|
Quotes of the Day:
“You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.”
- Ray Bradbury
“Experience is the hardest kind of teacher. It gives you the test first and the lesson afterward.”
- Oscar Wilde.
“People will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacity to think.”
- Aldous Huxley
1. “SELL ME: I Am From North Korea” Washington, D.C. Premiere
2. The North Korea - Russia Alliance Is a Dangerous Threat
3. URGENT: Xi Jinping Has Started Repatriating North Korean Refugees
4. N. Korea fires several cruise missiles into Yellow Sea: JCS
5. NSC convenes emergency meeting after N. Korea's missile launch (ROK)
6. China’s Misinformation Fuels Anger Over Fukushima Water Release
7. The Korean War Continues With Biden’s Renewal Of Travel Ban To North Korea – OpEd
8. Negative Security Assurance and Nuclear Diplomacy: Implications for the Complete Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
9. Yoon invites Korean atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima for Chuseok
10. Pres. Yoon: Communist forces incite anti-Japanese sentiment
11. N. Korean Hackers Create Phishing Site to Steal Info of Defectors, Activists
12. Growing crisis in North Korea induced by food shortage
13. The UN Security Council’s First North Korean Human Rights Session since 2017
14. [WHY] Will the Korean military ever draft women?
15. Economic vision of a unified Korean Peninsula: Starting by forming a consensus
16. U.S. Arms Makers Look Overseas to Boost Stockpiles
1. “SELL ME: I Am From North Korea” Washington, D.C. Premiere
A powerful play to premiere on September 14th. This is a reminder of the horrendous stuffing taking place among the Korean people in the north and why we need to take a human rights upfront approach. I hope to see you there.
RSVP at this link: https://forms.gle/2zQFZS5hXjGcZeVN7
Excerpt:
It highlights the need to pass the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act (S.584). It also covers the controversial issues in the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act (H.R.1369), such as allowing American citizens to visit North Korea and the dangers of making a peace treaty and establishing diplomatic relations with North Korea, a dictatorship never adhering to international norms and treaties.
“SELL ME: I Am From North Korea”
Washington, D.C. Premiere
By
OKN Correspondent
August 30, 2023
https://onekoreanetwork.com/2023/08/30/sell-me-i-am-from-north-koreawashington-d-c-premiere/
Dear Friends:
One Korea Network cordially invites you to the one-person play “SELL ME: I Am from North Korea,” inspired by the true stories of North Korean women defectors who risk everything to escape one of Earth’s most repressive regimes.
“SELL ME: I Am From North Korea”
Washington, D.C. Premiere
Hosted by the Office of Rep. Carol Miller (WV-01)
Thursday, September 14, 2023
5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
South Orientation Center (CVC-241)
Washington, DC 20510
Register
SYNOPSIS
On her 15th birthday, Jisun, a North Korean girl, makes the heart-wrenching decision to sell herself to an old Chinese man to make money for her dying mother’s medications. However, after risking everything by crossing the Tumen River into China, she learns that she is not sellable and finds herself on the streets.
The play is about the complex political situation and ongoing humanitarian crisis in North Korea, and human trafficking in China. It also deals with the current situation of an estimated 3,000 North Korean defectors in China who are at risk of being forcibly repatriated as the North Korean-Chinese border is opening up.
This moving, powerful play has a narrative about a girl’s struggles to save her mother and presents North Korea’s reality as different from what the regime propagates and promises to its people.
It highlights the need to pass the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act (S.584). It also covers the controversial issues in the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act (H.R.1369), such as allowing American citizens to visit North Korea and the dangers of making a peace treaty and establishing diplomatic relations with North Korea, a dictatorship never adhering to international norms and treaties.
Further details, including speakers and special guests info, will be announced shortly.
For any questions, please contact us at:
info@onekoreanetwork.com; (202) 394-7005
To RSVP, please click here.
2. The North Korea - Russia Alliance Is a Dangerous Threat
Two of the axis of authoritarians.
The North Korea - Russia Alliance Is a Dangerous Threat
We are thus witnessing a new type of relationship between North Korea and Russia. Moscow provides resources and foodstuffs badly needed in North Korea, and Pyongyang supplies military equipment that Russia continues to need as its forces take heavy casualties and its supply networks continue to struggle. As this relationship continues to develop, ways to contain these arms transfers must be discussed.
19fortyfive.com · by Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. · September 1, 2023
Ten years ago, no one would have thought that Russia and China would openly block key actions against North Korea on the UN Panel of Experts. Not only are Russia and China blocking important sanctions initiatives at the UN, both nations now routinely violate sanctions against Pyongyang.
Further, Russia now sources weapons of war from both North Korea and Iran to sustain its invasion of Ukraine.
How It All Started
In June 2022, North Korean diplomats reportedly attended meetings at the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry where they discussed playing a role in Eastern Ukraine. Pyongyang’s representatives reportedly wanted access to Western weapons seized by Russian troops in the war.
Among other goods in exchange, they offered up manpower. In August 2022, North Korea reportedly selected workers to be dispatched to Eastern Ukraine. Also in August of that year, North Korea reportedly offered Moscow “100,000 volunteers.”
In September 2022, U.S. government officials said that Russia was buying millions of artillery shells and rockets from North Korea. In November, the U.S. government again told the press that North Korea was covertly shipping a significant number of artillery shells to Russia.
John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, said he did not know if the munitions had reached Russia at that time. He further added, “Our information indicates that they’re trying to obscure the method of supply by funneling them through other countries in the Middle East and North Africa.” Iran is the likely connection, though Syria is a distinct possibility as well. Iran had already started supplying Russia with drones, so why not ship North Korean munitions through the region into Russia?
Evidence Emerges
In December, imagery was released in the public domain that revealed North Korea is also likely making shipments to Russia using the railway that runs between the two nations starting at the Russia-North Korea border. So it seems that at least for now, the North Koreans are shipping weapons and receiving Russian barter payments via two routes — the Middle East, likely through Iran and/or Syria, and directly through the railway system.
The White House confirmed in December that North Korea had made an initial arms shipment to Russia’s Wagner Group private military corporation, and that more military equipment was to be delivered.
In January 2023, Kirby told the press that North Korea continues to provide ammunition to Russia, and the National Security Council released imagery of Russian rail cars delivering weapons. By February, satellite traffic showed significantly increased rail traffic between North Korea and Russia. North Korea is reportedly receiving Russian oil, gas, and flour in exchange for these initial arms deliveries.
Finally, in August, the U.S. Treasury Department invoked sanctions against several entities and individuals in Russia accused of working with the North Koreans to move arms into Russia for its fight in Ukraine. The individuals and entities sanctioned have reportedly organized the acquisition of over two dozen kinds of weapons and munitions, with goods being used for payment.
On July 20, the U.S. State Department sanctioned several Russian entities, but it also sanctioned a North Korean arms dealer for enabling arms shipments to Wagner Group in Russia. To quote the State Department document, “Yong Hyok Rim (Rim) is designated pursuant to section 1(a)(vi)(B) for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked.
Rim, a North Korea national, has assisted or provided support for Prigozhin and has facilitated shipments of munitions to the Russian Federation.” According to a UN Panel of Experts report in 2019, Rim previously was the deputy head in Syria of the infamous North Korean front company KOMID. Thus the likely Middle East connection.
An Emphasis on Containment
Starting in 2022, the North Koreans and Russians set up arms deals that have already resulted in deliveries of conventional weapons and munitions from North Korea to Russia. These deals remain active, and they are likely to continue for as long as Russia continues its war against Ukraine. North Korea appears to be using both rail transport and maritime means to get its arms and munitions into Russia for use in the ongoing war.
We are thus witnessing a new type of relationship between North Korea and Russia. Moscow provides resources and foodstuffs badly needed in North Korea, and Pyongyang supplies military equipment that Russia continues to need as its forces take heavy casualties and its supply networks continue to struggle.
As this relationship continues to develop, ways to contain these arms transfers must be discussed.
About the Author
Dr. Bruce E. Bechtol, Jr. (Ph.D. Union Institute), is an award-winning professor of political science at Angelo State University and a retired Marine. He was formerly on the faculty at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College (2005–2010) and the Air Command and Staff College (2003–2005). Dr. Bechtol is a 19FortyFive Contributing Editor.
19fortyfive.com · by Bruce E. Bechtol Jr. · September 1, 2023
3. URGENT: Xi Jinping Has Started Repatriating North Korean Refugees
This is the first report I have seen that indicates China has begun to forcibly repatriate Koreans to the north.
Dr. Suzanne Scholte offers actions individuals throughout the international community and here in the US can take to call attention to these human rights abuses and crimes against humanity.
Dear Friends:
Despite the best efforts of many governments and advocates, very tragically our greatest fears have been realized: Xi Jinping has now begun the forceful repatriation of North Korean children, women and men back to North Korea to face certain torture, certain brutal detention, and potential public execution. On August 29th, two buses of refugees crossed the bridge from Dandong to Sinuji with the precious lives of between 90 to 100 refugees now in the balance. See attached videos from trusted source.
What can be done at this point?
Despite this horrible news, we must remain vigilant as this will be an ongoing fight.
Action items for your consideration:
1) Send your own appeal directly to Xi Jinping to stop carrying out this heinous crime. Best to send to Xi in care of the embassy or consul office that represents your state/country. You can find the list here:
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb_663304/zwjg_665342/2490_665344/
If you can plan to join item 5 (boycott) feel free to mention that in your appeal.
2) Join demonstrations at Lafayette Park and the United Nations appealing for the North Korean refugees that will be held next week. Lafayette Park demonstrations will be held on Tuesday, (9/5) 1-2:30 pm and Wednesday (9/6) and Thursday (9/7) from 11-12:30 pm EST next week and there will also be demonstrations at the United Nations. These demonstrations will continue until September 23, the first day of Hangzhou Asia Game and are be spearheaded by the Esther Prayer Movement. If you can join any or all of those days, please contact Euni Evensen at 2014euni@gmail.com for Lafayette Park demonstrations and Ms. Eun in NYC for UN demonstrations at 201-839-7271.
3) Volunteer to be a city or country coordinator for the annual Save North Korean Refugees Day September 22nd being organized by the North Korea Freedom Coalition by committing to send additional appeals simultaneously to Xi Jinping in solidarity and in concert with a demonstration that will be held in Seoul on September 22th led by North Korean defectors organizing the 20th annual North Korea Freedom Week. Let Johnny Park know at Johnnypark@defenseforumfoundation.org if you can serve in this way.
4) If you can, please join the next meeting of the North Korea Freedom Coalition which will be held on
Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7-9 pm EST (September 14, 8 am Korea Time). This meeting will be focused on action items regarding the North Korean refugees in China as well as plans for North Korea Freedom Week and an update on Operation Truth, our ongoing campaign to reach people in North Korea by land, by sea and by air. RSVP to me at this email if you can join this important meeting.
5) Boycott China: Please make a commitment to never again purchase anything made in China until the Xi regime stops this brutal, cruel and inhuman and illegal activity. Mention this in your appeal to Xi.
And most importantly,
6) Please PRAY: for the refugees in peril that they will prevail against this evil and also please pray for those who advocate for them to have wisdom and strategy and perseverance. In the words of Mrs. Kim, who was once a North Korea refugee detained in China with her family of four, it was her prayers to God that made it possible for her to miraculously be flown to South Korea directly from China in November 2021. Let's pray for more miracles!
Many thanks and blessings and
ACTA NON VERBA,
Suzanne
Suzanne Scholte
Seoul Peace Prize Laureate
President, Defense Forum Foundation
Chair, North Korea Freedom Coalition
www.defenseforumfoundation.org
www.nkfreedom.org
4. N. Korea fires several cruise missiles into Yellow Sea: JCS
I wonder how China feels about these missile launches toward its territory.
(LEAD) N. Korea fires several cruise missiles into Yellow Sea: JCS | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Lee Minji · September 2, 2023
(ATTN: CHANGES photo; ADDS details)
SEOUL, Sept. 2 (Yonhap) -- North Korea fired several cruise missiles toward the Yellow Sea on Saturday, Seoul's military said, days after South Korea and the United States wrapped up their major joint military drills.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) announced the North's launch took place at around 4 a.m. but did not elaborate further, pending an analysis.
"While strengthening our monitoring and vigilance, our military is maintaining a full readiness posture in close cooperation with the United States," the JCS said in a text message sent to reporters.
South Korea and the U.S. wrapped up the 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield (UFS) exercise on Thursday. The North has denounced the drills as a rehearsal for invasion.
As part of the UFS, South Korea and the U.S. have staged combined air drills, involving at least one U.S. B-1B strategic bomber, above the Korean Peninsula.
In response, North Korea launched a military command post drill involving the scenario of occupying South Korean territory and fired two short-range ballistic missiles toward waters off its east coast earlier this week.
The North claimed the missile launch on Wednesday night was a tactical nuclear strike drill simulating "scorched-earth" strikes against major command centers and airfields in South Korea.
In March, North Korea said it launched strategic cruise missiles "tipped with a test warhead simulating a nuclear warhead."
At that time, the North's state media said two "Hwasal-1"-type strategic cruise missiles and two "Hwasal-2"-type strategic cruise missiles, launched in South Hamgyong Province, accurately hitting targets set in the East Sea.
This photo, captured from North Korea's Central TV on Aug. 21, 2023, shows North Korea conducting a test launch attended by leader Kim Jong-un during his visit to a navy unit. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)
mlee@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Lee Minji · September 2, 2023
5. NSC convenes emergency meeting after N. Korea's missile launch (ROK)
NSC convenes emergency meeting after N. Korea's missile launch | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Han-joo · September 2, 2023
SEOUL, Sept. 2 (Yonhap) -- The presidential National Security Council (NSC) held an emergency meeting Saturday after North Korea fired several cruise missiles toward the Yellow Sea, according to a presidential official.
The NSC meeting was led by Deputy National Security Adviser Lim Jong-deuk to discuss the readiness posture, the official said.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) announced the North's launch took place at around 4 a.m., days after South Korea and the United States wrapped up their major joint military drills.
South Korea and the U.S. wrapped up the 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield exercise on Thursday. The North has denounced the drills as a rehearsal for invasion.
The JCS did not elaborate further, pending an analysis.
This photo, captured from North Korea's Central TV on Aug. 21, 2023, shows North Korea conducting a test launch attended by leader Kim Jong-un during his visit to a navy unit. (For Use Only in the Republic of Korea. No Redistribution) (Yonhap)
khj@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Han-joo · September 2, 2023
6. China’s Misinformation Fuels Anger Over Fukushima Water Release
Misinformation? = mistaken or erroneous information. How about disinformation? = deliberate false information to influence a target audience.
China’s Misinformation Fuels Anger Over Fukushima Water Release
By Motoko Rich and John Liu
Reporting from Tokyo and Seoul
Aug. 31, 2023
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版
The New York Times · by John Liu · August 31, 2023
By exaggerating the risks from Japan’s discharge of treated wastewater, Beijing hopes to cast Japan and its allies as conspirators in malfeasance, analysts say.
A screen in Beijing showed Chinese state media coverage of a protest against Japan’s release of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.Credit...Andy Wong/Associated Press
Aug. 31, 2023, 12:10 a.m. ET
In Guangdong Province, on China’s southern coast, a woman posted a photo of a boxed-up Japanese-brand air-conditioner that she planned to return in protest. In southwest China, the owner of a Japanese pub posted a video of himself ripping down anime posters and smashing bottles, saying he planned to reopen the business as a Chinese bistro.
In many social media posts like these, the phrase “nuclear-contaminated wastewater” has appeared — the same wording used by the Chinese government and state media to refer to Japan’s release into the ocean of treated radioactive water from the ruined Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
Even before Japan started pumping out the first tranche of more than a million tons of wastewater last week, China had mounted a coordinated campaign to spread misinformation about the safety of the release, stirring up anger and fear among millions of Chinese.
The water discharge, 12 years after the nuclear plant was wrecked by a massive earthquake and tsunami, spurred China to fall back on its old playbook of fomenting diplomatic mayhem with its Asian rival. In 2012, Chinese demonstrators, apparently escorted by the police, attacked sushi restaurants after Japanese activists landed on an island that both China and Japan claim as their own.
A protest in Chengdu, China, in 2012 over a territorial dispute with Japan. China has a history of fomenting anti-Japan protests.
But, this time, Beijing may have a broader agenda. As the global order has shifted drastically, with China and the United States increasingly seeming to divvy up the world into an us-versus-them framework, experts say China is seeking to sow doubts about Japan’s credibility and cast its allies as conspirators in malfeasance.
With the United States, the European Union and Australia all supporting Japan’s water release, China wants to project a narrative that Japan and its international partners are “so driven and dominated by geopolitical interests that they are waiting to compromise basic ethical standards and international norms and ignore science,” said Tong Zhao, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“My concern,” Mr. Zhao added, “is this widening perception and information gap is going to make China feel more justified to explicitly challenge existing international narratives, institutions and order.”
Scientists, including Chinese experts invited to serve on a task force by the International Atomic Energy Agency, have said that Japan’s water release would have a very low effect on human health or the environment.
Yet last week, China’s foreign ministry denounced Japan’s release of “nuclear-contaminated water” and suspended imports of Japanese seafood, after months of condemnations by the Chinese government and its media affiliates over Japan’s discharge plan.
Tanks containing treated wastewater at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.Credit...Kyodo News, via Associated Press
Thousands of callers from China’s country code bombarded municipal offices in Tokyo, more than 150 miles from the Fukushima plant, with harassing messages, yelling “You idiot!” or “Why do you release contaminated water?” in broken Japanese.
According to Logically, a tech start-up that helps governments and businesses counter disinformation, social media posts mentioning Fukushima by Chinese state media, officials or pro-China influencers have increased by a factor of 15 since the beginning of the year.
The posts have not necessarily disseminated baldly false information so much as left out crucial details, like the fact that Japan is removing virtually all of the radioactive material before discharging the water. They also do not acknowledge that Chinese nuclear power plants themselves discharge wastewater with much higher levels of radioactive material than the water coming out of Fukushima.
The state-owned China Central Television and China Global Television Network have run paid ads denouncing the water release on Facebook or Instagram in multiple countries and languages, including English, German and Khmer.
The global outreach suggests China is trying to recruit more countries to its side in what has often been likened to a new Cold War. “The main point is not whether seafood coming from Japan is safe,” said Hamsini Hariharan, an expert on China for Logically. “This is part of China’s effort to say the current world order is flawed.”
Chinese information sources have emphasized early failures by the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company, which operated the Fukushima plant, to report how much of the water had been treated in a powerful filtration system.
Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, feeding fish in a tank filled with treated wastewater at the Fukushima plant in July. Credit...Pool photo by Hiro Komae
According to the power company’s website, just 30 percent of the approximately 1.3 million tons of water in holding tanks at the site has been fully treated to the point that only tritium — an isotope of hydrogen that experts say poses a low risk to human health — remains. The company, known as Tepco, has said it will not release any water before it is fully treated.
In tests taken by several Japanese government agencies and Tepco, the water released starting last week contained scant amounts of tritium, far below the standard set by the World Health Organization. There is more tritium in water being discharged by nuclear power plants in China and in South Korea, where protesters have also condemned the Japanese release.
With a monitoring network that includes the International Atomic Energy Agency and experts from numerous countries, “the international pressure is really high on the government in Japan,” said Kai Vetter, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, who has studied the environmental and social impacts of the Fukushima disaster.
Hirokazu Matsuno, the chief cabinet secretary to Japan’s prime minister, Fumio Kishida, said on Monday that Japan had “made counterarguments many times against information, including contents which are not factual, that have been released from China.”
Part of the challenge for Japan, where the foreign ministry is using the hashtag #LetTheScienceTalk on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, is that the science is difficult for average citizens to comprehend and that people often react emotionally to such events.
“It’s understandable that people worry and are fearful of something they don’t know well,” said Ittaka Kishida, a professor at Aoyama Gakuin University in Tokyo who studies the sociology and history of nuclear physics. “They just have to trust what experts explain, even though they haven’t seen it or can’t confirm it with their own eyes.”
The Qinshan nuclear power plant in Haiyan, China, in 2010. Some active Chinese nuclear plants release water into the ocean with higher levels of radioactivity than the treated Fukushima water has.
The lack of scientific understanding leaves the door open for misinformation, especially in tightly controlled Chinese information channels. In China, where residents have faced decades of anxiety about food safety, the authorities can tap into that vulnerability to manipulate the public and whip up fears, said Kyle Walter, head of research at Logically.
Still, some critics say Japan has not always helped itself. They have questioned whether Tepco can be trusted to follow through on its commitment to remove most of the radioactive material from the water over the 30 years of the planned discharge. And they say surrounding countries should have been consulted before Japan announced the decision to release the wastewater.
“China is exaggerating the risk because Japan gave them the opportunity to do that,” said Azby Brown, the lead researcher for the environmental monitoring organization Safecast, which has tracked radiation levels in Fukushima since the disaster. Because of the “lack of international consultation” early on, he said, “they should have expected that China and Korea would have justifiable questions to raise.”
In China, there have been flickers of pushback against the government’s propaganda. Liu Su, a science blogger, wrote of a “nationalist narrative” related to Japan’s colonial-era abuses, in which the country is “forever denied genuine forgiveness and any criticism toward Japan is deemed reasonable and just.” He deleted the post from a social media platform after a user reported him to the authorities in Shanghai for “inappropriate speech.”
South Korean officials have sought to debunk some of the outlandish claims circulating on social media.
After a photo showing a patch of discolored water near the Fukushima plant spread widely in South Korea last week, Park Koo-yeon, a government official, described it as fake news, noting that the photo had been taken eight minutes before the discharge even began.
Hisako Ueno contributed reporting from Tokyo, and Jin Yu Young from Seoul.
Motoko Rich is the Tokyo bureau chief, where she covers Japanese politics, society, gender and the arts, as well as news and features on the Korean peninsula. She has covered a broad range of beats at The Times, including real estate, the economy, books and education. More about Motoko Rich
John Liu joined The Times in 2021 and covers news in China. Previously, he was a reporter for The Myanmar Times, and wrote about Taiwan for international outlets. More about John Liu
The New York Times · by John Liu · August 31, 2023
7. The Korean War Continues With Biden’s Renewal Of Travel Ban To North Korea – OpEd
This is the problem with the north Korean supporting activists who blame the US for all the problems on the Korean peninsula ( Never forget this: The root of all problems in Korea is the existence of the most evil mafia- like crime family cult known as the Kim family regime that has the objective of dominating the Korean Peninsula under the rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State.)
They fail to understand the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime. If they do not understand that what they are exposed to in north Korea is propaganda there is little hope they can offer substantive critiques and objective analysis.
The author has it wrong. We would love to have people-to-people engagement. But it is Kim Jong Un who fears the outside influence on the Korean people in the north. And of course we also have to be concerned with the mistreatment of foreigners. Never forget Otto Warmbier. Every foreigner is at risk in north Korea.
I would like to invite these activities to the play on Capitol Hill on September 14th:
https://onekoreanetwork.com/2023/08/30/sell-me-i-am-from-north-koreawashington-d-c-premiere/
Excerpts:
Gloria La Riva, an organizer with the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, called her travels to the North in 1989 and 2015 “life-changing experiences.”
“I saw people and a country that is the opposite of the hysterical, demonizing images we see in the West,” La Riva recalled. “I met people who were thoughtful and kind to visitors. That is what struck me most of all. When we boarded a full train, people immediately offered us their seats, smiling—the best language of all.”
“That is the real reason the U.S. government bans its citizens from visiting North Korea,” she continued. “It is the same reason the U.S. travel ban to Cuba has existed for more than 60 years. The U.S. fears that we will see the Korean people as our friends, not our enemy. The travel ban is a denial of our right to see North Korea for ourselves.”
The Korean War Continues With Biden’s Renewal Of Travel Ban To North Korea – OpEd
https://www.eurasiareview.com/02092023-the-korean-war-continues-with-bidens-renewal-of-travel-ban-to-north-korea-oped/
September 2, 2023 0 Comments
By Amanda Yee
The draconian travel ban prevents as many as 100,000 Koreans in the United States from visiting family members in North Korea.
On August 22, the U.S. State Department renewed its ban on the use of U.S. passports for travel to North Korea. This travel ban prohibits as many as 100,000 Korean Americans living in the United States from visiting their relatives in North Korea. The ban was first set in place by the Trump administration in 2017, and—in spite of Korean American activists’ repeated calls to lift the draconian ban—has been renewed annually since.
During his presidential campaign in 2020, Joe Biden had promised to “reunite Korean Americans separated from loved ones in North Korea for decades,” but has extended the travel ban each year he has been in office. This current ban will remain in place until August 31, 2024, at which point it will either be lifted or extended again.
Families Separated by the Travel Ban
Kate Youngjoo Shim, an activist with the women’s peace organization Korea Peace Now!, is one of the many Korean Americans the travel ban impacts. Born in Korea, Shim moved to the U.S. at the age of 15. Both sides of her family are originally from North Korea, and the ban now prevents her from visiting cousins and other close relatives there.
Shim pointed out the hypocrisy of the U.S. government lecturing North Korea on human rights while keeping so many Korean family members separated.
“The biggest human rights violation to me is not letting people see their family,” said Shim. “The U.S. government is always trying to say things about [North Korea’s] human rights conditions, but if you’re not letting people meet their mothers, their children, their immediate families… there’s no excuse.”
Things were not always this way. Shim’s grandmother was separated from her oldest son—Shim’s uncle—during the Korean War. After decades of trying to track him down while living in South Korea, her grandmother moved to the U.S. at the age of 65 in the 1980s in the hopes that it would improve her chances of finding and reuniting with him. The task had proved difficult for her in South Korea due to the political situation between the North and South at that time. Even after decades of not knowing where he was and against all odds, Shim’s grandmother remained hopeful that she and her long-lost son would meet again. After moving to the U.S., she even started working at a factory so that she could afford to bring him back gifts once he was found.
Eventually, Shim’s family was able to track down her lost uncle in North Korea, and her grandmother was finally reunited with her son after 37 years. While there, Shim’s grandmother also met her brother after decades of separation. She would return to North Korea again to attend her grandson’s wedding.
Shim’s grandmother died more than 10 years ago. If she were alive today, she would no longer be able to visit her own child or other family members because of the travel ban.
The ban is a cruel expression of U.S. imperialist policy, and as the generation of Korean War survivors are now aging well into their 80s, lifting it is a matter of urgency now more than ever.
“My grandmother was one of the lucky ones,” said Shim. “There are so many unlucky people who cannot even see their family members. Or maybe a mother has her children there. Now it’s been 70 years [since the signing of the Armistice Agreement], so people are dying.”
Trips to North Korea Were ‘Life-Changing’
And it’s not only Korean Americans barred from visiting family members in North Korea—the travel ban prohibits any U.S. passport holder from traveling there, effectively prohibiting any kind of cultural exchange between American citizens and Koreans in the North. These exchanges are essential to challenging the U.S. propaganda campaign that dehumanizes North Koreans in order to justify sanctions.
Gloria La Riva, an organizer with the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, called her travels to the North in 1989 and 2015 “life-changing experiences.”
“I saw people and a country that is the opposite of the hysterical, demonizing images we see in the West,” La Riva recalled. “I met people who were thoughtful and kind to visitors. That is what struck me most of all. When we boarded a full train, people immediately offered us their seats, smiling—the best language of all.”
“That is the real reason the U.S. government bans its citizens from visiting North Korea,” she continued. “It is the same reason the U.S. travel ban to Cuba has existed for more than 60 years. The U.S. fears that we will see the Korean people as our friends, not our enemy. The travel ban is a denial of our right to see North Korea for ourselves.”
End the Korean War
The crimes that Washington has inflicted on Korea cannot be overstated. It was the U.S. that divided Korea along the 38th parallel in 1945 and separated millions of families, occupied the South, and dropped more than 600,000 tons of bombs over the peninsula during the Korean War. So extensive was the bombing campaign that U.S. pilots even ran out of targets and would drop bombs into the sea to safely land. Over the course of the war, the U.S. military leveled “nearly 90 percent of major cities and villages in North Korea,” killing a staggering 20 percent of its population.
On top of the murderous carpet bombing campaign, the entire Korean War itself was punctuated by U.S.-backed atrocities: the murder of more than 100,000 people during the Bodo League massacre in 1950, which was committed by the government forces of U.S.-installed President of South Korea Syngman Rhee; the Sinchon massacre in which the U.S. military and South Korean anti-communist forces killed more than 30,000 civilians; the No Gun Ri massacre where U.S. military forces opened fire on civilian refugees, killing around 300 people. Taken altogether, U.S. involvement in the Korean War was nothing short of genocidal.
While the signing of the 1953 Armistice Agreement brought an end to the fighting, it did not bring an end to the conflict. The U.S. refuses to sign a peace treaty, and it, along with the South, remains suspended in an official state of war with the North. And even after the signing of the armistice, the U.S. government maintains a heavy military presence in Korea and continues to ratchet up tensions between the North and the South. South Korea remains under occupation: it’s home to the largest U.S. overseas base, and a total of 28,500 U.S. military personnel are stationed in the country. South Korea also hosts the annual Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercises with the U.S. These annual drills simulate the invasion of North Korea and include live-fire practice attacks from the air, land, sea, and space. The war games present a dress rehearsal for regime change in North Korea. And especially since 2006, the U.S. government, along with the United Nations Security Council, have relied on a brutal sanctions regime to punish North Korea for defying U.S. imperialism. These sanctions have caused food insecurity, malnutrition, and medical supply shortages in the country, leading to enormous suffering and thousands of preventable deaths.
The travel ban for the U.S., then, is another weapon of war, part of its broader strategy to further isolate North Korea and inflame tensions between both halves of the peninsula. And with Washington forging stronger military ties with Australia, the Philippines, and other countries in the “Indo-Pacific,” as well as increasing its militarization of the South China Sea, the Pentagon’s ultimate goal is to secure South Korea as an ally in its road toward major power conflict in Asia.
“We’re in a period of extreme tension in Korea,” explained Ju-Hyun Park, an organizer with the nonprofit Nodutdol for Korean Community Development, which advocates for reunification of the country. “The U.S. does not want to do anything to de-escalate that tension because the current situation benefits U.S. interests. The more conflict there is in Korea, the easier it is to corral South Korea and Japan into an alliance against not only North Korea, but ultimately against China and Russia as well.”
This path that Washington is leading North and South Korea down will only lead to more war and devastation for the Korean people. The U.S. government has never been interested in peace for the Korean peninsula. For more than 70 years, it’s done everything in its power to divide North and South, obstruct any and every path to lasting peace, and turn Koreans against each other. What the U.S. government owes to the people of Korea can never be repaid. But the path toward justice begins with lifting the travel ban to North Korea—along with signing a peace treaty to bring an official end to the Korean War.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
Amanda Yee
Amanda Yee is a writer and organizer based out of Brooklyn. She is an editor of Liberation News, and her writing has appeared in Monthly Review Online, the Real News Network, and Peoples Dispatch. Follow her on Twitter @catcontentonly.
8. Negative Security Assurance and Nuclear Diplomacy: Implications for the Complete Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
A long read.
Acronyms that I do not normally use such as NSA (among a number of them , e.g., CDKP) in this article as I am not a nuclear doctrine guy. NSA = negative security assurance.
This article includes at the appendix a number of north Korean statements that provide useful background.
In regards to the conclusion, I think we know full well the differences between the north and the ROK and US on denuclearization. Simply put, the ROK and US want to reach denuclearization of the DPRK while the north will never denuclearize as long as the Kim family regime remains in power. If we recognize that (and the nature, objectives, and strategy of the regime) then we can see the need for a new strategy.
Excerpt:
Conclusion
The pursuit of a legally binding and unconditional NSA by NNWS parties to the NPT is a perennial issue within the nonproliferation regime and is regarded as a “legitimate interest” in diplomatic settings. Similarly, North Korea has long insisted that it will not give up its nuclear weapons unless the nuclear threat posed by the United States is completely eliminated, including US extended deterrence commitments, which may then require further security assurances in the region to be sustained.
In this regard, policymakers in South Korea and the United States, and potentially Japan, should work to understand whether their understanding of CDKP is similar to North Korea’s, where it may differ, and whether those discrepancies can be resolved. Otherwise, South Korean and US policymakers will need to reformulate their North Korea policy and envisage what would be an acceptable end-state to identify how their strategic interests could be balanced with the nuclear risks posed by North Korea.
Negative Security Assurance and Nuclear Diplomacy: Implications for the Complete Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
https://www.38north.org/2023/09/negative-security-assurance-and-nuclear-diplomacy-implications-for-the-complete-denuclearization-of-the-korean-peninsula/
Despite past agreements and negotiation efforts with North Korea about the elimination of its nuclear program, there has been no clear and consistent understanding of what “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” (“CDKP”) actually means. Some interpret it as the unilateral disarmament of North Korea, entailing the dismantlement of its nuclear weapons, related facilities, and delivery systems. Others believe that North Korea’s interpretation would require more demands than what South Korea could accept, such as the withdrawal of US forces from the Korean Peninsula.
This article examines North Korea’s perspectives on CDKP, based on its public statements and past agreements, with a particular focus on negative security assurance (NSA). It is clear that issues such as the role of US extended deterrence and even US nuclear doctrine will be core challenges to establishing a credible NSA for North Korea, which can have further regional implications. Understanding those tensions and whether they can be realistically addressed in practice will be critical to the success of any future negotiations.
Background
Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), NSA is a term used to describe the commitment by nuclear weapon states (NWS) to refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). An NSA is particularly important for addressing the security concerns of NNWS, who have “voluntarily given up the nuclear weapons option by becoming parties to the Treaty.” Therefore, NNWS, especially members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), have pursued binding NSA commitments from NWS since the negotiation phase of the NPT. The pursuit of a binding NSA by NNWS is internationally recognized as a “legitimate interest.”
Despite the importance of binding a universal NSA to NNWS, no such arrangement has been formalized within or added to the context of the NPT, except at the regional level through Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ). During the negotiation of the NPT, NWS, particularly the United States and the former Soviet Union, were unable to agree on an NSA formula due to their differing strategic interests. More specifically, the former Soviet Union proposed an NSA phrase that would prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against NNWS that do not have nuclear weapons on their territory. However, the United States opposed this proposal due to its nuclear deployment in what was then West Germany.
Instead of formalizing an NSA pledge within the context of the NPT, NWS adopted United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 255 in 1968, which requires immediate action by the UNSC if an NNWS falls victim to a nuclear threat. This is known as a positive security assurance (PSA). However, the PSA enshrined in Resolution 255 did not satisfy the requirements of NNWS for a universal, legally binding, and unconditional NSA. Since then, non-nuclear weapons states have continued to push for a binding NSA in various multilateral forums, such as the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), and the NPT Review Conferences.
At the UN General Assembly in 1978, the United States and the other NWS issued unilateral NSA declarations for NNWS party to the NPT. However, these declarations were not consistent across all NWS and contained reservations, except for China, whose NSA pledge was unconditional. For example, the United States promised not to use nuclear weapons against an NNWS party to the NPT unless it was attacked by an NNWS that was “allied to a nuclear-weapon state or associated with a nuclear-weapon state in carrying out or sustaining the attack.” This means that NNWS could still be targeted by US nuclear weapons even if an adversarial NWS was not directly involved or aware of such attacks.
The NSA was one of the most contentious issues during the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995. In order to gain political support from NNWS for the indefinite extension of the NPT beyond its original 25-year lifespan, NWS updated or reaffirmed their NSA pledges via UNSC Resolution 984. In the case of the United States, the country updated its NSA pledge by tightening the qualifications for NSA beneficiaries as NNWS in full compliance with the NPT. In lieu of formal NSA pledges by NWS, the 1995 NPT Conference yielded Principles And Objectives For Nuclear Non-Proliferation And Disarmament, which recommended that international efforts be made toward creating a potential legally binding NSA instrument.
Since then, the NSA policy of the United States has varied as it is frequently updated via Nuclear Posture Reviews (NPRs). For instance, the 2001 NPR deviated from the 1995 NSA pledge by reserving the right to preemptive strikes and the possible use of nuclear weapons against an NNWS for attacks on the United States with chemical and biological weapons. It also announced plans to develop novel nuclear weapons for hardened and deeply buried targets (HDBT) in NNWS and identified five NNWS that did not have nuclear weapons at the time (North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq and Libya) as potential targets of US nuclear strikes. The 2010 NPR repealed the use of US nuclear weapons against an NNWS for chemical and biological weapons use against the United States, although reserving the right to reassess this policy as conditions evolve. The NPRs of 2018 and 2022 also specified NSAs for only NNWS in full compliance with the NPT.
North Korea’s Position on the NSA
North Korea is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement of states, and its overall position on nuclear issues is similar to those of other NAM states (depicted in the global nuclear politics landscape visual in Appendix 1), including the idea that international peace can only be achieved through the total elimination of nuclear weapons on a global scale. Noting the lack of progress in disarmament by NWS, NAM argues that the security assurances, including both the NSAs and PSAs stipulated in UNSC Resolutions 984 and 255, are “limited, conditional, and insufficient” for addressing the security concerns of NNWS. In this regard, NAM advocates for an international instrument that would provide a legally binding, unconditional, irrevocable and non-discriminatory NSA to NNWS parties to the NPT.
From NAM’s viewpoint, the current NSA pledges are merely unilateral statements that cannot guarantee their national security. It has noted that the US NSA policy stipulated in the NPRs has evolved in a way that limits the beneficiaries of its NSA. Likewise, North Korea demands a mandatory NSA that is applicable under any circumstance, and, at the CD in 2011, expressed its concern that NWS could reverse their security assurance pledges “at any time as they are unilateral, conditional and not legally binding.”
Another point of agreement between North Korea and NAM is that both are urging NWS to eliminate nuclear extended deterrence. While arguing that security assurances should be strengthened, NAM believes that the military alliance between the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) contradicts the principles of the NPT since the US deterrence strategy is based on the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. Similarly, North Korea asserts the idea that with an NSA, extended deterrence would not be necessary, arguing that NWS must instead remove their “nuclear umbrella” and withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed in other countries.
That said, there are also some points of divergence between NAM and North Korea as well. North Korea and NAM are not in alignment when it comes to the qualifications for NSA beneficiaries. NAM members clearly state that beneficiaries for a potential international NSA instrument should be NNWS, who are parties to the NPT. Whereas, for instance, US conditions including only NNWS are in full compliance with the NPT. North Korea, on the other hand, argues that all NNWS should be NSA beneficiaries without specific linkage to NPT membership or status of compliance.
Implications for Complete Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
Any future nuclear deal with Pyongyang that aims to achieve CDKP will require the provision of an NSA, as have past deals. For instance, the Agreed Framework of 1994 specifies that the United States would offer “formal assurances” to North Korea, including an NSA. The Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks of 2005 and the Joint Statement of the Singapore Summit of 2018 also contain provisions for security guarantees. However, it has never been clear what exactly would make an NSA sufficient to achieve CDKP.
First and foremost, a core element of an NSA to North Korea would be the end of US extended deterrence. North Korea has explicitly defined CDKP as a complete elimination of “the US nuclear threat to Korea,” as well as “all sources of nuclear threats” from neighboring countries. For Pyongyang to relinquish its “nuclear deterrent,” it would want guarantees it would no longer be a potential victim of nuclear threats, which includes the “nuclear umbrella,”–especially from the United States. This could be an impediment on the road to CDKP due to the South Korean public’s mistrust of North Korea, of which about 60 percent favors the nuclear armament of the South.
Second, a future nuclear deal with North Korea will require careful management of US nuclear doctrine. For instance, in 2002, North Korea complained about language in the US nuclear posture review that seemed contradictory to the security assurances under the Agreed Framework. In 2010, Pyongyang also took the omission of North Korea from the list of NSA recipients in the NPR to mean it would be subject to US preemptive strikes. Therefore, achieving CDKP (not just signing the agreement) will take concerted efforts to ensure consistency across all policy instruments. For the global nonproliferation regime, such efforts should also address the security interests of non-NSA beneficiaries in good standing with the NPT since there is a view that states should not be rewarded an NSA for non-compliance and withdrawal from the NPT.
Lastly, providing a legally binding NSA to North Korea would also mean an end to the US nuclear umbrella for Japan. This may leave Japan and South Korea concerned about their security vis-à-vis China and Russia, which may necessitate firm and unconditional NSA pledges from Beijing and Moscow as well. As evidenced by their narratives at the UN, China and Russia may welcome a regional NSA arrangement, such as in the form of an NWFZ, because it could limit the presence of US strategic assets in the region. However, in this case, the United States would not accept any deals that could impede it from advancing its strategic interests in Asia. Moreover, a potentially lengthy process for rebuilding mutual trust among the regional actors in East Asia is a prerequisite to any dialogues for CDKP with North Korea, given the current geopolitical environment in the region.
Conclusion
The pursuit of a legally binding and unconditional NSA by NNWS parties to the NPT is a perennial issue within the nonproliferation regime and is regarded as a “legitimate interest” in diplomatic settings. Similarly, North Korea has long insisted that it will not give up its nuclear weapons unless the nuclear threat posed by the United States is completely eliminated, including US extended deterrence commitments, which may then require further security assurances in the region to be sustained.
In this regard, policymakers in South Korea and the United States, and potentially Japan, should work to understand whether their understanding of CDKP is similar to North Korea’s, where it may differ, and whether those discrepancies can be resolved. Otherwise, South Korean and US policymakers will need to reformulate their North Korea policy and envisage what would be an acceptable end-state to identify how their strategic interests could be balanced with the nuclear risks posed by North Korea.
***
DOWNLOAD A PDF OF THE APPENDICES HERE, OR VIEW BELOW
Appendix I. The Global Nuclear Political Landscape.
Method: Hierarchical clustering analysis (for more details, refer to the following links: https://www.globalasia.org/data/file/articles/31b337f79ee080f018f5adbdc9b8cc9a.pdf, and https://www.kaggle.com/hyuksama1/code). Source: Voting records on nuclear-related resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly.
Appendix II. North Korea’s Statements on NSAs.
Statement by H.E. Ambassador So Se Pyong, Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the CD Plenary
February 28, 2012
Mr. President,
Since this is the first time the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has taken the floor under your Presidency, let me extend our warm congratulations to you on the high assumption of your duties as the President of the Conference on Disarmament, and wish you success in your endeavors. You can rest assured of the DPRK delegation’s full support and cooperation.
Let me also take this opportunity to highly appreciate Ambassador of Ecuador for his valuable contribution he has made as the first President of the 2012 session of the Conference.
At the same time, I wish to thank the Secretary General and his team for their efforts in taking forward the work of the Conference.
Mr. President,
The DPRK is committed to the Conference on Disarmament, the single multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. It is for this reason that like all other member states, my delegation expects the CD will start its substantive work on all core issues including the nuclear disarmament in line with its mandate.
What is now particularly concerned is that some states pursue to leave aside the CD and turn to alternative negotiation process while shifting the responsibility of the current CD’s inactivity on to another. These moves will not lead to useful and productive results in taking forward the agreed multilateral agenda with the participation of all relevant countries. Acknowledging the importance and continued validity of the consensus final document of SSOD-I, the DPRK supports the proposal for the early convening of SSOD-I with a view to consolidating the multilateral disarmament agenda and machinery within the United Nations.
Mr. President,
In today’s international relations, hegemonic policy and the use of force and nuclear blackmails are openly practiced and translated into action. Arms conflicts and insecurity continue to persist in different parts pf the world threatening the right to existence of the sovereign states.
The Korean peninsula is not excluded here. The nuclear issue accompanied with the periodically explosive situation and the continuation of tension on the Korean peninsula are originated from the hostile relations between the DPRK and the US which gives rise to mistrust and confrontation. In the “Nuclear Posture Review” of April, 2010, the US officially announced that the DPRK was excluded from the list of the countries to receive the Negative Security Assurance. This bespeaks in essence that the stand of the US remain unchanged in its policy of preemptive nuclear strike against the DPRK.
Despite unanimous aspirations and demands at home and abroad for peace, arms build-up and nuclear war exercises are ceaselessly conducted on the Korean peninsula and in its vicinity against the DPRK. At the present moment, south Korea in league with the US, has embarked upon the road of kicking off the joint military exercises under the codenames of “Key Resolve” and “Foal Eagle” with mobilization of huge latest nuclear war equipment in south Korea defying the repeated warnings of the DPRK. This proves that the US and south Korea are to blame for harassed peace, escalated tension on the Korean peninsula and stalled north-south relations.
Nevertheless, the south Korea is busy preparing to hold a “nuclear security summit” in late March. It is astonishing that a meeting with the issue of nuclear security is to be convened in south Korea, a nuclear advance base for the US and the world’s largest nuclear powder magazine. Calling for “nuclear security” under such situation of anti-DPRK nuclear war games, is a mockery and insult to the public at home and abroad. It will only lay a more stumbling block to the settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula and bring only disgrace and blemish to history.
Dialogue and confrontation can be incompatible. Dialogue can not be made amid gun-report and naturally end up in disputes. If south Korea is truly interested in a dialogue and an improvement of north-south relations rather than talk, it should immediately stop the fellow countrymen-targeted war clamour.
The international community still cherishes the happy memory of the meaningful days; the days which were inaugurated with the historic inter-Korean summit, the first of its kind since the national division; a series of events that followed the DPRK-US Joint Communique, the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration and discussion of talks for the declaration of the end of the Korean war and instilled hope into the heart of the mankind longing for national reunification and regional peace.
All these signal events were precious results of the June 15 era of independent reunification leader Kim Jong II ushered in, pursuing Songun politics and fully guaranteeing the security of the Korean peninsula.
The June 15 North-South Joint Declaration and its action programme, the October 4 Declaration were all provided by two times of Pyongyang summit held between the north and south of Korea. Those two declarations are a symbol of the June 15 reunification era and beacon of reunification and peace. The south Korea should make its intention clear first upon the implementation of the inter-Korean declarations before talking about the dialogue.
Implementation of the declarations is in full accord with the interests of all countries that show concern over peace in the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia. If a country truly wants to see the provision of security in the Korean peninsula, it should squarely see that the only way to do is to implement the declarations that would lead to improved relations between the north and south and, further, to peace and security in Northeast Asia, instead of lending its ear to the sophism of the south Korean authorities.
Mr. President,
As the DPRK clarified its position on many occasions, its withdrawal from the NPT is the legitimate self-defensive measure undertaken to protect the supreme interests and security of the country from the US increasing nuclear threat. On the Korean peninsula, the NPT was unable to foil nuclear weapon deployment by a state which possesses the largest nuclear arsenals or stop its nuclear threat.
No one can be entitled to criticizing a legal right of the sovereign states. The DPRK’s uranium enrichment programme is purely for the peaceful nuclear energy. The DPRK delegation takes this opportunity to reiterate its position that it categorically rejected the UNSC resolutions 1718 and 1874 and would not be bound by them.
The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula has entirely originated from the hostile policy and nuclear threats of the US against the DPRK, and it is, therefore, the key party which is responsible and capable to address its root cause is none other than the United States.
More than half century have passed since the end of the Korean war but no peace mechanism is established so far but there still exists the outdated armistice regime, the cold war legacy. Therefore, the DPRK and the US are in a state of war in legal or technical points of view. As long as the DPRK and the US, the direct parties to the Korean Armistice Agreement, stand in hostile by leveling guns at each other, neither DPRK-US mutual mistrust can be removed nor the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula be achieved indefinitely. As well known, the DPRK has proposed at the beginning of the year 2010 to conclude peace agreement. This proposal is the most effective confidence-building measure to remove the existing DPRK-US mistrusts. The conclusion of the peace agreement proposed by the DPRK will play a role as powerful driving force to ensure denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.
It is the consistent position of the DPRK to resume the 6 party talks without preconditions and discuss the implementation of the Joint Statement adopted on 19 September 2005 on the principle of simultaneous action. Nonetheless, delaying the resumption of the talks is due to the US side, which creates the artificial obstacle, while raising unreasonable preconditions apart from fulfillment of its obligation. The prospect of the resumption of the talks entirely depends upon the attitude of the US to the positive efforts of the DPRK to ensure peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and realize the denuclearization through the dialogue and negotiation.
Mr. President,
The DPRK’s nuclear deterrent has served as powerful deterrent for preserving peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and other parts of Northeast Asia.
The DPRK, considering it as its sacred duty to safeguard peace and security and promote common prosperity on the Korean peninsula and the rest of the world, will do its utmost for their realization.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Statement by Ambassador Mr. Ri Tong Il, Deputy Permanent Representative of DPR Korea to the United Nations
Subject; Nuclear Weapons, 1st Committee, 66th Session
October 14, 2011
Mr. Chair,
As far as world peace and security are concerned, the greatest challenge is coming from nuclear weapons.
More than half a century has passed since the appearance of the first nuclear weapon and twenty years have elapsed since the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, there’s a growing tendency of relying on nuclear weapons, with the modernization of nuclear weapons being accelerated on behalf of nuclear powers.
In addition, a country with the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, having designated specific countries as targets for preemptive nuclear strikes, has drawn up an operational plan for nuclear attacks and is conducting nuclear war exercises under that plan in an undisguised manner.
Mr. Chair,
Our delegation would like to draw your attention to the following issues.
First, nuclear disarmament should be oriented towards total ban on the use of nuclear weapons and their eventual elimination.
The existence of nuclear weapons, as well as their use or the threat of use, constitutes a constant threat to humankind. Furthermore, as long as nuclear weapons exist outside of any legal framework or treaty endangering the survival of humankind, there is no guarantee for world peace and security.
The DPRK is steadfast on the comprehensive and total abolition of nuclear weapons and to this end, insists that a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons with a timeframe be adopted. In addition, nuclear disarmament should be multilateral in nature, verifiable, and irreversible.
In this regard, we support the proposal for the establishment of a special committee and an early start of negotiation on nuclear disarmament.
Second, nuclear powers should refrain from nuclear threats on non-nuclear-weapon states and provide them with a legally binding NSA.
The non-nuclear-weapon states are demanding a mandatory and binding NSA from nuclear powers on non-use of nuclear weapons under all circumstances.
The international relations in which a certain country is free to pose nuclear threats while others are exposed to the threats should no longer be tolerable.
Nuclear powers should remove the “nuclear umbrella” over their allied countries and withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed outside their own territories. They should also abandon a nuclear doctrine based on preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and pledge to provide firm NSA and move as soon as possible towards the negotiation of an international treaty.
Expecting that the present meeting will play a due role in achieving substantial results for achieving disarmament, we assure you of our active cooperation with this committee and the Geneva Conference on Disarmament.
Thank you.
Statement by H.E. Ambassador Sin Son Ho, Permanent Representative of the DPRK to United Nations First Committee of the 66th Session of the UN General Assembly
October 7, 2011
Mr. Chairman,
Let me first of all congratulate you on your election as chairman of the first Committee, and I believe that this meeting will be crowned with success under your able leadership. I also wish to associate myself with the statement made by the Republic of Indonesia on behalf of the NAM.
Mr. Chairman,
Twenty years have passed since the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, international efforts for peace and security of the world and disarmament are still confronted with serious challenges.
In today’s international relations, hegemonic policy and the use of force and nuclear blackmail are openly practiced and translated into action. Armed conflicts and insecurity continue to persist in different parts of the world, threatening the right to existence of sovereign states. The Korean peninsula is not excluded here.
My delegation takes this opportunity to underline the root causes of the ever-aggravating situation on the Korean Peninsula.
The Korean peninsula, which was forcibly divided into two by outside forces still remains in a state of neither war nor peace for more than half a century. The nuclear issue accompanied with the periodically explosive situation and the continuation of tension on the Korean peninsula are originated from the hostile relations between the DPRK and the US which gives rise to mistrust and confrontation. Despite unanimous aspirations and demands at home and abroad for peace, arms build-up and nuclear war exercises are ceaselessly conducted on the Korean peninsula and in its vicinity area against the DPRK.
In the “Nuclear Posture Review” of April 2010, the US officially announced that the DPRK was excluded from the list of countries to receive the Negative Security Assurance. This bespeaks in essence that the stand of the US remains unchanged in its policy of preemptive nuclear strike against the DPRK.
In August this year alone, the United States conducted nuclear war exercises under the codename of “Ulji Freedom Guardian” with mobilization of massive armed forces in South Korea despite of our repeated warnings. Another fundamental reason for ever growing tension on the Korean peninsula is the absence of a peace mechanism.
More than half a century has passed since the end of the Korean War, but no peace mechanism is established so far but there still exists the outdated armistice regime, the Cold War legacy. Therefore, the DPRK and the US are in a state of war in legal or technical points of view.
As long as the DPRK and the US, the direct parties to the Korean Armistice Agreement, stand in hostile by leveling guns at each other, neither DPRK-US mutual mistrust can be removed nor can the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula be achieved at any time.
The DPRK proposed last year to conclude peace agreement. This proposal is the most effective confidence-building measure to remove existing DPRK-US mistrusts. The conclusion of the peace agreement proposed by the DPRK will play a role as powerful driving force to ensure denuclearization on the Korean peninsula.
We strongly believe that our proposal to conclude the peace agreement would be a good one either in view of the peculiar security situation of the Korean peninsula or in view of regional peace and security. The DPRK Government stands consistent in its position to ensure peace and security and to speed up the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiations.
The prevailing situation on the Korean peninsula demands that the parties concerned seize opportunity in right time with a bold decision to address the fundamental root cause through dialogue. The main party here is the United States of America.
The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula has entirely originated from the hostile policy and nuclear threats of the US against the DPRK, and it is, therefore, the key party which is responsible and capable to address its root cause is none other than the United States. If the US have real concern of peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, it should stop hostile military action raising tension and respond positively to the DPRK’s proposal on concluding peace agreement.
The DPRK, considering it as its sacred duty to safeguard peace and security and promote common prosperity on the Korean peninsula and the rest of the world, will do its utmost for their realization.
Thank you.
Statement by H.E. Mr. Sin Son Ho, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations
At the General Assembly Plenary Debate on “follow-up to the high-level meeting held on 24 September 2010; revitalizing the work of the Conference on Disarmament and taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations”
July 27, 2011
Mr. President,
Let me, first of all, appreciate you for organizing this important debate.
Allow me also to express my hope that this meeting will provide a good opportunity for the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to be revitalized and bring it on a right track.
My delegation fully supports the statement made by H.E. Mr. Maged A Abdelaziz, the Permanent Representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
Mr. President,
Nuclear disarmament continues to remain a top priority in securing world peace and security.
The first appearance of nuclear weapons in 1945 was a beginning of history of the most destructive weapons against humankind.
Dropping of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan is its typical example, which has proven to the world, more than enough, the destructive consequences how even a single nuclear weapon could affect the global peace and security.
Moreover, the appearance of the first nuclear weapon state in 1945 was a fundamental root cause of its proliferation to the rest of the world resulting in chain reaction.
If the successes of the sacred science of the mankind have not been used for an ill-famed and dangerous purposes which may eliminate the entire mankind, the proliferation of nuclear weapons could have not come as today.
As we can see, nuclear weapons are the matter of directly relating to the survival of the mankind and to the peace and security of the world.
Mr. President,
Nuclear weapon states have an unavoidable obligation to implement their commitments under existing international norms.
In 1996, the International Court of Justice made it clear to the world that the use of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law.
It must bring to our attention that all other existing weapons are under the full control of treaties or conventions, with no exceptions at all, but nuclear weapons remain outside multilateral international laws.
The same is true of negative security assurances towards non-nuclear weapon states.
The recent developments cast dark shadows over the prospects of nuclear disarmament, drawing the attention of the international society.
The nuclear weapons modernization programs are openly propelled according to Nuclear Doctrines that resembling Cold War period.
It should be brought into our attention that projects are under way for small type nuclear weapons to be used like conventional weapons.
In addition to this, the Missile Defense System (MDS) is keeping steady headway, challenging international concern.
The MDS being pushed under the pretext of responding to so-called ballistic missile developments by what they call “rogue states” is far from carrying logic, due to its extra fabulous amount of fund and geographical network covering all over the world.
The nature and scope of the MDS speaks by itself where its real target is, the real target being none other than the gaining of absolute nuclear superiority and global hegemony over other nuclear power rivals.
In the current changing world, one can easily understand that this dangerous move will eventually spark a new nuclear arms race.
This shows that the world’s largest nuclear weapon state has lost its legal or moral justifications to talk of proliferation issues before the international society, on whatever ground.
If the largest nuclear weapon state truly wants non-proliferation, it should show its good example by negotiating the Treaty of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons.
Mr. President,
The total and complete elimination of nuclear weapons remains the consistent policy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The Treaty of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons should be concluded in a time-bound, verifiable, irreversible, and legally binding manner.
Such a policy of the DPRK is a good reflection of the unique and special security environment to which the country has long been exposed for decades under the continuing external nuclear threats and blackmails.
Since the first nuclear weapon was introduced into South Korea in 1957 by the United States, the number of nuclear weapons has gone beyond 1,000.
Mr. President,
As a member state and the current President of the CD, the DPRK will do everything possible to move the CD forward.
Nuclear disarmament, negative security assurances, banning of outer space weapons, and fissile material banning are all pending issues in the CD.
It is regrettable that nuclear disarmament and negative security assurances are not yet being settled, although they have history of decades-long discussion along with the inception of the United Nations.
As far as the cause of over a decade long deadlock of the CD is concerned, it is due to the lack of political will.
If the CD is to move forward, the security interests of all member countries should be fully considered.
In this regard, the program of work once adopted in the CD in 2009 is something of value to be reconsidered since it is reflecting upon all pending issues in the CD on an equal basis.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Statement by Ambassador So Se Pyong, Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the UN and Other International Organizations at the Conference on Disarmament
March 10, 2011
Mr. President,
Today, I have taken to the floor to speak on a critical issue of our agenda item.
Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) to non-nuclear weapon states becomes a vital issue for nuclear disarmament in its purpose and angle.
It is an escapist act to pursue merely non-proliferation while evading the issue of assuring non-nuclear weapons States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the result of the threat posed by existing nuclear weapons.
However, it is regrettable that some countries differentiate between the existence of nuclear weapons and their proliferation and persist with their assertions on the issue of non-proliferation alone.
Now, high-handed policies on nuclear weapons, which are based on a double standard, have reduced the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and other disarmament conventions to dead paper that is of no use and that lack binding force – a sure way of plunging the world into a nuclear arms race.
There can be no justification for the fact that certain countries take issue with the peaceful nuclear activities of countries they detest, while keeping out of their obligations to disarm their own nuclear weapons.
The peaceful use of nuclear energy is not a privilege conceded to specific countries but the legitimate right of sovereign states.
It can be said that the provision of Negative Security Assurances is essential of to the non-nuclear weapon States and the process of nuclear disarmament on the globe.
Non-nuclear weapon States demand that nuclear weapon States should unconditionally assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in all cases.
Over the past 60 years from the time that nuclear weapons first appeared, nuclear weapon States have individually declared their commitments to assuring non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in the international fora including the United Nations.
However, nuclear weapon States are free to reverse their commitments at any time as they are unilateral, conditional and not legally binding.
All these facts prove that current declared commitments can do little to solve the problem at all. Therefore, we are of the view that it is vital to establish an international legally binding instrument on NSAs.
To this end, my delegation considers that it is requisite for conclusion of a verifiable and legally binding international convention on prohibition of nuclear weapons placing nuclear weapon States under an obligation to neither use nor threaten to use of nuclear weapons in any condition.
Nuclear weapon States should give up their nuclear doctrines based on the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons and commit themselves unconditionally to non-use of nuclear weapons pre-emptively, as demanded by non-nuclear weapon States. And they must come to the negotiation table to draft an international convention in that respect.
The DPRK’s nuclear weapons will serve as reliable war deterrent for protecting the supreme interests of the state and the security of the Korean nation from the super-Power’s threat of aggression and averting a new war and firmly safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula under any circumstances.
The DPRK will always sincerely implement its international commitments as a responsible nuclear weapon state.
The DPRK will do its utmost to realize the denuclearization of the peninsula and give impetus to world-wide nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Statement by H.E. Mr. So Se Pyong, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in Geneva at the plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament
February 10, 2011
Mr. President,
Since this is my first intervention, let me also congratulate you on assuming the first Presidency of the 2011 session of the Conference on Disarmament and highly appreciate your enormous efforts and contribution made for the work of the CD from the beginning of this year.
Mr. President,
In building a peaceful and prosperous world, disarmament is the top most priority. Disarmament faces yet with challenges regrettably, although two decades have passed since the end of the cold war.
The undisguised advocacy for and practice of hegemony and strong-arm policy is giving rise to greater concern, while this policy is frequently being followed by a show of force, blackmail and, in the long run, use of war, which once used to be symptoms of the cold war era.
It is of today’s world that the nuclear weapons estimated at over twenty thousands are still in a status quo of existence. It is also of today’s world that sovereign states are often targeted, being threatened or blackmailed by nuclear weapons, while the mankind itself as a whole being threatened for its existence.
In this regard, the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) believes that due attention should be focused to the following agenda items of the CD.
- Top priority should be given to nuclear disarmament.
As a member of the G-21 and NAM, the DPRK attaches the highest priority to nuclear disarmament.
The nuclear disarmament is directly linked to the survival of humankind before it relates to world peace and security. Of all weapons in this world, only nuclear weapons remain out of control with no relevant instrument.
President Kim II Sung advanced long ago an idea of building a world free from nuclear weapons. And it is the desire of the Korean people to live in a peaceful world without nuclear weapons.
The DPRK remains consistent in its support for total and complete elimination of nuclear weapons in the world, the world with nuclear zero.
As for today after the end of the cold war, nuclear disarmament should be of multilateral nature, and also verifiable and irreversible.
My delegation takes this opportunity to reiterate its readiness to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
- The nuclear-weapon States should refrain from nuclear threats and provide non-nuclear-weapon States with Negative Security Assurances (NSAs).
Nuclear-weapon States should revoke the provision of “nuclear umbrella” to their allies and withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed outside their territories in order to push forward nuclear disarmament and prevent danger of nuclear war.
NSAs is essential to existence of non-nuclear-weapon States and promotion of the global process of nuclear disarmament.
The demand of non-nuclear-weapon States is an unconditional and binding assurance by nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in any case.
Most of the nuclear-weapon States are opposed to forming legally binding international instrument on the NSAs for non-nuclear-weapon States.
The current international relations which allow a certain country to use nuclear weapons as a means of threats that others are compelled to be threatened, should no longer be tolerated.
- Profound attention should also be directed to initiatives on the prevention of arms race in outer space.
The CD has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of arms race in outer space.
In the past, the CD has made continued efforts to start negotiation on a comprehensive agreement on the prevention of arms race in outer space in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the UNGA.
The DPRK delegation supports the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee on PAROS and to start negotiations on the issue.
Mr. President,
As the single multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament, the CD has a high responsibility to attain the goal of total elimination of nuclear weapons.
It is the view of my delegation that the CD could and should fulfill its mission. For this, we will make every effort with patience.
The DPRK delegation sincerely hopes that the intensive debate on the core issues of our agenda items being conducted, will contribute to creating an atmosphere for agreeing upon a programme of work and thus lead to a desired multilateral negotiating process including nuclear disarmament.
I thank you, Mr. President.
Statement by H.E. Mr. Ri TCHEUL, Permanent Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva and the Conference on Disarmament
On the Issue of Nuclear Disarmament
March 2, 2006
Mr. President,
I would first like to congratulate you on your assumption of the Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and wish you success in your responsibility.
I would also like to extend my high appreciation to your predecessor the Ambassador of Poland for his enormous efforts and contribution made for revitalization of the work of the CD.
Mr. President,
The delegation of the DPRK, while associating itself with the G-21 statement, would like to state its point of view on the issue of nuclear disarmament.
The DPRK holds that nuclear disarmament is the most important and priority issue for the Conference on Disarmament and the international community.
The negative nuclear policy and doctrine and the threats and blackmail based on the nuclear weapons, which now emerge in the international relations, pose great apprehensions to the international society and produce only instability, mistrust and undesired results.
It is attributable to the abnormal nuclear policy and doctrine that the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter is not respected and the inequality and injustice persist in the international relations.
These give undesired effect not only to the process of the CD but also to other negotiation fora on peace and security
The pursuit of preserving and strengthening one’s own nuclear arsenals while disliking nuclear activities of others would mean to negate establishing fair international relations. As long as this nuclear doctrine and nuclear threats remain, the hotbed of nuclear proliferation will not be eliminated.
The mind-set should be reconsidered that regards as more beneficial the present inequality and injustice derived from strength.
Mr. President,
Nuclear disarmament is the main issue to be addressed in the field of disarmament. Disarmament can be said to have achieved its goal when the total elimination of nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament is achieved.
My delegation would not share the notion that it is unrealistic at this stage to call for revising negative nuclear doctrine. Major nuclear weapon state should display the will to be in multilateral negotiating process for international legal instruments on nuclear disarmament without further delay.
Pending complete elimination of nuclear weapons, it would be urgently required to address the issues of redressing nuclear supremacy doctrine, removing nuclear threats, putting an end to qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, withdrawing the nuclear weapons deployed abroad, also withdrawing nuclear umbrella provided to other countries, providing negative security assurances, etc. Negotiating process on the nuclear disarmament could start in this direction.
My delegation supports the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament and to start negotiations on the issue.
Mr. President,
The CD assumes an important role for world peace and security as a multilateral negotiating forum on disarmament. My delegation views that the CD could and should fulfill its intrinsic mission.
In this regard, this delegation hopes to see further strengthened efforts with a view to adopting a program of work and is ready to contribute to these efforts.
Program of work of the CD should be comprehensive and balanced one acceptable to all. Though the A-5 proposal falls short of this delegation’s hope, it has expressed its position from the spirit of multilateralism that it supports the A-5 proposal and that this proposal could serve as a basis of our efforts for agreeing upon a program of work.
I do hope that the structured debate on the items of the CD Agenda being conducted in accordance with the timetable submitted by the P-6 will contribute to establishing an enabling atmosphere for agreeing upon a program of work and thus lead to a desired negotiating process.
Thank. you, Mr. President.
9. Yoon invites Korean atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima for Chuseok
Yoon invites Korean atomic bomb victims in Hiroshima for Chuseok | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Han-joo · September 2, 2023
SEOUL, Sept. 2 (Yonhap) -- President Yoon Suk Yeol has extended an invitation to a group of Korean victims of the 1945 atomic bombing in Hiroshima during the upcoming Chuseok holiday, a presidential official said Saturday.
"President Yoon has invited Korean atomic bomb victims to South Korea for the Chuseok holiday," the official told Yonhap News Agency. This year's Chuseok fall harvest holiday will take place from Sept. 28 to Oct. 1.
During his visit to Hiroshima for a Group of Seven summit in May, Yoon met with Korean survivors of the bombing, which occurred just before the Korean Peninsula was liberated from Japan's colonial rule.
The official invitation aims to showcase to the victims how much their homeland has transformed and developed, allowing them to experience the festive spirit of the holiday, the official said.
The visit will be organized by a newly established government agency responsible for assisting overseas Koreans, which was launched in June.
Around 50,000 Koreans fell victim to the atomic bombing, including 30,000 killed, after many were brought to Japan to work as forced laborers during its 1910-45 colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, according to the Korea Atomic Bombs Victim Association.
South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol (L) helps a Korean victim of the 1945 Hiroshima atomic bombing take a seat during a meeting with a group of Korean victims at a hotel in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 19, 2023. (Yonhap)
khj@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by Kim Han-joo · September 2, 2023
10. Pres. Yoon: Communist forces incite anti-Japanese sentiment
Continued reporting on President Yoon's powerful remarks that are surely not welcome by some political factions in Korea.
Pres. Yoon: Communist forces incite anti-Japanese sentiment
donga.com
Posted September. 02, 2023 08:10,
Updated September. 02, 2023 08:10
Pres. Yoon: Communist forces incite anti-Japanese sentiment. September. 02, 2023 08:10. by Joo-Young Jeon aimhigh@donga.com.
President Yoon Suk Yeol said on Friday, “The communist totalitarian forces, opportunistic followers, and anti-state forces are still inciting anti-Japanese sentiment and misleading the ROK-US-Japan cooperation mechanism from Camp David as if it would put the Republic of Korea and its people in jeopardy.” His remarks are intense criticism aimed at the opposition party, which is raising the level of offense through the response to the release of contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan and the controversy over the transfer of the bust sculpture of Gen. Hong Beom-do.
“Our freedom has constantly been threatened,” said President Yoon at the opening ceremony for the 60th anniversary of the diplomatic service held at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy in Yangjae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul. “The ambiguity of the diplomatic line means the absence of values and philosophies. Diplomacy that does not offer predictability to its counterparties will win neither trust nor national interest,” President Yoon said. His remarks seem to emphasize ‘strategic clarity’ that is more aligned with the United States, an ally of value, instead of the ‘strategic ambiguity’ between the United States and China pursued by the former Moon Jae-in administration.
“We need to put in place firmly a cooperative network in security, economy, information, and advanced technology with countries that share the universal values of freedom, human rights, and the rule of law, and those who respect the norm-based international order,” President Yoon said. This highlights the significance of the fact that the heads of Korea, the U.S., and Japan met at Camp David in the U.S. on Aug. 18 and established a comprehensive and multi-layered trilateral cooperation system to safeguard peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.
“The Korea National Diplomatic Academy should serve as a compass to help diplomats engage in diplomacy based on a clear set of values, historical and national perspective," President Yoon said. “Please clearly define the point of arrival of the ideology and values of Korean diplomacy and conduct research and training built on this.”
한국어
donga.com
11. N. Korean Hackers Create Phishing Site to Steal Info of Defectors, Activists
We must all practice good cyber civil defense to protect our networks and good personal "cyber hygiene" to protect ourselves. We must not allow ourselves to be "social engineered."
N. Korean Hackers Create Phishing Site to Steal Info of Defectors, Activists
world.kbs.co.kr
Inter-Korea
Written: 2023-09-01 16:33:24 / Updated: 2023-09-01 16:50:26
Photo : Getty Images Bank
A North Korean hacking group known as “APT37” created a phishing website disguised as a renowned North Korean human rights organization in order to steal the personal information of defectors and experts on the country.
According to the cybersecurity firm Genians on Friday, APT37 sent an email to activists on July 24 disguised as a notice about an actual program run by the U.S. nonprofit organization Liberty in North Korea to promote human rights in the North.
At the bottom of the emails, the group attached a homepage link for those interested in learning about the program, bringing users to the phishing site made by the hackers to seize personal information entered by users.
The security firm assessed that the cyber scheme was intended to monitor the everyday life of experts on North Korea and steal their personal information.
List
Share
12. Growing crisis in North Korea induced by food shortage
I cannot emphasize enough how we must be observing for the indicators of internal instability as well as ensuring our contingency plans are up to date and ready for execution.
Growing crisis in North Korea induced by food shortage
donga.com
Posted September. 02, 2023 08:10,
Updated September. 02, 2023 08:10
Growing crisis in North Korea induced by food shortage. September. 02, 2023 08:10. .
North Korea has long grappled with food shortages, but the situation appears unusually dire. Typically, food scarcity in a region is assessed through meal skipping, but in chronically underfed North Korea, the severity of the shortage is measured by the number of starvation-related deaths.
South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) reports that between January and July 2023, approximately 240 people in North Korea died from starvation, marking a 2.2-fold increase compared to the five-year average of around 110 during the same period. Even North Korean soldiers, usually at the top of the food rationing list, now receive only 580 grams of grains daily per person, down from the previous 620 grams. The two families who defected to South Korea by boat in May 2023 may have risked their lives to escape starvation.
Food scarcity, an imminent life-and-death crisis, can impact every facet of one's existence. The South Korean government is particularly concerned about its connection to rising crime rates in North Korea. Senior officials in the South emphasize that individuals pushed to extreme desperation can resort to severe crimes, with nothing more desperate than the struggle to avoid starvation.
The correlation is unmistakable in North Korea, where violent crimes are surging. According to the NIS, serious crimes have tripled in the first half of 2023 compared to the same period in previous years. These crimes include large-scale organized incidents like homemade bomb attacks to steal daily supplies and even recent indications of attempted terrorist bombings. Insiders familiar with the realities in North Korea report incidents akin to terrorism based on local residents' testimonies, including screams. While some may be accidental due to negligence, the sources do not dismiss the possibility that they could be deliberate terrorism targeting leadership, including high-ranking military officials.
The South Korean government has established contingency plans for a severe potential crisis in the North, regularly conducting simulation scenario tests and annual plan updates. However, discussions and concerns regarding fundamental changes in the North have diminished over the years, possibly due to the regime's decade-long stability, indicating a reduced likelihood of radical shifts or imminent instability.
Pandemic-driven border closures may have worsened North Korea's food shortage and could trigger a series of dissident terrorism, creating a new situation for the South. The likelihood of significant systemic change in North Korea has increased. South Korea should thoroughly review and update its military and civilian response plans, preparing for scenarios such as mass defections from the North and intervention attempts by neighboring nations.
한국어
donga.com
13. The UN Security Council’s First North Korean Human Rights Session since 2017
China is complicit in north Korean human rights abuses.
Excerpts:
North Korea could also have participated in the discussion at the Security Council but chose not to participate. In a scathing denunciation of the Security Council meeting, North Korea’s vice foreign minister Kim Son Gyong called the meeting “despicable” and only intended to promote Washington’s geopolitical ambitions. He attacked the United States as a “declining” power said the Council should examine the United States, which is “the anti-people empire of evils, totally depraved due to all sorts of social evils.”
China also publicly opposed holding the session on North Korean human rights violations, but its opposition did not focus on defending the regime in Pyongyang or its record on human rights. The spokesperson at the Chinese UN mission in New York said, “China sees no added value for the council to have such a meeting and will be against it.” He said “maintenance of international peace and security” is the mandate of the Security Council, and that “a council meeting on human rights in the DPRK falls outside the council’s mandate, politicizes human rights issues, and only serves to intensify confrontation and antagonism.” The Security Council is not the place for discussing human rights.
China, however, was implicitly criticized by both UN officials and by several other Security Council member countries during the council meeting. Beginning with the first speaker at the council meeting, Türk urged “all states to refrain from forcibly repatriating North Koreans, and to provide them with the required protections.” China is the country that has returned North Korean escapees against their will to North Korea. Escapees who have subsequently succeeded in leaving North Korea later have given horrific accounts of brutal treatment by Pyongyang. Several other countries raised this particular issue, including the United States. To avoid angering the Chinese government, however, China is usually not mentioned by name. There is no question, though, that China is the problem.
The UN Security Council’s First North Korean Human Rights Session since 2017
csis.org · by Commentary by Robert R. King Published August 30, 2023
On August 17 of this year, for the first time in over five years, the UN Security Council held an open session devoted to human rights abuses in North Korea. This meeting was particularly noteworthy because the Security Council has not held such an open public meeting on North Korean human rights issues since December 2017.
In 2014, following the release of the widely acclaimed report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 2014, the Security Council held formal discussions on DPRK human rights abuses as a threat to peace and security in Asia in December 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
During his term as president, Donald Trump was inconsistent in policy on North Korea and its human rights issues. In his first address to the United Nations in September 2017, he belittled the North Korean leader as “Little Rocket Man,” expressed concern about its nuclear and missile programs, and criticized its human rights record. In December 2017, the Trump administration supported a discussion of human rights in North Korea at the UN Security Council. Initially, Trump was an outspoken critic of the Kim Jong-un regime, including its military and human rights policies. He denounced the detention of American citizens by North Korea, and he singled out North Korean defectors for praise in his 2018 State of the Union speech. Furthermore, a day or two after that speech, he met with a group of North Korean defectors in the Oval Office.
In March of 2018, Trump made an abrupt about-face, and announced he would meet with Kim Jong-un in Singapore. After that summit in June 2018, Trump announced that he and Kim Jong-un “fell in love,” and he had received “beautiful letters” from the North Korean despot. The courtship with Pyongyang ended with the public failure of the Hanoi Summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un in February 2019.
Furthermore, the United States singlehandedly prevented consideration of North Korea’s human rights abuses in the UN Security Council in December 2019. Nine members of the Security Council must agree to place an issue on the council’s agenda—eight members of the council proposed a meeting on human rights in North Korea, but the United States refused to join the group, leaving the request for a meeting one council member short.
In December 2020, after Trump had failed in his reelection bid, a discussion was held at the UN Security Council, this time with Washington’s support, although because of the Covid-19 pandemic it was a virtual meeting. Furthermore, China and Russia were successful in preventing this from being an open meeting with media able to monitor the discussion. Immediately after the meeting, eight Security Council members, including the United States, held a press conference to discuss the meeting. The eight, including the United States, issued a joint statement on the meeting that was critical of North Korea.
During the last year or so of the Trump administration, the United States made a few half-hearted efforts on North Korean human rights, but the U.S. withdrawal from any participation in the UN Human Rights Council undermined those efforts.
United States Leads Effort for Latest Security Council Meeting on DPRK Human Rights
The United States led the recent successful effort to hold a public meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss human rights in North Korea with media present. Beginning in 2014, when the Security Council held its first open meeting to discuss North Korea human rights, the meetings were held in December. In October to November 2014 the UN General Assembly adopted a strongly worded resolution approving the work of the UN Commission of Inquiry on DPRK human rights. That resolution requested the Security Council to consider the North Korea human rights issue as a threat to international peace and security. December was chosen, not only because it was soon after adoption of the General Assembly resolution commending the commission report, but also because December 10 is the anniversary of the formal adoption in December 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly. The last open public Security Council session to discuss North Korea’s human rights was held on December 11, 2017.
The presidency of the UN Security Council rotates monthly among the 15 countries that are council members. Five are permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The other 10 are chosen by vote of the General Assembly to serve staggered two-year terms on the council, with five new members each year. Attention is given to assure that all geographical regions of the world have representatives, and efforts are made to assure that the term membership rotates within regions.
The presidency of the council rotates alphabetically for a term of one month. The United States serves as council president during the month of August 2023. With Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the head of the U.S. mission to the United Nations and U.S. representative to the Security Council, as president of the council, there was reason to press for a discussion of human rights abuses in North Korea.
The United States leadership on North Korean human rights was highlighted by this Security Council session. In addition, however, just two weeks earlier, the U.S. Senate confirmed Julie Turner as U.S. Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights with rank of ambassador after the nomination languished in the Senate for six months.
The Security Council session on North Korean human rights was held on August 17, 2023. The session began with a briefing by High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk. Türk is an Austrian diplomat who is the senior UN official dealing with human rights issues at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. In his presentation to the Security Council, Türk said that the DPRK has rarely been “more painfully closed” than it is at present. Though this was initially the result of the Covid-19 pandemic, it has grown even more repressive as the pandemic has waned. Türk also made a pointed request that all UN member states “refrain from forcibly repatriating North Koreans,” and provide North Koreans protections that UN members states are to obligated to provide.
The second speaker before the Security Council was Elizabeth Salmón, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK. Salmón, a professor of law at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, was appointed special rapporteur in August 2022 by the UN Human Rights Council to report to the council and to the UN General Assembly on the status of human rights in North Korea. Salmón reported that human rights in North Korea continue to deteriorate “under the current state of tensions and unprecedented isolation.” She said that the prolonged border closure for over three years and the repression of informal markets have brought increased hardship, resulting in some people starving and others have died due to malnutrition, diseases, and lack of access to healthcare. Furthermore, the regime gives priority to the allocation of resources to the military.
In addition to the two UN officials, the Security Council also heard from Il-hyeok Kim, a refugee from North Korea, who described brutal living conditions in North Korea. He said that the Kim regime “turns our blood and sweat into a luxurious life for the leadership.” He appealed to the Security Council to take action to protect human rights in North Korea.
Response of Security Council Member Countries: Vocal Protests from China and North Korea
All Security Council member countries spoke during the debate. Thomas-Greenfield called the DPRK “one of the most repressive and totalitarian states in the world.” “The regime neglects the well-being of people in the DPRK. Its food distribution policies favor the military, and lead to chronic malnourishment among its citizens. Pyongyang also relies on forced labor and the exploitation of workers—domestically and overseas—to power its unlawful weapons programs,” she said in her remarks.
Non-Security Council members of the United Nations are permitted to speak if an issue under consideration is of direct concern to the member country. South Korea, for example, requested to speak and participate in this session on human rights in North Korea, and it was permitted to join the discussion. Reflecting the current South Korean government’s commitment to human rights in North Korea, Ambassador Hwang Joon-kook expressed gratitude for his government that the Security Council was again taking up this human rights issue in the North Korea in an open, public meeting of the council. He also cited the statement in the report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on DPRK human rights released in 2014 that “the gravity, scale and nature of these [human rights] violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
North Korea could also have participated in the discussion at the Security Council but chose not to participate. In a scathing denunciation of the Security Council meeting, North Korea’s vice foreign minister Kim Son Gyong called the meeting “despicable” and only intended to promote Washington’s geopolitical ambitions. He attacked the United States as a “declining” power said the Council should examine the United States, which is “the anti-people empire of evils, totally depraved due to all sorts of social evils.”
China also publicly opposed holding the session on North Korean human rights violations, but its opposition did not focus on defending the regime in Pyongyang or its record on human rights. The spokesperson at the Chinese UN mission in New York said, “China sees no added value for the council to have such a meeting and will be against it.” He said “maintenance of international peace and security” is the mandate of the Security Council, and that “a council meeting on human rights in the DPRK falls outside the council’s mandate, politicizes human rights issues, and only serves to intensify confrontation and antagonism.” The Security Council is not the place for discussing human rights.
China, however, was implicitly criticized by both UN officials and by several other Security Council member countries during the council meeting. Beginning with the first speaker at the council meeting, Türk urged “all states to refrain from forcibly repatriating North Koreans, and to provide them with the required protections.” China is the country that has returned North Korean escapees against their will to North Korea. Escapees who have subsequently succeeded in leaving North Korea later have given horrific accounts of brutal treatment by Pyongyang. Several other countries raised this particular issue, including the United States. To avoid angering the Chinese government, however, China is usually not mentioned by name. There is no question, though, that China is the problem.
Ambassador Robert R. King is a senior adviser in the Office of the Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. Previously, Ambassador King served as special envoy for North Korean human rights issues at the U.S. Department of State from November 2009 to January 2017.
Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
© 2023 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
Tags
Korea
csis.org · by Commentary by Robert R. King Published August 30, 2023
14. [WHY] Will the Korean military ever draft women?
An interesting question. If the military age female population is greater than the military age male population perhaps they should.
Saturday
September 2, 2023
dictionary + A - A
Published: 02 Sep. 2023, 07:00
[WHY] Will the Korean military ever draft women?
https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/2023-09-02/why/WHY-Will-the-Korean-military-ever-draft-women/1860353
Newly commissioned army and navy officers attend a commissioning ceremony for the 63rd cohort of the Korea Armed Forces Nursing Academy held in Daejeon on March 6. [NEWS1]
Ever wondered why BTS has to answer the call of duty, but girl groups like Blackpink don’t?
Well, they actually might have to in the coming decade.
Due to Korea’s ever-plunging birthrate, which hit an appalling total fertility rate of 0.78 in 2022, the military has fallen short of its goal to maintain a standing force of 500,000 when the number of troops lingered at around 480,000 in December 2022.
Related Article
The new target of 500,000 was proposed by the defense white paper published in February of that year.
The number of standing troops sank to the 500,000 mark for the first time ever, and was down 21.8 percent from the total headcount ten years ago. The military lost 100,000 troops between 2018 and 2022.
The worst is yet to come.
The conscription pool of military-aged men shrank considerably in 2021 when the population of men in their 20s dropped below 300,000 for the first time ever that year, according to research conducted by Cho Kwan-ho, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis (KIDA), in June.
A second demographic "cliff" looms near as the population of men in their 20s is projected to drop below 220,000 in 2036, and further down to 120,000 in 2042.
“The military needs 220,000 new service members each year to maintain a standing force of 500,000,” Minister of National Defense Lee Jong-sup said during a National Defense Committee meeting in July.
Military-aged men receive physical examinations for conscription at a regional Military Manpower Administration facility in Suwon, Gyeonggi, on Feb. 1. [YONHAP]
How about increasing the number of servicewomen?
The grim future prompted some people to propose utilizing the other half of Korea's population, exempt from the duty of service, to fill the shortage, a move which the Defense Ministry is in fact keen on.
According to KIDA, there were 15,000 servicewomen in 2022, up 50 percent from the 10,000 in 2016. The percentage of female officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) in the armed forces rose to 9 percent from 6.3 percent during the cited period. The Defense Ministry plans to increase that number to 15.3 percent by 2027.
The military has been trying to offer a better service environment for women to that end, including setting up 734 women’s toilets and lounges at bases across Korea.
It also assigned servicewomen to a wider range of key leadership posts at the Army’s operations team near the demilitarized zone, the Air Force’s search and rescue squadron, and the Marine’s infantry battalion, for the first time in 2021. A female brigadier general broke the glass ceiling to become the first female major general in 2019.
However, despite the military’s effort to attract more women into service, it is highly unlikely that thousands of new servicewomen will be enough to replenish the loss of troops rising by hundreds of thousands.
The question is, will the Korean government — repeatedly insisting that women’s conscription is not on the table — ever introduce compulsory military service for women?
Lieutenant Colonel Park Ji-yeon became the first-ever commander of a fighter squadron when she was assigned to lead the 202nd Fighter Squadron, 16th Fighter Wing, in Yecheon County, North Gyeongsang, on Dec. 3, 2019. [REPUBLIC OF KOREA AIR FORCE]
Initial discussions on women's conscription
Before the recent demographic crisis brought the fated workforce deficit to light, the debate on women's conscription was largely limited to Korean men demanding appropriate compensation for their compulsory service or calling upon the government to have women shoulder the responsibility with them.
The controversy intensified following a Constitutional Court decision in 1999 that abolished preferential points given to people who were applying for jobs in the public sector after their service period.
Two disabled men, unable to serve on active duty, and five female students had filed the case, receiving widespread support from civic groups for people with disabilities and women.
The court ruled that the Constitution only prohibits the unfavorable treatment of discharged servicemembers and does not provide a legal basis for administering active benefits for carrying out a “sacred duty.”
With the exception of a handful private companies that state job-related military specialty as a preferred experience or that pay higher starting salaries taking into consideration the time in active duty, no official compensation is currently granted to discharged servicemembers.
Between December 1999 and August 2018, a total of 13 petitions were filed to the Constitutional Court by those claiming that the Military Service Act violated the right to equality when it forced only men into the duty of military service.
The Constitutional Court dismissed 10 of those and ruled the service act constitutional in three cases in 2010, 2011 and 2014.
“Men, who are superior in muscular strength, have physical abilities more suited for battles,” all nine constitutional justices ruled unanimously in 2014.
The legislators’ discretion to conscript only men is justifiable because women, even those who possess exceptional physical abilities, face difficulty in the barracks and in military training due to their physiological characteristics such as menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth, the court explained.
The decision was met with backlash from those who pointed out an inconsistency in the law since the physical standards for female officers and NCOs were higher than those for the enlisted.
“The male-only conscription system led to criticism and stigma against women opting out of national duty," Kang In-hwa, an assistant humanities professor at Seoul National University who specializes in gender sociology, said in a 2023 study.
The system shaped a two-way confrontation between men and women, pushing aside rational discussions on the military service system, and such gender disputes only created mutual hatred and deepened a sense of deprivation, she added.
Female staff sergeants salute during an induction ceremony held at the Korea Army Noncommissioned Officer Academy in Iksan, North Jeolla, on Aug. 27, 2021. Of the 487 new servicemembers inducted that day, 82.5 percent, or 402, were women. [NEWS1]
Debate in recent years
Political figures picked up the hot potato, as discontent over the male-only conscription escalated among men, suggesting various methods to tackle the demographics issue.
One of these suggestions was adopting a mixed policy that transitions the military into a full voluntary service while requiring all sexes to complete several weeks of basic military training.
However, such proposals failed to gain public support as they were widely regarded as populist attempts by nonmainstream figures to gain votes.
“The issue is one that requires a comprehensive review of military utility and social consensus; thus it is not fitting for the Defense Ministry to make any statements on the matter,” Defense Ministry spokesperson Boo Seung-chan told reporters in April 2021 when the conscription debate got heated.
His response stirred public frustration over the fact that the top military body declined to comment on the very issue it has jurisdiction over.
“The Defense Ministry had ought to clarify its stance on the issue following deliberations on current security affairs and the military utility it brings,” said Lee Ji-hoon, a former army judge advocate who was discharged as a major.
“The ministry is the agency running the armed forces and is in charge of managing the treatment of discharged servicemembers. Who else other than the ministry should make a statement?” she added.
Lee also blasted the ministry for bringing up “social consensus,” pointing out that the conscription of men never emerged through such a consensus.
“Compensation for compulsory duties should be compulsory as well.”
Despite the Defense Ministry coming under fire for ambiguity, the government reiterated its views in its response to an online petition that garnered support from nearly 300,000 people in one month.
This was the only response that it gave to a total of 571 related petitions filed on the presidential website between August 2017 and May 2022.
Newly commissioned navy and marine officers raise their hands in salute during a commissioning ceremony held at the Republic of Korea Naval Academy in Changwon, South Gyeongsang, on May 26. [NEWS1]
Why the passive attitude?
“The military leadership is well aware of the fact it is only a matter of time before the military either decides to start conscripting women or transitioning to a voluntary service system” said a former army brigadier general who specialized in personnel management and is currently a professor of security studies, requesting anonymity.
“Due to the political risk it entails, the issue will likely be tossed from one administration to another until the elephant in the room is no longer negligible.”
Recent surveys showed that Koreans have yet to reach a “social consensus.”
Of the 503 adults surveyed by Realmeter in July 2023, 56 percent of men and 53 percent of women opposed conscripting women.
Of the 1,006 people aged 18-28 surveyed by another pollster in June, 62 percent of men and 50 percent of women were in favor.
The ongoing staredown has the current Yoon Suk Yeol maintaining the previous administration’s wait-and-see strategy.
“It is premature [to conscript women], and conscripting them from a decaying population may only instigate a feud,” Military Manpower Administration (MMA) Commissioner Lee Ki-Sik said during a press briefing on July 5.
“Human resources will remain at current levels until the mid-2030s and the decline beyond that needs to be tackled with automation and scientification currently under pursuit by the ‘Defense Innovation 4.0’ plan.”
Female honor guards perform at the War Memorial of Korea in Yongsan District, central Seoul, on May 19. [NEWS1]
Change for the better
“The debate may seem futile, but it needs to prevail and make enough noise to start a reform in the service system one way or the other,” argued the general-turned-professor.
"The discussion must branch out beyond the boundaries of gender and into that of national security, though the expansion would be especially challenging in a society where men serving their duties and North Korea habitually firing missiles have become the norm to the point that it undermines the awareness on the importance of security."
Experts also say Korea’s conscription debate will get nowhere if the issue lingers at a level of gender confrontation.
And since no reset button exists to turn back time to a moment when neither gender was subject to conscription, it is inevitable to become trapped in a dilemma with gender equality as a gauge.
“If women are called on to serve in the military under the notion that both genders are equal, women will inevitably be regarded as inferior to men in a system dominated by male standards,” Lee Hye-jung, a researcher at the Legal Research Institute of Korea University, said.
“On the other hand, if women are denied conscription or imposed a women-exclusive alternative service under the notion that men and women are different, the existing gender divide will continue to cage women in the stereotype of femininity that defines them as subjects needing protection.
“There needs to be a paradigm shift [...] to accept the duty of national defense as a joint responsibility,” Lee argued.
In her 2023 study on gender equality in the duty of national defense, she suggests referring to other countries’ conscription systems for clues moving forward.
Israel’s conscription has been a go-to model for Korea given the similar security environment.
The Israeli Defense Forces has drafted Jewish women since its establishment in 1948 following the country’s declaration of independence that year, but around 40 percent of women subject to conscription currently serve in the military, because married women and pregnant women are exempted from service. Non-Jewish Israeli women are also exempted.
The Norwegian Defence Ministry in 2008 included women in a screening process called sesjon to sort out potential women recruits based on physical and psychological examination results.
Norway’s gender-neutral conscription bill was passed in parliament in 2013 and related laws on military service and national defense were amended in 2014. In 2016, all able-bodied Norwegian men and women became subject to conscription.
Around 15 percent of them actually serve since Norway accepts conscientious objections.
Because Israel had a different starting point and Norway’s security environment is very different from that of Korea, it is imperative to constantly contemplate and study Korea’s own model, Lee assessed.
“Revising the legal system to promote the independence of men and women in national security and military service will be a long, gradual process that involves a shift in social views. Mature, constructive debates on national defense and gender equality should be carried out by everyone.”
BY SOHN DONG-JOO [sohn.dongjoo@joongang.co.kr]
15. Economic vision of a unified Korean Peninsula: Starting by forming a consensus
The Ministry of Unification must determine the economic way forward and articulate the investment rusle to facilitate international investment in the rebuilding of the north during the unification process.
One thing I found in my recent trip to Korea and engaging students (graduate and undergraduate) is that young people do not think about unification. However, when they start thinking about, reading about, and talking about it, they come to realize that it is necessary. A number of students expressed this too me in discussions. They said they had no real feelings about unification, positive or negative, until they got involved in programs that looked at the process and were exposed to objective analysis and research. And when they were exposed to it they generally had positive feelings. So all those surveys we read that say there is no interest in unification is really a reflection of the lack of exposure to unification research and study by the respondents.
Economic vision of a unified Korean Peninsula: Starting by forming a consensus
The Korea Times · August 31, 2023
By Lim Kang-taeg
What will the future economic picture of a unified Korea look like? What kind of future vision do our people have? What do our people think about unification? The reason for bringing up this question is that no consensus has yet formed in our society with regard to the necessity of unification as well as its future vision.
The recent survey results of South Korean citizens' perceptions of unification showed that people's responses to the necessity of unification were found to vary depending on the survey organization.
According to the public opinion survey on unification by the National Unification Advisory Council (NUAC) in April, 73.4 percent of the respondents indicated that unification was necessary. However, two other surveys showed a lower percentage of those who indicated the necessity of unification ― 68.3 percent according to the KBS "National Unification Consciousness Survey 2022" and 53.4 percent according to the "KINU Unification Awareness Survey 2022," which was published by the Korean Institute for National Unification (KINU).
The extent of recognizing the necessity of unification was found to vary greatly by age. According to the NUAC Survey, respondents' recognition marked 60.3 percent in their 20s and 65.5 percent in their 30s, but it increased to 79.8 percent in their 60s and older. In the KBS survey, men aged 60 or older marked a much higher recognition rate of 81.9 percent, compared to 49.2 percent of men in their 20s. It turns out that younger people are less committed to the need for unification throughout the surveys.
When it comes to the reason why the respondents think unification is necessary, it is difficult to draw a certain pattern because each polling agency poses different questions. According to the NUAC survey, as to the reason why they think unification is necessary, response rates were higher in the order of "economic development" (30.9 percent), "elimination of the threat of war" (25.8 percent) and "restoration of national homogeneity" (17.8 percent). According to the survey conducted by the Seoul National University's Institute for Peace and Unification, the reasons for unification were "because the two Koreas share a common ethnicity" (42.2 percent); "remove the threat of inter-Korean war" (31.6 percent); "resolve the issue of families separated in the war" (10.7 percent) and "help leap to an advanced country" (10.6 percent).
On the other hand, in the KBS survey, when respondents were asked "what concerns they have about the unification process", the answers were "the enormous cost of unification" (53.6 percent), followed by "political/military confusion" (21.4 percent); "social confusion such as increased unemployment and crime" (17.2 percent) and so on. The KINU survey found that 42 percent of respondents agreed with the following assertion ― "division incurs much greater cost than unification." In addition, when asked about "what they expect about the benefits of unification," the predominant response was such that unification would bring great benefits just to the North Korean people, not benefitting "me" much.
Moreover, it was found that respondents have a greater inclination to focus on the negative aspects of unification rather than on the positive ones. This leaves us with some important implications. First, it is necessary to strengthen our efforts to have a consensus formed on such economic vision that unification can provide. Second, what is also necessary is to present an idea of how to resolve the negative aspects associated with unification. Third, it is necessary to consider the observed cross-generational differences in their perceptions and interests in unification.
The economic vision of a unified Korea is often positioned as the expansion of economic scale, represented as high economic growth. It seems, however, that this kind of assertion sounds too abstract; it would hardly serve as an explanation to the general public of how unification will be of particular benefit to "me in person." In addition, the roughly phrased economic vision of unification again presupposes numerous assumptions, thus inevitably weakening the vision's persuasiveness. The desired economic effects cannot start to work until after we finally get over those obstacles of social chaos and economic burden.
Therefore, in order to be able to establish a public consensus on unification by articulating a good vision of a post-unification economy, these three are prerequisites ― formulation of specific and realistically achievable economic goals in the post-unification stage; seeking of agreement on strategies and methods for actualizing those goals; and building a social consensus. Above all, when we present to the public these economic goals to be fulfilled after unification, there is another factor to consider; all problems facing our economy must be comprehensively addressed. These problems include international variables, such as the ripple effect of the new Cold War system; extreme climate change; and the impact of the 4th Industrial Revolution. In addition, there are internal problems, such as the issues of resolving the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula as well as the advancement of North Korean nuclear weapons; rapid population aging and low birth rate; lack of new growth engines and lack of jobs.
Along with this, additional efforts should be made to reduce worries about unification costs, particularly by presenting solutions on how to resolve the economic and social costs incurred in the unification process.
No doubt the government's leading role is essential in carrying out these tasks, but the private sector should take a more active role and get sufficiently involved. To do so, the government should take a fresh look at the private sector as an indispensable, critical partner in laying the groundwork for unification, and then should establish public-private partnership governance. In addition, when inducing the participation of the private sector, the government should try to be as inclusive as possible, by making sure various voices are heard from each and every segment of the generations. In particular, the government should do its best to attend to the young generation, who have relatively less interest in unification, so that their voices can be fully represented.
Lim Kang-taeg is executive director of SD Korea Forum. He served at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) from 1997 to 2018. From May 2019 to January 2020, Lim served as the President of the KINU.
The Korea Times · August 31, 2023
16. U.S. Arms Makers Look Overseas to Boost Stockpiles
The author mentions AUKUS and its importance. I would submit that "JAROKUS" – Japan - ROK - US – could be an even more important "partner" in the Arsenal of Democracy. The South Korean and Japanese defense industries could really be game changers in helping to arm like minded democracies and South Korea has already demonstrated this with arms sales to Poland and Romania among others. And South Korea has been backfilling 155mm artillery ammunition to the US as our stockpiles are reduced by providing support to Ukraine.
U.S. Arms Makers Look Overseas to Boost Stockpiles
Amid Ukraine war and China concerns, Pentagon supports ‘friend-shoring’ manufacturing lines abroad
By Doug Cameron
Follow
Sept. 2, 2023 8:00 am ET
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/u-s-arms-makers-look-overseas-to-boost-stockpiles-1e1d6eac?page=1
War in Ukraine and fears of a potential conflict with China are pushing the Pentagon and its contractors to tap production lines overseas to bolster stockpiles of weapons and ammunition.
The turn to overseas weapons production to meet the soaring global demand comes as the U.S. government tries to boost manufacturing in key technologies like drones, missiles and rocket motors in countries such as Germany, Poland and Australia.
The Pentagon recently outlined plans to build thousands of autonomous weapons such as drones within two years to deter China. But shortages of chips, machinery and skilled workers have limited U.S. defense companies’ ability to surge capacity at home.
Meanwhile, the conflict in Ukraine is driving up demand for artillery shells and missiles, which Kyiv’s forces have used in vast quantities in their attempt to drive back Russian forces this summer. Pentagon planners have said that demand would be dwarfed in any conflict with China.
As a result, the Defense Department is encouraging defense contractors to pursue so-called friend-shoring, by relaxing rules for overseas production and the sharing of military technology with foreign manufacturers in allied nations.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
1:28
Paused
0:01
/
8:43
TAP FOR SOUND
U.S. defense contractors’ inability to quickly replenish weaponry such as missiles and munitions for Ukraine has led Pentagon officials to argue that industry consolidation has gone too far and raised questions about how prepared America is for conflict. Illustration: Adele Morgan
Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante said recently that the Defense Department planned to announce a raft of deals over the next several months aimed at setting up weapons-factory production lines in Europe and elsewhere.
“Where we’re headed is co-development, co-production and co-sustainment with our partners,” he said.
The new climate has enabled deals that will see Polish companies produce U.S.-designed Javelin missiles—widely used in Ukraine—and German ones make parts for the
Lockheed Martin F-35 jet fighter, and a new rocket launcher. The U.S. has committed more than $40 billion in arms, ammunition and supplies to Ukraine since Russia’s February 2022 invasion, but U.S. defense companies have taken longer than the Pentagon expected to boost production at home to maintain U.S. stocks.
In lieu of that, U.S. defense companies and those in allied nations are seeking to exploit and expand production capacity overseas.
U.S. companies producing weapons and military equipment overseas isn’t new, with Lockheed Martin, RTX and
General Dynamics all operating facilities acquired through foreign acquisitions.However, most overseas production has occurred under so-called offset deals in which export buyers agree to purchase U.S. weapons in return for some production—and jobs—taking place in their own country.
The first signs of the Pentagon’s approach are emerging, alongside efforts by its big contractors.
In August, the Army awarded Canada’s IMT Defense the first tranche of contracts for shell production, designed to give manufacturers more certainty with guaranteed orders spread over multiple years. More awards are planned.
New alliance is a ‘sea change’
Among the most significant efforts to boost production through cooperative deals is the three-way alliance among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. known as Aukus. The pact includes providing Australia with submarines. Beyond that, it includes using Australia to produce armed drones, rocket motors and other equipment for the Pentagon.
“Aukus is a sea change,” said Alek Jovovic, a principal in the aerospace and defense practice at Oliver Wyman, pointing to the technology transfer between the U.S. and Australia.
From left, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, President Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak discussed Aukus at the Point Loma naval base in San Diego in March. PHOTO: STEFAN ROUSSEAU/ZUMA PRESS
The planned increase in European defense budgets following the conflict in Ukraine has also encouraged U.S. companies to invest more in the region and pursue more joint ventures.
Berlin’s $8.8 billion order for F-35 combat jets opened the door for Germany to join the multicountry consortium that makes pieces for the stealthy plane.
Northrop Grumman picked Rheinmetall, a big German maker of ammunition and tank parts, to make center fuselage sections in a new joint venture.The German company fills a gap left by Turkish companies after Turkey was ejected from the F-35 program in 2019, because it chose to buy a Russian missile-defense system that could have compromised the plane’s effectiveness.
However, Rheinmetall won’t just fill the gap left by Turkey, it will provide extra capacity, said Dave Keffer, Northrop’s chief financial officer.
Poland’s military build up has been even larger than Germany’s, with billions of dollars in orders over the past year for equipment from the U.S., South Korea, Turkey and elsewhere.
Javelin missile makers Lockheed Martin and RTX are in talks with Poland’s Mesko, part of the state-owned PGZ arms group, to make Javelins and parts for the Patriot missile-defense system, according to company executives.
Przemysław Kowalczuk, the managing director of Mesko, said the timing of the final agreement for Javelin production depends on the U.S. State Department, which has final say over such deals.
Frank St. John, Lockheed’s chief operating officer, said the Pentagon and the State Department have been working on a new framework to streamline approvals for such joint ventures and co-production.
The downside includes exposing companies to foreign-currency swings and broader political winds. When Turkey was culled from the F-35 program, the Pentagon estimated it would take a year to find alternatives to Turkish suppliers. It took three.
U.S. military officials maintain that current stocks of missiles and shells are adequate for the threats facing the U.S. The Army declined to comment on whether the production capacity scheduled to come online from overseas would count toward the Pentagon’s targets for boosting output, including a planned tripling of 155mm artillery shells over the next 18 months to 80,000 a month.
Karolina Jeznach contributed to this article.
Write to Doug Cameron at Doug.Cameron@wsj.com
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
| 
