Joint Statement of the National Assembly and the Civil Society for the 5th Global Day of Action on Military Spending

Our Taxes on Social Welfare instead of on Weaponry

Today on the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, we stand here to be with about 320 organizations from about 70 nations around the world. We should reflect on our reality that peace and safety of citizens worldwide are far from being established even when an astronomical amount of money is spent on military. We demand that our taxes be spent on restoring social justice and building a sustainable and peaceful world. This year, marking the one-year anniversary of the Sewol-ferry tragedy, voices desiring a safe nation have grown louder than ever, and the criticism of the ineffective investment in defense industry in the name of 'national security' is also growing stronger. It is time to change the priorities of the national policy and shift the focus from materialistic national security and military buildup to safety of people and peaceful cooperation.

According to 'Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2014' published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the worldwide military spending last year amounted to 1.8 trillion dollars (about 1,968 trillion won), a little less than the last year's. Korea entered the top 10 for the first time last year and ranked 10th this year. 

Korea's military spending in 2015 amounts to 37.456 trillion won, increased by about 4.9% or 1.7504 trillion won from last year. This is excessive, taking up 14.5% of the government budget. 

While a large sum of military spending is being spent, our society is becoming more extremely socially polarized. Uneasiness from everyday life caused by issues in education, child care, health care, and housing encroaches on our lives, but welfare budget to expand social safety net is not nearly enough. The total amount of university student loan is now over 10 trillion won. The university tuition could be subsidized and cut by half if we decide not to use 7 trillion won of budget on purchasing 40 fighter aircrafts, F-35's, which are the most ineffective and unreasonable among the military weapons to be purchased from the U.S. by the Korean army. 1,400 public daycare centers, which President Park Geun-hye promised to provide during her presidential campaign but failed to fulfill, could be built with 880 billion won of budget set aside for 4 unmanned aerial reconnaissance drones called 'Global Hawk'. Also the budget deficit of 65.5 billion won in 34 local medical centers could be covered for the next 90 years if we do not spend 6 trillion won on operating and maintaining Global Hawk's. Students in South Gyeongsang Province, who had to put up with such remark "a school is not the place you come to eat", could have school lunches for free for the next 30 years if 3.3415 trillion won of budget is not spent on the cluster bomb units and the multiple launch rocket systems, both of which indiscriminate murder weapons banned by international law. All the firefighting equipment which is old to such an extent as to threaten the lives of firefighters could be replaced if we do not spend 1.5233 trillion won on purchasing interceptor missiles such as PAC-3. In retrospect, what we lack is not the budget. Where we allocate finances is important. We should face the threat to our lives, and reprioritize the budget.

How about the Sewol-ferry tragedy? We had to witness 304 people being buried at sea because the country, which spends about 35 trillion won every year to protect citizens from outside threat and ranks 10th in military spending, did not have basic rescue equipment. The Blue House National Security Office denied being the so-called "control tower" for the Sewol-ferry disaster. If so, for whom is the national security if the disaster which could have resulted in deaths of 470 citizens is not a matter of national security? Moreover, the Tongyeong naval rescue ship which proved to be utterly useless at the time of Sewol-ferry disaster showed rampant corruption in the nation's defense industry. If we were to talk about society after the Sewol-ferry tragedy, we should start by dealing with this glaring contradiction.

Someone might raise a question about decreasing the military expenditure when there is a serious threat from North Korea. South Korea spends an amount, almost equal to North Korea's GDP, on military. This amount does not even include the military spending by the United States Forces Korea. North Korea is obsessed with weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons because it knows its military spending is no match for South Korea's. Thus it is not a matter of amount of military expenditure, but a matter of trust.

In the East Asian region, there is a fierce competition on military spending among countries such as the United States, China, Russia and Japan. Some claim that South Korea should increase the military spending in order not to fall behind these nations. However, South Korea, as a middle power country responsible for initiating a peaceful unification on the Korean peninsula, should avoid confrontation based on South Korea-the U.S.-Japan military alliance but should demonstrate leadership for peace, cooperation, coexistence and common security. The recent controversy over the U.S. deploying a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defenses in South Korea directly shows 'Asian paradox', the disconnect between deep economic interdependence and a serious conflict in military diplomacy. 

There are 20 nations worldwide whose military expenditures take up over 4% of their GDP's in 2014. This number is greater than that in the early 1990's right after the Cold War. If the world had spent even 5% of its military spending on combatting poverty, we could have realized the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that promised to halve global poverty rates by the year 2015. However as the world went through two great wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the promise could not be kept. Korean government also promised to provide 0.25% of its GNI as Official Development Assistance (ODA) by the year 2015 to eradicate poverty but it allocated vastly insufficient amount and ended up breaking its promise to the international society. The new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which is to be proposed in September, 2015 cannot be achieved without fundamental changes and reflection on military expenditure in each country.

The 5th Global Day of Action on Military Spending should not be the anniversary full of empty promises but should be a milestone to change. Thus, to the government and citizens of Korea which ranks 10th in military spending in the world and ranks last in welfare spending among 28 OECD countries, we suggest the following:

1. We demand that the military spending be reduced to alleviate social bipolarization, to expand social safety net, and to build safe society without disasters. Increasing military spending means taking away other opportunities under a limited government budget. Finances obtained by decreasing military expenditure should be used to remove any urgent threats that citizens face in their daily life.

1. This year, the 70th anniversary of the division of Korea, we demand that the efforts be put to end the Korean war and create a peace regime. The Korean government should reflect on the large amount of direct and indirect expenses spent to keep the unstable armistice regime during the past years. The nuclear threat in the Korean peninsula, which is the main reason behind the increase in the military spending, is also the result of this armistice regime and arms race. We should devise measures to recover mutual trust and start conversations instead of purchasing offensive weapons and increasing military expenditure every year. The first step towards achieving this is to lift the May 24th measures which stands between the inter-Korean relations. 

1. We express our deep concerns over the situation where the preparation for war comes before peace and where military alliance comes before cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. We demand that Korea put efforts to change relations based on various disputes and military conflicts into cooperative ones. Appealing to the military means or strengthening military alliances to antagonize a specific country cannot resolve the conflicts. We should protect the Japanese pacific constitution, a bastion of peace in East Asia, and should not allow the right of collective self-defense. We should not allow the deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in South Korea and break away from the South Korea-U.S.-Japan military ties.

1. In order to establish peace we need participation of citizens and solidarity of people across borders. A mature sense of citizenship is more effective than any weapons to protect the community. Understanding each other and cooperation across borders are  faster ways to solve conflicts than using fighter aircrafts and missiles. We should not stand by and watch the government make decisions on whether a nation exaggerates an outside threat it claims to exist, and on whether our taxes should be used for purchasing military weapons or for building a sustainable society. Decisions on and execution processes of national security matters, including conclusion of various security treaties, development of military cooperation, execution of military exercises, and purchase of expensive and offensive weapons, must be transparent and controlled democratically, considering their enormous effects on society. Priorities in foreign policies and national security policies should be determined by citizens as it is done in other fields. 

Disarmament is not a story of a distant future but an imminent and real issue. We demand that the government, the national assembly and all the citizens show wisdom to establish peace together. 

April 13, 2015
Participants of the 5th Global Day of Action on Military Spending

For more information

The GDAMS website http://demilitarize.org

The GDAMS Korea website http://gdams.or.kr
The GDAMS Preparatory Committee of Seoul
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy +82-2-723-4250, [email protected]

The decision to place THAAD in South Korea, which threatens peace in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia and violates the residents’ right to live peacefully, must be rescinded. 

The entire country is being shaken, and the already-dangerous political situation in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia is becoming even more unpredictable because on July 8, 2016, South Korea and the U.S. announced that they are deploying THAAD to South Korea. Up until South Korea and the U.S. officials announced Seongju, North Gyeongsang Province as the location for THAAD deployment, this process had been entirely ambiguous and one-sided. Even though a plethora of concerns regarding the use, the efficiency, the military/diplomatic prices, and the side effects of THAAD were raised, the South Korean government, behind the curtains, decided to follow the request of the U.S. Now, in Seongju, the anger and the resistance of its residents, who have suddenly been notified of the deployment of THAAD, are growing rapidly. 
 
THAAD is not a weapons system for the residents of the Korean peninsula or for their defense. 

THAAD is essentially a part of the U.S. Missile Defense System (MD). It will be the U.S. military and government that will be running THAAD. MD is an aggressive weapons system, based on the “absolutely stubborn” idea, which aims to incapacitate the missile attacks of the countries against the U.S. and enable the U.S. to launch missiles whenever they want to. The South Korean government is insisting that the deployment of THAAD is to defend the Korean Peninsula from North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles. However, recently, the government has admitted that THAAD cannot defend Seoul and its metropolitan area. The South Korean government is still advertising as if THAAD can at least defend the area within its 200km radius, but this is not true. 200km is nothing but a number to describe the range of the intercept missile attached to THAAD. But, the detectable range of the radar on THAAD theoretically reaches at most a few thousand kilometers. This is why there has been criticism that the main purpose of the frontline deployment of THAAD is to detect medium- to long-range missiles flying over the Korean Peninsula and nearby skies according to the U.S. military strategy. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “adequate” location to place THAAD in this country. The decision of South Korea and the U.S. to place THAAD in Seongju must be rescinded. 

THAAD deployment is militarily and diplomatically self-destructive measure, which will threaten the safety of South Korean citizens and become a severe obstruction in peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia.

South Korean THAAD is closely related to the missile defense system that was introduced to Japan. Deployment of THAAD to South Korea signifies that South Korea will be sucked into the U.S.-Japan MD, which targets not only North Korea but also China, as a subsidiary partner, and that the Korea-U.S.-Japan military cooperation system will become official. No matter how much South Korean government claims that this is essential to the South Korean sovereignty, the international society and neighboring countries will not accept it. The “strategic companion” relationship with China has become a meaningless term, and the basis of economic cooperation and the friendly relationship between the citizens of both countries can be at risk. China and Russia have already announced that they will be “taking correspondent measures.” It is obvious that this will also negatively affect the international cooperation to solve the nuclear problem in the Korean Peninsula. This is why THAAD can never be a tool to protect the safety of South Korean citizens and peace in the Korean Peninsula. The decision to place THAAD, the “real danger,” which brings threats and conflicts instead of peace, in South Korea must be rescinded.   

We also protest against the undemocratic and non-transparent decision process. 

Before facilitating THAAD deployment, exhibitions, discussions, and evaluations of its use, effects, and military/diplomatic significance should have been carried out. The information about the negotiation process must have been transparently released. However, the South Korean government skipped all these procedures and simply controlled all information. There was not enough discussion even within the related organizations. They treated this important matter, which puts the future of peace in the Korean Peninsula at stake, as if they are carrying out a military strategy. The South Korean national assembly, which represents all of South Korean citizens, never received any substantial reports. The character, the content, and the discussion process of “South Korea-U.S. joint working group for the discussion of THAAD deployment” were not shared with the National Assembly. Even after the decision to deploy THAAD in South Korea, the South Korean government is insisting that this does not require the agreement of the National Assembly. In the case of Seongju, which was decided as the location for THAAD deployment, the residents and the military officials received the unexpected news without any explanation. They were not notified of the negative effects on the environment surrounding the THAAD base and health of the residents. The undemocratic and non-transparent decision of the South Korean government to place THAAD must be rescinded immediately.  

THAAD deployment must receive the consent of the representative body, which in this case, is the National Assembly.

THAAD deployment is directly related to the lives and the safety of South Korean citizens and is a critical matter, which will influence the friendly cooperative relationship with neighboring countries. It may also cost an astronomical amount of money. Therefore, this matter cannot be solely decided by the administrative body; it needs the agreement of the National Assembly. More than anything, the dangerous practice of the South Korean government, which ignores the discussion process and treats this issue like a secret military strategy to avoid the regulation of the National Assembly, cannot be left uncontrolled. If the National Assembly represents all of South Korean citizens, they must stop the one-sided push of THAAD deployment and exercise their right to consent. If the government never asks for the agreement of the National Assembly, the National Assembly must restrain the government’s abuse of its authorities through every measure, such as an investigation in relation to government, an adaptation of the resolution to oppose, and a demand for jurisdiction dispute.  

We are going to start a pan-national peace action to rescind the decision to place THAAD in South Korea. 

We are going to start a pan-national peace action that gathers people from various backgrounds and publicizes the problems of this decision to rescind the decision to place THAAD in South Korea and to stop South Korea from being sucked into the U.S.-Japan missile defense system. We are going to form solidarity to prevent Seongju, North Gyeongsang Province from becoming another victim of state violence, like Pyeongtaek Deachuri or Jeju Gangjeong village. In addition, we are going to fight with all of South Korean citizens, so that THAAD will not be placed in Seongju or any other parts of South Korea. To accomplish this, we are going to actively try to convince and pressure local governments, the National Assembly, and related government organizations and will convey our message to governments and civil societies of neighboring countries, including the U.S. and japan. We will surely punish any abuse of power that undemocratically pushes for the placement of THAAD. Moreover, we are going to form solidarity to facilitate the reconciliation and the cooperation of North and South Korea and to form a peaceful system. The Korean Peninsula should no longer become an explosive warehouse, which is swayed and used by the arms race of the neighboring powers, but should transform as the stepping stone of Northeast Asian peace and cooperation. We are going to actively spread civil resistance and actions for the withdrawal of the decision to place THAAD and for peace in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. 

July 14, 2016

번역 : 목지수 (참여연대 평화군축센터 자원활동가)

Global Day of  Action on Military Spending (GDAMS)
How long  should South Korea stay as an international loser?

With the lowest welfare spending and highest suicide rate among OECD members, 
South Korea was ranked as the world's No. 10 military spender this year and No. 1 arms importer in 2014.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has released the 2015 annual world military expenditure figures today (4 May). There is a country which has been once again ranked as the world No. 10. It is, while being the tenth biggest global military spender, also recorded as the lowest welfare spender with the highest suicide rate among the 28 OECD countries. That nation is South Korea. The South Korean government has been spending 15% of its budget on military expenditure, which is 2.5 times bigger than the OECD average. The South Korean government has been pouring in 6 billion dollars over its acquisition of 40 F-35 fighter jets, the center of controversies over cost and technical problems. This is the reality of our nation, 'Hell Chosun', an infernal feudal kingdom.

Korea, breaking its usual record of world's top 10 arms importer became the world's biggest arms importer. The annual CRS (Congressional Research Service) report on Arms Transfers, published in December 2015, shows that the South Korean government bought arms and defense equipment worth 7.8 billion dollars in 2014, making it the number 1 weaponry importer in the world. About $7 billion of South Korea's contracts were made with the United States. Now South Korea has become the most lucrative client of the world's largest defense company, Lockheed Martin. This has been attributed to the South Korean government's decision to buy the fighters whose capabilities haven't yet been verified, even after the US refusal to allow core technologies' transfer to South Korea. Also, there's more good news for Lockheed Martin, which is that the US has reportedly agreed to deploy THAAD to South Korea.

Is the huge military expenditure justified? The nation, with an annual defence budget of $9.6 billion, has so far been discovered to have spent $876 million in defence industry corruption by a joint investigative team which was launched in 2014. According to the joint investigative team, there has been a continuous flow of bribes, the falsifying of public documents, shady arms acquisition processes etc. throughout the Army, Air force, and Navy. The 2014 National Defence Annual Reports says that within 10 years defence spending doubled from $4 billion to $8 billion. Anyone can guess that this figure is not healthy at all. 

Then have our 630 thousand soldiers been benefiting from this military spending? The biggest item in South Korea's military budget is labour costs, most of which has been spent on commissioned officers. Only 9% of the military labour cost budget has been allocated to enlisted soldiers, who make up 70% of the entire military force, while the commissioned officers, who only make up 11% of the military force, take 42% of the entire labour costs. The enlisted soldiers are on less than one seventh of the nation minimum income. Is this treatment fair and just?

Some may say that "we can't possibly reduce military spending while facing the North Korean threat". The fact that South Korea's military power is far superior to that of North Korea has already been acknowledged by the government. South Korea has been spending on its military budget an amount almost equivalent to North Korea's national GDP, without even factoring in expenditure on American army bases in South Korea. Unable to match that amount, North Korea may have had to focus on weapons of mass-destruction. The key to solving the inter-Korean tension is trust-building, not military spending increases. The recent news on North Korea's 4th nuclear test caused many South Korean politicians to propose developing our own nuclear weapons. Without stopping this vicious competition of military spending and force increases on the Korean peninsula,  the necessary dialogue cannot be initiated, hence peace will remain unreachable.

The world of arms, of which American President Eisenhower once said "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." still persists now. This year the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) will issue an estimated $20.1 billion needed to provide humanitarian assistance to countries around the globe, including Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We need to remind ourselves that last year alone the world spent $1.8 trillion on defence. Just 1% of the total international military spend would make so much difference if it were to be spent on humanitarian purposes and the eradication of poverty. 

More military spending will never bring in peace and safety to the world, but rather causes neighboring countries to increase their own military funding, therefore ending up enriching arms companies. Now is the time for us to rethink our priorities. The change we are hoping for will be brought forward by those who cry out "tax money for our lives, not for weapons" and the national assembly, which reviews and votes for bills based on our nation's voice. The 20th national assembly will have to allocate taxes to help its citizens facing hardship from cradle to grave. On the 5th of April  2016, celebrating the 6th Global Day of  Action on Military Spending, we propose to enter into such a paradigm shift in our escape from 'Hell Chosun'.

April 5, 2016

The GDAMS Preparatory Committee of Korea

For more information

The GDAMS website http://demilitarize.org

The GDAMS Korea website http://gdams.or.kr
The GDAMS Preparatory Committee of Seoul
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy +82-2-723-4250, [email protected]

번역 : 윤현희 (참여연대 평화군축센터 자원활동가)

Joint Statement of 102 Peace Activists

Now Is the Time for Dialogue on Denuclearization and Not Military Action That Will Escalate the Crisis on the Korean Peninsula

We, undersigned peace-loving people around the world, are deeply concerned about the current escalating tension in Northeast Asia and urge governments to have peaceful dialogues among each other rather than taking military actions.

The state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula is more volatile than ever, now that President Park has been impeached and new government is to be constituted through an early presidential election in South Korea. The Trump administration, in the meantime, is fueling the escalating tension even further with messages that it will not rule out a preemptive strike on North Korea, and that it will redeploy strategic nuclear warheads to South Korea if necessary. The situation is further destabilized by the Trump administration’s decision to send an aircraft carrier to waters near the Korean Peninsula. The latest military stance and strategy of Washington, however, completely overlooks the desire of Koreans for peace. The Kim Jong-un government in Pyongyang meanwhile has warned of another upcoming nuclear test it intends to conduct, poised as it is to show off its growing nuclear capabilities. An existing crisis is already escalating in Northeast Asia over the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system that the South Korean and U.S. governments have decided to deploy in South Korea. All these acts of military bravado, taking hostage the lives and peace of Koreans, must cease now. It is time for policymakers to be responsible and return to dialogue and negotiations and stop fueling the growing tensions.

Therefore, we exhort the US administration and political leaders of North and South Korea. 

Withdraw the decision to deploy the THAAD system, part of the U.S.-South Korea-Japan Missile Defense system, in South Korea.
The South Korean and U.S. governments have decided heavy-handedly, without the consent of the Korean legislatures and despite strong public objections, to deploy the THAAD system to Seongju, South Korea. The two governments claim that such a decision is necessary to protect South Koreans against possible nuclear strikes by North Korea, but the claim is backed by little realistic evidence. South Korea is too close to North Korea for THAAD to be effective. The North only needs low-altitude missiles, to hit and destroy the South in a matter of a few minutes, and these missiles could not be intercepted by THAAD. Moreover, the THAAD system has never been proven effective in actual battle. The deployment of THAAD by the U.S. Army in South Korea represents the South Korea-U.S.-Japan alliance against China and effectively symbolizes South Korea siding with the Americans over the Chinese. The presence of such an openly hostile missile defense system gravely disrupts the prospects for peace in Northeast Asia. Beijing and Moscow have already warned that they would take “corresponding measures” in response to the deployment, with the Chinese government and businesses now engaged in unofficial but retaliatory economic sanctions against South Korea. The growing instability and arms race in Northeast Asia will only undermine international efforts for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula.

What we need now is to resume dialogue towards denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a genuine end to the Korean War.

Pyongyang must desist from further testing of its missiles and nuclear capabilities. We cannot support the development of weapons that directly contradict international efforts for nuclear disarmament and that hold the lives and safety of innocent people hostage. It is critical to resume dialogue and negotiations to root out the nuclear threats to the entire region and to achieve the much-needed transition from the Armistice’s ceasefire to a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. In doing so, we ought to admit the failure of the past sanction- and neglect-centered policies that insisted, unrealistically, that the government in Pyongyang either renounce its nuclear program prior to negotiations or collapse. With the end of nuclear diplomacy, the Kim government did nothing but augment its nuclear and missile capabilities, complicating the situation still further. We realize that countless military drills and the acquisition of cutting-edge weapon systems no longer guarantee peace and security. The perpetual political tension and military hostility can end only through dialogue and negotiation. Honest talks hold the only wise solution to the current predicament.

The Korean Peninsula can no longer afford to exist as a powder keg waiting to be ignited by the chronic military tensions and the constant arms race. This is among the first and foremost place where international efforts to tackle the nuclear problem and overcome the old Cold War legacy should begin. We need to start making serious efforts for peace, not only for the two Koreas, but also for Northeast Asia and the world at large. We urge the Trump administration, the Kim government, and the newly elected President of South Korea to listen to the desire of people worldwide for peace and resist the temptation to ratchet up military tensions on the Korean Peninsula for political gain.

May 16th, 2017

Akiko Yoshizawa(The Association for military base free peaceful Okinawa in Japan, Co-chair), Akira Asada(Sinsyu University, Professor Emeritus), Alfred L. Marder(US Peace Council, President), Alice Slater(Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, New York Representative), Ann Wright(Veterans for Peace, Colonel), Arnie Saiki(Moana Nui Alliance, Coordinator), Ayumi Temlock(Member of New Jersey Peace Action), Bruce K. Gagnon(Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Coordinator), Bruce Kent(Pax Christi UK, Vice President), Changsoon Chang(Musician), Chiaki Lee(The citizens of Matsue in Japan), Christine Ahn(Women Cross DMZ, International Coordinator), Colin Archer(International Peace Bureau, Retired Secretary-General), Corazon Valdez Fabros(International Peace Bureau, Co-Vice President), Daisuke Yamaguchi(Peace Depot Japan, Researcher), David McReynolds(War Resisters International, Former Chair), David Otieno(The Global Campaign on Military Spending Africa, Convener), David Swanson(World Beyond War, Director), David Webb(Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Chair), Dieter Deiseroth(IALANA Germany, Member of the Academic Council), Ellen-Rae Cachola(Women's Voices Women Speak, Organizer), Harumi Ishino(Osaka International University, Professor Emeritus), Hiroki Tanaka(Blue Legion), Hiroko Suzuki(Montreal Save Article 9), Hiromichi Umebayashi(Peace Depot Inc, Special Advisor), Hitomi Taniguch(Anti-War Committee of Yawata), Ichiro Yuasa(Peace-Depot, Vice-President), IWAKAWA Yasuhisa(Interpreter/translator), Iwase Hiroko, J. Enkhsaikhan(Blue Banner, Chairman), Jacqueline Cabasso(Western States Legal Foundation, Executive Director), Janis Alton(Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, Co-Chair), Jim Albertini(Malu ‘Aina Center for Non-violent Education & Action), Julia Matsui Estrella(Pacific Asian Center for Theologies and Strategies(PACTS)), Juliane Drechsel-Grau(IALANA Germany, Board Member), Jun Tisaka(Japan Peace Committee, Secretary General), Kataoka Akira(Peace Committee of Kyoto, Chair of the board), Kawasaki Akira(Peace Boat, Executive Committee Member), Kazuhiro Furuoya, Kazuyuki Yamada(The Wind from Yonaguni Island), Kenji Ago(Seinan Gakuin University / Japanese and Korean Citizens’ Peace Solidarity against Nukes, Professor Emeritus), Kevin Zeese(Popular Resistance, Co-Director), Kip Goodwin(Kauai Alliance for Peace and Social Justice, Communications Director), Kitamura Megumi(Hiroshima religious peace council affiliation), Kiyoko Takahashi(Article9 Association group in Hadano/Peace Depot), Koji Sugihara(Network Against Japan Arms Trade, representative), Koohan Paik(International Forum on Globalization, Asia-Pacific Program Director), Kouitirou Toyosima, Kristine Karch(International Network No to War - No to NATO, Co-Chair), Kuni Nagatomo(Japanese Constitution Article９), Kyle Kajihiro(Hawai'i Peace and Justice, Board member), Leah Bolger(World Beyond War, Chair Coordinating Committee), Lucas Wirl(International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms(IALANA) Germany, Executive Director), Lynette Cruz(Hui Aloha Aina o Ka Lei Maile Alii, President), Maki Sasaki, Makoto Yanagida(No-Nukes Plaza Tanpopo-sya, Co-Representative), Margaret Flowers(Popular Resistance, Co-Director), Masako Watanabe, Masami Ono(Retired Teachers), Meri Joyce(Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, (GPPAC), Northeast Asia Regional Liaison Officer), Michael Pulham(Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), Michie Ichihara(Gallery of Life, President), Mitsumasa Ohta(Wind of Citizens toward Uniting for Peace), Monique Salhab(Veterans For Peace, Secretary, National Board of Directors), Muto, Ichiyo(People’s Plan Study Group), Nagase Riei(Board Member, Board Member), Nami Morita(KAFTI, Director), Naomi Klein(Author), Noam Chomsky(MIT, Retired Instituted Professor), Nomura Osami, Noriko Kuju(Peace-Life-Ignatio-A9), Otto Jaeckel(IALANA Germany, Chair), Patricia Pulham(Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), Pete Shimazaki Doktor(Hawai`i Okinawa Alliance, Co-Founder), Peter Becker(International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), Co-President), Phyllis Creighton(Hiroshima/Nagasaki Day Coalition, Board member), Reiner Braun(International Peace Bureau, Co-President), Ronald Fujiyoshi(Ohana Ho`opakele, Treasurer), Sachiko Mikami, Sato Daisuke(No Nukes Asia Forum Japan, General Secretary), Shigehiro Terajima (Labornet-TV), Shigeru Nakamura(Article9 Association group in Hadano), Shimazu Rumi(The One Thousand Against War Committee), Shin Chiba(International Christian University, Professor), Shizue Tomoda, Suda Minoru(Ritsumeikan University, Professor Emeritus), Sukla Sen(EKTA (Committee for Communal Amity), Activist), Sumi Hasegawa(McGill University, Retired Faculty), Taikei Kokubu(Shinshuu Ōtani-ha Ansenji Priesthood, Shinshuu Ōtani-ha), Takeda Takao(NIPPONZANMYOHOJI), Tarak Kauff(Veterans for Peace, Board of Directors), Taro Abe(Nagoya Gakuin University, Professor), Tutihashi Ryoko, Wataru Mikami, Will Griffin(The Peace Report), Wolfgang Alban(IALANA Germany, Board Member), Yasunari Fujimoto(Forum for Peace, Human Rights and Environment (Peace Forum), Co-President), Yasuo Takagi, Yayoi Tsuchida(Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo), Assistant General Secretary), Yoshinobu Toyoda, Yoshioka Tatsuya(Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, Northeast Asia Regional Representative), Yoshiyuki Ishino(Anti-War Committee of Yawata Kyoto)

Pyeongchang Olympics and the Great Shift in Korea

LEE Seung-hwan South-North Korea Exchanges and Cooperation Support Association

Korean Peninsula, Spring 2018

The series of events that began with the participation of North Korean athletes in the Pyeongchang Olympics and the accompanying visit by the North Korean delegation headed by Kim Yeo-jeong, followed by the visit to North Korea by the South Korean delegation, completely transformed how the Korean Peninsula entered spring this year, by putting an end, at least for the time being, to the nuclear and missile experiments and military drills that had raised the tension between the two Koreas every spring. With the volatility characterizing the state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula so quickly dissolved and the groundwork for the historical summits between the leaders of the two Koreas as well as between the North Korean leader and the U.S. president completed, the Pyeongchang Olympics will likely be remembered as a watershed moment in the Korean struggle for peace.

The background to the “nearly miraculous situation in East Asia,” as described by the Japanese government, can be found in the so-called March 5 Accord between Kim Jong-un and the South Korean delegation to Pyongyang. North Korea took the world by surprise by completely reversing its position and embracing the accord encompassing the organization of the third inter-Korean summit, the resumption of the North Korea-U.S. dialogue on the denuclearization of North Korea and the restoration of relations between the two countries, and the possible cessation, by North Korea, of its nuclear and missile experiments, contingent upon the successful continuation of dialogue with the United States. Through the accord, Pyongyang eagerly expressed its willingness to cease the nuclear and missile provocations that have fueled the escalating military tension on the Korean Peninsula and even to contribute to détente by tolerating without any changes to intensity ROK-U.S. joint military exercises slated for April.

Background of the March 5 Accord

Experts offer a number of different explanations as to the factors motivating the dramatic shift of attitude on the part of North Korea as displayed in the March 5 Accord.

The most widely accepted theory is that the international community’s prolonged sanctions against North Korea forced the country into accepting the terms of the accord. Notwithstanding the attendant controversies, these sanctions have been working. UN Security Council Resolution 2270 of March 2016 broadened the scope of the sanction to include comprehensive measures beyond responses to the country’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) development, and significantly strengthened the intensity of sanctions exercised by China, a country that holds the key to the success of sanctions against North Korea. However, detractors of this theory argue that it is still too early to determine the true effects of these international sanctions, and that sanctions alone could not have changed Pyongyang’s policies so dramatically, given the nature of the Kim regime. These critics alternatively point to the innate change in Pyongyang’s strategy as the more direct source of the about-face displayed in the March 5 Accord. As the Kim Jong-un regime aspires to transform North Korea into a “strategic country” (with normal relations and a capability to shape the order it faces), it has had to address the reality that the extensive development of nuclear programs has failed to significantly improve the North Korean economy. In other words, it has had to embrace the opportunities for increased aid, the removal of sanctions, the signing of a peace agreement, and restoring relations with the United States even if embracing such opportunities would require the denuclearization of North Korea.

Even more important than the effects of sanctions and the change in the Kim regime’s strategy are the efforts being made by the Moon Jae-in government. By delaying the joint ROK-US military exercises last December, the Moon government succeeded in inducing Pyongyang’s decision to send North Korean athletes to the Pyeongchang Olympics and to accept the March 5 Accord. By responding, belatedly, to Pyongyang’s offer made in January 2014 that it would cease nuclear and missile experiments should Seoul cease the joint military exercises with the US military, the Moon government enabled Pyongyang to turn its stance around on the state of inter-Korean relations. Without the Moon government’s efforts at persuading Washington and postponing the joint military exercises, neither the sanctions nor the North Korean strategy would have led to this “nearly miraculous situations in East Asia.”

Why Sanctions Are Not the Cure-All Solutions to Problems Involving North Korea

Both Washington and the general American public view the recent development on the Korean Peninsula with a wary eye, regarding the shift in Pyongyang’s attitude as motivated by the strategic goal of increasing economic gains by putting the option of denuclearization on the negotiation table. President Trump denied that the decision to hold a summit with the North Korean leader was impromptu, but has expressed both doubts and hopes in his tweets: “May be false hope, but the U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction” and “Great progress being made, but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached.”

Accordingly, the Trump administration’s new line of diplomacy with North Korea features hardliners like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, a testament to Washington’s resolve to challenge North Korea even further with military options should its talks with Pyongyang fail.

The Liberal Korea Party and conservatives critical of the Moon government in South Korea, on the other hand, have blatantly characterized the change in Pyongyang’s attitude as “a mere security show put on by a hard-pressed North Korea,” expressing distrust and discontent even in the face of Washington’s new willingness to give talks a try. These detractors keep demanding sanctions as the only solutions to all problems involving North Korea, claiming that only stronger and continued sanctions would induce positive change in Kim Jong-un and lower the risk of an armed conflict.

Blind trust in sanctions, especially in the absence of a strategy for engagement and dialogue, can have fatal results, however. The current level of sanctions is already so high that it threatens the daily livelihood of North Koreans. Additional sanctions could backfire by tempting North Korea into accelerating its nuclear development program with a view to breaking through the uncomfortable status quo with violent actions. Unlike other countries, South Korea, too, stands to lose much from continued sanctions against North Korea. The May 24 Sanction Measures, the restriction on tourism to Mt. Kumgang, and the shutdown of the Kaesong Industrial Park all intended to hurt the North Korean economy, but also ended up damaging South Korean businesses just as much. Unconditional sanctions against North Korea, in other words, presents a self-destructive strategy from the South Korean perspective that increases the risks of war. Unconditional sanctions should not form South Korea’s strategy on long-term relations with the North.

Trilemma of Peace on the Korean Peninsula

The three main goals the South Korean government seeks to achieve with the Great Shift on the Korean Peninsula are denuclearization, the establishment of a peace regime, and the continuation of the Korea-US alliance. Two of these three goals may be achieved without much conflict, but all three cannot be achieved at the same time. Until now, all the parties involved have been pursuing different goals—South Korea, the establishment of a peace regime on the peninsula; the United States, the denuclearization of North Korea; and North Korea, its own rise as a “strategic country.” The three countries are now compelled to find effective measures to overcome this trilemma in order to achieve their objectives.

The Pyeongchang Olympics and the March 5 Accord created a new opening in this search for possible solutions to this trilemma. Pyongyang has so far sought to become a strategic country by amassing a nuclear arsenal. Through the March 5 Accord, however, it has offered to sit down for a summit with the US president and showed a willingness to make political and economic gains by giving up (allegedly) “completed” nuclear programs. Note Kim Jong-un’s remark to the South Korean delegation that North Korea “would like to be taken seriously as a partner of dialogue.”

Recall the five conditions of denuclearization Pyongyang demanded in an official statement released on July 6, 2016. The five conditions included in this July 6 Proposition were: (1) the disclosure of U.S. nuclear weapons brought into South Korea; (2) the abolition of all nuclear weapons and their bases in South Korea; (3) the prohibition on the introduction of nuclear strike assets into the Korean Peninsula; (4) the confirmation of the prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea; and (5) the declaration, by Washington, of the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea with their ability to launch nuclear weapons. The proposition repeats much of the conditions listed in the Joint Statement on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula of 1992, with the withdrawal of US troops additionally demanded. Washington has stated that it has either already satisfied or is willing to entertain the four earlier conditions. The only remaining problem between Washington and Pyongyang is therefore the latter’s latest demand that the former withdraw its troops from South Korea. 

Pyongyang, however, was careful to hedge its last demand, limiting the scope of troops to be withdrawn to those with the ability to launch nuclear weapons, and also demanding not the immediate withdrawal per se, but the declaration to that effect. Pyongyang, in fact, has expressed much willingness to tolerate the American military presence in South Korea at every major opportunity for negotiation. At the South-North Korean Summit of 2000, Kim Jong-il famously remarked that the US troops in South Korea should remain not as a force hostile to North Korea, but as the keepers of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

A Bold Proposition for the Inter-Korean and DPRK-US Summits

There are, in other words, a number of measures that all three parties may adopt toward solving the trilemma involving the denuclearization of North Korea, the continuation of the ROK-US alliance, and the establishment of a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. These include guaranteeing the security of North Korea by implementing the Joint Statement on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, guaranteeing North Korea’s entry into the international community and its prospects for future prosperity by lifting sanctions, and guaranteeing the United States’ continued influence on East Asia by agreeing to keep US troops in South Korea without nuclear capabilities. The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula without the withdrawal of US troops is perhaps the best possible scenario to which both Koreas and the United States could agree. The realization of that scenario would amount to the establishment of a joint security regime involving all three countries on a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. The rise of such a regime, in turn, would imply the accumulation of sincere and mutual trust among the three countries.

The establishment of a military alliance between North Korea and the United States, as demanded by some hardliners, would represent a more advanced form of such joint security regime. Hardliners like Hong Seok-hyeon thus demand that the Trump administration ought to work on enhancing the pro-US stance of Pyongyang by explicitly saying “No” to toppling the Kim regime, working towards the collapse of the Kim regime, accelerating the Korean unification, and moving US troops north of the 38th Parallel.

Once the three countries begin to develop mutual trust in one another by exercising new and bold ideas unbounded by the conventional mold of hostile relations, they will be able to maintain the impetus for denuclearization notwithstanding differences in detail. The peacebuilding process based upon such mutual trust would differ significantly from the step-by-step denuclearization and peacebuilding processes envisioned by the September 19 Joint Statement of 2005. In order to capitalize upon the current “miracle-like” opportunity created by the Pyeongchang Olympics and the Great Shift, bold actions akin to cutting the Gordian Knot are required.

Multilayered Approaches to North Korea and Expanding Civilian Exchange

The current state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula differs markedly from similar opportunities for peace that arose in the past, as the current situation requires bold actions and a firm commitment to peace. The solution required by the current situation would involve solving the major obstacles to peace on the Korean Peninsula early in the negotiation process. This, in turn, requires mutual trust and friendship among the two Koreas and the United States, which is crucial to maintain the drive for peace until the final end of the negotiation process, i.e., the permanent denuclearization of North Korea.

Another interesting characteristic of the current situation is that the peacebuilding process is guided in a top-down fashion with the strong commitment of the leaders involved. Given the complexity of the Korean Question and the history of distrust among the countries involved, a top-down approach involving a series of summits is crucial for solving the problems early on and establishing sufficient trust in a short span of time. At present, civilian exchange among the three countries involved would be restrained until local elections are held in South Korea in June, even all the while preparations are being made for the summits and high-level official talks.

Nevertheless, peacebuilding between South and North Koreas should be a multilayered process, and civilians have as important a role to play in the unification process as governments. Efforts should therefore be made in various areas in order to expand the opportunities for civilian exchange between the two Koreas shortly after the summits are held.

Both the South and North Korean governments, in particular, ought to address the issue of promoting exchange at multiple levels as part of the summit. Although the upcoming South-North Korean summit will mainly focus on denuclearization, peacebuilding, the evolution of inter-Korean relations, and economic cooperation with the United States, the leaders of both Koreas should not neglect the importance of restoring the ecosystem for rich civilian exchange at multiple levels. The two Korean leaders could provide a significant boost for continued and stronger civilian exchange if they embrace a written resolution to guarantee and support civilian exchange at various levels irrespective of political and military tension. By embracing such a resolution, the two Korean leaders could effectively declare their commitment to diversifying inter-Korean relations over and beyond government control.

This essay is the first essay written for the 2018 Peace Report Project of the Civil Peace Forum,

under the sponsorship of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Korea Office.

[2018 Peace Report] See/Download

2015 핵확산금지조약 검토회의 (NPT Review Conference)

참여연대 백가윤 간사 시민사회 구두발언

2015년 5월 1일(금)

의장님, 각국 대표님들, 그리고 시민사회 여러분 

저는 대한민국 서울에 있는 참여연대 백가윤 간사입니다. 이 발언문은 참여연대와 평화와통일을여는사람들(평통사)가 공동으로 작성하고 전세계 300여명이 넘는 개인들과 100여개가 넘는 단체들이 연명한 공동 선언문을 요약한 것입니다. 

참여연대는 현재 한반도에서 지속되고 있는 정전체제에 깊은 우려를 표하며 관련 정부들에게 핵없는 동북아시아를 실현하기 위해 한국 전쟁을 끝낼 것을 촉구합니다. 

지난 20여년간 한반도 핵문제를 평화롭게 해결하기 위한 다양한 추가적인 합의가 있었지만 제대로 이행되지 않았습니다. 결과적으로 북한은 3차례의 핵실험을 강행하였습니다. 한반도 핵 위기는, 적어도 어느 일방이 아니라 미국과 북한, 남한과 북한, 주변국과 북한 사이의 누적된 불신에 의해 악화되어 왔다고 볼 수 있습니다. 이는 단순히 한 국가의 문제가 아닙니다. 모든 국가들이 책임을 져야 합니다. 

지난 20여년간 미국의 동맹국과 파트너들이 주로 동원해온 압박과 봉쇄, 핵우산과 재래식 군비의 강화 같은 일방적 대북정책 수단들은 북한 핵문제를 둘러싼 갈등의 해결에 전혀 효과적으로 작동하지 않았습니다. 적어도 협상과 대화가 진행되는 동안은 북한의 핵무기 개발이 중단되었습니다. 반면, 적대적인 정책과 제재가 가해지는 동안에는 북한은 핵 능력을 키워갔습니다. 특히 체제 붕괴 혹은 전환 같은 주관적인 기대를 품은 채 대화를 배제하는 정책은 사태를 크게 악화시켰습니다.

북한으로부터 긍정적인 답변을 이끌어내기 위해서는 양쪽 모두가 동의할 수 있는 새로운 형태의 대화, 대담하고도 건설적인 제안이 이뤄져야 합니다. 이 새롭고 포괄적인 해결책은 한반도의 평화 체제 구축, 북미‧북일 관계의 정상화, 그리고 동아시아의 핵위협을 제거하는 것에 바탕을 두어야 합니다. 

이에 저희는 다음과 같이 제안합니다.

• 한반도 핵 위기 해결을 위하여 2005년 9.19합의에 입각한 6자회담을 조속히 재개해야 한다.
• 정전체제 종식과 새로운 평화협정 체결을 위한 남‧북‧미‧중 등 관련당사국간의 회담을 6자회담과 동시에 혹은 선제적으로 추진해야 한다.
• 북미, 북일 관계의 포괄적 관계 개선을 위한 양자대화를 6자회담과 동시에 혹은 선제적으로 추진해야 한다.
• 남과 북은 대화와 협력을 확대하고 주변국은 이를 적극 지원해야 한다.
• 한반도와 동아시아의 군비경쟁을 촉발하는 미사일 방어 협력을 비롯한 한미일 군사협력/동맹 추진을 중단해야 한다.
• 동아시아 평화의 보루인 일본 평화헌법을 무력화하는 일본의 집단적 자위권 추구를 허용하지 말아야 한다.
• 한반도 비핵화 논의는 한반도 혹은 동북아시아 차원의 비핵지대 건설의 전망 속에 이루어져야 한다. 
• 한반도 평화협정 체결과 병행하여 남북이 각각 맺은 상호적대적인 군사동맹을 단계적으로 해소하고, 한반도와 동아시아의 공동안보에 기여하는 호혜적이고 평화적인 관계로 전환해야 한다.

이제는 한국전쟁을 끝내고 핵무기 없는 동북아시아로 한걸음 나아가야 할 때입니다. 우리는 여기 계신 여러분 모두가 핵무기 없는 동북아시아를 만들기 위해 우리의 제안에 동의하고 연의 마음으로 함께 해 주시기를 촉구합니다.

감사합니다. 

[회원확대 캠페인 ②] 이 정보 모르고 뽑지마오!

국회가 지난 4년간 한 일, 유권자 선택을 위한 정보로 알려드려요.

참여연대의 흔들림 없는 권력감시운동.
이번에는 4.13총선에서 유권자들의 올바른 선택을 돕는 정보 제공활동으로 이어집니다. 

지난 4년간 유권자와의 약속 제대로 지켰는지, 
누가 서민을 울리는 법을 만들려고 했는지
누가 국민들이 원하는 진상규명을 방해했는지 낱낱이 기록했어요.

정치권력에 맞선 참여연대의 감시활동
회원가입으로 참여연대에 힘을 보태주세요! (클릭)

*참여연대 활동보기

- [새누리당 공약이행 평가 프로젝트] 집권여당은 유권자와 한 약속, 얼마나 지켰나
- [이슈리포트] 한국사회 주요 이슈에 대한 19대 국회의원 발언과 태도
- [이슈리포트] 19대 후반기 국회, 디딤돌·걸림돌 법안 표결 보고서
- [이슈리포트] 19대 국회 나쁜 법안, 누가 발의했나
- [3분 총선] 총선 관한 모든 정보를 한 손에 (http://www.vote0413.net)
- [홈페이지] 열려라 국회 - 국회의원들의 성적표를 속속들이 보여드려요! (바로가기 클릭)

  *홈페이지 자료실에서 더 많은 보고서와 정보를 보실 수 있습니다. (바로가기 클릭)

[회원확대 캠페인 ④] 5월은 푸르구나! 우리들은 잘 한다! 

시민여러분의 참여만큼, 참여연대도 자라고 있습니다!

시민들의 자발적 후원으로 권력을 감시하고 민주주의를 더 키우겠습니다!

참여연대는 100여명의 자원활동가와 1만여 개 노란리본 지역 가게들에 배포했습니다. 
앞으로도 세월호를 기억하기 위한 노란리본을 나누겠습니다. 

'권력감시의 대표작' 국회 감시 전문사이트 '열려라 국회'를 새단장했습니다. 
20대 국회의원들의 의정 활동도 꼼꼼히 기록하겠습니다. 

"이젠 안 사요" 옥시 제품 불매운동(#옥시불매) 캠페인도 벌이고 있습니다. 

기업의 불법행위 재발을 막기 위해 집단소송제와 징벌적 손해배상제 도입에 앞장서겠습니다. 
 

* 참여연대 활동보기

- ['서촌길 노랗게 물들이기’ 시즌2] 서촌이 노랗게 물들고 있습니다

- 세월호를 기억하는, '노란 리본 공작소' 자원활동가 모집 

- [열려라 국회 웹사이트] 국회의원들의 성적표 

- [이젠, 안 사요! '옥시' 제품 불매운동 캠페인] 가습기 살균제 피해자들의 손을 잡아주세요! 

- 가습기살균제 사건의 엄정하고 신속한 수사를 촉구한다 

정치 권력에 맞선 참여연대의 꾸준한 감시 활동!

정부지원금 0%

참여연대는 회원들의 회비와 후원으로 쑥쑥 자라납니다!  ( 지금 바로 회원가입 클릭 )

[회원확대 캠페인 ⑤] 잘 뽑았으니 잘 감시합시다 

국민이 직접 뽑은 국회의원, 국민이 직접 감시합니다. 

"우리 동네 국회의원은 잘 하고 있나?" 

21년간 권력감시활동을 해온
참여연대가 만든 열려라국회 웹사이트에서 
국회의원들이 발의한 법안, 
회의 출석 및 표결 결과, 
재산내역과 정치 후원금 등 
다양한 의정활동 정보를 제공합니다.  
 

* 2016년 참여연대가 펴낸 주요 국회감시 보고서 

- 19대 국회 후반기, 국회 활동 평가 보고서

- 19대 국회 나쁜 법안, 누가 발의했나  

- 한국사회 주요 이슈에 대한 19대 국회의원 발언과 태도 

- 19대 후반기 국회, 디딤돌ㆍ걸림돌 법안 표결 보고서 

- 유권자가 꼭 알아야 할 새누리당의 공약 - 위험하거나 없거나 

- 유권자가 꼭 알아야 할 20대 총선 정당별ㆍ후보자 재산 현황 분석 

- 유권자가 꼭 알아야 할 20대 총선 후보자들의 이런! 전력 

- [공약이행 평가] 집권여당은 유권자와 한 약속, 얼마나 지켰나 

- 20대 국회 입법ㆍ정책과제를 제안하고, 국회 개혁을 촉구합니다 

정치 권력에 맞선 참여연대의 꾸준한 감시 활동!

정부지원금 0%

참여연대는 회원들의 회비와 후원으로 쑥쑥 자라납니다!  ( 지금 바로 회원가입 클릭 )