Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

“The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.”

– Elon Musk

“The death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism.”

– Hannah Arendt

“I do not like to state an opinion on a matter unless I know the precise facts.”

– Albert Einstein

1. Trump’s Choice in Ukraine: Chamberlain or Eisenhower? By Paul Wolfowitz

2. Tensions rise as North Korea fires missiles amid US-South Korea exercise

3. Nuclear Proliferation Will Haunt ‘America First’

4. Nat'l Assembly launches bipartisan body to bolster alliance with U.S.

5. N. Korea fires multiple ballistic missiles as S. Korea, U.S. launch joint military drills

6. N. Korea denounces S. Korea-U.S. joint drills as 'dangerous provocative act'

7. N. Korea urges Japan to apologize to Korean victims of 1945 Tokyo bombing

8. Prosecutor general says his decision not to appeal Yoon's release based on 'due process'

9. North Korea's nuclear submarine plans take shape—with help from Russia?

10. N. Korean parents vanish after questioning son's military 'death'

11. Kim Jong Un prohibits unofficial fees after model farmers barred from mausoleum visit

12. Hyesan factory forced to withdraw overtime order after workers revolt

13. Editorial: The Democratic Party's impeachment threats must end14.

1. Trump’s Choice in Ukraine: Chamberlain or Eisenhower? By Paul Wolfowitz

In addition to threatening military force to ocerce north Korea and the Chinese Peoples' Volunteers to sign the Armistice (and this threat has contributed to the Kim family regime's desire for nuclear weapons ever since. At the same time Eisenhower threatened to cut aid to Korea if President Rhee did not agree to the armistice. However, unlikeUkraine today he also provided the highest form of a security guarantee; he agreed to the Mutual Defense Treaty which was signed 2 months after the Armistice. The MDT is still a very relevant and useful agreement today (see the entire treaty pasted below this article. I like it's Article III better than the NATO Article 5 because it recognizes that the commitment to mutual defense is based on each nation's constitutional processes which I think is more realistic than an automatic response. Note that the drafters of the MDT seemed to be very prescient as they did not mention north Korea but only threats to both countries in the Asia-Pacific region which is one point that keeps the MDT relevant today. Although I have not found it written in any of the history, interpreting the MDT today it might be said the drafters were anticipating Korea as a potential power projection platform for US interests. Did they have such foresight?

It is so nice to see Korean being discussed as somehow useful and still relevant. After Paul Wolfowtiz said in 2004 that US forces in Korea were a waste, I attended an NDU speaker event and I asked the snarky question to Doug Feith if I should consider all the years I had spent in Korea as a waste.

Also, RE the UN. It was the first and only time the UN ever gave a mandate for a military force to conduct large-scale combat operations to defend a nation's freedom (that was not even a member of the UN). And as know it only happened because of the Soviet boycott over the ROC (Taiwan) and PRC. And it never did and never will happen again. It may be the only time the UN ever acted in such a strategically significant way. But because it did so only because it was allowed to by the Soviet boycott, the Soviets (and later the PRC) learned the lesson and the UN and UN Security Council have been neutered ever since.

In regard to Ukraine, if history were to rhyme, I thought that we would offer a security guarantee to Ukraine. I am sure I am naive but I thought the mineral deal was actually laying the groundwork for such a guarantee. Given POTUS' focus on "deals over doctrine" I thought he would want to make the deal to provide the rationale for a security guarantee. Since he does not believe in doing something for "altruistic" reasons there would be a business/economic incentive to guarantee Ukraine security. But again, I am demonstrating my naivete.

Excerpt:

Chamberlain wasn’t wrong to fear a war so terrible that British citizens would “be digging trenches and trying on gas masks” because of what he called “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.” But appeasement didn’t prevent war—it invited it. Chamberlain’s misplaced trust in Hitler failed to prevent the war that he feared and made it much costlier than a defense of Czechoslovakia would have been.

Trump’s Choice in Ukraine: Chamberlain or Eisenhower?

To avoid another Munich, follow the example of the 1953 armistice that resolved the Korean War.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-choice-in-ukraine-chamberlain-or-eisenhower-567ee1da?st=pR6Vwk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By Paul Wolfowitz

March 9, 2025 1:53 pm ET

President Dwight Eisenhower speaks during a news conference in Washington, Dec. 10, 1958. Photo: Associated Press

Mark Twain supposedly said history doesn’t repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. My colleague Stephen Kotkin, an eminent historian of Russia, puts it this way: “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does have recognizable patterns.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, national security adviser Mike Waltz and anyone else in President Trump’s circle with a sense of 20th-century history should remind him of two contrasting patterns for ending or preventing a brutal war. One leads to lasting peace; the other, to disaster. For shorthand, they might be called Eisenhower 1953 and Chamberlain 1938.

President Dwight Eisenhower’s pattern was effective diplomacy backed by the credible threat of force, followed by a strong deterrence posture. In 1953, as the Korean War dragged on, Eisenhower signaled that the U.S. was willing to escalate militarily if necessary. This, combined with a change in the attitude of the Soviet Union following Stalin’s death, produced an armistice that ended the bloodbath and has held for more than 70 years. Although the North Korean regime remains hostile and oppressive, the peace has endured.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s pattern was the opposite. The September 1938 Munich Agreement forced Czech Prime Minister Edvard Beneš to cede his country’s most defensible territory—the westernmost Sudetenland—in exchange for empty German promises to Chamberlain and his French counterpart, Édouard Daladier. After a meeting with Hitler and Mussolini from which Czechoslovakia was excluded, Chamberlain returned to London waving a piece of paper he called “peace for our time.”

“Our time” passed in the blink of an eye. Within six months, Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. Within a year, he had occupied Poland, followed by Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece. After the French collapsed, Britain barely escaped total disaster at Dunkirk.

Chamberlain wasn’t wrong to fear a war so terrible that British citizens would “be digging trenches and trying on gas masks” because of what he called “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.” But appeasement didn’t prevent war—it invited it. Chamberlain’s misplaced trust in Hitler failed to prevent the war that he feared and made it much costlier than a defense of Czechoslovakia would have been.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain announces Britain’s declaration of war against Germany in a BBC studio, Sept. 3, 1939. Photo: Getty Images

History never repeats exactly—Ukraine today is different from Czechoslovakia in 1938, and Chamberlain was trying to prevent a war, whereas Ike was trying to stop one. But the Chamberlain pattern remains relevant. Mr. Trump isn’t wrong to want to stop seemingly endless bloodshed. And Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky isn’t wrong to warn against paper agreements with a tyrant who has a record of breaking them. The question is whether Mr. Trump chooses the path of Eisenhower or Chamberlain.

There’s much anxiety, particularly in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, about the conspicuous failure of diplomacy at the recent Oval Office meeting. Yet one must be careful about drawing too many conclusions from individual indications, particularly when a lot may be going on behind the scenes. For instance, although negotiating with Vladimir Putin without the Ukrainians present follows the disturbing Chamberlain pattern, this week’s planned summit in Saudi Arabia between the U.S. and Ukraine could be a positive sign of a different direction.

Eisenhower faced significant challenges in dealing with South Korean President Syngman Rhee, who faced domestic pressure to pursue total victory. Mr. Zelensky faces comparable pressure. He will likely need to compromise on the open-ended promise, often voiced by the Biden administration, to fight for “as long as it takes.” Convincing the Ukrainian people to accept a compromise armistice that leaves Russia occupying significant portions of eastern Ukraine won’t be easy. But it will likely be necessary to achieve an enduring end to the, war, since there is little chance that Mr. Putin will agree to full restoration of the Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which Russia promised to respect when it signed the Clinton administration’s 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

To gain public support for an unpopular compromise, Mr. Zelensky will need firm assurances of continued arms supplies to deter Russian aggression, along with a European military presence on the ground, backed by the U.S. In addition, Ukraine will require massive financial assistance for reconstruction, particularly from wealthy nations in Europe that have the greatest stake in the outcome. The American people need to see that the burden of preserving peace is being shared.

Ultimately, Ukrainians should envision victory not in terms of regaining lost territory but as rebuilding and strengthening western Ukraine as a free, sovereign, independent and flourishing nation like South Korea. Even though Koreans north of the armistice line suffer terribly under one of the world’s most tyrannical dictatorships, South Korea can fairly claim that it won that war by stopping when it did and saving uncountable thousands of lives.

From the outside, we can’t know whether Mr. Trump is following the Chamberlain pattern. If he is, he has time to change course. He still has the opportunity to follow the example of Eisenhower, the bold but prudent leader who knew when and how to stop a bloody and costly war.

Mr. Wolfowitz is a distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia (1986-89) and deputy defense secretary (2001-05).

ARTICLE I

The Parties undertake to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, or obligations assumed by any Party toward the United Nations.

ARTICLE II

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the political independence or security of either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack. Separately and jointly, by self help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and to further its purposes.

ARTICLE III

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

ARTICLE IV

The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement.

ARTICLE V

This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and the Republic of Korea in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Washington.(2)

ARTICLE VI

This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

DONE in duplicate at Washington, in the English and Korean languages, this first day of October 1953.

UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNITED STATES (3)

[The United States Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty subject to the following understanding:]

It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article III of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea.

[The United States communicated the text of the understanding to the Republic of Korea in a note of January 28, 1954, acknowledged by the Republic of Korea in a note of February 1, 1954. The text of the understanding was included in the President's proclamation of November 17, 1954.]

(1) TIAS 3097, 5 UST 23602376. Ratification advised by the Senate Jan. 26, 1954, and ratified by the President Feb. 5, 1954, subject to an understanding; entered into force Nov. 17, 1954. Back

(2) Ratifications were exchanged Nov. 17, 1954. Back

(3) TIAS 3097. Back

2. Tensions rise as North Korea fires missiles amid US-South Korea exercise

I think Kim Jong Un wanted to be part of the opening ceremonies of the exercise.

As a reminder:

Key Strategic Assumption(s): North Korea will not relinquish nuclear weapons as long as Kim family remains in power

4 decades of denuclearization strategies have failed; new approaches are needed.
Unification is the only viable path to denuclearization

However, Kim Jong Un is committed to domination of the Korean peninsula under the rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State to ensure regime survival

Understand the Regime:

Must align assumptions about the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime.

Political warfare to subvert South Korea and drive a wedge in the ROK/US alliance to drive US forces from the peninsula
Blackmail diplomacy – the use of threats, increased tension and provocations to gain political and economic concessions
Advanced military tech (nuclear and missile) to support political warfare and blackmail diplomacy until Kim determines he can and must use force to achieve his objective

Kim family regime Strategy:

•Vital Interest: Survival of the Kim family regime

•Strategic Aim: Unification of the Peninsula

•Through subversion, coercion, extortion, use of force

•Key Condition: Split the ROK/US Alliance

•Drive US forces off the Peninsula

•“Divide and Conquer” – Divide the Alliance and conquer the ROK

•Desire: Recognition as nuclear power – negotiate SALT/START

•Nuclear weapons key to deterrence – Hwang Jong Yop

•nK believes US will not attack a nation with nuclear weapons

Tensions rise as North Korea fires missiles amid US-South Korea exercise

Stars and Stripes · by David Choi · March 10, 2025

North Korea tests a multiple launch rocket system in this image released by the state-run Korean Central News Agency, March 19, 2024. (KCNA)

CAMP HUMPHREYS, South Korea — North Korea launched several ballistic missiles off its western coast on Monday, coinciding with the start of Freedom Shield, an annual large-scale military exercise conducted by the United States and South Korea.

The missiles were fired toward the Yellow Sea at around 1:50 p.m., according to a text message sent to reporters by South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff. No further details were immediately available.

The launches mark North Korea’s first ballistic missile test in nearly two months. In January, the regime fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles that traveled roughly 155 miles before landing in the Sea of Japan, or East Sea. On Feb. 26, it launched several cruise missiles that flew approximately 990 miles in a circular flight pattern off its western coast.

Pyongyang has framed its missile tests as a response to joint military drills between the U.S. and South Korea, which it views as a provocation. On Sunday, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning Freedom Shield and warning that the exercise would spur the “radical growth” of its nuclear arsenal.

U.S. and South Korean soldiers carry out a wet-gap crossing during last year's Freedom Shield exercise in Paju, South Korea. (Chin-U Pak/U.S. Army)

The ministry, through the state-run Korean Central News Agency, described Freedom Shield as an “aggressive and confrontational war rehearsal.”

“All the facts go to clearly show the multi-domain and all-round offensive nature of Freedom Shield,” the statement said. “Obviously, the U.S. intends to push the situation in the Korean Peninsula and the region to an uncontrollable phase …”

The ministry warned that the exercise would “inevitably lead to a serious strategic misjudgment” and prompt “the radical growth of the nuclear force.”

The statement came a day after KCNA reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un inspected a nuclear-powered submarine under construction at an undisclosed location. The vessel, if completed, would represent a significant step for a navy that has traditionally relied on diesel-powered submarines.

“We should ensure that incomparably threatening warships fulfill their mission as … a nuclear power, capable of containing the inveterate ‘gunboat diplomacy’ of the hostile forces,” KCNA said.

The U.S. and South Korean militaries have repeatedly described Freedom Shield as defensive drills designed to reinforce their security posture. It is the first of two major exercises held annually on the Korean Peninsula, with the second, Ulchi Freedom Shield, scheduled for August.

Roughly 19,000 South Korean troops will participate in Freedom Shield on land, air and sea, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. U.S. Forces Korea, which oversees 28,500 American service members in the country, does not disclose its troop participation numbers, citing operational security.

The start of Freedom Shield was preceded by an incident that prompted a halt to live-fire training in South Korea. About an hour before the exercise was formally announced on Thursday, two South Korean air force KF-16 fighter jets accidentally released eight MK-82 free-fall bombs outside of a practice range in Pocheon, a city near the North Korean border.

The mishap injured 14 South Korean troops and 15 civilians.

South Korea’s air force attributed the accident to pilot error after a preliminary investigation, according to a statement released Friday.

Gen. Lee Youngsu, the air force chief of staff, apologized for the incident and took full responsibility during a press conference at the Ministry of National Defense in Seoul on Monday.

This “should never have happened,” he said.

In response, U.S. and South Korean military officials suspended all live-fire training “until further notice,” USFK spokesman Col. Ryan Donald said in an email Friday.

“The safety of the local community, U.S. and [South Korean] personnel is our top priority,” he said. “We take this incident very seriously.”

Stars and Stripes · by David Choi · March 10, 2025

3. Nuclear Proliferation Will Haunt ‘America First’

Consider the situation in South Korea and Japan.

Excerpts:

The history of nuclear proliferation suggests that any decisions to shelter or encourage allied proliferation are likely to be permanent. With the exception of South Africa, no other state — not even Ukraine, which never had control over the weapons on its territory — has ever relinquished its nuclear weapons. Despite the remarkable success of the United States in leading nonproliferation efforts worldwide, the proliferation genie does not easily reenter its bottle. The acquisition of nuclear weapons is a lasting mark on international politics, and America’s freedom to maneuver, even if by “friendly states.”

Compared to these potential costs, the administration should tread carefully as it seeks to revise longstanding compacts with its treaty allies around the world. While Trump reels at the peacetime costs of sustaining forward-deployed conventional forces in Europe and Asia, seeing them as evidence of the United States being taken for a ride, the alternatives could be far more costly to the United States. Unleashing a cascade of nuclear proliferation, or rebuilding American economic strength in the aftermath of nuclear conflicts, would be far more expensive than sustaining the U.S. extended deterrence approach.

The surest way for the “crazy” power of nuclear weapons to boomerang back at the United States — constraining our freedom of action and potentially chain-ganging us into conflicts we seek to avoid — is for Washington to actively dismantle the extended nuclear deterrence architecture it so carefully crafted over three-quarters of a century, which managed to keep new allies from getting the bomb. In addition to reinstalling the software of extended deterrence, in order to prevent allied proliferation, the United States may have to make adjustments to the size or composition of its own deployed nuclear force posture. This will ensure that its hardware remains credible for deterrence, as well as assurance — some degree of vertical proliferation may be necessary to stanch the threat of horizontal proliferation, an oft lost point.

The post-Cold War conflation of nuclear nonproliferation with the so-called liberal order was understandable given the geopolitical context of the 1990s, but for the United States, is largely ahistorical. If Trump wants to pursue a grand strategic project with the goal of keeping ‘America First’, nuclear nonproliferation — not just by adversaries but also by allies — is an essential pillar.

Nuclear Proliferation Will Haunt ‘America First’ - War on the Rocks

Ankit Panda, Vipin Narang, and Pranay Vaddi

warontherocks.com · by Ankit Panda · March 10, 2025

It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland openly raised the possibility that his country may need to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Both major parties in South Korea are doing the same. This is a response to what is happening in Washington, where the Trump administration is renovating America’s post-World War II grand strategy, tossing aside hard-built alliances, norms on global trade, and much else. Coercive tariff threats, territorial expansionist rhetoric, and expressions of trans-national far-right political solidarity are in. Liberal values and support for what American presidents once described as a “rules-based order” are out. Trump has openly said that allies can no longer reliably count on America, or its nuclear forces, as their ultimate security guarantor. Tusk’s willingness to consider a nuclear arsenal should therefore not be surprising. Indeed, other American allies around the world are considering the same, as well as alternative nuclear-sharing agreements that once seemed fanciful. This will be the potential price of gutting American extended deterrence commitments, the most successful nonproliferation tool the United States has had for three-quarters of a century.

Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, to friend and foe alike, has been a core bipartisan pillar of American foreign policy for decades. Perhaps some Trump administration officials greeted Tusk’s announcement warmly. Indeed, it is no secret that President Donald Trump himself and some of his prominent advisors have shrugged at the prospect of nuclear proliferation, despite the president’s open discomfort with nuclear weapons and his musings about nuclear disarmament as a part of a deal with Russia and China. To be sure, proliferation to American allies might mean big savings on the peacetime costs of forward deployed troops and avoiding entanglement in crises in far-flung theaters.

However, welcoming more nuclear-armed countries, even if they are friends of the United States, threatens core American interests. Trump’s “America First” instincts rely on and relish unrestrained American power and primacy. As such, Trump may find that the longstanding American interest in nonproliferation actually serves his worldview rather than compromises it. Allies with nuclear weapons will complicate America’s ability to exercise its power. They’re more likely to chart independent, possibly oppositional political and economic policies. And perhaps counter-intuitively, they might make it more likely that the United States gets dragged into a nuclear crisis or war.

Become a Member

The Real Costs of Nonproliferation to American Power

While U.S. policy makers in the post-Cold War decades focused global nonproliferation attention on countries other than allies — notably India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran — the looming shifts in a U.S. grand strategy that may bring America home have, in recent years, put the focus on allies. Until now these allies, including South Korea, Japan, Germany, and Poland, have been able to forswear nuclear weapons because they were ultimately shielded by the American nuclear umbrella.

Early in the Cold War, following the advent of nuclear weapons, the United States did not intuitively grasp the reasons why nuclear proliferation to its friends would harm its interests. It was only in the early 1960s, after France sought a nuclear weapons capability to assert its independence from the United States and NATO’s nuclear deterrent mission, that Washington began to really introspect on the value of nonproliferation for its own interests.

The United States worked hard during the Cold War to prevent proliferation — not just by its adversaries but also its allies. A combination of security commitments, forward-positioning of U.S. conventional and nuclear weapons, and a lattice-work of dialogues, exercises, and information sharing agreements formed the heart of a U.S. strategy that “extended” deterrence to what is now more than 30 allies. Rendering this credible was a constant effort for the United States. This was especially true at the height of the Cold War and has become more pertinent recently amid growing threat perceptions in Europe and Northeast Asia alike.

This strategy, backed by a large U.S. nuclear arsenal, a flexible nuclear posture, and an explicit political commitment to extend these tools to the defense of Europe, let the allies safely focus on other ventures. European democracies focused on economic growth and trade and the well-being of their citizens, enabled by U.S. aid. In turn, these actions stimulated the U.S. economy, creating a massive long-term marketplace for U.S. producers. The commitments Washington undertook made nuclear weapons acquisition by allies and partners unnecessary, and rather than pursuing expensive, dangerous nuclear weapons programs, allies agreed to maintain a non-nuclear status and built wealth instead.

The origins of what became an enduring strategic preference for nonproliferation at the time had little to do with high-minded ideas about liberal internationalism, political solidarity with democracies, or values. It was good for American security interests. The spread of nuclear weapons, U.S. policymakers observed, would only serve to limit America’s freedom of action in the international system and endanger U.S. interests. Simply put: Nuclear proliferation to both allies and adversaries dilutes the privileges of power the United States enjoys.

‘America First’ Needs Nonproliferation

In the contemporary context, this quite literally means that pursuing a grand strategy that seeks to place ‘America First’ at the heart of U.S. statecraft should prize nonproliferation. Most importantly, allied proliferation complicates America’s ability to exercise its hard power, limiting the privileges of primacy that Trump so relishes.

First, in practical terms, allies today that consider building their own nuclear arsenals need to contend with the strategic and technical barriers to actually doing so. Ukraine, Poland, South Korea, and even Taiwan all would face the potential of an explicit renunciation of U.S. protection or assurances if they chose to pursue nuclear weapons. While some in these states may argue this is today’s status quo with the Trump administration’s approach to alliances, they would face the problem of vulnerability to attack as they sought to build the bomb. Reprocessing and enrichment facilities will be hardly invulnerable to attack, and their adversaries — Russia, China, and North Korea — will have ample incentive to consider sabotage, conventional air strikes, or worse. Russian, Chinese, or North Korean attempts to kill our proliferation-curious allies to stop them from getting there could drag us into a major conflict, as they would certainly threaten the stability of the global economy and thus American interests.

Second, even with friendly countries that might successfully proliferate, the actions they take after acquiring nuclear weapons may force Washington to intervene in crises or wars against its own interests. For instance, an ally may force a U.S. president to step in and prevent dangerous nuclear signaling or use, as has been the case in the past with the United Kingdom, France, and Israel in 1956; Israel in 1973; and India and Pakistan after 1998.

A newly emboldened but still weaker nuclear-armed ally or partner may try to provoke a major U.S. adversary, pulling the United States into a crisis as a mediator, or worse. With more nuclear-armed states, the intersection of crises that may implicate U.S. interests with nuclear weapons uncontrolled by Washington becomes far more likely. In a world of reduced U.S. influence on multiple, skittish new nuclear decision-making centers in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, or elsewhere, states are less likely to consider Washington’s opinion before engaging in nuclear threat-making — or use — to address local grievances or right historical wrongs.

This would hardly serve an ‘America First’ world. The potential for metastasizing nuclear crises assuredly contradict the goal of the “strategic prioritization” that former and incoming officials support.

In addition to diminishing American power, further proliferation anywhere — especially by prosperous, democratic allies of the United States, like South Korea — is likely to beget further proliferation everywhere. While some U.S. officials may be comfortable with a nuclear South Korea, they should ask whether they are comfortable with all that may follow in total — such as Japan, Taiwan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, all supporters of today’s nonproliferation regime. Should this dam break, the United States’ relative power and influence stands to decline. And Trump’s dreams of a denuclearization pact with Russia and China will be completely out of reach in a world where multiple new nuclear aspirants emerge. Keeping ‘America First’ in that world becomes a lot more challenging. Keeping nuclear use from occurring, and potentially embroiling the United States, an ally, or other economic partner in a conflict, becomes much more unpredictable.

The history of nuclear proliferation suggests that any decisions to shelter or encourage allied proliferation are likely to be permanent. With the exception of South Africa, no other state — not even Ukraine, which never had control over the weapons on its territory — has ever relinquished its nuclear weapons. Despite the remarkable success of the United States in leading nonproliferation efforts worldwide, the proliferation genie does not easily reenter its bottle. The acquisition of nuclear weapons is a lasting mark on international politics, and America’s freedom to maneuver, even if by “friendly states.”

Compared to these potential costs, the administration should tread carefully as it seeks to revise longstanding compacts with its treaty allies around the world. While Trump reels at the peacetime costs of sustaining forward-deployed conventional forces in Europe and Asia, seeing them as evidence of the United States being taken for a ride, the alternatives could be far more costly to the United States. Unleashing a cascade of nuclear proliferation, or rebuilding American economic strength in the aftermath of nuclear conflicts, would be far more expensive than sustaining the U.S. extended deterrence approach.

The surest way for the “crazy” power of nuclear weapons to boomerang back at the United States — constraining our freedom of action and potentially chain-ganging us into conflicts we seek to avoid — is for Washington to actively dismantle the extended nuclear deterrence architecture it so carefully crafted over three-quarters of a century, which managed to keep new allies from getting the bomb. In addition to reinstalling the software of extended deterrence, in order to prevent allied proliferation, the United States may have to make adjustments to the size or composition of its own deployed nuclear force posture. This will ensure that its hardware remains credible for deterrence, as well as assurance — some degree of vertical proliferation may be necessary to stanch the threat of horizontal proliferation, an oft lost point.

The post-Cold War conflation of nuclear nonproliferation with the so-called liberal order was understandable given the geopolitical context of the 1990s, but for the United States, is largely ahistorical. If Trump wants to pursue a grand strategic project with the goal of keeping ‘America First’, nuclear nonproliferation — not just by adversaries but also by allies — is an essential pillar.

Become a Member

Ankit Panda is the Stanton senior fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the host of Thinking the Unthinkable for War on the Rocks.

Vipin Narang is the Frank Stanton professor of nuclear security and political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served as acting assistant secretary of defense responsible for nuclear deterrence policy during the Biden administration.

Pranay Vaddi is the senior nuclear fellow at the Center for Nuclear Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He recently served as President Joe Biden’s senior director for arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation on the National Security Council.

Image: Lisa Simunaci via U.S. Department of Defense

Commentary

warontherocks.com · by Ankit Panda · March 10, 2025

4. Nat'l Assembly launches bipartisan body to bolster alliance with U.S.

Good idea. Both for the alliance and for bipartisanship in South Korea.

A few ideas.

Propose a JAROKUS Shipbuilding consortium that can defeat Chinese shipbuilding lead.

Show how the alliance is the first line of defense for the American homeland.

bases for projection of power to defend mutual interests in the Indo-Pacific region. (recognize the need for strategic flexibility and agility for US forces - but ROK forces should contribute appropriately as well)
first line of defense of the homeland = fight there not at home
allies provide defense in depth throughout the Indo-Pacific (in multiple directions)
allies contribute to the American arsenal of diplomacy
transform the Combined 2d Infantry Division into a combined Multi-Domain Operations Division.

Consider transforming the silk web of American friends, partners, and allies into a unique Indo-Pacific security architecture with Asian characteristics.

Nat'l Assembly launches bipartisan body to bolster alliance with U.S. | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by Yi Wonju · March 10, 2025

By Yi Wonju

SEOUL, March 10 (Yonhap) -- The National Assembly kicked off a bipartisan parliamentary organization aimed at strengthening the nation's alliance with the United States on Monday, as South Korea seeks to navigate through economic fallout and reaffirm the alliance under U.S. President Donald Trump.

During the meeting, acting U.S. Ambassador to Seoul Joseph Yun and Jeon Jae-sung, professor of international relations at Seoul National University, discussed the significance of the alliance and inter-parliamentary cooperation.

The body, comprised of 162 lawmakers from the ruling People Power Party (PPP) and opposition parties, will have one chairperson and one secretary appointed from each side.

PPP Rep. Cho Kyung-tae and Rep. Chung Dong-young of the main opposition Democratic Party (DP) will serve as chairs and PPP Rep. Cho Jung-hun and DP Rep. Kim Young-bae as secretaries.

"It is highly meaningful that this is the first official body within the National Assembly dedicated to promoting exchanges with the U.S. Congress," chairperson Cho said. "We will play a crucial role in further advancing the Korea-U.S. alliance."

Unveiling his vision for strengthening parliamentary diplomacy and a roadmap for advancing high-tech industries, Cho added that the union will seek to boost bipartisan cooperation and "maximize the strategic value of the South Korea-U.S. alliance."

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik also stressed the importance of bolstering parliamentary cooperation at the meeting, noting that countries and businesses worldwide are paying keen attention to the policies of the new U.S. administration.

"Many countries are putting in full efforts, playing 'good cop and bad cop,'" Woo said. "If necessary, our government and parliament should divide our roles too."

The body plans to promote regular exchanges between the Korean and U.S. legislatures, conduct joint research and enhance bilateral cooperation.

This graphic image shows the flags of South Korea and the United States. (Yonhap)

Ruling and opposition lawmakers pose for a photo with government officials and diplomats at a general meeting of a parliamentary body aimed at strengthening the South Korea-U.S. alliance at the National Assembly's Constitution Memorial Hall in Seoul on March 10, 2025. (Pool photo) (Yonhap)

julesyi@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by Yi Wonju · March 10, 2025

5. N. Korea fires multiple ballistic missiles as S. Korea, U.S. launch joint military drills

Kim is singing "Don't you forget about me" (appropriately sung by Simple Minds)

(2nd LD) N. Korea fires multiple ballistic missiles as S. Korea, U.S. launch joint military drills | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by Chae Yun-hwan · March 10, 2025

(ATTN: UPDATES throughout with details; RECASTS headline, lead para)

By Lee Minji and Chae Yun-hwan

SEOUL, March 10 (Yonhap) -- North Korea fired multiple ballistic missiles toward the Yellow Sea on Monday, South Korea's military said, as Seoul and Washington launched their annual military drills, marking the North's first known ballistic missile test since U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said it detected the launch from an area near the western county of Hwangju in North Hwanghae Province at around 1:50 p.m., noting that it may have involved close-range ballistic missiles (CRBMs).

CRBMs refer to ballistic missiles that have a relatively short range of less than 300 kilometers.

Under U.N. Security Council Resolutions, North Korea is barred from staging any launches that use ballistic missile technology.

A new intermediate-range ballistic missile tipped with a hypersonic warhead is launched on Jan. 6, 2025, in this file photo released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency the following day. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)

The JCS said it has bolstered surveillance and maintained a full readiness posture under close cooperation with the United States.

South Korea and the U.S. launched their annual Freedom Shield exercise on Monday for an 11-day run.

North Korea has long denounced the allies' joint exercises as a rehearsal for an invasion against it and has a track record of staging weapons tests in response.

The North released back-to-back statements denouncing the latest joint drills, threatening that Seoul and Washington will pay a "horrible" price for their "dangerous provocative act."

Earlier Monday, the North's foreign ministry denounced the allies' exercise as a "dangerous provocative act," saying it will result in an "aggravated security crisis."

South Korea and the U.S. have rejected accusations of invasion rehearsals, describing their joint drills as defensive in nature.

The North last fired multiple short-range ballistic missiles into the East Sea on Jan. 14.

mlee@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by Chae Yun-hwan · March 10, 2025

6. N. Korea denounces S. Korea-U.S. joint drills as 'dangerous provocative act'

"Pot meet kettle." Mr. Kim, you are the master of provocations. Yua re projecting and mirror imaging.

N. Korea denounces S. Korea-U.S. joint drills as 'dangerous provocative act' | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by Park Boram · March 10, 2025

SEOUL, March 10 (Yonhap) -- North Korea on Monday denounced joint military drills by South Korea and the United States as a "dangerous provocative act," as the allies were set to begin their annual joint drills.

The warning was issued by the North Korean foreign ministry in a statement dated Sunday, a day before South Korea and the U.S. were set to begin their annual joint military exercise for an 11-day run, involving computer-simulated drills and on-field training.

The ministry accused the allies of "persistently staging the large-scale joint military exercises" despite North Korea's repeated warnings, adding the "random exercise of strength will result in aggravated security crisis."

"This is a dangerous provocative act of leading the acute situation on the Korean peninsula, which may spark off a physical conflict between the two sides by means of an accidental single shot, to the extreme point," the statement said, as reported by the Korean Central News Agency.

This year's Freedom Shield marks the allies' first major military exercise since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January.

As part of the exercise, the two sides planned to stage 16 large-scale on-field drills, up from 10 last year, to strengthen their combined defense posture against North Korean threats and other challenges, including the regime's growing military cooperation with Russia.

The statement denounced the exercise as the U.S.' "military hysteria" and claimed it is "going on irrespective of the policy ambiguity inevitably witnessed with the regime change" and "proves the instinctive anti-DPRK practice of the U.S."

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

"The reckless action and unreasonable choice of the U.S. seeking to 'solemnly' play the first movement of a war symphony through the largest-ever military provocation this year will act as 'minus' to the U.S. security," the foreign ministry warned.

Such joint drills also compel North Korea to become "the most thoroughgoing and more overwhelming in deterring the enemies' various" nuclear war threats against its regime, the foreign ministry also said, vowing to "redouble its responsible efforts" to maintain peace on the peninsula.

"The U.S. should be mindful that its habitual hostile policy toward the DPRK, openly denying the DPRK's legitimate existence and victorious advance, will only add justification to the principle of toughest anti-U.S. counteraction ... and face the undesirable consequences," it said.

North Korea has often reacted furiously to such joint military exercises between Seoul and Washington, denouncing them as war rehearsals, despite the allies' asserting they are "defensive" in nature.

Last Friday, the North warned the allies would pay a "horrible price" for their joint military exercise, a day after the drills were announced.

Military helicopters are parked at the U.S. Forces Korea's Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, about 60 kilometers south of Seoul, on March 3, 2024. (Yonhap)

pbr@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by Park Boram · March 10, 2025

7. N. Korea urges Japan to apologize to Korean victims of 1945 Tokyo bombing

A propaganda "twofer." Criticize Japan and reinforce hostile propaganda against the US for our firebombing of Tokyo.

N. Korea urges Japan to apologize to Korean victims of 1945 Tokyo bombing | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by Park Boram · March 10, 2025

SEOUL, March 10 (Yonhap) -- North Korea on Monday urged Japan to investigate and apologize to Korean victims killed in the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo in 1945, near the end of World War II, a day before Japan is set to mourn the victims of the devastating air raid.

The demand was issued by a North Korean association of those mobilized for forced labor by Japan during the country's 1910-45 colonial rule over Korea and their bereaved families, in a statement published by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, the U.S. Air Force conducted a devastating firebombing raid on the Japanese capital, dropping bombs from hundreds of heavy bombers and burning most of eastern Tokyo in an effort to force a surrender, in an event known as the Bombing of Tokyo.

About 100,000 people were estimated to have been killed in this single-day air attack, with about 10 percent believed to be Koreans. Every year on March 10, Japan mourns the victims of the air raid, although its Korean victims reportedly remain uncompensated.

"At that time the Japanese imperialists kept Koreans in custody in groups, claiming that Koreans who had been subjected to subhuman maltreatment and humiliation, dangerous and toilsome labor could escape in the confusion of air raids," the association said. "As a result, many Koreans died an accidental death."

North Korea accused Japan of "burying the Korean dead in 67 places of parks, temples and campuses," without investigating their identities, under the pretext of the emperor's "junket" to the area.

"Later, they committed such hideous unethical crimes as digging out the dead and dealing with the remains of Koreans at will," the association noted.

It urged Japan to make a thorough apology and provide reparations for the victims and their bereaved families "for the thrice-cursed crimes of pushing innocent people into death."

The group also called for "a full investigation" into the remains of Korean victims that have been left unattended for 80 years and for the public disclosure of the investigation.

"It is the unshakable will of all the Korean people to certainly give vent to the deep-rooted grudge of the victims who lost their flowery youth and precious lives due to the forcible drafting by the Japanese imperialists and of their bereaved families," the statement said.

A man mourns the victims of the 1945 Bombing of Tokyo at an altar set up inside a shrine in Tokyo, in this March 12, 2016, file photo. (Yonhap)

pbr@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by Park Boram · March 10, 2025

8. Prosecutor general says his decision not to appeal Yoon's release based on 'due process'

Prosecutor general says his decision not to appeal Yoon's release based on 'due process' | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Hyun-soo · March 10, 2025

SEOUL, March 10 (Yonhap) -- Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung said Monday his decision not to appeal a court ruling to release impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol was based on "due process of law" and rejected the opposition's calls for his resignation.

Yoon, who was detained in January on charges of inciting an insurrection through his failed bid to impose martial law on Dec. 3, was released from jail Saturday after the prosecution decided not to appeal the previous day's ruling that his detention was invalid.

"I followed the principles of the due process of law after gathering various opinions from the investigation team and others," Shim told reporters as he arrived for work at the Supreme Prosecutors Office in southern Seoul.

"I don't think this provides the grounds for (my) resignation or impeachment," he said, adding he would "respond accordingly" should the National Assembly take steps to impeach him.

Shim said he respected the court's decision given its authority to decide on matters of a suspect's physical detention following their indictment.

He also pointed to the Constitutional Court's former ruling that deemed it unconstitutional to immediately appeal a suspension of the execution of an arrest warrant.

Still, Shim said he did not agree with the Seoul Central District Court's calculation of Yoon's 10-day initial detention period in hours, not days, and has directed the investigation team to dispute the point during the actual trial.

Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung answers reporters' questions on his way to the Supreme Prosecutors Office in southern Seoul on March 10, 2025. (Yonhap)

sookim@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Hyun-soo · March 10, 2025

9. North Korea's nuclear submarine plans take shape—with help from Russia?

North Korea's nuclear submarine plans take shape—with help from Russia?

https://www.chosun.com/english/north-korea-en/2025/03/10/A7L6D7NLW5ABVFWFE7ZD56NZ7Y/

Kim Jong-un unveils first-ever SSBN amid speculation of Russian support

By Roh Suk-jo,

Park Su-hyeon

Published 2025.03.10. 10:29

North Korea on March 8 released images of leader Kim Jong-un inspecting the construction of what it calls a “nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine,” marking its first public acknowledgment of the project.

The submarine, believed to be a nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), is one of five key military projects Kim pledged to develop during a ruling party congress in January 2021. While Pyongyang has previously alluded to nuclear submarines, this marks its first visual confirmation of one under construction.

Speculation suggests North Korea may have obtained nuclear submarine technology from Russia in exchange for military aid in Ukraine.

This photo, released by North Korea on March 8, 2025, shows leader Kim Jong-un inspecting a "nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine" under construction at a shipyard. Kim is seen walking alongside the submarine while receiving a briefing from officials. The exact location and date of his visit were not disclosed./Korean Central News Agency (KCNA)

According to the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), Kim inspected the construction site and emphasized the vessel’s role in strengthening North Korea’s nuclear deterrence. The exact location and timing of his visit were not disclosed.

SSBNs, powered by nuclear reactors, can remain submerged for extended periods and launch ballistic missiles, potentially altering the strategic military balance.

In September 2023, North Korea unveiled the Hero Kim Kun Ok, a submarine it described as a “nuclear attack submarine,” though analysts determined it was a conventionally powered vessel capable of launching submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

Photos released by state media show Kim walking alongside the partially constructed submarine while receiving briefings from officials.

Moon Keun-sik, a professor at Hanyang University and a former South Korean navy submarine captain, said the images suggest the visit took place at the Sinpo Shipyard in South Hamgyong Province. He estimated the submarine’s displacement at between 5,000 and 8,000 tons—more than twice the size of the Hero Kim Kun Ok, which is around 3,000 tons.

A South Korean military official said the new submarine appears significantly larger than the Hero Kim Kun Ok but cautioned that even if North Korea has developed nuclear propulsion, it would likely take another two to three years before the vessel is operational. Additional years would be needed to master nuclear-powered submarine operations.

However, if Pyongyang has received assistance from Moscow in developing compact nuclear reactors capable of withstanding deep-sea pressure, the development timeline could be shortened. South Korean military authorities are closely monitoring potential military-technology transfers between North Korea and Russia.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un inspected the construction of a "nuclear-powered strategic guided missile submarine" and other naval vessels, state-run Korean Central Television reported on March 8, 2025./Korean Central Television

Alongside the submarine, North Korea also released images of what appeared to be a 4,000-5,000-ton warship under construction, possibly a destroyer or frigate. Compared to images from late 2024, the vessel’s superstructure appeared more complete, with radar equipment installed.

With this latest disclosure, analysts say Kim is steadily advancing his five key military projects, which include weapons systems capable of striking targets across the Korean Peninsula and even the U.S. mainland. In recent years, North Korea has claimed success in testing hypersonic missiles, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs). It also launched a reconnaissance satellite in late 2023, which Pyongyang claimed was successful, despite its low resolution compared to commercial satellite imagery.

North Korea’s decision to reveal SSBN construction could also be a strategic move to attract attention from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has suggested openness to renewed dialogue with Pyongyang.

Yang Uk, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul, said North Korea is not only developing tactical nuclear ballistic missiles capable of striking South Korea but is also pushing ahead with SSBN construction. “The South Korean military must enhance its weapons systems and upgrade U.S.-South Korea joint defense readiness to counter North Korea’s nuclear submarine threat,” he said.

10. N. Korean parents vanish after questioning son's military 'death'

Just another tragic illustration of north Korean human rights abuses.

N. Korean parents vanish after questioning son's military 'death' - Daily NK English

The devastated couple shared the story with neighbors, expressing disbelief that this could happen to their cherished son, who had been born late in their lives

By Jeong Seo-yeong - March 10, 2025

dailynk.com · by Jeong Seo-yeong · March 10, 2025

North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper reported on Nov. 15 that “Comrade Kim Jong Un guided on the spot the performance test of suicide attack drones of various types produced by an affiliated institute of the Unmanned Aerial Technology Complex and enterprises on Nov. 14” and ordered “full-scale mass production.”

Twenty soldiers were arrested for breaking rules meant to protect North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his visit to a special forces training site last September. Now, the parents of one of those soldiers have gone missing.

“Twenty soldiers who showed dishonorable behavior during the Marshal’s visit were sent to a military-run labor camp after their investigation concluded in mid-January,” a Pyongyang source told Daily NK recently.

“The military’s state security bureau decided these soldiers would be transferred to an isolation zone after serving their time, instead of being sent home,” the source added, noting that civilians were shocked by this news.

The incident became public knowledge when military officials notified the soldiers’ parents in late January that their sons had died—a cover-up for their arrest and decision to place them in permanent quarantine.

Most parents accepted the death notifications without question. However, some wealthy families used their connections to investigate how their children had died, which is how the true story emerged.

When a couple in Sariwon, North Hwanghae province, learned about their only son’s supposed death, they resolved to discover the truth, even if it meant selling everything they owned. They reached out to contacts in Pyongyang and eventually uncovered what had happened.

The devastated couple shared the story with neighbors, expressing disbelief that this could happen to their cherished son, who had been born late in their lives. Soon, rumors spread throughout the city.

Shortly afterward, the couple vanished.

“Soldiers escorted the parents to Pyongyang on Feb. 15, and they never returned. Four days later, housing officials arrived to announce their home would be reassigned to another family. The entire neighborhood was stunned,” said the source.

People in Sariwon are now whispering that the parents who searched for their son have also disappeared.

“People who’ve heard these rumors are struggling to understand the government’s actions. Some question why an entire family was eliminated over one mistake during firearm drills, while others wonder if Kim Jong Un is even aware of what happened,” the source explained.

The incident has created anxiety within military ranks. Officers interpret this as a warning that any violation involving Kim will face severe punishment without exception. They anticipate stricter regulations regarding the supreme leader throughout all units.

“Soldiers at the training site where the incident occurred are experiencing extreme anxiety, fearing they could lose everything while their families receive only a brief death notification,” the source concluded.

Read in Korean

dailynk.com · by Jeong Seo-yeong · March 10, 2025

11. Kim Jong Un prohibits unofficial fees after model farmers barred from mausoleum visit

Corruption makes things for the party.

Kim Jong Un prohibits unofficial fees after model farmers barred from mausoleum visit - Daily NK English

Kim's order follows incident where farmers were denied mausoleum access for failing to pay unauthorized fees during Pyongyang tour

By Seon Hwa - March 10, 2025

dailynk.com · by Seon Hwa · March 10, 2025

Statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il inside the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun. (Rodong Sinmun)

The party committee of Ryongchon county in North Pyongan province recently held an executive council meeting to address an order directly from Kim Jong Un prohibiting officials from imposing unofficial fees on citizens to fund political events.

“Ryongchon county’s party committee convened its executive council on Feb. 24 after receiving an order ratified by Kim Jong Un ahead of the Day of the Shining Star,” a Daily NK source in North Pyongan province said recently, referring to the holiday marking Kim Jong Il’s birthday on Feb. 16. “The meeting addressed an incident involving model farm workers during their recent Pyongyang tour and included a report responding to the ratified task.”

The source explained the incident that triggered Kim’s order: During a tour of Pyongyang, model farm workers were scheduled to pay respects at the Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, the mausoleum of former leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. However, an agricultural official from Hwanghae province demanded money from the workers, supposedly as a fee to participate in the memorial ceremony. Farmers unable to pay were barred from entering the mausoleum.

When this incident was reported to Kim Jong Un, he reportedly became furious and ordered severe party punishment for those responsible, calling it “a rash act that besmirched the pure loyalty of our people” and “anti-people behavior.”

After learning that collecting money for political events had become widespread, Kim issued a party-wide directive against imposing such unofficial financial burdens on citizens.

The Ryongchon party committee’s executive council subsequently called for an end to these practices and warned that officials involved would face harsh party criticism and punishment.

However, party officials have privately complained about the new measures, feeling they’ve been unfairly singled out for blame.

“Party officials complain that collecting money for political events isn’t limited to specific workplaces, and without these unofficial fees, they don’t know how to fund the numerous political events they’re required to organize,” the source said. “They grumble that the events must continue regardless, while they’ve been left in a difficult position—having to prepare these events while carefully navigating the expectations of their superiors.”

Local residents finally understood why officials seemed unusually cautious and didn’t openly solicit money during this year’s Day of the Shining Star celebrations.

“Most people didn’t realize why officials refrained from requesting cash or wreaths for this year’s Day of the Shining Star events,” the source added. “Even fewer knew because Kim’s order wasn’t publicly announced.”

The Rodong Sinmun newspaper published an article on Feb. 1 about model agricultural workers touring Pyongyang, stating: “The agricultural workers visited Kumsusan Palace of the Sun, where President Kim Il Sung and Chairman Kim Jong Il lay in state, paid their respects and pledged a new resolve while sharing last year’s agricultural production results.”

Read in Korean

dailynk.com · by Seon Hwa · March 10, 2025

12. Hyesan factory forced to withdraw overtime order after workers revolt

"awaken workers ideologically" and "spiritual strength."

Is this an indication of potential resistance?

Nascent collective action. We are seeing organizationals skills.

This is a threat to the regime.

Excerpts:

Workers stood firm, calling it “monstrous to compel extended work hours without creating an environment enabling laborers to work.” Some even challenged party officials to “get on the work floor” and stand with them until the end of the workday.

“Officials might have full bellies, but we’re different,” workers protested. “We have to pick up our wives, who spend all day in the marketplace trying to earn enough money for us to survive.”

Caught between the party committee and angry workers, union and youth league officials admitted there was little they could do. Facing this fierce resistance, the factory withdrew the overtime order less than 24 hours after it was issued.

Hyesan factory forced to withdraw overtime order after workers revolt - Daily NK English

"Operations haven't returned to normal, so workers simply wait around on-site in the cold until they can go home," a source told Daily NK

By Eun Seol - March 10, 2025

dailynk.com · by Eun Seol · March 10, 2025

A panorama of Hyesan taken in 2013. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Hyesan Forestry Machine Factory in Ryanggang province was forced to retract an overtime work order just one day after it was issued, following strong resistance from workers.

According to a Daily NK source in Ryanggang province recently, the factory’s elementary party committee on Feb. 21 ordered employees to work an extra hour daily from Feb. 22 until the end of the month. The directive came with instructions to “unconditionally” fulfill the February production plan.

The committee urged workplace supervisors, party secretaries, and leaders of the factory’s General Federation of Trade Unions of Korea and Socialist Patriotic Youth League to “awaken workers ideologically” and encourage them to focus their “spiritual strength” on meeting production targets.

However, workers immediately rejected the extended hours. They complained that the issue wasn’t just accumulated fatigue—it was an arbitrary order issued when the factory lacked basic production necessities.

“What’s the point of working longer hours when we don’t have power or enough supplies?” one worker complained.

Despite knowing most workers opposed the directive, union and youth league officials tried to pressure their members to “do their duty,” responding to the party committee’s order with theoretical arguments rather than addressing practical concerns.

Workers stood firm, calling it “monstrous to compel extended work hours without creating an environment enabling laborers to work.” Some even challenged party officials to “get on the work floor” and stand with them until the end of the workday.

“Officials might have full bellies, but we’re different,” workers protested. “We have to pick up our wives, who spend all day in the marketplace trying to earn enough money for us to survive.”

Caught between the party committee and angry workers, union and youth league officials admitted there was little they could do. Facing this fierce resistance, the factory withdrew the overtime order less than 24 hours after it was issued.

“The factory now only makes a few parts for lumber transport trains at the request of forestry enterprises,” the source explained. “Operations haven’t returned to normal, so workers simply wait around on-site in the cold until they can go home. Extending work hours would waste their time even more, so discontent was inevitable.”

“The factory often forces workers to perform auxiliary tasks like cleaning because Kim Il Sung visited it in the past, making workers even more hostile to extended hours,” the source added.

Read in Korean

dailynk.com · by Eun Seol · March 10, 2025

13. Editorial: The Democratic Party's impeachment threats must end

Editorial: The Democratic Party's impeachment threats must end

https://www.chosun.com/english/opinion-en/2025/03/10/F5AYRCLOZNAGRKMFPJJNCQGPWY/

By The Chosunilbo

Published 2025.03.10. 08:49

Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung (second from right) attending a party assembly on March 9, 2025. / Newsis

The Democratic Party of Korea has demanded the resignation of Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung and threatened to impeach him if he refuses to step down. The party also plans to file charges against him with the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), accusing Shim of abuse of power for not immediately appealing the court’s decision to cancel President Yoon Suk-yeol’s detention.

Prosecutors debated whether to appeal, but Shim ultimately agreed to respect the court’s ruling, citing a 2012 Constitutional Court decision that deemed immediate appeals against detention revocations unconstitutional. But Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung called the decision a “deliberate scheme [by the prosecution].” The party denounced prosecutors as the “insurrection leader’s minions” and threatened to impeach Shim. During a party meeting, some lawmakers argued that Acting President Choi Sang-mok should be impeached for not appointing Constitutional Court Justice nominee Ma Eun-hyeok.

Since President Yoon Suk-yeol took office in 2022, the Democratic Party has filed 29 impeachment motions and successfully passed 13. The party has targeted prosecutors investigating Lee Jae-myung, the auditor general examining corruption in the former Moon Jae-in administration, and the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) Chairman responsible for broadcasting policy. The Democratic Party even impeached Prime Minister Han Deok-soo, who served as acting president after Yoon was suspended from duty, effectively paralyzing the government.

However, every impeachment case reviewed by the Constitutional Court so far has been dismissed, including the one against the KCC chairman, who was impeached just two days after taking office. Given the nature of the impeachments, the Democratic Party likely does not expect the impeachment motions to be approved by the court.

Such repeated, baseless impeachment motions, which fail to meet constitutional requirements, as a political weapon could even constitute a criminal offense. While the officials facing impeachment have had to cover their legal expenses themselves, the National Assembly has spent millions of won in taxpayer money to hire lawyers from the left-leaning Minbyun (Lawyers for a Democratic Society). As KCC Chairman Lee Jin-sook rightly pointed out, lawmakers might think twice about filing impeachment motions if they had to pay legal fees themselves.

After repeatedly paralyzing the government with politically motivated impeachment motions, the Democratic Party is once again threatening to wield the impeachment card to remove the prosecutor general and even the acting president from office. The party is seemingly afflicted by a “serial impeachment disorder” that undermines government stability.

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website