|
Quotes of the Day:
“The task is, not so much to see what no one else has seen yet; but you think what nobody has thought yet, about that which everybody sees.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher.
"Virtue is more to be feared than vice because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience."
~ Adam Smith
"There are four questions of value in life, Don Octavio. What is sacred? Of what is the spirit made? What is worth living for and what is worth dying for? The answer to each is the same. Only love."
~ Lord Byron
1. Why A Korean War 'Peace Treaty' Is a Terrible Idea
2. Danger Grows of Nuclear Conflict With North Korea, Even as Democrats in Congress Push Bid To Declare Korean War ‘Over’
3. S. Korea voices 'strong' regret over Pyongyang's military parade marking armistice anniv.
4. S. Korea's top general orders 'unsparing' punishment in case of N. Korean provocation
5. See the weapons on display during North Korea’s military parade
6. Cooperation with Japan Is Vital for Present-Day Challenges
7. Seoul dismisses Pyongyang's report on South's human rights
8. North Korea vows to ‘annihilate’ U.S., says country will be terminated this century
9. Russia, China Have A Shared Vision For North Korea – OpEd
10. [ANALYSIS] Experts see slim chance of US soldier's swift return from N. Korea
11. Can ROK-US alliance and multilateral security framework co-exist?
12. Shifting security landscape. (Korean Peninsula)
13. S. Korea seeks concrete results from summit with US, Japan
1. Why A Korean War 'Peace Treaty' Is a Terrible Idea
Pay attention to the professor.
Excerpts:
A peace treaty would not end the hostility behind the Korean conflict, so it would be nothing more than legalism. There is no obvious value to it as long as the underlying issues are unresolved.
The only thing it would change on the ground is the UN presence, which would be withdrawn. This is far more dangerous than ‘peace’ advocates realize. The Korean militaries would face each other directly, with no buffer between them. Because the peace treaty would not actually resolve the Korean competition, the elimination of the DMZ would make the peninsula more, not less dangerous. And if the US withdraws, South Korean security would be jeopardized. This is why this argument has failed for seventy years and will again this week.
Why A Korean War 'Peace Treaty' Is a Terrible Idea
Calls for a final peace deal usually start from the notion that Korea is an unresolved war, America’s longest war, a frozen conflict, and so on. This is legally true, but in practice, the war is long since over.
19fortyfive.com · by Robert Kelly · July 30, 2023
The Korean War ended seventy years ago. The war did not formally cease though.
The two sides are still technically at war.
Hostilities paused under an armistice that has never been resolved into a final peace accord.
Every few years, there are calls to formally end the war with a peace treaty.
Those calls have been renewed this week. But these efforts fail again and again – correctly – for the same reasons.
No, the Korean War is Not Actually at War
Calls for a final peace deal usually start from the notion that Korea is an unresolved war, America’s longest war, a frozen conflict, and so on. This is legally true, but in practice, the war is long since over.
Korea is not a tenuous peace on the verge of relapsing into conflict at any moment. It is not an unstable ‘frozen conflict’ of the sort we see in the Caucasus or the Balkans. Hence the moral argument to end an active war is inaccurate. The armistice is stable.
This is an important point because there is no pressing humanitarian or strategic need to formally end the war at cost to South Korea. The war is over in practice, and the provisional resolution is reasonably stable. Disrupting that for something new is not worth it unless there is a real gain to be captured from a peace deal – and there is not (discussed below).
Indeed, the armistice is probably more stable than a final treaty, because the armistice keeps the UN on the peninsula and keeps the demilitarized zone (DMZ) intact.
The DMZ is a two-mile-wide demilitarized strip that runs the width of the country. It keeps the South Korean and North Korean militaries a bit distant from each other and almost certainly prevents accidents and mishaps where they are flush against each other on a traditional borderline.
No ‘Peace’ at Any Price
If a peace deal were to actually resolve the conflict in a durable manner – to make the two Koreas friends or partners – then it might be worth upsetting the current status quo. But there is little to suggest that.
Most calls for peace simply reify the competitive status quo into a treaty without actually doing anything to relieve inter-Korean tension. So long as that tension remains, then the armistice is actually better because it keeps the UN between the two Koreas.
A peace treaty would not demilitarize either side. It would not get North Korea to pull back its massive, forwardly-postured army from its position right next to the South Korean capital. It would not denuclearize or demissilize North Korea. It would not alter the Orwellian, frightening character of North Korea, so South Korea would not, in turn, shrink its own military or defense budget.
In other words, a peace deal would not alter the strategic situation. It would create no new trust. The two Koreans would still be arming and competing against each other. So it is unclear why a peace treaty is so important.
It would not do anything to warm the current cold peace. It would not bring the two Koreas closer together or relieve their competition.
To do that would require much more extensive talks and negotiations, the sort which has failed time and again since the 1990s. It is worth trying those again. But a peace treaty would not do much for those substantive negotiations. It is just a legalism.
What the treaty would do though, is undercut the rationale for the United Nations and the United States to stay on the peninsula. This is not in the interest of either stability or South Korea, which is why peace treaty efforts have always failed.
If the UN leaves, the two Koreas militaries would fill in the DMZ and be flush against each other. That would be much more dangerous than the current circumstances. And without the UN structure, the US position would also be more legally tenuous. A US withdrawal from South Korea would be a major win for North Korea. At a minimum, South Korea should not make such a major concession to North Korea without a major counter-concession. And that would be worked out in arms control negotiations to which a formal peace treaty would be irrelevant.
A Peace Treaty would Not Change Anything
A peace treaty would not end the hostility behind the Korean conflict, so it would be nothing more than legalism. There is no obvious value to it as long as the underlying issues are unresolved.
The only thing it would change on the ground is the UN presence, which would be withdrawn. This is far more dangerous than ‘peace’ advocates realize. The Korean militaries would face each other directly, with no buffer between them. Because the peace treaty would not actually resolve the Korean competition, the elimination of the DMZ would make the peninsula more, not less dangerous. And if the US withdraws, South Korean security would be jeopardized. This is why this argument has failed for seventy years and will again this week.
Dr. Robert E. Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly; RoberEdwinKelly.com) is a professor in the Department of Political Science at Pusan National University and 19FortyFive Contributing Editor.
19fortyfive.com · by Robert Kelly · July 30, 2023
2. Danger Grows of Nuclear Conflict With North Korea, Even as Democrats in Congress Push Bid To Declare Korean War ‘Over’
Danger Grows of Nuclear Conflict With North Korea, Even as Democrats in Congress Push Bid To Declare Korean War ‘Over’
Anti-war analysts, oblivious to this week’s show of force at Pyongyang, back legislation that’s widely seen as leading to withdrawal of America’s 28,500 troops from South Korea and undermining the longstanding Washington-Seoul alliance.
DONALD KIRK
Seoul, South Korea
Saturday July 29, 2023
nysun.com
WASHINGTON — High-level analysts here are warning of the rising danger of nuclear war with North Korea while advocating for legislation pursued by Democrats in Congress that would declare the Korean War is over — whether Pyongyang agrees or not.
Within hours after North Korea showed off its deadliest weapons, the Americans were, at an anti-war conference, being blamed for failing to come to terms with the North. The conference attendees cheered the speakers for their impassioned criticism of American policy on North Korea.
All those at the gathering at George Washington University seemed oblivious to the show at Pyongyang. They fixed on legislation that’s widely seen as leading to withdrawal from South Korea of America’s 28,500 troops and undermining the longstanding Washington-Seoul alliance.
“For three decades we’ve had an opportunity to constrain North Korea’s nuclear weapons,” the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Siegfried Hecker, told the gathering. “We failed.”
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center, Russia’s defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, left, and top-ranking Chinese official Li Hongzhong, right, at Pyongyang, North Korea, July 27, 2023. Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP
Next up, a retired air force lieutenant general, Daniel Leaf, was even more emphatic. “I’m a fighter pilot,” said General Leaf, who served for four years in South Korea. “I have engaged with nuclear weapons. We are one bad step away from a nuclear war with North Korea. It could happen.”
A former army colonel, Ann Wright, who had a second career as a diplomat, accused Washington of having “undercut the opportunities we had.” It was, she said, “a dangerous world out there” and war “could erupt at any time.”
The three talked at the end of three days of marching, chanting slogans, and seeing members of Congress as they pressed the case for passage of the “Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act.” That measure that would formally end the Korean War, at least as far as the Americans are concerned.
Another thing the conferees failed to discuss, though, is that the Constitution fails to grant Congress the power to make peace. Giving Congress that power was discussed at Philadelphia in 1787, but the constitutional convention rejected the proposal.
The Constitution does not explicitly grant peace-making powers to any part of the American government, leading to suggestions that the only way peace can be made is if an enemy is defeated.
Proponents of the bill, though, including its leading sponsor, Brad Sherman, a representative from California, seized on the 70th anniversary Thursday of the signing of an armistice that stopped the fighting. He sought to mark the moment to publicize their message and galvanize support for their cause.
The bill, which won as sponsors more than 30 other members of Congress, is far from even reaching the floor for a vote, but Mr. Sherman often echoes the argument of its impassioned advocates.
“While the conflict ended in 1953, nearly 70 years later we technically remain in a state of war with North Korea,” he said. “This is why I introduced the Peace On the Korean Peninsula Act.”
Mr. Sherman cited an organization called “Women Cross DMZ,” named for a group of 31 women who visited North Korea in 2013, then made it to the South across the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas, and the American Friends Service Committee as championing the bill. It would, he said, “create an end-of-war declaration and start serious, urgent diplomatic engagement with North Korea to lower tensions and avoid confrontation.”
No one at the conference mentioned that North Korea, hours before, had staged a parade through central Pyongyang displaying its latest intercontinental ballistic missiles and drone aircraft.
The North has been spurning pleas from both Washington and Seoul for a return on negotiations ever since President Trump walked out of his second meeting with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un in the Metropole Hotel at Hanoi in February 2019.
Nor did anyone mention the presence in Pyongyang of top officials from North Korea’s two Korean War allies, Russia’s defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, and a member of the politburo of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, Li Hongzhong, both of whom were present to observe the parade.
Mr. Hecker, however, did observe that North Korea, after having sought some form of relations with Washington, perhaps an exchange of liaison offices, was “going back to aligning itself with China and Russia.”
A University of Chicago historian, Bruce Cumings, keynoting the conference, was still more emphatic about a series of failures and blunders that accounted for the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula and the region.
Mr. Cumings, author of a number of books on recent Korean history, particularly blamed American attempts at “intimidation” of North Korea by sending heavy bombers on flights just below the DMZ. This pattern, he suggested, accounted for North Korea’s investment in a nuclear program.
By now, Mr. Hecker said, it may be too late to get the North to reverse course.
“It’s going to be a very difficult journey to get to denuclearization,” he said. Rather than make denuclearization a precondition, he believed the war had to come to a formal end.
“We can agree on the need for a peace treaty,” he said. “It’s really important to expand the dialogue. Why don’t folks get the immediacy of the threat?”
General Leaf warned of the danger of misunderstandings “in the fog of war.” Our side “needs to be wholly rational,” he said. The answer: “unequivocal pursuit of a peace treaty.”
Mr. Hecker advised asking the North Koreans, “How important is a peace treaty, and how would you go about it?”
Left unmentioned was that North Korea isn’t responding to messages and has a long record of violating every agreement it’s ever made going back the first North-South negotiations more than 50 years ago before beginning its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
nysun.com
3. S. Korea voices 'strong' regret over Pyongyang's military parade marking armistice anniv.
S. Korea voices 'strong' regret over Pyongyang's military parade marking armistice anniv. | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Lee Minji · July 31, 2023
SEOUL, July 31 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's unification ministry expressed "strong" regret Monday over North Korea's military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement last week and urged Pyongyang to choose the "right" path for peace.
With North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and senior officials from China and Russia present, the North staged the military parade Thursday night, showcasing its latest weapons, such as the Hwasong-18 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), as well as unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and strike drones.
"We express strong regret over how North Korea is adhering to nuclear development and an attitude of confrontation rather than seeking denuclearization and peace despite this year marking the 70th anniversary of the armistice," Koo Byoung-sam, the ministry's spokesperson, said in a press briefing.
Noting that the recalcitrant regime has engaged in military provocations, including missile threats, Koo called on the North to suspend its nuclear development and come forth to choose the "right" path.
Last week's event was seen as an apparent effort by the North to show its solidarity with Beijing and Moscow, which backed Pyongyang during the Cold War-era conflict, as Seoul, Washington and Tokyo are bolstering three-way security cooperation.
Pyongyang has recently been ramping up weapons tests, as Seoul and Washington are stepping up efforts to bolster America's extended deterrence commitment to mobilizing the full range of its military capabilities, including nuclear, to defend its ally.
This photo, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency on July 28, 2023, shows the North unveiling new drones at a military parade marking the 70th anniversary of the Korean War armistice the previous day. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)
mlee@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Lee Minji · July 31, 2023
4. S. Korea's top general orders 'unsparing' punishment in case of N. Korean provocation
S. Korea's top general orders 'unsparing' punishment in case of N. Korean provocation | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Song Sang-ho · July 31, 2023
SEOUL, July 31 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Kim Seung-kyum called for "unsparing" punishment through an "overwhelming" response in the case of a North Korean provocation during a frontline readiness inspection Monday, his office said.
Kim inspected the Army's 5th Corps headquarters and a general outpost of its 5th Infantry Division amid concerns that the North could engage in provocations in time for the South Korea-U.S. Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) military exercise expected to take place next month.
At the 5th Corps, Kim warned that the North may ratchet up the threat and intensity of provocations on the pretext of responding to the allies' upcoming regular exercise as he directed troops to maintain a robust readiness posture.
"An enemy may launch provocations in ways that are deceptive and sudden to take aim at our military's weak spots," Kim said, stressing the military should deal a "decisive" blow to the enemy to make it realize the price of a provocation.
During his visit to the general outpost, he instructed frontline troops to "unsparingly" punish the enemy if it undertakes any provocations.
"I call on you to focus on realistic combat preparations and combat execution training based on the thinking that an enemy provocation is a matter of time, and the enemy will definitely appear before you," Kim said.
Concerns have persisted that Pyongyang could escalate its saber-rattling in response to the UFS exercise, which it decries as a war rehearsal against it.
It may also aggravate tensions as President Yoon Suk Yeol and his U.S. and Japanese counterparts, Joe Biden and Fumio Kishida, are set to meet at Camp David near Washington on Aug. 18, in a move to reiterate their solidarity against growing North Korean threats, observers said.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Kim Seung-kyum (L) visits a command and control center under the Army's 5th Infantry Division to inspect its readiness on July 31, 2023, in this photo released by his office. (PHOTO NOT FOR SALE) (Yonhap)
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Song Sang-ho · July 31, 2023
5. See the weapons on display during North Korea’s military parade
Photos at the link; https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2023/07/28/see-the-weapons-on-display-during-north-koreas-military-parade/?utm
See the weapons on display during North Korea’s military parade
Defense News · by Kim Tong-Hyung, The Associated Press · July 28, 2023
Image 1 of 5
According to the North Korean government, this is a Hwasong-18 intercontinental ballistic missile participating in a military parade on Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang, North Korea, on July 27, 2023. Independent journalists were not given access to cover the event depicted in this image, and it cannot be independently verified. (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP)
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un shared center stage with senior delegates from Russia and China as he rolled out his most powerful nuclear-capable missiles in a military parade.
The event Thursday evening marked a major war anniversary with a show of defiance against the United States and deepening ties with Moscow as tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest point in years.
State media said Kim attended the parade with Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chinese ruling party official Li Hongzhong.
The streets and stands were packed with tens of thousands of spectators, who roared in approval as waves of goose-stepping soldiers, tanks and intercontinental ballistic missiles filled up the main road.
Associated Press writers Jon Gambrell in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and Edith Lederer in New York contributed to the report.
6. Cooperation with Japan Is Vital for Present-Day Challenges
Wise words:
The summit also takes place amid an intensifying cold war between the U.S. and China, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a revival of the trilateral alliance between North Korea, China and Russia. The leaders of South Korea, the U.S. and Japan need to strengthen their joint defense posture and their alliance will be a key to upholding the values of liberal democracy around the world. That will also boost South Korea's status on the world stage. But Seoul must be careful not to repeat the mistake of dragging the past into matters of the present.
Cooperation with Japan Is Vital for Present-Day Challenges
english.chosun.com
July 31, 2023 12:53
The leaders of South Korea, the U.S. and Japan meet at the American presidents' summer retreat of Camp David on Aug. 18, the first time they plan a summit solely for the purpose rather than meeting on the sidelines of other events. They "will celebrate a new chapter in their trilateral relationship as they reaffirm their strong bonds of friendship and the ironclad alliances," the White House said.
Camp David is a historically freighted place where U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower met Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1959 and where Jimmy Carter mediated the Middle East peace talks in 1978. This is the first time Joe Biden has invited foreign leaders to the retreat. The last South Korean leader to visit Camp David was Lee Myung-bak in 2008.
Biden has been pushing hard for cooperation between South Korea and Japan, and this will be the third trilateral meeting to take place since President Yoon Suk-yeol took office last year.
The meeting was made possible by Yoon's efforts to restore frayed ties with Japan after his predecessor Moon Jae-in let Seoul-Tokyo ties deteriorate to the point where communication between the leaders stopped entirely.
The summit also takes place amid an intensifying cold war between the U.S. and China, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a revival of the trilateral alliance between North Korea, China and Russia. The leaders of South Korea, the U.S. and Japan need to strengthen their joint defense posture and their alliance will be a key to upholding the values of liberal democracy around the world. That will also boost South Korea's status on the world stage. But Seoul must be careful not to repeat the mistake of dragging the past into matters of the present.
Read this article in Korean
- Copyright © Chosunilbo & Chosun.com
english.chosun.com
7. Seoul dismisses Pyongyang's report on South's human rights
Monday
July 31, 2023
dictionary + A - A
Published: 31 Jul. 2023, 18:58
Seoul dismisses Pyongyang's report on South's human rights
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/07/31/national/northKorea/Korea-North-Korea-United-Front-Department/20230731185856060.html
Footage broadcast by the North's state-controlled Korean Central Television on Friday afternoon showed leader Kim Jong-un crying at the military parade that took place the previous night. [YONHAP]
The Unification Ministry on Monday hit back at North Korea's latest report on the state of South Korean human rights, which included a myriad of unfounded claims regarding life in the South.
Speaking at a regular press briefing, Unification Ministry spokesman Koo Byoung-sam called the North’s latest report an illustration of “just how far removed the North is from the values and standards of international society,” while noting that the ministry’s practice is to “not respond to each and every claim made by the North’s propaganda outlets.”
The 98-page report was released by a Pyongyang publisher under the control of the United Front Department of the North’s ruling Workers’ Party on July 21, over three months after the Unification Ministry made its annual report on the state of North Korean human rights available to the public for the first time.
Though the United Front Department ostensibly exists to develop and manage relations with South Korea, many of its activities focus on propaganda, espionage and political subversion.
Its report on South Korean human rights, which mimics the structure of the Unification Ministry’s report on North Korean human rights, is divided into four chapters titled, “Merciless extirpation of socio-political rights,” “Stomping on economic and cultural rights,” “Degradation of women and rampant immoral behavior” and “Suffering of human rights under the heel of the boots of invaders.”
But unlike the Unification Ministry’s 445-page report, which cites testimony given by 508 North Korean refugees in support of its findings, the North’s report on South Korean human rights appears little more than a compilation of online conspiracy theories, fabricated observations and exaggerations of South Korean news stories.
In one particularly outlandish example, the North said in its report that the state of the South Korean economy is so dire that “Haven’t you just been fired?” is a common greeting in the South.
The report also claimed that over 5.8 million South Koreans have lost their jobs since President Yoon Suk Yeol took office last year, but the most recent data released by Statistics Korea actually shows the number of unemployed South Koreans last month fell to a 15-year low of 807,000.
The North’s report also made sweeping generalizations about income inequality in South Korea that appeared to have little basis in fact.
The report said that impoverished elderly South Koreans “resent the young and their society and choose suicide to end their suffering” and also claimed that “88 percent of university students engage in after-school labor to earn tuition money, with female students resorting to selling their bodies.”
The figure seemed to have been lifted from a survey of university students conducted by part-time work portal Albamon that was cited in a January 2020 article by the Chosun Ilbo, a right-leaning South Korean daily.
In that survey, 88.9 percent of respondents planned to take on a part-time job during their winter vacation, but only 20.2 percent of those students said their reason for doing so was to pay their tuition fees.
By contrast, over 77 percent said their reason for working during the break was to support their living expenses or augment their allowance, while 30.3 percent and 26.3 percent said part-time work was their means of saving up for travel or future purchases. The survey allowed respondents to choose multiple responses.
The report also dedicated its entire fourth chapter to criticizing the U.S. military presence in South Korea.
“South Korea’s territorial sovereignty has been completely handed over to the United States, which takes and uses places without any restrictions when it deems them necessary for military strategy,” the report claimed, characterizing South Koreans as being “nothing more than ducks by the water, pheasants in the mountains, and mice in the fields for the U.S. military.”
But the report did not mention that South Korea’s law enforcement regularly prosecutes U.S. soldiers who commit crimes while off-duty, as per the South Korea-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, or that the environmental impact assessment necessary to begin operation of the U.S. military’s Terminal High Altitude Air Defense anti-missile battery was repeatedly delayed under the previous Moon Jae-in administration, despite the urging of then-United States Forces Korea commander Robert Abrams.
BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]
8. North Korea vows to ‘annihilate’ U.S., says country will be terminated this century
For those who advocate a peace treaty or end of war declaration. Do these statements seem to indicate that the regime wants peace?
North Korea vows to ‘annihilate’ U.S., says country will be terminated this century
Yahoo · by Adam SchraderJuly 29, 2023 at 4:37 PM·2 min read
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un presides over a military parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Fatherland Liberation War (Korean War) on Thursday. File Photo by KCNA/UPI
July 29 (UPI) -- North Korea's Foreign Ministry this week vowed that the country would "annihilate" the United States, adding that the U.S. would be terminated this century.
"Should the U.S. choose to offend our Republic, we will annihilate them by using all our military power that we have gathered so far," the North Korean diplomats said in a statement Thursday, the 70th anniversary of the Korean War armistice.
"The Korean War in the last century marked the beginning of the downfall of the U.S. Now, the 21st century would see the irrevocable termination of the U.S. The rulers of the U.S. are well advised to forget, on no account, the lessons of history."
The conflict-ending truce was reached between North Korea, China -- which had supported North Korea -- and the United States, which had supported South Korea in the war. South Korea did not agree to the armistice.
The armistice allowed for the establishment of the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea and the repatriation of prisoners of war. U.S. troops have since been staged in South Korea to help prevent another war and defend its ally in the case one begins.
North Korea has a long history of provoking conflict with its southern neighbor in the decades since the armistice from kidnapping and assassinations of high-profile South Koreans to hijacking South Korean airliners in 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The reclusive nation also attacked U.S. military planes and ships through the years.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea lost a significant contributor to its economy. Now, with the war in Ukraine and rising tensions between the East and the West, North Korea has sought to strengthen its ties with China and Russia.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and top Chinese officials reaffirmed the close military ties between the two communist nations, the Foreign Ministry said Saturday.
Yahoo · by Adam SchraderJuly 29, 2023 at 4:37 PM·2 min read
9. Russia, China Have A Shared Vision For North Korea – OpEd
The US plot to keep tensions high? Come on.
The idea of making this region a logistics hub using the Rajin Port has been around since 1989 and the UN Tumen River Area Development Project report that estimated that the amount of untapped resources in the tri border area is among the largest in the world. But it will never be developed because of north Korea.
Excerpts:
Where does North Korea come in? Simply put, Rajin Port, located on North Korea’s northeast coast, happens to be the most northerly ice-free port in Asia.
Rajin could become a “logistics hub” if it is linked into the Trans-Siberian Railway. Already, there is a railway connecting Russia and North Korea via the crossing at the Tumen River to reach the port at Rajin (as per a 2008 agreement signed between the railways of the two countries.
A Special Economic Zone in Ranjin dovetails on the one hand into the the Arctic shipping network while on the other hand, falls squarely within the group of ports in Northeast Asia at which ships transiting the Norther Sea Route could arrive at or depart, three of whom — Busan, Qingdao, and Tianjin — also being the world’s top 10 busiest container ports.
Indeed, the US plot to keep tensions high in the situation surrounding North Korea is self-evident. To really turn Rajin into a logistics hub would likely require massive changes to the political situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Shoigu’s pathbreaking visit to Pyongyang has a much bigger agenda to integrate North Korea into the geoeconomics of Eurasia. To view it in zero-sum terms will not do justice to Russia’s intellectual resources to plan for the future with a far-sighted vision. Don’t be surprised if Shoigu’s talks in Pyongyang will figure in Putin’s forthcoming visit to China in October with focus on the Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia, China Have A Shared Vision For North Korea – OpEd
eurasiareview.com · by M.K. Bhadrakumar · July 30, 2023
The three-day state visit on July 25-27 by Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu, accompanied by a military delegation, to Pyongyang is the first-ever such high-level visit from Moscow in the post-Soviet era. Shoigu’s meeting with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Wednesday altogether elevates what would have passed as a friendly gesture by the Kremlin on the 70th anniversary of the armistice that led to a cessation of Korean War hostilities to an altogether different universe.
At the most obvious level, it punctures a hole into the iron curtain of sanctions that the US built around North Korea. But Shoigu’s visit, coinciding with the Africa Summit in St. Petersburg chaired by President Vladimir Putin, needs to be seen as part of Russia’s message that it has returned with a bang on the centre stage of world politics.
The icing on the cake was a conducted tour of North Korea’s arsenal of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, including its newest ballistic missile achievement Hwasong-18, which Kim personally undertook for the Russian military delegation.
The North Korean News Agency [NKNA] reported that Shoigu handed over a hand-written letter from Putin to Kim. It commented that “Recollecting with deep emotion the history of deep-rooted DPRK-Russia friendship, they at the talk exchanged the appraisal and opinions on the matters of mutual concern in the field of national defence and security and on the regional and international security environment and reached a consensus of view on them… [Emphasis added]
“The meeting between Kim Jong Un and Sergei Shoigu at an important time serves as an important occasion in further developing the strategic and traditional DPRK-Russia relations as required by the new century and further boosting in depth the strategic and tactical collaboration and cooperation between the two countries in the field of national defence and security to cope with the ever-changing regional and international security environment.” [Emphasis added.]
Russia’s Defense Ministry said Shoigu’s visit “would contribute to strengthening bilateral military ties and mark an important stage in the development of cooperation between the two countries.”
The accent in the North Korean readout is unmistakably on defence and security concerns, calling attention to the volatile environment in the Far East, and specifically on “strategic and tactical collaboration and cooperation.” Moscow refuted western reports about military cooperation with North Korea. A new page is possibly opening.
Shoigu’s visit took place alongside the visit by Li Hongzhong, vice chairman of China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee, signalling Russia and China “stand close” to North Korea — to borrow from a Global Times commentary — in response to the Biden Administration accelerating the deepening of a trilateral alliance between Washington, Tokyo and Seoul.
Washington is taking advantage of the political transition in South Korea with the election of the pro-western South Korean president Yoon Suk-Yeol last year in May who reversed his predecessor Moon Jae-In’s independent foreign policy trajectory toward Moscow and Beijing and altogether gave up the efforts to work out a detente with Pyongyang.
The US approach to the Far East draws comparison with its strategy in the Middle East where also it used to whip up Iranophobia and block any regional security process from crystallising, which helped boost its military presence in the region and promoted massive scale of arms exports. The main difference lies in the thrust of Washington’s Far East strategy that lies in containing China and Russia.
There is no question that the US is aggravating the situation in Asia by provoking Pyongyang and undermining the situation on the Korean Peninsula to keep it in a state of suspended animation that can be revisited anytime. The recent successive visits in July by two US nuclear submarines to the South Korean naval bases is a case in point.
In the recent period, the frozen confrontation between the two Koreas is constantly approaching escalation due to the deepening military cooperation between Washington and Seoul. A defining moment came in April when Biden and Yoon signed the Washington Declaration on deterring North Korea, which involves the creation of an advisory group on issues in the nuclear sphere and greater frequency of the appearance of American strategic weapons, as well as the visits of nuclear submarines to South Korea.
To be sure, the doubling down by Washington provoked a sharp reaction from Pyongyang and a vicious circle is forming in the absence of any interest on the American side to re-engage with Pyongyang. In effect, therefore, Americans are escalating the situation under the pretext of supporting South Korea.
Plainly put, this creates synergy for the US’ capacity to counter the Sino-Russian axis in the Asia-Pacific region. Izvestia newspaper reported last week quoting defence ministry sources in Moscow that a strengthening of Far East deployment is under consideration and that may include the basing of strategic missile carriers Tu-160 “White Swan” in the Amur region — a multi-mode supersonic strategic bomber with variable wing geometry, designed to hit in the deep rear at speed up to 2000 km/h.
The military expert Yuri Lyamin told Izvestia, “Special attention should be paid to Japan, with which we [Russia] still have territorial disputes over the Southern Kuril. Recently, this country [Japan] has been increasing its military spending, and also plans to develop shock weapons systems. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen our deterrence forces in order to neutralise the threat from this direction.”
However, the geopolitics of the Far East has other dimensions too. The commercial value of the Arctic shipping route is in the spotlight, “which is an important area where China and Russia have potential and should strengthen collaboration,” Global Times wrote this week.
Russia is currently testing the Arctic shipping route with a cargo of crude oil for China, which is expected to arrive on August 12 at Rizhao in East China’s Shandong Province. This route could reduce the maritime distance between Europe and Northeast Asia by almost one-third, compared with the Suez route, which is currently used for most of the Russian oil exports to China and India.
No doubt, climate change fuels interest in Arctic shipping. But this is also setting a new stage of global power competition, involving both political and economic interests for trade between Asia and Europe. The strategic significance is profound, since the Northern Route is not under American control, unlike Malacca Straits.
The Global Times wrote: “From the perspective of geopolitics, early planning and precaution in terms of the diversification of shipping routes is paramount to China’s economic and trade security. Therefore, China needs to team up with Russia on the development of new shipping routes in the Arctic for their long-term strategic interests.”
Suffice to say, the deepening cooperation between the Chinese and Russian navvies, especially joint patrol, etc. — is a game changer in the geopolitics of the Far East and Western Pacific.
Where does North Korea come in? Simply put, Rajin Port, located on North Korea’s northeast coast, happens to be the most northerly ice-free port in Asia.
Rajin could become a “logistics hub” if it is linked into the Trans-Siberian Railway. Already, there is a railway connecting Russia and North Korea via the crossing at the Tumen River to reach the port at Rajin (as per a 2008 agreement signed between the railways of the two countries.
A Special Economic Zone in Ranjin dovetails on the one hand into the the Arctic shipping network while on the other hand, falls squarely within the group of ports in Northeast Asia at which ships transiting the Norther Sea Route could arrive at or depart, three of whom — Busan, Qingdao, and Tianjin — also being the world’s top 10 busiest container ports.
Indeed, the US plot to keep tensions high in the situation surrounding North Korea is self-evident. To really turn Rajin into a logistics hub would likely require massive changes to the political situation on the Korean Peninsula.
Shoigu’s pathbreaking visit to Pyongyang has a much bigger agenda to integrate North Korea into the geoeconomics of Eurasia. To view it in zero-sum terms will not do justice to Russia’s intellectual resources to plan for the future with a far-sighted vision. Don’t be surprised if Shoigu’s talks in Pyongyang will figure in Putin’s forthcoming visit to China in October with focus on the Belt and Road Initiative.
This article was published by Indian Punchline
eurasiareview.com · by M.K. Bhadrakumar · July 30, 2023
10. [ANALYSIS] Experts see slim chance of US soldier's swift return from N. Korea
[ANALYSIS] Experts see slim chance of US soldier's swift return from N. Korea
The Korea Times · July 31, 2023
A TV screen shows a file image of American soldier Travis King during a news program shown in Seoul Station, July 24, AP-Yonhap
Pyongyang may seek to capitalize on King's defection for political gain
By Kim Yoo-chul
While a conversation has commenced, there has been no substantive communication between the United States and North Korea on the issue of the 23-year-old U.S. Army Private Travis King, detained in North Korea after crossing the military demarcation line on July 18.
How to respond to the North's escalating military provocations, from the U.S. and its allies' standpoint, isn't the prime issue here ― rather, it is about how to secure King's return to the U.S.
The fate of King, who crossed into the North, still remains uncertain. While it's believed that he is being held in custody by North Korean authorities, North Korea has remained tight-lipped in relation to his whereabouts.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the U.S. side is working with Sweden and South Korea for the return of King. As the incident happened at a very tense time in terms of geopolitics, disregarding any political engagement with South Korea and the U.S., political experts say chances are low that King will see a speedy release.
Speaking to The Korea Times, Jonathan Corrado, a director of policy for The Korea Society, a New York-based think tank, said South Korea could play a role in possibly breaking the impasse regarding the issue as the country is one of the U.S.' closest allies in Northeast Asia.
"This is a matter for the U.S. and perhaps its ally South Korea to work out with North Korea," Corrado, who conducts research on the U.S.-South Korean alliance and the Korean Peninsula, added. But citing the fundamental geopolitical dynamics, Corrado stressed this incident is unlikely to precipitate a thaw in relations leading to a negotiation cycle.
"(U.S.) Secretary Blinken urged China to play a productive role on the peninsula. However, this has more to do with constraining the North's reckless provocations and weapons development. Although the origin story of Private King's dash into North Korea isn't related to the larger geostrategic picture, the possibility of the U.S. and the North being involved in a negotiation cycle certainly becomes lower," he said.
In past cases of U.S. citizens being detained in the North, U.S. officials have initiated backdoor diplomatic channels, followed by lengthy negotiations. Once negotiations are completed to release the detainee, U.S. government officials traveled to Pyongyang to confirm the release. But considering continued high tensions between the U.S. and the North, it's unlikely that Washington will officially send officials to Pyongyang to expedite King's deportation.
A TV screen shows file images of U.S. President Joe Biden, left, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during a news program reporting on American soldier Travis King, at Seoul Station, July 22. King bolted into North Korea while on a tour of the Demilitarized Zone. The sign on the screen reads, "Can this be an opportunity to restart dialogue?" AP-Yonhap
Zack Cooper, a former White House National Security Council (NSC) advisor on combating terrorism and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington-based public policy think tank, also pointed out that there is less of a chance for Washington to make "substantial sacrifices" to win King's immediate return to the U.S. as the young soldier's dash for the border is a blatant violation of his military orders.
"I suspect that the U.S. will try to get the return of Private King. So, bringing King back home may take months or years to play out and I doubt this incident will substantially change the nature of U.S.-North Korea issues and challenges," Cooper said.
King's present condition is anyone's guess. The essence of the incident is that, unlike the tragedy of Otto Warmbier, the U.S. soldier has not been accused of political crimes against the state.
In Corrado's opinion, North Korea is likely to be presently interrogating King with an aim to extract any militarily relevant information. "I also think these grueling, day-long sessions will last multiple weeks and are designed to extract a 'confession'," he said.
Cooper aligned with Corrado's position regarding the latest status of King that North Korea was on track to figure out how best to make use of the King situation, leading the secretive state to take a slow response to the news of King's border crossing. "North Korea is likely to interrogate him and get whatever information (albeit limited) they can about U.S. forces."
Bargaining chip or propaganda tool?
Now, the key question is just like in previous cases: Will North Korea use King as a bargaining chip or perhaps a propaganda tool? The reality is, according to Washington experts, that the North is less interested in getting short-term gains by releasing him. However, another question is whether or not he should be viewed as a valuable asset given his low military rank.
"King could either be a bargaining chip or a propaganda tool. If he desires to stay in North Korea for fear of punishment awaiting him in the U.S., he would probably become the latter. Once Pyongyang decides on an approach, they will reply to the United Nations Command's (UNC) attempts to discuss the matter," according to the Korea Society director.
This photo taken on July 18 and provided on July 21, courtesy of Sarah Leslie, shows U.S. soldier Travis King, fourth from left in a black shirt, attending a border tour of the Truce Village of Panmunjeom in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) that divides the two Koreas. AFP-Yonhap
Over the years, there have been a number of U.S. citizens who have crossed the border separating the two Koreas. These people were mostly human rights activists, missionaries and, from time to time, soldiers. On occasion, based on the weight of each incident, the North Korean regime has used political tactics in its handling of border crossers.
The widely-known cases are the defection of Charles Jenkins and James Dresnok back in the 1960s, both of whom were featured in various North Korean films as "U.S. villains." In Jenkins' case, for example, he thought he would be traded to the Soviet Union and then back to the U.S., where he would serve time in jail ― which he preferred over possible deployment to Vietnam. He was held in North Korea for 39 years, where he was tortured and used in propaganda.
While it's still quite unclear whether the North Korean regime will use King similarly to how it did Jenkins and Dresnok, as King was recently released from a South Korean prison after serving two months, there, on charges of assault, Corrado said that he thinks North Korea is presently considering how to play their hand.
King was en route to the U.S. for further disciplinary action but he somehow found his way onto a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) group tour and abruptly ran across the heavily fortified DMZ into North Korea during the tour. Considering the legal issues he faced (and still faces) in the U.S., some political experts said King will be viewed as a "less ideal" candidate to be used as a high-profile propaganda tool from North Korea's standpoint. King's low military rank indicates that he did not have access to high-level U.S. military intelligence.
"Although we know the circumstances surrounding Private King's defection, it's unclear at the present moment exactly what his motive was and what he hopes for his future. This will be a factor in his fate, but not the controlling factor. North Korea holds the keys to his fate now," Corrado said.
The Korea Times · July 31, 2023
11. Can ROK-US alliance and multilateral security framework co-exist?
Conclusion:
South Korea should reinforce the "hub & spoke" security pact through collaboration with other "spokes" in the U.S. alliance. In the past, such a proposal might have been unrealistic for war-torn South Korea. Today's South Korea, however, has a greater capacity to combine the bilateral and multilateral components of its security framework to ensure that the ROK-U.S. alliance continues to "go together" favorably toward South Korea's security interest.
Can ROK-US alliance and multilateral security framework co-exist?
The Korea Times · July 31, 2023
By Lee Jong-eun
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement and the subsequent signing of the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. For the past seventy years, the ROK-U.S. alliance has been a critical framework for South Korea's security. But why did South Korea actively pursue a bilateral security pact rather than a multilateral alliance similar to NATO? To answer this question, it is helpful to briefly review South Korea's geopolitical calculations during the Korean War.
The U.S. intervened in the Korean War, and led the multilateral U.N. Command. The post-armistice security reassurance U.S. policymakers offered initially to South Korea was also multilateral. The U.S. proposal was for the U.N. Command member states to collectively sign the Greater Sanction Statement, committing to re-intervention should the communist powers violate the armistice. However, then-South Korean President Syngman Rhee rejected the Greater Sanction Statement as an insufficient security reassurance. Distrustful of the multilateral security commitment from countries with little security interests in the Korean Peninsula, Rhee advocated a bilateral defense pact with the U.S. instead. To mitigate South Korea's opposition to the armistice, the Eisenhower administration eventually conceded to ratifying the mutual defense treaty.
Henceforth, South Korea has relied upon this "hub & spoke" security framework, relying almost exclusively on the superpower's security guarantee with limited security cooperation with other member states of the U.S.-led alliance. In general, South Korean policymakers did not perceive the necessity for multilateral security cooperation when they were reassured of security protection by the bilateral defense pact. Pursuing a trilateral alliance with neighboring Japan, in particular, risked political controversies over the unresolved historical legacy between the two U.S. allied states. Even if South Korea aspired to pursue a multilateral security framework, its capacity to contribute to such a framework was limited in the past.
Recently, however, South Korea's security strategy has been changing. The trilateral security consultation between the U.S. Japan and South Korea have increased under the current Yoon Suk Yeol government. Aside from meetings during multilateral summits, the three heads of state met separately last year in Phnom Penh and have announced another trilateral summit this summer in Washington to discuss multiple areas of security cooperation. The South Korean government has also expanded security cooperation with NATO as one of NATO's official Asia-Pacific Partner (AP4) states. At the 2023 NATO summit, President Yoon signed Individually Tailored Partnership Programs (ITPPs) for cooperation in areas such as cybersecurity and counterterrorism. The Yoon Government has also indicated that South Korea might participate in NATO's Battlefield Information Collection and Exploitation System (BICES) to increase military information sharing.
Why are such policy changes arising? There are criticisms that South Korea is needlessly risking security entanglement overseas and political controversies at home when South Korea already has security reassurance from the U.S.-ROK alliance. However, complementing the bilateral alliance through multilateral security cooperation with other U.S. allies is a strategy South Korea should consider to bolster its current security framework.
Despite seventy years of remarkable duration, the ROK-U.S. alliance has encountered tensions at multiple intervals, often over the credibility of the U.S. security commitment. Will the U.S. defend South Korea at the risk of security costs? Could the U.S. entrap South Korea in a costly geopolitical conflict? Such tensions have commonly evoked two policy responses in South Korean politics: to pursue "security independence" or to establish even closer alignment and trust with the U.S. Both approaches have merits, but there is a third approach that has been less discussed in South Korean politics. Why not collaborate with other U.S. allies who encounter similar dilemmas of balancing the risks of "abandonment and entrapment" in their alliance with the superpower?
South Korea's security dilemma, "Will Washington risk Seattle to defend Seoul?" is similar to Japan's dilemma, "Will Washington risk Tacoma to defend Tokyo?" South Korea's apprehension toward U.S-China geopolitical rivalry and the escalation of the Russia-Ukraine War are security concerns also shared by European states. Subsequently, South Korea's pursuit of partnership with other U.S. allies to enhance "collective bargaining" with the "hub" could help mitigate the security risks challenging the ROK-U.S. bilateral alliance.
What deters the U.S. from abandoning South Korea? The biggest deterrence is the mutual defense treaty. However, deterrence will be strengthened further if other U.S. allies advocate for South Korea's security. At NATO Summit, President Yoon declared, "Security in the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean can never be separated," in an appeal for NATO's support for security deterrence against North Korea's provocations. In the past, South Korea had little strategic value to Europe. Today, by expanding arms export to Europe and committing to Ukraine's post-war reconstruction, the South Korean government has been demonstrating its strategic value to NATO member states.
Concerning Korea-Japan relations, I recall an observation made by one U.S. policy expert. "If Korea proposes a policy, the U.S. might listen. If Japan proposes a policy, the U.S. might listen. But when Korea and Japan propose a policy together, the U.S. will definitely listen." Even if the trilateral alliance is still premature, South Korea's security interest lies in ensuring that the ROK-U.S. and Japan-U.S. alliances do not undercut each other's effectiveness but rather perform complementary roles to ensure the "entire wheel" of the U.S. regional alliance rolls smoothly.
Seventy years ago, the ROK-U.S. alliance was likely the only realistic guarantee for South Korea's security. Today, the bilateral alliance is still the best security guarantee for South Korea. While celebrating the 70th anniversary of the alliance, South Korea should reinforce the "hub & spoke" security pact through collaboration with other "spokes" in the U.S. alliance. In the past, such a proposal might have been unrealistic for war-torn South Korea. Today's South Korea, however, has a greater capacity to combine the bilateral and multilateral components of its security framework to ensure that the ROK-U.S. alliance continues to "go together" favorably toward South Korea's security interest.
Lee Jong-eun (jl4375a@student.american.edu), a Ph.D. candidate, is an adjunct faculty member at the American University School of International Service. His research specialties include U.S. foreign policy, South Korean politics and foreign policy, alliance management and East Asian regional security.
The Korea Times · July 31, 2023
12. Shifting security landscape (Peninsula)
A good thing would be a trilateral alliance but I am afraid we are still a long way from that.
Excerpts:
It is time to fortify the security posture based on a solid alliance between South Korea and the U.S. to cope with the intensifying nuclear intimidation from the North. During the summit, to be held at Camp David, the three allies should come up with a joint statement calling on China and Russia to act responsibly for peace on the peninsula.
On the other hand, as difficult as it may be, Yoon and his top diplomatic aides should also ponder how to maintain relations with China and Russia smoothly, while strengthening cooperation with the U.S. and Japan. It should not be a zero-sum game. Brisker and more prudent diplomatic activities should be made to prevent relations with Beijing and Moscow from becoming bumpier.
Shifting security landscape
The Korea Times · July 31, 2023
Alliance should be fortified via Camp David summit
The security situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula has shown signs of rapid change. Vividly dramatizing this, North Korea recently hosted an event in Pyongyang on July 27, which it calls "Victory Day," to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement that halted fighting in the 1950-53 Korean War. It also held a massive military parade displaying its nuclear-capable missiles with the attendance of delegates from China and Russia who sat beside North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
The scene again illustrated that both China and Russia are patronizing the North despite its continued military provocations in violation of United Nations resolutions. It is deplorable for Beijing and Moscow to support Pyongyang notwithstanding its escalation of regional tensions. This is inappropriate given that the two nations are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and thus the most responsible members of the international community. We express strong regret for such moves.
North Korea has vowed to cope sternly with the current international conflicts in close cooperation with China and Russia. The North's official Korean Central News Agency quoted Kim as having pledged to "proactively tackle the situation through closer strategic and tactical cooperation" with China and Russia when he met the delegates from the two nations.
The agency reported Pyongyang and Moscow "reached consensus" on diverse issues without specifying details. This shows North Korea has been eager to prioritize Russia over China. In fact, Russia dispatched its Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu who accompanied Kim during their tour of an exhibition of military weapons. This has stoked concerns that the two are fortifying military cooperation.
For starters, Russia might be attempting to purchase military weapons from the North as it has been struggling amid the protracted war in Ukraine. The North, for its part, seems eager to acquire Russia's state-of-the-art technologies in a bid to build up nuclear and missile capabilities. Any collusive ties between the two sides will likely have a far-reaching negative impact on the security situation on the Korean Peninsula.
The White House said earlier that Pyongyang already offered rockets and missiles to Wagner Group, a mercenary firm for Russia, late last year. Any trading of military weapons with North Korea infringes upon the U.N. resolution and should be subject to strict retaliation from the international community.
Against this backdrop, it is significant that the heads of state of South Korea, the United States and Japan will get together in the U.S. on Aug. 18. While officially announcing the summit plan on Saturday, the White House said the three leaders ― President Yoon Suk Yeol, U.S. President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida ― will focus on how to respond to the North's growing military threats.
The summit holds significance as it comes when the North, China and Russia are coming closer than ever. It is the first time for the leaders of the trilateral alliance to meet for summits only among themselves. The leaders are expected to closely discuss how to strengthen cooperation to help promote safety and peace on the Korean Peninsula. They will also likely talk about the so-called "wolf warrior diplomacy" coupled with economic pressures adopted by China.
It is time to fortify the security posture based on a solid alliance between South Korea and the U.S. to cope with the intensifying nuclear intimidation from the North. During the summit, to be held at Camp David, the three allies should come up with a joint statement calling on China and Russia to act responsibly for peace on the peninsula.
On the other hand, as difficult as it may be, Yoon and his top diplomatic aides should also ponder how to maintain relations with China and Russia smoothly, while strengthening cooperation with the U.S. and Japan. It should not be a zero-sum game. Brisker and more prudent diplomatic activities should be made to prevent relations with Beijing and Moscow from becoming bumpier.
The Korea Times · July 31, 2023
13. S. Korea seeks concrete results from summit with US, Japan
I am sure the action officers from all three countries are working hard to craft a substantive deliverable.
S. Korea seeks concrete results from summit with US, Japan
Leaders likely to discuss N. Korea’s threats, Fukushima wastewater release
koreaherald.com · by Choi Si-young · July 31, 2023
South Korea is discussing a joint statement on expanding trilateral security and economic ties with the US and Japan during a summit at Camp David in Maryland on Aug. 18, according to South Korea’s presidential office.
The meeting, which US President Joe Biden will host to rally the two allies against China’s influence and North Korea’s aggression, is the first of its kind and comes at a crucial time when the US-led coalition is enjoying friendlier ties prompted by the recent Seoul-Tokyo thaw over historical disputes involving Japan’s colonial occupation.
“Details are still being decided,” a senior official at Yoon’s office said, referring to how the three leaders will announce the summit agreement. Yoon and his Japanese counterpart are also expected to hold separate talks on the sidelines.
The three leaders will be able to “wholly invest themselves in the pressing agenda on the table and make the best of their time there,” another senior official at the presidential office said, underscoring the seriousness of the gathering at the US presidential retreat in the mountains of western Maryland. Biden has not hosted any other world leaders there yet.
“The three leaders will discuss expanding trilateral cooperation across the Indo-Pacific and beyond – including to address the continued threat posed by the DPRK,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The isolated country is doubling down on its missile tests.
Promoting a rules-based international order and economic prosperity will be the priority, Jean-Pierre added, referring to China’s growing influence in the region, where it claims as its own Taiwan, a self-ruled democratic island that Washington supports.
Discussing fighting misinformation about Japan’s plans to release radioactive water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant could also be a topic, according to Japan’s Sankei Shimbun on Monday. Tokyo will start releasing the wastewater into the Pacific Ocean this summer after filtering it.
The newspaper did not directly name any sources, but referred to a briefing from Japan’s Foreign Ministry last week that said Tokyo would work with the international community including Seoul and Washington to fight off “malicious fake news.”
Two weeks before the briefing, Japan called on China to look at the wastewater discharge plans in a “scientific manner” at a meeting held between Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi and Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi. Beijing is one of the most vocal critics of the discharge, contending the health and environment risks are still high.
But it remains unclear whether the three-way summit would likely address the topic in depth, since Washington and Seoul might place more priority on other issues. The topic itself has little to do exclusively with the US and South Korea.
Choi Eun-mi, a research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said South Korea could use the opportunity to draw wider global attention to the issue.
“If a joint statement even remotely discusses how to deal with so-called ‘fake news’ about the wastewater, we could also push for a line in the statement clearly evident of growing concerns about the discharge plans themselves,” Choi said of ways Seoul can hold Tokyo accountable for the release and its aftermath.
South Korea was instrumental in bringing about a thaw in ties with Japan recently, and that alone should be enough reason for the US to back Seoul on such a proposal, according to Choi.
By Choi Si-young (siyoungchoi@heraldcorp.com)
koreaherald.com · by Choi Si-young · July 31, 2023
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
| 
