Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:


“We can define our way to failure. We must understand our way to success.”
- Robert Jones

“Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing. The prize will not be sent to you. You have to win it.”  
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Falling down is not failure. Failure comes when you stay where you have fallen.” 
- Socrates





1. N.K. says it fired artillery shots as 'serious warning' over S. Korea's military drills

2. S. Korea, U.S. hold combined river crossing drills

3. U.S. Ambassador rebukes calls for tactical nuclear weapons

4. Anti-missile radar in full operation in Busan amid growing North Korean threats

5. Digging into the suspicious flow of money (Korea)

6. Bring US nukes back to South Korea to counter Kim Jong Un’s deadly game

7. North fires more shells toward inter-Korean sea buffer zone

8. N.Korea 'Upset' at Stronger U.S.-S.Korea Alliance

9. <Insider Interview>How have North Korea’s people viewed the country’s continued missile launches? With food shortages continuing, their distrust and disinterest in the government is deepening…

10. Facing economic difficulties, many N. Koreans irritated by their government’s continued military provocations

11. Trump Acknowledged in Interview That Letters to Kim Were ‘Top Secret’

12. North Korea is preparing for another nuclear test—or many

13. Op-Ed: How the nuclear weapons taboo is fading

14. ‘Yankees, Go Home!’: Seoul Gets Squeezed Between the U.S. and China





1. N.K. says it fired artillery shots as 'serious warning' over S. Korea's military drills


But does Kim really care about the Chinese 20th Party Congress?


The North's artillery firing came despite speculation that Pyongyang may refrain from staging military provocations during China's ongoing 20th Congress of the Communist Party.


(LEAD) N.K. says it fired artillery shots as 'serious warning' over S. Korea's military drills | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 김수연 · October 19, 2022

(ATTN: UPDATES with more details in paras 2, 6, 7; REWRITES headline, lead)

By Kim Soo-yeon

SEOUL, Oct. 19 (Yonhap) -- North Korea's military said Wednesday it fired artillery shots overnight into maritime buffer zones near the inter-Korean border as a "serious warning" over South Korea's ongoing military drills.

In a statement, a spokesman for the General Staff of the Korean People's Army (KPA) said the North's military launched a "threatening and warning" fire as its "powerful military countermeasure" against South Korea's military exercises.

The spokesperson also called on the South to immediately stop "reckless and inciting provocations" that have raised military tensions on the peninsula, according to the English-language statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency.

It came hours after the North launched more than 250 artillery shells into waters off its east and west coast. The unnamed KPA official said the move came in response to a series of "military provocative acts by enemies," citing the Hoguk military drills under way in the South.

South Korea kicked off its annual Hoguk field training Monday to hone defense capabilities to counter North Korea's nuclear and missile threats. The drills are to run until Oct. 28.

The North's artillery firing came despite speculation that Pyongyang may refrain from staging military provocations during China's ongoing 20th Congress of the Communist Party.

Last week, North Korea fired hundreds of artillery shots into the maritime buffer zones in the East and Yellow seas that were set under a 2018 inter-Korean agreement on reducing military tensions. South Korea called the North's provocations a clear violation of the 2018 inter-Korean military accord.


sooyeon@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 김수연 · October 19, 2022



2. S. Korea, U.S. hold combined river crossing drills



Years ago we would be conducting Foal Eagle during this time in the fall. We should return to four major theater exercises per year - Ulchi Focus Lens in the summer, Foal Eagle in the fall, Ulchi Focus Clear in January, and Team Spirit in March.


S. Korea, U.S. hold combined river crossing drills | Yonhap News Agency

en.yna.co.kr · by 송상호 · October 19, 2022

SEOUL, Oct. 19 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States on Wednesday staged combined river-crossing military drills, the Army here said, as the allies are strengthening readiness to counter evolving North Korean threats.

Some 1,000 troops from the two militaries joined the drills around Namhan River in Yeoju, 105 kilometers south of Seoul, mobilizing some 50 vehicles, including K2 battle tanks, as well as air assets, such as Apache attack helicopters and KF-16 fighters.

During the drills, military aircraft carried out fire support and other missions while ground troops worked together to assemble a makeshift bridge to carry out contingency operations, according to the armed service.

The establishment of the bridge created a path for tanks, armored vehicles and foot soldiers to cross the river.

The training came as Seoul and Washington have been striving to maintain a steady readiness posture in the wake of the North's continued provocations, including its firing of hundreds of artillery shells on Tuesday and Wednesday.


sshluck@yna.co.kr

(END)

en.yna.co.kr · by 송상호 · October 19, 2022





3. U.S. Ambassador rebukes calls for tactical nuclear weapons



Just in case you missed my comments yesterday on the same subject for a different article:


Most people talking about redeployment cannot answer the basic questions such as what is the concept of employment in war, will the US change the policy of not confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons (how would it contribute to deterrence if we do not acknowledge their presence), are we prepared for and willing to accept the inevitable sustained protests at the US basees where such weapons would likely be stored? And much more, including how do we think KJU will be deterred by tactical nuclear weapons? Aren't we mirror imaging our nuclear taboo and projecting that on Kim? Will our tactical nuclear weapons really make him fear our capabilities any more than he already does? And will KJU be able to exploit the redeployment to support his political warfare and blackmail diplomacy (as counterintuitive that may seem for some).


U.S. Ambassador rebukes calls for tactical nuclear weapons

donga.com

Posted October. 19, 2022 07:51,

Updated October. 19, 2022 07:51

U.S. Ambassador rebukes calls for tactical nuclear weapons. October. 19, 2022 07:51. by Jin-Woo Shin niceshin@donga.com.

Philip S. Goldberg, the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, insisted on the importance of the need for removing nuclear weapons to alleviate the tension on the Korean Peninsula rather than focusing on the redeployment of nuclear weapons, whether it be strategic or not, either of which will exacerbate the threats. Asked about his opinion on the redeployment of the U.S.’ tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula at the forum held by the Kwanhun Club, Mr. Goldberg answered as the above, citing the latest remark of President Yoon Suk-yeol on the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, thereby strictly renouncing the argument for the redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons or nuclear sharing and reiterating the principle of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.


The U.S. ambassador criticized all the talks on tactical nuclear weapons, calling it “irresponsible and dangerous,” whether it came from Russian President Vladimir Putin or North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. “We are determined to stop the spread and development of nuclear weapons, and we support the NPT,” emphasizing that the U.S. neither recognizes North Korea as a nuclear state nor overlooks the North Korean nuclear issue causing a nuclear domino effect in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also said that any North Korean provocations, including a nuclear test, will lead to a greater concern for nuclear proliferation.


A high-profile government official said in a telephone interview with The Dong-A Ilbo that the two countries have agreed, on the most basic level, to ramp up the deployment of U.S. tactical weapons and the joint military exercise. “Should North Korea conduct the seventh nuclear test, however, the agenda on the table between South Korea and the U.S., about extended deterrence, will become considerably different,” the official added.

한국어

donga.com



4. Anti-missile radar in full operation in Busan amid growing North Korean threats





Wednesday

October 19, 2022

 dictionary + A - A 

Anti-missile radar in full operation in Busan amid growing North Korean threats

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/10/19/national/defense/korea-north-korea-south-korea/20221019104242112.html


Equipment are transported to a site for the installation of the Green Pine Radar system in Busan, 390 kilometers south of Seoul, on Dec. 7, 2021. [YONHAP]

 

A key missile defense radar system, emplaced in a southern city last year, went into full-fledged operation earlier this month, Seoul officials said Wednesday amid growing North Korean nuclear and missile threats.

 

The ground-based Green Pine radar in Busan, 390 kilometers south of Seoul, is now running at full capacity. It was delivered to the city late last year, but had to go through testing and other procedures before going into service.

 

The operation of the radar comes as Pyongyang is pushing to develop an assortment of new missiles to be fired from various launch platforms, including a submarine, train and a reservoir silo.



 

Along with the SPY-1 radar installed on the Navy's Aegis-equipped destroyers, the Green Pine Radar plays a central role to detect hostile ballistic missiles. Its detection range is known to be around 800 kilometers.

 

The South Korean military has run a set of Green Pine radar systems in a central region, raising concerns that their operational location could leave southern and other rear areas vulnerable to potential North Korean attacks, such as a submarine-launched ballistic missile strike.


Yonhap


5.  Digging into the suspicious flow of money (Korea)




Tuesday

October 18, 2022

 dictionary + A - A 

Digging into the suspicious flow of money

https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/10/18/opinion/editorials/suspicious-money-flow-Lee-Jaemyung-SBW/20221018193647861.html

The Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office has raided the SsangBangWool (SBW) Group for another round of investigation on suspicions related to its former chairman Kim Sung-tae. This time, prosecutors are tracking the allegation that the company smuggled millions of dollars in foreign currency to China in violation of the Foreign Exchange Trade Act.


The smuggling method has been well planned. Employees hid tens of millions of dollars in books or personal belongings in their luggage to fly to Shenyang. Korean citizens must report if they take out over $10,000 per person out of the border. Upon arriving at the airport of Shenyang, they handed over the money to the business group’s former vice chair who is now arrested, and took the next plane home.


The timing of the smuggling is also suspicious. The delivery had been made mostly in 2019 when SBW signed economic cooperation deals with North Korea’s Asia-Pacific Peace Committee and National Economic Cooperation Federation in Shenyang. Lee Hwa-young, former deputy governor of Gyeonggi who acted as peace ambassador, former SBW chairman Kim, and North Korean officials met in Shenyang during the period. Kosdaq-trading shares of Nanos (now SBW Life Science) jumped amid reports of the group gaining exclusive rights to North Korean minerals. SBW could have taken out some of its corporate funds to indulge North Korea. Even company employees suspected that corporate money went to North Korea.




The UN Security Council Resolution 2321 issued after North Korea’s fifth nuclear test in September 2016 raised alarms to member countries over any suspicious inflow of hard cash to North Korea as the money can go to its nuclear programs. If the money had entered North Korea, it would have betrayed international endeavors to contain North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.


There have been numerous collusive connections with the company and politicians and government officials. Lee — the former deputy Gyeonggi governor who used to serve as an outside director to SBW — was arrested for receiving bribes with access to its corporate card. A former prosecutorial investigator who was recruited to SBW also was arrested for tipping off the company ahead of the prosecutorial raid. Kim, the former SBW chair, fled the country with the tip-off and is yet to return.


The Yoon Suk-yeol administration has imposed separate sanctions on 15 individuals and 16 institutions of North Korea after North Korea’s latest series of missile launches and threat to carry out its seventh nuclear test. Although there can be a limit to the investigation as it requires Beijing’s cooperation, prosecutors must thoroughly probe the possibility of money transfer to North Korea.




6. Bring US nukes back to South Korea to counter Kim Jong Un’s deadly game


While I may not agree with Professor Lee's recommendation to bring back tactical nuclear weapons, his penultimate paragraph is critically important. We need to prevent the mistakes we could make that are outlined in the paragraph. I just do not think tactical nuclear weapons are the answer.


Excerpts:

The U.S. has options. It can cut its losses and, through arms control talks with Pyongyang, sign a peace treaty and abandon South Korea the way it did South Vietnam in 1973. It can also turn a blind eye if South Korea, nearing abandonment, opts to cross the nuclear Rubicon. The worst of the worst may be to believe it is ready to fight a nuclear war, only to change its mind at the last minute as North Korea prepares to nuke a major U.S. city.
Of these options, bringing tactical nukes back to South Korea is for the best in the worst of all possible alternative worlds.


Bring US nukes back to South Korea to counter Kim Jong Un’s deadly game

BY SUNG-YOON LEE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 10/19/22 9:30 AM ET

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

The Hill · · October 19, 2022

It may be absurd to apply the Panglossian view — the unwavering optimism propounded by Professor Pangloss in Voltaire’s “Candide,” that “All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds” — to the real-world dystopia that is North Korea, which one defector has described as the closest thing to “hell on Earth.”

But the credo of teleology in Pangloss — that events happen by design and are the ultimate and best manifestation of their intrinsic purpose (telos) — is key to assessing the North Korean dictatorship’s pathologies; namely, an unremitting commitment to expanding its nuclear power and abusing its population. In trying to assess why Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, is so committed to these deadly crafts, observers must ask, “To what end?” and overcome their lingering obsession with “What made them do it?”

Seeing North Korea’s actions through a teleological lens (“What’s their purpose?”) casts Kim’s growing nuclear arsenal and the growing frequency of his nuclear threats in a far more comprehensible light than through the etiological monocle (“What caused the actions?”) propounded by his dutiful officials: blame the U.S. for North Korea’s bellicose actions and all its miserable deficiencies as a nation state.

The preponderance of the etiological approach assumes that Kim has little to no agency. Pyongyang’s propaganda is falsehood wrapped in what the Russians call “maskirovka,” that feeds off this tendency. But it’s not an enigma. Both pursuits serve to advance and, one day, fulfill the North Korean leader’s raison d’etre, his telos: the incorporation of South Korea under his rule.

Hence, strengthening his lethality vis-à-vis South Korea, the immeasurably more prosperous and pleasant Korean state of the two, and its sole treaty ally, the United States, is a non-negotiable proposition. It is not a mere “reactive measure” against “U.S. hostile policy,” which North Korea over-broadly defines as anything from raising concerns about its egregious human rights violations to the U.S. stationing troops in South Korea. Rather, it is a purposeful, proactive and all-important means to a sacred end.

Kim’s strategy has made strides lately.

First, the regime’s disproportionate investment in weapons of mass destruction and not food supply keeps its lowest-class population in the dark and a constant state of malaise, thus rendering them all the more dependent on the regime.

Blaming U.S. sanctions for more than 40 percent of the population’s chronic undernourishment — a man-made and -sustained state of collective misery — provides the regime an artificial cover under which to carry on as it has. Unsurprisingly, the North’s mendacious scapegoating draws sympathizers of various stripes.

Most of all, in 2022, Kim made a quantum leap in positioning himself to compel Washington to withdraw troops from South Korea by becoming a clear, present and constant nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland. By normalizing threats of preemptive nuclear attack while overseeing dozens of ballistic missile tests, Kim has fashioned the “right to nuke first” as his right.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine, world leaders take heed. But when Kim threatens a nuclear strike on South Korea and the United States, they tend to shrug it off, even though he completed this month a 15-day field guidance of his nation’s tactical nuclear operation units, during which he oversaw seven nuclear-capable missile launches.

How should Seoul and Washington respond to North Korea’s growing threat of nuclear attack? Repeat and reaffirm the U.S. extended nuclear deterrence commitment to South Korea, as Presidents Biden and Yoon Suk-yeol did in their meeting in May? Would the North Korean tyrant be sufficiently deterred by the verbal pledge when there have not been any U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in South Korea for 31 years?

Compared with the NATO Nuclear Sharing Arrangements, under which the U.S. continues to deploy some 100 nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, wouldn’t the U.S. pledge to go to war on behalf of and together with South Korea sound a bit hollow?

The U.S. deployed tactical nukes in South Korea, at times several hundreds, from 1958 to 1991, in violation of Paragraph 13 (d) of the 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement. The clause banned “the introduction into Korea of reinforcing combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition,” except for the purpose of replacing those which are “destroyed, damaged, worn out, or used up during the period of the armistice … on the basis piece-for-piece of the same effectiveness and the same type.”

While both North Korea and China had violated the same clause earlier, by stationing several hundred MiGs in North Korea, the U.S. actions may be viewed as “an escalation” and certainly may have spurred North Korea’s pursuit of the bomb. At the same time, while the U.S. nuclear posture did not deter North Korea from launching hundreds of small-scale, deadly attacks on the South, it did deter the North from starting another war.

Are these dynamics of credible U.S. nuclear deterrence in place in Korea today? In the past, the U.S. and South Korea had nukes on South Korean soil; the North had none. Today, there are no nukes in South Kore and the North has several dozen bombs. With his new “law on policy of nuclear forces,” which set the conditions under which North Korea would use nuclear weapons first, Kim is trying to instill in his adversaries his right to use nukes whenever he deems it necessary.

Pangloss muses to his student, Candide, “Pigs were made to be eaten — therefore, we eat pork all the year round.” Likewise, for Pyongyang, “nukes” may have been “made to be made stronger — therefore, we build bigger bombs all the year around.” The teleology in the former is Voltaire’s lampooning of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz’s optimism; the latter is a sober assessment of Kim Jong Un’s actions and intentions.

Seoul and Washington must beware: Kim is on a march toward creating “the worst in the worst of all possible worlds,” from routinizing nuclear threats and conventional limited attacks on the South as a fact of life, to becoming a credible nuclear threat to Washington itself and its security interests in South Korea, Japan and Australia, and to effecting a hostile takeover of the South through limited nuclear war. His mission is to incorporate South Korean territory under his own despotic rule and enslave the South Koreans.

Why playing the ‘long game’ is the right approach to Iran’s protests The wrong way to combat cancel culture

The U.S. has options. It can cut its losses and, through arms control talks with Pyongyang, sign a peace treaty and abandon South Korea the way it did South Vietnam in 1973. It can also turn a blind eye if South Korea, nearing abandonment, opts to cross the nuclear Rubicon. The worst of the worst may be to believe it is ready to fight a nuclear war, only to change its mind at the last minute as North Korea prepares to nuke a major U.S. city.

Of these options, bringing tactical nukes back to South Korea is for the best in the worst of all possible alternative worlds.

Sung-Yoon Lee is Kim Koo-Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies and assistant professor at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and faculty associate at the U.S.-Japan Program, the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. Follow him on Twitter @SungYoonLee1.

The Hill · by Alexander Bolton · October 19, 2022



7. North fires more shells toward inter-Korean sea buffer zone



Company commanders making strategic statements. Well done Captain. On message. 


Excerpts:

In parts of the “Hoguk” drills open to the media, South Korean and U.S. troops built floating bridges on a river southeast of Seoul to let tanks and other armored vehicles move over them. South Korea’s army said Wednesday’s training was meant to deal with a hypothetical enemy attack that would leave some of the bridges over the river destroyed.
“It’s so far been extremely successful and demonstrated the strength of the ROK-U.S. alliance,” said Capt. Sean Kasprisin, a company commander at the U.S. military, using the initials of South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea. “We are definitely stronger together with the two nations.”
From Oct. 31 to Nov. 4, South Korea and the United States will also hold combined air force drills involving some 240 warplanes, including F-35 fighters operated by both nations. The drills are designed to inspect the two countries’ joint operation capabilities and improve combat readiness, the South Korean military said Tuesday.


North fires more shells toward inter-Korean sea buffer zone

AP · by HYUNG-JIN KIM · October 19, 2022

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea fired about 100 more artillery shells toward the sea Wednesday in response to South Korean live-firing drills at border areas as the rivals accuse each other of dialing up tensions on the Korean Peninsula with weapons tests.

The drills conducted by both sides come amid heightened animosities over recent North Korean missile tests that it calls simulated nuclear attacks on South Korean and U.S. targets.

South Korea’s military detected the artillery being fired from a western North Korean coastal town, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. On Tuesday night, North Korea fired about 100 shells off its west coast and 150 rounds off its east coast, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier.

Both days, the North Korean shells landed in the northern parts of the maritime buffer zones the two Koreas created off their eastern and western coasts as part of agreements they made in 2018 to reduce tensions, according to the South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

ADVERTISEMENT

North Korea also fired hundreds of shells at the buffer zones Friday in its most significant direct violation of the 2018 agreement.

North Korea’s military said the launches were a warning against what it called provocative South Korean artillery firing drills along the border earlier this week.

“Our army strongly warns the enemy forces to immediately stop the highly irritating provocative act in the frontline areas,” an unidentified spokesperson at the General Staff of the North’s Korean People’s Army said in a statement Wednesday.

North Korea

North, South Korea fire off dueling missile-launch videos

North Korea fires artillery shells near border with S. Korea

S. Korea seeks to arrest former officials in N. Korea case

N. Korea fires missile, artillery shells, inflaming tensions

South Korea’s Defense Ministry said it conducted artillery drills at land border areas as part of its annual military exercises. But it said its drills didn’t violate the 2018 accord because its shells didn’t land in the buffer zones.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff warned North Korea to immediately stop provocations that threaten peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. It added that it is boosting its military readiness and, in coordination with the United States, is closely monitoring North Korea’s moves.

There were no reports of violence between the two Koreas. But animosities could persist as North Korea will likely react to South Korea’s ongoing annual “Hoguk” field exercises with its own weapons tests. South Korean officials said the ”Hoguk” drills are aimed at improving a military readiness against North Korean nuclear and missile threats and involve an unspecified number of U.S. troops.

ADVERTISEMENT

North Korea views regular South Korea-U.S. military training as an invasion rehearsal. It said its recent barrage of missile tests were meant to issue a warning to one of the allies’ earlier exercises involving a U.S. aircraft carrier.

In parts of the “Hoguk” drills open to the media, South Korean and U.S. troops built floating bridges on a river southeast of Seoul to let tanks and other armored vehicles move over them. South Korea’s army said Wednesday’s training was meant to deal with a hypothetical enemy attack that would leave some of the bridges over the river destroyed.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It’s so far been extremely successful and demonstrated the strength of the ROK-U.S. alliance,” said Capt. Sean Kasprisin, a company commander at the U.S. military, using the initials of South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea. “We are definitely stronger together with the two nations.”

From Oct. 31 to Nov. 4, South Korea and the United States will also hold combined air force drills involving some 240 warplanes, including F-35 fighters operated by both nations. The drills are designed to inspect the two countries’ joint operation capabilities and improve combat readiness, the South Korean military said Tuesday.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, said at a briefing Wednesday that Beijing hopes all relevant countries would keep trying to look for a political settlement to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea has test-launched 15 missiles since it resumed testing activities Sept. 25. One of them was an intermediate-range ballistic missile that flew over Japan and demonstrated a range capable of reaching the Pacific U.S. territory of Guam and beyond.

Some foreign experts say North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would eventually aim to use his expanded weapons arsenal to pressure the United States and others to accept his country as a legitimate nuclear state and lift economic sanctions on the North.

The North’s artillery tests draw less outside attention than its missile launches. But its forward-deployed long-range artillery guns pose a serious security threat to the capital, Seoul, about 40 to 50 kilometers (25 to 30 miles) from the border with North Korea.

___

Associated Press writer Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul, video journalist Kim Yong-ho in Yeoju, South Korea, and video producer Liu Zheng in Beijing contributed to this report.

___

See more AP Asia-Pacific coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/asia-pacific

AP · by HYUNG-JIN KIM · October 19, 2022




8. N.Korea 'Upset' at Stronger U.S.-S.Korea Alliance




​A stronger ROK/US alliance is one of the best ways to demonstrate that Kim Jong Un's strategy is failing.


​One of my 5 strategic questions on north Korea:



​5. ​In support of that strategy do we believe that Kim Jong-un has abandoned the objective to split the ROK/US Alliance and get US forces off the peninsula? Has KJU given up his divide to conquer strategy - divide the alliance to conquer the ROK?

N.Korea 'Upset' at Stronger U.S.-S.Korea Alliance

english.chosun.com

October 19, 2022 11:32

U.S. State Secretary Antony Blinken said North Korea's latest round of missile provocations shows it is upset that Washington and its Asian allies are strengthening cooperation.


"Over the last months... we have significantly increased our own work with our allies and partners in the region -- South Korea, Japan." He added, "I think that Kim Jong-un saw that and didn't like it. And it's a response to that."


Speaking at a discussion at Stanford University with former U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice, Blinken said, "We brought [large-scale military exercises] back... to make sure that we could defend and hopefully deter any kind of North Korean aggression... which has lots of benefits, including bringing [South] Korea and Japan closer together."


U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken (right) talks with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at Stanford University in California on Monday. /AP-Yonhap


Since the inauguration of President Yoon Suk-yeol in May of this year, the three allies held more than 20 high-level meetings either in person or by phone and security and diplomatic cooperation has mostly recovered. Early this month, the U.S., South Korea and Japan held their first two-week joint naval drills on the East Sea.


"We've, for example, renewed exercises that we'd had for years that were put in abeyance a few years ago," Blinken said. "I think from the leadership's perspective in North Korea, part of what we're seeing is it doesn't like to be ignored."


Meanwhile, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Philip Goldberg said the U.S.-South Korea and U.S.-Japan alliances are "ironclad" and constitute the "core" of efforts to enhance global peace and security.



U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Philip Goldberg speaks at a journalists forum in Seoul on Tuesday.


Speaking at Kwanhun Club, an organization of senior South Korean journalists, Goldberg said Seoul, Tokyo and Washington must work together. "For decades, our alliances with countries including [South] Korea and Japan have been central to promoting peace, security, and prosperity around the world," he said. "These alliances have never been more essential than they are today, and expanding their reach and scope is in our collective interest."


When asked if the Biden administration was willing to serve as a mediator between South Korea and Japan, the U.S. envoy said Seoul and Tokyo are able to speak to each other one on one, while Washington is more focused on "trilateral" cooperation.


Goldberg also criticized China for failing to block North Korea's missile provocations and enforce UN sanctions. "We cannot rely on [China] to play a supportive role in resolving regional and global challenges if that kind of attitude continues," he said.


But he said calls in South Korea to redeploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula are "irresponsible and dangerous." What is important is "making sure that we don't have a world where a whole variety of countries conclude that they're going to be better off if they acquire nuclear weapons that they don't have," he added.


  • Copyright © Chosunilbo & Chosun.com

english.chosun.com




9. <Insider Interview>How have North Korea’s people viewed the country’s continued missile launches? With food shortages continuing, their distrust and disinterest in the government is deepening…


My third strategic question on north Korea:


3. Who does Kim fear more: The US or the Korean people in the north? (Note it is the Korean people armed with information knowledge of life in South Korea)


We need to observe for the indicators of internal instability.



<Insider Interview>How have North Korea’s people viewed the country’s continued missile launches? With food shortages continuing, their distrust and disinterest in the government is deepening…

asiapress.org

A photo showing Kim Jong-un accompanied by his wife Ri Sol-ju at a missile test launch. Taken from the October 11, 2022 edition of the Rodong Sinmun.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic sanctions have pushed North Korea into its most severe economic crisis in decades. The Kim Jong-un regime conducted seven missile tests from September 25 to October 9, all with the knowledge of the poverty facing the large swathe of its people. How did the regime explain the missile tests to its people and how did they respond? ASIAPRESS talked to a reporting partner in the country to find out more. (KANG Ji-won)

◆ The government claims that the Supreme Leader will protect the people

“A” is a reporting partner who lives in North Hamgyung Province. He is a party member who works in an ordinary company. The remarks in parentheses are those added by ASIAPRESS’s editor.

―― Did the government make an explanation to the people about the missile tests?

A: Yes, it did, telling us that the missiles were shot off to guard against the US raising tensions. There was a lecture held on October 8 explaining about the current state of affairs, and on October 10 (the day commemorating the foundation of the Workers’ Party), the authorities said that we have exceptional nuclear military power. The government said that while the imperialists are evil, we must trust that the Supreme Leader will never let us down.

―― Is the atmosphere there of people not knowing when war will break out?

A:  The authorities have told us to maintain a sense of tension and mobilization (for war). I don’t know why they keep emphasizing that after they’ve already said we have nuclear weapons, though.

People here aren’t interested about whether a war will break out or not. They just need to survive. After the government launched missiles, leading to talks with the US, the economy looked like it would improve, but it didn’t.

So, even if the government shoots off missiles and conducts nuclear tests, people have no interest because they know it won’t lead to them getting rice (food). The lecturers talked enthusiastically and excitedly, but people listening probably just wondered when they were going to stop talking.

◆ North Koreans can’t fight while starving…

A: There’s no talk of rice coming from China or Russia, and money isn’t circulating in the markets. The US needs to remove its sanctions in order for trade to resume, but (the government) is launching missiles. Traders are fatigued. I’m also not sure where this country is heading.

They say that shooting off a nuclear weapon would lead to the end (of the country), but there’s people who don’t trust the government’s line that making threats (with weapons) will make the Americans more amiable toward talks. They don’t say that out loud, of course. They’d be arrested for spreading rumors.

Ultimately, people say that just avoiding starvation and staying alive is their form of patriotism. People need food to eat more than protecting socialism or developing nuclear weapons, but the government isn’t handing out food, so people are forced to find their own ways to survive. Everyone does a good job being self-sufficient.

◆ Food shortages continue despite the fall harvest

Despite it being autumn, there’s a lot of people who can’t eat more than two meals a day. They can’t eat unless they earn money. They worry just about how to survive. The leadership doesn’t carry about them.

―― Was there any special rations handed out for Oct. 10 (the day commemorating the founding of the Workers’ Party)?

A: Five days’ worth of corn per person was sold at state-run food shops. Chinese corn. There were no separate rations for family members. Special agencies (the police and other security-related agencies), party organizations, and trade companies provided cooking oil and pork to their employees, but nothing was given to ordinary people.

※ ASIAPRESS communicates with its reporting partners through Chinese cell phones smuggled into North Korea.


asiapress.org





10. Facing economic difficulties, many N. Koreans irritated by their government’s continued military provocations



But is there resistance potential? Is anyone assessing this? How can it be exploited?


Facing economic difficulties, many N. Koreans irritated by their government’s continued military provocations

Only a few years ago, North Koreans took pride in news about missile launches and other shows of force, but perceptions have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic began


By Lee Chae Un -2022.10.19 4:00pm

dailynk.com

North Korea is using a series of military provocations — including threatening aircraft flights, ballistic missile launches and late-night artillery fire — to underscore the leadership capabilities of Kim Jong Un. But this is continuing to irritate North Koreans who are suffering from financial difficulties and food shortages.

“Pairs of officials from the propaganda department of the Wonsan branch of the Workers’ Party have recently been going around inminban [people’s units] to deliver lectures titled ‘Holding to Our-style Socialist System Without Wavering Despite the Warmongering Provocative Behavior of Our Enemies,’” a source in Gangwon Province told Daily NK on Monday.

According to the source, North Korea has been using the lectures to proclaim Kim’s leadership and greatness.

“Our enemies’ provocative and dangerous military exercises have continued recently, leading us to what amounts to a state of semi-war. But whatever our enemies may try to do to our country, we won’t falter as long as we have the Marshal [Kim Jong Un],” officials said in the lectures.

But these lectures have reportedly met a cynical reception from the general public.

Only a few years ago, the source said, North Koreans took pride in news about missile launches and other shows of force, which gave them satisfaction that helped them forget their hungry bellies. But since the outbreak of COVID-19, North Koreans have been suffering even more than they did during the “Arduous March” of the 1990s, leading to a quite different response.

“It’s not like the US and South Korea’s joint military exercises are anything new, but this year the government is loudly presenting them as some big deal,” a North Korean who attended one of the recent lectures told the source.

“I have no idea why they’re wearing us innocent people out when there’s not even going to be a war,” another individual reportedly said.

“How long are they going to keep boasting about military strength when people are on the verge of collapsing for lack of food? Rather than all that boasting, the first thing they should do is improve people’s livelihood. I don’t know how long they’re going to keep blaming the current difficulties on the US and South Korea,” a resident of the Kalma neighborhood of Wonsan reportedly said.

Another resident of Wonsan offered a pessimistic viewpoint: “People used to believe the propaganda about how we needed to strengthen our national defense to protect our country while also becoming more prosperous, but in the end, they were just pulling the wool over our eyes. The country’s leader has changed and the years have passed, but our lives have gotten worse and aren’t likely to get better in the future, either.”

According to the source, the authorities have been indoctrinating the public in the same propaganda for several decades, but people who are struggling to make ends meet are not likely to be interested in propaganda about crushing the enemies with missiles or artillery fire.

“But the authorities insist on continuing ideological programs for the public on the grounds that ideology is the strongest thing in the world,” he explained.

“If your kid is crying from hunger, you ought to give him something to eat. You can try giving him toys, but that won’t stop the crying,” the source continued, adding, “Giving the wrong propaganda to people who don’t have enough food will only exacerbate their grievances.”

Please direct any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net.

Read in Korean

dailynk.com





11. Trump Acknowledged in Interview That Letters to Kim Were ‘Top Secret’


Letters from Kim were "top secret?" Why? What sources and methods need to be protected? :-) 


Trump Acknowledged in Interview That Letters to Kim Were ‘Top Secret’

Recordings made by Bob Woodward of his interviews with Donald Trump appear to contradict Mr. Trump’s claims that none of the documents he took with him from the White House were classified.

nytimes.com · by Chris Cameron · October 18, 2022

WASHINGTON — An excerpt from a new audiobook revealed that President Donald J. Trump shared classified letters from Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, with the journalist Bob Woodward and seemed to acknowledge that they were sensitive material that he should not be sharing.

“Don’t say I gave them to you,” Mr. Trump said in December 2019, according to a copy of Mr. Woodward’s audiobook obtained by CNN, adding that “nobody else” had the letters and imploring the journalist to “treat them with respect.”

The Washington Post reported that a month later, in January 2020, Mr. Woodward also asked to see letters that Mr. Trump had written to the North Korean leader. Mr. Trump replied, “Oh, those are so top secret.”

The original letters between Mr. Kim and Mr. Trump were among the voluminous number of presidential records that the National Archives tried to recover from Mr. Trump after he left office. Mr. Trump resisted returning the boxes of documents he had taken to his Florida estate, describing them to several advisers as “mine.”

The recordings appear to contradict Mr. Trump’s claims that none of the material he took with him from the White House was sensitive, or that the documents were personal records. Mr. Trump has also asserted that as president, he could have declassified any sensitive documents without a formal process “just by saying ‘it’s declassified’ — even by thinking about it.”

In September 2021, Mr. Trump appeared at first to indicate to Maggie Haberman of The New York Times, in an interview during research for her book “Confidence Man,” that he had the letters from Mr. Kim, then backtracked and said they were with the archives. In reality, they were not returned to the government for another four months, when the archives retrieved 15 boxes of material that Mr. Trump was keeping at his private club and residence in Florida, Mar-a-Lago.

Questions about Mr. Trump’s handling of the thousands of pages of government material he took with him when he left the White House — including hundreds of classified files — are at the heart of a Justice Department investigation into whether Mr. Trump violated laws governing the handling of sensitive documents or engaged in obstruction as the government sought to recover them.

Mr. Trump has long been fixated on his personal relationship with Mr. Kim. While in office he brandished letters from the dictator to reporters and other visitors to the White House. The rapport that he claimed he had developed with Mr. Kim did little to significantly improve relations with the totalitarian regime, as Mr. Kim continued his policy of nuclear proliferation and aggressive displays of military power.

Mr. Trump also described in his interviews with Mr. Woodward how he would taunt the North Korean leader with a euphemistic warning about their respective nuclear arsenals.

“I said: ‘My button’s bigger than yours, and my button works. Yours doesn’t,’” he said. “You know, stuff like that.”

nytimes.com · by Chris Cameron · October 18, 2022



12. North Korea is preparing for another nuclear test—or many


Yes, as part of his war fighting strategy he wants to have deiverfied capabilities to present us with tactical and strategic dilemmas.


We must understand the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family reiem and know that he is pursuing three interrelated strategies: political warfare, blackmail diplomacy and advanced warfighting.



North Korea is preparing for another nuclear test—or many

Kim Jong Un is trying to diversify his array of threats

The Economist

NORTH KOREANS looking skywards on October 8th would have seen some 150 fighter jets thundering overhead, and perhaps for a moment feared the worst. But they are more likely to have shrugged it off as yet another demonstration of their country’s military prowess, returning to the more pressing matter of finding enough food to keep their families alive.


Such is the frequency with which North Korea has held drills and tests this year (see chart) that shows of strength have become routine. It kicked off the year with an unprecedented number of launches. These included both tests of “hypersonic” missiles designed to evade detection and its first intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) tests since 2017.

The momentum has continued throughout the year. In the past month it has launched more than a dozen missiles and fired artillery into an area where both Koreas agreed not to conduct military exercises. On September 25th it launched a missile from a platform submerged under a lake, later claiming that it is developing underwater launch silos. And on October 4th it tested another IRBM, which flew over Japan and covered more than 4,500km, the farthest a North Korean missile has been known to go.

At the start of the year generals were testing new technology. But the tests of the past month are different. They had some novel elements, but mostly they have involved weapons already known to work. This suggests North Korea is evaluating its combat-readiness, says Jenny Town of the Stimson Centre, a think-tank in Washington.

The North says it is merely doing the same as South Korea and America, which held their first full-scale joint exercises in five years over the summer. But a report on October 10th in Rodong Sinmun, North Korea’s paper of record, offered a better explanation. Not only was Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s dictator, present at the latest tests, giving them a higher profile than the earlier technical trials, but, it said, their purpose was to simulate the use in warlike scenarios of tactical nuclear weapons, referring to low-yield warheads suitable for battlefield use rather than annihilating entire cities.

South Korean spooks believe the North is preparing for a nuclear test—its seventh—which could come within the next few weeks, perhaps before America’s midterm elections on November 8th. South Korea’s deputy defence minister suggested that there might be multiple tests.

When Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s dictator, in January 2021 made a speech to a party meeting including a military wishlist for scientists and soldiers, tactical nuclear weapons were at the top. After nuclear warheads and the ICBMs necessary to deliver them to the American mainland, tactical weapons represent the next stage in North Korea’s nuclear deterrent, which Mr Kim sees as his insurance policy against foreign interference. An arsenal of smaller weapons would help to counter the threat posed by South Korea’s armed forces.

That is a significant sharpening of what Mr Kim calls his “treasured sword” of nuclear weapons. By showing off a range of delivery methods, a variety of test locations, and advances in smaller warheads, he is signalling that his nuclear programme is so diverse and well-developed that his enemies cannot be sure to eliminate it with pre-emptive action. Only one nuclear weapon would have to survive to give him the potential to cause unthinkable damage. In September Mr Kim made clear that a nuclear strike could be triggered “automatically” under certain conditions, including his own assassination. Any move against him, he signalled, would be disastrous for everyone.

America and South Korea’s response has been to talk up their “ironclad” alliance and threaten annihilation if the North tried any funny business. On October 5th America briefly deployed an aircraft-carrier to the waters east of the peninsula. South Korea test-fired missiles of its own, scrambled jets and fired artillery in like-for-like drills. Both countries imposed new unilateral sanctions on North Korean individuals and organisations accused of aiding North Korean weapons development.

Accompanying the displays of economic, rhetorical and literal firepower was the standard offer of talks. This month America restated its willingness to to sit down “without pre-conditions” and expressed a desire for a “transition from an era of provocation to an era of pragmatic engagement”.

Yet sticking to a dog-eared playbook that has failed for decades is a questionable strategy. America and South Korea have sufficiently robust defence capabilities to repel an attack, says Jo Bee-yun of the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses, a think-tank in Seoul. But it is not clear that the allies are credibly communicating that “nuclear coercion or nuclear blackmail will not succeed”, she says. They must adapt to the new threat posed by tactical nuclear weapons, she adds.

Yoon Suk-yeol, South Korea’s president, has also stuck to his old line, arguing that North Korea has “nothing to gain from nuclear weapons”. Yet it is clear that Mr Kim does not see things that way. Nuclear weapons bolster his security, give him more leverage and help him build up the stock of chips he could bargain away for concessions. If talks were indeed to happen, the later the better for Mr Kim, so he can continue to work on his weapons.

Moreover, America’s offer of unconditional talks comes with one big condition: that the eventual aim of negotiations be denuclearisation. Mr Kim has been very clear that the country’s nuclear status is “irreversible”, even going so far as to codify this long-standing policy in law in September.As long as America demands that he give up his nukes, he has no interest in talking about anything.

North Korean weapons tests are “especially concerning because we don’t have a plan for how to de-escalate,” says Ms Town. The longer America and South Korea content themselves with ineffective bluster, the stronger North Korea gets. That will only make Mr Kim more confident he can resist more pressure—and heighten the risk of miscalculation.■

The Economist




13. Op-Ed: How the nuclear weapons taboo is fading


Excerpts:


Another set of concerns is found in Asia. Attempts to separate North Korea from its nuclear weapons are going nowhere. Full denuclearization should remain a goal, but in the meantime the U.S., South Korea and Japan need to consider some form of arms-control proposal that would limit North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and missile systems in exchange for a reduction of sanctions.


For a long time, many scholars and policymakers operated under the illusion that the nuclear problem was a relic of the Cold War. In fact, the world is moving closer to an era that could be defined even more sharply by nuclear weapons. Changing course is imperative, and time is running out.


Op-Ed: How the nuclear weapons taboo is fading

By Richard Haass Los Angeles Times4 min

View Original


Nuclear weapons have been a feature of international relations since August 1945, when the United States dropped two of them on Japan to hasten the end of World War II. None has been used since then, and they arguably helped keep the Cold War cold by forcing a degree of caution on both sides of the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moreover, arms-control negotiations succeeded in limiting both countries’ nuclear arsenals and stopped or slowed nuclear proliferation. Today, only seven other countries (the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) possess nuclear weapons.

The question now is whether we are on the cusp of a new era of expanding nuclear arsenals, a more prominent role for them in geopolitics, and efforts by more countries to acquire them. Adding to the danger is the sense that the nuclear taboo against possessing or even using nuclear weapons is fading, with the passage of time and to the emergence of a new generation of so-called tactical nuclear weapons that imply less catastrophic results and therefore may seem more usable.

Russia’s war against Ukraine has made the arrival of this new era more likely in several ways. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weapons that remained on its territory in exchange for security assurances. Since then, Russia has invaded twice, an outcome that might persuade others that giving up nuclear weapons decreases a country’s security.


Then, in the wake of Russia’s second invasion earlier this year, the U.S. ruled out direct military involvement on behalf of Ukraine, concerned that dispatching troops or establishing a no-fly zone could lead to a nuclear World War III. China and others could see this as evidence that possessing a substantial nuclear arsenal can deter the U.S. or at least impel it to act with greater restraint. Most recently, against the backdrop of significant battlefield setbacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons in or near Ukraine in an effort to intimidate Ukrainians and force European governments and the U.S. to rethink their support for the country.

Developments elsewhere have also contributed to a rethinking of the value of nuclear weapons. Regimes and leaders in Iraq and Libya were ousted after abandoning their nuclear-weapons programs, which might lead others to consider the advantages of retaining or developing nuclear capabilities. North Korea continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. The world has likewise learned to live with Israeli, Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals.

The danger is that more nuclear weapons in more hands increases the odds that one or more of these weapons will be used. Deterrence and responsible custodianship cannot be assumed. Possession of nuclear weapons also has the potential to provide something of a shield that could make non-nuclear aggression more common. Even the belief that a country is moving to develop nuclear weapons could trigger military action by worried neighbors, possibly leading to a larger conflict.

Given these risks, the most immediate task is to ensure that Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling is not rewarded. This requires maintaining Western military and economic support for Ukraine, as well as regular reminders to Russia by the U.S. and its allies that the consequences of any nuclear use, both for Russian military forces in Ukraine and for anyone involved in the decision, would far outweigh any perceived benefits.

At the same time, and certainly before early 2026, when the New START Treaty limiting the two nuclear powers’ arsenals expires, the U.S. should signal to Russia its readiness to discuss the next phase of nuclear arms control. The number and types of weapons systems to be limited needs to be on the agenda, as does the inclusion of China.

The U.S., with its partners in the region, should also take steps, diplomatic or military if need be, to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons or get so close that it could achieve nuclear breakout without enough warning for others to prevent it. Failing this, one or more of Iran’s neighbors may well decide they need nuclear weapons of their own. Such a scenario would take the Middle East, for three decades the world’s least stable region, in an even more dangerous direction. Reviving the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran reached with world powers (and from which the U.S. withdrew in 2018) would help only temporarily, because that agreement features several so-called sunset clauses.

Another set of concerns is found in Asia. Attempts to separate North Korea from its nuclear weapons are going nowhere. Full denuclearization should remain a goal, but in the meantime the U.S., South Korea and Japan need to consider some form of arms-control proposal that would limit North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and missile systems in exchange for a reduction of sanctions.

For a long time, many scholars and policymakers operated under the illusion that the nuclear problem was a relic of the Cold War. In fact, the world is moving closer to an era that could be defined even more sharply by nuclear weapons. Changing course is imperative, and time is running out.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “The World: A Brief Introduction.”

14. ‘Yankees, Go Home!’: Seoul Gets Squeezed Between the U.S. and China


When whales wrestle, shrimp die.


‘Yankees, Go Home!’: Seoul Gets Squeezed Between the U.S. and China

nytimes.com · by Choe Sang-Hun · October 19, 2022

The intensifying rivalry between Washington and Beijing is causing jitters in South Korea, where security ties and economic priorities are not always aligned.

Residents and protesters blocked a road to the nearby Thaad base in Soseong-ri, South Korea, in SeptemberCredit...Chang W. Lee/The New York Times

SOSEONG-RI, South Korea — Do Geum-yeon, 86, has lived in this valley in South Korea all her life. During the Korean War in the 1950s, her village was so peaceful that she remembers refugees taking shelter in its humble homes and quiet hills. These days, though, Ms. Do spends much of her time protesting an unwanted guest: an American military base that is expanding on a nearby hilltop.

“Now, if there is war, our village will become the first target because of that machine up there,” she said impatiently.

The “machine” Ms. Do was referring to is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, a powerful radar and missile-interceptor battery also known as Thaad. Five years ago, it was brought to this hamlet about 135 miles southeast of Seoul by the United States, infuriating China and prompting it to unleash economic retaliation. ​

Washington and Seoul said the weapons system was crucial in their defense against North Korean aggression. China argued that the United States was using North Korea as an excuse to expand its military presence in the region and make implicit threats toward its most formidable competitor. Villagers like Ms. Do and their supporters, including labor activists, have tended to agree.

Now, the Thaad system, located in an area once known for its melon patches, has become a symbol of the broader challenges facing South Korea as it ​tries to strike a balance between China, the country’s largest trading partner, and the United States, its main security ally.

“​Thaad has brought nothing but harm to South Korea, causing economic damage and heightening tensions,” ​said ​Kang Hyunwook, another ​protester. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine earlier this year has magnified those concerns, he said. “If South Korea sides with one party in the rivalry between the U.S. and China, we could suffer the fate of Ukraine.”

Few things showcase the many polarizing divides in South Korea better than the Thaad system. For those who favor a strong alliance with the United States, it represents Washington’s unwavering commitment to its Asian ally. For​ those who oppose​ it, it is a reminder of the dangers of being drawn into a rivalry between two major powers.

Seongju County, which includes this village, had been known mainly for its farming community before residents grabbed national headlines protesting the arrival of the Thaad system five years ago. Villagers here — and many South Koreans elsewhere — were concerned that it could place South Korea on the front lines of a potential Sino-American conflict.

As Beijing and Washington clash over issues such as Taiwan, global supply chains and the South China Sea, anxieties have been on the rise. Numerous anti-American banners line both sides of the road that winds through the village and up to the American military base. “Yankees, go home! Thaad, go home!” they demand.

During a recent early-morning rally, Ms. Do and 20 other protesters sat on plastic chairs on a two-lane asphalt road, shouting: “We don’t need Thaad! We need peace!” An hour later, police officers ​removed them — carrying them in their chairs — so the road could be cleared for trucks and water and fuel tanks going up the hill to the Thaad base​.

South Korea has long been careful not to take sides in the rivalry between the United States and China, benefiting from a national strategy known as “anmigyeongjung,” which loosely translates to “the United States for security and China for the economy.”

Washington has provided security for Seoul since the Korean War. But after South Korea established diplomatic ties with Beijing in 1992, China quickly replaced the United States as the country’s biggest trading partner, helping to fuel a thriving, export-driven economy​. About 30 percent of South Korean exports go to China or Hong Kong​ — almost equaling the country’s trade with the ​United States, Japan and Europe combined.

Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for South Korea to enjoy the best of both worlds.​ President Yoon Suk Yeol has aligned his country more closely with Washington, deepening ties in missile defense and supply chains to help deter North Korea. He has done so at the risk of provoking Beijing.

Numerous anti-American banners line both sides of the road leading through the village and up to the American military base.CreditCredit...Video by Chang W. Lee

Under Mr. Yoon, South Korea opted in to the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework; increased trilateral military cooperation with the United States and Japan;​ and joined those nations and Taiwan in preliminary talks for a technology alliance known as “Chip 4” — all moves opposed by Beijing.

South Korean chip-makers Samsung and SK Hynix announced multibillion-dollar investments in the United States to help it secure a chip supply chain earlier this year. But China and Hong Kong still buy 60 percent of South Korea’s chip exports.

“Like it or not, China is a massive market, and abandoning it isn’t an option,” SK’s chairman, Chey Tae-won, told reporters in July.

That same month, Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, warned that South Korea should “keep in mind its own long-term interests.” ​In 2017, when the Thaad battery first arrived, Beijing shut down tourism to South Korea and ​restricted exports like ​K-pop in response.

Many people in the country saw the retaliation as bullying. South Koreans now regard​ China more unfavorably than North Korea and Japan, its former colonial ruler, according to a survey conducted in July.

Mr. Yoon’s predecessor, Moon Jae-in, tried to improve relations with Beijing ​​by pledging a “Three Nos” policy: no​ additional Thaad systems; no participation in ​American missile defense networks; and no trilateral military alliance with ​Washington and Tokyo. Mr. Yoon has said he is not bound by those promises.

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Yoon said North Korea’s growing nuclear threat compelled South Korea to cooperate more closely with Washington on missile defense​ and that the Thaad system was a matter of national security that would not be negotiated with Beijing​.

He told The Times that he would support another Thaad system in the country, depending on the evolving threat from North Korea. He also emphasized: “Our defense system is to deal with the North Korean threat, not China.”

Both American and South Korean defense officials have complained that the village protests have limited traffic in and out of the base, at times forcing American military personnel to travel there by helicopter.

In May, Gen. Paul J. LaCamera, commander of the United States military in South Korea, called for “unfettered access” to the base to ensure logistical support and to help speed up construction.

Seoul and Washington have been building new facilities at the base to train soldiers and improve their living conditions. (The allies have no official name for the military installment yet, simply referring to it as the “Thaad site” as they race to complete an environmental impact study before formally approving the stationing of the Thaad system here.)

Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup of South Korea said that the slow pace of construction has forced many of the hundreds of South Korean and American troops stationed there to live “in tents and shipping containers.” South Korean police have had to remove protesters almost daily.

After a North Korean missile flew over Japan this month, the United States military brought new equipment to the base to improve the Thaad system’s link with other antimissile systems located in South Korea. North Korea is also working hard to thwart missile defenses in the region, testing weapons considered harder to detect and intercept.

The growing arms buildup only deepened villagers’ worries.

“They parked Thaad in our village without asking us because we were the smallest and weakest village and they thought old people living here would not protest,” said Lim Soon-boon, 68. “But it dawned on us that they were really considering us and our country cannon fodder in a war between the U.S. and China.”

nytimes.com · by Choe Sang-Hun · October 19, 2022










De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Senior Advisor, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

.S. and China


‘Yankees, Go Home!’: Seoul Gets Squeezed Between the U.S. and China


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
Facebook  Twitter  Pinterest  
basicImage