2015 East Asia Peace Declaration

The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the world’s liberation from the military aggression and colonialism of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The 2015 also marks the 70th year since the horrors of the atomic bomb inflicted devastation on humanity for the first time. 

Although East Asia endured continuous warfare and the Cold War tensions over the past seven decades, East Asia as a region went through a most dramatic transformation and achieved unprecedented development and prosperity in history. In spite of these accomplishments, however, potentials and possibilities of East Asia now face critical challenges—an ongoing war in the Cold War standoff, and reinforced arms race. In particular, unsolved North Korea’s nuclear problems not only destabilize the Korean armistice, but accelerate the regional nuclear and conventional arms race. Furthermore, despite the fact that Japan was the principal aggressor in East Asia throughout the early 20thcentury, its recent attempts to reemerge as a military power without making clear amends to the past, further destabilizing East Asia’s volatile peace. As Japan attempts to revise its Peace Constitution that has been the cornerstone for peace in the postwar East Asia, we cannot help but be concerned.

Increasingly fractious hegemonic competition in the East Asia–Pacific region today are also worsening wounds of the past. If we continue to resort to militarism and nationalism without a reliable regional peace mechanism that can resolve such sensitive regional issues in a nonviolent and mutually-beneficial manner, East Asia may degenerate from its mutual prosperity into a melee for hegemony. We must learn from our past—two World Wars stemmed from our inability to control such hegemonic rivalry.

Furthermore, the East Asia–Pacific region has directly suffered from massive casualties incurred by a series of nuclear catastrophes: atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear tests conducted in places such as the Bikini Atoll, and the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster. As demonstrated by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster caused by an earthquake along Japan’s east coast, nuclear catastrophes do not exclusively result from the weapons of foreign countries, but can be triggered by nuclear facilities any country in the region. Forging a world without nuclear weapons, that is, building a world free of nuclear threats, has become the earnest desire and sincere hope of all East Asians. As is clear from the seriousness of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, nuclear power is the energy of the past and therefore, each country should suggest a goal to create a nuclear phase-out society. 

East Asia has become a tangled intersection of superpowers and home to a fierce arms race, making it one of the world’s most volatile regions. It is also the region most vulnerable to potential human and ecological disasters inflicted by nuclear weapons and accidents. Europe has been the center of the global movement to create, maintain and consolidate peace in the post-World War II era, and it is now East Asia’s turn to do the same. In this vein, to forge a lasting peace in East Asia and contribute to peace for all humanity, we of this conference declare the following.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is the Cornerstone for Peace in East Asia
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is the cornerstone for peace in East Asia and a failsafe that prevents us from repeating past mistakes. We believe the biggest contribution Japan can make to regional peace and prosperity is to adhere to its commitment to global peace as stated in its constitution and flourish as an exemplar for peaceful development. For a long time, a number of Japanese intellectuals strived to uphold the peace provision outlined in the Japanese Constitution. Civil society organizations across Japan and East Asia proposed and supported the movement to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the Japanese Peace Constitution. This movement also has received international attention and support. Along with those who represent Japan’s voice of conscience, we solemnly state Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution must be upheld as an expression of humanity’s noblest goal—world peace. Nuclear threats and ecological crisis threats future of human beings. Now, it is time to expand our international peace movement to reflect universal pacifism which is stipulated in the Japanese Peace Constitution to other countries' constitutions.

Peace in East Asia Cannot be achieved without Ending the Korean War
The existing armistice and division of the Korean Peninsula are the unfortunate outcome of the World War II and the Cold War. The armistice system of the Korean peninsula not only caused pains of the Koreans but also is a fundamental cause of unstable peace in the region. The divided Korean peninsula is the world’s most heavily militarized zone and the powder keg in East Asia where the world’s largest military exercises are conducted. North Korea’s recent nuclear developments have exacerbated vicious cycle of an arms race in and surrounding of the Korean peninsula. The Korean War needs to end for peace in the Korean peninsula and East Asia. The four key parties—the United States, China, North and South Korea—must immediately convene a peace talk to replace the current armistice treaty with a peace treaty. The recent normalization of the U.S.-Cuba relations can serve as a benchmark for the future normalization of the U.S.–North Korea relations.

Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and ‘Nuclear Safety’ will create a Nuclear-Free World 
North Korea’s development and sophistication of its nuclear weapons programs can no longer be ignored. The Six-Party Talks, which aim to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and establish peace, must be resumed at the earliest possible time. To this end, the threshold for resuming dialogue and negotiation must be lowered. To weaken North Korea’s motives to develop its nuclear weapons and to minimize the threat of another Korean conflict, the United States, South Korea, and Japan, that enjoy asymmetric military advantages over North Korea, should take the initiative in relieving tensions in Korea. First and foremost, transforming the unstable armistice system into a peace system, normalizing the US-North Korea, Japan-North Korea relations, denuclearizing the Korean peninsula and negative security assurance on North Korea should be discussed with a bolder and more comprehensive approach. To expedite this process, the contribution of the United State is crucial in normalizing its relations with North Korea and signing the Peace Treaty to denuclearize North Korea and reduce arms in both countries. In response, both North and South Korea must abide by the promises made in the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

To be truly free from all nuclear threats, it is also imperative to respond and provide alternative measures for the threats posed by the “peaceful” use of nuclear energy. Establishing joint safety measures for nuclear power plants in Japan, China, and North and South Korea—in operation, under construction, and scheduled for construction—has become a pressing matter. Full cooperation among concerned countries is one of the most urgent tasks. 

The Roles of Women and Civil Societies should be emphasized for Peace and Cooperation 
We cannot blame governments only for all the threats to peace in East Asia. Political parties, legislatures, and civil societies too are responsible and should work together to influence public opinion and advise the governments to make laws and policies that promote peace. For a harmonious and sustainable future, we must strive to bolster and facilitate understanding and cooperation between people beyond our borders, and build solidarity for peace and justice, so that we do not repeat the unfortunate history of our past. In particular, as rightfully advised by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, the importance of expanding the role and participation of women in redefining security and establishing a lasting peace should be emphasized.
 
Solidarity for peace towards a new East Asia has already begun to form. Until this solidarity becomes an ‘East Asian Peace Community of Nations’, let us never stop our march for peace. 

13 August 2015
Participants, 2015 International Conference for Peace in East Asia

11 January 2016

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
UN Headquarters
405 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
USA    

Cc : Zainab Hawa Bangura, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Guarantees of Non-recurrence
H.E. Choi Kyong-lim, President of the UN Human Rights Council
Members of the UN Committee against Torture
Members of the UN Human Rights Committee 
    

Re: Clarification on the UN Secretary-General’s Position on the Recent Republic of Korea-Japan Agreement on Wartime “Comfort Women”

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) is a non-governmental organization based in Seoul, the Republic of Korea (ROK) with United Nations(UN) ECOSOC consultative status. We are writing to you today to seek clarification of the Secretary-General's position on the recent ROK-Japan agreement on wartime “comfort women”. We express our concern on your recent congratulatory remarks on the agreement, because we view that the agreement was not made in a way to implement the values and principles put forth by the UN, which has emphasized a victim-centered approach.

In the official statement regarding the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan on issues related to “comfort women” from the ROK which was released on 28 December 2015, you welcomed “that the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea have reached an agreement,” and hoped “that the agreement will contribute to improving the bilateral relationship between the two countries.” Following your statement, the ROK President’s Office (Blue House) released a briefing on 1 January 2016, saying that you congratulated President Park Geun-hye, via telephone, on reaching the agreement with Japan, and stated that “history will laud President Park’s courageous decision based on her vision.”   

Yet, the latest agreement between the ROK and Japan hardly reflects the wishes of the victims themselves, nor did the process involve any participation by the victims. Lee Yong-soo, one of the few surviving victims of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery policy, harshly criticized the agreement, saying “The agreement does not reflect the views of former ’comfort women’. I will ignore it completely.”  Ms. Lee condemned the deal as amounting to “a second death of the victims.” The latest agreement indeed does not incorporate any of the demands which include official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. The victims have consistently put forward these demands since making their past agony public for the first time in 1991. According to the recent agreement, the Japanese government did promise to provide JPY 1 billion (around 8.3 million USD) for a new special fund to be set up for a foundation for the surviving “comfort women”. However, Mr. Fumio Kishida, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, made it clear that the money was not legal reparation , and still refuses to recognize Japan’s legal responsibility for wartime sexual slavery. However, the governments of both countries have concluded that the latest agreement will be the “final and irreversible” resolution to the “comfort women” issues, thus inviting mounting criticism from inside and outside the ROK.

We would like to remind you that the latest agreement on “comfort women” does not even satisfy the UN recommendations regarding Japan’s wartime sexual slavery and related issues which were made in the past. Different human rights mechanisms of the UN have condemned the acts of wartime sexual slavery committed by Japan as “crimes against humanity,” and recommended that the Japanese government acknowledge its legal responsibility, make formal reparations to the victims, and prosecute the parties responsible for such crimes. During its review on Japan in July 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that most “comfort women” were recruited by, transported to, and managed at Japanese military bases or agencies working on behalf of the Japanese military through force and coercion, and expressed concerns at the Japanese government’s continued denial that these women were “ever mobilized or migrated by force” (CCPR/C/JPY/CO/6, para 11). In August 2014, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its concerns that the Japanese government had not recognized nor apologized to “comfort women”, and urged the Japanese government to immediately conclude investigations and bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para 18).

We would also like to point out that the UN and the international community at large uphold a consistent set of victim-centered principles and standards with respect to the rights of victims of human rights violations.

In February 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council) adopted “Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity” (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), followed by “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” (A/60/509/Add.1) adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2005. These two documents endorse the “victim-centered perspective” in international human rights law, and emphasize the victims’ right to justice, right to reparation, and right to know. These documents also stress as essential principles the need to give victims restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, reparation, and redress.

Since its establishment in 2002, the International Criminal Court has also stressed the need for victim participation in all phases of investigation and judicial procedures. “The Chicago Principles on Post-Conflict Justice 2001-2008”, which provide basic guidelines on the handling of atrocities perpetrated under authoritarian rule and amid armed conflicts, also emphasize: “Policies that seek justice for past violations should be victim-centered and should address victims’ rights to remedies and reparations.”

We note with serious concern that your remarks on "welcoming" the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan, and lauding it as a “courageous decision” by the South Korean President are not in line with the human rights principles and positions the UN and the international community have accumulated so far. 

We would therefore like to request your response to the following questions to further clarify your position. 

1. Do you think that the recent agreement between South Korea and Japan satisfy the UN-emphasized principles of the rights of the victims of human rights violations and properly address war crime legacies and past recommendations made by the UN human rights mechanisms to Japan?

2. According to the briefing issued by the Presidential Blue House of the ROK, you phoned the President of the ROK to discuss the recent agreement. Have you done the same with the Prime Minister of Japan? If so, what exactly was discussed or remarked in the latter conversation? If no such conversation took place with the Prime Minister of Japan, why have you had such a conversation with the President of the ROK and not with the Prime Minister of Japan?

3. The UN Secretary-General is obligated to make efforts to promote human rights in all Member States. Therefore, some argue that the UN Secretary-General should help invalidate the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan that seems to condone war crimes. What do you think of this argument?

4. Is the Secretary-General inclined to urge both the government of the Republic of Korea and Japanese governments to resolve the “comfort women” issues through official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence from the Japanese state through processes that are actually based upon victim participation?

We thank you for your reply in advance and look forward to hearing back from you at the earliest possible time. If you have any questions or would like clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or +82 (0)2 723 4250. 

Yours sincerely,

 
Ms. Hyunback Jung
Co-Representative
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy 

This letter, signed by civil society organizations around the world including PSPD, was released on March 25, 2016, in time for the Security Summit to be held in Washington DC on March 31-April 1.

To: Mr. Shinzo Abe
    Prime Minister of Japan

 

March 25, 2016

Subject: Call to help strengthen worldwide nuclear security by stopping plutonium separation

 

We, the undersigned, call on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Government of Japan to make a strong contribution to the Nuclear Security Summit by announcing the indefinite postponement of the operation of the Rokkasho spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

 

At the third Nuclear Security Summit held in The Hague, the Netherlands, in 2014 Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Barak Obama announced their agreement to:
“remove and dispose of all highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and separated plutonium from the Fast Critical Assembly (FCA) at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) in Japan.”
They declared that:
“this effort involves the elimination of hundreds of kilograms of nuclear material, furthering our mutual goal of minimizing stocks of HEU and separated plutonium worldwide, which will help prevent unauthorized actors, criminals, or terrorists from acquiring such materials.”

331 kilograms of plutonium from FCA are to be brought to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savanna River Site in South Carolina. According to the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), which operates the FCA, most of the plutonium (236 kg) is originally from the United Kingdom with 93 kg from the U.S. and the rest (2 kg) from France.

While asking the people of South Carolina to accept this material to protect the world from the possibility of theft from the JAEA’s lightly guarded Tokai-mura site, Japan is planning to begin to operate in 2018 its equally insecure Rokkasho Reprocessing plant, which is designed to separate annually up to 8,000 kilograms of plutonium from Japan’s spent nuclear fuel. The plant is currently the only reprocessing plant in a non-nuclear weapon state.

According to the US National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA’s) Global Threat Reduction Initiative “Removal Program Overview” (December 3, 2014) the 331 kg of plutonium at FCA satisfies the program’s requirements for material to be sent to the United States for disposition, that:
“it must also pose a threat to national security, be susceptible to use in an improvised nuclear device, present a high risk of terrorist threat and have no other reasonable pathway to assure security from theft or diversion.”

While NNSA has been working hard to reduce this danger, it says threats still remain and calls for attention to the world-wide civilian separated plutonium problem emphasizing that:
“Global civilian plutonium inventories have risen sharply over the last 20 years” and that “Further international engagement is needed to stop plutonium accumulation and start drawing down inventories.”

After the 61st Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, “Nagasaki’s Voice: Remember Your Humanity” (1-5 November 2015, Nagasaki, Japan) the Pugwash Council, sharing the same concern, declared:  
“Reprocessing to separate plutonium should end in all countries, including all nuclear weapon countries, whether for energy or weapon purposes…In view of the international security consequences of fuel cycle decisions, countries need to mutually agree to restrictions on their national sovereignty in making nuclear fuel cycle decisions.”

As of the end of 2014 Japan had 47,800 kilograms of separated plutonium: 10,800 kg in Japan, 20,700 kg in UK, and 16,300 kg in France. According to the International Panel on Fissile Material (IPFM) the amount of civilian separated plutonium worldwide as of the end of 2014 is about 270,000 kg. Three nuclear weapons states, France, the U.K., and Russia, and Japan account for most of this separated plutonium. The United States is faced with a difficulty trying to dispose of about 50,000 kg of surplus weapons plutonium. Further accumulation of nuclear-weapon-usable material is a concern for the international society and for Japan’s neighbors, who wonder why Japan is separating such huge quantities of directly weapon-useable material. Separated plutonium is a security risk. If other countries followed Japan’s example, it would increase proliferation risks. In fact, South Korea has been demanding that the United States acknowledge that the ROK has the same right as Japan to separate plutonium.

When Prime Minister Abe and President Obama announced the plan to transfer 331kg of plutonium to the U.S., they went on to:
“encourage others to consider what they can do to further HEU and plutonium minimization.”
At that time, in March 2014, operations at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant were to begin just around the time of the coming Nuclear Security Summit. This would have been a very ironic timing. The date subsequently was postponed to 2018, due to the inability of the plant’s operator to satisfy the new safety rules set by the Nuclear Regulation Authority created after the Fukushima accident. Some might be secretly hoping that this might effectively lower the profile of Japan’s plutonium separation program at a time when Japan’s Government hopes that the U.S. will agree to automatically extend, in 2018, their Agreement of Cooperation on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, which includes the U.S. acceptance of Japan’s right to separate plutonium from spent fuel irradiated in U.S. designed nuclear power plants.

We call on Japan to announce, at the Nuclear Security Summit to be held in Washington DC. March 31-April 1 2016, an indefinite postponement of its plan to start the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in order to further the mutual goal of Japan and the U.S. to minimize global stocks of separated plutonium. That would be a great contribution to the worldwide effort to strengthen nuclear security.

 

>>> To read this letter in Korean

South Korean Civil Society’s Declaration against the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan 

Immediately cease the GSOMIA negotiation

(16 November 2016, Seoul) We, 225 public figures and 113 civil society organisations, call upon Park Geun-hye administration to stop the signing of dogmatic, undemocratic and unpeaceful General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan. Both governments held the first meeting in Tokyo on 1st of November, the second meeting in Seoul on 9th of November, the third meeting in Tokyo on 14th of November and tentatively initialed the GSOMIA. The Park administration has already requested the legislative office for examination in an aim to ratify the GSOMIA within this month. We strongly condemn the government’s undemocratic decision and warn the Government to immediately stop negotiation on the GSOMIA.

We strongly protest against the way how negotiation process has been carried out in an unfair and non-transparent manner. As we all recall, this Agreement was secretly carried out to the point of initialing by Lee Myung-bak administration in 2012 and was ceased due to the strong opposition from the people. People were outraged by the fact that the government pushed ahead with the agreement without consensus from the general public with the power vested and the national assembly as the representative body of the government.  

This undemocratic behavior is repeated and getting even worse. The Ministry of National Defense, which is mainly responsible for the GSOMIA has vowed until recently that forming general public consensus is crucial and that the “signing the GSOMIA can only be proceeded with conditions established.” Regardless, the Park Geun-hye administration has disregarded such conditions and without any attempt to reach a general public’ s consensus, it has decided to continue signing the GSOMIA like a military operation. 
 
While South Korean people are angered and shocked by the recent Presidential scandal, the GSOMIA is being enforced. As proved by a million protesting on 12th of November, majority of people are calling for the President’s immediate resignation. As the Park administration has failed to carry out the constitutional responsibility bestowed by the people, it is not qualified to proceed the GSOMNIA. Paradoxically speaking, this GSOMIA negotiation clearly proves that the President must not be involved both in domestic and international affairs. 
 

We are extremely concerned about the negative impact of the GSOMIA. The government has granted indulgence through abruptly settling on the Agreement on ‘comfort women’ to Abe Shinzo administration in Japan, which has been right wing-led and distorted its history of aggression. Signing the GSOMIA will rather encourage Japan’s remilitarization and exercise of collective self-defense. As the most affected victims of Japanese imperialism, we will not accept the government to blindly take such actions.  

The GSOMIA will instigate the possible new cold war in Northeast Asia. Republic of Korea is the closest neighboring country to North Korea, an explicit enemy of the US-Japan alliance, and China and Russia, strategic competitor countries of US. The reason for the US-Japan alliance to include South Korea in their military strategy largely lies in geopolitical factor. The Korean Peninsula will be a strategic advantage as battle front and troop as the last resort. The South Korea-US-Japan Military Information Sharing Pact signed in 2014 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) deployment decision made in this July are in the same context. Such South Korea’s trilateral alliance may raise increasing concern in strengthening the trilateral alliance between North Korea, China and Russia. The result will be a new cold war in Northeast Asia and exacerbation of arms race as well as permanent loss of peace on the Korean Peninsula. As the victim of cold war, we will not allow the re-emergence of a new cold war. 

Some may assert that military cooperation with Japan is necessary in a pragmatic approach against the acceleration of North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapon threats. Nevertheless, the GSOMIA for trilateral missile defense system establishment will not assure South Korea’s safety. According to a report published by the US Congress Research Service (CRS) in June, 2013, it is assured that “South Korea might not benefit as much, because it is so close to North Korea that incoming missiles would likely fly on a lower trajectory and could arrive in a matter of minutes.” Considering our reality that we are still under ceasefire, this is a valid criticism. 

Military approach like the GSOMIA will clearly not stop North Korea’s nuclear development. This is just expansive reproduction of a failed policy. This will only lead to self-harm result in the Korean Peninsula. This will erupt cold war in Northeast Asia in reality and waste valuable resources that should be utilized for welfare and proliferation of humanity not for military competition.

The cooperation between South Korea-Japan and South Korea-US-Japan should not head in such direction. The objective of cooperation should be focused on peace and the means should be through diplomatic channels. Six-party talks should be resumed as it has been discontinued for about past eight years and relations between North and South Korea, North Korea and the US as well as North Korea and Japan should be resolved.

However, the Park administration has clearly proved that it has no will or capability to do so. It is gradually being disclosed that a shadowy advisor who is at the center of the corruption scandal has exerted extensive influence on domestic and international affairs but the government is still attempting to sign the GSOMIA. '

We will never accept such a historical regression. We can no longer trust the government that has lost ability to realize the seriousness of the issue and the President Park Geun-hye has no credibility, qualification or capability as a leader of this country. 

South Korea: Reopen Kaesong Industrial Complex Immediately

(Seoul, 11 February 2016) On 10 February 2016, the South Korean government announced the closure of Kaesong Industrial Complex, citing North Korea’s 4th nuclear test and launching of a long-range rocket as reasons. However, South Korean civil society organisations emphasise that closure of Kaesong Industrial Complex is an absolutely improper measure. We call on the South Korean government to immediately reopen Kaesong Industrial Complex. It is not a time to immediately end relations with North Korea. Instead, we must find wise solutions to escape this cold period. 

We note with concern that the closure of Kaesong Industrial Complex goes completely against the 2013 agreement between the two Koreas in which they each committed to continue operations at Kaesong Industrial Complex regardless of the political situation. This recent unilateral decision by the South Korean government is also a violation of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the two countries, which is a de facto international treaty. 

The South Korean government argues that approximately 120 billion KRW (around 120 million USD) in wages paid to workers at Kaesong Industrial Complex has been used in development of nuclear weapons and missiles. This accusation has no grounds because most wages paid to North Korean workers are in the form of social and cultural policy funds and gift cards. 

We deplore the South Korean government actions, which ignore the lives of the North Korean workers and difficulties faced by South Korean companies, around 120 of whom face bankruptcy as a result of the closure. While the South Korean government is discussing an alternative site for a factory and financial support, nothing can replace Kaesong Industrial Complex to companies. At the same time, the approximately 54,000 North Korean workers and their families are now at the edge of a precipice. They are not at all related to North Korea’s nuclear testing or long-range rocket launch. 

It is obvious that additional sanctions will not resolve North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, as the past 20 years of sanctions against it have not been successful. It is clear that establishing a peace system and denuclearisation is the only effective solution, not simply repeating already-failed policies of sanctions. The South Korean government must reopen Kaesong Industrial Complex immediately.  /END/

Endorsed by below 69 civil society organisations and networks: 
Busan Counseling Center Against Sexual Violence, Busan Women's Association United, Cheonan Women's Association, Chungbuk Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Chungnam Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Citizens Coalition for Democratic Media, Civil Peace Forum, Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Cultural Action, Daegu Citizens Union for Peaceful Reunification, Daegu Gyeongbuk Women's Association United, Daegu Women's Association, Daejeon Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Daejeon Women's Association for Democracy, Daejeon Women's Association United, Eco Horizon Institute, Eco Justice, Goyang Peace Nuri, Green Korea United, Green Transport Movement, Gwangju Jeonnam Women's Association United, Gyeonggi Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Gyeonggi Women's Association United, Gyeongnam Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Gyeongnam Women's Association, Gyeongnam Women's Association United, Housewives Association, Jeju Women's Association, Jeju Women's Human Rights Solidairty, Jeonbuk Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Jeonbuk Women's Association United, Jeonnam Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea, Korea Association of Christian Women for Women Minjung, Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center, Korea Single Parent United, Korea Women's Hot Line, Korea Women's Political Solidarity, Korea Women's Studies Institute, Korea YMCA, Korea Youth Corps, Korean Association of Women Theologians, Korean Catholic Women's Community for a New World, Korean Differently Abled Women United, Korean Federation for Environmental Movement, Korean Sharing Movement, Korean Women Workers Association, Korean Women's Association United, Korean Women's Environmental Network, National Solidarity for Solving Prostitution Issues, Network for Gender Sensitive Budget, Peace Ground, Peace Network, Peace3000, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, Pohang Women's Association, Pusan Women Education Center, Research Institute of the Differently Abled Person's Rights in Korea, Reunification Tree, Saewoomtuh, Suwon Women's Association, The National Association of Parents for Cham Education, Tongilmaji, Transparency International Korea, Ulsan Women's Association, Women Education Center, Women Making Peace, Women Migrants Human Rights Center of Korea, WomenLink, Young Korean Academy
 

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)

Launch of GPPAC Publication

Reflections on Peace and Security in Northeast Asia

– Perspectives on the Ulaanbaatar Process

The publication Reflections on Peace and Security in Northeast Asia - Perspectives on the Ulaanbaatar Process was launched in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia on August 29, on the occasion of the third meeting of the Ulaanbaatar Process, a civil society-led dialogue for peace and stability in Northeast Asia. The publication is a collection of essays which capture the diverse and uncompromised opinions, concerns, tensions and contradictions of a region in turmoil at the time of the 3rd Ulaanbaatar Process Meeting held on August 29–30, 2017.

Articles of the printed publication are made available online at https://medium.com/reflections-on-peace-and-security-in-northeast. Please visit this site. 

Reflections on Peace and Security in Northeast Asia - Perspectives on the Ulaanbaatar Process explores the contentious issue of nuclear weapons in the region, the current security climate on the Korean Peninsula which is frozen in a fragile armistice, as well the successes and challenges faced by non-governmental organizations in the context of peacebuilding in Northeast Asia. It features articles by the participants of the Ulaanbaatar Process; representatives of civil society from China, Japan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, the Russian Federation as well as Mongolia.

The Ulaanbaatar Process, launched by the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) in June, 2015, aims to support the creation of conditions of peace and stability in Northeast Asia through the promotion of greater civil society dialogue and interaction. It is hosted by Mongolian NGO Blue Banner in cooperation with GPPAC Northeast Asia, and with the support of the Mongolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The third Ulaanbaatar Process meeting provided an opportunity for sincere and open civil society dialogue on the current peace and security situation in Northeast Asia, and particularly the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. The previous two meetings, similarly held in Ulaanbaatar, also saw the participation of civil society representatives of all the Six Party Talks countries and Mongolia. 

For more information about the Ulaanbaatar Process, please visit the GPPAC Northeast Asia as well as Facebook page  https://www.peaceportal.org/web/ulaanbaatar-process/home

For more information on GPPAC, please visit http://www.gppac.net/.

<Photo from GPPAC NEA, Aug 29-30, 2017>

STATEMENT OF THE VANCOUVER WOMEN’S FORUM

ON PEACE AND SECURITY ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA

>>> Statement [Download]

As sixteen delegates representing peace movements from all over the world, we have traveled from Asia, Pacific, Europe, and North America to convene the Vancouver Women’s Forum on Peace and Security on the Korean Peninsula, an event held in solidarity with Canada’s Feminist Foreign Policy to promote a peaceful resolution to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Sanctions and isolation have failed to curb North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and instead severely harm the North Korean civilian population. A Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons will only be achieved through genuine engagement, constructive dialogue, and mutual cooperation. We issue the following recommendations to the Foreign Ministers participating in the January 16 Summit on Security and Stability in the Korean Peninsula: 

● Immediately engage all relevant parties in dialogue, without preconditions, to work toward achieving a nuclear-free Korean peninsula;

● Abandon support for the strategy of maximum pressure, lift sanctions which have deleterious effects on the North Korean people, work toward the normalization of diplomatic relations, remove barriers to citizen-to-citizen engagement, and strengthen humanitarian cooperation;

● Extend the spirit of the Olympic truce and affirm the resumption for inter-Korean dialogue by supporting:

i) negotiations for the continued suspension of joint US-ROK military exercises in the south, and the continued suspension of nuclear and missiles tests in the north,

ii) a pledge not to conduct a first strike, nuclear or conventional, and 

iii) a process to replace the Armistice Agreement with a Korea Peace Agreement;

● Adhere to all the Security Council recommendations on Women, Peace, and Security. In particular, we urge you to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which acknowledges that the meaningful participation of women in all stages of conflict resolution and peacebuilding strengthens peace and security for all. 

These recommendations are based on our long experience engaging with North Koreans through citizen diplomacy and humanitarian initiatives, and from our collective expertise on militarism, nuclear disarmament, economic sanctions, and the human cost of the unresolved Korean War. The Summit is a sobering reminder that the gathered nations have a historic and moral responsibility to formally end the Korean War. A pledge not to conduct a first strike can de-escalate tensions by significantly reducing the apprehension of an attack and the risk of miscalculation that could result in an intentional or an inadvertent nuclear launch. Resolving the Korean War can be the single most effective action to halt the intense militarization of Northeast Asia, which gravely threatens the peace and security of 1.5 billion people in the region. The peaceful resolution of the Korean nuclear crisis is the key step toward the total global elimination of nuclear weapons.

January 15, 2018

Vancouver Women's Forum on Peace and Security on the Korean Peninsula

Christine Ahn, Women Cross DMZ

Kozue Akibayashi, WILPF

Lisa Natividad Guahan. Coalition for Peace and Justice

Ewa Eriksson, Fortier Women Cross DMZ

Yehjung Yi, Korean Sharing Movement

Mihyeon Lee, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Liz Bernstein, Nobel Women’s Initiative

Moon-sook Lee, National Council of Churches in Korea

Susan Bazilli, Women Peace Security Network

Nan Kim, Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea

Ellen Judd, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace

Ann Wright, Women Cross the DMZ & Veterans for Peace

Patti Talbot, United Church of Canada

Mary-Wynne Ashford, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Erica Fein, Win Without War

Lyn Adamson, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace 

<사진 = 밴쿠버여성포럼>