Quotes of the Day:
“Strategy formation walks on two feet, one deliberate, the other emergent.”
- Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History
"Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard."
- Genghis Khan
“For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever.”
- Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
1. North Korean Leader’s Sister Seen as Erratic and Arrogant at Home, Officials Say
2. Foreign minister’s remark siding with China under fire
3. U.S. Congress chooses Pyeongtaek base as Indo-Pacific intelligence hub
4. N.K. leader's sister says constructive talks on inter-Korean summit possible if Seoul shows mutual respect
5. N.K. diplomats engaging in illicit financing activities: British gov't report
6. N. Korean leader highlights strong ties with China against 'hostile forces'
7. Quad leaders urge N. Korea to engage in dialogue, refrain from provocations
8. U.S. holds no hostile intent, hopes N. Korea will respond positively to dialogue offer: Price
9. Will Moon's peace initiative pick up momentum?
10. Time to consider relaxing sanctions on N. Korea, foreign minister says
11. EXPLAINER: Why North Korea wants sanctions lifted first
12. South Korea: The Next Nation to Build Nuclear Weapons?
1. North Korean Leader’s Sister Seen as Erratic and Arrogant at Home, Officials Say
As we continue to read the statements from KimYo-jong we should keep this report in mind.
I do not think we should be distracted or misled by reports of her demotions and promotions. She appears to be one of the only true confidants of KimJong-un.
North Korean Leader’s Sister Seen as Erratic and Arrogant at Home, Officials Say
“It seems that she doesn’t know when to hold her tongue, and she also lacks humility,” said a Ryanggang province official.
The shrill attacks against South Korea and the United States that have made international headlines for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s younger sister are viewed inside the country as evidence of her arrogance and inexperience, government officials told RFA.
Kim Yo Jong, believed to be 33, has made a name for herself in recent years for her comments in state media that lob crude insults at Seoul, Washington and refugees from her family’s regime.
Some of her greatest hits include calling people who escape from North Korea “mongrel dogs” and “human scum,” warning the Biden Administration not to “cause a stink in its first step,” and calling South Korean President Moon Jae-in “a parrot raised by America.”
In her most recent statements, Kim offered a yellow light on President Moon’s speech at the U.N. General Assembly this week calling on North Korea, the U.S. and China to officially end the Korean War, saying it was “admirable” but setting conditions for formally ending the 1950-53 conflict.
"What needs to be dropped is the double-dealing attitudes, illogical prejudice, bad habits and hostile stand of justifying their own acts while faulting our just exercise of the right to self-defense," she said in a statement.
"Only when such a precondition is met, would it be possible to sit face to face and declare the significant termination of war,” Kim Yo Jong said.
Although public dissent is scarce and heavily punished, North Koreans grumble regularly in interviews with RFA about their economic plight, corruption, and incessant government demands for labor and cash.
Many North Koreans, including some government officials, are not fans of Kim Yo Jong, either.
“The people don’t think too highly of Kim Yo Jong because she always shows up and spits out harsh words at every important occasion in foreign relations,” an official in the northern province of Ryanggang told RFA’s Korean Service.
Since her brother’s rule began in 2011, Kim Yo Jong’s rise to power in her own right led to her becoming an alternate member of the Politburo in October 2017.
‘Truly weird group’
She was introduced on the international stage when, as part of a North Korean delegation to the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics, she was seated near then U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the opening ceremony.
International media took notice of the seating arrangement and widely published video and images of Kim and Pence, but they did not exchange words.
She spent a year away from the politburo starting in April 2019 but was reinstated in April 2020. At the time, her brother was rumored to be having health issues and some experts believed she could have been an option to replace him if he were to die.
But she was demoted during the ruling Korean Workers’ Party’s Eighth Party Congress in January, becoming a regular member of the Party’s Central Committee, with her rank reduced from first deputy director to deputy director.
Though she is now only one of many deputy directors of the Central Party’s Propaganda and Agitation Department, Kim Yo Jong’s statements on inter-Korean and North Korea-U.S. relations still boost her public profile, said the Ryanggang official.
“Kim Yo Jong serves as a calculated spokesperson to reveal Kim Jong Un’s position and views, and by speaking out bitter statements about foreign relations, especially about North-South relations, she is internally acting to specifically emphasize that she is the sister of Kim Jong Un,” said the source.
In June of last year, one day after North Korea blew up an inter-Korean liaison office within its territory, Kim Yo Jong responded to a speech made two days earlier by South Korea’s Moon, calling it “sophism full of shamelessness and impudence.”
“Then, who has professed blind and dumb to our advices to adopt attitude and stand of a master responsible for the north-south relations and thrown away trust and promise just like a pair of old shoes?” she said.
In January, she referred to the South Korean government as a “truly weird group hard to understand,” after Seoul’s joint chiefs of staff revealed that North Korea had held a midnight military parade at the opening of the eighth congress of the ruling Korean Workers’ Party.
“They are the idiot and top the world's list in misbehavior as they are only keen on things provoking world laughter,” said Kim Yo Jong.
‘No achievements or experience’
RFA reported in May that government officials were scared to be in her presence because rumors that she had officials executed for getting on her nerves had spread.
“Perhaps because deputy director Kim is still young, it seems that she doesn’t know when to hold her tongue, and she also lacks humility,” the Ryanggang official said.
“Officials often say at private gatherings, ‘I hope that Kim Yo Jong doesn’t show up here and there and act up,’” said the source.
Another source, an official in the northeastern province of North Hamgyong, told RFA that Kim Yo Jong’s lofty position would be impossible if not for her proximity to her brother, and noted that although their father also put his sister in a position of power, she actually deserved it.
“Kim Jong Il put his only sister Kim Kyong Hui on the Politburo, but that wasn’t until 2010 when she was over 60, and long after she had loyally helped him for a very long time,” said the second source.
“Kim Jong Un hastily promoted Kim Yo Jong when she was in her late 20s when she had no achievements or experience… This is so different from what his father did,” said the North Hamgyong official.
Another contrast between the two situations, is that Kim Yo Jong is very visible to the North Korean public, whereas her aunt mostly stayed out of headlines.
“Kim Kyong Hui did not reveal herself often and quietly assisted Kim Jong Il… but Kim Yo Jong is not like that. No matter how important her work is, it does not look good to the general public that she shows up here and there and acts lightly,” said the second source.
Kim Jong Un lived abroad in his childhood and does not have many people he can absolutely trust within the regime, according to the second source.
“It seems he thinks that the only person he can trust is his sister. But it goes against the party’s ideology and principles that prohibit nepotism,” said the second source.
Still in office after gaffes
The second source said that Kim Yo Jong’s recent demotion might have been a punishment from her brother.
“He may have felt at that time that it was not good for his sister to show off everywhere…but she still remains in power,” said the second source.
Hosting the Kim siblings is a nerve-wracking experience for government officials, the source said.
“High-ranking officials are always anxious and feel like they are walking on thin ice when they are around Kim Jong Un. They feel like they have to read his mind. How stressful it must be to have to be careful around Kim Yo Jong as well, because she’s always hovering around him,” said the second source.
Experts remain divided on the possibility of Kim Yo Jong becoming the country’s ruler if her brother dies. Some say that her increased exposure in recent years is a clear indication that she is next in line.
“In my view, Kim Jong Un had made the decision to make Kim Yo Jung his successor,” Joseph Detrani, former US Special Envoy for Six Party Talks with North Korea, told RFA.
“Keeping the leadership in the Kim family is important for Kim Jung Un and it would resonate with the people and senior leaders in the North. Some may view her, if Kim Jong Un were to pass suddenly, as too inexperienced, but being part of the Kim family would address those concerns,” Detrani said.
Soo Kim of the RAND Corporation told RFA that true extent of her influence “remains largely speculative” despite her growing presence on the scene.
“We can assume that since she remains in the leadership, has been seen in public during high-profile events, and serves from time to time as her brother’s mouthpiece, Kim Yo Jong maintains potential in the regime’s leadership,” (->.)
Kim Yo Jong’s recent demotion was taken by some as an indication that she is not the successor, but her influence does not appear to have changed, according to Su Mi Terry of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
“In terms of succession, I still think that she's somebody that is most likely to succeed, even though you can’t say that for sure because they don't really have a succession plan,” Terry told RFA.
“Given that their focus is so much on this blood line, I do think that she's definitely the most likely contender if something were to happen to Kim Jong Un,” Terry said.
The lack of a named successor could cause major problems for the regime, Ken Gause of the Virginia-based CNA thinktank told RFA.
“There would probably be some sort of collective leadership in which Kim Yo Jung would be part of that, representing the Kim family equities behind the scenes, but it's no guarantee that she would be able to step in and take over for him,” said Gause.
“It will really depend on the power dynamics at the time that he becomes incapacitated or dies that will determine who will rise to the top,” Gause said.
Reported by Chang Gyu Ahn and Sangmin Lee. Translated by Jinha Shin. Written in English by Eugene Whong.
2. Foreign minister’s remark siding with China under fire
I think the Donga Ilbo and some in the media have misinterpreted the Foreign Minister's remarks.
I think you have to go to the CFR transcripts and read the end set of remarks and not the cherry picked ones in the media.
Please see the highlighted statemen\t below left out of the reporting. I think he is describing how the Chinese think of alliance but he says "...I don't think so, no." This reporting will create unnecessary alliance friction.
ZAKARIA: Is Asia turning into a region where there are developing two blocs, a Chinese bloc and a—I don’t want to say anti-Chinese bloc, but let’s say a non-Chinese bloc—Korea, Australia, Japan, the United States? It does seem like that.
CHUNG: Well, Fareed, that’s the mentality of Cold War, like Chinese say. Well, I don’t think so, no. Well, we hope to see more stable relations between China and the United States because, from our perspective, both countries are very important.
As you know, the U.S. is the only ally we have. The alliance is the—is the main pillar of our foreign and security policy, and the alliance is essential for peace and stability not only on the Korean Peninsula but in the—in the region.
On the other hand, China is also a very important partner for us. China is the largest trading partner for us. The trade volume with China is larger than the sum of the trade volumes we have with Japan and the United States.
Foreign minister’s remark siding with China under fire
Posted September. 24, 2021 08:38,
Updated September. 24, 2021 08:49
Foreign minister’s remark siding with China under fire. September. 24, 2021 08:38. by Ji-Sun Choi aurinko@donga.com.
South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong described the U.S.-led initiative to create an alliance consisting of the country’s allies, including South Korea, Japan, and Australia, against China as an “old-style Cold War mentality.” He also responded that it is “only natural” for China to employ “assertive diplomacy,” which is harshly criticized by the U.S. Coming as the Biden administration has begun in earnest to check China’s influence, the foreign minister’s remark quickly drew criticism for seemingly siding with China on the American soil.
Chung, currently visiting the U.S. in attendance on President Moon Jae-in for the United Nations General Assembly, said that it was “only natural” for China to become more assertive for the past few years, in a conversation meeting hosted by New York-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). “China has become an economic superpower, and China today is not the same as China 20 years ago. It is natural for China to capitalize on its presence to gain a competitive edge in diplomacy, and I am unsure whether ‘assertiveness’ is the appropriate term to describe China’s diplomatic posture,” said Foreign Minister Chung. “China seeks to reflect its view as a member of global community, and we need to pay attention to what China is trying to say.”
When Fareed Zakaria, the host of CNN’s GPS and the moderator of the event, described the U.S., South Korea, Japan, and Australia as one bloc in opposition to China in his illustration of the diplomatic landscape of the Indo-Pacific, Foreign Minister Chung said such distinction is “the outdated mentality of Cold War,” as declared by China. Asked whether to join the Quad, the U.S.’s strategic forum in the Indo-Pacific to contain China, Foreign Minister Chung said that South Korea does not feel the urgent need to join the forum and that it is not necessarily mandated to choose between U.S. and China.
3. U.S. Congress chooses Pyeongtaek base as Indo-Pacific intelligence hub
Mere speculation and misunderstanding by the media.
This is merely the establishment of secure intelligence facilities at Camp Humphreys that were not previously built.
SEC. 2511. REPUBLIC OF KOREA FUNDED CONSTRUCTION 17 PROJECTS.
(a) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT PROJECTS.—Pursuant to agreement with the Republic of Korea for required in-kind contributions, the Secretary of Defense may accept military construction projects for the installations or locations in the Republic of Korea, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Republic of Korea Funded Construction Projects Component Installation or Location Project Amount
Army ............... Camp Humphreys Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing .......... $52,000,000
Army ............... Camp Humphreys Type I Aircraft Parking Apron and Parallel Taxiway .......................... $48,000,000
Army ............... Camp Humphreys Black Hat Intelligence Fusion Center ...................... $149,000,000
Navy ................ Mujuk ................... Expeditionary Dining Facility ................................ $10,200,000
Air Force ......... Gimhae Air Base Repair Contingency Hospital ................................. $75,000,000
Air Force ......... Osan Air Base ..... Munitions Storage Area Move Delta (Phase 2) ..... $171,000,000
(b) AUTHORIZED APPROACH TO CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.—Section 2350k of title 10, United States Code, shall apply with respect to the construction of the Black Hat Intelligence Fusion Center at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, as set forth in the table in subsection(a).
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4350/BILLS-117hr4350rh.pdf
Note the reference to Title 10 Sec, 2350k.
10 U.S. Code § 2350k - Relocation within host nation of elements of armed forces overseas
(a) Authority To Accept Contributions.—
The Secretary of Defense may accept contributions from any nation because of or in support of the relocation of elements of the armed forces from or to any location within that nation. Such contributions may be accepted in dollars or in the currency of the host nation. Any such contribution shall be placed in an account established for such purpose and shall remain available until expended for the purposes specified in subsection (b). The Secretary shall establish a separate account for such purpose for each country from which such contributions are accepted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2350k#:~:text=10%20U.S,contributions%20are%20accepted.
The bottomline is that the bill is authorizing the SECDEF to receive funding for the facilities that will be constructed by the ROKG through the Special Measures Agreement. in response to a request from the US Forces in Korea. The "intelligence fusion" facility is simply being relocated from Yongsan in Seoul to Camp Humphreys. The media is making an erroneous comparison to a US facility in the UK (whose description may or may not be correct as well). There is nothing in the draft of the NDAA that talks about the mission of the intelligence fusion facility and it is a leap that the fusion center will be an Indo-Pacific intelligence hub. Congress is not choosing Pyeongtaek base as an Indo-pacific intelligence hub.
U.S. Congress chooses Pyeongtaek base as Indo-Pacific intelligence hub
Posted September. 25, 2021 07:44,
Updated September. 25, 2021 07:44
U.S. Congress chooses Pyeongtaek base as Indo-Pacific intelligence hub. September. 25, 2021 07:44. by Min Kim kimmin@donga.com.
The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act submitted on Wednesday (local time) advised the U.S. Defense Department to build the Black Hat Intelligence Fusion Center (IFC) in Camp Humphreys located in Pyeongtaek, South Korea. It added that the U.S. Army will take charge of the IFC where the U.S. Armed Forces manages all kinds of military and defense intelligence collected across the Indo-Pacific region in an integrated way.
The Black Hat may focus mainly on North Korea and China. The Military AutoSource (MAS) Molesworth On Base located in Cambridgeshire, Britain, has since 2005 operated a NATO-version IFC to collect intelligence regarding the organization’s member states and Russia. The Black Hat construction project is expected to require an expenditure of 149 million dollars, or about 175 billion won.
Given that the South Korean government is responsible for paying for all kinds of construction projects in any U.S. military base in the country as per the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) between Seoul and Washington, Seoul will have to finance the IFC project as well.
4. N.K. leader's sister says constructive talks on inter-Korean summit possible if Seoul shows mutual respect
Yes, how about some emphasis on "mutual." What about the regime's respect for the ROK? In point of fact the ROK has been very respectful of and accommodating and "fair" to the regime.
The regime is making the counter accusation but is really describing its own actions toward the South. And of course the regime is masterful at "double standards."
N.K. leader's sister says constructive talks on inter-Korean summit possible if Seoul shows mutual respect | Yonhap News Agency
SEOUL, Sept. 25 (Yonhap) -- The sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said Saturday the North is willing to discuss an inter-Korean summit with South Korea if Seoul shows an attitude of "fairness and mutual respect."
Kim Yo-jong made the remark in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, urging the South not to show "double standards" of calling the North's weapons tests a provocation while beautifying its own arms buildup.
(END)
Keywords
5. N.K. diplomats engaging in illicit financing activities: British gov't report
No surprise here but we need to work together with the international community to shut down these illicit activities.
N.K. diplomats engaging in illicit financing activities: British gov't report | Yonhap News Agency
SEOUL, Sept. 25 (Yonhap) -- North Korean Embassies and diplomatic personnel are engaging in illicit financing activities to fund the country's nuclear and other destructive weapons activities, a British government report has said.
The British finance ministry's National Risk Assessment of Proliferation Financing (PF) report said its hosting of the North Korean Embassy in London "may pose an inherent" risk, as not all banks in the country may be attuned to U.N. Security Council (UNSC) sanctions that restrict such activities.
"North Korean embassies and diplomatic staff have been known to engage in PF activities -- generating revenue through extra-diplomatic means, identifying business opportunities for North Korean entities and helping them access the formal financial system (or move cash/goods in diplomatic bags) in violation of UNSC sanctions," the report, released Thursday (local time), said.
Referring to the "significant risk" that comes with the presence of North Korean workers in a country, the report said "opportunities may exist" for those on student visas in Britain to generate revenue, though the European country does not host any North Korean workers.
The report also said North Korea is estimated to have stolen US$316.4 million worth of virtual assets across the globe through cyber activities between 2019 and 2020, citing a recent U.N. report.
"(UNSC) restrictions are only effective if they are correctly implemented and enforced," the report said, warning a weak implementation by both public and private sectors could lead to "further revenue raising to support North Korean proliferation."
(END)
6. N. Korean leader highlights strong ties with China against 'hostile forces'
The alliance that is closer than lips and teeth.
N. Korean leader highlights strong ties with China against 'hostile forces' | Yonhap News Agency
SEOUL, Sept. 25 (Yonhap) -- North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has said his country's strong relations with China will further grow against "vicious challenges and obstruction by the hostile forces" in a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping, Pyongyang's state media reported Saturday.
Kim made the remark in a reply to Xi's earlier letter that offered congratulations on the North's 73rd founding anniversary, where the Chinese leader said he intends to "develop these ties of friendship and cooperation on a long-term basis and in a stable way," according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
"I am very pleased to see the comradely unity and cooperation between the DPRK and China steadily growing strong ... while smashing the vicious challenges and obstruction by the hostile forces," Kim said in the letter Wednesday, adding their relations will "further develop day by day."
DPRK stands for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
North Korea has strengthened relations with other socialist countries, including China and Russia, amid a prolonged stalemate in denuclearization talks with the United States.
On Friday, Kim's sister, Kim Yo-jong, 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 that Pyongyang is willing to discuss improving inter-Korean ties if Seoul removes what she called "inveterate hostile policy" toward the North.
(END)
7. Quad leaders urge N. Korea to engage in dialogue, refrain from provocations
These must be the "hostile" force the regime is talking about.
This excerpt is one of the legacies of both Moon and Trump. They have set the red line pretty high - nuclear and ICBM tests. This of course means the regime can get away with anything up to that red line - such as the 21 missile and rocket tests in 2019-2020. Both Moon and Trump gave Kim a green light to continue missile testing and military advancements as long as they do not test a nuclear device or an ICBM.
Pyongyang has maintained a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and long-range ballistic missile tests since late 2017.
Quad leaders urge N. Korea to engage in dialogue, refrain from provocations | Yonhap News Agency
By Byun Duk-kun
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 (Yonhap) -- The leaders of the United States, Australia, Japan and India on Friday called on North Korea to engage in dialogue and abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions that prohibit its ballistic missile tests.
The call came at the end of the first in-person summit of the four countries, which form the so-called Quad, in Washington.
"We reaffirm our commitment to the complete denuclearization of North Korea in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions, and also confirm the necessity of immediate resolution of the issue of Japanese abductees," the leaders said in a joint statement.
"We urge North Korea to abide by its U.N. obligations, refrain from provocations. We also call on North Korea to engage in substantive dialogue," they added.
The leaders are President Joe Biden of the United States, Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan.
The four held their first-ever Quad summit virtually in March and reaffirmed their "commitment to the complete denuclearization of North Korea in accordance with U.N. Security council resolutions."
Their latest call for dialogue comes after North Korea test-fired a new short-range ballistic missile earlier this month in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Pyongyang has maintained a self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and long-range ballistic missile tests since late 2017.
The Biden administration has made several overtures for dialogue with Pyongyang since taking office in January, but the North remains unresponsive.
(END)
8. U.S. holds no hostile intent, hopes N. Korea will respond positively to dialogue offer: Price
Mr. Price is correct to make this statement. But we should keep in mind that words (and signed documents) mean nothing to the regime. The only way the regime will accept such assurances is through our actions - and unfortunately those actions are an end to the alliance, withdrawal of US troops, and an end to extended deterrence and the nuclear umbrella over the ROK and Japan. Anything less than these actions are interpreted by the regime as continued US hostile policy. And just as unfortunately a positive response to our dialogue offer means that Kim must act as a responsible member of the international community. And so far he has shown he is unable and unwilling to do so.
U.S. holds no hostile intent, hopes N. Korea will respond positively to dialogue offer: Price | Yonhap News Agency
By Byun Duk-kun
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 (Yonhap) -- A spokesman for the U.S. State Department on Friday reiterated the U.S. holds no hostile intent toward North Korea, while urging the North to come to the dialogue table.
Ned Price made the remark after a North Korean vice foreign minister dismissed a proposal from South Korean President Moon Jae-in to declare a formal end to the Korean War, arguing that what he called U.S. hostility against his country was the main destabilizing factor on the Korean Peninsula.
"We've said this a number of times now, but we have no hostile intent towards the DPRK, and we are prepared to meet with the DPRK without preconditions," the State Department spokesman said when asked if the U.S. believed a declaration of the war's end could be made as a starting point as proposed by Moon, or if it should wait until the North fully denuclearizes.
"We hope the DPRK will respond positively to our outreach," added Price in a virtual press briefing held on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official name.
The North Korean vice foreign minister, Ri Thae-song, on Friday (Seoul time), said a declaration of the war's end would become a "mere scrap of paper" unless the U.S. withdrew its hostile policy toward the North.
"The U.S. withdrawal of its double-standards and hostile policy is top priority in stabilizing the situation of the Korean Peninsula and ensuring peace on it," Ri said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
Kim Yo-jong, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's sister, later welcomed Moon's proposal as an "admirable idea" in a separate statement, but she too insisted now may not be the time to discuss the issue while accusing Seoul of being hostile toward Pyongyang.
Price's remark also comes after Mark Lambert, deputy assistant secretary of state for Japan and South Korea, said the U.S. is open to "exploring meaningful confidence building initiatives with the North."
"We remain committed to achieving lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, and we believe the best way to do that is through dialogue and diplomacy with the DPRK," said Price.
"We will continue to seek engagement with the DPRK as part of a calibrated practical approach, in order to make tangible progress that increases security not only for the United States, but also for our allies in the region, our deployed forces and our partners as well," he added.
North Korea has stayed away from denuclearization talks with the U.S. since early 2019.
It also remains unresponsive to a series of outreaches made by the Joe Biden administration since taking office in January.
Price highlighted joint efforts by his country, South Korea and Japan to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, pointing to a three-way meeting between the countries' top diplomats in New York this week.
"One of the primary topics of discussion in that trilateral engagement was a common approach towards the DPRK, knowing that if we are to be effective, we need to continue to be and to work in lockstep with our partners in the ROK and in Japan," said Price, referring to South Korea by its official name, the Republic of Korea.
He also expressed support for inter-Korean dialogue.
"When it comes to relations between the ROK and the DPRK, we continue to believe that inter-Korean dialogue and engagement is a good thing, and we continue to work closely with our ROK allies on the broader agenda."
bdk@yna.co.kr
(END)
9. Will Moon's peace initiative pick up momentum?
It is interesting to read the selective reporting that takes place on north Korean statements.
The Korea Times chooses to emphasize this:
Pyongyang positive on Moon's proposal to end Korean War
Will Moon's peace initiative pick up momentum?
President Moon Jae-in listens to Kim Yo-jong, sister of North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un, during a performance of North Korea's Samjiyon Band at a theater in Seoul, Feb. 11, 2018. Korea Times photo by Koh Young-kwon
Pyongyang positive on Moon's proposal to end Korean War
By Nam Hyun-woo
Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, said Friday that the regime believes President Moon Jae-in's proposal to put a formal end to the Korean War could be "an admirable idea" and Pyongyang has a "willingness" to talk if South Korea withdraws its "double-dealing standards" and "hostile policies."
The rare "conciliatory" response came three days after the President renewed the proposal in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. However, it remains to be seen whether Moon's repeated proposal will improve stalled inter-Korean ties in the last stages of his presidency.
In a statement carried by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency, Kim said, "The declaration of the termination of the war is an interesting and an admirable idea in that it itself is meant to put a physical end to the instable state of ceasefire that has remained on the Korean peninsula for a long time and to withdraw hostility toward the opposite party.
"We have willingness to keep our close contacts with the South again and have constructive discussion with it about the restoration and development of the bilateral relations if it is careful about its future language and not hostile toward us after breaking with the past when it often provoked us and made far-fetched assertions to find fault with anything done by us out of double-dealing standards."
Kim then laid out a set of conditions for inter-Korean talks to end the war, such as the two Koreas guaranteeing mutual respect and the South abandoning "illogical prejudice, hostile stand of justifying their own acts and double-dealing attitudes."
The double-dealing attitude Kim was referring to is assumed to be South Korea's recent testing of an indigenous submarine-launched ballistic missiles, Sept. 15. When North Korea launched a ballistic missile from a train the same day, Seoul defined the North's move as a provocation.
In a statement released by Pyongyang's Vice Foreign Minister Ri Thae-song hours before that of Kim, Ri also said, "(North Korea's) measures to bolster up the capability for defense to cope with the U.S. military threat to bring us down by force are described as 'provocations' while the arms buildup escalated by the U.S. and its vassal forces to threaten the DPRK is justified as 'deterrent.'" He added "such an American-style double-dealing attitude is also a product of the hostile policy toward the DPRK." The DPRK stands for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Three days before the statements, Moon proposed a formal end to the Korean War through a trilateral or quadrilateral end-of-war declaration involving the two Koreas, the U.S. and China.
The Korean War ended in an armistice signed in 1953, leaving the two Koreas technically still at war. Due to this, Moon has been championing the idea as a stepping stone to improve inter-Korean relations and entice the North to give up its nuclear weapons program.
The idea has, however, gained little traction, despite Moon again proposing it during a U.N. speech in New York, Tuesday, as a last-ditch effort before his presidency ends in May.
President Moon Jae-in listens to a reporter's question during an in-flight press conference on his way back to Seoul, Thursday, following a five-day visit to New York and Hawaii. Yonhap
"Though it is difficult to forecast the future, I don't believe North Korea has closed the door for talks," Moon said during an in-flight press conference on his way back to Seoul, Thursday, following a five-day visit to New York and Hawaii.
"Though North Korea fired missiles last time, it is maintaining its own moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests, and maintaining low-key provocations, which are not serious enough to make the U.S. abandon dialogue," Moon said.
Moon also said an end-of-war declaration was a non-binding political statement, but was "a gateway toward talks for denuclearization or a peace treaty" and such a treaty could "only be achieved after denuclearization reaches a certain irreversible level."
Moon's end-of-war proposal has faced feasibility questions from news outlets and the main opposition People Power Party, citing the current deadlocked inter-Korean relations and the fierce rivalry between Washington and Beijing.
Moon refuted these saying South and North Koreas had already agreed to pursue a trilateral or quadrilateral end-of-war declaration during a 2007 inter-Korean summit, and the involved countries ― the two Koreas, the U.S. and China ― have shared the need for such a declaration since then.
Regarding Kim Yo-jong's statement, a South Korean government official said, "Though a deeper analysis on the background of Kim's comments are required, we welcome the possibility of resuming talks."
10. Time to consider relaxing sanctions on N. Korea, foreign minister says
When have concessions or "incentives" ever really worked when dealing with north Korea?
What we do miss in the Foreign Minister's statement is the phrase "depending on their actions." This is really the key point. Given the FM the benefit of the doubt, we should not simply lift sanctions and give concessions or incentives unless there is substantive action by the north.
Excerpts:
Chung also underscored the need to explore active incentives for North Korea to return to dialogue, including humanitarian assistance, confidence-building measures, and consideration of sanctions relief, provided that North Korea takes steps toward denuclearization.
More specifically, Chung said, “we will need to start on less sensitive areas, like humanitarian assistance […] and then we can move on to […] confidence-building measures, like the announcement of the end-of-the-war declaration.”
“And then, we should also consider presenting windows to relax sanctions, depending on their actions,” the foreign minister said, arguing that sanctions could be reinstated if North Korea violates its agreements.
While Chung said that “Americans are not quite ready for […] easing sanctions,” he added that “it is about time for us to consider that, because North Koreans […] have maintained this moratorium [on nuclear weapon and missile testing] for four years.”
“I don’t mean that we should reward [the North Koreans] for what they have not been doing, but as incentives, we hope we can find some ways to ease sanctions,” Chung added.
Time to consider relaxing sanctions on N. Korea, foreign minister says
Posted on : Sep.24,2021 16:50 KST Modified on : Sep.24,2021 16:50 KST
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1012646.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist
During a conversation hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, South Korea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs also rejected the framing of South Korea as part of a non-Chinese bloc
Minister of Foreign Affairs Chung Eui-yong speaks with CNN host Fareed Zakaria at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday. (provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong said on Wednesday that the time has come to consider relaxing sanctions on North Korea to incentivize positive steps.“The US and ROK could explore many avenues to pull North Korea out of isolation and actively restart this denuclearization process,” Chung said during a conversation with CNN host Fareed Zakaria. The conversation was organized by the Council on Foreign Relations and was held on Wednesday while Chung was in New York for the UN General Assembly.“We shouldn’t be timid on offering North Koreans incentives,” Chung added.In material released by South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) on Thursday, Chung noted that South Korean President Moon Jae-in had called for international cooperation on making an end-of-war declaration on the Korean Peninsula during his keynote address at the 76th Session of the UN General Assembly. An end-of-war declaration, Chung said, would represent progress toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the beginning of comprehensive peace.Chung also underscored the need to explore active incentives for North Korea to return to dialogue, including humanitarian assistance, confidence-building measures, and consideration of sanctions relief, provided that North Korea takes steps toward denuclearization.More specifically, Chung said, “we will need to start on less sensitive areas, like humanitarian assistance […] and then we can move on to […] confidence-building measures, like the announcement of the end-of-the-war declaration.”“And then, we should also consider presenting windows to relax sanctions, depending on their actions,” the foreign minister said, arguing that sanctions could be reinstated if North Korea violates its agreements.While Chung said that “Americans are not quite ready for […] easing sanctions,” he added that “it is about time for us to consider that, because North Koreans […] have maintained this moratorium [on nuclear weapon and missile testing] for four years.”“I don’t mean that we should reward [the North Koreans] for what they have not been doing, but as incentives, we hope we can find some ways to ease sanctions,” Chung added.“The position of our government is that sanctions relief can be considered as a corresponding measure for steps toward denuclearization. We think there can be a wide-ranging discussion of this if North Korea returns to dialogue,” a MOFA official explained.Notably, Chung rejected an attempt during the conversation on Wednesday to define South Korea, the US, Japan, and Australia as being a “non-Chinese bloc,” which Chung said represented “the mentality of [the] Cold War.”Yonhap News quoted Chung as saying, “We hope to see more stable relations between China and the United States.” He went on to stipulate that the South Korea-US alliance is the “main pillar of our foreign and security policy” and that China is Korea’s most important economic partner.When Zakaria suggested that China has grown “more assertive” in recent years, Chung said, “I think it is natural because China is becoming stronger, economically more powerful. So it’s not China 20 years ago.”Chung went on to question whether “assertive” was the right expression to use. “They want to have their voices heard by other members of the international community, and […] we should try to listen to what they have to say to us,” he said.When Zakaria asked if South Korea’s experience is different from that of Australia, where government officials claim that “China has become much more assertive,” Chung said that Korea is “well aware” of other countries’ concerns.MOFA spokesperson Choi Young-sam offered the following explanation of Chung’s remarks during the daily briefing on Thursday.“Chung wasn’t saying that China’s assertive attitude is natural. He was only saying that China’s desire for its voice to be heard in line with its national power, including its diplomatic and economic influence, appears natural given general changes in states’ international status.”“Chung’s remarks should be taken as a general argument for accurately assessing and understanding the China of today, rather than the China of decades ago, and for clearly understanding and judging what China wants to say, given the need for a precise policy toward China,” a MOFA official added.By Kim Ji-eun, staff reporterPlease direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]
11. EXPLAINER: Why North Korea wants sanctions lifted first
One reason is because the regime knows once lifted they are unlikely to be reimposed.
EXPLAINER: Why North Korea wants sanctions lifted first
AP · by KIM TONG-HYUNG · September 24, 2021
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Days after outgoing South Korean President Moon Jae-in made possibly his last ambitious push to diplomatically resolve the standoff over North Korea’s nuclear program, the North on Friday rejected his call for a declaration ending the Korean War, making it clear it has no interest in political statements unless they bring badly needed relief from crippling economic sanctions. Nuclear diplomacy between the U.S. and North Korea has stalled over disagreements over a relaxation of the U.S.-led sanctions in exchange for steps toward denuclearization by the North.
Analysts say North Korea is trying to use Moon’s desire for inter-Korean engagement to pressure South Korea into extracting concessions from Washington on its behalf.
___
WHY IS MOON OFFERING A PEACE DECLARATION?
The 1950-53 Korean War, in which North Korea and ally China faced off against South Korea and U.S.-led U.N. forces, ended with an armistice, but there was never a peace treaty.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a speech at the U.N. General Assembly this week, Moon called for an end-of-war declaration while expressing hopes for a quick resumption of talks between the U.S. and North Korea. He said such a declaration among the leaders of the Koreas, the United States and China would help achieve denuclearization and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Moon’s proposal was an attempt to break the stalemate as he nears the end of his term in May 2022. North Korea had initially supported South Korea’s call for an end-of-war declaration when Seoul helped set up a summit between its leader, Kim Jong Un, and former U.S. President Donald Trump in 2018 in which Kim aimed to leverage his nuclear weapons in exchange for economic benefits.
Such an end-of-war declaration would make it easier for North Korea to demand that the United States withdraw its 28,500 troops in South Korea and ease sanctions.
But North Korea lost interest in the idea after talks between Kim and Trump collapsed during their second summit in February 2019. The Americans rejected North Korea’s demand for major sanctions relief in exchange for the dismantling of an aging nuclear facility, a partial surrender of its nuclear capabilities.
___
WHY IS NORTH KOREA REJECTING MOON’S OFFER?
On Friday, Kim’s powerful sister, Kim Yo Jong, and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Ri Thae Song issued separate statements rebuffing Moon’s proposal.
Kim Yo Jong’s comments were directed toward Moon while Ri’s were aimed at the Biden administration, but they communicated essentially the same message — that North Korea isn’t interested in an end-of-war declaration unless Washington first discards its “hostile” policies, a reference to the U.S.-led economic sanctions and its military activities with ally South Korea.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ri said such a declaration would be “premature” considering U.S. efforts to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, which North Korea has increasingly used to justify the expansion of its own nuclear and missile programs.
Kim Yo Jong, who handles inter-Korean affairs, used softer language toward South Korea, saying the North is willing to resume “constructive” discussions over improving bilateral ties if the South abandons its hostility and “double-dealing standards.”
She was clearly demanding that Seoul try harder to persuade Washington to offer “concrete actions to resume negotiations, whether they be the relaxing of sanctions or suspension of U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises,” which North Korea views as an invasion rehearsal, said Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.
North Korea’s statements on Friday show it has no expectation that Biden will accept Moon’s call, said Park Won Gon, a professor at Seoul’s Ewha Womans University.
“The North still has nothing to lose with the South proposing an end-of-war declaration again and it basically gave Seoul ‘homework’ to press Washington to meet its demands,” Park said. “The North could be trying to drive a wedge between Washington and Seoul, or create a rift in public opinion within South Korea by pressuring Seoul over the state of inter-Korean relations.”
___
WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR NUCLEAR TALKS?
The North Korean nuclear issue receded from the center of attention at this year’s U.N. General Assembly with newer global challenges such as the coronavirus, rising U.S.-China tensions and Afghanistan’s uncertain future.
But North Korea hates to be ignored, and its recent missile tests after months of relative quiet have raised speculation that Kim is once again flaunting its military might to wrest concessions from Washington if the long-stalled talks over his nuclear program resume.
Some experts say Kim is facing harsh domestic challenges, with pandemic-linked border closures further hurting an economy already battered by decades of mismanagement and international sanctions. They say the sense of alarm could push North Korea to escalate its weapons tests in the coming months to pressure the world before offering negotiations to extract aid, at least until China begins pushing for calm ahead of the Beijing Winter Olympics early next year.
This month, North Korea tested a new cruise missile it intends to arm with nuclear warheads and demonstrated the launching of ballistic missiles from rail cars as it expands its arsenal of shorter-range weapons threatening U.S. allies South Korea and Japan.
“Even while under a pandemic lockdown, North Korea continues to modernize its military, including nuclear weapons and various means of delivering them,” said Leif-Eric Easley, a professor at Ewha, who sees little room for Moon to advance his peace agenda. “The Biden administration has repeatedly offered dialogue and humanitarian engagement, but the Kim regime appears to want sanctions relief and de facto nuclear recognition in exchange for averting a crisis.”
AP · by KIM TONG-HYUNG · September 24, 2021
12. South Korea: The Next Nation to Build Nuclear Weapons?
A lot of hyperventilating about South Korea developing its own nuclear weapons. While north Korea is a "peaceful" nuclear power (some 23 nuclear power plants generating electricity as well as building nuclear power plants around the world so it likely possesses the requisite scientific and technical expertise) based on my conversations with Korean friends across the political spectrum I am confident that South Korea is not going to pursue nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT as well as risk the ROK/US alliance.
But like most articles calling for nuclear weapons or any other capability there is no discussion of what actually deters Kim Jong-un from attacking the South and deters him from using nuclear weapons. While we can never know for sure what deters him, we need to conduct a thorough analysis to try to make the best estimate as to what actually deters him rather than simply relying on what we might view as logical explanation but is in reality little more than a gut feeling or mirror imaging on our part.
South Korea: The Next Nation to Build Nuclear Weapons?
The Korean nuclear crisis began around three decades ago. After years of negotiation, broken agreements, sanctions, threats of military preemption, and even presidential summitry, North Korea continues to forge ahead with its nuclear program.
The Rand Corporation and Asan Institute recently warned that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea could have an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons by 2027, which would make it a mid-level nuclear state. Possessing the power to wreak death and destruction throughout East Asia and even reach America, the DPRK would make the alliance untenable, unless a future president was willing to risk U.S. cities to protect South Korea. That would be difficult if not impossible politically and the promise would not likely be believed by Seoul.
To this add evidence that Pyongyang has restarted its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, presumably to produce plutonium. The best case is that the North’s Supreme Leader is seeking to increase his leverage for upcoming negotiations with the U.S. However, the regime mostly spurned engagement with Washington after the failed Hanoi summit and so far has ignored the Biden administration’s overtures.
Moreover, of late North Korea has turned sharply inward. It reversed modest economic reforms, increasing state control. Even more dramatic, Pyongyang responded to the threat of COVID-19 with self-isolation. Sealing the borders also interrupted the steady flow of refugees and reinforced the crackdown on access to South Korean culture. Perhaps under pressure from the military and other hardliners at home Kim Jong-un has abandoned his efforts at outreach and decided to return to the more isolationist policies of his father and grandfather.
In any case, the DPRK’s behavior reinforces arguments from the South Korean right. Observed writer Morten Soendergaard Larsen, the Yongbyon restart “fueled existing convictions among some conservative South Korean politicians that Pyongyang will never agree to give up its nukes so Seoul needs a nuclear deterrent of its own.”
Unlike Japan, where the idea of developing nuclear weapons remains highly controversial since that country remains the only one upon which nukes have been used, South Koreans have been thinking about the idea for a half century. Military dictator Park Chung-hee, worried about the constancy of American support, began a nuclear program in the 1960s. The U.S. applied significant pressure to convince Park to drop the effort.
Over the years the idea has regularly flared. South Korean nukes featured in a novel and were promoted by a presidential candidate. Noted Larsen: “The urge to unfurl their own nuclear umbrella has grown in recent years due to both Pyongyang’s fissile and missile advances and after four years of former U.S. President Donald Trump disparaging the Korean alliance and urging the country to develop its own nuclear shield.”
Doing so would have obviously downsides. Moving down a nuclear path would create a massive diplomatic freak-out in both Europe and Asia. Few countries likely would sanction the Republic of Korea, but they might become more reluctant to purchase ROK nuclear reactors, a major export. Possessing nuclear weapons would deter Pyongyang from staging a full-scale attack, but wouldn’t necessarily preclude more limited provocations, such as the sinking of the Cheonan and bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010.
However, if negotiations don’t at least cap North Korean nuclear developments, the status quo will soon become untenable. Since 1953 the U.S. has maintained troops on the Korean peninsula, ready for a renewed conventional slugfest. Although another Korean War likely would be horrific, the risks would be limited in geography, to Korea, and in means, to conventional weapons. Until now Washington’s threat to intervene on the South’s behalf, especially with a military tripwire on the peninsula, was credible.
In contrast, the DPRK with 200 nuclear weapons, and the ability to attack virtually any target anywhere, would be very different. Imagine a conflict that began with conventional forces and featured a winning allied offensive, like that of 1950, with allied troops overrunning the North and headed toward the Yalu River. Then the Kim Il-sung government survived after massive intervention by the People’s Republic of China. Today Beijing is very unlikely to take on America at the North’s behest.
With no other saving deus ex machina in prospect, grandson Kim Jong-un instead could give the U.S. an ultimatum: withdraw to prewar positions or he would unleash nuclear hell upon the region, including Seoul, Tokyo, Okinawa (hosting a Marine Expeditionary Force), and Guam (an American territory filled with U.S. bases). And upon the American homeland too, from Honolulu to Washington, D.C. Such an action of course would trigger massive retaliation, but that might not deter him since Kim’s exit would otherwise be guaranteed, even if not in a radioactive funeral pyre. The U.S. president would have to yield to save America.
Nuclear war via inadvertence or error also would be a danger. Who in the North would be involved in the decision for war and how secure are nuclear controls? Washington’s tendency to posture and threaten as a political remedy whenever the DPRK seems more unruly than normal, especially if accompanied by Trumpesque rhetoric about “fire and fury,” could cause Pyongyang to put the weapons on hair-trigger alert and perceive war in every U.S. action, risking an unintended conflict.
The obvious solution would be for the U.S. to drop the alliance, leaving the much stronger ROK to defend itself. Which likely would require its own nuclear arsenal. That might not be a good solution. But it still might be the best solution.
Especially since nukes would also have a chastening effect on China. Although so far Beijing has shown no interest in territorial aggression beyond retrieving areas “lost” during the empire’s later period of extraordinary weakness, an ROK nuclear deterrent would discourage the Chinese leadership from even entertaining the thought of using its military superiority to intimidate and threaten South Korea.
The world has changed dramatically over the last 70 years. There is no reason to assume that a force structure and alliance network created in that era remains equally appropriate today. The U.S. should consider what changes are required to meet today’s reality. And that includes whether the best response to an expanded North Korean nuclear arsenal is a South Korean equivalent.
Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.
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.
