Quotes of the Day:
"I am not afraid, and am always ready to do my duty, but I would like someone to tell me what we are fighting for."
-Arthur H. Vickers, Sergeant, 1st Nebraska Volunteer Regiment. Philippine-American War.
"A soldier is the most-trusted profession in America. Americans have trust in you because you trust each other. No matter how difficult times are, those of us who love the Army must stick with it."
- Sergeant Major Richard A. Kidd
"Battles are sometimes won by generals; wars are nearly always won by sergeants and privates."
- F. E. Adcock
1. S. Korea seeks to turn Korean War armistice into peace regime through end-of-war declaration: official
2. U.S. open to discussion with N. Korea on end of war declaration: Pentagon spokesman
3. South hopes to bring North to talks with sanctions relief
4. FM Chung calls for 'snap-back' incentives to bring N. Korea back to dialogue
5. Is Pres. Moon going all out for end-of-war declaration?
6. OKN and KCPAC Sends a Message to President Moon Jae-in at Times Square
7. South Korea foreign minister says to meet Japan counterpart on Thursday
8. Commentary: Seoul and the role of middle powers in a fragile region
9. Foreign Ministry slashed budget for North's human rights protection
10. Moon awards medals to Korean immigrants in Hawaii for fight against Japan's colonization
11. Moon flies home with remains of 68 Korean War heroes
12. U.S. names North Korea as a main culprit in ransomware attacks
13. AUKUS comes as pressure on Seoul to join anti-China campaign
14. North Korea’s Missile Tests Aren’t Surprising. Biden Has Been Fueling Tensions.
15. Does North Korea Want to Absorb South Korea or Just Leach Off of It?
16. Yoon says he will request redeployment of US tactical nukes in case of emergency
17. North Korean Sanctions Evasion Techniques
1. S. Korea seeks to turn Korean War armistice into peace regime through end-of-war declaration: official
Unstable armistice? It has managed the situation and there has been no resumption in hostilities for the last 67 years. Unstable? Tell me how it is unstable.
I get it "politically and symbolically" but please explain the "practically." How will an end of war declaration protect the ROK? For an end of war declaration or a peace regime tobe practical it will require a significant reduction in conventional forces in the front line area and shift from an offensive posture to a defensive one. And there are the north's nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. How does the Moon administration propose to ensure the security fo the ROK and the protection of the Korean people in the South?
That said, I too want peace and I fully support efforts to end the war and bring lasting peace to Korea. However, as we move forward toward peace we must ensure our eyes are wide open and we understand the nature, objectives and the strategy of the Kim family regime and how Kim will use peace negotiations to achieve his objectives, which includes subverting the ROK.
S. Korea seeks to turn Korean War armistice into peace regime through end-of-war declaration: official | Yonhap News Agency
SEOUL, Sept. 23 (Yonhap) -- South Korea remains committed to turning the Korean War armistice into a stable peace regime through a formal declaration of an end to the war, a unification ministry official said Thursday.
During his United Nations speech earlier this week, President Moon Jae-in proposed the two Koreas and the United States, possibly joined by China, declare a formal end to the 1950-53 war, saying it will mark a pivotal point of departure in creating a new order of reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula.
"The government maintains its stance that it seeks to turn the unstable armistice regime on the Korean Peninsula into a stable peace regime through the end-of-war declaration," the official said.
The official added the declaration would be significant "politically, symbolically and practically" in building trust to drive forward the peace process on the Peninsula.
"The government, while maintaining this position, will continue to cooperate with the U.S. and other relevant countries, such as China and North Korea, to continue efforts for the peace process, including the end-of-war declaration," she said.
The two Koreas are still technically at war, as the conflict ended only with an armistice, not a peace treaty.
julesyi@yna.co.kr
(END)
2. U.S. open to discussion with N. Korea on end of war declaration: Pentagon spokesman
Admiral Kirby is correct to say we are open to discussing an end of war declaration. But I am sure his inner voice was saying but we will not allow ourselves to be fooled again by Kim's political warfare strategy and long con and that we will take into account the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime while ensuring the security of the ROK is enhanced if there is any such declaration.
U.S. open to discussion with N. Korea on end of war declaration: Pentagon spokesman | Yonhap News Agency
By Byun Duk-kun
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 (Yonhap) -- The United States is open to discussing a possible end of war declaration with North Korea as it seeks to engage with the reclusive state in dialogue over a number of other issues, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in earlier called on the U.S. and South Korea to formally end the Korean War with North Korea.
"We continue to seek engagement with the DPRK to address a variety of issues, and we are open to discussing the possibility of an end of war declaration," the Department of Defense spokesman, John Kirby, said in a press briefing, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
"The United States remains committed to achieving lasting peace on the Korean peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy with North Korea," he added.
The 1950-53 Korean War ended only with an armistice, technically leaving the divided Koreas at war to date.
Moon, in his address to the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week, insisted that declaring a formal end to the war would help move forward the North's denuclearization process.
"When the parties involved in the Korean War stand together and proclaim an end to the war, I believe we can make irreversible progress in denuclearization and usher in an era of complete peace," said Moon.
Kirby reiterated U.S. commitment to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, but said it was a complex issue.
"As I said we're open to a discussion about an end of war declaration, but we are also committed to diplomacy and dialogue with the DPRK to achieve the denuclearization," said the spokesman when asked if the declaration of the war's end could be a solution to the stalled denuclearization process.
"We know that this is a complex issue and we're committed to supporting the role of our diplomats in having that kind of dialogue going forward," he added.
North Korea has stayed away from denuclearization negotiations since early 2019.
It also remains unresponsive to U.S. overtures made by the Joe Biden administration since its inauguration in January.
bdk@yna.co.kr
(END)
3. South hopes to bring North to talks with sanctions relief
With all due respect, this is a fool's errand. Premature lifting of sanctions will lead to further blackmail diplomacy and not sincere negotiations toward denuclearization . We should remember a key element of the Biden Korea policy: The full implementation of all UN Security Council resolutions. That means no sanctions relief until the requirements of the sanctions are met.
But for my Korean colleagues, what north Korean malign behavior do you wish to condone when you lift sanctions without compliance with the requirements? Continued nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development? Continued global illicit activities? Continue proliferation of weapons and training to conflict zones around the world? Continued cyber attacks. Continue overseas slave labor? Continue human rights abuses and crimes against humanity against the Korean people living in the north? The premature lifting of sanctions means you must condone some or all of this malign behavior.
South hopes to bring North to talks with sanctions relief
The foreign ministers of Korea, the United States and Japan meet in New York on Wednesday to discuss trilateral cooperation on regional security including denuclearization of North Korea and other issues including climate change and supply chains. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his delegation are seated at the center, with the Korean delegation led by Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong and the Japanese delegation led by Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi seated opposite from each other. [YONHAP]
Korea’s foreign minister during a visit to the United States mentioned North Korea may be offered its desired sanctions relief in return for talks.
Following President Moon Jae-in’s call for a formal ending of the Korean War (1950-53) at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong called for sanctions relief on the North during his meeting with the Washington-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on Wednesday.
In his conversation with Fareed Zakaria, a CNN host and board member of CFR, Chung reportedly commented on offering incentives to the North to draw the country out of isolation and onto the table for dialogue, mentioning that one of these incentives can be sanctions relief.
While Chung acknowledged that the U.S. government is not keen on rewarding Pyongyang with sanctions relief, he added that the option could be considered given that Pyongyang hasn't fired intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for the past four years.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un reportedly asked former U.S. President Donald Trump for full sanctions relief during their summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2019, which fell through without an agreement.
The Joe Biden administration has emphasized over several occasions that it is open to dialogue with Pyongyang, but that it will not resort to the Trump government’s “grand bargain” approach in dealing with the regime. Biden earlier this year extended for another year the U.S. sanctions on North Korea, which have been renewed annually since 2008.
Ruling Democratic Party (DP) Chairman Song Young-gil, who also joined Chung and President Moon on the trip to the United States, spoke in unison about offering incentives to the North.
“The U.S. government has repeatedly emphasized that it will not reward the North’s bad behaviors, but if that logic were to hold, shouldn’t it reward the North’s good behaviors?” Song reportedly told a group of reporters during a luncheon in Washington on Monday.
“The North has not tested its nuclear weapons or fired a long-range [ICBM] missile in the past four years. […] We have to start thinking of incentives to reward and engage the North, and the restoration of the Kaesong Industrial Complex can be an option.”
Pyongyang did fire what it called new long-range cruise missiles on Sept. 11 and 12, along with two short-range ballistic missiles on Sept. 15. The cruise missiles have shorter ranges than the ICBMs, which have ranges exceeding 3,500 miles.
Under United Nations Security Council resolutions, the North is prohibited from testing ballistic missiles.
The Kaesong Industrial Complex, an inter-Korean industrial park in North Korea, was shut down 2016 during the former South Korean administration led by Park Geun-hye.
When asked about the recent statements from the Korean officials, the U.S. State Department maintained its position that it is open to dialogue with Pyongyang without conditions.
“We have no hostile intent toward the DPRK, and we are prepared to meet without preconditions,” a Department of State spokesperson told the JoongAng Ilbo on Wednesday, using the acronym for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. “We hope the DPRK will respond positively to our outreach.”
The spokesperson added that Washington is also ready to engage with Seoul and Pyongyang for “lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.”
The armistice agreement signed by the U.S.-led UN Command, North Korea and China on July 27, 1953, brought a complete ceasefire to hostilities until a final peaceful settlement is achieved. Thus, the two Koreas remain in a technical state of war.
“We‘re open to discussing the possibility of an end of war declaration,” said John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, in a briefing on Wednesday. “Our goal remains, as always, the complete denuclearization of the of the peninsula.”
Foreign Minister Chung told the press after his meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi in New York on Wednesday that the end-of-war declaration, as well as denuclearization of North Korea, was part of their discussions.
BY PARK HYUN-YOUNG,JEONG JIN-WOO,AND ESTHER CHUNG [chung.juhee@joongang.co.kr]
4. FM Chung calls for 'snap-back' incentives to bring N. Korea back to dialogue
"Snap back incentives?" Sounds like an oxymoron.
But when have snap back sanctions ever worked?
And the north is already in a state of noncompliance with the sanctions. Why should we lift sanctions when the regime continues to violate them? What will snapping back achieve?
FM Chung calls for 'snap-back' incentives to bring N. Korea back to dialogue | Yonhap News Agency
By Kim Seung-yeon
SEOUL, Sept. 23 (Yonhap) -- The United States and South Korea should actively consider offering conditional incentives to North Korea to bring the regime back to denuclearization talks, Seoul's top diplomat has said.
Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong made the remark during a discussion in New York on Wednesday (local time) as Seoul and Washington have been exploring ways to reengage with North Korea to break the impasse in the nuclear talks between Washington and Pyongyang.
South Korea and the U.S. have been looking at possible humanitarian assistance to the North in such areas as public health, antivirus quarantines, sanitation and clean water.
"We shouldn't be timid on offering North Korea incentives if those incentives can be snapped back at the first sign of noncompliance. We can do it. We can make such an arrangement," Chung said during the session hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. He was accompanying President Moon Jae-in to attend the U.N. General Assembly.
"It is very important that we show North Koreans that they have concrete things to gain, if they sit with us, if they come back to the negotiating table," he said.
Chung noted South Korea and the U.S. have been fully coordinating on the strategy to engage with Pyongyang and the humanitarian assistance can be a starting point.
"Then we can move on to confidence building measures, like an announcement of the end-of-war declaration, and then we should consider presenting windows to relax sanctions, depending on their actions," he said.
During his U.N. speech Tuesday, President Moon Jae-in proposed the two Koreas and the United States, probably joined by China, declare a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean War.
Regarding the North's recent test-launches of short-range ballistic missiles and a long-range cruise missile, Chung said he does not see them as "seriously provocative," as the North has maintained its moratorium not to carry out nuclear and long-range ballistic missiles tests since late 2017.
"I don't mean that we should reward them for what they have not been doing, but as incentives, we hope we can find some ways to ease the sanctions," Chung said.
elly@yna.co.kr
(END)
5. Is Pres. Moon going all out for end-of-war declaration?
Is President Moon being impatient?
Excerpt:
Amid stalled dialogue between the two Koreas and between the U.S. and North Korea, and repetitive provocations by the North, President Moon’s proposal of a declaration to end the Korean War sounds somewhat abrupt and hollow. President Moon must know well what consequences impatience at the end of his term brought to inter-Korean relations. In a speech marking four years in office in May, President Moon said he will try not to be impatient during his remaining term in office. Now he says he will do his best until the end of his term for co-prosperity and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula. Is the proposal to declare an end to the Korean War President Moon’s obsession or not?
Since we are going to be talking about this probably for the rest of the Moon administration I will repeat what I wrote yesterday.
Despite my support for peace on the Korean peninsula, I have to say this is problematic on many levels.
Let me state upfront that there should be no end of war declaration or a peace agreement without a reduction of the frontline forces in north Korea. We must understand that the ROK forces are postured for defense while 7-0% of the 1.2 million soldiers (4th largest army in the world) is posture offensively among the DMZ between South Korea and Pyongyang. We must ask how an end of war declaration or peace agreement will ensure the security of the ROK? Answer: It will not, given the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime.
Some considerations:
-
We should consider the history and who are/were the belligerents in the Korean Civil War - with emphasis on civil war between north and South. A review of the UN Security Council resolutions of 1950 (82-85) shows that the United Nations clearly identified the north as the hostile aggressor who attacked South Korea. The UN called on member nations to come to the defense of South Korea. It established the UN Command and designated the United States as executive agent for the UN Command which included designating the commander.
- The United States did not declare war on the north. It intervened under UN authority and fought under the UN command. President Rhee placed the remnants of the Korean forces under the command of the UNC. The Chinese did not officially intervene in the war. It sent "volunteers"- The Chinese People's Volunteers (CPV) to defend the north. The 1953 Armistice was signed by military representatives the UN Command and the north Korean People's Army (nKPA)and then later by the Chinese People's Volunteers and the Commander in Chief of the nKPA.
- The logical end to the Korean Civil War and adoption of a peace treaty must be brokered between the two designated belligerents (the north and South). The US and PRC could provide security guarantees but they should not be parties to the peace treaty and the US should not try to have a separate peace treaty with the north (which is exactly what the north has demanded for years and what also worries Koreans in the South who fear a separate peace that would abandon the South).
- The other problem with a peace treaty between north and South is their current constitutions. Both countries do not recognize the existence of the other and in fact both claim sovereignty over the entire Korean peninsula and Korean population. A peace treaty would undermine both constitutions because signing a peace treaty would mean recognizing the existence of two Koreas
- Of course if the north and South sign a peace treaty ending their hostilities it is logical to argue that the UN command should be dissolved. But I do not think there is any international precedent for this. How would the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions be rescinded (UNSCRs 82-85)? Also, there is nothing in the Armistice that says the signatories of the Armistice must also sign a peace treaty. Again international lawyers are going to hash this out but now we have two member nations of the UN (north and South) and if they choose to end the war who can stop them? And of course once they do that all kinds of arguments will be made (like Moon Chung-in) that there is no more rationale for the UN command or US troops.
-
However, USFK and CFC exist and are present as a result of a bi-lateral agreement, the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp). Note that the MDT makes no mention of north Korea or the DPRK. A peace treaty should technically have no impact on the presence of US forces and bilateral ROK/US agreements and US troops are present by mutual agreement but if the South wants them to leave I expect we will immediately leave - we are not a nation that would occupy a sovereign country against its wishes - even if it were for its own good!! See the MDT below for details.
- So the jury is still out on all of this. These are uncharted waters in my opinion. I go to the basics. There are two belligerents north and South and they had a civil war. The UN and Chinese intervened to support the two sides. The military commanders agreed to an Armistice to halt the fighting and to buy time for the political parties to find a resolution. We have been in suspended animation for almost 70 years and now we may see some kind of political movement.
- One last thing. If on June 12th The US, nK and ROK say that the war is officially ended I do not think that officially changes anything until there is a peace agreement negotiated between north and South with mechanisms put in place to ensure the peace. I see the US and possibly the Chinese role as mere guarantors of security but I do not think they have to be signatories on a peace treaty since the US was acting for the UN and the Chinese only sent "volunteers." The treaty obligations of both the US with the ROK and China with nK are separate agreements and do not necessarily impact on the peace treaty. I also see no way for the US, China, or the UN to "veto" a peace treaty between the north and South. I also think it would be political suicide for any party to do so. I think a declaration of the end of the war would be symbolic only but would have tremendous political influence.
Lastly, we need to consider the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime and ask how will an end of war declaration lead to irreversible denuclearization? A major element of Kim's political warfare strategy is to demand the end of the US "hostile policy." While we would assess that an end of war declaration should be perceived as an end of the US hostile policy, Kim would not agree with that perception. For him an end of the hostile policy is an end of the ROK/US alliance, withdrawal of US troops, and an end of extended deterrence and the nuclear umbrella over the ROK and Japan. This is so the regime can continue to execute its strategy based on subversion, coercion/extortion (blackmail diplomacy) and the use of force to dominate the peninsula under the rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State. An end of war declaration will be a means to achieving these ends.
We should always remember that north Korea is conducting a political warfare strategy: "Political warfare is the use of political means to compel an opponent to do one's will, based on hostile intent. The term political describes the calculated interaction between a government and a target audience to include another state's government, military, and/or general population. Governments use a variety of techniques to coerce certain actions, thereby gaining relative advantage over an opponent. The techniques include propaganda and psychological operations (PSYOP), which service national and military objectives respectively. Propaganda has many aspects and a hostile and coercive political purpose. Psychological operations are for strategic and tactical military objectives and may be intended for hostile military and civilian populations." Smith, Paul A., On Political War (Washington: National Defense University Press, 1989), p. 3. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a233501.pdf
Is Pres. Moon going all out for end-of-war declaration?
Posted September. 23, 2021 09:00,
Updated September. 23, 2021 09:00
Is Pres. Moon going all out for end-of-war declaration?. September. 23, 2021 09:00. .
Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, President Moon Jae-in said an end-of-war declaration will “mark a pivotal point of departure in creating a new order of ‘reconciliation and cooperation’ on the Korean Peninsula,” proposing that three parties of the two Koreas and the U.S., or four parties of the two Koreas, the U.S. and China come together and declare that the War on the Korean Peninsula is over. U.S. President Joe Biden also put on emphasis on “serious and sustained diplomacy to pursue the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” while adding the U.S. “seek concrete progress toward an available plan with tangible commitments.” The two leaders did not mention missile provocations by North Korea.
The speeches by the leaders of South Korea and the U.S. at the U.N. were a conciliatory message to North Korea in stark contrast to a string of provocations made by the North. Despite repeated gestures of dialogue from South Korea and the U.S., North Korea reactivated its 5-megawatt nuclear reactor and revealed moves to expand its uranium enrichment plant. It recently demonstrated its power by firing long-range cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles. Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said during the agency’s annual meeting on Monday (local time) that nuclear program is going “full steam ahead” in North Korea.
Under these circumstances, the speeches made by the leaders of South Korea and the U.S. appear to be directed toward each other rather than toward North Korea. The U.S. has been negative about declaring an end to the Korean War before North Korea makes progress towards denuclearization. North Korea has used end-of-war declaration as a means to pressure the U.S. Therefore, President Moon’s proposal can sound like he is recommending the U.S. to make concessions to North Korea. President Biden’s mention of “tangible commitments” and “concrete progress” reads as a message that what is needed is actual denuclearization instead of a non-binding declaration.
Amid stalled dialogue between the two Koreas and between the U.S. and North Korea, and repetitive provocations by the North, President Moon’s proposal of a declaration to end the Korean War sounds somewhat abrupt and hollow. President Moon must know well what consequences impatience at the end of his term brought to inter-Korean relations. In a speech marking four years in office in May, President Moon said he will try not to be impatient during his remaining term in office. Now he says he will do his best until the end of his term for co-prosperity and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula. Is the proposal to declare an end to the Korean War President Moon’s obsession or not?
6. OKN and KCPAC Sends a Message to President Moon Jae-in at Times Square
This is also a reminder that Congressman Brad Sherman has introduced a resolution regarding an end of war declaration and pursuit of a peace regime with north Korea.
PRESS RELEASE
September 22, 2021
One Korea Network (OKN) and KCPAC (Korean Conservative Political Action Conference) Sends a Message to President Moon Jae-in at Times Square, NY during his #UNGA Speech to highlight campaign countering the 'Fake Peace' of H.R. 3446 & H.R. 826
(September 22, 2021, New York, U.S.A) – One Korea Network (OKN) and KCPAC (Korean Conservative Political Action Conference) have released a digital advertisement in New York City’s Times Square, coinciding with South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s visit to the 76th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 76) this week, and to highlight the current campaign to counter House Resolutions 3446 and 826 (H.R. 3446, H.R. 826) pushing fake peace on the Korean Peninsula that are currently being supported by pro-North Korea supporters and leftists.
“There is no greater location than Times Square in Manhattan to highlight the current situation in the Korean Peninsula, and to expose the fake peace initiatives of H.R. 3446 and H.R. 826,” said Arthur Lee, OKN’s Regional Director, Washington, D.C.. “Despite President Moon Jae-in’s dismal track record on North Korean human rights and his push for a peace deal with the North Korean regime before he leaves office, the world needs to be reminded that unless the regime is held accountable and real changes are made, there will be NO peace in the Korean Peninsula,” Lee went on to say.
“The danger of these two seemingly innocuous bills is that they work to North Korea's advantage and potentially undercut the ROK-US alliance and ultimately end the U.S. military presence on the Korean Peninsula,” said Grant Newsham, President of KCPAC. “Through the airing of this ad calling out President Moon and his misguided North Korea-policy during his visit to New York during UNGA 76, we hope to educate the public and generate more support for our campaign to counter H.R. 3446 and H.R. 826,” continued Newsham.
The digital advertisement is running on the ‘Bowtie-Spectacular Screen’ at 1500 Broadway Avenue and West 43rd Street, in the heart of New York’s Times Square, starting from 12pm, Tuesday September 21st, to 11:59pm Wednesday September 22nd.
For media inquiries regarding the digital advertisement, please contact:
7. South Korea foreign minister says to meet Japan counterpart on Thursday
Good.
Small steps forward.
South Korea foreign minister says to meet Japan counterpart on Thursday
South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong speaks during a joint announcement with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, South Korea, March 25, 2021. Ahn Young-joon/Pool via REUTERS
WASHINGTON, Sept 22 (Reuters) - South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong said he would meet his Japanese counterpart on Thursday and hoped for progress to end a dispute that has led to tit-for-tat trade restrictions.
Chung told the Council on Foreign Relations think tank during a visit to New York that he would hold a bilateral meeting with Japan's Toshimitsu Motegi in the city after taking part in a trilateral meeting together with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Wednesday.
"Japan is our close neighbor and we share the same values of democracy, market economy, human rights and all that," he said. "So, we want Japan as a close friend, but unfortunately we have some differences in how to see the past history."
A historic feud over Japan's 1910-1945 occupation of Korea including over "comfort women", Japan's euphemism for mostly Korean women forced to work in its wartime brothels, has long soured bilateral ties between the two important U.S. allies. read more
The dispute in recent years has brought tit-for-tat export curbs and threatened security cooperation between the neighbors despite the shared threat they face from North Korea, also known as the DPRK.
A senior U.S. State Department official said regular meetings had taken place over the past six months involving the U.S. diplomats and counterparts from South Korea and Japan to improve ties.
"It was quite warm and quite allied this evening, particularly as we tried to work through and think about what we're seeing from the DPRK, especially with the recent launches etc.," the U.S. official said, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity after Wednesday's trilateral meeting.
"It's become actually a forum that is about getting common work done and is no longer about breaking ice."
Chung said Seoul believed the issues could be resolved through dialogue.
He said it was unfortunate that trade restrictions had resulted from political differences and said he hoped these could be resolved soon, otherwise Seoul would have to bring them before a World Trade Organization panel.
"Koreans are very hopeful that the two foreign ministers of Japan and Korea will work on something to normalize relations between Korea and Japan," he said.
Chung and Motegi met on the sidelines of the G-7 meeting in Britain in May but did not manage then to narrow their differences.
Reporting by David Brunnstrom; additional reporting by Simon Lewis; editing by Richard Pullin
8. Commentary: Seoul and the role of middle powers in a fragile region
A controversial recommendation from Andrew Yeo. I would like to see it come to fruition but South Korea is walking the tightrope within great power competition between the US and the PRC.
Excerpts:
Addressing human rights in North Korea at home and abroad, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and the curtailment of free speech and civil rights in Hong Kong under the National Security Law would strengthen South Korea’s reputation as a country willing to defend democratic principles, human rights, and international law, all of which serve an important basis for regional peace, governance and security.
South Korea, with the tenth largest economy and defence budget in the world in 2020, demonstrates how middle powers might shoulder the responsibility in sustaining fragile regional orders, in addition to a fragmenting global order.
However, as a recently developed and non-Western democratic country, South Korea must do more to leverage its unique experience to work with and encourage other Indo-Pacific countries to adhere to good governance that empower citizens, respect human rights, and support international rules and laws aimed at protecting the global commons.
Commentary: Seoul and the role of middle powers in a fragile region
From the Kabul airlift to BTS at the United Nations General Assembly, South Korea’s middle power role is coming into sharper focus, says the Brookings Institution’s Andrew Yeo
WASHINGTON DC: Lost in the flurry of media coverage on Afghanistan last month was a bright piece of news featuring Afghan families, including dozens of children clutching pink or white teddy bears, exiting South Korea’s Incheon International Airport on Aug 26.
They were part of the 391 Afghans airlifted out of Kabul by the South Korean military following the city’s fall to the Taliban.
Deemed “persons of special merit,” many of the Afghans had worked as translators, medical assistants, vocational trainers, and engineers with the South Korean government.
What does the US withdrawal mean for allies such as South Korea who offered support for US missions in Afghanistan (and also Iraq), and more significantly, what should South Korea’s broader role be in an increasingly “multiplex world”?
The frantic withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and the recent passing of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 have put a spotlight on the wisdom of US intervention and America’s role in the world in the 21st century.
This has spurred further debate about the best course of action for US foreign policy going forward. Whether one advocates for greater restraint or greater activism on the global stage, however, most experts seem to agree that US allies can do more to support regional stability and global order.
South Korea's President Moon Jae-in speaks at the 76th Session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, on Sep 21, 2021. (Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz/Pool)
SOUTH KOREA’S ROLE IN THE INDO-PACIFIC
As articulated in a leaders’ joint statement this May, South Korea and the United States “share a vision for a region governed by democratic norms, human rights, and the rule of law at home and abroad,” and seek “a partnership that continues to provide peace and prosperity for our peoples, while serving as a linchpin for the regional and global order”.
For South Korea and other key US allies in Asia, such statements have meant offering diplomatic support for the US Indo-Pacific strategy.
More concretely, close allies have been expected to coordinate their economic, security, and defence policies with the US to deter threats from strategic adversaries (read China) and promote shared interests and values.
On the Korean Peninsula, Seoul has strengthened its conventional deterrence capabilities against North Korea by boosting defence spending and developing new weapons systems as evidenced by last week’s submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) test.
Nevertheless, South Korea’s increased commitment to infrastructure investment, development finance, and human capital in Southeast Asia and India through its New Southern Policy has been welcomed by Washington.
Expectations also persist that South Korea will do more to coordinate with other US allies and partners such as Japan, and join like-minded states in support of democratic rights and international norms and laws, particularly in regards to Chinese behavior in the region.
PEACE, DEVELOPMENT, SOFT POWER, AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
Beyond the Indo-Pacific region, South Korea has sought to make a larger global imprint within and outside the scope of the US alliance.
South Korea contributed 3,600 troops in Iraq between 2004 to 2008, and a contingent of up to 500 soldiers in Afghanistan from 2010 to support reconstruction and peacekeeping efforts.
Until last month, the Korea International Cooperation Agency operated a training institution for public officials to bolster the administrative capacities of Afghan government officials. Capitalising on its own economic success story, Seoul has also highlighted its development model that has drawn attention from sub-Saharan African countries among other developing nations.
In Afghanistan, the absence of US forces has meant the evacuation of the embassy staff of most (if not all) US allied nations including South Korea. Aid and development operations have ceased given the uncertainty and dangers of Taliban rule.
However, Seoul’s decision to evacuate Afghan families, at the risk of great peril and potential domestic backlash given strong anti-Muslim sentiment at home, indicates that South Koreans are willing to contribute to the greater global good in times of need.
Narratives highlighting South Korea’s own past as a war-torn country with fleeing refugees in the 1950s suggest the country’s willingness to “pay it forward,” reflected in South Korea’s steady growth in its official development assistance (ODA) budget (notwithstanding decreases in 2020 related to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic).
South Korea’s soft power, including the popularity of K-pop and K-dramas, also enables the country to address complex global issues such as sustainable development, climate change and global poverty.
This week, the K-Pop boy band BTS accompanied President Moon to the United Nations in their new diplomatic role as “special presidential envoy for future generations and culture.”
Over 1 million fans tuned in to watch their dance video performance at the UN followed by remarks on climate change, the pandemic, and youth issues.
DEFENDING DEMOCRACY IN ASIA
Paradoxically, as South Korea has found ways to support stability, governance, and human security on the global stage and in far-flung places, its engagement with the perpetual humanitarian and human rights crisis closest to home in North Korea has come to a halt due to sanctions, pandemic lockdowns, and political posturing.
Seoul has also remained relatively quiet as China undermines democratic principles in Asia and further abroad. Nor has the Moon government been as vocal as other neighbouring countries such as Japan in defending international laws and norms in the South China Sea.
Beyond ODA, bilateral investments, and soft power, South Korea should muster its inner voice and growing (even if limited) power to speak out on behalf of marginalised people, groups and citizens, despite geopolitical sensitivities.
In the space of 48 hours, North Korea fired ballistic missiles, South Korea followed suit and Australia announced the unprecedented purchase of US nuclear-powered submarines. (Photo: AFP)
Addressing human rights in North Korea at home and abroad, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and the curtailment of free speech and civil rights in Hong Kong under the National Security Law would strengthen South Korea’s reputation as a country willing to defend democratic principles, human rights, and international law, all of which serve an important basis for regional peace, governance and security.
South Korea, with the tenth largest economy and defence budget in the world in 2020, demonstrates how middle powers might shoulder the responsibility in sustaining fragile regional orders, in addition to a fragmenting global order.
However, as a recently developed and non-Western democratic country, South Korea must do more to leverage its unique experience to work with and encourage other Indo-Pacific countries to adhere to good governance that empower citizens, respect human rights, and support international rules and laws aimed at protecting the global commons.
Andrew Yeo is Visiting Fellow at the Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings Institution. This commentary first appeared in Brookings Institution’s blog Order from Chaos.
9. Foreign Ministry slashed budget for North's human rights protection
This is counter to Andrew Yeo's recommendation.
We need to take a human rights upfront approach. Human rights is not only a moral imperative, it is a national security issue. KimJong-un must deny the human rights of the koreans in the north to remain in power.
Thursday
September 23, 2021
Foreign Ministry slashed budget for North's human rights protection
An anti-Pyongyang poster made by a defectors' group in South Korea found in a stream near Hongcheon County, Gangwon, on June 23, 2020. [YONHAP]
The Foreign Ministry’s budget for human rights protection in North Korea was reduced this year to a third of what it was three years ago.
According to the ministry’s records demanded by People Power Party Rep. Thae Yong-ho, obtained exclusively by the JoongAng Ilbo on Thursday, the ministry’ budget for the protection of human rights in North Korea was reduced from 49 million won ($42,000) in 2018 to 15 million won in 2021.
Rep. Thae is one of two North Korean defector-turned-lawmakers in the main opposition party.
This budget is set by the Foreign Ministry annually for its activities that promote human rights protection in the North, including hosting consultations on the topic with other governments including the U.S. government.
The budget for this year was set last December and took effect with the start of the new year.
The ministry said the budget was reduced mainly due to the Covid-19 pandemic and a fall in the number of multilateral consultations on North Korean human rights.
“The government's efforts to promote human rights in North Korea are being carried out in various programs in other relevant ministries, and cannot be evaluated with a specific budget amount,” a Foreign Ministry official told the JoongAng Ilbo.
But for some critics, the reduction goes hand-in-hand with the argument that the Moon Jae-in administration has been turning a blind eye to the human rights situation in the North.
The administration, in March, had declined to support the resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council denouncing the human rights violations in North Korea, for the third consecutive year.
And this year is the fifth consecutive year of the ministry failing to appoint an ambassador for the North Korean human rights issue. The position was held by Lee Jung-hoon from 2016 to 2017, for the first and last time.
The joint Korea-U.S. committee meetings on North Korean human rights, which were held regularly since it was launched in October 2016, has all but disappeared since the onset of the Moon administration in 2017.
“The budget cuts for programs on North Korean defectors and North Korean human rights during the Moon administration sends out a message to the world that the Moon administration does not care much about the human rights protection in the North, or about the well-being of the North Korean defectors,” Thae told the JoongAng Ilbo. “This raises further red flags for human rights watchers in the world, who are already concerned about the South’s anti-leaflet law and the forced repatriation of defectors to North Korea.”
Seoul’s anti-leaflet law, which bans the sending of anti-Pyongyang propaganda materials across the inter-Korean border, was passed last December. The United Nations was among other international groups that voiced concerns that the law may violate freedom of expression.
While the Ministry of Unification is the main body of the Korean government overseeing North Korean defector issues, the Foreign Ministry also has a separate fund to help defectors settle down in the South. Funding for this has also been reduced in recent years — from 4.1 billion won in 2017 to 2 billion won in 2021, according to the ministry records obtained by Rep. Thae’s office.
The ministry said that the reduction was mainly due to the removal of some defectors programs at the ministry last year.
“We moved some 1.9 billion won worth of programs on defectors from the Foreign Ministry to the Ministry of the Interior and Safety last year,” said a ministry official.
BY PARK HYUN-JU, ESTHER CHUNG [chung.juhee@joongang.co.kr]
10. Moon awards medals to Korean immigrants in Hawaii for fight against Japan's colonization
For all the tragedy and suffering that was the Japanese colonial occupation of Korea we should also recognize that the Korean could not be broken. The occupiers tried to eliminate Korean names, the Korean language, and Korean culture. But the people resisted and protected their identity. But we should know the suffering never ended for the Korean people in the north and they went from colonial occupation to despotic rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State. Despite the imposition of Juche and Kimilsungism the Korean people in the north retain their true Korean identity and the "spirit of the Han" and this will be crucial when unification under a United republic of Korea (UROK) is realized. As a Korean admiral once told me when faced with hardship the Korean people survive. When they are given the opportunity they will thrive. The Korean people in the South have thrived and the Korean people in the north will too when they are given that opportunity (and they have demonstrated the ability to do so in a small way with the growth of markets after the failure of the regime's public distribution system in the 1990s.)
(LEAD) Moon awards medals to Korean immigrants in Hawaii for fight against Japan's colonization | Yonhap News Agency
(ATTN: ADDS photo)
By Lee Chi-dong
HONOLULU, Sept. 22 (Yonhap) -- South Korean President Moon Jae-in awarded posthumous medals of honor to two Korean immigrants in Hawaii Wednesday, with their descendants in attendance at the ceremony.
It marked the first time that a South Korean president held a medal-awarding ceremony abroad for those recognized for independence activities during Japan's colonial rule of Korea from 1910-45, Cheong Wa Dae said.
Moon bestowed the Order of Merit for National Foundation on the two late figures -- Kim No-di and Ahn Jung-song -- for their role in raising funds for independence fighters, while residing on this island.
The ceremony took place at the Korean Language Flagship Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM).
A shipload of Korean immigrants arrived in Hawaii in 1903 to work on pineapple and sugar plantations and many others followed suit. Hawaii served as home for ethnic Koreans raising funds for the independence movement.
Moon flew to Honolulu on Tuesday following a visit to New York for the U.N. General Assembly session.
Just ahead of the medal-awarding ceremony, Moon visited the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific and paid tribute to war dead including those who were killed in the 1950-53 Korean War.
lcd@yna.co.kr
(END)
11. Moon flies home with remains of 68 Korean War heroes
The shared values of our blood alliance:
Moon added, "The ROK-U.S. alliance forged in blood and the dedication of the war veterans has transformed into a comprehensive alliance that shares a whole range of values across political, economic, social and cultural realms, freedom and peace, democracy and human rights and the rule of law. Our two countries' unwavering endeavors to achieve complete denuclearization and permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula will never stop."
Moon flies home with remains of 68 Korean War heroes
President Moon Jae-in, third from the right in the front row, First Lady Kim Jung-sook and John Aquilino, chief of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, take part in a joint repatriation ceremony returning the remains of 68 South Korean soldiers killed in the 1950-53 Korean War from the United States at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii Wednesday. Korea returned the remains of six U.S. soldiers. [YONHAP]
President Moon Jae-in received the remains of 68 South Korean soldiers killed in the 1950-53 Korean War from the United States in a handover ceremony in Hawaii Wednesday.
South Korea handed over the remains of six American soldiers in a joint repatriation ceremony at the Hickam Air Force Base in Honolulu organized by the U.S. Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) and the Korean Defense Ministry's Agency for Killed In Action (KIA) Recovery and Identification.
Moon is the first Korean president to hold a ceremony to transfer the remains of soldiers abroad, said the Blue House Wednesday.
The remains of two of the Korean soldiers have been identified as privates first class Kim Seok-joo and Jung Hwan-jo. They served in the U.S. Seventh Division's 32nd Infantry Regiment under the Korean Augmentation to the United States Army (Katusa) Soldier Program during the war and were killed in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in late 1950.
Their remains were discovered by North Korea and sent to Hawaii with those of U.S. soldiers and had been identified on Sept. 2.
Of the six sets of remains of American soldiers, one included remains of a serviceman whose remains had already been transferred to the United States in 2018.
"Today, we pay tribute to all Korean War veterans, their families, as they fought in battle to protect and defend our values in the region," said Adm. John C. Aquilino, commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. "We will never forget their service and sacrifice as it paved the way for our strong network of alliances and partnerships that continues to secure a free and open Indo-Pacific."
He continued, "The Korean War brought our two nations side by side to fight for and defend the values embodied in the ideals of freedom. Twenty-two other nations contributed to the United Nations Command offering support, troops and medical assistance to restore international peace and security in the region. Many of those nations to this day continue to support peace on the peninsula through ongoing contributions to the United Nations Command.
"For more than six decades, the ironclad alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States based on the bonds of mutual trust, shared values people to people talks and enduring friendship has delivered peace stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific."
Moon paid tribute to the Korean and American service members whom he said "made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and peace of the Republic of Korea (ROK)."
In his speech at the repatriation ceremony, he again urged a formal declaration to end the Korean War, echoing his address to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday.
"What our heroes wanted to see on the Korean Peninsula was a complete peace," said Moon in his speech. "At the UN General Assembly, I proposed that the relevant parties gather together and proclaim an end to the Korean War, creating a new chapter of reconciliation and cooperation. Sustainable peace is what the world hoped to achieve through the foundation of the United Nations. An end-of-war declaration will give new hope and courage for everyone around the world aspiring for peace beyond the Korean Peninsula."
The Korean War ended with an armistice agreement signed by the U.S.-led UN Command, North Korea and China on July 27, 1953, rather than a peace treaty.
Moon added, "The ROK-U.S. alliance forged in blood and the dedication of the war veterans has transformed into a comprehensive alliance that shares a whole range of values across political, economic, social and cultural realms, freedom and peace, democracy and human rights and the rule of law. Our two countries' unwavering endeavors to achieve complete denuclearization and permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula will never stop."
He pledged that the South Korean government will work toward the repatriation of all fallen heroes yet to be reunited with their families, including those who may be buried in the demilitarized zone at the inter-Korean border.
Moon added that humanitarian cooperation among the two Koreas and the United States for the recovery of remains "will help heal the wounds of war and build a strong foundation for reconciliation and cooperation."
Korean officials attending the ceremony included Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs Hwang Ki-chul, Defense Minister Suh Wook and Ambassador to the United States Lee Soo-hyuck. U.S. officials included Paul LaCamera, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea and United Nations Command, and Hawaii Gov. David Ige, along with veterans of the Korean War and their family members.
The remains of the identified soldiers, Pfcs. Kim and Jung, were transported to Korea in caskets wrapped in the Korean national flag on Moon's Air Force One in a show of highest honor. Their repatriation comes after 70 years.
The 66 unidentified sets of remains were transferred on a KC-330 Cygnus multi-role tanker transport aircraft accompanied by Defense Minister Suh.
After arriving at Seoul Air Base, the remains of Kim and Jung will be returned to their family members, and the other 66 will be sent to an identification facility.
South Korea and the United States have been identifying and repatriating soldiers as part of the Korean War Identification Project (KWIP).
Since 2012, 307 remains of South Korean soldiers have been repatriated, including the 68 remains returned Wednesday, and 16 have been identified. Over the same period, the remains of 25 American soldiers were returned to the United States.
Last year the remains of 147 South Korean soldiers were repatriated from Hawaii in June 2020, the largest handover ceremony to date, as the two countries marked the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War. The DPAA's identification lab is based in Hawaii.
After the ceremony, Moon held separate talks with Aquilino at the base and said, "The diplomacy and dialogue necessary for complete denuclearization and permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula must be supported by strong security," stressing that the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command "plays an important role in such efforts."
President Moon Jae-in, right, presents posthumously an Order of Merit for National Foundation to the late Kim No-di for her contributions to the Korean independence movement against Japan, accepted by her descendent at a ceremony held at the Korean Language Flagship Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa Wednesday. [YONHAP]
Earlier Wednesday, Moon posthumously awarded medals of honor to two Korean immigrants in Hawaii, recognizing their contributions from the United States to independence activities during Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of Korea.
Moon awarded the Order of Merit for National Foundation, the highest honor, to the late Kim No-di and Ahn Chung-song for their role in raising funds for independence fighters while residing in Hawaii, said the Blue House.
The award ceremony, the first to be held abroad, took place at the Korean Language Flagship Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and was attended by their descendants.
Kim, as a student at Oberlin College, attended the first congress of Korean-American representatives in Philadelphia in 1919, exposing violations of women's rights under Japanese colonial rule and championing gender equality. She continued her activities traveling across the United States to spread awareness of Korea's fight for independence from Japan and raised money to fund the movement.
Ahn likewise provided financial support to Korea's independence movement as an executive of the Korean Women's Association and is recognized for contributions to the community as a member of the United Korean Committee in America after liberation. She was the wife of another independence activist based on the island, Ahn Won-kiu, a president of the Korean National Association in Hawaii who also posthumously received the Order of Merit of National Foundation from the Korean government in 1995.
The president also visited the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu and paid tribute to war dead, including those who were killed in the Korean War.
Moon concluded Thursday a five-day trip to the United States that kicked off Sunday and took him to New York for the UN General Assembly along with Korean boy band and special presidential envoys BTS.
In his address to the 76th session of the General Assembly Tuesday, Moon proposed that the two Koreas, the United States, and possibly China, formally proclaim an end to the Korean War to "make irreversible progress in denuclearization and usher in an era of complete peace."
The Pentagon indicated that it is open to discussing an end-of-war declaration when asked about Moon's UN address.
John Kirby, spokesman of the U.S. Department of Defense, said in a press briefing Wednesday, "We continue to seek engagement with the DPRK to address a variety of issues, and we are open to discussing the possibility of an end-of-war declaration," referring to the acronym for the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The United States, he said, "remains committed to achieving lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy with North Korea," adding that its goal "remains as always the complete denuclearization of the peninsula."
In a post on Facebook after wrapping up his visit to Honolulu Thursday, Moon wrote: "We are on our way home with 68 heroes."
He pointed to South Korea's elevated status at the United Nations and efforts to "contribute to the international community exemplifying solidarity and cooperation."
BY SARAH KIM [kim.sarah@joongang.co.kr]
12. U.S. names North Korea as a main culprit in ransomware attacks
The regime's all purpose sword is hard at work.
Wednesday
September 22, 2021
U.S. names North Korea as a main culprit in ransomware attacks
The U.S. Treasury on Tuesday issued an updated advisory highlighting the risks associated with ransomware payments, while naming North Korea as one of the main culprits behind such attacks.
The notice follows advisories from the U.S. Treasury issued in 2019 and 2020, which identified malicious cyber activities conducted by the North to collect intelligence, compromise defense systems and generate revenue.
The Tuesday advisory issued by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), directed towards companies which facilitate payments on behalf of victims of ransomware, warned that such businesses could risk violating Treasury sanctions, in addition to encouraging further ransomware attacks.
Ransomware refers to malicious software installed on target computers designed to block access to a computer system or data, often by encrypting data or programs on information technology systems to extort ransom payments from victims in exchange for decrypting the information and restoring access to systems or data.
In some cases, in addition to the attack, cyber actors threaten to publicly disclose sensitive files. The cyber actors then demand a ransomware payment, usually through virtual currency, in exchange for a key to decrypt the files and restore access to systems or data.
The advisory named North Korea as the likely sponsor behind the 2017 WannaCry 2.0 ransomware, which infected approximately 300,000 computers in at least 150 countries. This attack was linked to the Lazarus Group, a cybercriminal organization backed by North Korea.
Victims of the WannaCry ransomware attack included Boeing, Honda, FedEx and the National Health Services of both England and Scotland.
While the Treasury's advisory does not carry the force of law, it makes clear that companies that facilitate payments from victims of ransomware to cyber-criminal organizations risk violating U.S. sanctions on the state entities behind the attacks.
"U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions, directly or indirectly, with individuals or entities on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, other blocked persons, and those covered by comprehensive country or region embargoes," the advisory said.
The Treasury also warned that victims of ransomware attacks are encouraged to cooperate with U.S. investigative authorities, and that timely reporting and voluntary self-disclosure would be a mitigating factor in any response from the authorities.
"In the case of ransomware payments that may have a sanctions nexus, OFAC will consider a company's self-initiated and complete report of a ransomware attack to law enforcement or other relevant U.S. government agencies," the advisory said.
BY MICHAEL LEE [lee.junhyuk@joongang.co.kr]
13. AUKUS comes as pressure on Seoul to join anti-China campaign
Wes should absolutely NOT be pressuring South Korea to join the Quad or any other arrangement.
We should make the offer but if South Korea joins under duress then it will not be an effective arraignment. The ROK must make its own strategic calculator and determine that joining is in its national interests to do so.
AUKUS comes as pressure on Seoul to join anti-China campaign
President Moon Jae-in bumps elbows with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson during their summit in New York, Monday (local time). Yonhap
Trilateral security pact is seen as US's latest attempt to contain China's assertion
By Nam Hyun-woo
AUKUS, a new trilateral security partnership between the U.K., Australia and the U.S., is placing indirect pressure on South Korea to join Washington's campaign to contain an assertive China, and throwing a new challenge for the Moon Jae-in administration's balancing act between the two superpowers.
AUKUS became the subject of South Korea's diplomacy during a summit between President Moon and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson in New York, Monday (local time). According to presidential spokeswoman Park Kyung-mee, Johnson told Moon that "AUKUS will not cause any regional problems," and Moon responded, "I hope AUKUS will contribute to regional peace and prosperity."
The remarks were interpreted as Moon's effort to take a neutral stance on the trilateral pact, which is widely viewed as an anti-China grouping.
AUKUS was announced Sept. 15, as a military deal that will see the U.S. and U.K. help Australia develop nuclear-powered submarines. None of the leaders of the involved parties mentioned a specific country while announcing the pact, but it is believed to be a measure to counter China's rising influence in the Indo-Pacific region.
U.S. President Joe Biden, right, meets with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the Intercontinental Barclay Hotel during the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Tuesday (local time). AP-YonhapAUKUS is the latest among various U.S.-led campaigns to contain China's assertiveness, following the QUAD security dialogue among the U.S., India, Japan and Australia; and the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance comprised of the U.S., the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Among those countries, South Korea has been increasing its diplomatic contacts with the U.K. and Australia in recent months.
Moon's summit with Johnson came just 100 days after the two leaders met during the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in the U.K. During the two summits, the leaders held discussions on the U.K.'s participation in South Korea's project to develop a light aircraft carrier.
Moon also held a summit with Prime Minister Scott Morrison on the sidelines of the G7 Summit, and met Australian foreign and defense ministers in Seoul, Sept. 13, to talk about military and security cooperation.
Against this backdrop, the creation of AUKUS is interpreted as the U.S. concentrating its diplomatic influence on having its allies exert efforts to contain China; and South Korea is being pressured to join this campaign.
During a Sept. 20 press briefing on AUKUS, a senior U.S. administration official was asked whether Washington had the intention of transferring nuclear submarine technology to South Korea as it had decided to do for Australia. The official responded, "We don't have the intention of extending this to other countries."
The South Korean military also wants to develop nuclear-powered submarines. During his presidential campaign in 2017, Moon said Korea also needs nuclear submarines, and former Deputy National Security Advisor Kim Hyun-jong reportedly visited the U.S. last October to ask for Washington's cooperation in supplying nuclear fuel; which was refused.
According to observers, this shows that the U.S. is providing a favor to Australia, which has been expressing its clear stance against China, despite Beijing's trade retaliation on wine, sugar and seafood exports.
"It is seen as a significant incentive for Australia, which has long been standing as faithful partner for the U.S. in terms of countering China," said Shin Beom-chul, the director of the Center for Diplomacy and Security at the Korea Research Institute for National Strategy.
"South Korea was also given similar opportunities to join the anti-China campaign, but the Moon administration made its choice to stand neutral, which could cause mid- to long-term pressure on Seoul's diplomacy," Shin said.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Chung Eui-yong speaks with Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, during an interview organized by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Wednesday (local time). Courtesy of Ministry of Foreign Affairs
While Moon is trying to take a neutral stance, Foreign Affairs Minister Chung Eui-yong made comments leaning largely toward China.
During an interview with the U.S.-based think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, Wednesday (local time), Chung, who is in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, said China's assertive diplomacy was natural because the country was becoming strong economically.
He added he does not agree with the term "assertive," noting that China wanted to deliver its voice to the international community and the world should listen to it.
Regarding the idea of grouping Korea, Japan and Australia as a bulwark against China, Chung said that was "the mentality of the Cold War."
14. North Korea’s Missile Tests Aren’t Surprising. Biden Has Been Fueling Tensions.
Another blame America screed. The author makes the fundamental, potentially erroneous, and very dangerous assumption that Kim Jong-un wants peaceful co-existence and no longer has designs on ruling the entire peninsula.
The author must answer these two questions in the affirmative but for me to agree I would have to see substantive evidence. that the regime has changed its nature and abandoned its objectives and strategy.
1. Do we believe that Kim Jong-un has abandoned the seven decades old strategy of subversion, coercion-extortion (blackmail diplomacy), and use of force to achieve unification dominated by the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State in order to ensure the survival of the mafia like crime family cult known as Kim family regime?
2.. 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?
North Korea’s Missile Tests Aren’t Surprising. Biden Has Been Fueling Tensions.
While North Korea’s recent missile tests should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows the country’s ongoing conflict with the United States and South Korea, they show that North Korea is continuing to develop more powerful weapons.
To recap the recent history that got us here, former U.S. President Donald Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times in 2018-2019. At the Singapore summit in 2018, they agreed to establish new relations, build a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and work toward the complete denuclearization of the peninsula, but the talks broke down the following year. Trump continued with a policy of maximum pressure on North Korea — layering on sanctions and conducting joint military exercises with South Korea.
In this year’s annual New Year address, Kim Jong Un said his country will no longer engage in talks with the U.S. unless Washington drops its “hostile policy.” And he directed his country to develop more and better missiles.
Thus far, the Biden administration has done nothing to change course from Trump’s policy of maximum pressure on North Korea. While Biden’s attention to other priorities, such as the pandemic and Afghanistan, is understandable, continuing to ignore North Korea is turning the Korean Peninsula into a powder keg.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Here’s what the Biden administration can do to end the dangerous arms race on the Korean Peninsula.
Stop the Military Exercises
The United States keeps around 28,500 soldiers in South Korea. This is a legacy of the Korean War, which was halted nearly 70 years ago with an armistice — not a peace treaty — leaving the peninsula in a perpetual state of war.
The Biden administration has taken at least two concrete actions that actively fuel tensions on the Korean Peninsula: continuing joint military exercises with South Korea and lifting the cap on South Korea’s missile development.
South Korea and the United States stage joint military exercises several times per year. The U.S. and South Korea call the exercises “defensive and routine,” but history has shown that these exercises don’t actually deter North Korea. In fact, they do the opposite — they provoke North Korea to carry out its own military exercises or weapons tests.
It’s also important to note that they are based on operation plans that include preemptive strikes, deposition of the North Korean leadership, precision strikes that take out their key installations and counterinsurgency operations — basically a plan for regime collapse and occupation.
Due to their provocative nature, these exercises have been the main obstacle to efforts for peace-building and reconciliation between the two Koreas. For example, in July, North and South Korea re-established their inter-Korean hotline — a sign of hope amid stalemated talks among all sides. But that hope was quickly dashed as it was followed immediately by nine days of joint military exercises held by the U.S. and South Korea in August.
Stop Fueling an Arms Race in Korea
Since the end of the Korean War, the U.S. and South Korea have had an arrangement of extended nuclear deterrence. In other words, South Korea agreed to refrain from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for protection under the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella. Hence, South Korea has not developed its own nuclear capability — although there are reactionary voices in South Korea that have long advocated that the country do so.
At their summit in May of this year, President Biden and South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed to terminate an agreement between their countries that had previously capped the range of South Korea’s ballistic missiles to 800 kilometers (roughly 500 miles). South Korea is now able to build ballistic missiles with larger payloads and longer ranges.
Not surprisingly, North Korea reacted angrily to the removal of the missile restrictions and accused the U.S. of applying a double standard — because while the U.S. is trying to stop North Korea from developing ballistic missiles, it is encouraging South Korea to do so.
Could this mean that South Korea is headed toward developing nuclear weapons? If so, both sides will be nuclear — an obviously dangerous situation for the peninsula, as well as for the entire region.
Don’t Exacerbate the Situation
Pyongyang has been consistent in its message to Washington. In all its past agreements with the U.S., in Kim Jong Un’s New Year addresses every year, and through its official public statements, Pyongyang has called for an end to the U.S.’s “hostile policy.” Yet Washington often shrugs and says, “We don’t understand.”
Korean Americans and peace groups across the U.S. have come together to press for a peace agreement to officially end the Korean War.
Perhaps it’s time to review our actions toward North Korea to assess what might possibly be perceived as hostile. Perhaps it’s the Pentagon’s war plans that envision regime collapse and occupation. Or perhaps it’s the sanctions that have cut off the country’s ability to trade with the rest of the world.
It is disingenuous for Washington to say it is willing to talk with the North Koreans but doesn’t understand what they want. It’s clear what they want. The question is: Does the U.S. have the political will to end this forever conflict? At 71 years, the Korean War is, in fact, the longest ongoing U.S. overseas conflict.
Unfortunately, U.S. weapons contractors stand to gain much by keeping this conflict going. South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, for example, are among the top 10 purchasers of arms from the U.S. But their profit is at the detriment of millions of people in the region and now our own national security in the U.S.
Negotiate a Peace Agreement to End the Korean War
As long as the Korean War remains unresolved, the Korean Peninsula will be mired in a perpetual arms race.
According to North Korean state media, its latest cruise missile flew over 900 miles, changed trajectories along the way and made circles before hitting their targets. The test was not reported by the U.S. or South Korea before North Korea’s state media announcement — making one question whether they were able to detect the missile test when it occurred. If not, it shows increasing sophistication in North Korea’s missile technology.
This tit-for-tat weapons buildup is costly for all parties — mainly the people of North Korea and the taxpayers of South Korea and the U.S. It is also dangerous. The Korean Peninsula is heavily armed on both sides and still in a temporary ceasefire. U.S. military generals have warned about the danger of miscalculations and accidental skirmishes leading to a catastrophic war there.
The North and South Korean leaders agreed to pursue a peace agreement in their Panmunjom Declaration in 2018. They agreed to pursue talks with the U.S. and possibly China to end the Korean War. (The U.S. was a key party to the Korean War, as well as a signatory to the armistice, and still holds wartime operational control over the joint forces in South Korea, so it needs to be involved in any discussion about ending the war.) China has already expressed support for the idea of a peace agreement. The key missing party is the U.S.
A bipartisan bill in Congress — the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act (H.R.3446) — calls on the Biden administration to “pursue serious, urgent diplomatic engagement with North Korea and South Korea in pursuit of a binding peace agreement constituting a formal and final end to the state of war between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States.”
President Biden’s theme is to “Build back better.” The best thing he can do to reduce the threat of nuclear war with North Korea and build back better on the Korean Peninsula is to end the Korean War with a peace agreement.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Hyun Lee is the U.S. national organizer for Women Cross DMZ and Korea Peace Now! — a global campaign of women mobilizing to end the Korean War.
15. Does North Korea Want to Absorb South Korea or Just Leach Off of It?
I don't believe that Kim will be satisfied with "leaching" off the South. And such leaching will not be sustained when a conservative government takes over the Blue House somee day in the future.
I actually partially agree with Professor Kelly in his conclusion here:
In the end, the core issue, I believe, is whether the ruling Kim family of North Korea are 1) genuinely committed nationalist ideologues willing to take real strategic risks to promote absorption, or 2) just a mafia clan looking to maintain their privileged lifestyle and power, and grab some low-risk cash along the way. I think it is the latter.
However, rather than "either/or" I believe it is "both/and." I think the Kim family regime is a mafia-like crime family cult that seeks to dointa the Korean peninsula in order to ensure the triviality of the regime.
I am glad Professor Kelly did not tell us that "Kim knows!"
I think when we use “Kim knows” we lose the debate. People will say “Kim knows" he cannot win a war against the South. “Kim knows” he cannot absorb and rule South Korea. “Kim knows” China will not let him attack the South. “Kim knows” but we cannot know what he knows.
We can only know what the Kim family regime has said and done over the past 70 years and that is what we must assess - not one what we think "Kim knows."
No one knows what Kim knows or believes. That said, we should start with Occam’s Razor. The simplest answer is the regime has been telling us & the Korean people it’s strategy for 7 decades. We spin that at our peril.
Do we believe that Kim Jong-un has abandoned the seven decades old strategy of subversion, coercion-extortion (blackmail diplomacy), and use of force to achieve unification dominated by the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State in order to ensure the survival of the Kim regime?
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?
We should never forget that north Korea is a master of denial and deception in all that it does from military operations to strategy to diplomatic negotiations.
nK engages in active subversion of the ROK as well as the ROK/US Alliance (See UFD and 225th Bureau mission statements).
The root of all problems in Korea is the existence of the most evil mafia- like crime family cult known as the Kim family regime that has the objective of dominating the Korean Peninsula under the rule of the Guerrilla Dynasty and Gulag State.
Those are my completely biased views of the nature, objectives, and strategy of the Kim family regime.
Does North Korea Want to Absorb South Korea or Just Leach Off of It?
Despite the de jure revisionism in their constitutions and proclamations, both Koreas are now de facto status quo states. They are not acting on their beliefs at the risk of any meaningful costs.
On the fringes of the Korea policy debate, there has long been speculation on what North Korea’s final peninsular goals might be. I say “on the fringes,” because North Korea has clearly lost the inter-Korean competition, South Korean-led unification is far more likely, and issues like the North’s unchecked nuclear missile development, border provocations, openness to negotiations, or possible implosion garner far more attention. South Korea is stable and wealthy, has a modern, capable military, and is allied to the United States, so Northern-led unification at this point is extremely unlikely. Indeed, it has not really been in the cards since the 1970s.
Nonetheless, it is a relevant debate because it sheds light on what North Korea might pursue in serious negotiations over the final status of the peninsula, and whether the North might take genuine strategic risks against South Korea—those which might escalate into serious conflict. Here is a good take that the North indeed pursues “final victory.” But there are reasons why Pyongyang might not.
First, talk is cheap. Both Koreas do indeed talk tough on unification. Both are constitutionally committed to unification on their own terms. Both countries claim to be the sole legitimate authority over the entire Korean Peninsula. This is, of course, reminiscent of other Cold War-divided countries, but like Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, the division between the two has slowly settled in and become a status quo each has learned to live with.
This is obviously not ideal. Neither likes it. Both would rather win. But any serious move to eliminate the other would likely be very costly, so both are satisficing. They have accommodated a good enough outcome. Despite the de jure revisionism in their constitutions and proclamations, both Koreas are now de facto status quo states. They are not acting on their beliefs at the risk of any meaningful costs.
For example, North Korea has long since abandoned its efforts at domestic subversion and terrorism in South Korea. It continues to provoke along the border, but these are limited actions and occur only under conservative South Korean presidents. This strongly suggests they are demands for a South Korean policy change or just a pay-off.
In 2010, the North did sink a South Korean navy vessel in an action that might well have spun out of control, but that appears to have been a one-off. It is unlikely that North Korean missile-building desires could lead to unity on its terms. Nuclear weapons states have all found that nukes work well for deterrence but not well for offense.
Second, tough talk on unification serves North Korea’s domestic ideological needs. North Korea’s ideology is nationalism now, not Marxism or communism. So even if it is mostly resigned to the status quo, there is domestic value in continuing the drumbeat of belligerence. If the wealthier, healthier, more successful South is not the “Yankee Colony” that must be liberated, then there is no reason for the stand-off to persist, no reason for North Korea to exist anymore.
When East Germany gave up on socialism and opposition to West Germany after the opening of the Berlin Wall, it disappeared less than a year later. North Korea’s elites fear such an outcome, of course. Not only would they lose their very plush privileges, but they would likely face prosecution in a truth-and-reconciliation process. So, the empty rhetoric still has value.
Third, North Korea probably could not absorb South Korea without a major crisis back home. At some point, realism must confront even the most blinkered regime ideologue. South Korea would be very hard to conquer. Its military is substantially more advanced. It is allied to the United States. Korea is very narrow with little room to fight a war of maneuver, so allied air power would exact a high price. If the North used battlefield nuclear weapons to compensate for its conventional disadvantage, then it might face a U.S. nuclear response. This likely tempers all but the most ferocious dogmatists of the North.
Also, North Korea’s internal segregation, songbun system would likely be overwhelmed by the inclusion of fifty-two million Southerners at a stroke. That would triple the size of the population under Pyongyang’s control, and almost all of those Southerners would be classified into the bottom, hostile songbun tier. That would be massively expensive and alienate most of these recently conquered people. Accustomed to personal freedoms, these former South Koreans would also likely revolt, creating a hugely expensive occupation requirement for the North Korean army. Additionally, the wealth of South Korea would almost certainly corrupt North Korean officers stationed long-term there in this occupation.
Fourth, conquering/absorbing South Korea ruins its value. The South is a trading state which generates its wealth from its connections to the global economy. Severing those connections would kill the golden goose and burden yet further North Korea’s grossly inefficient economy.
Fifth, South Korea could simply pay North Korea’s bills, which is a pretty good satisficing outcome for the North. South Korea’s liberal governments have long sought a federation with the North, and current dovish President Moon Jae-In has talked this way too. This would likely mean an inter-Korean covering federation, but one so thin that would not impact the North’s domestic governance much (otherwise the North would never agree to it). But it would almost certainly mean South Korean financial transfers to the North. For the gangsterish North Korean elite, that is a pretty good outcome. Just take the money and run, while not taking any really strategic chances with major downside risks.
In the end, the core issue, I believe, is whether the ruling Kim family of North Korea are 1) genuinely committed nationalist ideologues willing to take real strategic risks to promote absorption, or 2) just a mafia clan looking to maintain their privileged lifestyle and power, and grab some low-risk cash along the way. I think it is the latter.
Robert E. Kelly is a professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University.
Image: Reuters
16. Yoon says he will request redeployment of US tactical nukes in case of emergency
How will tactical nuclear weapons deter KimJong-un? What deters him? What military value do they add to warfighting by being on the peninsula? What political and diplomatic value do they add?
Yoon says he will request redeployment of US tactical nukes in case of emergency
Published : Sept 22, 2021 - 18:27 Updated : Sept 22, 2021 - 18:27
People Power Party presidential candidate Yoon Seok-youl (Yonhap)
Yoon Seok-youl, the leading opposition presidential contender, said Wednesday he will demand the United States redeploy its tactical nuclear weapons here and have nuclear sharing with South Korea if national security is threatened by North Korea's nukes and missiles.
Unveiling 11 election pledges on diplomacy and security issues, former Prosecutor-General Yoon said he will make efforts to strengthen the Seoul-Washington alliance to deter the North's evolving nuclear and missile capabilities.
Yoon of the main opposition People Power Party said he plans to seek consultation with the US over the process to bring in US nuclear strategic assets, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, when emergency situations occur on the Korean Peninsula.
He stressed that despite the allies' efforts to strengthen extended deterrence, if national security is threatened by Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and missiles, he will request the redeployment of US tactical nukes and nuclear sharing.
The US introduced tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea in the late 1950s and then withdrew them in the early 1990s following a disarmament deal with the then Soviet Union, as well as the then South Korean government's efforts to promote reconciliation with the North.
But Yoon said his plan does not mean South Korea's nuclear armament, noting that he will prioritize diplomacy in resolving the North's nuclear issue.
Yoon also said he plans to set up a liaison office involving the two Koreas and the US at the border truce village of Panmunjom in a bid to run a trilateral dialogue channel on a permanent basis.
He added he will seek to operate economic cooperation projects with North Korea if there is progress toward the North's denuclearization. (Yonhap)
17. North Korean Sanctions Evasion Techniques
I have not read this yet but the summary confirms what most of us think.
North Korean Sanctions Evasion Techniques
Research Questions
- What are the various arms control and sanctions measures applied to constrain or alter North Korea's proliferation activities?
- Why is sanctions enforcement important?
- What are the entities and techniques involved in North Korean sanctions evasion activities?
The United Nations imposed increasingly restrictive sanctions on North Korea after each of the six nuclear weapons tests that it conducted between 2009 and 2016. However, enforcement of those sanctions has been mixed.
In this report, the author describes the origins of North Korea's hostility toward the West in the Korean War, the behaviors that led that country to continue to be regarded as hostile and aggressive, and the multilateral arms control mechanisms available and sanctions regimes imposed on North Korea to contain its proliferation activities and bring that country back into compliance with international law. The author then details the various entities involved in North Korean sanctions evasion activities and proceeds to use case studies to illustrate North Korea's principal sanctions evasion techniques in four general areas of sanctions evasion activity: hard-currency generation, restricted and dual-use technology acquisition, covert transport, and covert finance. The report is intended as a reference and learning tool for the wide variety of practitioners who form touch points with the global North Korean sanctions evasion ecosystem.
Key Findings
North Korea has become adept at evading sanctions that the international community has imposed on it
- North Korea engages in four types of sanctions evasion: activities that generate hard-currency income, activities using the hard currency acquired to buy essential raw materials and dual-use and restricted technologies, covert transportation of goods that obfuscates North Korean involvement, and movements of hard currency, precious metals, and jewels internationally without North Korea's beneficial ownership of those funds becoming known.
- Four types of entities are involved in North Korea's sanctions evasion: North Korean government officials accredited to North Korea's embassies, North Korean overseas workers, front and shell companies, and trusted third-party intermediaries.
Sanctions evasion allows North Korea to feed its overriding need for hard currency to maintain the incumbent political regime and fund nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs
- Those programs threaten international security and have destabilized and supported insurrection in most of the Sahel countries.
- Those same activities are launching or have launched a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile arms race in the neighboring Middle East, exposing African nations to the threat of future missile attack.
- They have also led to the killing of civilians with chemical weapons.
North Korea is active in 38 African countries
- Its principal sanctions evasion activities take place within just over one-third of those countries.
- Four of those countries may represent particularly hard cases (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Mali, and Mozambique).
V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
