Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"If you ever need a helping hand, it's at the end of your arm. As you get older, you must remember you have a second hand. The first one is to help yourself, the second one is to help others." 
- Audrey Hepburn

Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.
- Lao Tzu

I have brought myself, by long meditation, to the conviction that a human being with a settled purpose must accomplish it, and that nothing can resist a will which will stake even existence upon its fulfillment.
- Benjamin Disraeli




1. 1. North restarts construction at old nuclear test site
2. S. Korea should prepare for a possible oil shock
3. Joint Statement on the March 5 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Ballistic Missile Launch
4. Meet South Korea’s Swing Voters: Young, Broke and Angry
5. UNICEF distributing humanitarian aid in N. Korea after quarantine release
6. Korean shipbuilders No. 1 in terms of global new orders
7. UNSC again fails to condemn NK’s missile launch
8. Russia's plummeting ruble to hit Korean firms
9. South Korea’s Upcoming Presidential Election And The Future Of Diplomacy With North Korea
10. South Korea’s Populist Turn – OpEd
11. A Lesson for North Korea: Ukraine Gave Up Its Nukes and Was Invaded




1. North restarts construction at old nuclear test site
All signs seem to be pointing toward Kim's political warfare strategy and blackmail diplomacy to try to extort sanctions relief from the US and UN

Tuesday
March 8, 2022

North restarts construction at old nuclear test site

Analysis of satellite images of the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site in North Korea's North Hamgyong Province suggests the North has renewed construction work at the location, almost four years after its well-publicized demolition. [ARMS CONTROL WONK]
 
Satellite images show renewed construction activity at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site, almost four years after North Korea demolished most of its facilities at the location before world media in 2018, according to a U.S. think tank on Monday.
 
The California-based James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies said it analyzed satellite images of North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site in North Hamgyong Province and found construction of new buildings and repairs of existing buildings.
 
The center told Voice of America (VOA) that changes in the site documented through satellite images taken by Maxa Technology on Feb. 18 and March 4 allowed it to determine that renewed construction activity had taken place.
 
In particular, a vacant lot of land photographed on Feb. 18 had been filled with construction materials by March 4, suggesting the existence of ongoing work at Punggye-ri.
 
A comparison of satellite images also showed a new building on the location of a previous structure, as well as a pile of lumber likely earmarked for repairs at the site.
 
The changes were noted by Jeffrey Lewis, director of the James Martin center, on his blog Arms Control Wonk.
 
“This is the first activity we have seen at the site since North Korea dismantled it in May 2018,” Lewis wrote in a post detailing the changes at Punggye-ri.
 
However, Lewis also noted that construction had been caught “very early,” adding that “it's too early to tell what they're up to or how long it would take to get the test site back to a state of readiness.”
 
The observations made by the James Martin center follow similar activities detected at the Punggye-ri site by former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official Oli Hainonen, who told VOA in January that satellite analysis of the test site suggests North Korea is still maintaining facilities at the location.
 
“They are maintaining the site in such a way that you see trails of the cars, cleaning of snow, and things like that. So, they kind of maintain the buildings in some kind of conditions,” Hainonen said.
 
North Korea demolished its Punggye-ri nuclear test site in North Hamgyong Province in May 2018 in the presence of reporters from South Korea, China, Russia, Britain and the United States.
 
38 North, a Pyongyang analysis site run by the Stimson Center, concluded shortly after the demolition that the last three remaining tunnels, as well as a number of buildings at the site, were destroyed, but questioned whether they could one day be rebuilt.
 
The demolition of the nuclear testing site was seen as a show of North Korea’s sincerity about denuclearization as it planned the first summit between then-U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, which took place in June 2018.
 
However, North Korea suggested earlier this year in January it could end its self-imposed moratorium on nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile testing. An end to the moratorium, which started in 2017, could result in future nuclear tests at the Punggye-ri site, though it remains unknown how quickly the regime could restart testing at the location, or if it harbors other underground nuclear test sites.

BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]



2. S. Korea should prepare for a possible oil shock
Excerpt:

The situation is even more worrisome in that the epicenter of the crisis is Russia, the second largest oil exporter, and that there is a high possibility of a prolonged confrontation between great powers, unlike the first and second oil shocks of the 1970s. Coupled with the spread of the omicron variant, South Korea has already entered the threshold of stagflation, where inflation and recession occur at the same time, according to some experts. The government should come up with countermeasures with the mindset that an oil shock is imminent. The country needs comprehensive measures, encompassing fiscal and monetary policies as well as energy supply and demand plans in case of an emergency, consumption reduction strategies, and support measures for companies and ordinary people.

S. Korea should prepare for a possible oil shock
Posted March. 09, 2022 07:39,
Updated March. 09, 2022 07:39
S. Korea should prepare for a possible oil shock. March. 09, 2022 07:39. .
Discussions between the U.S. and members of the European Union (EU) on a ban on Russian oil imports aimed at responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are driving up international oil prices. There are warnings that there could be a third oil shock, triggering oil prices to move to 200 U.S. dollars a barrel. Russia warned of a surge in oil pricesㅡmore than 300 dollars per barrelㅡif Western allies ban oil imports from Russia. As South Korea depends mainly on imports for meeting its oil needs, the nation will inevitably see consumer spending decrease due to inflation and the competitiveness of export companies weaken.

The government expects the economy to grow 3.1 percent and consumer price to rise 2.2 percent this year. But the projection is based on the premise that the oil price stays at 73 dollars a barrel. If oil prices rise, the growth rate will drop and prices will go up. The Hyundai Research Institute predicts that the economic growth will decline by 0.4 percentage point and consumer price will increase by 1.4 percentage points if oil prices reach 120 dollars a barrel. The impact will grow exponentially if oil prices soar higher than that.

Despite the circumstances, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Hong Nam-ki last week naively said that the economy is on a path to recovery. A meeting of ministers related with prices, which was held in five years, stopped short of coming up with patch-up solutions, such as extending fuel tax cut and asking companies to refrain from raising prices.

The situation is even more worrisome in that the epicenter of the crisis is Russia, the second largest oil exporter, and that there is a high possibility of a prolonged confrontation between great powers, unlike the first and second oil shocks of the 1970s. Coupled with the spread of the omicron variant, South Korea has already entered the threshold of stagflation, where inflation and recession occur at the same time, according to some experts. The government should come up with countermeasures with the mindset that an oil shock is imminent. The country needs comprehensive measures, encompassing fiscal and monetary policies as well as energy supply and demand plans in case of an emergency, consumption reduction strategies, and support measures for companies and ordinary people.




3. Joint Statement on the March 5 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Ballistic Missile Launch

Calling out China?


Key points:

While the DPRK escalates its destabilizing actions, the Security Council continues to remain silent. Each ballistic missile launch that results in inaction by the Council erodes the credibility of the UN Security Council itself in addressing the DPRK and undermines the global non-proliferation regime.
...
We stand ready to collaborate and determine a mutually agreeable approach with other Council Members to address the DPRK’s provocations. But let us start with the basic premise that the Council has a responsibility to speak publicly about clear and repeated violations of Security Council resolutions.

Joint Statement on the March 5 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Ballistic Missile Launch
usun.usmission.gov · by United States Mission to the United Nations · March 7, 2022
United States Mission to the United Nations
Office of Press and Public Diplomacy
For Immediate Release
March 7, 2022
Joint Statement on the March 5 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Ballistic Missile Launch
(The following is a joint statement delivered by Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, on behalf of Albania, Australia, Brazil, France, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States.)
We stand united today in condemning the DPRK’s March 5 (local time) launch of a ballistic missile. Like the 10 other ballistic missile launches since the beginning of the year, this act by the DPRK violated multiple Security Council resolutions.
While the DPRK escalates its destabilizing actions, the Security Council continues to remain silent. Each ballistic missile launch that results in inaction by the Council erodes the credibility of the UN Security Council itself in addressing the DPRK and undermines the global non-proliferation regime.
We remain committed to seeking serious and sustained diplomacy with the DPRK. The United States and others repeatedly have offered dialogue without preconditions, but the DPRK has failed to respond. Instead of embarking on a path of diplomacy and de-escalation, the DPRK has chosen to carry out an increasingly escalatory series of ballistic missile launches in violation of international law.
We stand ready to collaborate and determine a mutually agreeable approach with other Council Members to address the DPRK’s provocations. But let us start with the basic premise that the Council has a responsibility to speak publicly about clear and repeated violations of Security Council resolutions.
We call on all Council members to speak with one voice in condemning these dangerous and unlawful acts. Albania, Australia, Brazil, France, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States have previously expressed our concerns clearly and unequivocally.
We urge all Member States to implement fully all Security Council resolutions relating to the DPRK. These Security Council resolutions also obligate the DPRK to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. The international sanctions regime is an important tool for addressing this threat to international peace and security.
We reaffirm our commitment to diplomacy as the means for achieving the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We urge Pyongyang to respond positively to outreach from the United States and others. We continue to call on the DPRK to choose the path of dialogue over instability and to prioritize the basic needs and human rights of its own people over its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs.
###
By | 7 March, 2022 | Topics: HighlightsRemarks and Highlights
usun.usmission.gov · by United States Mission to the United Nations · March 7, 2022


4. Meet South Korea’s Swing Voters: Young, Broke and Angry


Excerpts:

Rival political parties have since rushed to appease South Korean youth. Lawmakers lowered the minimum voting age to 18 from 19 and the age limit for running for Parliament to 18 from 25. Mr. Lee and Mr. Yoon, the two leading presidential candidates, have both apologized and have applied different tactics to win votes.
Mr. Yoon’s popularity soared among men in the 20s after he promised to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Women and sidelined a campaign adviser who identified as a feminist. Anti-feminist sentiments are widespread among the young men.
Park Eun-hye, 27, at Youth Mungan, a civic group that provides affordable meals for young people in Seoul.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
Mr. Lee is more popular among women in their 20s, and he has promised to introduce harsher punishment for date rape and other sex crimes. He also campaigned to make companies reveal gender-wage gaps to their employees and to the public.
But 20 percent to 30 percent of South Koreans in their 20s and 30s have said they may change their mind about their preferred candidate before they vote this week, according to surveys. “Our support shifts from one political party to another, issue by issue,” Mr. Jeong said.
Meet South Korea’s Swing Voters: Young, Broke and Angry
The New York Times · by Choe Sang-Hun · March 8, 2022
Frustrated over housing prices, a lack of job opportunities and a widening income gap, the once-reliable voting bloc is undecided and will most likely elect the next president.

The banners of presidential candidates in downtown Seoul in February. On Wednesday, South Koreans will elect a new president, and all eyes are on young people. ​Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times

By
March 8, 2022, 5:00 a.m. ET
SEOUL — When he was a college freshman in 2019, Jeong Hyun-min sometimes had less than $10 to cover meals for three days. That same year, a scandal erupted in South Korea that still roils him today.
While Mr. Jeong was cleaning tables and serving drinks at beer halls just to make ends meet, the country’s justice minister and his wife were accused of pulling strings to help their daughter glide into medical school, even fabricating an award certificate.
“I realized what people had been saying all along: Your chances in this country are determined by what kind of parents you have,” said Mr. Jeong, a political science major at Daejeon University. “Fairness is the key if politicians want our trust back.”
On Wednesday, South Koreans will elect a new president and all eyes are on young people, whose disillusionment with the government has made this one of the most tightly fought races in recent memory. ​
Frustrated over sky-high housing prices, a lack of job opportunities and a widening income gap, young people who were once considered reliably progressive voters are now seen as undecided and will most likely tip the balance in the election.
Jeong Hyun-min, a political science major, works part time distributing textbooks in a high school in South Korea. “Fairness is the key if politicians want our trust back,” he said.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
Unlike previous generations, these voters are not easily swayed by old political dynamics, such as regional allegiance, loyalty to political bosses, fear of North Korea or a desire to ease tension on the Korean Peninsula. Instead, they talk of economic despair​ and general frustration as their primary concerns, themes captured in popular movies and TV dramas like “Parasite” and “Squid Game.”
Many have adopted a saying: “isaenggeul,” or “We can’t make it in this life.”
“In the past, young South Koreans tended to vote progressive, but now they have become swing voters,” said Prof. Kim Hyung-joon, an election expert at Myongji University in Seoul. “To them, nothing matters as much as fairness and equal opportunity and which candidate ​will ​provide it.”
Young people near Konkuk University in Seoul. Unlike previous generations, these voters are not easily swayed by old political dynamics.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
Yoon Suk-yeol, the leading candidate from the opposition People Power Party, has won over voters in their 60s and older by pitching their preferred conservative agenda. He has championed a stronger alliance with the United States and even threatened “pre-emptive strikes” against North Korea.
Mr. Yoon’s rival, Lee Jae-myung, the candidate representing President Moon Jae-in’s Democratic Party, remains popular among voters in their 40s and 50s. He has called for a diplomatic balance between the United States, South Korea’s security ally, and China, its biggest trading partner.
Few of these issues have roused South Koreans in their 20s and 30s, who make up one-third of the eligible voters, as much as they did older voters. Rather, on top of their minds is an uncertain economic future.
“We will be the first generation whose standard of living will be lower than our parents’,” said Kim Dong-min, 24, a student at Konkuk University Law School.
Kim Dong-min, 24, studying in the library at Konkuk University Law School. “We will be the first generation whose standard of living will be lower than our parents’,” he said.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
In the decades following the 1950-53 Korean War, most South Koreans were ​equally ​poor. Those who found success were often referred to as “a dragon rising from a humble ditch.”
Middle-class dreams were plausible as the postwar economy roared, churning out jobs. Education functioned as a vehicle of upward mobility. Millions of people migrated to the Seoul metropolitan area, where the best schools and most of the country’s wealth was eventually concentrated.
Getting a degree from an elite university and owning an apartment in Seoul became symbols of social mobility. But in recent decades, the economy slowed, and that old formula has broken down. In a survey last year, nearly 65 percent of the respondents in South Korea said they were skeptical that their children’s economic future would be better than their own.
In Seoul, the average household must save its entire income for 18.5 years to ​afford to buy a home.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
A majority of ​respondents in their 20s and 30s said they no longer saw education as the great equalizer, as admission into top universities depended largely on whether parents could bankroll expensive private tutors.
“How would you feel when you are struggling in a marathon and you see others cruising along in sports cars?” said Oh Byeong-ju, 23, a senior at Dongguk University in Seoul.
In South Korea, where nearly three-quarters of household wealth is concentrated in real estate, no index illustrates widening inequality quite ​like housing prices. Young couples whose wealthy parents helped them buy apartments — a tradition in South Korea — saw their property value in Seoul nearly double under Mr. Moon.
The average household, on the other hand, must save its entire income for 18.5 years in order to ​afford an apartment in the city, according to estimates by KB Kookmin Bank.
“It has become impossible to buy an apartment in Seoul, even if you work and save for your entire life,” said Park Eun-hye, 27, who works at Youth Mungan, a civic group that provides affordable meals for poor youths. “Whatever the candidates say sounds unconvincing. Young people instead invest what little money ​we save in stocks and cryptocurrencies.”
Oh Byeong-ju, 23, a senior at Dongguk University in Seoul, says, “How would you feel when you are struggling in a marathon and you see others cruising along in sports cars?” Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
South Korea’s poverty rate and its income inequality are among the worst in wealthy countries, with youths facing some of the steepest challenges. Nearly one in every five South Koreans between the ages of 15 and 29 was effectively jobless as of January, according to government data. That is far higher than the national average, 13.1 percent.
Upon his inauguration, Mr. Moon promised “equal opportunities” for everyone. “The process will be fair,” he said. “And the result will be righteous.”
Many young people claim fairness and equal opportunity — or their versions of those values — have been eroded instead. They bristled when Mr. Moon’s government formed a joint ice hockey team with North Korea for the 2018 Winter Olympics, arguing that it was unfair to replace elite South Korean athletes with inferior North Korean players.
Posters featuring portraits of presidential candidates in Seoul.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
And last year, after a scandal revealed officials had used their position to seek personal gain in the housing market, young voters helped deliver Mr. Moon’s government a crushing defeat in the Seoul mayoral election.
Rival political parties have since rushed to appease South Korean youth. Lawmakers lowered the minimum voting age to 18 from 19 and the age limit for running for Parliament to 18 from 25. Mr. Lee and Mr. Yoon, the two leading presidential candidates, have both apologized and have applied different tactics to win votes.
Mr. Yoon’s popularity soared among men in the 20s after he promised to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Women and sidelined a campaign adviser who identified as a feminist. Anti-feminist sentiments are widespread among the young men.
Park Eun-hye, 27, at Youth Mungan, a civic group that provides affordable meals for young people in Seoul.Credit...Woohae Cho for The New York Times
Mr. Lee is more popular among women in their 20s, and he has promised to introduce harsher punishment for date rape and other sex crimes. He also campaigned to make companies reveal gender-wage gaps to their employees and to the public.
But 20 percent to 30 percent of South Koreans in their 20s and 30s have said they may change their mind about their preferred candidate before they vote this week, according to surveys. “Our support shifts from one political party to another, issue by issue,” Mr. Jeong said.
The New York Times · by Choe Sang-Hun · March 8, 2022

5. UNICEF distributing humanitarian aid in N. Korea after quarantine release

I was not expecting this.

UNICEF distributing humanitarian aid in N. Korea after quarantine release | Yonhap News Agency
en.yna.co.kr · by 채윤환 · March 8, 2022
SEOUL, March 8 (Yonhap) -- The U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) said Tuesday it was distributing humanitarian supplies to health facilities in North Korea after their release from the reclusive country's quarantine measures against COVID-19.
The first batch of nutrition supplies for North Korea was released from months of quarantine at the western port of Nampo, following the reopening of its western sea routes in October last year, according to the agency's recent report.
"Humanitarian supplies recently released from quarantine and disinfection procedures are in the process of being distributed to health and nutrition facilities in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Health in DPRK," a UNICEF spokesperson said in an emailed statement, using the acronym for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The supplies include micronutrient treatments for 160,000 pregnant women and new mothers, tuberculosis treatments and preventative medicines, as well as oral rehydration salts to treat diarrheal disease for at least 400,000 children, according to the spokesperson.
"This is an initial step towards addressing some shortages in essential items needed for children and women, and we hope this marks the beginning of a more regular supply operation," the official added.
The North has implemented strong border controls since early 2020 to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

yunhwanchae@yna.co.kr
(END)
en.yna.co.kr · by 채윤환 · March 8, 2022

6. Korean shipbuilders No. 1 in terms of global new orders

Good economic news.

Tuesday
March 8, 2022

Korean shipbuilders No. 1 in terms of global new orders
Korean shipbuilders took the top spot in global new orders in February, far outpacing their Chinese rivals, industry data showed Tuesday.
 
Local shipyards, led by Hyundai Heavy Industries, clinched 860,000 compensated gross tons (CGTs) in new orders last month, or 67 percent of the global total at 1.29 million CGTs, according to data provided by global market researcher Clarkson Research Service.
 
It represents the first time in three months that Korean shipbuilders have ranked first in global new orders.
 
Chinese shipbuilders garnered 340,000 CGTs, taking up 26 percent of the total. Japan came third with 40,000 CGTs, or 3 percent.
 
In the January-February period, Korea bagged new orders for 56 ships of 2.81 million CGTs, representing 55 percent of the global total at 5.12 million CGTs.
 
Chinese shipbuilders won orders for 61 ships of 2.01 million CGTs, taking up 39 percent of the total.
 
Global order backlogs came to 91.73 million CGTs at the end of February, down 560,000 CGTs from the previous month. Korea's order backlog expanded by 600,000 CGTs over the cited period, with that for China shrinking by 10,000 CGTs.
 
Clarkson's Newbuilding Price Index, a barometer of price changes in newly built ships, stood at 154.73 in February, up 0.47 point from a month earlier and rising for 15 months on end, according to the data.
Yonhap
 

7.  UNSC again fails to condemn NK’s missile launch

Or is the UNSC a failure because of countries such as China and Russia?

UNSC again fails to condemn NK’s missile launch
koreaherald.com · by Ahn Sung-mi · March 8, 2022
Published : Mar 8, 2022 - 17:16 Updated : Mar 9, 2022 - 09:24
Debates at the UN Security Council Summit in 2017 (123rf)
The UN Security Council held a closed-door meeting to discuss North Korea’s recent missile test on Monday, but failed to produce a text condemning the regime of its sanctions violations.

At the request of Washington, the meeting of the UN’s most powerful body came after the North said it conducted test for a reconnaissance satellite Saturday. Observers believe it was a cover for testing long-range ballistic missile technology banned by UN Security Council resolutions.

The council was unable to come to consensus in issuing a joint statement due to opposition from China and Russia, according to the Agence France-Presse.

It was the fifth time the 15-member council gathered for a meeting this year on North Korea’s weapons test, but no joint statement or a resolution has been issued after any of the meetings.

Instead, the US and 10 other countries, including South Korea, released a joint statement, condemning the North’s latest and test and lamenting the council for remaining “silent” to series of missile tests.

“We stand united today in condemning the DPRK’s March 5 launch of a ballistic missile. Like the 10 other ballistic missile launches since the beginning of the year, this act by the DPRK violated multiple Security Council resolutions,” US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, reading a joint statement by 11 countries. “While the DPRK escalates its destabilizing actions, the Security Council continues to remain silent.”

DPRK stands for the North’s official name, the Democratic Republic of Korea.

“Each ballistic missile launch that results in inaction by the Council erodes the credibility of the UN Security Council itself in addressing the DPRK and undermines the global non-proliferation regime,” she said.

The statement was backed by the council members including the US, Albania, Brazil, France, Ireland, Norway and the UK, as well as countries not on the council, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

“We call on all Council members to speak with one voice in condemning these dangerous and unlawful acts,” it said.

The US envoy stressed that Washington remained committed to seeking “serious and sustained” diplomacy with Pyongyang and have repeatedly offered dialogue without preconditions, but the North has failed to respond.

“Instead of embarking on a path of diplomacy and de-escalation, the DPRK has chosen to carry out an increasingly escalatory series of ballistic missile launches in violation of international law,” she said. “We stand ready to collaborate and determine a mutually agreeable approach with other council members to address the DPRK’s provocations.”

The countries reaffirmed their commitment to diplomacy for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

“We urge Pyongyang to respond positively to outreach from the United States and others. We continue to call on the DPRK to choose the path of dialogue over instability and to prioritize the basic needs and human rights of its own people over its unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs,” they said.

By Ahn Sung-mi (sahn@heraldcorp.com)

8. Russia's plummeting ruble to hit Korean firms


Russia's plummeting ruble to hit Korean firms
The Korea Times · March 8, 2022
President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Korea Times file

By Lee Kyung-min

Korean companies engaged in business with Russia are expressing concerns over the plummeting value of the Russian ruble, a foreign currency risk amplified by escalating geopolitical volatility triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, according to industry watchers and economists, Tuesday.

The shared concern came on the heels of Korea being included on the Russian government's list of "unfriendly countries." Forty-eight countries whose businesses are owed more than10 million rubles (95.8 million won) by their Russian counterparts or individuals can ― and almost certainly will ― be paid in Russia's currency, rapidly depreciating both against the U.S. dollar and Korean won. On the list were countries that approved strong sanctions against Russia for its Ukraine invasion.

Korean firms in Russia are expected to bear the full brunt of the impact, since they receive rubles in return for their products and services.

Subject to even greater uncertainties are those who were paid in the U.S. dollar, the global reserve currency against which the ruble has lost about 50 percent in value in just about a week and a half. Their profitability will subsequently be hit, if Russian firms insist on paying in rubles, a grim scenario certain to deepen further since the military conflict is unlikely to die down any time soon.
Rapid loss

"Receiving ruble that has lost about half of its value means their balance sheet tanking by half," Seoul National University economist Lee In-ho said.

Only those with ample cash reserves will be able to withstand the sudden, extreme liquidity crunch, since most firms need the money received to buy raw materials for manufacturing, in a healthy business cycle.

"Half of what you expected in hand means businesses coming under the threat of rapid deterioration in their financials or even default. Few of the small- and medium-sized exporters will be able to survive," he added.

The shipbuilding industry with exposure to Russia is closely monitoring the developments, according to a Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering official.
"We do not see an immediate disruption in payment for our orders, but we are keeping a close eye on the conflict with continued efforts to diversify our markets to reduce the risks associated with the ongoing conflict," the official said.
Hyundai Genuine, Hyundai Heavy Industries Group's intermediate holding company, said the firm is mapping out plans to minimize the sales disruptions from the fallout of the Ukrainian war.

"We are closely monitoring the situation," a Hyundai Genuine official said.
The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy convened an emergency meeting, earlier in the day, to discuss ways to navigate the unexpected turn of events.
The meeting was attended by trade, foreign affairs authorities and associations of manufacturers of automobiles and electronic devices as well as construction, equipment and shipbuilding industries. Their shared anguish mostly concerned steep, short-term corporate losses due to ruble-mediated payments.

"The government will come up with measures to limit the difficulties experienced by businesses, a result of Korea joining the international sanctions against Russia as a responsible member of the international community," said the country's top trade negotiator Yeo Han-koo at Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry building in Seoul.

Foreign exchange market data showed 1 ruble traded at 9.58 won, Tuesday, up 8 percent from the previous session. The U.S. dollar traded at 155 rubles, up from around 80 rubles as of end of February.


The Korea Times · March 8, 2022


9. 

South Korea’s Upcoming Presidential Election And The Future Of Diplomacy With North Korea

3/8/2022
 

By Audrey Gregg, HRNK Research Intern
Edited by Raymond Ha, HRNK Director of Operations and Research

March 8, 2022

On March 9, South Korea will hold its eighth democratic election since its transition to democracy in 1987. The next president will follow the incumbent, Moon Jae-in, a former human rights lawyer born to North Korean war refugees and whose presidency has been marked by his attempt, and failure, to improve diplomatic relations with North Korea.[1]
 
The two forerunners are ex-civil rights attorney Lee Jae-myung and former public prosecutor Yoon Seok-yeol of the Democratic and People Power Party, respectively. Also in the running is Sim Sang-jung of the Justice Party, who is polling much lower.[2] Though this election cycle has largely focused on domestic issues such as housing prices, debt, and discrimination, the next president of South Korea will inherit the consequences of President Moon’s foreign policies and must pursue policies that balance the security of the citizens of South Korea, pressure from the international community, including the U.N., NGOs, and foreign governments, and the current human rights crisis in North Korea.[3]
 
This election cycle has been dominated by mudslinging, scandals, and personal attacks. Over fifty percent of South Koreans do not care for either major candidate, and many feel that they are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.[4] Yoon and Lee’s campaign platforms fall, for the most part, within the historical legacies of their respective parties. Policy surrounding North Korea has always been a divisive, partisan issue. Traditionally, the conservative People Power Party and its predecessors have taken a hardline stance, advocating for measures including the deployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons and stricter sanctions. In contrast, the Democratic Party favors diplomacy in the form of peace talks, summits, and inter-Korean dialogue.[5]
 
Yoon has stated that foreign affairs, including diplomacy with North Korea, should be considered separate from human rights issues. In a press conference in January, he suggested that, "The only way to deter this threat is a pre-emptive strike using the Kill Chain,” a contingency plan that calls for identifying and destroying North Korean missile launch pads and facilities if an attack is deemed to be imminent.[6] Lee, on the other hand, prefers to roll back sanctions in hopes of denuclearizing North Korea, continuing peace talks and summits, and declaring an end to the Korean War.[7] His stance is reminiscent of the Sunshine Policy, a policy initiative pursued by former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung to provide economic assistance and encourage civilian exchanges between the two countries.[8]
 
If it seems that one of these platforms is much more humane than the other, consider the fact the Sunshine Policy ultimately had little effect on inter-Korean relations.[9] Past experience demonstrates that promoting dialogue between the two Koreas usually comes at the cost of disregarding North Korea’s abysmal human rights record, as well as the voices of human rights activists who are silenced by the South Korean government to placate the North.[10] This is a common criticism of Moon Jae-in’s “Anti-Leaflet Law,” which was, according to Robert King, former Special Envoy for North Korea human rights issues at the U.S. Department of State, “in direct response to an acerbic public outburst against defectors from the North now living in the South by Kim Yo-jong.”[11] In 2019, South Korea declined to co-sponsor the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution on North Korea’s human rights situation, the same year it forcefully repatriated two North Korean fishermen without due process.[12] Despite these gestures and President Moon’s best efforts, Pyongyang responded with violence. It blew up the newly constructed liaison office at Kaesong, cut lines of communication with South Korea, and continued its missile tests. There is no evidence to suggest that a “gentler” approach to diplomacy in North Korea has been met in kind.[13] Clearly, a viable long-term solution must include policies that present Pyongyang with clear and meaningful incentives.
 
Another controversy in the election campaign is the deployment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), a U.S. defense system designed to detect and intercept ballistic missiles. Yoon fully supports the deployment of additional THAAD units and tactical nuclear weapons in an emergency, emphasizing the security of South Korean citizens and the importance of neutralizing North Korea’s nuclear capabilities over dialogue.[14] In his recent article in Foreign Affairs, he criticized the Moon administration, stating, “Dialogue with the North was once a specific means to a specific end: the complete denuclearization of North Korea. Under President Moon Jae-in, however, dialogue with the North has become an end in itself.”[15] Lee opposes the deployment of additional THAAD batteries, but is willing to accommodate the units that are already in the country.[16] THAAD also affects South Korea’s relationship with China, which retaliated to its initial deployment in 2017 with harsh economic measures.[17]
 
So where does the upcoming election leave the people of North Korea, escapees who have resettled in South Korea, and the families of those who were abducted by North Korea? The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on North Korea’s economy, and many experts report that conditions within the country may be as dire as they were during the “Arduous March” of the 1990s.[18] Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans remain imprisoned without due process, and millions more endure systemic abuse, torture, surveillance, and other restrictions on their fundamental human rights. In the upcoming South Korean presidential election, diplomacy with North Korea is framed in terms of South Korea’s relationships with China and the U.S. Regrettably, there is no room at the bargaining table for the people of North Korea.
 
Audrey Gregg is a graduate of New York University and has spent the last two years advocating for North Korean defectors residing in Seoul, South Korea. She has worked both in translation and resettlement efforts.


[1] Charlie Campbell, “South Korean President Moon Jae-in Makes One Last Attempt to Heal His Homeland,” Time, June 23, 2021. https://time.com/6075235/moon-jae-in-south-korea-election/.
[2] Editor’s Note: Ahn Cheol-soo, another third-party candidate, exited the race on March 3 and announced that he would join forces with Yoon.
[3] “Campaigning for next President Kicks off in South Korea,” Al Jazeera, February 15, 2022. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/15/campaigning-for-next-president-kicks-off-in-south-korea.
[4] “Both Main Candidates for the South Korean Presidency Are Reviled,” The Economist, January 20, 2022. https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/01/20/both-main-candidates-for-the-south-korean-presidency-are-reviled.
[5] “A Rundown of Leading Candidates' Positions on Defense, Foreign Relations and the Economy,” The Korea Herald, February 16, 2022. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220216000621.
[6] Nam Hyun-woo, “Will North Korea Sway South Korea's Presidential Election?” The Korea Times, January 13, 2022. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/01/356_322153.html.
[7] Choi Hyeon-ho, “Lee Jae-myung announces North Korea policy: conditional sanctions relief and step-by-step reciprocity” [in Korean], Gyeonggi Ilbo, August 22, 2021. http://www.kyeonggi.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=2377465.
[8] Norman D. Levin and Yong-Sup Han, “THE SUNSHINE POLICY: PRINCIPLES AND MAIN ACTIVITIES,” in Sunshine in Korea: The South Korean Debate over Policies Toward North Korea, 1st ed. (RAND Corporation, 2002), 24–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mr1555capp.9.
[9] Ronald Popeski, “Sunshine Policy Failed to Change North Korea: Report,” Reuters, November 18, 2010. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north-sunshine-idUSTRE6AH12520101118.
[10] William Gallo, “Don't Ignore North Korea Human Rights, UN Says,” VOA, September 8, 2020. https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_dont-ignore-north-korea-human-rights-un-says/6195598.html; Jieun Baek, “A Policy of Public Diplomacy with North Korea,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Harvard Kennedy School, August 2021. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/policy-public-diplomacy-north-korea.
[11] Robert King, “North Korea Human Rights and South Korea’s Upcoming Presidential Election,” Korea Economic Institute of America, January 19, 2022. https://keia.org/the-peninsula/north-korea-human-rights-and-south-koreas-upcoming-presidential-election/.
[12] Ahn Sung-mi, “Seoul Declines to Back UN Resolution on NK Rights,” The Korea Herald, March 24, 2021. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210324000830; Eugene Whong, “South Korea Deports Two North Koreans Accused of Murder, Angering Rights Groups,” Radio Free Asia, October 11, 2020. https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/nk-fishermen-deportation-11072019172700.html.
[13] Victor Cha, “The Last Chance to Stop North Korea?” Foreign Affairs, February 2, 2022. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2021-09-22/last-chance-stop-north-korea.
[14] “Yoon Pledges Additional THAAD Deployment after N.K. Launch,” Yonhap News, January 30, 2022. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220130003100315; “Yoon Says He Will Request Redeployment of U.S. Tactical Nukes in Case of Emergency,” Yonhap News, September 22, 2021. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210922005300320.
[15] Yoon Suk-yeol, “South Korea Needs to Step Up,” Foreign Affairs, February 8, 2022. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-korea/2022-02-08/south-korea-needs-step.
[16] Ko Jun-tae, “Lee Jae-Myung against Beijing Olympics Boycott, Opposes THAAD Missiles,” The Korea Herald, December 30, 2021. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20211230000590.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Joung Eun-lee, “Is the North Korean Economy Under Kim Jong Un in Danger? ‘Arduous March’ in the Age of COVID-19?” 38 North, July 15, 2021. https://www.38north.org/2021/07/is-the-north-korean-economy-under-kim-jong-un-in-danger-arduous-march-in-the-age-of-covid-19/.


10. South Korea’s Populist Turn – OpEd

Excerpts:
As Peter K Lee explains in our second lead this week, ‘the next South Korean president will face a difficult conundrum between North Korea and China. South Korean leaders on both the left and right have long claimed that North Korea’s denuclearisation was the foremost priority for the region and world peace … Yet North Korea is increasingly of secondary importance to the United States’, behind dealing with China, and now behind Russia too in the wake of its aggressive war against Ukraine.
How the next leader in the Blue House decides to balance the continuation of Moon’s diplomatic outreach to North Korea with policy towards China and Russia ‘will inform South Korea’s position on the Indo-Pacific, wartime operational control, trilateral cooperation with Japan, participation in groupings like the Quad, and prospects for deeper cooperation with partners like Australia’.
If a turn to populism is the way of the future in South Korea politics, the country will again need to rely on its strong culture of civic participation and protest, which gave rise to the 2016-17 candlelight protests, to safeguard the quality of its democracy.

South Korea’s Populist Turn – OpEd
eurasiareview.com · by East Asia Forum · March 8, 2022
By ANU Editorial Board*
South Koreans will head to the polls to elect a new president this Wednesday, 9 March. With campaigning characterised by mudslinging and populist rhetoric, the contest has been dubbed the ‘unlikeable election’.
Leading the race is Yoon Suk-yeol of the main conservative opposition People Power Party (PPP) and a former prosecutor general under the current Moon Jae-in administration. Yoon jumped ship after clashing with the administration over prosecutorial reform, and his reputation as a tough investigator who doesn’t bend to political pressure has propelled him to the top of many pre-election polls.
Closely following Yoon is progressive ruling Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung, a former mayor and governor in Gyeonggi province. Starting out as a factory worker who then injured his arm in an industrial accident before turning to politics, Lee is promoting a rags-to-riches story as part of his promise to roll out a universal basic income and address wealth inequality.
Trailing the two leaders was Ahn Cheol-soo, a renowned former doctor and software entrepreneur of the centrist opposition People’s Party. This positioned Ahn to play the role of spoiler or kingmaker.
Just six days out from the election, Ahn withdrew from the race and threw his support behind Yoon. With Sim Sang-jung of the small opposition leftist Justice Party unable to gain traction, the four-way contest has now been stripped down to two.

The issues that voters are most concerned about are the cosy relationships that breed corruption between political elites and the chaebol (the family-owned conglomerates that dominate the South Korean economy) and socioeconomic and standard-of-living issues such as housing affordability and jobs. These issues gained traction against the backdrop of the 2016-17 candlelight protests, which saw millions take to the streets to demand the ouster of then president Park Geun-hye who was ultimately impeached.
While Moon Jae-in promised hope and change, many in South Korea feel too little has been done. It is unclear whether Yoon or Lee can do much better in the areas where voters demand the most progress. Neither of the two leading candidates have any experience as legislators in the National Assembly – a first in South Korea’s democratic history. Yoon and Lee each routed nominees from their own parties with more experience and pedigree, helped by scandals that tarred their opponents.
Both are also beset by scandals and drama of their own.
Lee’s wife is accused of using a government employee as her personal assistant and misappropriating public funds, while Lee himself is under scrutiny for a suspicious land development deal and rumours of ties to organised crime.
Yoon has been forced to apologise for his wife’s fraudulent CV, and to deny accusations of connections to a cultist shaman and a predilection for anal acupuncture.
The negative style of campaigning that has characterised the election has left a significant number of swing voters and younger voters still undecided in the lead up to the poll.
In our first lead article this week, Myungji Yang explains that Yoon’s tactics to win the presidency are focused on winning young male voters through a ‘divisive “us-versus them” strategy’. This involves demonising gender equality as the cause of South Korea’s economic woes. Yoon has promised to ‘abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, among other anti-feminist signals’.
Yoon’s approach is to tap into the frustrations of young men surrounding social mobility and the continuing widening of wealth inequality, themes portrayed so starkly in the South Korean global smash TV show Squid Game. Skyrocketing housing and rental prices in Seoul and an unemployment rate of nearly a quarter of South Koreans aged 15-29 highlight the problems. It is an approach that appears disingenuous given that South Korea is a male-dominated society which ranks 108 out of 153 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap report.
Lee’s core pledge of a universal basic income has also been labelled populist. To his supporters it is the sort of radical fix needed to address the growing wealth gap. But his detractors say he is seeking to buy votes with free money and the economics of his policies don’t add up.
Amid the populist pledges and mudslinging, both Yoon and Lee have failed to outline how they will address chaebol reform. Neither candidate has touched on the issue in their campaign manifestoes or shown signs in campaign debates that they will bring serious pressure to bear on chaebol elites.
The populist turn in South Korea politics also comes at a time when South Korea’s geopolitical position is becoming more challenging than ever.
As Peter K Lee explains in our second lead this week, ‘the next South Korean president will face a difficult conundrum between North Korea and China. South Korean leaders on both the left and right have long claimed that North Korea’s denuclearisation was the foremost priority for the region and world peace … Yet North Korea is increasingly of secondary importance to the United States’, behind dealing with China, and now behind Russia too in the wake of its aggressive war against Ukraine.
How the next leader in the Blue House decides to balance the continuation of Moon’s diplomatic outreach to North Korea with policy towards China and Russia ‘will inform South Korea’s position on the Indo-Pacific, wartime operational control, trilateral cooperation with Japan, participation in groupings like the Quad, and prospects for deeper cooperation with partners like Australia’.
If a turn to populism is the way of the future in South Korea politics, the country will again need to rely on its strong culture of civic participation and protest, which gave rise to the 2016-17 candlelight protests, to safeguard the quality of its democracy.
*About the author: The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.
Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum
eurasiareview.com · by East Asia Forum · March 8, 2022
11. A Lesson for North Korea: Ukraine Gave Up Its Nukes and Was Invaded
Ukraine is now the most cautionary tale for north Korea. More important than Iraq and Libya.

Excerpts:
The invasion of Ukraine is an extraordinary tragedy. European relations and security structures have been irrevocably changed. Irrespective of the outcome of the war, the status quo ante is gone forever. Europe’s future almost certainly is more militarized and confrontational.
But the conflict’s impact will not stop there. The seemingly intractable Korean conflict will become even more so. If Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un needed another reason not to denuclearize, Russia’s invasion, nearly three decades after Ukraine disarmed, provides one. And the spread of nuclear weapons might not stop there. Nonproliferation may be the next, albeit unintended, victim of Russia’s aggression.

A Lesson for North Korea: Ukraine Gave Up Its Nukes and Was Invaded
Nonproliferation may be the next, albeit unintended, victim of Russia’s aggression.
The National Interest · by Doug Bandow · March 7, 2022
Russia’s savage invasion of Ukraine gave North Korea another opportunity to strengthen relations with its traditional patrons. One of the few countries to back Moscow in the recent UN General Assembly vote, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) blamed the United States and its NATO allies for undermining “the security environment of Europe by becoming more blatant in their attempts to deploy an attack weapon system.” Russia, declared the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, merely desired a “legal guarantee for security.”
This argument conveniently reinforces the DPRK’s argument for its missile and nuclear programs. Ironically, Russia’s invasion likely bolsters Pyongyang’s case in another way. The war demonstrates the folly of relying on paper security guarantees.
In 1994, Kyiv yielded the 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles and roughly 1,900 strategic and 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons left in Ukraine after the abrupt dissolution of the Soviet Union. Although the Ukrainian government lacked operational control over this sizable arsenal, it could have reused the nuclear materials. Given uncertainties over its relations with Russia, some Ukrainians advocated for keeping the Soviet stash. However, Kyiv, along with Belarus and Kazakhstan, gave in to international pressure and disarmed.
What Kyiv received in return was the Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia promised “to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine” in response to an act of aggression, which of course was a meaningless commitment. The result has occasioned more than a little regret in Kyiv. For instance, before Russia’s invasion, former Ukrainian defense minister Andriy Zahorodniuk complained: “We gave away the capability for nothing.” As for the future, “now, every time somebody offers us to sign a strip of paper, the response is, ‘Thank you very much. We already had one of those some time ago.’”
Just as this agreement did not protect Kyiv from Russia, there is no doubt that Kim realizes a peace agreement or similar document would not protect the DPRK from the United States. Indeed, Lee Yang-goo, a former South Korean ambassador to Ukraine, recently argued that North Korean denuclearization has become even less likely. He explained: “North Korea already did not have much willingness to denuclearize. But looking at the graphic scenes coming out of Ukraine, Pyongyang will further solidify their internal and external justification for possessing nuclear weapons.” Indeed, he figured the lesson was even broader: “Now, after this crisis, it will be difficult for any country to make a denuclearization pitch to North Korea.”
The example of Libya, in which a dictator gave up a nascent nuclear program and was later killed when powerful countries aided anti-government rebels, was already compelling. However, Ukraine’s situation could be even closer to that of the Korean peninsula. Imagine the North yielding its nukes and then being invaded by the United States along with South Korea. America’s protestations of peaceful intentions clash dramatically with its extensive violent record—Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia/Serbia, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria.
However, Lee does not stop there. He contended that “they argue nuclear weapons are self-defense, fine. Then we get deterrence too. It’s a matter of survival for South Koreans. If through this, denuclearization negotiations make progress, good. But even if not, this should not get in the way of inter-Korean cooperation any longer.” Nor does Lee see deterrence as only directed at the DPRK. The Republic of Korea sits in the “worst region possibly imaginable.” Take a look at the really big country to the north, hint, hint.
Lee is not alone in this view. A poll last month found that 71 percent of South Koreans support having an independent nuclear deterrent. When asked to choose between that and the deployment of American nuclear weapons in the South, 67 percent picked the first. The reason is simple: South Koreans don’t believe that the DPRK will surrender its nukes and expect China to become an even greater threat in the near future. Mitch Shin of the Diplomat notes another factor: “U.S. President Joe Biden has sent a clear message that he will not deploy any troops in Ukraine, as it could provoke a World War III between nuclear-armed states. North Korea might be learning the lesson that nuclear weapons will provide sufficient cover to its aggression, as the U.S. and other states will be deterred from counterattacks.”
Although the South currently relies on “extended deterrence” from the United States, that will weaken once Pyongyang can accurately target the American mainland. It was one thing to promise to use nuclear weapons when the war would be “over there,” to use Sen. Lindsey Graham’s infamous phrase. But when major American cities could be destroyed, U.S. policymakers will be ever more reluctant to intervene.
Of course, if South Korea moved toward nuclear weapons, Japan would be forced to address the issue. Australia is also viewed as a potential nuclear weapons state. And given the growing threat from China, Taiwan presumably would like to possess its own deterrent. Such a course for the latter would be uniquely dangerous, as openly developing a nuclear program would encourage Beijing to attempt a preemptive strike.
The invasion of Ukraine is an extraordinary tragedy. European relations and security structures have been irrevocably changed. Irrespective of the outcome of the war, the status quo ante is gone forever. Europe’s future almost certainly is more militarized and confrontational.
But the conflict’s impact will not stop there. The seemingly intractable Korean conflict will become even more so. If Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un needed another reason not to denuclearize, Russia’s invasion, nearly three decades after Ukraine disarmed, provides one. And the spread of nuclear weapons might not stop there. Nonproliferation may be the next, albeit unintended, victim of Russia’s aggression.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of several books, including 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.
Image: Reuters.
The National Interest · by Doug Bandow · March 7, 2022






V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Personal Email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
Web Site: www.fdd.org
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
VIDEO "WHEREBY" Link: https://whereby.com/david-maxwell
Subscribe to FDD’s new podcastForeign Podicy
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Personal Email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com
Web Site: www.fdd.org
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
Subscribe to FDD’s new podcastForeign Podicy
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

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

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