Quotes of the Day:
“The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed.”
-Simone De Beauvoir
"Not until we are lost do we begin to find ourselves."
- Henry David Thoreau
“As we shall see, combining with others often constitutes the most astute strategic move; for the same reason, preventing opponents from doing the same can be as valuable.”
- Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History
1. North Korea Dangles Hopes for Summit and End-of-War Declaration
2. Kim Yo Jong, Vice Department Director of C.C., WPK, Issues Press Statement
3. S. Korea says N. Korean leader sister's weekend remarks 'meaningful'
4. Kim Yo-jong extends an olive branch to Moon
5. Kim Yo-jong pressures Seoul to negotiate with US: experts
6. How Should South Korea’s Next President Approach OPCON Transfer?
7. N. Korea slams Japanese PM Suga over U.N. Assembly speech
8. Explosive rise in infections disrupts Korea's path to 'live with COVID-19' strategy
9. Plaque honoring war sacrifices unveiled at Korea Military Academy
10. US never stopped ‘longest war’ in South Korea — and now democracy thrives
11. How the U.S. Military Plans to Capture North Korean Nukes
1. North Korea Dangles Hopes for Summit and End-of-War Declaration
Pay attention to the wise words of Professor Lee.
Although Ms. Kim’s statement on Saturday was one of the most conciliatory from the North in recent years, it was couched in vague wording and caveats. Her statement on Saturday, she said, was “just my personal view.”
Ms. Kim “shows once again how adept she is in the art of psychological manipulation,” dangling before South Korea “all things Moon desperately desires before his term expires next May,” said Lee Sung-yoon, a North Korea expert at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
I think we may be at the proverbial "inflection point" or perhaps a perfect storm that could significantly affect the ROK/US alliance and security on the Korean peninsula. We may be walking into a trap being set by the regime. This could be the most brilliant execution of political warfare and Kim's long con.
The Moon administration's peace agenda has laid the foundation and the end of his term fast approaching there is pressure to ensure his legacy as the peace president.
The Biden administration's Korea policy is practical and principled diplomacy. What is more practical and principled than negotiating a peace agreement (beginning with an end of war declaration).
We have HR 3446 "Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act" introduced in Congress by Rep. Brad Sherman which calls on the US to negotiate peace.
Kim Jong-un (and Kim Yo-jong) is reading the tea leaves and sees the opportunity to increase anti-American sentiment in South, stir up anti US troop presence in the US, drive a wedge in the ROK/US alliance, and reach the ultimate objective to support its long term strategy of getting US forces off the peninsula and ending the ROK/US alliance.
We need to recognize, understand, and expose the Kim family regime strategy. Kim Yo-jong's "dangle" plays into the Moon admsintration'speace agenda as well as the Sherman's HR 3446. If negotiations ever do take place they will fail because of the continued US troops presence as the key indicator of US and ROK hostile policy. The regime will not agree to anything as long as US troops remain. Ultimately the blame for failing to agree to an end of war declaration and negotiate a peace agreement will fall on the US. This will provide "ammunition" to the anti-American and anti-military factions in the ROK and US to push for a US troop withdrawal. This will bring enormous strain on the alliance. It could also damage the long held bipartisan support for security on the Korean peninsula and the ROK/US alliance. If the bipartisan support fractures it will have a significant impact on the alliance.
The good news, if there is any, is that the Biden administration is highly unlikely to fall for this trap. The Korean team in the administration understands full well the danger to ROK security and US interests in Northeast Asia if we withdraw troops and end the alliance. But it is going to be faced with challenges in Korea and from our own Congress.
To return to Professor Lee's important analysis. We must not fall victim to Kim Yo-jong's "psychological manipulation."
North Korea Dangles Hopes for Summit and End-of-War Declaration
Kim Jong-un’s sister responds to the South Korean leader’s last attempt to put the peace process back on track, but skepticism abounds.
A visitor aimed his camera at the North on Friday in Paju, near the border with North and South Korea.Credit...Ahn Young-Joon/Associated Press
By
Sept. 25, 2021
SEOUL — North Korea would consider holding a summit meeting with South Korea and declaring an official end to the Korean War if the South can restore trust with it, the North’s official news agency reported on Saturday, citing the sister of its leader, Kim Jong-un.
Mr. Kim met three times with President Moon Jae-in of South Korea in 2018. But inter-Korean relations have chilled since Mr. Kim’s diplomacy with former President Donald J. Trump collapsed in early 2019 without an agreement on ending the North’s nuclear weapons programs and lifting sanctions on the country.
In recent months, Mr. Moon has repeatedly urged the North to engage in dialogue, hoping to put the peace process on the divided Korean Peninsula — his main foreign policy initiative — back on track before his single, five-year term ends in May. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Mr. Moon repeated his proposal for a declaration to end the Korean War.
Mr. Moon insists that if all major participants in the war — the two Koreas, the United States and China — together make such an end-of-war declaration, it could build confidence on the Korean Peninsula and help the North move toward denuclearization. He sees the end-of-war declaration as a trust-building “political” gesture before negotiating a legally binding peace treaty. Fighting halted in a truce in 1953, leaving the peninsula technically in a state of war.
“When the parties involved in the Korean War stand together and proclaim an end to the war, I believe we can make irreversible progress in denuclearization and usher in an era of complete peace,” Mr. Moon said.
President Moon Jae-in addressing the U.N. General Assembly this past week. An end-of-war declaration, he said, could lead to “irreversible progress in denuclearization.”Credit...Pool photo by Eduardo Munoz
On Saturday, Mr. Kim’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, appeared to stoke Mr. Moon’s hopes.
She said that if the South restored mutual trust between the two Koreas, “several issues for improving the relations,” including the end-of-war declaration and an inter-Korean summit, can “see meaningful and successful solution one by one at an early date,” according to an English dispatch by the North’s Korean Central News Agency. Ms. Kim serves as her brother’s spokeswoman on issues related to South Korea and the United States.
Ms. Kim did not elaborate on how South Korea could restore mutual trust, except for repeating that it must end a “hostile policy” toward the North. Ms. Kim also criticized a comment Mr. Moon made after South Korea successfully tested its first submarine-launched ballistic missile this month as part of its efforts to counter the North’s growing missile and nuclear threat. Mr. Moon called the South’s missile development “a firm deterrent against North Korean provocations.”
Mr. Moon had applied “double standards,” Ms. Kim said, by calling the North’s missile tests “provocations” while justifying the South’s missile development as an act of deterrence.
Ms. Kim also reminded South Korea of statements she issued in August, when she said that peace could take root on the peninsula only when South Korea and the United States terminated their joint military exercises and American troops and weapons were withdrawn from the South.
Mr. Moon’s office did not immediately respond to Ms. Kim’s statement.
Although Ms. Kim’s statement on Saturday was one of the most conciliatory from the North in recent years, it was couched in vague wording and caveats. Her statement on Saturday, she said, was “just my personal view.”
Ms. Kim “shows once again how adept she is in the art of psychological manipulation,” dangling before South Korea “all things Moon desperately desires before his term expires next May,” said Lee Sung-yoon, a North Korea expert at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.
Kim Yo-jong, the sister of the North’s leader, made a conciliatory statement but it was replete with caveats.Credit...Pool photo by Jorge Silva
Mr. Kim had promised to visit Seoul for a return summit meeting when he met Mr. Moon in Pyongyang in September 2018, but he has not followed up on that pledge.
Another Kim-Moon summit before the South Korean leader steps down in May is highly unlikely, given the North’s extreme caution against meetings with outsiders during the pandemic, said Lee Byong-chul, a North Korea expert at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies in Seoul. The North’s real aim might be to extract aid from South Korea as a reward for starting negotiations for a possible summit, he said.
But Mr. Moon and Mr. Kim could meet in Beijing next February and join the leaders of China and the United States for an end-of-war declaration if China brought them together at its 2022 Winter Olympics, said Cheong Seong-chang, director of the Center for North Korean Studies in the Sejong Institute in South Korea.
Still, Mr. Cheong said, “It’s not wise to read too much into Kim Yo-jong’s conciliatory remarks and become too optimistic.”
2. Kim Yo Jong, Vice Department Director of C.C., WPK, Issues Press Statement
Here are Kim Yo-jong's own words (perhaps her own!).
These are the key words that telegraph the regime position that this is all about getting US forces off the peninsula and driving a wedge intheROK/US alliance.
Excerpts:
The U.S. and south Korean-style double standards towards the DPRK by which the DPRK's actions of self-defensive dimension to cope with the military circumstances and possible military threats existing on the Korean peninsula are dismissed as threatening "provocations" and their arms buildup are described as the "securing of a deterrent to north Korea" are illogical and childish, and are a blunt disregard of and challenge to the sovereignty of the DPRK.
South Korea must not try to upset the balance of military force on the Korean Peninsula with such illogical and childish absurd assertion just as the U.S. does.
I only hope that the south Korean authorities' moves to remove the tinderbox holding double standards bereft of impartiality, the hostile policy toward the DPRK, all the prejudices and hostile remarks undermining trust are shown in visible practice.
Kim Yo Jong, Vice Department Director of C.C., WPK, Issues Press Statement
Pyongyang, September 25 (KCNA) -- Kim Yo Jong, vice department director of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, made public the following press statement on Saturday:
I have carefully watched the moves of the south Korean political circle yesterday and today after the release of a press statement reflecting our transparent view and due demands.
I felt that the atmosphere of the south Korean public desiring to recover the inter-Korean relations from a deadlock and achieve peaceful stability as soon as possible is irresistibly strong.
We, too, have the same desire.
There is no need for the north and the south to waste time faulting each other and engaging in a war of words at present, I think.
If south Korea sincerely wants the inter-Korean relations to be recovered and to make sound development, it should think twice to make a right choice before saying anything.
For instance, it had better stop spouting an imprudent remark of "provocation" against us that may trigger a war of words.
Explicitly speaking once again, we can never tolerate double-standards.
The U.S. and south Korean-style double standards towards the DPRK by which the DPRK's actions of self-defensive dimension to cope with the military circumstances and possible military threats existing on the Korean peninsula are dismissed as threatening "provocations" and their arms buildup are described as the "securing of a deterrent to north Korea" are illogical and childish, and are a blunt disregard of and challenge to the sovereignty of the DPRK.
South Korea must not try to upset the balance of military force on the Korean Peninsula with such illogical and childish absurd assertion just as the U.S. does.
I only hope that the south Korean authorities' moves to remove the tinderbox holding double standards bereft of impartiality, the hostile policy toward the DPRK, all the prejudices and hostile remarks undermining trust are shown in visible practice.
I think that only when impartiality and the attitude of respecting each other are maintained, can there be smooth understanding between the north and the south and, furthermore, can several issues for improving the relations - the reestablishment of the north-south joint liaison office and the north-south summit, to say nothing of the timely declaration of the significant termination of the war - see meaningful and successful solution one by one at an early date through constructive discussions.
Here, I would like to emphasize that this is just my personal view.
I made my advisory opinion for south Korea to make a correct choice known in August.
I won't predict here what there will come-a balmy breeze or a storm. -0-
3. S. Korea says N. Korean leader sister's weekend remarks 'meaningful'
Where you stand depends on where you sit. I guess for the Moon administration the glass is always half full with north Korea. For me with my negative waves, there is barely a drop of water in the glass.
S. Korea says N. Korean leader sister's weekend remarks 'meaningful' | Yonhap News Agency
SEOUL, Sept. 26 (Yonhap) -- The unification ministry on Sunday described the weekend remarks by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's sister about the possibility of holding "constructive" discussions on inter-Korean issues as "meaningful."
On Saturday, Kim Yo-jong said the North could declare a formal end to the Korean War as suggested by the South and even discuss holding an inter-Korean summit if the South treats the North with "impartiality" and mutual respect.
The statement, carried by the Korean Central News Agency, came a day after Kim said South Korean President Moon Jae-in's recent proposal to declare a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War is an "admirable idea" and the North is willing to discuss improving inter-Korean ties if Seoul ceases to be hostile toward it.
"Our assessment is that the statement that the North can address one by one various issues for improving inter-Korean ties through constructive discussions ... is meaningful," the ministry said.
"Given that for such discussions, it is important to have smooth and stable communication between the two Koreas, the inter-Korean communication lines should first be swiftly restored," it added.
The ministry also voiced expectations for the two Koreas' authorities to resume dialogue so they can discuss solutions to pending issues while ensuring the situation on the peninsula remains stable.
Kim's statement followed concerns over the North's recent cruise and ballistic missile launches and signs of the reclusive regime reactivating a key nuclear reactor at its mainstay Yongbyon complex.
The presidential office Cheong Wa Dae did not make an official response to Kim's weekend remarks.
"We are cautiously reviewing the content of the statement," a presidential official said on condition of anonymity. "The government has maintained a consistent position for the restoration and development of inter-Korean relations."
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
4. Kim Yo-jong extends an olive branch to Moon
A bit of positive spin is coming out on Kim Jong-un's statements.
Sunday
September 26, 2021
Kim Yo-jong extends an olive branch to Moon
Kim Yo-jong chats with President Moon Jae-in during a visit to Seoul in February 2018. [YONHAP]
Kim Yo-jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, said Saturday that Pyongyang will take steps to improve relations with Seoul – including another summit between the two countries' leaders – if South Korea abandons what she characterized as "hostility" and "double standards."
Kim's comments, which were released late Saturday, followed a similar statement made public on Friday in which she said Pyongyang would be willing to resume talks with Seoul provided certain terms were met, and that a formal end to the Korean War – suggested by President Moon Jae-in in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly last week – was an "admirable idea."
While Kim said that there was no need for the two Koreas to waste time "picking disputes and standing off with each other" when they could be mending ties, she warned that the South should "make the correct choice" in inter-Korean affairs and "consider every word it says carefully."
In her Saturday statement, Kim took particular issue with the South's use of the word "provocation" to describe weapons tests by the North, calling such a characterization a "reckless assessment" that "incites inter-Korean conflict."
Analysts sais Pyongyang is attempting to leverage President Moon Jae-in's pursuit of inter-Korean engagement to pressure Seoul to get the Biden administration to ease crippling sanctions, suspend joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, or allow it to keep its existing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles.
Professor Park Won-gon, who specializes in North Korean studies at Ewha Womans University, called the latest statement by Kim an attempt by the North to maintain the upper hand in any future negotiations by maintaining ambiguity in its stance vis-à-vis the South.
"In her statement, Kim does not specify if the 'hostile policy' that Pyongyang takes issue with is that of Seoul or Washington," Park said. "She also calls her opinion a personal one, suggesting it has not been adopted as official policy and giving her leeway to change based on the South's response."
Kim also pointed out the North's wide-reaching objections to U.S. and South Korean policy towards North Korea leave it much negotiating space when it comes to negotiating a thaw in tensions.
"At the 8th plenary session of the North's ruling Workers' Party, North Korea described a broad array of objections to current South Korean and U.S. policy, including not only joint allied exercises and new weapons being introduced by the South, but also sanctions, human rights, and the stationing of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula," Park remarked.
Park said that Kim's statement is an attempt to criticize the South's development of new weapons while maintaining the need for its own weapons development program.
"Kim warned the South not to try and upset the balance of power on the Korean Peninsula. However, in its recent official statements, the North criticizes the South and the United States for developing and deploying new weapons, while describing its own weapons as necessary for its own self-defense."
In her latest statement, Kim, who heads the Publicity and Information Department of the Workers' Party of Korea and is often charged with issuing comments directed at the South, urged Seoul to abandon its "unfair double-dealing standards, hostile policies (toward North Korea), various prejudices and hostile comments destroying trust," if it wants the North to respond to its calls to improve ties.
Kim hinted that the North could possibly accept the South's calls for a formal declaration ending the Korean War, restore an inter-Korean liaison office the North destroyed last year, and discuss another summit if the Koreas are able to build mutual trust.
The Korean War, which began in June 1950, concluded in July 1953 with only an armistice – and no peace treaty – leaving the two Koreas technically at war to this day.
Kim's statements came in response to Moon's speech at the United Nations General Assembly last week, where he called for a declaration between the leaders of the Koreas, the United States and China to formally end the war.
While Kim and the North's Vice Foreign Minister Ri Thae-song rebuffed Moon's proposal with two separate statements on Friday, Kim hinted at the possibility of reconciliation, saying the North was willing to hold "constructive talks" if the South stopped angering it.
BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]
5. Kim Yo-jong pressures Seoul to negotiate with US: experts
Negotiate, sure. But the regime really wants Seoul to create a rift with the US. We must expose the regime's political arare strategy and defend the alliance against it.
Kim Yo-jong pressures Seoul to negotiate with US: experts
Kim Yo-jong, second from left, talks with a North Korean official during her visit to Cheong Wa Dae in February 2018. Korea Times file
North Korean leader's sister expresses openness to another inter-Korean summit
By Kang Seung-woo
North Korea's second straight day of positive statements concerning inter-Korean engagement are a means to get South Korea to advocate on its behalf with the United States for sanctions relief rather than a serious attempt at improving ties with Seoul, according to diplomatic observers.
Kim Yo-jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, issued a statement Saturday night that said the totalitarian state was ready to mend ties with South Korea, and may even discuss another summit between their leaders if Seoul scrapped its "double standards" and hostility toward Pyongyang.
The remarks came a day after she also described President Moon Jae-in's proposal to formally end the Korean War as "admirable," while adding her country was willing to discuss this if certain conditions were met. Moon made the peace overture at last week's 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
"Kim Yo-jong's latest statements may be part of Pyongyang's efforts to continue baiting Seoul," said Soo Kim, a former CIA analyst now with the Rand Corp.
"Time is not on the Moon administration's side. Pyongyang is clearly aware of this ― and the Moon administration has also worn its emotions on its sleeve by continuing to underscore the importance of inter-Korean reconciliation at nearly every possible opportunity."
President Moon is scheduled to leave office in May next year.
Harry Kazianis, senior director of Korean Studies at the Center for the National Interest, said the North Korean leader sees his South Korean counterpart as someone who could, once again, be a bridge for better rapport with the U.S., that would help alleviate his country's desperate economic situation, which has been exacerbated by COVID-19 and international sanctions.
"The DPRK knows President Moon wants to take one last shot at forging a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, while the North wants sanctions relief," Kazianis said. The DPRK is an acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the official name of North Korea.
"It seems to me that due to these factors ― and if the U.S. is at least willing to entertain some sort of sanctions relief ― an inter-Korean summit seems inevitable," he added.
Ramon Pacheco Pardo, a professor of international relations at King's College London, said North Korea was well aware that relations with the U.S. will only improve in parallel with inter-Korean relations now that the Joe Biden administration is in office.
"With the U.S. indicating its willingness to talk, Pyongyang also needs to talk to Seoul if it is going to try to resume dialogue with Washington," he said.
President Moon Jae-in poses with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during their summit in Pyongyang, Sept. 19, 2018. Korea Times fileSoo Kim said the indirect method via Seoul may be more effective in relaying North Korea's demands rather than directly approaching the U.S.
"Through Seoul, Kim has an advocate that will not only go to bat for Pyongyang, but even take it upon itself to proactively and voluntarily push on behalf of the North Korean regime ― without Kim's prodding," she said.
"The Kim regime does not really have to do much, because the heavy lifting appears to be done by Seoul."
Inter-Korean ties have been deadlocked since February 2019 when the Hanoi summit between the U.S. and North Korea ended without a deal on denuclearization. In addition, the North has been unresponsive via its communication channels with South Korea since August to protest Seoul-Washington combined military exercises.
In that respect, some are questioning an ulterior motive behind Pyongyang's unexpected shift in tone regarding Seoul, with Kazianis saying China is pulling the North's strings to avoid another crisis ramping up tensions on the Korean Peninsula as in 2017.
"My guess is China is pushing Kim Jong-un to explore detente once more with the South, as Xi Jinping does not want another problem with the U.S., considering relations between the two superpowers these days," he said.
6. How Should South Korea’s Next President Approach OPCON Transfer?
We need a realistic reassessment of the process and the conditions based on the current intent to have a change of command of the ROK/US CFC. The process that has been underway since 2004 has had many permutations and there are conditions and procedures in place that may no longer be relevant to meeting the intent to have a Korean general command the ROK/US CFC.
Some interesting recommendations from Captain Yoon.
Establishing a Combined Combat Development Capability Command between the ROK and USFK, in an analogous way to NATO, will help develop combined operations between the South Korean armed forces and USFK, granting more strategic flexibility for the latter. Dispatching USFK and the South Korean military to theater operations beyond the Korean Peninsula requires interoperability of weapons and systems, and also jointness of C2s, COPs, and TTPs.
There are also opportunities for the South Korea-U.S. alliance to expand operations to include further partners. The AUKUS arrangement, which is supporting a nuclear-powered submarine project for Australia, is a model for such expanded cooperation, and we look forward to a future in which the ROK-U.S. alliance has the foundation necessary for external joint operations.
Lastly, to consolidate their external operations beyond the Korean Peninsula, the South Korea-U.S. alliance needs new partners and new ways to work together in the Indo-Pacific region. These partners could include ASEAN, Australia, and NATO members, who would cooperate in a variety of areas: security- and defense-related science, health, technology, industrial bases and infrastructure, supply chains, etc. The ROK-U.S. alliance also needs to become integrated into wider multilateral security dialogues and frameworks, such as the Quad.
Conclusion
Some expect OPCON transfer to be a less important issue for the next administration, but this is doubtful, whoever becomes president. There will, however, be a reassessment of what constitutes South Korea’s national interest, and grand strategies formulated for the election campaign are unlikely to survive contact with reality. At least we can hope that the next president does not paint themselves into a corner on OPCON transfer, as President Moon Jae-in unfortunately did.
How Should South Korea’s Next President Approach OPCON Transfer?
Let’s hope that the next president does not paint themselves into a corner on OPCON transfer, as President Moon Jae-in unfortunately did.
Advertisement
The candidates for the upcoming presidential election in South Korea have not presented any clear vision of military and security issues facing the country. In my view, the new president, and the Combined Force Command (CFC) between the Republic of Korea and the United States, will face two major issues: OPCON transfer to the South Korean military, and how ROK forces can best cooperate with USFK to deter North Korean cyberattacks.
This two-part series examines each of those issues, and the questions they pose for the next South Korean president.
Looking first at the ROK’s intention to transfer wartime OPCON to the South Korean military, there are four questions to be considered.
What actions can the alliance and the CFC take today to improve the prospects of success for an ROK-led CFC in the future?
First, South Korea should abandon its ongoing development project for an indigenous Command-and-Control (C2) structure. Instead, South Korea should model its C2 system on the U.S. Joint All-Domain C2 system, to facilitate compatibility between the two militaries.
Adoption of a common language for the CFC is urgent and essential for an ROK-led CFC to establish an effective defense posture. It is not practical to expect USFK personnel to use Korean at a suitable level of fluency and accuracy, so the use of English should be a mandatory requirement for all Korean CFC personnel. English is already the common language for conducting the annual combined defense drills, and a common language is likewise indispensable for conducting combined military operations. All doctrines, operational manuals, and TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures) should be written in English. Command HQ should be relocated to Seoul, to be close to the Ministry of National Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The South Korea-U.S. alliance has evolved beyond its initial status as a military pact against North Korea’s conventional military provocations, and it now needs better analysis to define the type and scale of other kinds of threats. It must prepare for future gray zone conflicts in the Indo-Pacific region, especially in the South and East China Seas, and must be capable of dealing with nontraditional threats, such as Chinese cyberattacks and the dissemination of disinformation for geopolitical ends.
A vision for the future of the South Korea-U.S. alliance should encompass not only ideological values and common interests, but also strategic room for each nation to be itself. This will help maintain a regional framework of peace and stability that protects and respects sovereignty, and resists unilateral assertiveness and breaches of international rules and norms.
Advertisement
How can the alliance expedite condition-based OPCON Transfer?
The current conditions set by South Korea for OPCON transfer appear unfeasible for the country to achieve by itself, and perhaps even impossible to do completely. A new approach is needed to formulate achievable conditions, which both militaries can agree to implement.
First, the burdens and roles of the ROK-U.S. combined defense posture should be shared appropriately. South Korea should be responsible for enhancing decapitation strike capabilities to support USFK, and the U.S. responsible for appraising Seoul of crucial strategic theater information, not just for the Korean Peninsula, but also beyond it. This may lead South Korea into a closer military relationship with Japan, as indeed the United States desires. In addition, the U.S. must allow South Korea to change its military strategy from the current defense-only posture to an offensive one.
Second, common doctrines, operational concepts, and TTPs should be adopted for all South Korean combat units, including service-based CFC component commands. In particular, common operational concepts and TTPs for cyberwarfare and space situation awareness are needed for a common operational picture (COP) between the South Korean and U.S. militaries, to enable integration for an all-domain joint force. South Korea’s existing operational concepts are single domain, limited to a single service’s responsibility, and purely defensive. New doctrines should encompass new roles and missions for South Korea, including preemptive strike capabilities, such as KSS-Ⅲ submarines, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, Hyunmoo-series strategic missiles, and LCV strike groups.
Third, as part of burden-sharing, the ROK armed forces must enjoy more flexibility to exercise a wider range of defensive Rules of Engagement. This will include independent self-defense for soldiers in confronting North Korea, and also an active defense posture against the North to be triggered by specific indications and warning situations. The roles of USFK, as well as of the United Nations Command, can then be redefined as go-between peacekeepers or peacemakers.
What is the best way to frame the issue of wartime OPCON, both for the United States and for South Korea?
The most helpful framing is the integration of peacetime OPCON into wartime OPCON. Theoretically, there is no clear distinction between the two, with the only differences being the kinds of threat presented by North Korea. In peacetime, irregular warfare predominates, such as the infiltration of spy boats and special forces flanking our lines, but in wartime all-out war between the two Koreas would restart. If the ROK military is capable of peacetime OPCON, then there are no specific reasons why wartime OPCON should be treated differently.
How is OPCON transfer affected by expanding the scope of the ROK-U.S. alliance beyond the Korean Peninsula?
Establishing a Combined Combat Development Capability Command between the ROK and USFK, in an analogous way to NATO, will help develop combined operations between the South Korean armed forces and USFK, granting more strategic flexibility for the latter. Dispatching USFK and the South Korean military to theater operations beyond the Korean Peninsula requires interoperability of weapons and systems, and also jointness of C2s, COPs, and TTPs.
There are also opportunities for the South Korea-U.S. alliance to expand operations to include further partners. The AUKUS arrangement, which is supporting a nuclear-powered submarine project for Australia, is a model for such expanded cooperation, and we look forward to a future in which the ROK-U.S. alliance has the foundation necessary for external joint operations.
Lastly, to consolidate their external operations beyond the Korean Peninsula, the South Korea-U.S. alliance needs new partners and new ways to work together in the Indo-Pacific region. These partners could include ASEAN, Australia, and NATO members, who would cooperate in a variety of areas: security- and defense-related science, health, technology, industrial bases and infrastructure, supply chains, etc. The ROK-U.S. alliance also needs to become integrated into wider multilateral security dialogues and frameworks, such as the Quad.
Conclusion
Some expect OPCON transfer to be a less important issue for the next administration, but this is doubtful, whoever becomes president. There will, however, be a reassessment of what constitutes South Korea’s national interest, and grand strategies formulated for the election campaign are unlikely to survive contact with reality. At least we can hope that the next president does not paint themselves into a corner on OPCON transfer, as President Moon Jae-in unfortunately did.
7. N. Korea slams Japanese PM Suga over U.N. Assembly speech
I do not think the regime could ever have anything positive to say about Japan unless perhaps it agreed to pay reparations to the north.
N. Korea slams Japanese PM Suga over U.N. Assembly speech | Yonhap News Agency
SEOUL, Sept. 26 (Yonhap) -- A North Korean researcher berated Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on Sunday for his recent remarks at the U.N. General Assembly, stressing Pyongyang would not associate with whoever his successor will be if Tokyo's "hostile policy" toward it continues.
Ri Byong-dok, a researcher at the Institute of Japan, made the remarks in a piece posted on the website of the North's foreign ministry, after Suga made the video message Friday (New York time), stressing the North's recent ballistic missile launches threatened peace in Japan, the region and the world.
"(Suga's speech) revealed again the true character of a hostile policy against the republic by misrepresenting the character and nature of the issue," Ri wrote.
The researcher also stressed, "Going forward, we will never associate with any politician that would follow the hostile policy against North Korea of their predecessors, including Abe and Suga, whoever will become the next prime minister."
Suga earlier offered to resign as Japan's prime minister, and the process of electing the new chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), who will serve as the next premier, is expected to take place later this month.
sshluck@yna.co.kr
(END)
8. Explosive rise in infections disrupts Korea's path to 'live with COVID-19' strategy
Live with COVID?
Explosive rise in infections disrupts Korea's path to 'live with COVID-19' strategy
The Korea Times · by 2021-09-26 16:51 | Health & Welfare · September 26, 2021
People wait in line to receive a coronavirus test at a testing center in Songpa District of Seoul, Sunday. Yonhap
Some experts expect daily tally to top 4,000 in a few days
By Lee Hyo-jin
An explosive rise in coronavirus cases following the Chuseok holiday is causing disruptions to the government's plan to adopt a "live with COVID-19" strategy from late next month.
The administration previously said that it was drawing up a plan to implement such a strategy, under which antivirus restrictions would be gradually eased, from the end of October when 70 percent of the country's 52 million population is expected to be fully vaccinated.
But the plan is now facing uncertainty due to a surge in infections following the long weekend holiday, which ran from Sept. 18 to 22, during which millions of people travelled across the country to visit their family.
The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) reported 3,273 new infections for Friday, among which 3,245 were local transmissions, a record high since the coronavirus outbreak reached here.
The daily tally for Saturday dropped to 2,771, mainly due to fewer tests on the weekend, but was still the second highest number of cases recorded.
However, the worst is yet to come, according to medical experts who believe that the latest tallies do not truly reflect the number of infections during the holiday.
"Considering the incubation period of the coronavirus, a majority of people who tested positive during the previous two days seem to be those who were exposed to the virus before the Chuseok holiday," said Kim Woo-joo, an infectious disease specialist at Korea University Guro Hospital.
He added, "Due to the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, which has become the dominant strain in the country, along with the rising cases of breakthrough infections, it will be highly difficult to curb the current spread only with the social distancing measures currently in place."
A woman gets tested for the coronavirus at a makeshift testing center near Seoul Station, Sunday. YonhapChon Eun-mi, a pulmonologist at Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital said, "We might see the daily tally top 4,000 in a few days."
"It took a while for the figure to surpass 2,000, but after that, as seen from the COVID-19 situation in other countries, the number escalates in a short period of time."
The experts said the government should focus more on curbing the virus spread for now, rather than engaging in further discussions about implementing its "live with COVID-19" strategy.
The health authorities, who believe the current trend will continue for the next couple of weeks, said they will decide on further steps in accordance with how the situation develops next week.
"The infections may keep increasing for the next one to two weeks," said KDCA Commissioner Jeong Eun-kyeong at a COVID-19 response briefing, Saturday.
Jeong urged people to cancel or delay private gatherings for the next couple of weeks, as stabilizing the current virus situation is critical before entering into the "live with COVID-19" plan.
Regarding concerns that the current wave will disrupt the government plan, the KDCA chief said, "We will make further decisions based on the number of infections and medical capacity next week."
Meanwhile, the authorities will announce their vaccination plan for the fourth quarter Monday, which includes the inoculation of pregnant women and children aged between 12 and 17.
The government has decided to include the minors on the list after it concluded that the vaccines had proven to be safe and effective for them in other countries.
The education authorities noted that vaccination at schools will not be mandatory, and the parents of students will be given a choice.
In addition, booster shots will be rolled out beginning with high-risk groups ― people aged 60 and older and medical personnel ― while the dose interval between the two standard shots will be shortened to increase the number of those fully vaccinated.
The Korea Times · by 2021-09-26 16:51 | Health & Welfare · September 26, 2021
9. Plaque honoring war sacrifices unveiled at Korea Military Academy
Our blood alliance.
While the Koreans put the names of US killed on their memorials, we should remember for the first time the US will put the names of nearly 7,800 Korean soldiers on the Korean War memorial on the National Mall. When the memorial is dedicated and reopened next may the names of the KATUSA (Korean Augmentees to the US Army) who died fighting side by side Americans will be on the wall along with the names of the 34,000 Americans killed.
Sunday
September 26, 2021
Plaque honoring war sacrifices unveiled at Korea Military Academy
A ceremony unveiling a plaque for 12 graduates of the United States Military Academy who were killed in action during the 1950-53 Korean War takes place at West Point Memorial Park inside the Korea Military Academy (KMA) in Seoul on Friday. From left: Lee Seong-choon, director-general of the Seoul regional office of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs; Gen. Choi Byung-hyuk, chief vice president of the KDVA-Korea chapter; Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Lee Seo-young, president of the KDVA-Korea Chapter; Lt. Gen. Kim Jeong-soo, president of the KMA; Major Gen. Patrick Matlock, assistant chief of staff for operations of the United Nations Command, ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea; and Han Byung-wook, business team leader of the Korea JoongAng Daily. [PARK SANG-MOON]
A plaque to honor the sacrifices made by the United States Military Academy (USMA) class of 1947 in the 1950-53 Korean War was unveiled Friday at the Korea Military Academy (KMA) in Nowon District, northern Seoul.
Installed near the KMA’s Memorial Tower, the memorial plaque follows previous plaques placed for the USMA classes of 1948, 1949 and 1950. The KMA plans to install three more by 2023 for the USMA classes of 1945, 1946 and 1951 in the same garden, which is a dedicated memorial park for USMA graduates who fell in the Korean War.
Twelve graduates of the USMA class of 1947 fell in the Korean War. All 12 names were inscribed on the plaque unveiled on Friday during a ceremony hosted by the KMA and sponsored by the Korea Defense Veterans Association (KDVA).
The ceremony was attended by Gen. Choi Byung-hyuk, chief vice president of the KDVA-Korea chapter; Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Lee Seo-young, president of the KDVA-Korea Chapter; Lt. Gen. Kim Jeong-soo, president of the KMA; Major Gen. Patrick Matlock, assistant chief of staff for operations of the United Nations Command, ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea; Lee Seong-choon, director-general of the Seoul regional office of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs; and Han Byung-wook, business team leader of the Korea JoongAng Daily.
“We will forever be thankful to the U.S. soldiers and officers who kept this country free and those serving even now who continue to strengthen our mutual alliance,” said Lt. Gen. Lee, who spoke at the unveiling of the plaque. “We must always remember the words on the Korean War Memorial in Washington: ‘Freedom is not free.’”
Major Gen. Matlock, who spoke after Lee, highlighted the significance of the shared wartime sacrifice borne by South Korea and the United States and the contribution of USMA graduates to the defense of South Korea.
“These twelve young men graduated from West Point with a commitment to the ideals of honor, duty and country,” Matlock said, referring to the USMA motto. “Their commitment brought them here to Korea, where they not only led their soldiers, but also stood shoulder to shoulder with the military members of the Republic of Korea [ROK].”
Matlock continued, “This shared sacrifice is the foundation of the prosperity and freedom that followed. Even today, this sacrifice is the cornerstone of the ironclad ROK-U.S. alliance. It is a sacrifice we can never forget.”
10. US never stopped ‘longest war’ in South Korea — and now democracy thrives
US never stopped ‘longest war’ in South Korea — and now democracy thrives
Captured in the eerie green of night-vision goggles, the image of a grim-faced major general boarding the final evacuation flight from Kabul at the stroke of midnight has come to symbolize the end of the war in Afghanistan.
As the last US soldier to leave the country, he flipped the switch on “America’s longest war.” Except that this wasn’t our longest war, at least not technically. That would be the Korean War, which erupted in 1950 and resulted, somewhat unsatisfactorily, in an armistice three years later.
You might think that arguing about which was America’s longest war — Korea or Afghanistan — is simply quibbling over a political slogan, mere words. But the two eras reveal a key difference: the willingness of American leaders to stay committed to our allies.
The debacle in Afghanistan is prompting even some of our stalwart European allies to doubt American resolve. British Member of Parliament Tom Tugendhat told his fellow MPs they should consider reinvigorating “European NATO partners.” French President Emmanuel Macron, who’s now fuming over a security pact between the US, Britain and Australia known as AUKUS that scuttled a sale of French submarines to the Australians, said on a recent trip to Iraq that France would continue to support the fight against ISIS there, “whatever the American choice.”
The Korean War and America’s 70-year involvement in the country may be known as the “Forgotten War” in this country, but the Chinese haven’t forgotten. A massive three-hour Chinese war film celebrating their role battling the Americans and preserving North Korea as a separate state premiered at the Beijing International Film Festival on Tuesday. It’s expected to be among the country’s top-grossing films this year.
The image of the last soldier leaving Afghanistan has now become iconic.
AP
Historically, had the US walked away from its role in South Korea, millions more Koreans might have grown up in an oppressive gulag, facing the prospect of hunger and arbitrary group punishment.
“South Korea would have been overrun . . . immediately after the 1953 armistice by Maoist Chinese forces supplied by Stalin, were it not for the presence of the US troops,” said Thomas Byrne, president and CEO of The Korea Society in New York. “The mutual defense treaty preserved South Korea as an independent nation.”
Still, Byrne said, there were times when South Koreans had good reason to fear that the US might abandon their country, especially during the Nixon and Carter administrations.
Even during the Cold War — when 78 percent of Americans approved of sending in US soldiers after communist troops invaded South Korea — the mounting death toll of more than 36,000 US soldiers meant that three years later fewer than half of Americans saw a good reason to be in Korea.
Yet American forces stayed on . . . and on. Today, there are 28,500 US troops stationed in the country and another 55,000 at a moment’s notice in Japan. Despite this deterrence, North Korea has made hundreds of incursions into South Korea by land, air and sea in violation of the 1953 armistice. To drive home the point, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un tested a long-range cruise missile that he claimed could potentially strike Japan on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The all-girl robotics team in Afghanistan proved the US was slowly enabling progress for citizens in the country.
AFP via Getty Images
Over the years, the US has also provided the country with crucial non-military aid and advice, Byrne said, pointing to the establishment of the central bank and the first scientific institute, both formed when South Korea had authoritarian governments with awful human rights records.
It wasn’t until the 1990s that democratic elections and a free press began to flourish. Today, South Koreans show up in droves to vote and the country has one of the freest media environments in Asia, according to Reporters Without Borders. South Korea recently grew to become the world’s 10th largest economy, in large part driven by an endless engine of creativity. Samsung, K-pop and the Oscar-winning filmmaker Bong Joon-ho all sprang from the inherent genius of the Koreans.
The military deterrence and civilian advisers didn’t create this thriving democracy, but they created the space for democracy to evolve.
On the face of it, the conflict in Afghanistan seems a world away. Koreans share a common culture and language on both sides of the demilitarized zone. Afghans have a diverse culture and speak many languages.
But, like South Korea at the end of the last century, Afghanistan before the Taliban takeover showed every sign of someday blossoming into an Asian high-tech culture. You need look no further than Afghanistan’s all-girl robotics team to grasp the lost potential.
Multi-Oscar-winning filmmaker Bong Joon-ho is one of the many examples of the thriving, creative country South Korea is today.
AFP via Getty Images
The young Afghan democracy was far from perfect. Voter turnout had been low in recent elections because of Taliban attacks on polling places and widespread sentiment that the government was corrupt. Still, before the Taliban returned to power, the political transitions had all been democratic and freedom of expression was arguably better than it had been during South Korea’s early years.
It’s typical for public support to flag when an overseas conflict drags on. Initially, more than nine out of 10 Americans saw the invasion of Afghanistan as a good idea in 2001, after it emerged that al Qaeda had planned the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in that country. Since then, 2,461 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan. By this summer, even before the Taliban seized control, nearly half of Americans thought the decision to send in US troops had been a mistake.
In this era, when foreign policy seems to be based more on public opinion polls and slogans, that may be the ultimate line in the sand.
J. Alex Tarquinio is past national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, and a German Marshall Fund fellowship recipient to cover another divided land, Cyprus. She has made two reporting trips to South Korea.
11. How the U.S. Military Plans to Capture North Korean Nukes
How the U.S. Military Plans to Capture North Korean Nukes
Army Techniques Publication No. 3-90.40 is a curious mixture of conventional combat concepts as applied to hunting WMDs.
Key Point: Perhaps because of the Iraq experience, many of the guidelines seem to apply less to an active enemy nation with weapons of mass destruction, and more to a collapsing state whose WMD sites must be secured.
The Pentagon has just released a new manual that lays out how the United States might destroy North Korea’s nukes.
Army Techniques Publication No. 3-90.40, “Combined Arms Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction,” explains U.S. doctrine for neutralizing WMDs. The guidelines focus on the nuts and bolts of counter-WMD combined-arms operations by brigade combat teams, or BCTs. In other words, how regular Army combat brigades should deal with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Though the manual doesn’t specifically mention North Korea, many of its recommendations would apply should large formations of U.S. ground troops enter North Korea. Regardless of whether the goal is regime change, a punitive incursion or destroying WMDs, it is quite possible that American troops would encounter production, storage or launch facilities for weapons of mass destruction.
Army Techniques Publication No. 3-90.40 is a curious mixture of conventional combat concepts as applied to hunting WMDs. Defeating the enemy—the ultimate goal of ground combat operations—becomes defeating “a threat at a particular site and to set the conditions that allow technical forces to defeat a WMD network.” Delaying operations, which generally involves slowing an attack by enemy forces, means delaying any potential use of WMDs by attacking vulnerable points such as storage and transportation facilities. Reducing operations, which seek to complete the destruction of an encircled enemy force, morph into reducing the number of weapons in enemy WMD stockpiles.
Perhaps because of the Iraq experience, many of the guidelines seem to apply less to an active enemy nation with weapons of mass destruction, and more to a collapsing state whose WMD sites must be secured. Many of these operations would seem to involve U.S. capabilities and decisionmaking at levels far above the level of a combat brigade. However, the Army manual does describe counter-WMD efforts as primarily a land-based operation. “CWMD operations require a unique blend of capabilities within the force that is tailored to the specific target,” including at least eighteen different tasks, from decontamination and forensics to earthmoving and information operations.
Special emphasis is placed on reconnaissance and intelligence collection to identify WMD sites. The manual distinguishes between seizing WMDs, which means using force to capture them from the enemy, and securing sites so that no one manages to walk off with a nuke or a nerve-gas bomb in the confusion.
The manual also includes a few scenarios to illustrate how an Army brigade might handle WMDs. Here is one example:
Cavalry Squadron conducts zone reconnaissance from Phase Line Zebra to Phase Line Tiger in the BCT AO [area of operations] to identify enemy forces and defensive positions. The squadron maneuvers all three troops abreast with squadron controlling the crossing of phase lines. A CBRN R&S platoon (heavy) with nuclear, biological, and chemical reconnaissance vehicles (NBCRVs) is attached to the cavalry squadron to provide CBRN reconnaissance during the movement. In addition, the squadron elements are utilizing their assigned CBRN detection equipment during their movement.
On crossing PL Yak, Bravo Troop identifies an abandoned factory. Bravo Troop sends a size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment (SALUTE) report to the squadron tactical command post and receives orders to establish an outer cordon to isolate the factory. The CBRN R&S platoon detects a chemical signature consistent with a nerve agent emanating from one of the factory warehouses. No personnel are in sight. The squadron headquarters sends their CBRN 4 report from the CBRN R&S platoon to the BCT. The BCT orders the squadron to establish a perimeter and continue observation while the BCTs CBRN R&S platoon (light) is moved forward to assist in assessing this emerging WMD objective. Squadron personnel brief the CBRN R&S platoon on their observation from the factory. The squadron headquarters orders Alpha Troop to clear and seize the factory. Alpha Troop dons protective gear and thoroughly clears the factory to ensure that there is no enemy present. Forward security elements report seeing a suspected cache of 122-mm rockets in the suspect warehouse. Alpha Troop marks the area, completes clearing the site, and withdraws to positions that allow it to secure the area in question while the R&S platoon conducts an Assessment.
Alpha Troop conducts a handover with the R&S platoon leader to share information specific to the site (sketch, pictures, and hazards). The CBRN R&S platoon is tasked with locating and confirming or denying the presence of hazardous materials at the site. They confirm a cache of 122-mm rockets and note that some of them are leaking a suspicious liquid. Field confirmatory results indicate that the liquid is Sarin. An assessment report is sent to higher headquarters. The BCT continues to provide security while technical support is requested to further exploit the site.
Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.
V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
