybe because they were classified information.

Kim is one of the 31 North Korean commandos and the only one captured alive. Twenty-nine others were shot to death and one escaped to the North. Kim later defected to the South and became a pastor.

Last year, Moon, a journalist from Yonhap News Agency, published a book, titled "Imjin Scouts," based on thorough research on the special forces and their history. His book elaborates on when and how the special forces were created and their roles.

"Imjin Scouts" is the first book written in Korean which tells the story of the DMZ warriors. Before his book, there were two other written materials in English about the special forces who took on the DMZ mission. They are retired major Daniel P. Bolger's "Scenes from an Unfinished War: Low-Intensity Conflict in Korea, 1966-1969" and Mark Heathco's memoir, "Call Sign Purple Three: Patrolling the US Sector of the DMZ in Korea."

As a retired sergeant, Heathco conducted DMZ patrols 385 times during his service in Korea.

Imjin Scouts gathered in a forest in Eoryong-ri, Paju City in this undated photo. Courtesy of Retired Sergeant Jang Hyun-geun In his memoir, Heathco unraveled his experiences inside the DMZ and how risky the mission was.

"My life expectancy, if war was to break out, would be about twelve seconds. That's because it is our job to stop the North Korean tank threat, and we are outgunned by a ratio of twelve to one. Each American TOW system would have to kill, on average 12 North Korean tanks to survive on the battlefield," his book states.

Despite its life-threatening nature, he said the DMZ patrols were worthwhile because they allowed him to build a strong bond with his other team members.

"The DMZ mission is unlike anything in the world. You pull the mission for the guy standing next to you ― the same guy who has your back while on patrol in no-man's-land. It's the camaraderie that makes this mission appealing to me," he wrote.

Asked about the purpose of his book, Moon said he wanted to publish a book that might appeal to avid defense readers, rather than general readers.

"My book tells the story of Imjin Scouts through their stories," he said. "Some lesser-known facts that occurred in the DMZ area between 1965 and 1991 are brought to light. During the period, our readers will know that there was a system called Imjin Scouts and they played a greater part to defend South Korea from the North's infiltrations. My book gives a peak into what happened during the period and Imjin Scouts are part of the history."

One of his findings is that there were war-like confrontations between the two Koreas in the 1960s that led to the continuation of military standoffs.

"In the 1960s when the Cold War reached its peak, there was war almost every day inside the DMZ between the U.S. military service members and North Korean soldiers. Seven people were killed every 10 days. Various small-scale conflicts occurred almost every day back then," he said. "It's ironic that conflicts occurred in the DMZ which was set up as a buffer area."

Moon called a string of military conflicts and clashes that occurred near the military demarcation line in the 1960s the "Second Korean War," saying the trying times helped South Korea and the U.S. become close allies as they fought together against the North.

"South Korea teamed up with 16 other countries during the Korean War which broke out in 1950 to fight against North Korea. The 16 countries were the ones that responded to the United Nation's calls to join South Korea to protect its democracy from communist attack. After the Korean War, all the countries had left, except for the United States," he said.

The U.S. fought together with South Korea to defend the South from various provocations and infiltrations that occurred in the 1960s.

"During the Second Korean War, South Korea-U.S. alliance has strengthened and took the form of a true alliance. Since the first Security Consultative Meeting between the defense ministers of South Korea and the U.S. was held in Hawaii in 1967, the meeting has taken place on a regular basis. The South Korea-U.S. joint military drills began in the 1960s, too," he said.

Although many view the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty signed between South Korea and the United States in October 1953, months after the Korean War ended, as the starting point of the Korea-U.S. alliance, Moon claimed it would be fair to say its real start was made during what he called the Second Korean War period in the 1960s.

A South Korean soldier, right, and a soldier from United Nations Command or UNC, stand at the JSA inside the demilitarized zone during a media tour in Paju, Feb. 7. AP-Yonhap

The Korea Times · February 19, 2023

9. EU condemns 'reckless' North Korean missile launch

I hope the EU will help crack down on north Korean illicit activities that are taking place around the world.

EU condemns 'reckless' North Korean missile launch

The Korea Times · by 2023-02-19 16:40 | North Korea · February 19, 2023

A photo released by the official North Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) shows people waving as an unidentified intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is displayed during a military parade at Kim Il Sung Square to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Korean People's Army (KPA), the revolutionary armed forces of the Worker's Party of Korea (WPK) in Pyongyang, North Korea, Feb. 8. EPA-Yonhap

The European Union on Saturday denounced North Korea's "reckless" firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile that landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone, and called for an "appropriate response" from the U.N.

The launch, Pyongyang's first in seven weeks, comes days before Seoul and Washington are due to start joint tabletop exercises aimed at improving their response in the event of a North Korean nuclear attack.

"The launch by the DPRK of a long-range missile today was a dangerous and reckless action that endangers international and regional peace and security," said a spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.

"It shows that the DPRK's nuclear and missile program threatens all countries and requires an appropriate response by the UN Security Council," she added.

She repeated the EU's appeal to North Korea to halt its ballistic missile launches and turn instead to "constructive dialogue with the United States and the Republic of Korea".

The only route to sustainable peace and security in the region is through the DPRK engaging in actions aimed at ensuring the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula," she added.

"The EU is ready to support a new process of diplomacy."

A Japanese government spokesman told reporters that North Korea had "fired one ICBM-class ballistic missile", which flew for some 66 minutes before landing in the country's exclusive economic zone. (AFP)

The Korea Times · by 2023-02-19 16:40 | North Korea · February 19, 2023

10. Defense white paper: 2 Koreas become official enemies once more

We are still waiting for the English translation so our analysis is limited to reports and OpEds.

Good overview of the Defense White Paper history. Also note the OpEd's criticism of Japan.

Excerpts:

Foreign observers with even the slightest interest in the Korean Peninsula have only to look at South Korea's defense white papers to understand the changing relationship between the two Koreas at key moments in history. The word "enemy" first appeared in 1995 after a North Korean official said Pyongyang could turn Seoul into a "sea of fire." The word has since disappeared under progressive governments in the South and reappeared under conservative ones.

However, few, if any, countries specify an enemy in their official defense papers unless they are in the middle of a war. Instead, most call their adversaries "threats" or "challenges" to obscure their intentions and increase their strategic options. Calling the other side an enemy or even the "main enemy" is rare, although the two Koreas have remained at war "technically" since the Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice.

In retrospect, the birth of the defense white paper was more political than military. Published in 1967 under then-General-turned-President Park Chung-hee, the document emphasized ― even exaggerated ― the North's far superior military compared with the South's, pressing the need to protect and stabilize South Korean society from North Korea (and dissidents). Military officials reportedly lobbied civilians to stress the quantitative military imbalance between the two Koreas in order to request a bigger budget.

After a lull of two decades, the government then resumed the defense white paper's publication in 1988. It was done in order to refute allegations by Rhee Young-hee, a civilian expert in inter-Korean affairs. Rhee, a progressive ― or pro-North by conservative standards ― scholar and commentator, said South Korea's military prowess was not inferior to the North's and in fact surpassed it, given the comprehensive national strength, due to its rising economic power and help from its ally.

Defense white paper

The Korea Times · February 19, 2023

2 Koreas become official enemies once more

North Korea fired a long-range missile toward the East Sea on Saturday. It was the second launch of a presumed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) since November.

The North's latest ICBM launch came two days after South Korea's defense ministry published a new white paper, in which it referred to Pyongyang and its military as an "enemy" for the first time in six years.

Different governments, different defense papers. It also seems natural to reinstate the official title of enemy and call the North Korean leader by name only without his official title. North Korea recently called the South an "obvious enemy" and President Yoon Suk Yeol a "fool."

Foreign observers with even the slightest interest in the Korean Peninsula have only to look at South Korea's defense white papers to understand the changing relationship between the two Koreas at key moments in history. The word "enemy" first appeared in 1995 after a North Korean official said Pyongyang could turn Seoul into a "sea of fire." The word has since disappeared under progressive governments in the South and reappeared under conservative ones.

However, few, if any, countries specify an enemy in their official defense papers unless they are in the middle of a war. Instead, most call their adversaries "threats" or "challenges" to obscure their intentions and increase their strategic options. Calling the other side an enemy or even the "main enemy" is rare, although the two Koreas have remained at war "technically" since the Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice.

In retrospect, the birth of the defense white paper was more political than military. Published in 1967 under then-General-turned-President Park Chung-hee, the document emphasized ― even exaggerated ― the North's far superior military compared with the South's, pressing the need to protect and stabilize South Korean society from North Korea (and dissidents). Military officials reportedly lobbied civilians to stress the quantitative military imbalance between the two Koreas in order to request a bigger budget.

After a lull of two decades, the government then resumed the defense white paper's publication in 1988. It was done in order to refute allegations by Rhee Young-hee, a civilian expert in inter-Korean affairs. Rhee, a progressive ― or pro-North by conservative standards ― scholar and commentator, said South Korea's military prowess was not inferior to the North's and in fact surpassed it, given the comprehensive national strength, due to its rising economic power and help from its ally.

The 2022 defense paper repeated what Rhee called "bean counting" 34 years ago. The document has a table showing that the South's troops stand at 500,000 whilst the North's are at 1.28 million. It also compared the number of tanks, 2,200 vs. 4,300. Unlike in the past, a footnote said, "This table only presented quantitative comparisons. Actual power may differ, considering the equipment's level of deterioration, training of soldiers and allied operational concepts." Nonetheless, articles in most conservative media outlets only focused on the numbers and not the qualities of the respective forces.

More worrying than this physical comparison is the lax discipline of the South's military. And more pathetic than the recent fuss over the North's drone incursions was how military leaders avoided taking responsibility, wrapping up the incident with just a few slaps on the wrist. These officers even lied by hiding the fact that these drones entered the no-fly zone around the presidential office. "Any harsher punishment might end up playing into the hands of North Korea, which aimed to shatter our preparedness," a military spokesperson said.

Critics label the current political leadership as "chicken hawks," composed mainly of people who didn't even fulfill mandatory military service and led by a commander-in-chief who calls for a "preemptive strike" and "revenge of a hundred or thousand times." Combine this with undisciplined and irresponsible military leadership, and one can see reasons for a growing sense of insecurity among citizens.

Also noteworthy was the paper's change of description when talking about Japan, from a neighbor to a close neighbor, although a similar document published by Tokyo remains unchanged regarding its claims of sovereignty over Dokdo. Additionally, Japan's Embassy played its national anthem at a gathering in the heart of Seoul to celebrate their emperor's birthday.

Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." However, there will be nothing comedic about it if history repeats on the Korean Peninsula.

The Korea Times · February 19, 2023

11. South Korea’s First Attempt at Going Nuclear

Kim Jong Un would like to see President Yoon attempt to do this again as it would have a significant (perhaps catastrophic) impact on the ROK/US alliance. We must understand the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime).

South Korea certainly has the intellectual and technical capacity to rapidly go nuclear. It is afterall a peaceful nuclear power with some 24 nuclear power plants and it is an exporter of nuclear power around the world.

Can we make the assumption that peaceful coexistence is possible?  

Conclusion:

The best way to deter a North Korean attack is through diplomacy and dialogue with Pyongyang. This is the only way to come to a peaceful solution, to have a chance at arms control in the North, and to get to a place where peaceful coexistence is possible.

We should keep in mind three points:

The root of all problems in Korea is the existence of the most evil mafia- like crime family cult known as the Kim family regime that has the objective of dominating the Korean Peninsula under the rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State.

 The only way we are going to see an end to the nuclear program and military threats as well as the human rights abuses and crimes against humanity being committed against the Korean people living in the north by the mafia-like crime family cult known as the Kim family regime is through achievement of unification and the establishment of a free and unified Korea that is secure and stable, non-nuclear, economically vibrant, and unified under a liberal constitutional form of government based on individual liberty, rule of law, and human rights as determined by the Korean people. A free and unified Korea or in short, a United Republic of Korea (UROK).

Although denuclearization of the north remains a worthy goal, it must be viewed as aspirational as long as the Kim family regime remains in power. The conventional wisdom has always been that denuclearization must come first and then unification will follow and that there should be no discussion of human rights out of fear that it would prevent Kim Jong Un from making a denuclearization agreement. Today even a blind man can read the tea leaves and know that Kim Jong Un will not denuclearize despite the fact that his policies have been an abject failure. His political warfare and blackmail diplomacy strategies completely failed in 2022 because Presidents Yoon and Biden, like their predecessors, refused to make the political and economic concessions he demanded just to come to the negotiating table: namely to remove sanctions. It is time for the U.S and the ROK/U.S. alliance to execute a political warfare strategy that flips the conventional wisdom and seeks unification first and then denuclearization. Everyone must come to the understanding that the only way to end the nuclear program and the human rights abuses is through unification of the Korean peninsula. The ROK and U.S. must continue to maintain the highest state of military readiness to deter war and then adopt a human rights upfront approach, a comprehensive and sophisticated information and influence activities campaign, and focus all efforts on the pursuit of a free and unified Korea- ultimately a United Republic of Korea (UROK).

South Korea’s First Attempt at Going Nuclear

Seoul attempted to attain nuclear weapons back in the 1970s, only to be stopped by heavy pressure from Washington.

thediplomat.com · by Gabriela Bernal · February 15, 2023

Advertisement

The debate about whether South Korea should pursue independent nuclear armaments is once again making headlines. A recent survey showed that nearly 77 percent of South Koreans believe in the necessity of developing a domestic nuclear weapons program. The issue has gained even more traction with major government figures, including the president himself, floating the possibility of South Korea going nuclear.

But this isn’t the first time that Seoul has considered or even pursued a nuclear weapons program. In fact, back in the 1970s, the United States was more concerned about a nuclear program in the South than the North, a scenario that seems unimaginable today.

In 1972, South Korean President Park Chung-hee launched a clandestine military nuclear program called “Project 890,” the existence of which was only discovered by Washington in late 1974. This was a period of high anxiety for Park, who had witnessed the murder of his wife by a pro-North Korean assassin in 1974 while also discovering several North Korean infiltration tunnels under the DMZ in 1974-75. Besides this, Park was also displeased with the Nixon administration’s decision in early 1970 to withdraw a U.S. Army division, amounting to 20,000 troops out of the 63,000 stationed in the South at the time.

As seems to be the case now, the South Korean leadership in the 1970s was growing increasingly skeptical of U.S. security guarantees. Despite Seoul’s repeated hardline stance on the issue, however, Washington was able to convince South Korea against going nuclear. With the risks in 2023 higher than ever, it’s worth taking a look back to reflect on what can be learned today from what happened in the 1970s.

South Korea’s nuclear ambitions started becoming a major issue in 1974, when U.S. intelligence began gathering increasing evidence of Seoul’s efforts in this area, estimating that if Park’s plans were not stopped, the South could acquire nuclear weapons by 1980.

The United States also discovered that South Korea was negotiating with France to purchase a chemical separation plant, which could be used to produce plutonium from spent reactor fuel. South Korea was also in talks with Canada to buy a nuclear reactor. By November 1974, a French diplomat confirmed that France was indeed considering selling a reprocessing plant to South Korea.

By February 1975, Washington was considering inhibiting South Korean access to sensitive technology and equipment both through unilateral and multilateral coordinated actions. U.S. intelligence at the time showed that, besides nuclear capabilities, South Korea was also looking into ways to improve its missile technology.

Advertisement

One March 1975 telegram from the State Department sent to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul clearly stated that Washington “would not intend to provide technology and/or equipment which we would feel might be harmful to our own interests and the stability of the area.”

Throughout this time, U.S. and French diplomats maintained close communications and cooperation on the issue of the potential sale of the reprocessing plant. In fact, France was willing to accept U.S. requests to call the deal off with South Korea as long as they received “reasonable financial compensation.”

By August 1975, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Richard Sneider was actively trying to persuade Seoul to call the French deal off, arguing that the best course of action would be the joint exploration of possibilities for a multilateral reprocessing facility. The South Korean side, however, disagreed and said they wanted the French plant as a “learning tool” and reacted with an “expression of surprise” at the ambassador’s remarks.

In fact, Seoul said it had tried to reach out to various U.S. organizations in 1972 for assistance in developing a fuel reprocessing plant, but got no response. As a result, they turned to the French. According to the South Koreans, canceling the French contract would be “impossible” and they instead urged the United States to accept it and conduct inspections as needed. Construction of the plant in Daejon was reportedly already underway in September 1975.

South Korea was also upset at the perceived discriminatory treatment of Washington when it came to Tokyo and Seoul. Given that the Japanese were buying a much larger reprocessing plant from the French, officials in South Korea wondered why Washington was “singling out” Korea. In response, Sneider said Japan “was not on the DMZ.” In the case of South Korea, Washington had to take into account Chinese, Soviet, and North Korean reactions.

Dissuading Seoul

Despite strong opposition from Seoul, Washington stood its ground. With U.S. pressure growing, by December 1975 South Korea sought “concrete information” about possible U.S. nuclear aid if Seoul decided to cancel the reprocessing deal. Washington’s position was that it would be prepared to send U.S. personnel to the South for peaceful nuclear cooperation after South Korea made the decision to cancel the French deal.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Meanwhile, Canada also stepped up its efforts to convince Seoul to cancel the French deal, asking for assurances that the reprocessing plant would not be built; otherwise, Canada could not sell South Korea its reactors. The move ultimately worked, with the two sides signing an agreement in January 1976 in which South Korea assured Canada that “it is not pursuing acquisition of the reprocessing facility.” The sale of a Canadian reactor to South Korea went ahead the next day.

While Park seems to have ended Project 890 by late 1976, research efforts into nuclear proliferation reportedly continued in the following years. In particular, Seoul’s confidence in Washington suffered yet another blow in 1977 when U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from South Korea along with the 2nd infantry division.

Despite its domestic efforts, however, South Korea’s nuclear ambitions went nowhere. By 1978, the only way for Seoul to acquire a reprocessing plant was to build one, and Washington had already blocked supplier nations from providing such plants to Korea. Needing support from Washington after seizing power in 1980, Chun Doo-hwan scrapped whatever was left of South Korea’s domestic nuclear weapons and missile programs.

Advertisement

The issue seems to have been put to rest in 1981, when the Reagan administration pledged to maintain troop levels in exchange for Chun redirecting nuclear energy research to civilian purposes.

Lessons Learned and What’s at Stake Today

South Korea’s first attempt at going nuclear leaves us with several lessons and warnings. First, if it was impossible for Seoul to secretly pursue a nuclear program in the early 1970s, there would be absolutely no way of doing so now.

Second, although South Korean technology today is far superior to what it had in the 1970s, it would still need support from the international community to develop nuclear weapons. However, with South Korea being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and nuclear non-proliferation being established as a firm principle in the international community, going the nuclear path would mean violating legal agreements, which would lead to diplomatic isolation and multilateral backlash from the international community.

Choosing the nuclear option would also greatly damage the South Korea-U.S. alliance. Washington did not support Seoul going nuclear in the 1970s and maintains this stance today. In addition, South Korea would be jeopardizing its nuclear energy industry as well, since many of its reactors rely on U.S. and other foreign licenses to operate.

Besides this, and perhaps most importantly, South Korea going nuclear would make any calls for the denuclearization of the North completely void. This would prolong the Korean War, make diplomacy almost impossible, significantly raise military tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and even possibly lead to a regional (nuclear) arms race.

Such a scenario would be highly unfavorable for all players involved, in both the short- and long-term. South Korea must realize that its highly-trained conventional forces, backed by U.S. conventional military support, are enough to respond to North Korean military provocations. While the current level of U.S. reassurances to the South may be insufficient for many, the answer should not be the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The best way to deter a North Korean attack is through diplomacy and dialogue with Pyongyang. This is the only way to come to a peaceful solution, to have a chance at arms control in the North, and to get to a place where peaceful coexistence is possible.

Gabriela Bernal

Gabriela Bernal is a Ph.D. scholar at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul and a freelance writer on North Korean affairs. She specializes in inter-Korean relations, North Korea-U.S. relations, and North Korean foreign policy.

thediplomat.com · by Gabriela Bernal · February 15, 2023

12. Tensions simmer on peninsula after NK launch, allies’ drills

Remain calm. Do not over react. Maintain strength and resolve. Attack the north's strategy with information. I am still waiting for President Yoon to make good his statement that he will use information to respond to provocations. Information is an existential threat to the Kim family regime.

Excerpt:

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Park Jin said over the weekend that another nuclear test would be a “game changer” for North Korea, without elaborating. He and his US and Japanese counterparts all urged the regime to return to nuclear dialogue, at the Munich Security Conference, a three-day gathering of experts on security policy that started Friday.

​My 6 step recommendations for responses:

North Korea’s Missile Test: A Framework for How to Respond

The key question that is asked with every North Korean action is how should the ROK/U.S. alliance respond?

Policymakers should keep in mind that the Kim family regime’s political warfare strategy relies heavily on its blackmail diplomacy – the use of increased tension, threats, and provocations to gain political and economic concessions. Part of an information and influence strategy should be to counter the criticism that a North Korean provocation is a US and South Korean policy failure.

The ROK and U.S. should make sure the press, pundits, and public understand that this is a fundamental part of North Korean strategy and that it conducts provocations for specific objectives. It does not represent a policy failure; it represents a deliberate policy decision by Kim Jong-un to continue to execute his political warfare strategy. The following is a response framework for consideration:

First, do not overreact. But do not succumb to the criticism of those who recommend ending exercises. Always call out Kim Jong-un’s strategy As Sun Tzu would advise- “ …what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategy; … next best is to disrupt his alliances.” Make sure the international community, the press, and the public in the ROK and the U.S. and the elite and the Korean people living in the north know what Kim is doing.

Second, never ever back down in the face of North Korean increased tension, threats, and provocations.

Third, coordinate an alliance response. There may be times when a good cop-bad cop approach is appropriate. Try to mitigate the internal domestic political criticisms that will inevitably occur in Seoul and DC. Do not let those criticisms negatively influence policy and actions.

Fourth, exploit weakness in North Korea – create internal pressure on Kim and the regime from his elite and military. Always work to drive a wedge among the party, elite, and military (which is a challenge since they are all intertwined and inextricably linked).

Fifth, demonstrate strength and resolve. Do not be afraid to show military strength. Never misunderstand the north’s propaganda – do not give in to demands to reduce exercises or take other measures based on North Korean demands that would in any way reduce the readiness of the combined military forces. The north does not want an end to the exercises because they are a threat, they want to weaken the alliance and force U.S. troops from the peninsula which will be the logical result if they are unable to effectively train.

Sixth, depending on the nature of the provocation, be prepared to initiate a decisive response using the most appropriate tools, e.g., diplomatic, military, economic, information and influence activities, cyber, etc., or a combination.

(North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Test: A 6 Step Strategy To Respond​,​ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/01/north-koreas-ballistic-missile-test-a-6-step-strategy-to-respond/​)​

​

Tensions simmer on peninsula after NK launch, allies’ drills

koreaherald.com · by Choi Si-young · February 19, 2023

South Korea and the US staged combined air drills Sunday, a day after North Korea aggravated inter-Korean tensions by firing an intercontinental ballistic missile that South Korea believes could reach anywhere in the continental United States.

The launch came ahead of the first Seoul-Washington nuclear drills scheduled for this week and their annual field exercises for next month -- both of which are intended to help deal with Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.

The Hwasong-15 launch, the first ICBM firing since November last year when the North’s most advanced Hwasong-17 was revealed, demonstrated a “fatal nuclear counterattack” amid “relentless efforts” for a bigger nuclear arsenal, the official Korean Central News Agency said.

The missile fell into waters west of Japan as it was intentionally fired at a steep angle to avoid flying over the island toward the Pacific Ocean, a pattern for every other ICBMs the North has tested so far.

“The dangerous military preparations by South Korea and the US in the name of joint military readiness are destroying stability in the region and raising stakes,” Kim Yo-jong, the powerful sister of leader Kim Jong-un, said in a statement released by the North’s Foreign Ministry on Sunday morning.

In response to the launch, South Korea and the US flew their fighter jets in a show of force, with Washington fielding B-1B strategic bombers from its mainland to reaffirm its commitment to extended deterrence. The US promises to use all resources including nuclear weapons to deter and respond to attacks on its allies.

The two allies will start mapping out concrete steps aimed at translating such firepower into step-by-step action at a Pentagon meeting Wednesday, where they will discuss contingencies while simulating a North Korean nuclear attack. The first tabletop drill -- agreed by the two defense chiefs last year amid growing skepticism asking the US to be more specific about its commitment -- will be followed by their joint field maneuvers in mid-March.

Pyongyang, which describes such large-scale drills involving troops as “rehearsals for invasion,” has repeatedly called for suspending them, a demand that matched Washington’s understanding in August 2018, two months after the first historic summit between the US and North Korea. Then, former President Donald Trump discussed halting the drills to give priority to diplomacy.

But little progress on Pyongyang’s disarmament has been made since then. Along with leadership changes in Seoul and Washington, the lack of headway has prompted a return to all-out exercises. President Yoon Suk Yeol and his US counterpart, Joe Biden, has vowed to bolster their defenses unless North Korean leader Kim Jong-un shows he is serious about living up to denuclearizing his country.

In statements, the offices of Yoon and Biden strongly condemned Saturday’s missile firing, saying it violated UN Security Council resolutions. The US recently sought a UNSC presidential statement to deter North Korea’s aggression, an attempt apparently blocked by China and Russia. Those efforts led by “America’s unilateralism” would yield “no outcome” North Korea said of international intervention, stressing it is unfairly targeted.

Park Won-gon, a professor of North Korean Studies at Ewha Woman University, said Pyongyang was laying groundwork for further provocations, referring to the Seoul-Washington field exercises and UN checks on North Korea as reasons for the isolated country to stay aggressive.

“The line of provocations we have to expect for 2023 is quite different from 2022, in that from now on, South Korea and the US will be the subjects of North Korea’s hostility. Kim Yo-jong just showed the two allies would be the ones facing threats if they don’t behave,” Park said.

But the focus of those provocations, Park added, would be more on Washington rather than Seoul as Pyongyang tries to show off its missile technologies so the US feels threatened enough to reverse its policy. “Plus we still can’t rule out another nuclear test,” Park said, referring to the last time that happened in 2017.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Park Jin said over the weekend that another nuclear test would be a “game changer” for North Korea, without elaborating. He and his US and Japanese counterparts all urged the regime to return to nuclear dialogue, at the Munich Security Conference, a three-day gathering of experts on security policy that started Friday.

By Choi Si-young (siyoungchoi@heraldcorp.com)

koreaherald.com · by Choi Si-young · February 19, 2023

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Senior Advisor, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com