ⓒ 2011 People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Published by Center for Peace and Disarmament at PSPD.

Address               16, Jahamunro 9-gil, Jongno-Gu Seoul ROK 110-043

Telephone	+82-2-723-5301

Fax	+82-2-6919-2004

PSPD Blog(Eng)      blog.peoplepower21.org/english

PSPD People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

By Center for Peace and Disarmament at PSPD

Introduction

2011 started on a note of exceptionally high tension on the Korean Peninsula. North-South relations have been touch-and-go with the sinking of the Cheonan warship in march of 2010 and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island in November of the same year, but the military standoff is spilling over into broader tensions in Northeast Asia. China and the United States faced off over the mobilization of a US aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea for joint military exercises with South Korea. The tension between the United States and China proliferated on the South China Sea. There is concern that these events have ended a period of unsteady peace and ushered in a new Cold War.

The emergence of military confrontation on and around the Korean Peninsula has contributed to strengthening the militaristic tendencies of each state involved. Countries in the region do not regard each other as partners for cooperation and coexistence, but rather see their neighbors as threats. It would bring a high level of instability in a Northeast Asia deprived of meaningful security cooperation. South Korea for one is using the excuse of foreign threats to fan the flames of its own militarism at an alarming pace. It has stepped up military exercises in the Yellow Sea and is pushing forward with the construction of a naval base on Jeju island. As the government flexes its military muscle through large-scale weaponization, it has deal a blow to social protections while simultaneously justifying a plethora of human rights violations. Other Northeast Asian countries are following a similar trend.

The Center for Peace and Disarmament at PSPD believes that there is a need to re-evaluate the norms of security perception and threat assessment which would justify continued militaristic actions. We have hosted the second international workshop 「The New Cold War in Northeast Asia and the Civil Interpretation on 'Threat' - shift from national security towards civil safety」 in November 2011. At this international workshop peace activists from the United States and Japan presented on the current trends in militarism and the response of the peace activism. One of the central conclusions was that identification of what constitutes a true threat should be made from the standpoint of the safety of citizens, rather than from a national security angle.

In addition, discussion centered on how to guarantee a permanent state of peace in the region. To this end Center for Peace and Disarmament at PSPD has brought forth as its main task the formation of a 'peace system' on the Korean Peninsula, announcing the proposal at the workshop. The peace system is an effort at bringing a permanent end to the continuing tensions between North and South, embodied in the 1953 cease-fire, and bringing about a new logic based on peace. Without this logic there can be no solution to the root causes of the conflict. Also the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March of 2011 broadened our awareness of threats and served to reinforce the urgency of denuclearization. Besides, there was discussion between participants from South Korea, Japan and the United States as concerns were raised since the United States that have suffered from economic crisis would reinforce the burden-sharing to its alliance. Accordingly, the workshop went over South Korean and Japanese efforts in this regard as well as debated the next step for activists. Lastly various other matters vital to peace on the Korean Peninsula, such as the construction of the Jeju naval base and the NLL(Northern Limit Line) were brought up and appropriate responses were discussed.

This report is a compendium of the results of the above discussions, to which is added a text on the Chinese perspective as a central actor in the region as well as at the intersection of conflict and cooperation, especially with regard to the United States. Also it includes articles regarding an exposition of the NLL issue, a problem which must absolutely be solved to allow the establishment of a 'peace system' on the Korean Peninsula and main developments and peace movements in denuclearization and disarmament activism during 2011 in Korea.

We would like to thank the tireless efforts of all the peace activists who have agreed to share their experiences with the citizens and who have toiled with a passion to bring this work to fruition. It is our hope that this report raise in its readers an awareness of what the real threats to peace are and finds even the smallest hint of how to overcome these problems. As 2012 looks to be a pivotal year for South Korea, but also for the Korean Peninsular in general, it is our hope that this report may contribute if only a little to the progress of history.

Finally, we would like to thank the Beautiful Foundation, without whose financial support in the publishing of this report nothing would have been possible.

December, 2011

Namjoo Lee, Chair of Center for Peace and Disarmament

at People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Contents

Introduction   5

Session 1  Politics of 'Threat' in Northeast Asia

The Fukushima disaster and its implications to nuclear and security debates in the Asia-Pacific _ Akira Kawasaki(Japan)   13

Economic Crisis, Strategic Opportunity : Implications for U.S. Global Military Strategy in the Asia-Pacific _ John Feffer(US)   25

Sino-US relations in East Asia : Ripe for Rivalry? _ Hua Han(China)   34

US Maritime Strategy, ROK-US Alliance and Jeju Naval Base
: Inflated threat and maritime militarization _ Taeho Lee(ROK)   43

Session 2  The Civic Initiatives for Peace
and Disarmament in Northeast Asia

A Civic Proposal for a Peace System of Korea _ Namjoo Lee(ROK)   65

The issues and alternatives of the NLL: the West Sea, from powder keg to eco-peace zone on the Korean peninsula
_ Jungeun Park/Huisun Kim(ROK)   74

Japan's Initiatives for a Nuclear Weapon-Free Peaceful World and Northest Asia _ Yayoi Tsuchida(Japan)   89

The Civic Challenges and the Gangjeong Naval Base Resistance
_ Mattew Hoey(US)   98

Challenges of the Peace Movement in Korea in 2011 : Towards Denuclearization and Disarmament in Northeast Asia
_ Jungeun Park(ROK)   109

[PSPD Report] Civic Proposal for Peace system of Korea   127

Mission and Activities of PSPD/Center for Peace and Disarmament   150

Ⅰ. Politics of 'Threat' in Northeast Asia

The Fukushima disaster and its implications to nuclear and security debates in the Asia-Pacific _ Akira Kawasaki

Economic Crisis, Strategic Opportunity : Implications for U.S. Global Military Strategy in the Asia-Pacific _ John Feffer

Sino-US relations in East Asia : Ripe for Rivalry? _ Hua Han

US Maritime Strategy, ROK-US Alliance and Jeju Naval Base  : Inflated threat and maritime militarization _ Taeho Lee

The Fukushima disaster and its implications for nuclear and security debates in the Asia-Pacific

Akira Kawasaki_ Peace Boat, Japan

Kawasaki Akira is an Executive Committee member of Tokyo-based international NGO Peace Boat. ; kawasaki@peaceboat.gr.jp

Introduction

The Great East Japan Earthquake that took place on March 11, 2011 caused an unprecedented disaster and suffering on the people of Japan three-fold –the earthquake, tsunami and the accident of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Almost 20,000 people were killed, including many still missing, mostly by the tsunami. Over 300,000 have been displaced, including 60,000 who had to move away from Fukushima prefecture.This paper examines the implications of the disaster on Japan's nuclear and security debates with a particular focus on the alliance with the US and its nuclear policy.

Statistics are available on the Japanese government's Headquarters in response to the Great East Japan Earthquake. ; http://www.reconstruction.go.jp/topics/20111207hinansya.pdf

Japan's SDF and US Forces' operations

On March 13, two days after the earthquake, then Prime Minister Kan Naoto directed 100,000 Self-Defense Forces (SDF) personnel to be dispatched to the affected areas, and these personnel were  put in place as early as March 19. This was the largest SDF mobilization in post-1945 Japan. Indeed, 100,000 from the total of 240,000 JSDF personnel can be said to be the absolute maximum level of its capacity.

Mizushima Asaho, "Shijo Saidai no Saigai Haken," Sekai, July 2011, Tokyo

The US Forces carried out Operation Tomodachi (meaning "Friends") including dispatching the USS Ronald Reagan of the 7th Fleet and mobilizing 18,000 personnel, 19 ships and 140 aircraft.They worked in concert with the JSDF for relief supplies, searching for victims and clean-up activities. For the nuclear accident, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) advisedUS citizens to keep over 80 kilometers away from the Fukushima Daiichi plant (while the Japanese government set the evacuation zone to the area of a 20 kilometers radius from the plant) and sent Chair Gregory Jaczko to Tokyo on March 28 to directly engage with Japanese government and TEPCO officials.

Mizushima, ibid.

"The US Government Response to the Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan," April 4 2011, the US Embassy in Tokyo ; http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20110404-01.html

What does this largest ever nationwide operation mean for the future of the JSDF? What does the intensive on-site cooperation between the Japanese and US forces bring to the military relations of the two countries? How will this disaster impact on the Japanese people's perspectives on the JSDF and the US Forces? The answers are not simple.

A stronger JSDF?

The first question is what the disaster will mean for the future of the JSDF. As the JSDF played the integral role in rescuing people in this emergency, the public's appreciation of and support for the JSDF seem to have been consolidated.

Traditionally, Japan has a long history of debate over whether the existence of the JSDF is constitutional or not, in light of Article 9 of the Constitution that renounces war and declares that military forces will "never be maintained."In the early 1990s, the Socialist Party took part in the government and abandoned their long-held position that the JSDF was unconstitutional. This paved the way for the JSDF to increasingly engage in overseas operations with UN peacekeeping forces or jointly with the US Forces. Domestic peace advocates have critically monitored these developments. The 2011 disaster, however, may eradicate the domestic opinion that denies the very existence of the JSDF. The point of debate would shift to the "role" - rather than the "existence" - of the JSDF.

The disaster provided the JSDF an unprecedented experience of large-scale operations, including jointly with the US Forces. On one hand, this may enhance the capability of Japan-US joint military operations. Since the late 1990s, the Japanese and US governments have worked to simulate "emergency"scenarios in cooperation by the two forces, with armed conflicts in Northeast Asia in mind. Japan has made a set of legislation in this regards.The disaster functioned as a "trial case"of such simulations and mechanisms.

Following the establishment of the new Japan-US Defense Cooperation Guidelines in 1997, the Act Concerning the Measures for Peace and Safety of Japan in Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan was enacted in 1999. The Laws in Response to Armed Attack Situations were established in 2003-2004.

On the other hand, the operation was non-military and humanitarian in nature. Even the 100,000 JSDF personnel could barely meet the needs of the affected people. Tens of thousands of civil volunteers gathered from all over Japan, joined by overseas groups, and have played vital roles in clean-up, food provision, and community peer support.The JSDF worked in close cooperation with these humanitarian groups and municipal offices. The JSDF-civil society cooperation in this case was on a much larger scale than the case of the 1995 earthquake in Kobe. This experience may boost public opinion that the JSDF should be more prepared to deal with disasters. Some advocate that the JSDF should become more disaster-relief-centered, by cutting excessive weaponry and armed training.

Some examples can be seen at the web site of the Peace Boat Emergency Relief Operation: ;  http://peaceboat.jp/relief/

Mizushima, ibid.

Also, many of those JSDF personnel who had to deal with the countless dead bodies in the tsunami-affected areas are reportedly facing post-traumatic stress disorder. One cannot foresee how this experience will affect in the longer term the JSDF personnel's "morale."These pose questions against a simple anticipation that the disaster would strengthen Japanese military capability – a scenario which may cause concern among the neighboring countries.

Evolution of the Japan-US alliance?

The second question is what the disaster means for the future of the Japan-US alliance. Some argue that the joint emergency operation has proven the value of the alliance to the Japanese public, and helps the evolution of the alliance. Others even suggest that the relief role played by the US can "soften public attitude" towards the US military bases in Okinawa.

Daniel Kliman et al, "Disaster in Japan: Nuclear Energy, the Economy, and the U.S.-Japan Alliance," March 2011, Center for a New American Security ;
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_DisasterInJapan_policybrief.pdf

Despite such an "optimistic"calculation, there is no sign that the public opinion over the US bases in Okinawa has changed at all following the disaster. This is not only because Okinawa is too far away from the affected Northeast part ofmainland Japan, but also because of the fundamental nature of the Okinawa issue. Mistrust among the people of Okinawa against Tokyo over the base issues is deep.It is more a problem of "Okinawa versus Tokyo/Washington" than a problem of "Japan versus the US."It is true that the Japanese people generally appreciate the humanitarian support provided by the US. However, it will not function as a bargaining chip in the alliance context, as some in Washington and Tokyo might have envisioned.

Recently, Defense Minister Ichikawa Yasuho and his senior staff made some insulting remarks over the people of Okinawa in relation to the base negotiations. On December 9, 2011, a censure motion against Ichikawawas passed in the Upper House.

Proponents of the alliance "evolution"have advocated for such agenda as increasing the interoperability of the two forces, developing missile defense systems, and lifting Japan's long-held "no arms export"policy. These have been constantly pursued, including in the process of developing Japan's new National Defense Program Outline in 2010. On one hand, the global economic crisis is shrinking the military budget in every country. On the other hand, the development of information technology is impacting military infrastructure and industry worldwide. These are the grounds of the "evolution" - meaning further integration of forces both in system and operation.

So, will this disaster experience facilitate such an "evolution" of Japan-US relations? Yes, to some extent. It provided much room for the two forces to work together on the ground. But no, it is not clear in the long term. The vast amount of money needed to recover from the tsunami destruction and to deal with the nuclear accident will inevitably conflict with the military needs as mentioned above. The people who thanked the US for the friendship would see the recovery of life as a higher priority than new military investments.

Japan's uncertain nuclear future

Turning to the nuclear front, the Fukushima disaster is triggering dramatic changes both in Japanese public opinion and in the government's policy on nuclear energy. Post-WWII Japan has developed as one of the world's major powers in regards to nuclear energy. Calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons on one hand but promoting nuclear energy on the other has consistently been a basic policy of Japan since the 1950s. Public opinion has generally supported this. However, after Fukushima, opinion polls now show that more or less 70 percent of the public support the goal of phasing out nuclear energy.A new wave of rallies and public meetings calling for a nuclear-power-free Japan are taking place, attracting many youth mobilized through Twitter as well as parents who are increasingly worried about their children and radioactive contamination.

For example, see "70 % in Japan supports PM's nuclear-free future: poll," Tokyo (AFP), July 24, 2011 ;
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/70_in_Japan_support_PMs_nuclear-free_future_poll_999.html

On September 19, 2011, a major anti-nuclear-energy rally mobilized about 60,000 people in Tokyo. A national public petition campaign for the phase-out of nuclear energy is underway, aiming at 10 million signatures. The Global Conference for a Nuclear Power Free World will be held on January 14-15, 2012 in Yokohama ; http://npfree.jp

Then Prime Minister Kan Naoto, who had been concerned with nuclear issues and interested in renewable energy since he first became a politician as a young civil society activist three decades ago, took many initiatives towards a nuclear phase-out after the accident. On August 15, 2011, the Cabinet approved the policy of "reducing the dependence on nuclear energy."Nuclear industry and business community strongly resisted such moves, and Kan had to resign at the end of the month. His successor Noda Yoshihiko took a position much closer to the industry. Yet even Noda made clear at his inauguration press conference that there would be "no new construction" of nuclear power plants.That given, the phasing out of nuclear energy is no more a question of "whether to do," but of "when to do."

Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko's inauguration press conference, September 2, 2011 ;
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/noda/statement/201109/02kaiken.html

In September 2011, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission restarted its work to develop a new Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy that had been suspended after the Fukushima accident. Including this, several governmental panels are simultaneously reviewing Japan's nuclear energy policy, with focuses on a broad strategy covering renewable energy, the nuclear fuel chain and its cost, and nuclear safety etc. Among these, the question of the nuclear fuel chain and its cost can become the first highlight of attention.If Japan decides to freeze or cancel its fuel chain projects, namely the Monju breeder reactor and the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, it would have a significant impact not only on Japan's energy policy but also on global fissile material control and nuclear non-proliferation, including the situation of the Korean Peninsula.

It is notable that a panel of Cabinet Office recommended, on November 20, 2011, to “fundamentally review” the project of the breeder reactor Monju, which had been a central pillar of Japan's nuclear fuel chain, as being too costly ;
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/feature/20110316-866922/news/20111120-OYT1T00545.htm

Nuclear exports – Where are the "3S"?

As Japan's domestic market for new nuclear power plants is closing, the Japanese industry is finding ways to move abroad, backed up by the government. In September 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon convened a high-level meeting on nuclear safety and security in response to Fukushima. At that meeting, Prime Minister Noda dared to emphasize that Japan was committed to export nuclear reactors to interested countries.Those countries include Vietnam, Jordan and Turkey. Let alone the moral question that a country in the midst of such a serious accident sells technology to others, the question of consistency with Japan's previous "3S" policy - safeguards, safety and security - must be raised.

Noda said, “Japan stands ready to respond to the interest of countries seeking to use nuclear power generation...Japan remains steadfast in responding positively to their interest in our undertakings.” Address by Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko at the UN High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security, New York, September 22, 2011 ;
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/noda/statement/201109/22speech_e.html

The concept of "3S" was established on the initiative of the Japanese government at the 2008 G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit.In the wake of a possible "Nuclear Renaissance,"the 3S was presented as guidelines for countries with nuclear technology to sell it to developing countries. Safeguards means to prevent the conversion of civil use of nuclear technology to military purposes. Safety means to preventaccidents. And security means to prevent nuclear terrorism, through securing facilities and materials from external attack or theft. These three standards must be met when a nuclear export is planned. The Japanese government has promoted this concept at various international forums.

International Initiative on 3S-based Nuclear Energy Infrastructure, G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit, July 2008 ; http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2008/doc/pdf/0708_04_en.pdf

Yet Japan has behaved in contradiction to this own-set principle. Regarding safeguards, Japan started to negotiate in 2010 for a nuclear cooperation pact with India, a de facto nuclear weapon state that continues to build up its nuclear arsenal. The negotiation initially slowed down after the Fukushima accident, but is now resuming. Besides, Japan is reportedly planning to negotiate with countries which refuse to sign and ratify strengthened safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) called the Additional Protocol, such as Egypt. On one hand, Japanese foreign ministry officials are advocating strengthened safeguards, but on the other hand its industry ministry officials are promoting nuclear sales to countries that say no to these strengthened safeguards. This represents not only a contradiction but also a risk of nuclear proliferation.

The Fukushima accident has questioned the relevance of safety and security that Japan had proclaimed. Japanese people had been told that its nuclear technology is so advanced that safety is completely secured. But now they know that this was just a myth. A serious review of safety standards must be thoroughly conducted before it comes back to the export to others, if indeed it should ever. The question of security is similar. Fukushima made very clear the vulnerability of nuclear power plants from external attacks –either by accidents or by design. Through watching Fukushima on TV, people around the world know by now that destruction of a power source's cooling system can easily make a nuclear power plant a massive-scale dirty bomb – thus a means of radiological terrorist attack.

Japan should suspend its nuclear export plans and seriously reconsider if Japan and the world can really meet the "3S"standards in the post-Fukushima context. If yes, how? Unless this question is clearly answered, proceeding to nuclear sales to developing countries is a totally irresponsible act that will risk many human lives.

After the Fukushima disaster, the IAEA and the international community are debating "increasing nuclear safety."Such measures as stress tests, peer reviews and strengthening of regulatory commissions are being discussed. Nevertheless, there is no single verifiable measure to ensure the "increased"safety or enforcement measure to stop facilities that do not meet the safety standards. Human security is being sacrificed. Such a country that violates nuclear safeguards can be deterred by international coercive measures, such as sanctions or even possibly by a military attack, because it poses a threat to national security. See North Korea. On the contrary, industry and governments are promoting nuclear sales, but there is nothing to protect human security against their unreliable "safety" claims. What an irony.

Conclusion – Human Security Now

The March 11 disaster raised a fundamental question of what security is for the people. Japan developed its "defense"capability in alliance with the US, with Soviet Union as a hypothetical enemy in the past, and now North Korea, China or unnamed terrorists today. Yet the ever-largest crisis that hit the country was not from outside enemies but was caused by a natural disaster. Self-defense forces were mobilized at their maximum capacity, but couldn't solve the problem with the guns they had prepared. It is humans themselves who were able to save other people. The nuclear technology that was supposed to be "peaceful" is now brutally threatening the people's lives. The government and industry are trying to invest more resources to "strengthen the alliance" or "increase safety."But the people are learning from this historic disaster that myths will be broken some day, and that real security will be ensured by people's power, based on democracy and solidarity.

Economic Crisis, Strategic Opportunity : Implications for U.S. Global Military Strategy in the Asia-Pacific

John Feffer_IPS(Institute for Policy Studies), US

John Feffer is the co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC.

Until very recently, Pentagon spending was virtually untouchable in American politics. From the late 1970s, the Pentagon budget rose steadily with only a short break in the early 1990s, after the end of the Cold War in Europe. The George W. Bush administration increased U.S. military spending by an astounding 70 percent. Even the Obama administration, with its promise to withdraw troops from Iraq and focus on the U.S. domestic economy, continued to increase the military budget, albeit at a more modest rate than the previous administration.

But all of that might change. The economic crisis in the United States –and the related federal budget crisis – has created enormous pressure on Congress to slash federal spending. The interim budget deal reached over the summer included a cap on Pentagon spending (at $684 billion for FY 2011 and $686 billion for 2012). These are not cuts, of course but they would save an estimated $350 billion over previous projected increases.

But if the congressional committee tasked with finding $1.2 trillion of budget cuts cannot reach a deal by the end of November, more significant military cuts will go into effect: as much $600 billion over 10 years. Together this would total about $950 billion in savings. In the most optimistic scenario, overall national security spending would drop 15 percent and return to 2007 levels.These are not exactly major cuts. But the Pentagon is very, very worried. And if they go into effect, these cuts will violate a significant taboo. Moreover, there are voices in Congress that are calling for more significant changes in U.S. military posture. These proposed changes would have significant impact on U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region – and on U.S. alliances with South Korea, Japan, Australia, and Thailand.

Christopher Preble, "Military Spending and the Budget Deal," Cato, August 1, 2011; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org /military-spending-and-the-budget-deal/

Jobs and Overseas Bases

One major reason that military spending has been sacrosanct in the United States has been jobs. Military manufacturers have spread production around the United Statesso effectively that nearly every congressional district is dependent to some degree on defense contracting jobs. Even leaders of congressional campaigns to cut military spending – such as Barney Frank of Massachusetts – have voted in favor of unnecessary military allocations because these Pentagon program meant jobs in his district.

This link to jobs has meant that Congress is looking for ways to cut military spending that does not affect U.S. jobs. Even a lot of "waste" in the military budget employs Americans (for instance, in creating duplicate weapon systems or paying more than is necessary for military services). But one line item is relatively exempt from this jobs link: overseas military bases.It is no surprise, then, that after a first round of cuts in the immediate post-Cold War period, both Democrats and Republicans are beginning to take a second look at the cost of U.S. overseas bases.

Currently there are several Senate initiatives to examine the cost of overseas bases. Senators McCain, Webb, and Levin, for instance, have questioned the $28 billion price tag for the Pacific realignment plan.This complex realignment initiative includes a number of different aspects: closing the Futenma military base, relocating some of the U.S. Marines to expanded facilities in Guam, building a new Marine Air Force facility elsewhere in Okinawa, consolidating U.S. bases in South Korea, allowing U.S. soldiers in ROK to bring along their spouses, and so on.  Part of the concern of the three senators revolves around Okinawan opposition to the construction of a new military base. But they're primarily worried about the cost of the realignment. Although Japan has agreed to pay for much of the transfer of the Marines to Guam, cost overruns are expected, and the longer the move is delayed, the more expensive it will become.

David Lerman; "Levin, McCain Call for Rethinking U.S. Military Basing in Asia," Bloomberg, May 11, 2011;	http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/levin-mccain-call-for-rethinking-u-s-military-basing-in-asia.html

A potentially more dramatic initiative is a bipartisan effort in the Senate to set up a commission that would look into all overseas U.S. bases. This commission, proposed by Montana Democrat Jon Tester and Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson, would "scrutinize the necessity of the United States’ current overseas basing structure" and analyze the economic costs and benefits of closing these bases.Although the bulk of the bases to be scrutinized may well be in Europe, such a commission would also perform a much-needed review of all U.S. facilities in the Asia-Pacific region.

Leon Shane III, "Senators want commission to consider overseas base closings," Stars and Stripes, October 19, 2011; http://www.stripes.com/news/senators-want-commission-to-consider-overseas-base-closings-1.158192

The Pentagon will likely put up considerable resistance to such a commission and, if the body is launched, to its ultimate recommendations. But there won’t be the kind of political opposition to such a commission that arises whenever a particular weapons system is put on the cutting block. After all, the people in the countries that host U.S. bases don’t vote in U.S. elections or contribute to the campaigns of U.S. candidates.

The connection to the jobs issue is quite evident in the senators’ minds. "With today’s historic levels of debt, we need to move quickly to identify ways that we can bring our military training capabilities home, create American jobs in military construction and save taxpayer dollars without sacrificing the security needs of U.S. forces and the American people," said Hutchinson. Former Pentagon chief Robert Gates dismissed the notion that closing overseas bases would save money. "Overseas base reductions would require [military construction] here in the United States, so at least in the beginning it would be more expensive to bring them home than to leave them where they are," he said in June.But for Hutchinson, such expenses would be fine since they would create American jobs.

Leo Shane III, "Gates dismisses widespread overseas base closings," Stars and Stripes, June 16, 2011;
http://www.stripes.com/blogs/stripes-central/stripes-central-1.8040/gates-dismisses-widespread-overseas-base-closings-1.146745

Budget Cuts and Alliance Implications

Another result of the U.S. economic crisis is an increased emphasis on burden-sharing. The United States is already asking Japan, South Korea, and Australia to pull more of their own weight. The current agreement with South Korea, signed in 2009 and running through 2013, has annual amounts rising steadily (largely to anticipate the inflation rate). Japan, which agreed to cover $6 billion of the $10 billion estimated cost of the Marine relocation to Guam, has been asked to cover the cost over-runs as well.There are voices within the Pentagon and elsewhere calling for our allies to shoulder even more of the burden of U.S. troops.

Associated Press, "US Asks Japan to Pay More for Guam Move", July 5, 2010; http://www.military.com/news /article/us-asks-japan-to-pay-more-for-guam-move.html

At a time of Pentagon contraction, U.S. policy has been to boost overseas military exports to cushion the adjustment for U.S. defense contractors who will be seeing fewer Pentagon contracts. The amount of proposed arms sales in 2010 was four times higher than the average over the last decade. The total, $102 billion, is higher than the previous record of $75 billion in 2008.Although much of this amount was slated for the Middle East, arms sales to Asia have also been picking up. The United States has been following through on a Bush era arms package deal for Taiwan. Sales to South Korea in 2010 increased by about 15 percent. Both Korea and Japan are increasingly tied into U.S. missile defense network.

Xiaodon Liang, "Proposed U.S. Arms Sales Reach New Heights," Arms Control Today, March 2011; http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_03/US_Arms_Sales

A third strategy, in addition to burden sharing and increased military exports, has been to rely on allies to build their own bases. The Jeju Island naval base is a prime example. Conceived under the Roh Moo Hyun administration, the Jeju facility would be a South Korean base, built by South Korean corporations with South Korean government funding. It would play host to South Korea's new Aegis-equipped destroyers, three of which have already been built at a cost of $1 billion apiece. But because of alliance commitments, U.S. ships and personnel would have access to the base. And it would be fully integrated into the U.S. war-planning and war-fighting scenarios.

Changing U.S. Strategic Vision

Since the emergence of the "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), the Pentagon has been reevaluating and realigning U.S. force posture around the world. The emphasis has shifted from fixed positions to more mobile, flexible, rapid-response units. U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific region has been perhaps the slowest to respond to RMA. The Pentagon still prepares scenarios on the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait that, although updated to reflect technological advances, obey old-fashioned war gaming against large national armies. Another factor that has delayed the transformation of U.S.force structure has been inter-service rivalry, with the Marine Corps, for instance, reluctant to give up a dedicated base and lose out in the competition for scarce resources.

The reduction of U.S. personnel in the Pacific theater and the closure/consolidation of bases could mesh with the overall transformation of U.S. military doctrine. Simply put, the Pentagon doesn't need as many soldiers or bases to respond to post-Cold War threats. But those who defend the current U.S.-Japan deal over Futenma, which would retain several thousand U.S. Marines at a new facility in Okinawa, argue that the "tyranny of distance" requires a robust presence on the Japanese island. If a conflict were to break out on the Korean peninsula or across the Taiwan Strait, the United States would need to get Marines to those "contingencies" as quickly as possible.

The continued Cold War in Asia, in other words, requires a continuation of Cold War military structures.

For those opposed to U.S. military bases in the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. economic crisis combined with the evolving U.S. military strategy presents several opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, there is a tremendous political opportunity to push through a new U.S.-Japan deal that would close Futenma and not involve the construction of a new base. Although some of the alternatives present their own problems – Okinawans are not happy about a possible expansion of Kadena to accommodate the Futenma capabilities – there is nevertheless finally some political traction in Washington for base closure. South Korean activists, too, might find support for a greater reduction of the U.S. military footprint in Korea.

The challenges, however, are considerable. Activists in the Pacific islands of Guam, Samoa, and elsewhere are already facing the likelihood of an expanded U.S. military presence as personnel are relocated from Northeast Asia. The scenario of pulling back from "forward-based defense" to an "over the horizon" position, although good news for people in Japan and South Korea, a net reduction of U.S. military presence overall, and a potentially cost-saving maneuver for the United States,  places the burden of adjustment on Pacific islanders.

Of equal concern is the impact of "abandonment" on the military and foreign policies of Northeast Asian countries. South Korea has already embarked on an ambitious modernization of its forces that was begun by a progressive administration worried that a deteriorating relationship with the United States would translate into a substantially smaller U.S. security commitment.Japanese conservatives, and now even some liberals, want to break out of the remaining constraints of the country's "peace constitution," which could mean more military spending and a more aggressive military posture (already hinted at by the 2010 National Defense Program Guidelines emphasis on a more "dynamic" security posture). Both China and Russia, meanwhile, are in the midst of their own expensive military modernizations. Reductions in U.S. military spending are not being matched by reductions in northeast Asia.

John Feffer, "Ploughshares into Swords," Korea Economic Institute, February 18, 2009; http://www.keia.com /Publications/AcademicPaperSeries/2009/APS-Feffer.pdf

Another challenge is dealing with the shift from mobilizing against primarily U.S. facilities to protesting facilities that are primarily national (albeit integrated into the larger alliance structures). The former can rely on undercurrents of nationalism; the latter must challenge the national pride that accompanies the construction of, for instance, an indigenous destroyer and the new naval base that can accommodate it.

U.S. military cuts and the shift to an "over the horizon" posture are not in the immediate future. But if a base commission goes forward, the Pentagon might not be able to halt the political momentum behind trimming U.S. overseas presence. Anti-base movements in the region may soon be able to claim important victories. But, equally, they will have to tackle the above-mentioned challenges. Only by addressing the underlying mechanisms of militarism –and particularly the government spending that sustains this militarism – can we together ensure that Northeast Asiabecomes a more peaceful and stable region.

Sino-US relations in East Asia: Ripe for Rivalry?

Hua Han_ Peking University, China

Hua Han is Associate Professor, School of International Studies, Peking University.

"Ripe for rivalry in Asia"is a phrase that was widely codified in international relations literature in 1990. Authors of this premise argue that, as Katzenstein puts it, "with the end of the Cold War and an intensiﬁation of institutionalized cooperation in Europe, Asia was ready to explode into violent conflicts" (Bracken 1999; Betts 1993/94; Friedberg 1993/94 Katzenstein 2004). After more than a decade with no sign of conflicts, the premise had been shouldered off and replaced by "Asian regionalism", "economic integration" and "cooperative security". However, Obama’s recent Pacific offensive, which aggressively provokes China in every from - diplomatic, economically, military, makes Asians ponder if time is truly ripe for rivalry in East Asia this time. Answering to this question not only depends on what the US will go, but also on what China will respond. However, it is no doubt that whether the stability in Asia is sustainable depends heavily on if the US and China - one is most established but, arguably, declining, and the other is rising - are able to accommodate each other’s roles and core interests in this region.

Obama’s Pacific Offensive

In line with Obama Administration’s plan to "restore US predominance in Asia" after 10-year wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington’s China policy has undergone significant change since 2010. Moving far away from an informal version of "G-2" in the initial months of his presidency and from Bill Clinton’s "strategic partnership", Obama Administration appears to be determined to categorize China as the leading candidate for Washington’s "strategic competitor", and to take a more confrontationalapproach toward the rising power.

Started in 2010, US has high-profiledly meddled in the "contentious issues" in China’s relations with its Asian neighbors - territory disputes between China and its neighbor over the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and tensions between the two Koreas over Cheonan sinking, through which US put pressure on China to "go tough" toward North Korea and conducted a joint military exercise with South Korea in the Yellow Sea, the gateway to China’s heartland. Over the last few months, US has launched a new round of "pacific offensive"to offset and counterbalance the growing Chinese power and influence in Asia, which is becoming a new center of world power gravity. President Obama’s trip to Hawaii, Australia and Indonesia and Secretary Clinton’s trips to Philippine, Myanmar, and other Asian capitals unveiled a package of initiatives which poses geopolitical challenge to China. In specific, the announcement of 2,500 US marines station at Darwin, north Australia, merely 960 kilometers from the southern tip of the South China Sea new enthusiasm on expansion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) backing Philippine and Vietnam in their claims in the South China Sea; ice-breaking visit to Myanmar, one of China’s neighbors, after decades of isolation; and embrace of a new air-sea battle concept, which could serve as a counter to China's power projection capabilities during a regional conflict. In short, facing Beijing’s growing power and influence in Asia, Washington appears to give up its strategic ambivalence and unfold a Cold-War like containment, at least "soft containment" against China.

US strategic shift to East Asia

While debates continue on whether unipolarity in the post-Cold War endorses peace and stability and on how long the unipority lasts, US successive administrations in the post-Cold era have pursued strategies to preserveUS predominance and leadership and prevent potential challenger to this dominance. As a rising economic power with increased military capability, China has been, in this vein, increasingly considered as the challenger among US policy makers, although the approaches and policies they recommend are vary. As a result, Sino-US relationship has been recognized by Washington as the most important bilateral relationship, which defines and shapes the landscape of security and stability in the world as well as in Asia in 21st century.

However, the first 10 years following 9.11 the US strategic preoccupation had been directed to the middle-east. Plunged in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US painfully notices that Asia, the world most dynamicregion, is under dramatic transformation. Economically, South Korea, India, Japan and China are making notable achievements and contribution to world economic growth. Moreover, China, like the US once did, through deepening and enlarging trade ties with its Asian neighbors, has become a hub of Asian economic boom. Politically, multilateralism, APEC, ASEAN+3, etc., and summit diplomacy in this region have helped overcome conflicting interests and historical wounds among states.

A notion of "East Asian Community" that once proposed by Yukio Hatoyama, the then Japanese Prime Minister, demonstrates Asian countries’pressing demands for an EU-style regional political framework. Compared with economic and political areas, Asian security structure has not significantly changed. US-led ‘hub-and-spoke’ security order, based on US-Japan and US-South Korean bilateral military alliances, remains strong and even strengthened today. Nevertheless, the current security bilateralism is facing challenge by security multilateralism, represented by six-Party talk and ARF, in general and a militarily more powerful China in particular. China’s naval modernization and its emerging "area denial" capability at the Taiwan Straits have made Pentagon believe that China is trying to restrict the US free of action from China’s coast out to the so called "second island chain". In sum, for Americans, changes in Asia mightundermine or alter US "liberal hegemony" in East Asia (Ikenberry 2004). Feigenbaum states more straightforwardly, the US is "less relevant to Asia’s future". Although when "the Obama Administration came to office promising to rethink America’s traditional strategic geography" and noticing the need to quickly adapt new "policy to the contours of change in Asia" (Feigenbaum, 2011), it takes Washington years to make it happen.

China’s "assertiveness"

In the course of rise, one of important foreign policy challenges for China is how to balance between its expanding economic outreach and making its rise peaceful. While offensive realism excludes any accommodation between the two goals, Beijing has proposed a delicate and "soft" "peaceful rise strategy"as to seek a middle ground. However, China-watchers in the US and neighboring countries allege that Beijing has increasingly been assertive in its relations with outside world.

For several instances, Beijing’s reaction to the 2010 US $6.4 billion arms sales package to Taiwan Chinese "harassment" of U.S. ocean surveillance ships operating in China’s EEZs in the South China Sea and Yellow Sea in the spring of 2009 Chinese warnings in response to planned U.S.–Republic of Korea joint naval exercises in the Yellow Sea following the sinking of the Cheonan and so forth. Takingthe events at face value, one may conclude that China behaves like a bully. Yet, if reading carefully about where the events happened and what China appeals for, one then may draw a little different conclusion. At minimum, China’s deeds are not provocative, but defensive in nature. It is plain to say, only three circumstances may switch China’s "softness" or pragmatism into "assertiveness": 1) when its perceived "core interests" are in jeopardy 2) coercionand blackmail; and 3) domestic politics. Using assertiveness to accommodate domestic political interests is always double-edged, and therefore, is rarely used. The first two cases may offer better explanations for China’s assertive behaviors.

East Asia, where a number of China’s core interests and contentious issue assemble, seems to be the first and foremost testing ground for China’s strategic intention. Beijing has engaged industriously this region through economic/trade ties and political reassurance. On Taiwan, after two-decade economic integration and political reconciliation, two sides of the Taiwan Straits are experiencing a détente, despite uncertainties remain. US arms sales to Taiwan could lead to new setbacks in Sino-American relations.

While tension across the Taiwan Straits melting down, the South China Sea (SCS) is, unsurprisingly, emerging as a new flashpoint in East Asia. In fact, the territorial disputes have lasted for 3 decades and the six claimants have managed to keep the disputes out of the way to cooperation. Despite China’s principle on the disputes is resolution through bilateral, instead of multilateral, negotiation, Beijing signed a Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea with ASEAN countries in 2002. Recent attention on the SCS, however, stems more from the looming clash of interests between Washington and Beijing than from territorial clash between China and other claimants. China "blue water" navy build up, driven essentially by Taiwan issue and security of energy sea route, and the new reiteration, not new elevation, of SCS as its core interest are interpreted by the US as indications of a calculated Chinese act of intimidation and assertiveness.

Hillary’s declaration of South China Sea is US "national interest" in Hanoi, July 2010 demonstrates that US has decided to change its role from a "off shore balancer" to a key player in this troubled water. Like the US and other concerned states, China has interests in freedom of maritime navigation in international waters and security of energy transportation routes. Cooperation, rather than conflict, is the only option for China to reach those objectives. In this vein, when Chinese Prime Minister Wen attended in the East Asia Summit in Indonesia, he stressed Beijing is willing to work together with Southeast Asian nations for a code of conduct in the waters.

Korean Peninsula is another potential flashpoint in East Asia. North Korean nuclear program has consistently drawn countries into crisis management diplomacy. China, working closely with other key players - South Korea and the US, has played a middle-man role in this practice. Unfortunately, six-party talk, the only mechanismaiming to DPRK denuclearization, has suspended with emerging of a nuclearized North Korea. The Cheonan incident and North Korea’s Yeonpyeong attack in 2010, which brought the two Koreas into brink of war, presented a tough choice for Beijing - take a side between North and South Koreans. Over the last two decades, China has maintainedsound relations with both Seoul and Pyongyang, and supported reconciliation between two Koreas, as a stable and denuclearized Korean Peninsula is in Chinese interest. In addition, nonproliferation has been one area that China and the US share interests and have engaged in cooperation. The death of Kim Jong-II could provide a unique opportunity for China and other concerned states to work together to keep stability in the Peninsula and resume the Six-party talk, which could be a multilateral security arrangement in East Asia. Indeed, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi held discussions on phone with counterparts in South Korea, Japan, Russia and the US on stability of Korean Peninsula after the death of the North Korean leader.

Way ahead: East Asian order

The recent US Pacific offensiveseems to be turning East Asia into a bipolar order organized around Chinese and American rivalry (Ikenberry, 2007). In process of bipolarization, "countries in this regional will increasingly find themselves facing strategic choices as to which regional coalition to join". Whether this bipolar order is feasible in the near future depends largely on China’s capability and will to thrust itself into a regional rival by challenging US hegemonic position and current order, and US capability and will to "overcome likely fierce allied opposition and domestic economic resistance" to Sino-American confrontation. For the Chinese, military as well as civilian, mainstream view is that China has no such capability and will, let alone kicking the US out from this region. Overall, cooperation, rather than confrontation is the right approach to guarantee China’s regional and global interests.

East Asia is priority in Chinese strategicthinking because its prosperity and security rely on its close ties with countries in this region. Indeed, like other countries, prosperity and security are the fundamental goals that China aims to reach (Walt, 2011). Continuity of economic growth is vital for welfare of the Chinese people. Maximizing Security is the precondition for Chinese to concentrate on economic development by providing a sense of invulnerability and shelf to resist threats and coercion from major powers, particular a hegemon. After two-decade post Cold War history, China would not like to see East Asia turn into another battleground of another Cold War, even though the Cold War in Asia is in no way a repeat of Soviet-US confrontation. The bottom line is the world today is no longer the one back into the Cold War history.

US Maritime Strategy, ROK-US Alliance and Jeju Naval Base : Inflated threat and maritime militarization

a summarized translation

Taeho Lee _ PSPD, ROK

Taeho Lee is the Secretary General of PSPD and a member for Executive Committee of the Center for Peace and Disarmament of PSPD. He is also Chairperson of the Execuitive Committee National Network of Korean Civil Society for Opposing to construction of Jeju Naval Base.

Ⅰ. Introduction

This report reviews the US maritime strategy and its impact to the construction of Jeju naval base, and also traces the reorganization of the ROK-US alliance between the Roh Moo-hyun government and Lee Myung-bak’s, focusing on the increasing regional role given to the alliance and China’s reaction to it. The report also addresses the problems caused by the Jeju naval base, especially the possibility and cost of its use by the US forces.

Ⅱ. The US Maritime Strategy in the Asia-Pacific Region

The US Defense Secretary Clinton has been recently advocating a strategic return to the Asia-Pacific region.This means forward deployment of the US Navy and strengthened regional military cooperation, as the most important part of her ‘forward deployment’ diplomacy. Her rational for it is two-fold. The post-war growth and future prosperity of South Korea and Japan are depended on security provided by the US, and the recent increase in maritime disputes and threats, and damages caused by natural disasters require a sustainable force posture equipped with expanded, flexible operation capability. The new force posture includes enhanced military base system of the allies and expansion of the US forces presence in the region. This strategy is a continuation from the War on Terror time, but with a new focus on re-affirming the US presence and influence in the region in view of the economic rise of China and India.

HILLARY CLINTON, ‘America's Pacific Century’, Foreign Policy, November 2011 "ASIA'S REMARKABLE ECONOMIC" growth over the past decade and its potential for continued growth in the future depend on the security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military, including more than 50,000 American servicemen and servicewomen serving in Japan and South Korea. The challenges of today's rapidly changing region -- from territorial and maritime disputes to new threats to freedom of navigation to the heightened impact of natural disasters -- require that the United States pursue a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable force posture. ... But even more than our military might or the size of our economy, our most potent asset as a nation is the power of our values -- in particular, our steadfast support for democracy and human rights. This speaks to our deepest national character and is at the heart of our foreign policy, including our strategic turn to the Asia-Pacific region."

A. Sea Power 21, PSI and RMSI

The way ahead : from On the Sea to From the Sea

During the Cold War, the US Navy aimed to seek control ‘on the sea’ in countering the USSR naval forces. Under the ‘Maritime Strategy’ formulated in 1986, the focus of the naval strategy of the US shifts to coastal seas around the world, known as ‘the way ahead’. This was to focus more on the regional conflicts. The new targets were rogue states or terrorist groups. The important event that gave rise to the new strategic concept was the first Gulf War (1991). The concept of ‘forward deployment from the sea’ was born in those years.

Sea Power 21

The decisive change towards the current maritime strategy occurred after the 9.11. A new US naval strategy was announced in 2002 as ‘Sea Power 21: Projecting Decisive Joint Capabilities’. This was to counter threats from rogue states or asymmetric threat posed by terrorism at any sea in the world. Sea Power 21 has three strategic components – Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing.

Sea Strikes means capabilities to collect information of hostile states, to conduct axis-strikes including preemptive nuclear strikes, to land forces, to seize and dismantle WMDs, and of integrated command and control. Sea Shield basically means missile defense capability. Sea Basing means turning all corners of the sear into maritime bases by forward deployment of mobile task forces of carriers, AEGIES and nuclear submarines without having fixed naval and air force bases.

For this strategy, allies are required to provide the minimum supplies and use of local naval bases. This is why the US recently demands allies to open more ports for use rather than building more overseas naval bases.

PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative)

Started in 2003 in response to 9.11, PSI is to stop proliferation of WMDs through US-led maritime network of cooperation that includes search, seize, and interception of transport. PSI is not grounded by an international treaty, but is of the nature of ‘coalition of the willing.’ PSI pose several problems with international maritime laws and with the double-standards and unilateralism of the US. Especially in Asia, it is said to have lost its credibility because key countries such as China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia refused to participate in it. ROK, however, joined it in 2009.

RMSI (Regional Maritime Security Initiative and Maritime Security)

In 2004 the United States' Pacific Command presented its Regional Maritime Security Initiative for the protection of Sea Lines of Communication. While the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has as goal to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the RMSI has as goal to intercept and block the traffic of drugs and illegal substances (excluding WMDs), to protect from piracy, to prevent acts of terror, to protect free movement on the high seas and the transportation of strategic goods such as oil, in addition to providing coordinated humanitarian support for various natural disasters.

According to the U.S Pacific Command commander, the goals of the RMSI are to "develop a partnership of willing regional nations with varying capabilities and capacities to identify, monitor, and intercept transnational maritime threats under existing international and domestic laws." He stated that the RMSI would not become a permanent naval force tasked with patrolling the Pacific. He did not shy however, from the fact that this new initiative was one leg in the U.S's post 9/11 three pronged maritime strategy, alongside the PSI and CSI.

US Pacific command ; http://131.84.1.218/speeches/sst2004/040503milops.shtml

The headquarters of the U.S Pacific Command had also made clear their plan to include the Straight of Malacca as the first regions in which this new initiative was to be applied. However Indonesia and Malaysia, fearing the militarization of the straight as well as threats to their own sovereignty, have pronounced themselves against this. Indeed China, the country which transports the largest amount of strategic goods through the straight, has also objected, resulting in the effective failure of the plan. As a result U.S patrolling in the Straight of Malacca is being effectively limited by the reactions of countries in the region..

Vijay Sakhuja, “Any Asian takers for a 1000-Ship Navy?”, Maritime Studies, No. 153, Mar/Apr 2007: 32-34 ; http://www.imdleo.gr/diaf/2009/img/1000_ship_navy.pdf

Another reason for this failure was that the United States tried to use exaggerated threats to security in order to place limits on the sovereignty of the concerned countries. For example, of the 65000 trade vessels that passed through the straight in 2005, only nine came under direct threat of attack from pirates, with average damages from the attacks averaging no more than five thousand dollars. In contrast damages incurred by Indonesia from illegal fishing in the same year reached as high as four billion dollars. There has not been a single case of attack or kidnapping by terrorists.. Given this, it does not seem logical to bring an American warship into the straight.

David Rosenberg, Professor of Political Science, Middlebury College, “Safety, Security & nvironment in the Straits of Malacca & Singapore”
http://www.google.co.kr/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wilsoncenter.org%2Fevents%2Fdocs%2FRosenbergPowerpoint.ppt&rct=j&q=David%20Rosenberg%2C%20RMSI&ei=7M0wTta7OoPfsQLy4-jqCg&usg=AFQjCNH_AGfPcOx1ta_zq49cN2v1n0CSZg&cad=rjt

While the proposed RMSI having been rejected by countries in the region on suspicion of being another vehicle for a U.S grab at military supremacy under the veil of maritime security, cooperation between asian governments and the U.S Coast Guard to promote the safety of sea lanes from piracy and protect civilian traffic is already underway.

ReCAAP (The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia) was agreed upon in 2004 and presented in 2006 as the first intergovernmental agreement providing responses to piracy and robbery on the high seas in Asia, including as signatory nations Korea, Japan China, but also India, Vietnam and the Philippines for a total of 17 countries. Its headquarters are located in Japan, and Korean participation takes place under the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. The U.S is not a signatory country, nor are Indonesia and Malaysia.

“Much of the credit for increasing Chinese acceptance of norms of maritime cooperative security is due to Japan’'s influence and the formation of ReCAAP, originally based on an ASEAN+3 framework but later expanded.” ; Prof. Gaye Christoffersen, China and Maritime Cooperation: Piracy in the Golf of Aden, ISPSW Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy, Berlin, Germany, 2010 ;
http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/ISPSW_ChinaMaritimeCooperation_PiracyGulfOfAden.pdf

Since 2004 the HACGA (Heads of Asian Coast Guard Agencies) has held annual meetings, at which most asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Japan, and Korea, are present. Korean participation at this meeting takes place under the Republic of Korea Coast Guard (ROKCG).

UNCLOS : United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sear III (1994)

ReCAAP : Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and
Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (2006)

HACGA : Heads of Asian Coast Guard Agencies Meeting (2004)

B. Global Maritime Partnership (GMP)

The concept of 1,000-Ship Navy and Global Maritime Partnership

Proposed in 2005 and put into practice from 2007 by Admiral Michael Mullen, this is to build global maritime partnership among the navy, maritime police and other maritime agencies of the US allies and the US, so that the combined forces can counter their target objectives as a joint, international force of 1,000 ships. Its official title is A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. This is a reflection of the difficulty faced by the US forces to address the need of forward deployment in an expanded operation radius while maintaining its global maritime control. The US exercises the command authority in this combined force, the Combined Forces Maritime Component Command (CFMCC). This strategy includes the  activities and objectives stated in the previous PSI, CSI, and RMSI. The missions given to the forward deployment are; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); ballistic missile defense (BMD); and nuclear offense.

Global Maritime Partnership debate, Asia

The four strategic regions for the US forward deployment are European-Atlantic, the Gulf of Aden and the surrounding region of the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Three of the four regions are in Asia. GMP is actively practiced in and around the Persian Gulf region. The US attempt to expand it to the West Pacific regions has not been so successful yet. China, India and other key countries are reluctant to participate in GMP, while Thailand and the Philippines also showed stance of conditional cooperation. However, currently the US Pacific Fleet has the capability of mobilizing almost two thirds of its naval force.

US maritime strategy and ROK Navy

ROK and Japan provide permanent military bases for the US forces and actively participate in all maritime strategies of the US.

In particular, ROK agreed with the US to recognize strategic flexibility of the US Forces in Korea, which would allow US and ROK forces to operate beyond the Korean borders. Lee Myung-bak came to announce strategic alliance with the US in his 2008 US-ROK Summit, promising to jointly counter ‘regional and global security demands’, from which maritime cooperation of the two countries is deepening.

Below are the most notable military exercises and operations jointly conducted by the US and ROK navies, in countering conventional military threats, threats of proliferation of WMDs and maritime security threats.

<Military Exercise>

Key Resolve/Foal Eagle

Counter Special Operations Forces Exercise, CSOFEX

Ulchi Guardian Freedom, UGF

Hokuk

Rim of the Pacific, RIMPAC

Pacific Reach

Cobra Gold

<Military Operation>

PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative)

CMF (Combined Maritime Force)

Ⅲ. Reorganization of ROK-US Alliance from
Roh Moo-hyun to Lee Myung-bak

A. Strategic Flexibility of the ROK-US Alliance

First raised in 1999, studied from 1995, and officially discussed by two sides since 2003, it was first recognized for its importanceat the defense minister level in 2003 and 2004. It was announced as agreed in 2006. It has two important impacts to the alliance.

Reorganization of the bilateral alliance into a regional alliance: the existing alliance agreements formulated during the Cold War time rather strictly limits duties, roles and radius of operation, and are seen as setting obstacles for strategic flexibility of the overseas US forces. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been revising alliance agreements with Japan (1996) and NATO (1999), so that its radius and flexibility of military operation are expanded to wider region.

Flexibility : the new arrangement is to give increased ‘flexibility’ in all of the following areas - in movement of forces and equipments, in use of military bases, and in the requirement for consultation before US forces activities.

B. Dispute over the proposed role of regional balancer
in Northeast Asia of ROK

The clash between strategic flexibility and Roh’s plan for Northeast Asia

The NSC documents of 2004-5 show that the National Security Council (NSC) of ROK was keen by then on the implications and dangers of strategic flexibility - the danger of being pulled into regional conflicts and USFK bases becoming targets of aggression by China. It appears that Roh’s government tried to place safeguards against such dangers such as mandatory consultation before action. The two governments did not come to agree on this safeguard measure, but had the US recognize the ROK concern by inserting the following in the 2006 joint statement of high-level strategic talks: “In the implementation of strategic flexibility, the U.S. respects the ROK position that it shall not be involved in a regional conflict in Northeast Asia against the will of the Korean people.”

The Northeast Asia regional balancer and three principles of national defense of Roh’s government

Roh’s government had three principles for national defense – strengthened role of ROK forces as a regional balancer, non-involvement in regional conflicts, regaining the military operation command by 2012. On the concept of regional balancer, Roh announced in 2005 that ROK forces will keep peace in the region as in independent force and regional balance in Northeast Asia. It is said that the US reacted quite negatively and cynically to the idea of regional balancer role for ROK. Then the tone of voice changed in Roh’s government on the issue of regional balancer, to say that the idea was still firmly based on the role and function of the ROK-US alliance and that it was the alliance to mediate regional conflicts. Though ending in an anticlimax, the idea of regional balancer did reflect of Roh’s concern over the strategic flexibility, expressed ROK’s will to stay out of regional conflicts.

C. Lee Myung-bak’s pursuit of ROK-US alliance and the new
cold war in Northeast Asia

Globalizing and making ROK-US alliance more offensive

Soon after inauguration to Presidency, Lee Myong-bak met George W. Bush at Camp David and name the ROK-US alliance a strategic alliance. The joint statement declared bilateral agreement to develop the alliance into a strategic alliance of the 21st century in order to counter new security demands. Bush expressed that recognizing the need of constructively engaging in China was a highly important matter for a 21st century alliance. Then followed in ROK studies and reports about closer cooperation and coordination of military and security polices between two countries. In 2009, Lee and Obama agreed on the joint vision statement of the alliance, which stated that two countries will build a comprehensive strategic alliance of regional and global scope.

Lee promised in 2009 and carried out second dispatch of troops to Afghanistan in 2010. At the same time, he sent a naval unit comprising a destroyer the Combined Forces Maritime Component Command led by the US 5th Fleet. The name of the unit was Cheong-hae Budae or Blue Sea Navy. The blue in the Korean name refers to only color, but its English translation means navy of the ocean. The navy for the ocean promoted by the ROK Navy is now clearly a adjunct to the US maritime forces and a part of the US maritime hegemony.

Taking opportunity of North Korea’s missile/satellite test launch, Lee’s government officially joined PSI, thus nullifying Roh’s previous stance of non-participation. Joining of PSI signifies higher convergence of the power and strategies and also higher exclusive nature of the two navies in the region. The military operation plans of ROK have also become sharply offensive under Lee’s time. This was carried out under the heading of ‘plans for emergencies in North Korea’.

Cheonanham and Yonpyongdo incidents and militarization of Northeast Asian seas

The sinking of Cheonanham incident happened during the 2010 Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise (in March) in the West Sea, and the shelling exchange at Yonpyongdo incident occurred during Hokuk exercise in November of the same year. ROK and US governments took opportunity of these incidents to make their joint exercises more offensive and globalized.

Lee’s government decided to postpone the regaining of military operation command to 2015, after the Cheonanham incident, dispatched troops to Afghanistan, took part in the US-led sanction against Iran, extended the period of diversion for the use of ROK’s contribution of the USFK expenses, and made addition concessions in the free-trade agreement conditions with the US. In addition, Lee’s government made a series of economic and military sanctions against North Korea, known as May 24th measures, and revoked ROK-DPRK agreement that allowed North Korean ships to travel through the inland sea of ROK north of Jeju Island.

In October 2010, the defense ministers of the two countries decided to (1) mention ‘North Korean emergencies’ as an objective of joint actions, (2) establish ‘proliferation deterrence policy committee’ to strengthen nuclear umbrella, missile defense, and other deterrence measures, (3) promote ROK-US cooperation to address a wide range of global security challenges. The strategic plan guidelines that the meeting has issues contains new military operation plan No.5015. Though its content is not known to public, it is understood to contain comprehensive measures to counter asymmetric threat, local warfare and all-out warfare from North Korea. It also includes operation plan No. 5029 which is to counter emergencies in North Korea, including stabilizing operations and WMD seize and dismantling operations.

In the joint maritime exercise conducted in response to the Cheonanham incident, the US mobilized its nuclear submarine of Ohio class. In the next exercise conducted in response to Yonpyongdo incident, the US mobilized USS George Washington Carrier that has operation radius of 1,000 km. China showed a strong reaction against this. In another joint maritime exercise in the East Sea, four officers of the Japanese Self-Defense Force participated. In 2011, ROK and Japan agreed to promote military cooperation by planning for mutual military supplies support agreement and military classified information agreement.

The ROK-US-Japan triangular military cooperation is the key of the US military strategy in Asia in general and Northeast Asia in particular. The main objectives of this cooperation are to secure joint counter capability, higher support capacity for military supplies, and expansion of BMD range. The 2011 October meeting of the two defense ministers made further decisions along this line, taking further steps towards MD and outer-space military cooperation. The joint statement also included combined counter capability near the NLL and border islands in the West Sea. This was a breakaway from the tradition of the US not mentioning NLL in their military statements. According to ROK defense minister Kim Gwan-jin, a dispute at NLL will be first countered by ROK forces and next by US forces that include the full force of the artillery power of USFK and marine and air force powers of USFJ.

As the result, the three main principles of Roh’s government are all put into review. Non-intervention in regional conflicts and regional balancer role have been abandoned by ROK government. The new strategic alliance between two countries is now leading a new cold war in the region. The return of the military operation command has been postponed. The nature of the ROK-US alliance has been changed to an offensive, conflict-provoking one that includes plans of seize and occupation of North Korea assuming a possible collapse.

Aggravation of China-ROK relations and new cold war structure

China has been reacting to these developments in a sensitive manner. On May 27, 2008, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC criticized the idea of strategic alliance of ROK and the US as a legacy of the past history and warned against the attempts of the two countries in addressing regional issues with outdated ideas. This was unusual in China’s customary, toned-down voice in foreign affairs. Renmin Daily and Jiefang Daily put opinion columns criticizing Lee for not managing state affairs as a CEO because of his Cold-War mentality. China also expressed unease and warning against newly strengthened ROK-US military exercises at the West Sea. Some of the critics came as a direct face-to-face warning, as in the case of defense ministers meeting in Beijing in July, 2011. China is also raising concerns over the US-led combined forces exercises in the South China Sea, calling for prudence of the US in its words and actions. When the US sent nuclear submarines of Ohio class to Subic Bay in the Philippines, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and Pusan in ROK, the maneuver was seen to everyone as a containment of China, and the media in China and the US reported it accordingly. In response, China conducted test run of the former USSR aircraft carrier Varyag that it had purchased.

Ⅳ. Summary and Conclusion

What we have recently seen in the region through the US unilateral maritime strategy is the reoccurrence of typical security dilemma that aggravates military conflict between China and the US and provoke more militarization. In sum, the ‘maritime security’ promoted by the ROK Navy is a plan closed connected to the global, hegemonic maritime strategy of the US, and thus a fictitious security discourse that will, when implemented, trigger conflict over maritime control with other neighboring countries by rapidly militarizing the sea, rather than contributing to expanded maritime safety and cooperation. Lacking sensitive reading of the international debates and reactions to maritime hegemony, it is none other than a habitual imitation and following of the US hegemonic maritime strategy.

From the late 1990s to early 2000, Jeju Island has elevated itself to a place free of Cold War and militarism. With Gorbachev’s and Jiang’s visits and meetings at the island, Jeju has become the scene of normalization of relationship between ROK and former belligerent powers. The first defense ministers’ meeting of two Koreas was also held here, and the future venue for the next inter-Korean summit was also proposed to be here. These developments led to Roh officially announcing Jeju as the Island of Peace.

The increased ‘regional role’ of the ROK Navy in the name of ‘maritime security’ or ‘protection of maritime routes’ means formation of ROK-US combined naval force in response to China’s naval activities. This implies inevitable involvement in military conflicts with China. Despite the ROK Navy’s denial, the Jeju naval base now under construction can always used by the US navy in its operations to check China, and will have the capacity of calling the US AEGIES equipped with ABMD, nuclear carriers and nuclear submarines. In response to such critiques, the ROK Navy now changed the rational to the need of deterring North Korean naval provocations and the need of having general sea power to protect ROK’s own maritime territory.

However, the danger of forward deployment by the US and ROK naval forces has risen higher today than in Roh’s time. At least, Roh’s government took guard against ROK-US alliance becoming a regional/global force and getting involved in a regional conflict, and stressed for autonomous control of ROK’s forces as a defense principle.

However, Lee’s government took the reverse by strengthening the regional and global role of the alliance and justifying forward deployment of the US offensive forces, especially the sea power, in the pretext of North Korea’s asymmetric threat. As a result, maritime conflicts between the US and China have gone serious around Korea, fortifying the new cold war structure. The gravity of the problem is added by the rapid rise of China’s economic power and the reverse of the US, which is fueling more hegemonic competition between the two. Now the balance between strategic cooperation and strategic competition between the two turning more towards competition, the US attempts to exercise exclusive maritime control in the west pacific sea would limit China’s tolerance towards their front sea and might trigger her to engage in new hegemonic conflicts.

As some experts say, “With its deepening economic interdependence with China, ROK may face a serious dilemma if the US one day asks ROK to join its China containment as a member of the ROK-US alliance.” Traditionally siding with the US alone, ROK may face a deep crisis of foreign relations more quickly than habitually thought, in these not-so traditional times.

The geopolitical danger of the Jeju naval base and the US and ROK forces using it together is greater than ever before. Its construction must be re-examined from the beginning. But, it is not only the base in Jeju. The whole sum of regionalization of the alliance and offensive military reforms and operation plans, now carried out in the name of ROK-US Alliance for the 21st Century, must be re-examined from the base.

Ⅱ. The Civic Initiatives for Peace and Disarmament in the Aisa-Pacific Region

A Civic Proposal for a Peace System of Korea _ Namjoo Lee

The issues and alternatives of the NLL : the West Sea, from powder keg to eco-peace zone on the Korean peninsula
_ Jungeun Park/Huisun Kim

Japan's Initiatives for a Nuclear Weapon-Free Peaceful World and Northest Asia _ Yayoi Tsuchida

The Civic Challenges and the Gangjeong Naval Base Resistance
_ Mattew Hoey

Challenges of the Peace Movement in Korea in 2011
: Towards Denuclearization and Disarmament in Northeast Asia
_ Jungeun Park

A Civic Proposal for a Peace System of Korea

Namjoo Lee _ PSPD, ROK

Namjoo Lee is Chair of Center for the Peace and Disarmament at PSPD.

Since 2010, the Center for Peace and Disarmament of PSPD (CPD-PSPD) has made efforts to design and propose a peace system of Korea or a peace system in and around Korea, from a civic perspective. In April this year, CPD-PSPD held a forum to announce its draft proposal and listened to various opinions and reviews given to it. At the moment, the proposal is in its last stage of revision and complementation.

The reasons why PSPD wants to design and propose a peace system of Korea are three-fold.

First, in order to guarantee permanent peace in Korea, it is necessary to transform the cease-fire system born from the 1953 armistice agreement into a peace system. The cease-fire situation has not put an end to the hostility among the former belligerent powers of the Korean War, resulting in a constant threat to peace. It was under the armistice that small and large military clashes rather repeatedly occurred between North and South Koreas and between North Koreaand the US. Several of themwere in fact potential crises of all-out war. The cease-fire system has furtherweakened since the demise of the global Cold-War system. It is because the Korean situation has gone more unstable when the previousmilitary balance of the Cold War that has allowed a relative stability in the cease-fire system collapsed. The root of the North Korean nuclear crisis can also be found in the mismatch between the demise of the global Cold-War system and the contrary in the Korean peninsula. Thus, a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Korea is not possible without ending the hostility among the former belligerent powers and transforming the cease-fire system into a peace system.

Second, the North policy of the Lee Myung-bak government, to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue through pressure, has resulted in heightening the tension in Korea. Before that, since the government of Kim Dae-jung, the North policy has been for reconciliation and cooperation with North Korea, which contributed to the lessening of the military tension and creating basic frames for peace-building in Korea. Lee Myung-bak, however, denounced such an approach, practically halted humanitarian assistance to the north, raised possibility of sudden change in North Korea, and conducted repeated military exercises, giving an impression that his government may be pursuing a reunification of Korea by absorption. According to the information leaked through the WikiLeaks, the Minster of Unification, the chief foreign affairs and security aid to the President and other officials of current ROK governmentgave to their US counterparts their expectation of forthcoming surrender or collapse of North Korea through increased pressure. Since the end of the Cold War, a variety of North Korea collapse theories have been put forward, but so far only to self-contradict. Worse than the failure of predicting is that such Cold-War style approachand total denunciation of North Koreadeepened the existing tension. The heightened military tension since Lee Myung-bak came to power is also an outcome this mechanism. Therefore, we need more than any time a vision of peace in Korea that sets a frame of solving problems through dialogue and cooperation and replaces the unrealistic theory of North Korea’s collapse.

Third, it is citizens who should be the subject of peace building in Korea. The long cease-fire system has created a mentality of thinking of security only in terms of national security. The paradox is the situation where the logic of national security actually threatens the reallife and safety of citizens. Both North and South Koreasare dominated by, with a varying degree, extreme ideologies and militarist culture that inhibit democracy or democratic consolidation and sacrifice people’s welfare. It is also due to this failure of transforming national security system into citizen’s security system that whenever two Korean governments lowered tension and expanded dialogues, such progress was repeatedly and easily reversed later. The dominant structure of division created mutually dependent, antagonistic co-existence, which in turn created power groups that benefit from the antagonism. Those privileged power groupsin this system do not want peace in Korea. Without transforming this system, peace-building in Korea remains remote. Thus, it is necessary to build civic subject who can plan a role and work for peace system in Korea from citizens’ perspective. The main objective of building such a peace system is to provide humane livelihood as top priority to the peoples in and around Korea.

Below are the principles and key points of the PSPD’s plan and proposal for a peace system in Korea.

First, it is to keep the principles of pacifism – to build peace through peaceful means. War cannot be justified under any objectives. We know by the experience of the past history that giving priority in military supremacy in the name of national security leads to neither peace nor increased securityof citizens. Peace is not just an objective, but its means of achieving a safe and humane livelihood. Beliefs and approaches to attain a peaceful situation based on superiority of force such as increased armament must be abandoned. In particular, ROK’s aggressive military operation plans and exercises that are being conducted in the pretext of preparing for sudden change in North Koreamust be stopped.

Second, building a peace system of Korea must start from respecting and implementing the agreements signed by North and South Koreas and neighboring countries. It is urgent to restore the north-south relations and restart the exchanges by respecting and observing the existing agreements between two Koreas such as the Basic Agreement, the June 15th Joint Statement, and the October 4th Summit Statement. The process to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue must also restart based on the existing international agreements such as the September 19th Joint Statement.

In implementing the existing agreements, we stress the importance of demonstrating the principle of reciprocity, by which one side takesthe initiatives of carrying out the agreement duties. In fact, a formalistic reciprocity such as the current practices of demanding the other side to carry out the agreement first makes both sides unable to escape from the security dilemma. As we have recently witnessed, such an approach can easily turn the north-south relations into a chicken game. An escape from the security dilemma would be pacifist, leading actions by one side first that can induce similar actions to the other side.

The most important objective in this process is to agree on denuclearization of Korea and to sign a peace treaty between two Koreas. As stated earlier, the North Korean nuclear problem has its root in the continuing antagonism among the former belligerent parties of the Korean War. Thus, the two problems have to be solved in parallel, the ending of the war and nuclear programmes. Peacefully resolving the current conflict between two Koreas can create a favorable environment for signing a peace treaty. If two Koreascould carry out the already agreed West Sea Peace and Cooperation Zone Plan and resolve the NLL (Northern Limit Line)issue peacefully, they may create a turning point towards signing a peace treaty. In this respect, the peaceful resolution of the NLL issue could become a making of peace treaty in a small scale.

Furthermore, this objective goes beyond north-south relations, becauseit would have direct impact to clearing up the Cold War legacy and developing a multilateral body of security cooperation in the region. The denuclearization of Korea should expand to that of Northeast Asia while the peace system of Korea should expand to that of Northeast Asia too. With a varying degree, countries in this region show signs of rapidly developing civil society where conditions are maturing for discussing regional peace beyond the narrow frame of national interest. Communication and cooperation among such civil society actors will take more and more importance.

Third, the peace system of Korea is oriented towards a unified Korea. A peace system requires mutual respect for the other political and economic system, institutionalizing a North-South Korean Union as a peace-making, cooperative and transitional body. The starting point of this institutionalization would be regular summit meetings. If the current distrustful and confrontational system of division continues, permanent and sustainable peace-building would not be possible. The system of division provided a fertile ground for mistrust, clashes, various forms of division-related violence, arms build-up and confrontation in Korea and the region. In Korea, peace and unification are the two sides of the same coin.

Aiming to achieve a unified, single state along the nationalist logic may not contribute to peace making very much. The transformation of the division system in Korea must go based on recognition of the reality where two very different systems have emerged across the border andtowards realizing core values for the shared future such as peace, welfare and ecological sustainability. For this, the most appropriate transitional body for unification would be North-South Union, a union of two independent states that recognize each other and work towards a unified state formationin a gradual and peaceful way. This would be an institutionalization of political cooperation and joint management of threats to peace, reconciliation and cooperation between two Koreas.

This process will increase the role played by civic actors in inter-Korea exchanges and cooperation, strengthening the basis for peace. In promoting the North-South Union, we may need to include a civilian body of cooperation and participation in the institutions of the Union.A proposal to install a special zone for youth exchange has already been made with regard to peace-making in the West Sea.

Fourth, we need measures to guarantee citizens participation in the peace system. In particular, security related information and interpretation must not be confined to the state: they must be open to public and a new environment must be created so that citizens can communicate and discuss different views on safety. The first step is to strengthen democratic control over the security policy- and decision-making. The parliamentary authority and control must be substantiated over the use of military force and overseas dispatch. In order to prevent the misuse of authority for classification of information, the criteria of classification and management must be strictly limited and civil society participation in the deliberation of armament expenditure must be institutionalized.

The formation of peace system of Korea will ultimately depend on people’s and civil servants’ capacity for peaceful conflict resolution. For this, the central and local governments should develop conflict resolution programmes, establish such special agencies and increase their role in the field. The current governmental efforts to expand collective security training for youth invitedeep concerns. The government must shift its focus to developing and distributing peace-sensitizing educational programmes.

Fifth, the peace system of Koreawill be established by respecting and further enhancing international legal norms. The making of a peace system in Koreawill have international political implications to the countries in Northeast Asia. It is from highlighting the merit of shifting the current deterrence-oriented policies towards conflict prevention-oriented ones. The peace system of Koreawill rest on the principles of minimum armament for defense, ban of use of military force in international conflicts, peaceful resolution of conflict, and mutual respect and tolerance. With those principles, and by respecting and realizing the norms enshrinedin the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally agreed conventions, the making of peace system of Korea should contribute to peace-building in the world.

The ‘Proposal for a Peace System of Korea’of PSPD is not in its final form. It is merely to propose the starting point for having such a plan whereby citizens become the subject of peace-building. Through more discussions with and participation of larger public, we hope that it will be supplemented and revised with more developed ideas and more practical contributions to become the citizen’s proposal for a peace system of Korea.

The issues and alternatives of the NLL
: the West Sea, from powder keg to eco-peace zone on the Korean peninsula

This paper is a summary of the PSPC Issue Report published on 22 Nov. 2011.

Jungeun Park/Huisun Kim_PSPD, ROK

Activists of Center for Peace and Disarmament at PSPD.

Abstract

The NLL is groundless in the Armistice Agreement, nor is a matter of territorial sea claim. The West Sea border which North Korea contends is also groundless in the Agreement. In the situation that the both sides comply with the 12 nautical-mile territorial sea regulation, the South has not ever declared that the five islands in the West Sea should be within its territory, and even some parts of the islands can be under the North’s territory by the same regulation. Either is controversial. It is true that the South, in practice, has jurisdiction over the NLL. However, the North also contended that the NLL area should belong to its territory and refused to acknowledge the NLL. The South admitted that the NLL was not the exact demarcation of south-north boundary.

For these reasons,diverse solutions for peaceful settlement had been proposed and attempted until the launch of the Lee administration in 2008 since the early nineties. However, this could not continue and military confrontations around the NLL occurred four times. In 2009 and 2010,the military conflicts had been provoked recurrently in the West Sea especially along with the Lee administration’s hard-line policy. As the rules of engagement were simplified and various high-tech weapons were recently deployed on the islands, armed conflict and tension have been increasing.

Atthis point in time, one year after the shelling of Yeonpyeongdo inflicted even civilian casualties, the NLL issues cannot be postponed. The government should cease fortifying the West Sea islands and deploying weapons on the area, which act as military deterrents against the North’s retaliation, instead restore crisis management system such as installing military hot-lines as soon as possible to avert accidental military conflicts.

Also, the existing peaceful solutions on which were already agreed between the both, for instance, the idea of West Sea special zone for peace and cooperation, the designation of common fishery zone and West Sea eco-peace park, should be promoted. And among various sectors including civil society should academic research and debate be conducted in this process.

Above all, settling the NLL issues which are a miniature of the Division System with peaceful solutions, means not only guaranteeing the right to exist and safety of local residents and soldiers on the five islands of the West Sea, but initiating Korean peace regime. In this regard, the government’s North Korea policy needs a big shift, as do great efforts at inter-Korean talks.

Background and Objectives

It has been one year since the battle between the South and North on Yeonpyeongdo occurred on 23 Nov. 2010. Yeonpyeong Attack, the first battle on land from the Korean War Armistice Agreement upward, reconfirmed that peace in the West Sea is a matter of great concern to monitor peace on the Korean Peninsula. Resolving the problem of military conflicts in the West Sea, specifically conflicts over the NLL is a prerequisite for peace settlement on the Korean peninsula. However, Yeongpyeong Attack which occurred last year led to sharp military confrontation and increased tension again, rather than a chance to seek peaceful solution for conflict prevention.

The fundamental reason for the conflict around the West Sea NLL is because the West Sea border between the South and North was not demarcated. Some parts of below the NLLoverlap with territorial waters of North Korea, which was the reason that the armed conflicts occurred four times in the West Sea and that the two Koreas discussed and negotiated peaceful solutions.

The People’s Solidarity of Participatory Democracy(PSPD) examined the background, origin and issues of the NLL conflicts, and reviewed the existing peaceful solutions in this report. Above all, PSPD proposes that peaceful solution to the West Sea NLL issues should be in urgent need to seek, based on the established inter-Korean agreements and talks, and urges that inter-Korean talks and negotiation concerning this matter be held soon.

Inconvenient Truths concerning the NLL
: The Background of Conflicts

1. There’s No the MDL(Military Demarcation Line) in the sea! The NLLgroundless in the Armistice Agreement

The NLLwas not drawn up for the maritime MDL, but for the South’s security patrol not to cross the North’s waters. In other words, the NLL is a kind of guideline for conflict prevention issued by the United Nations Command(UNC), not the maritime MDL.

Lee, Mun-hang the former special advisor on the Armistice of the UNC, ‘The US also didn’t view as the maritime borderline’, The Hankyeoreh newspaper(2007/10/14), retrieved on 2011/11/18. Lee, Yang-ho the formal Minister of National Defense said at the National Assembly, "It is no relevant to the violation of the Armistice if a naval vessel of the North crossed the NLL.(...) Some of our fishing boats went up to the North while working, for this reason the NLL was drawn up" (1996/7/16)

There was no agreement or approval on the West Sea NLL between the South and North, nor did the UNC which drew up the NLL notify the North of it. The official stanceof the UNC is that the NLL is not the maritime MDL. Lee, Mun-hang the former special advisor on the Armistice of the UNC, ‘The US also didn’t view as the maritime borderline’, The Hankyeoreh newspaper(2007/10/14), retrieved on 2011/11/18. Lee, Yang-ho the formal Minister of National Defense said at the National Assembly, "It is no relevant to the violation of the Armistice if a naval vessel of the North crossed the NLL.(...) Some of our fishing boats went up to the North while working, for this reason the NLL was drawn up" (1996/7/16) No case calling into question the NLL violation can be found in the documentation regarding the Armistice Agreement violation by the UNC Military Armistice Commission.

Under the Agreement, the MDL was clearly included on land but the maritime MDL in the West Sea not stipulated owing to disagreement. The Agreement also stated that the five islands of the West Sea were the territory of South Korea without the maritime MDL. No subsequent agreement has been concluded regarding the maritime MDL. Instead, it was stated that territorial waters, namely ‘adjacent sea surface’ should be respected. Moreover, all military capability was pulled back to the rear of adjacent sea surface, blockading every port was banned according to the Agreement. Therefore, the West Sea NLL is groundless on the Agreement. There is also the NLL in the East Sea. It is vague, horizontally extended from the MDL on land, It was not as widely publicized as the NLL in the West Sea, but the North mentioned it several time at the Military Armistice Commission(MAC) unlike the NLL in the West Sea case. With no objection from the South, the NLL in the East Sea has maintained its current situation. However, it is de facto groundless, without agreement in the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement and its affiliated Agreement.

There is also the NLL in the East Sea. It is vague, horizontally extended from the MDL on land, It was not as widely publicized as the NLL in the West Sea, but the North mentioned it several time at the Military Armistice Commission(MAC) unlike the NLL in the West Sea case. With no objection from the South, the NLL in the East Sea has maintained its current situation. However, it is de facto groundless, without agreement in the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement and its affiliated Agreement..

2. The NLL is not applicable to territorial waters.

Some often claim that the NLL is the South’s territorial waters to be defended. It comes from a misunderstanding that the seas above and below the NLL are as if it divided into respective territorial waters. However, territorial sea includes certain ranges of surrounding territorial land (within the 12 nautical-mile limit according to the international law of the sea), thus it is wrong to argue that the NLL is a concept of territorial waters.

Each territorial sea is the own domain of its country and both Koreas have followedthe 12 nautical-mile rule. Thus, based on this, it is needed to consider territorial seas around the five islands in the West Sea and North Korea. The islands can be included the North’s territory given the 12 nautical-mile under the international law of the sea. It would breach the Armistice Agreement if the NLL could violate the North’s adjacent sea surface.

At the moment, the 12 nautical-mile straight baseline of the South stipulated up to Soryeong Island and it has not been ever declared that the waters surrounding the five islands should be within the South’s territory. It is probably because territorial sea was not demarcated considering that the waters are near to borderland area.

North Korea declared its territorial sea, based on the 12 nautical-mile limit in 1955 and received approval by the US in 1968 contending the regulation in the ship Pueblo’s case. Since the West Sea Affair in 1973, it has officially taken the stance against the NLL and asserted that the area above Gyeonggi-Hwanghaedo boundary line should be its territory. In addition, the North suggested drawing up a new West Sea border based on the 12 nautical-mile territorial waters in the UNC Military Armistice Commission in 1973. On 2 Sep.1999, it proclaimed ‘the Choseon West Sea MDL’ including the five islands in the West Sea.

3. The maritime MDL in the West and East Sea by the North is also groundless.

North Korea declared the 200 nautical-mile EEZ(Exclusive Economic Zone) from territorial sea baseline on 1 July 1977 and the Military Boundary Waters(MBW) on 1 Aug. The EEZ is equidistant in the East and West Sea between the South and North, not considering the five islands in the West Sea.

The whole EEZ in the West Sea was designated as the MBW, and 50 nautical-mile was extended from territorial sea baseline in the East Sea. The area below the MBW coincides with ‘the West Sea border’ officially proclaimed by the North in 1999 and does with the eastern extension from the MDL, i.e. the NLL in the East Sea.

However, military waters or security waters are not approved under the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone(1958) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) in 1982. In a Contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to prevent infringement of its immigration, fiscal, sanitary and marine pollution law, not of security affairs according to Article 33 of the UNCLOS. Therefore, the maritime MDL in the West and East Sea by North Korea is also proved groundless in the Armistice Agreement and the relevant international law.

Military Conflicts around the NLL

The situation that the both sides have disagreed on the NLL with no military MDL led to military conflictsin the West Sea. Since the North seized 56 South Korean ships for the first time in Dec. 1957, four military confrontations occurred so far in June 1999 and 2002, Nov. 2009 and 2010 respectively. Refer to the Korean report for details of the conflicts that occurred four times.

Refer to the Korean report for details of the conflicts that occurred four times.

As military clashes over the NLL had continued, both Koreas agreed that they would continue to negotiate the non-aggression maritime borderline on high-level talks in the early nineties. However, implementing the agreement was deferred and the first armed clash occurred in 1999, which inflicted heavy casualties on the North side. Since then, ‘The Choseon West Sea MDL’ and ‘The passage order on the five islands in the West Sea’ were proclaimed by the North, but the South did not recognize them and in 2002, the North’s sneak attack on a South’s naval vessel also left many casualties.

To resolve the NLL issues peacefully, both sides started discussion and agreed on the designation of common fishery zone, the operation of international merchant ship common fishnet, and in 2007 the idea of West Sea special zone for peace and cooperation. However, these plans were not implemented due to different views from both sides on the range and standard of the common fishery zone.

Military clashes in the West Sea have occurred twice since the launch of the Lee administration. The North announced in Jan. 2009 that it would adhere to the maritime MDL in the West Sea proclaimed by itself in 1999, and "denounce the article concerning ‘the MDL’ in the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement and its affiliated Agreement", said the spokesperson of General Staff Department in a statement. In Nov. 2009, armed clash recurred and led to Yeongpyeong Attack in 2010.

Yeongpyeong conflict last year resulted from the gunnery exercise of the South near the NLL, which caused the North to consider it a military threat and to shell the island, and left even civilian casualties. With regard to this, the South contended that it was a ‘routine’ exercise toward the below the NLL, southwest direction of the island, but the North could have taken it as an attack on its territorial sea.

Since the incident, the Lee administration push ahead fortification of the islands and deployed K-9 self-propelled artillery, Multiple Launch Rocket System(MLRS), surface-to-air ’Cheon-ma’ missiles and GPS-guided "Spike" missiles, with the follow-up measures such as forming the Northwest Islands Defense Command in June this year. Minister of National Defense Kim Kwan-jin repeatedly made provocative remarks about striking even supporting base in case the North triggered any conflict. Hard-line military responses have continued without suitable measures to lessen military tension or to seek peaceful solutions. Hence, it was almost certain that military clashes over the NLL would occur.

The issues in respect to the effective control of the NLL

As conflicts around the NLL recurred, some claim that the NLL should be defended by the South because it has taken control over the NLL for almost 50 years. Also, others say that the North tacitly recognized the NLL considering it had not raised any question about the NLL for 20 years until Dec. 1973 it addressed the question of five islands in the West Sea at the Military Armistice Commission(MAC).

In the first place, there is already a legal precedent that acquisition of territory requires 50 years of period under the International law. It is also said that this international customary law cannot be applicable to the situation as the North has addressed the issues since 1973. The argument that the North tacitly acknowledged the NLL for around 20 years is refutable in that the area was stated ‘in international waters’ in the serious incident report since 1955 by the South’s armed forces. Others view that many incidents such as the North attacking and seizing fishing boats were the defense of territorial sea below the NLLafter it officially declared the 12 nautical-mile regulation in 1955.

In addition, a US CIA document released in 2000 revealed that the NLL was drawn under the command of the UNC naval component commander in 1965, not in 1953. The document also cautioned that "the NLL crosses two areasthat appear the North’s territory", which has potential risk to conflict. In this regard, the concern is noteworthy that the NLL was violation of international law, said Henri Kissinger in Feb. 1975 and if any clash near the NLL, "The ROK and the U.S. might appear in the eyes of a significant number of other countries to be in the wrong," said the US Ambassador Francis Underhill in Dec. 1973.

According to the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement taken effect in 1992, there are non-aggression sea border, non-aggression land borderand non-aggression area, but it clearly stated that non-aggression sea border was not determined and would need further discussion.

The Review of Peaceful Solution to the NLL

As the North’s opposition to the unilateral act of the NLLwas stronger, both Koreas adopted the Basic Agreement in 1991 and agreed on the discussion about non-aggression sea border but it did not continue. Since the summit talk in 2000, the South and North have discussed peace issue in the West Sea, signed on ‘the affiliated agreement for the implement of 6.4 Agreement in 2004 and planned to operate the international merchant ship common fishnet. Also, improvement scheme for accidental collision and the designation of common fishery zone were discussed at the general-level talks in 2006 along with regular trial communication of the international merchant ship common fishnet, installing military hot-lines. Thereafter, through the second summit talks and the Oct. 4 Declaration in 2007, the two sides undertook to avert accidental collision in the West Sea and to set up West Sea special zone for peace and cooperation. However, these plans were not implemented due to different views fromboth sides on the range and standard of the common fishery zone. After all, inter-Korean relations deteriorated since in 2008 the launch of the Lee administration, peace issues in the West Sea did not go further.

Contiguous sea zones such as Baengnyeongdo and Yeonpyeongdo have the most well-preserved abundant fishery resources and coastal ecosystem, with over 60% of blue crab output, many protected species and various resources in South Korea. However, fishery environment has highly declined because of Chinese fishing boats fishing illegally near the NLL during military confrontation. It is worrying that their overfishing would affect marine ecosystem and fishery resources depletion.

In this respect, many solutions were suggested, for instance, determining common fishery zone or peace sea zone, designating marine eco-park and developing economic cooperation zone and so on, which means using the area for eco-peace purpose with no new border or conflict. The common fishery zone can particularly benefit both locals who have endured tremendous economic loss and threatened peaceful life whenever military conflicts only if it is agreed by them on the range and standard.

The plan for West Sea special zone for peace and cooperation was designed to settle peace through economic cooperation as follows : development of Haeju special zone, energizing Incheon-Haeju sea route for West Sea Economic Area, the Han estuary joint development. The idea is that both Koreas can share profitthrough joint development projects and lesson military tension in northeast Asia. Although the plan emphasizes eco-friendly approach, it is also biased towards development. It is true that the North is in need of such development. Nonetheless, the West Sea eco-peace parkcan be favorably considered as a plan to highlight the symbolic meaning of the conflictual area and utilize marine ecosystem which remain intact during the division. It will be the most peaceful and ecological alternative in that it can obtain international support and certification.

There is another opinion on this : the designation of peace sea zone by combining common fishery zone with eco-peace park. It would mean barring warships from entering the DMZ in the West Sea but ensuring fishing boats’ business. Disaster plans and marine ecosystem protection were also proposed as a duty of co-management organization based on bilateral agreement. It is said that joint research and cooperation in terms of professionals and technology should follow so as to preserve marine biodiversity.

If a sea border is needed, it should be considered to be the action for peace settlement with no more accidental collision, using the sea for public purpose and freedom of navigation. Therefore, it should be demarcation of utilizing the sea in a peaceful way, not military border.

The proposals for peaceful settlement of the NLL

It is irresponsible to adhere to provocative hard-line attitude in that armed conflict could recur and the government already realized the situation. It is not also desirable to ignore the existing proposals negotiated in order to avert armed conflict in the West Sea.

First, military actions and plans since Yeonpyeong Attack in 2010, for example, deploying high-tech firepower forward in the West Sea islands and formulating the US intervention in case of war, need to cease as those could precipitate the North’ increased asymmetric threat. Instead, it is required to install hot-lines for armed conflict prevention, to establish communication network and operate early warning system between the South and North. Also, inter-Korean talks demand resumption and especially at the high-level military talks crisis management system should be restored so that peaceful solution discussion on the NLL in the West Sea can continue.

The existing peaceful solutions on which were already agreed between the both should be promoted - for instance, the implementation of West Sea special zone for peace and cooperation which the both agreed on, the designation of common fishery zone and West Sea eco-peace park. And among various sectors including civil society should academic research and debate be conducted in this process.It will the process of solutions for eco-peace waters in the West Sea.

Above all, North Korea policy switch is urgently needed in that the aspect of or response to the NLL isclosely related to hard-line North Korea policy of the government. Settling the NLL issues which are a miniature of the Division System with peaceful solutions, means not onlyguaranteeing the right to exist and safety of local residents and soldiers on the five islands of the West Sea, but initiating Korean peace regime. In this regard, the government’s policy toward North Korea needs a big shift, as do great efforts at inter-Korean talks.

Japan's initiatives for a nuclear weapon-free peaceful world and Northeast Asia

Yayoi Tsuchida_Gensuikyo, Japan

Yayoi Tsuchida is Assistant general secretary, Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Gensuikyo)

Threats to humanity

Before I enter my theme, I want to touch upon threats to humanity. If I am asked to redefine threats to humanity, I will define that they are nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and economy of neo-liberalism. I don’t want a national security policy based on threats. And I think that now people’s awareness of these threats is growing.

Abolition of nuclear weapons

First of all, about the abolition of nuclear weapons, our main task. Now, more than 66 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have a new opportunity before us to open a road to our common goal: a nuclear weapon-free, peaceful and just world. On May 1 last year, on the eve of the opening of the 2010 NPT Review Conference in New York, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appeared before us, people assembled from many countries, and said, "What I see on the horizon is a world free of nuclear weapons". He thus encouraged the peace movements to continue its important work.

The 2010 NPT Review Conference produced historic outcome: It agreed that "to achieve the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" was a goal and principle, and that all states need to make "special effort" to establish the "necessary framework"to achieve the goal. It further noted as part of the action plan to the proposal of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the need for a convention banning nuclear weapons.

Start of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapon Convention is Possible Even Now!

We have pursued the elimination of nuclear weapons by legally banning these weapons. Achieving the abolition may take some time, but banning nuclear weapons does not. The reality under NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) is giving an evidence. Of the 190 members to NPT, as many as 185 parties are already banning themselves from acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. Moreover, China, a nuclear weapon state, India and Pakistan, two non-NPT members having nuclear weapons, and even North Korea voted last December in the UN General Assembly in support of the start of negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention.

There are even more new developments in the current session of the UNGA. Norway, Mexico and Austria together put forward a new resolution, proposing that work for a world without nuclear weapons be sought under the UNGA. Even ambassadors of U.K. and Russia admitted in response to our question that a convention would become necessary to achieve a nuclear weapon-free world, though, they added, it would be "at a final state". All these indicate that the start of actions to ban on nuclear weapons is possible right now, if only a handful of nuclear weapon states make up their mind.

Action of Civil Society is the Key

To turn these positive conditions into reality, the action of civil society is the key.  On Oct. 3, Mr. Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affaris, said something bold at the opening session of the Fist Committee. Referring the signatures presented to the 2010 NPT review conference, including 1 million by Mayors for Peace and our 7 million signatures, he said,"@"As we consider these facts,…it is possible to observe two reinforcing trends… The first is the trend associated with the democratic revolution now sweeping the world, not just the Middle East. Evidence that democracy is coming to disarmament is indisputable in the actions I have just cited… And as democracy is coming to disarmament, so too is the rule of law."

On February 15 this year, we issued an appeal calling for a total ban on nuclear weapons, and started a new signature campaign in support of this appeal. The campaign obtained support from extensive range of people in Japanand overseas, including the UN. The aim is to mobilize public opinion in support of the ongoing sincere efforts in international politics for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

On Oct. 5 this month, we submitted the first achievement of the campaign, the 1,029,031 signatures, to the First Committee of the UNGA. The signatures included 766 mayors, who represent about 44 percent of all Japanese municipalities. These signatures were collected overcoming difficulties: After the March 11 huge earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power plant accident, the mood of the people changed. Yet, our campaign did not stop even in the disaster afflicted areas. We promoted the abolition campaign and the urgent rescueactions as a set of inseparable tasks. This activity was welcomed by local governments and people in the disaster struck areas, increasing their support for abolition of nuclear weapons.

With the start of a new NPT process and the planned international conference on the Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction in 2012 in sight, we will carry on this campaign to build up momentum and develop movements to put pressure on governments, in particular nuclear weapon states, so that the abolition of nuclear weapons can be accelerated. This is our global initiative and I call on you to support and join this campaign to create a world without nuclear weapons, which I am sure will help resolve the nuclear issue of Northeast Asia.

For a nuclear weapon-free peaceful Northeast Asia

In order to create a nuclear weapon-free peaceful Northeast Asia, first of all, we call on North Koreato renounce its nuclear development, and on all parties concerned to pursue and achieve denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through the framework of the six party talks.

At the same time, I want to point out that in promoting a nuclear weapon-free world, as well as peace in Northeast Asia, the Japanese Government has a special responsibility and roleto play as a government of both the only country to have suffered from the calamity of nuclear attacks and the country that has the peaceful Constitution of renouncing war, based on the serious reflection of its past war of aggression against Asian countries.

In reality, however, theJapanese government has responded to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development by building up the "Missile Defense" network, the Japan-US joint operations and the reinforcement of the US military bases in Japan. Underlying this is Japan’s deep dependency on the military alliance with the US, including and among others on the US "nuclear umbrella". But Japan’s call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, or even call on North Koreato abandon nuclear program sounds hollow, if Japan itself keeps staying under the "nuclear umbrella".

The 21st century, however, should no longer be time where the world relies in its security on force or military alliance or on the threat of nuclear weapons. Actually, East Asia has seen rich initiatives such as ASEAN regional forum and Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free zone to develop dialogue and cooperation to prevent or resolve conflicts through talks. The Japanese governmentshould join in this development. In this regard, too, we urge the Japanese government to take the initiative in pursuing a convention banning nuclear weapons, and as a token of its sincerity we urge it to renounce the secret nuclear agreements with the US, break away from the "nuclear umbrella" and declare that Japan is a nuclear weapon-free country.

Another Reality of Japan

Our second initiative is to change the policy of the Japanese government.  Even in this task, action of civil society is the key. While rushing to meet US demands, the Japanese government is still in deep trouble and contradiction, because of firm and strong public support for nuclear free and Article 9 of the peace Constitution.

In these past years, our struggles for peace and non-nuclear weapons have shaken Japan’s politics. We drove Prime Minister Abe into resignation over his attempt to revise Article 9 of the Constitution, and did the same to Prime Minister Aso over his remark of Japan’s nuclear armament. After the change of government, failure of Hatoyama over the US Futenma base resulted in his resignation.

I think that as a bottom effort leading to these changes, there is our daily activity of overcoming the "threat of North Korea". The threat of North Korea has been propagated by the government and through mass media, making the best use of North Korea’s abduction of Japanese people and the developmentof nuclear weapons and missiles, etc. In substance, it was used for justifying and promoting Japan’s military buildup and keeping itself under the US nuclear umbrella. As a result, Japanese people have uneasiness about North Korea, fearing it might attack Japan with nuclearweapons and missiles. Whenever we take to streets to collect signatures for a total ban on nuclear weapons, we receive such worry from people. But after having a dialogue with us, they change and support our petition. From our experience, we are confident that nobody wants a nuclear exchange over the sky of Japan and the Korean Peninsula.

The reality of Okinawa also presents the same lesson. Despite the heavy pressures, few believe that the US bases in Okinawa are for their interest.  Okinawa people are more firmly determined and united than ever before not to allow the relocation of Futenma marine base to Henoko. When the Noda government is trying to achieve the relocation as a top priority and is trying to join TPP negotiations to meet the US economic demands while spending huge amount of money for military and the US forces at the sacrifice of the people’s livelihood, we are going to hold the Japan Peace Conference in Okinawa on Nov. 24-27 to wage a big fight-back from Asia-Pacific to create a nuclear weapon-free, peaceful Asia-Pacific without military bases. Activists from Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, Palau will gather in the Conference. We want to invite a representative from Jeju Island to the Conference and strengthen solidarity with their struggle, because we know that their fight is our fight.

Fukushima nuclear disaster and Gensuikyo

After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, while keeping our focus on nuclear weapons, my organization clearly put forward to work for the decommissioning of nuclear energy and a shift to renewable energy sources. As the movement that originates from the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons, wemade firm determination to work for no more radiation damage anywhere on earth.

Though we had the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Fukushima disaster is the incident that turned Japanese people unable to be indifferent to the risk of radiation in such a big scale. People’s anger is pouring out at TEPCO and the government for their failure of settling the accident and giving correct and enough information about radiation contamination and safety. Being unable to trust the government, they are getting to rise in action themselves to measure and remove radiation contamination, and urge local and national governments to take necessary measures to defend people, living, safety of food and environment.

Together with helping such people’s action for rehabilitation from radiation damage, we want to organize the anti-nuclear sentiment and energy of people to the direction to creating a world without nuclear danger, posed either by nuclear power or nuclear weapons.

When the majority, either people or governments, takes action, a change will happen. This is the lesson we learned from the past changes occurred in the 21st century. With this conviction, we are determined to fulfill our responsibility in the task of abolition of nuclear weapons.

Before concluding, I want to express my hope that the cooperation between NGOs acting in and around Northeast Asiawill further develop in getting rid of nuclear weapons, peace, protecting life and living of the working people, as well as protecting environment based on sustainable energy. Thank you.

The Civic Challenges and the Gangjeong Naval Base Resistance

[Editor’s note] This article was presented at the second international workshop 『The New Cold War in Northeast Asia and the Civil Interpretation on ‘Threat’』(Nov 2, 2011). It was revised as reflecting some changes and corrections.

Matthew Hoey _ The Save Jeju Island Campaign, US

Mattew Hoey is an International Coordinator of The Save Jeju Island Campaign.

The Jeju Island naval base construction site is increasingly in the minds of some leading scholarsand peace activists, in the front line of the battle for international peace.The Gangjeong villagers have been waging a tireless and highly effective fight that stands in stark contrast to what has been a largely unsuccessful international peace movement that all too often lacks focus, unity and realistic goals. Looking back over thecollective history of peace activism,the initiation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was last measurable success in the face of US militarism. Since then US/collation wars have nearly been the constant, global military spending has increased dramatically despite claims that spending is being cut, one cannot expect the US military to miss a beat. US military space systems are coming down in cost and size, unmanned systems are replacing larger more expensive weapons platforms and the cyber soldier will progressively replace other more expensive methods of warfare. Despite the apparent pessimism, ultimately this is a story of hope.

The Jeju Island naval base project is highly symbolic and could serve as the catalyst for change in the disappointing trend of failed ventures. For international peace activists the Save Jeju Island campaign is what many have been waiting years for - an entirely winnable cause for peace with significant international implications. A victory in Gangjeong village could bethe first shot across the bow of the military industrial complex. A Gangjeong victory could serve as a model that can be scaled up and applied to the next fight for peace –while peace activism’s momentum and size will surely grow. Though how do we get there, what needs to be done and what are the challenges to achieve this first and all important victory?

First, I will provide a short overview of where we stand in Gangjeong at this very moment from what I have observed. I will also highlight the key issues on the ground and in the international press. Theseobservations will then be combined with my experiences conducting international outreach and the challenges I have personally faced – my successes as well. In the end I hope that this serves as a prescription for the road ahead. At the very least it may fuel discussions and strategic planning.

The villagers are now into their fifth year of waging the struggle to halt construction of the naval base and at this point there can be no doubt that they are at their most powerful. The peace activists and residents are waging a 24-hour, seven day a week, 365 day per year fight for peace. Each and every day in Gangjeong they tireless efforts generate events that are worthy of media attention. Though because of the isolation of the village and language barriers with international activists and media for the first four and a half years their efforts resided in a so-called "Jeju bubble." For example, colleagues in the United Stateswho are known as Korean security and nuclear experts where completely unaware of what was taking place. In fact some did not even known where Jeju Island was located. Today that has changed and peace activists have, through hard work, placed the Save Jeju Island campaign in media outlets around the world, such as Al Jazeera, MSNBC, PressTV, The Washington Times and the New York Times.

The peace community is very fortunate that the villagers have a highly sound, logical and undeniable argument against the base that stands on documented evidence, rooted in facts and science. This alone has removed many challenges that plague some peace campaigns, which are now winning over new people from all areas of the political spectrum daily around the world, a process which relies heavily on international press coverage and outreach efforts.When the entire argument is presented I have found that even the most hawkish of colleagues, including current and former military, are disturbed by the location of the base. For example, if an individual is in favor of increasing the USmilitary presence in the Asia Pacific region,the environmental dimensions of the argument against the base appeal to them. I have not found a single person during my day-to-day interactions.So when we talk about civic challenges there are not as many as one would think - at least not in the traditional sense.

The case against the naval base is divided into four categories: (1) International Security (2) Human Rights (3) Environmental/Cultural (4) Legal. These categories provide abundant opportunities for outreach.

National, regional and international security | Located less than 400miles from China, the simple presence of the Jeju Island naval base will undermine China’s national security and strategic nuclear deterrent. This ability to undermine growsexponentially when we take into consideration the presence of Aegis destroyers outfitted with a missile defense platform. Currently up to three Aegis destroyers will be present on the base site – a number which could rise to six -even higher with occasional visits from US Aegis ships that should be expected. Many world-renowned experts and missile defense analysts have stated that this base is completely ineffective at addressing the true threat to ROK security. That being the missile threat from NorthKorea since the Aegis system cannot target DPRK ballistic missiles as a result of their flight trajectory and altitude.

The location of the base does on the other hand serve as a prime location for the interception of DF-3 and DF-4 ballistic missiles located in South East China that could in theory be used to target Japan. The base also is expected to serve as a temporary port for U.S submarines and carriers such as the USS George Washington,which has been involved in war-gaming exercises with the ROKN. It is especially concerning when the depth of the planned Gangjeong portis studied, which suggests that it is more than appropriate to host nuclear armed US Trident submarines (SSBN). It is not farfetched to imagines a Cuban Missile style crisis. The temporary basing of an SSBN carrying nuclear weapons during a time of extreme tension between the USand China would provide an unparalleled first strike ability. For this and many reasons China is and will continue increasingly be concerned about the Jeju Island naval base. Simply put this military venture stands to benefit U.S national and economic security policy and not that of the ROK. The base will create far more problems than it will solve.

At this time I have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests with the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the US Department of Defense and the US Navy with no success. In the case of the MDA, an agency that openly touts the ROK-US MD partnership, they stated that they have no records whatsoever that reflect collaboration between the two nations on MD on Jeju. This is absurd to say the least and presents a challenge. Fortunately I have filed an appeal via the office of a notable USCongressman. It is my hope that in the coming months I will have additional evidence to connect the USmilitary to the Jeju base project. At the moment we are already in possession of scientific evidence suggesting this.

Human rights | The second dimension to the Jeju base argument is human rights. Gangjeong villagers are being targeted by police for their political beliefs.  The police have fined, imprisoned and held innocent villagers for legally standing up for peace in Gangjeong village. The tool for their oppression is referred to as Article 314. For those of you here in Korea you may recognize this law as a tool commonly used for pressuring trade unionsand cracking down on public assembly. The police even monitor Twitter, to find people who post the most and then forcefully investigate them. At the same time IP addresses that tie back to the security services have been seen perusing the primary English language website looking though videos and pictures from peace rallies. This is to be expected,but is unacceptable in light of a recent wave of the police calling innocent citizens in for questioning by detectives.

Recently 200 villagers were called in for questioning. These people have committed no crime and are not affiliated with any criminal enterprises. If these targeted villagers and activists do not arrive for questioning they are hit with crushing monetary penalties and can even be arrested. This is just the tip of the iceberg.At the moment we are presenting this evidence to leading international human rights organizations.

Environmental/Cultural sensitivities | The third argument includes a combination of cultural and environmental sensitivities - with three key focal points. Focal point one is the indisputable archeological significance of the Gangjeong naval base construction site. Historic relics from the Chosun dynasty have beenrecently discovered there along with human remains. At this moment the Navy is racing as fast as possible to build the base before more relics are discovered –demolishing what may be land parcels that are culturally and historically significant.

The second focal point in this category lies in the past and is cultural. The last time a military base was located on Jeju Island more than 30,000 people were killed in genocide that is known as Sasam. We can guarantee that this naval base will deliver more trauma, pain and death to the people in Jeju at some point in the future –this is an absolute certainty. Maybe not in one year, many not in ten years, but that day will come if Jeju is militarized. With the trauma that the senior members of Jeju endured the idea of militarizing the island should be temporarily suspended and a vote held. The people of Jeju have the right to choose their destiny and not be subject to a massive military presence once again.

The third argument is the plethora of environmental and cultural designations on Jeju. Those who have traveled to Jeju Islandknow that it is one of the more idyllic locations on the planet. Jeju is also internationally recognized as the Island of World Peace a claim that is impossible to maintain with a UScarrier and 20 destroyers sitting in port for any duration of time. Even the nearest large city to the base, that being Seogwipo is known officially as the City of Peaceand Hope. The three UNESCO World Natural Heritage Sites, a designation that must be reviewed at timed intervals by an official committee may be jeopardized by militarization as well. The nearest UNESCO site to the base is approximately 2 kilometers away. There are also nine UNESCO Geoparks. Compromising the status of any of these could be an economic hit to an island deeply reliant on tourism. The island is also knownas a Global Biosphere Reserve because of the diversity of its plants and animals.

Legal dimension | The fourth component is the legal dimension – specifically referring to the process that led to the approval of the base construction in the first place. At the face value the base construction approval process seems to have been approved by a democratic vote. This is the claim the ROK military on a regular basis. The truth is that only 87 people, some of whom were bribed, out of 1800 residents had an opportunity to cast a vote on this matter. The remaining 1,700 in the village had no voice and no say in the discussion contrary to what is claimed by the military.There was no paper trail to provide transparency into this sham vote, because the votes were not cast on paper but were cast by applause – by clapping. What is most disturbing is that a local media outlet announced that the base construction project was approved before the voting process was even completed.

When the village held its own re-vote, which fairly included the entire community, 94% out of 700 villagers opposed the military base – yet the government and military refused to recognize the results. The people of Gangjeong, above all are simply requesting a new fair referendum that ensures all people in the village have a voice. This is not an extreme or radical demand.A new referendum will end the protests and this five-year battle that has disrupted a community, left residents in prison and compromised the local economy. At this moment the democratically elected leader of Gangjeong village who oversaw the new 94% vote is currently in jail.

[Editor’s note] The leader of Gangjeong village became sentenced to 10million won(US$10,000) in fines on Nov 23, 2011..

These four dimensions, the arguments contained within them and even more key points that I have not listed present an unprecedented opportunity for the international NGO community to assistthe Gangjeong villagers in this noble fight. This is a very well targeted and refined campaign, rooted in facts. This fight is entirely winnable. So why is construction still continuing? Why has victory not arrived?

There are critical hurdles that offer an answer as to why we have not won this fight already. Firstly, the opinion of the Gangjeong people on this matter means very little, if anything, to the key government and military officials who can stop this base project. Especially with so few people on the Korean mainland involved. This fight is taking place behind a curtain. If not for the those few in the Korean civil society groups that are devoutly assisting Gangjeong villagers, a handful of non-profits in the international community, religious leaders in Korea and brave media outlets few people outside of Jeju island would even know that this fight is taking place.

In the Jeju bubble the military is running the show with this project and illegalities can go unnoticed and therefore unquestioned. Recently Jeju Provincial government leaders demanded that the base project be halted. The military ignored the calls. One does not have to look far to see the frustration that people have with the political process in Korea. The important victory of Park Won Soon, who belongs to no major political party, reflects this.

Imagine the Gangjeong struggle as a relay race where the first group of runners is the Gangjeong people. They are a powerful force in the race against the naval project - when they complete their leg of the race and go to hand offthe baton there are not enough people to receive it. Where do we go once we have received the baton? Where dowe run to? The answer is the internet. SNS and the web are changing the world, and are just now beginning to change Korea. Moreover, in the fightagainst the naval base the government will not respond to the people on Jeju, but they will respond to the web, they will respond to international media coverage and they will respond to international pressure. The web will shine light on the injustices being placed upon the Island of World Peace.

Many people around the world are working tirelessly to call attention to the Jeju Island naval base project. Though it is quite simply not enough – more people are needed to trigger more press coverage and contribute to social networking (SNS) outreach. We must challenge our NGO brothers and sisters begin writing articles, letters to editors and messages to their friends on SNS. For four and a half years the people of Gangjeong received no international media coverage. It was not until we international partners took to the web in partnership with Gangjeong activists and reached out to the press. We built an English language website, created newsletters, blogs and the message is spreading. Our responsibility is to wage a fight in the media and online. Gangjeong will provide us with everything we need.

In all reality there are no hurdles that we cannot remove and all it will take is additional dedicated Korean and international activists to join the people of Gangjeong. We are needed in Gangjeong more than ever - we can make a difference. This is our chance to set into motion a global movement against USmilitarization. Jeju will be the first in a series of victories. We cannot squander this opportunity. With an increase in our efforts to support the Gangjeong villagers and the help of our international partners we can help to prevent the militarization of the Island of World Peace.

Challenges of the Peace Movement in Korea in 2011 : Towards Denuclearization and Disarmament in Northeast Asia

Jungeun Park_PSPD, ROK

Jungeun Park is Director of Peace and International Solidarity Team at PSPD.

The Chonanham Incident, artilleryexchange at Yeonpyeong Island, the Fukushima disaster, and continuing arms build-up in the region – the voices for peace and disarmament were even higherin the year of 2011. This year, peace movement in South Korea made various denuclearization and disarmament efforts more than ever before. It not only addressed military confrontation between two Koreas and the high military spending of South Korea, but also focused on the rise of security dilemmas around the world and negligence of social rights and right to peaceful livelihood caused by sustained arms race.It tried to turn the public attention to the imbalance between the high military spending and lagging welfare budgets. The shockwave of the Fukushima disaster pushed peace movement in South Korea beyond the normal opposition to nuclear weapons to encounter the environmental movement for nuclear-free energy. Two movements shared the common concern over the nuclear problem, be it a weapon or a power plant, and joined hands in pressing the government to change its nuclear policy. Above, peace movement concentrated its energy to stop the construction of naval base in Jeju Island.

Campaign to stop construction of naval base in Jeju

Starting from the first efforts in 2002, this campaign continued into its 10th year this year. From the beginning, negative views were prevalent concerning the planned construction of a naval base in this island, that it might demise peace in Northeast Asia due to the geopolitical location of the island and its military-strategic values and that the island’s future would be much brighter with becoming Island of Peace. The first and second choices of the locations by the military were rejected by strong opposition from the local residents. In 2007, the military authority suddenly began to push for Gangjung village as the final candidate, triggering a full-fledged opposition around the country. The plan was not only dangerous in terms of creating military security problems but also destructive to the ecology and the affected local communities. Ignoring the opinions of the locals, resorting to unlawful procedures and pressure, conspiring to divide local communities, and threatening opposing local people with law enforcement and by fine, the government and the navy forced the construction forward. In the process, the areas designated as absolute conservation zone werecancelled of all restrictions, and environmental impact assessment of the construction area was irregularly conducted to fit the purpose of construction. Before 2011, the villagers in Gangjung had to suffer from low interest among citizens and civil society groups outside.

In 2011, physical construction was forced into the candidate location and a number of peace activists and artists directly clashed with the construction moves, which began to draw due attention around the country. Civic groups around the country began to get more organized and focus on concerted non-violent resistance to the construction, with a common objective of nullifying the whole plan. By the end of May, a national wide solidarity body emerged from peace, environmental and religious movement groups, shortened as the Jeju National Committee. The membership grew to 123 NGOs by July.

The Committee focused its efforts in advertizing the issue to the whole country and pressing political forces to intervene and reexamine the plan. The Committee held cultural events, exhibitions, cinema shows, candle-light vigils, public meeting and debates, media advertisements, thematic media reporting, etc. Engagement in the parliament was also comprehensive, from individual lobbying to monitoring budget review committee and awareness-raising discussion with parliamentarians. Legal support was given contesting the nullification of conservation area, closure of farm roads, and legal defense for the charged villagers. There were also active fund-raising activities. Special visits were organized to expand the participation of citizens from around the country, in the name of peace cruise, peace flight and peace bus, which culminated into large-scale gatherings and cultural events in Gangjung. Members of the Catholic and Protestant Churches showed deeply committed solidarity actions. International solidarity was also active pursued resulting in numerous visits, stay-in’s, and reports in international media and exchange of support messages.

Along with widening interest in the issue from within and out of the country, and with heightened tension caused by the arrests of village leaders and forcible repression by the police, this issue drew strong attention in South Korea and elsewhere. An international campaign network was also organized, Save Jeju Island Campaign.In the meantime, several incidents of misinformation given by the navy were revealed, with regard to ill disguise of civilian-cum-military use of the base and irregularities in the design and sub-contracting of the construction. However, all of these developments did not affect the navy’s determination to push forward with the construction. The five opposition parties came together to conduct a joint investigation of plan to recommend a total review of the plan and possible reduction of the construction budget for 2012. However, more than USD 80 million of the construction budget is to be carried over to 2012 from this year, along with the additional budget guaranteed by the Jeju Special Autonomous Government.The outcome of the general election in 2012 will significantlyaffect the future of the construction and Jeju Island, but this campaign will continue until the naval base plan is finally cancelled.

Global Day of Action on Military Spending

In the international workshop for disarmament organized by PSPD and others, the participants resolved to start a global, simultaneous action urging disarmament from 2011. The day was chosen for April 12th when SIPRI annually announced global statistics of military spending. The global day of action on military spending was in 2011. In this campaign, peace movements of 35 countries including the US, Switzerland, Indonesia, Ireland and South Korea staged some 100 peace events and actions urging for reduction of military spending. The high representatives of the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs also issued a statement of support for the day. In South Korea, all together 35 organizations issued a joint declaration titled "Our Tax for Welfare Not Weapons" along with 33 members of the National Assembly. The 33 parliamentarians expressed their positions by stressing that the balance from reduced military spending must be used to lower college tuition and for free school meals, job creation, child care cost, common housing, and human rights education. PSPD presented them with a nameplate for each, written "Parliamentarian in Action for Peace". The street exhibition and campaign on the day made a corner asking passers-by their opinions on the level of current military spending and where the budget should be spent better. There was also an exhibition in the Parliamentarians’Hall in the National Assembly, showing the data and analyses of military spending.

The activities of the organizers of this action day also included facts of global military spending, hypocrisy in the justification of the spending, theproportion (80%) of the permanent member states of the UN Security Council in the whole arms trade, the profit in arms trade being larger than total aid given to developing countries, the realities of the military-industrial-academia complex in the US, and the use of the US-made and exported arms by the dictators in developing countries.

Peace and Disarmament Fair, "Speak of Peace Now!"

In October, peace movement groups jointly held the second Peace and Disarmament Fair "Speak of Peace Now!" for two days coinciding with the opening day of the arms fair, the SeoulInternational Aerospace and Defense Exhibition 2011 (ADEX 2011). The first peace and disarmament fair was held in 2010. The rational is to counter the effect of arms fair such ADEX on promoting development, production, trade and race of arms. The Peace and Disarmament Fair focused on the tragedy caused by the kill rate of weapon, instead of its performance. The main advocacy was to draw understanding and consensus among thecitizens for diverting the investment away from arms production and trade and towards peace and safety of people.

This year’s fair was participated by larger scope of actors than in 2010, 17 human rights, peace, and environment groups along with 33 members of the National Assembly. The materials shown in the Exhibition of Useless Weapons, Bad Weapons, and Costly Weapons and the Exhibition of Citizen’s Proposals for Peace and Disarmament in Korea have been widely circulated through on- and off-line media. They include the danger of weapons of mass destruction such as cluster and nuclear bombs, comparison of defense spending with welfare and basic needs budgets, problems of various weapon development projects, problems of nuclear power and radioactivity, and problems in naval base construction in Jeju Island. The fair also hosted interesting events such as cinema show, theatre, and cultural performance.

Annual International Workshop for Disarmament in the Asia-Pacific

Last year’s topic was measures to control security power. This year’s was reinterpretation of threat from citizen’s perspective and organizing pressure for disarmament and denuclearization in the region. The workshop was participated by peace activists and researchers from Korea and elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific. This year again, the participants shared their observation that despite Fukushima disaster and other aggravating trends in basic living of people the dominant threat interpretation by military security frame remained. The need for democratizing threat interpretation took more importance in this light. In the follow-up strategy meeting, the participants discussed plans for the global disarmament action day of 2012 and for countering the Seoul Nuclear Summit scheduled for March, 2012.The overseas participants held a meeting with concerned parliamentarians to highlight the role of legislators. They also went to Jeju Island to hold an international meeting on topic of the construction of naval base in peace in Asia, along with members and activists of local community.

Campaign to Stop the US-ROK Joint Military Exercise

The Yeonpyeong Island artillery exchange clash of 2010 occurred duringthe US-ROK joint maritime exercise. The Korean peninsula plunged into a sharp military tension again this year, when the two forces joined force again from February 28th to March 10th for the US-ROK joint exercise, the Key Resolve. This exercise is an offensive and provocative one, with its aim of handling emergency situation in North Korea. This year,it was publicly known for the first time that the exercise includedforward deployment of the reserve forces in addition to deployment of the US nuclear carrier and actions aimed for removing weapons of mass destruction from North Korea. Some 20 NGOs and progressive political parties held joint press conference, picket demonstrations, flash-mob and other actions to urge stop of the exercise. In the actions, they also expressed their worry that the two governments make dialogue with North Korea even more difficult by provoking it by offensive military actions. They also argued that the 1991 Basic Agreements and Joint Declaration of Denuclearization of Korea were possible because the then joint military exercise of the US and ROK Team Spirits were made to stop.

Monitoring defense policies: Defense Reform, ROK-Japan military cooperation, and arms trade

The current government announced its overall defense policy plan, Defense Reform Plan 307, purporting to revise the Defense Reform 2020 of the previous government. In view of the government stress on defense efficiency, the new plan 307 is disappointing. The structural reform of the massive ground army remained minimum and offensive nature of the military was greatly increased. The aimed reduction of the number of generals was confined to only 60, which is de facto increase of their number. The expected reduction of compulsory military service period stopped at 21 months instead of the planned 18 months. A serious problem arises due to the strengthened retaliatory potential of South Korea’s military, because it will lead to strengthened capability of asymmetric assault by the North Korea’s. PSPD announced its position on the Plan 307 on this line, and argued so in the parliamentary hearing.

PSPD also staged strong criticism against the plans of the government and the military to expand defense R&D and to achieve the arms export target of the world’s top 7 by 2020 by fostering the already saturated and crumbling defense industry into a national strategic industry. Recently, the government is creating a serious row by announcing a USD 1.1 trillion mega purchaseof arms just in 2012 alone. This plan towards the end of the presidential term causes deep concerns as it lacks even slightest justification or rationale except its huge benefit to the arms industry and lobbyists in the US.

Another worrisome development is the on-going consultation for military cooperation among ROK, Japan and the US towards a triangular alliance. PSPD and other vocal NGOs expressed strong concerns and oppositions to such a development, as it will become one of the biggest obstacles to peace system in Northeast Asia. They also demanded canceling of the plan for ROK-Japan military agreement, as it will lead to disable the effect of Article 9 of the Japan’s Constitution while enabling overseas operation of its Self-Defense Force.

Urging for the shift to a peace system in Korea and for resolution of the NLL conflict and peaceful settlement in the West Sea

The Yeonpyeong Island artillery exchange clash was the first ground battle since the signing of the cease-fire agreement. At the first anniversaryof the incident, peace movement re-highlighted its advocacy for peaceful settlement of the tension in the West Sea area. A peaceful settlement in the West Sea would be an important test case for other problems caused by the cease-fire system. Peace movement groups organized public forums and street campaigns to show the causes and alternative solutions to the conflicts caused by the ill-defined NLL and to urge observation of the October 4th agreement as a preventive measure.PSPD published and disseminated an issue report titled "Issues and Alternatives to NLL Conflict": From an explosives warehouse to a peace-ecological maritime zone", to analyze the historical background and causes of the conflict and present viable alternative to it. PSPD’s alternatives were resuming the military hot-line and other crisis-managementmechanisms that have been installed but not used, and efforts of two Korean governments to make an agreement on the common use of the area as a common fishing zone or a special cooperation zone or international peace-ecological zone.

As an expanded effort in the same token, PSPD worked over, synthesized and made public a comprehensive policy guideline cum proposal titled "Citizens’ Proposal and Plan for Peace System in Korea" from the urgent need to get away from the shackles of the un-resolved cold war system like arms race, armed conflict and clashes, and lagging democratization.This proposal of PSIK contains key objectives, basic principles and policy directives for a peace system. Through this proposal, PSPD is urging that the priority of security policy is to guarantee the safety and quality of life of all residents and to institutionalize sustainable peace in Korea and Northeast Asia. The main initiatives must come from the main stakeholder citizens of the conflict, through their participation and leadership in the shift towards PSIK. In PSIK, PSPD advocates respect and implementation of all the existing agreements, institutionalization of inter-Korea reconciliation and cooperation, respect and observation of international norms and standards, and proactive, leading measures for conflict resolution, followed by abandonment of primacy of force approach. Other peace movement groups and research institutions are also engaged in proposing a new version of inter-Korea reconciliation and cooperation plans, drafting new kinds of inter-Korea agreements, and conducting a popular movement for signing of a peace treaty among the former belligerent governments.

Under the current government of South Korea, discussing about a peace system in Korea itself has been lost. The two major elections scheduled in 2012 will be an important space for resuming and competing for better visions and policies for peace. Public interest and reflection on a peace system will so much expand next year.

Monitoring overseas troops dispatch policy

The overseas dispatch of the Korean troops is often taken as for peaceful settlement in conflict zone and other humanitarian mission. However, as the dispatches to Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, most of the troops dispatch was to conform in the interest of the US’ global military strategy or to accumulate experience of military operations abroad.Recent notable cases are the dispatch to the United Arab Emirates aspart of the package sales of the Korean nuclear power plant, that to Afghanistan as part of PRT (provincial reconstruction team), the naval dispatch to Somali waters on anti-piracy operation, and that to Lebanon.

The dispatch bill for UAE deal wasunilaterally passed by the ruling party even skipping due deliberation on the legitimacy and constitutionality of the dispatch. PSPD issued its opinion paper on the dispatch and help public forum to debate it. Along with other NGOs, PSPD also engaged in parliamentary lobbying to urge a parliamentary investigation of the case.

It is noteworthy that the current government of South Korea is fortifying the US-ROK alliance even in the area of international development cooperation. The US is allegedly the most notorious country pursuing overseas development assistance thoroughly based on its own foreign policy, trade and military interest. The current government of South Korea has pursued closer ties with the US in the area of ODA. In June 2010, after the two government signed an MOU on ODA cooperation, South Korea dispatched its troop to Afghanistan as part of PRT (provincial reconstruction team) operated by the US. Despite the publicized objective of PRT, ‘conducting humanitarian reconstruction projects’, it isnow known as the representative case of militarizing ODA. For example, 85.4 billion won of the total KOICA’s assistance to Afghanistan, 108.2 billion won (USD 90 million) was allocated for PRT budget. In general, according to the assessments by the international community, PRT is being criticized for its unsustainable nature with its short-term political and military interest, high cost and low yield. PSPD raised strong criticism on PRT participation as the worst example of militarized ODA and its failure as a development project, with PRT troops receiving armed attacks 15 times in 2011 alone. PSPD also raised the problem of militarized development assistance in public forums, popular education program, and the international ODA conference (HLF-4) held in Busan this year, as well as to the National Assembly as an agenda for major policy reforms.

Even though the Blue Sea naval unit has been dispatched to the Somali watersofficially for the objective of protecting Korean commercial ships from piracy, it is highly doubtful if their role is properly defined and carried out in a preventive way. The rescue operation "Dawn of the Gulf of Aden" is not free from the criticism that is was carried out in a straightforward military fashion, without excluding the possibility of damaging the civilian crew in the ship or the possibility of revenge kidnapping and violence on other Korean citizens as an outcome of the operation. A more grounded view is that the Blue Sea unit is there in the Gulf to be part of the maritime joint exercises with the US navy. Failure to do full monitoring and engagement with the issues related to the dispatches to the Somali waters and Lebanon remain as weak points for the peace movement.

Fukushima disaster and activities for reverting nuclear policy

Many citizens in South Korea would think of only North Korea’s nuclear weapons’ program when asked of immediate nuclear problem facing the society today. It is very often forgotten that the US provision of nuclear umbrella for South Korea assumes use of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is hardly any resistance to the government’s decision to prolong the operation of Kori nuclear power plant beyond its life span or to designate locations for new, additional nuclear power plants. In this circumstance, the recent Fukushima disaster rang an alarm how disastrous nuclear power plant, not a weapon per se, can be.

Witnessing the disaster from Fukushima nuclear power plants, anti-nuclear and peace movements joined to form ‘Joint Action to Revert Nuclear Policy’ in order to press the government to totally revert its policy on nuclear energy. This solidarity body later changed its name to ‘Joint Action for Nuclear-Free World’, which engaged in various popular actions and appeals – awareness raising on the danger of nuclear energy and the need for alternative energy production, international publicity on the problems of South Korea’s nuclear policy, and opposition to extension of life span of old nuclear power plants and plans for creating nuclear clusters.

Unfortunately however, South Korea is still too unaffected by the impact of Fukushima disaster. Repeating ungrounded assurance of safety from radioactive materials, the government is firm in pursuing the existing nuclear policy including active export of power plants. More challenges are to come for peace movement in Korea. There are issues of denuclearization of Korea, processing of nuclear wastes, the Seoul Nuclear Summit to address agendas of nuclear energy and nuclear terrorism, and prospective negotiationsfor  the soon-expiring US-ROK nuclear treaty. It is clear that citizens now have higher alert on the danger of nuclear materials since the Fukushima disaster, and thiswill affect nuclear energy agenda in the coming general election of 2012. Nuclear-free and other peace movements must play a vital role in this period.

Peace movement in 2012

The two major elections in 2012 will also give great impact to peace movement. It may become the year of shifting the situationof insecurity into a lasting peace system in Korea. It is mandatory for civil society to present visions, principles and concrete policies for peace and set peace agenda accordingly so that political forcesadopt them. Peace movement must demonstrate how to shift to a new security paradigm in which safety and quality of life of citizens become the upmost goal of security, and demand that this is reflected in all policy directives. In particular, peace movement should focus on overall restructuring of the unification, foreign affairs and military policies in line with the new security paradigm. In so doing, peace movement must succeed in halting ever-wasteful arms race as well as in envisioning Korea and Asia totally free from all nuclear threats.

The current global economic crisis is pushing governments to cut expenditures, affecting military spending in general. This may perhaps become a rare opportunity to break the sharp up-curve of military spending sincethe war on terror. However, the down pressure in the US military spending is very likely to come as up pressure for higher cost of security protection onto its allies. These are great challenges and opportunities at the same time for peace movement in Korea.This is all the more the reason why peace movement must be more active in popular campaigns so that citizens should vote for peace forces and policies for disarmament and denuclearization. For this, it will be necessary in 2012 as well to expand the common base of disarmament and denuclearization movement through diverse plans of actions to which more citizens can sympathize and participate.

[PSPD Report] Civic Proposal for Peace system of Korea

Civic Proposal for Peace system of Korea

Center for Peace and Disarmament_PSPD, ROK

Foreword

The world is in turmoil. It has been long to lose the expectation that the end of the Cold War would lead to consolidation of peace in the global village. The Korean peninsula is not an exception to this. When North and South Koreas made agreements such as the June 15th and the October 4th Summit Declarations, there were some germinal hope for going beyond the long-standing conflict and towards reconciliation and peace making. However, nowadays we witness military clashes and confrontations that are more serious than ever.

The fundamental cause of this return to old affairs lies at the continuing cease-fire system that Korea has been trapped in since the war. Signed in July 1953, the cease-fire agreement recommended that political meetings convene within three months from the effective day of the agreement to settle the Korea issues in a peaceful way. The first such meeting was held in Geneva in 1954, only to fail to make any agreements. Further efforts to bring about a peace regime were de facto abandoned since then. Until now, Korea maintains a thin thread of peace, living with the war just temporarily halted by the cease-fire agreement.

During the Cold War period, the cease-fire agreement served as a minimum safeguard against incidents and escalation of military clashes. However, since the end of the Cold War globally, we witness this system is at the edge of maintaining even that fragile peace in Korea. The demise of the Cold War system affected Korea with the demise of the old, unstable balance of power without creating a new order of peace. In the first place, North Korea began its nuclear weapons programme, as it became more isolated internationally and insecure of the safety of its own system therefore. Unable to find fundamental solution to this problem, South Korea recently began to pursue to subdue or forcibly change North Korea with the resort to superior force. As a result, there continues to be a unstable situation where military clash may happen at any time.

The main problem with the cease-fire system is not confined to arms race and increased possibility of military clashes between two Koreas. The system itself has been the main cause for huge suffering and sacrifice onto the people on both sides. Though with a varying degree, both Koreas adhered to extreme ideologies and militarist culture, not rooting democratic procedures into life and reducing welfare schemes that might have otherwise reached wider public. Such shortfalls have been justified and rationalized by the situation of division and military confrontation. This is why it is more important for peace and humane livelihood in Korea than any thing else to transform the cease-fire system into a peace system.

We believe, we need to be free from the routine way of doing and thinking about security that have been installed by the Cold War and cease-fire system, if we want to create a permanent system of peace. Security is not an exclusive property of the state. States often use war and conflict in order to protect the interest of the established forces. It is ordinary citizens who lose the most when peace is threatened, and therefore, who have the greatest potential for making and keeping peace. When citizens become active subject of security, a path can open for genuine peace. In this light, peace system in Korea must go beyond the normal security logic to grasp and base itself to civic values and perspectives.

From the foregoing considerations, we believe a peace system must be constructed with the following principles.

First, security must be in objective for humane life of citizens and pursued by citizens’ participation. And peace must be the core principle of resolving Korean issues. In the past, we have experienced how security was degraded to regime security and used to threaten safety of citizens. We have also experienced that efforts to gain absolute superiority in military strength did not guarantee peace or safety of citizens. Arms race on the contrary, increased the levelo of military threat to each other and ended up in limiting resources available to the state otherwise destined to provide safety and welfare of citizens. Now the top priority of security must be in guaranteeing ‘safe and sustainable livelihood for the members of the community’ while building a peace system in Korea. Citizen’s safety can only be guaranteed when Korean issues are addressed by the principles of pacifism – peace by peaceful means.

Second, North and South Koreas must work to realize mutualism by actively and implementing and taking initiatives of the existing bi-lateral agreements. Under heightened confrontation and mistrust to each other, one side reiterating conditional measures that are difficult to be realized the other side will just pull two Koreas into a security dilemma. South Korea must recognize, when taking the North Korean threat into account, that South Korea’s actions cause even higher perception of threat to North Korea such as its military strength itself and deployment of the most up-to-date weapons systems as well as the posture of the ROK-US alliance and offensive military operational plans. Under such circumstances, the starting point of actively making peace is for one side to initiate and implement mutually benefiting steps with causing a serious security dilemma.

Third, the route towards a peace system in Korea must be in accordance with the United Nations Charter and other international norms, and at the same time, must contribute to strengthening international standards and norms for pace. In particular, all states to be involved in the peace system must abandon war as a means of foreign policy and work to guarantee the right to live in peace of every person in Korea. We believe such efforts will contribute to peace in Northeast Asia and the world alike.

Fourth, the peace system in Korea must be pursued through the participation and democratic consensus of all the citizens who hold the most integral interest in the process and the result of the peace system. If exceptional and uncontrolled institutions of restricting citizens’ participation and informed judgment remain unreformed, a peace system is not possible. For this, it is necessary to reform exclusive, unaccountable security institutions in order to install transparency, accountability and predictability of security policies and by so doing to achieve civilian control of the security sector.

From these principles, we hereby propose a vision and plan for a peace system in Korea based on civic participation. By this, we expect more active discussions among those who have been working or aspiring for a peace system in Korea. We believe, debates and critiques on this proposal will definitely contribute to finding more realistic ways and methods of actualizing the peace system.

A. Basic Definitions and Principles of Peace System in Korea

1. Definitions

The Peace System in Korea (PSIK) designates a system that institutionalizes sustainable peace in Korea and enables a better quality of life for people living in Korea

PSIK signifies the end of the cease-fire system, prevention of armed conflict in Korea and its vicinities, ending belligerent relationship among the neighboring states and replacing it by that of cooperation.

PSIK starts from dialogue and understanding, and from reconciliation and cooperation among the residents in Korea, and aims for a peaceful unification of the nation through initiatives and participation of the residents of Korea

PSIK contributes to peace and safety of the peoples in Northeast Asia and the world by creating structures for sharing and reinforcing peaceful and safe livelihood of all peoples in Korea and around

PSIK establishes culture of peace by creating institutions and customs for preventing and resolving conflicts among individuals and groups

PSIK guarantees active role of citizens in the process of planning, determining and implementing overall security policies. Without active participation of citizens, PSIK cannot be properly established because the ultimate objective of PSIK is to provide humane livelihood for citizens.

2. Basic Principles

First, PSIK is based on principles of pacifism – peace by peaceful means.

Peace is both the process and the goal for safe and humane livelihood. PSIK pursues peace by peaceful means. Wan cannot justified by any reason, and the old way of supremacy of might such as arms race can never lead to a peace system. Such ways will only lead to other violence and more ways of injustice.

Peaceful measures that are required by PSK must be actively introduced at the initial stage for the sake of substantial safety of affected people. For this, the long standing priority of policies and actions must be fundamentally reexamined. The doctrine of balance of power and the arms race as its practice can only deepen confrontation and tension, by blocking mutual trust and cooperation. We must not allow the situation to sustain where the doctrine of national security and arms build-up threaten peace and aggravate social welfare, education, environment and other aspects of the quality of life.

Second, the establishment of PSIK starts from respecting and implementing the existing agreements between two Koreas and among two Koreas and their neighboring states.

In establishing PSIK, the governments and peoples of two Koreas are the primary stakeholders, and therefore, are obliged to do the upmost in peacefully resolving conflicts, creating confidence-building measures and organizing cooperation and support from the governments and peoples of the neighboring countries.

The establishment of PSIK must be based on the trust and cooperation among the governments and peoples of the involved countries. For this, all the agreements that have direct relevance to peace in Korea must be respected such as the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the June 15th Joint Declaration, the October 4th Summit Declaration, the DPRK-US Joint Communiqué, the DPRK-Japan Summit Statement, September 19th Joint Statement, February 13th Agreement, and the October 3rd Agreement. The pledge of each government to respect these agreements notwithstanding domestic political changes will contribute to mutual confidence building and eventually to establishment of a peace system.

Third, PSIK aims for peaceful unification of the nation in Korea.

A permanent peace in Korea is beyond hope if the current situation of division between two Koreas which perpetuates mutual mistrust and confrontation is not altered. The division has produced not only tension between two Koreas but also various forms of violence within each Korea and the structure of perpetual confrontation and arms race in the region. In so doing, the division led to misuse of social resources and capacities for wasteful showoff and race of forces, not for the safety and quality of people’s life and development of democracy.

In Korea, peace and unification are two sides of the same coin and form an interdependent whole. Two Koreas must strive for attaining both unification and peace together by absorbing the wisdom and support of residents in Korea and other peace-loving peoples of the world.

PSIK is the institutional basis for altering the cease-fire system, building a community of coexistence and co-prosperity between two Koreas, and furthermore ultimately achieving peaceful unification of the nation. While efforts for unification without peace-making may lessen the quality of life of people, efforts for PSIK without steps for unification may become unrealistic in the situation of national division.

PSIK pursues a gradual, step-by-step, peaceful unification, with the recognition of the reality in which each Korea has developed its own social and economic system of different kind. This gradual process must be taken by simultaneously realizing future-oriented values such as peace, welfare, ecology, and sustainability.

Fourth, PSIK should be pursued observing and developing international norms.

PSIK will have implications to international politics: it will signify a shift of deterrence-based policies to conflict preventive policies by the states in Northeast Asia. PSIK will be a manifestation of appropriate level of defense-oriented military force, denial of use of force for conflict resolution, peaceful resolution of conflict, and application of tolerance and interdependence for the foregoing objectives.

PSIK must contribute to peace in the world by establishing lasting peace in Korea and Northeast Asia. For this, PSIK must be closely linked to the efforts to respect and implement the international recognized norms such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights and humanitarian laws.

PSIK is clearly about negative peace such as ending military threats and negating acts of aggression and occupation, but will also be pursued by the notion of realizing active peace, which must include, in Northeast Asia, applying humanitarian principles, multilateral cooperation for sustainable development and fostering conditions for providing civil, political, economic and social rights.

Fifth, PSIK must be based on the participation of citizens.

As PSIK aims to increase the safety and quality of life of all the peoples in Korea, the participation of the people is crucial in making judgment of the factors endangering safety of people and setting priority in safety-promoting measures.

First, the old notion of security must be abandoned and social criteria and priority of safety of citizens must be redefined. The necessary core components of new security policies are the shift of perspective from national security to citizen’s safety, prevention of conflict based on citizen’s safety, peaceful reduction of factors of insecurity, and social investment for sustainable provision of safety of livelihood.

Being based on the participation of citizens, PSIK negates the monopoly of information and decision-making in security affairs by the government or by a minority of some political forces or bureaucrats. Rather, transparency and accountability of security policies must be installed by guaranteeing citizens the right to information and the right to participation in decision making, thereby enabling democratic control of the security sector.

B. Key Agenda for PSIK

1. Institutionalizing Reconciliation and Cooperation and Forming North-South Association

Respect and Observation of the Existing Inter-Korea Agreements

Two Koreas shall respect and observe the July 4th Joint Statement, the Basic Agreement and its Subsidiary Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression, and Exchange-cooperation, the June 15th Joint Declaration, the October 4th Summit Declaration and other agreements between them.

Economic Cooperation and Socio-cultural Exchanges

Cooperation of peace must be paralleled with economic cooperation and socio-cultural exchanges in developing inter-Korea relations and preparing for national unification. Two government must recognize the potentiality of Gae-sung Industrial Complex Project and the Gumgang Mountain Tour Project in confidence building and co-prosperity, and expand such cooperation projects further in order to achieve a ‘balanced development of the nation’s economy’. They must also actively promote various socio-cultural exchange programs and humanitarian support.

Formation of North-South Association

The two governments must institutionalize an association of North and South Koreas as a gradual, transitional body for mutual recognition, development of peaceful cooperative relationship and preparation for national unification. The first step of this institutionalization is regular summit meetings.

In order to guarantee citizen’s participation in the development of North-South Association, an inter-Korea civic cooperation body is necessary.

2. Denuclearization of Korea and Conclusion of Peace Treaty

Simultaneous Promotion of Denuclearization and Peace Treaty

The denuclearization of Korea has been the top agenda between two Koreas and in the six-party talks alike. This is a shared pledge that cannot be rebuked in promoting PSIK.

At the same time, it must be recognized that the actual denuclearization may not come soon if there is no peace system. The two objectives must be addressed and fulfilled simultaneously.

Implementation of the Six-Party Agreements

The two Koreas must abide by the principle of peaceful resolution of the North Korean’ nuclear problem. For this, the concerned parties must implement the agreement of comprehensive solution in exchange of complete abandonment of the nuclear program by North Korea. The agreement includes talks for diplomatic normalization between DPRK and the US and between DPRK and Japan, measures for peace and security in Northeast Asia, and energy and other economic support for North Korea.

The members of the six-party talk must return to the agreement of the September 19th Joint Statement by resuming the talks, carrying out the agreed measures based on the action-to-action principle, and making plans of the follow-up implementation of the agreement.

The member states must actively engage in bilateral talks among the members to raise confidence among them in order to be able to resume the six-party talk.

Removing the Root Cause of the Nuclear Risk in Korea and Northeast Asia

The denuclearization of Korea must signify a structure of peace in which the Korean Peninsula becomes totally free of all nuclear threats and Korea and its neighboring countries stop depending on nuclear deterrence.

Thus, it must signify North Korea’s abandonment of nuclear weapons program as well as removal of the US nuclear umbrella for South Korea and the US commitment of no use of nuclear weapons in and around the Korean Peninsula.

At the same time, states in Northeast Asia must substantially reduce their dependence on nuclear energy, increase the use of eco-friendly energy, and thereby reduce production of nuclear materials and waste in order to ultimately remove even potential nuclear threats.

Conclusion of Peace Treaty

A peace treaty must be signed by the states directly involved in the Korean conflict in order to induce North Korea to abandon its nuclear programs and to establish PSIK. At the same time, North Korea shall normalize its relationship with the US and Japan, which will normalize all relationships among the states in Northeast Asia.

The Peace Treaty must contain in its content conclusion of the war, non-aggression, restoration of peace, establishment and administration of peace management body, international guarantee of peace, maintenance of the current military demarcation line, deliberation of withdrawal of foreign forces and dissolution of bilateral alliances, arms control, resolution of wartime issues, humanitarian cooperation, support of peaceful unification of Korea, among others. After the signing of the peace treaty, the UN command and other cease-fire bodies must be dissolved.

The peace management of Korea after the cease-fire situation shall be administered by the signatory states and international community at the beginning, but by two Koreas later when PSIK goes into its stable stage.

Peace resolution of the immediate conflict issues between two Koreas will help create favorable mood for PSIK. For this, two Koreas must carry out the joint plan of the Peace and Cooperation Zone in the West Sea and arrive at a peaceful agreement on the NLL dispute.

In view of the planned return of the wartime operation command to ROK by December 2015, negotiations for shifting the cease-fire system to PSIK must start and proceed, and after the return of the command, full-fledged arms control talks must begin.

3. Reduction of Tension and Disarmament between Two Koreas

Restoration of Korean Crisis Management Structure

As demonstrated by the series of military clashes near NLL of the West Sea, a series of CSBM (confidence/security building mechanism) is necessary to pave the way for reconciliation and co-prosperity, in addition to mutual respect of each system.

For this, the Inter-Korea Defense Ministers’ Meeting must be regularly held to discuss joint measures to implement in relation to CSBM, and the North-South Joint Military Committee must resume to find peaceful solutions to accidental armed clashes and other related issues.

In parallel with the mentioned inter-Korea military talks, DPRK-US military talks must open as well to create favorable environment for disarmament between two Koreas.

Prevention of Armed Conflict in the West Sea Islands Area

Since the artillery firing in Yeonpyeong Island in 2010, South Korea forward-deployed high-tech fire power in the island in the West Sea and made it official for the USFK to intervene in local conflicts in Korea, with the stated objective of securing retaliatory deterrence potential. These measures must be nullified because it may further stimulate North Korea’s drive for asymmetric warfare and thereby create greater risks of conflict.

In order to prevent armed conflicts in the West Sea, it is urgently needed to restore communication lines and other early warning systems at the earliest possible point of time. This will serve as the minimum crisis management system.

The dispute over the NLL, which is not a legitimate demarcation line in view of international legal standards, must be fundamentally resolved by two Koreas seeking mutually beneficial, peaceful solution. For this, the plan for the Peace and Cooperation Zone of the West Sea must be carried out, and additional measures can to further introduced such as establishment of joint fishing zones, opening new direct sea routes, joint investigation of the maritime ecology of the West Sea by two Koreas and international bodies, and designation of some areas as ‘international ecological conservation zones’.

Taking initiatives in arms control

Considering its superiority over North Korea in military power, South Korea must lead the inter-Korea arms control negotiation by taking steps first such as reduction of troop strength, reduction of the period of compulsory military service, and freeze or reduction of defense budget. The balance from the reduced military budget will be used in areas that can directly enhance quality of life of citizens.

Offensive operation plans, made and exercised with the objective of handling emergency situation in North Korea, must be abandoned, and their off-shoot provocative military exercises must stop (OP 5029, Key Resolve and Eagle exercises, landing-and-strike exercises, and other North Korea stabilization exercises).

The joint war potential of the US and ROK forces must be adequately controlled so that it may not trigger a new cold war in the region. In particular, the following actions can be received as heightening military tension and thus must be stopped or abandoned totally; joining the MD system, ROK-Japan military cooperation, forward deployment of naval force and construction of the nave base in Jeju Island, overseas dispatch of troops for the purpose of joint military exercise, purchase of weapons systems for expanded radius of operation.

4. Strengthening Diplomacy for Peace and Cooperation Based Towards Peace System in Northeast Asia

Strengthening Diplomacy for PSIK

Keeping in mind that building a peace system in Korea is an integral part of the formation of the regional order in Northeast Asia, reminded of the fact that active and balanced diplomacy of the US, USSR and other stakeholder states was crucial in the case of German unification, and adding to the initiatives to be taken by two Koreas, diplomatic efforts should be strengthened to draw the US and China’s support for a peace system in the region.

Completion of Cross-Recognition

As agreed in the September 19th Joint Statement, it must be recognized that the establishment of PSIK and peace and stability in the region are closely connected to each other, and the ending of the belligerence between the US and DPRK and between Japan and DPRK is crucial. Diplomatic normalization needs to be completed in this regard, and the government and civil society of ROK must work together to strengthen diplomacy to this end.

Promotion of Multilateral Security Cooperation and Gradual Dissolution of Military Alliances

South Korea must pursued balanced good neighborly relations with the four neighboring countries, the US, Russia, China and Japan, in order to construct a regional base of confidence building that will serve for regional coexistence and co-prosperity. PSIK will be in opposition to the triangular military alliance among the US, Japan and ROK as this will seriously heighten military tension in the region and the peninsula.

Regional security arrangement in Northeast Asia must be pursued by multilateral security cooperation, the progress of which will allow gradual dissolution of military alliances. First, the unilateral, unbalanced US-ROK military alliance must be first controlled by the constitutions of the two countries and international norms governing peace, which will later be transformed to a more democratic and peace-oriented alliance, and finally dissolved according to the progress of multilateral peace cooperation in the region. The six-party talk must contribute to developing multilateral security cooperation in the region by engaging in negotiation on PSIK.

Establishing Northeast Asia Peace Forum

The Korea problem is closely connected to military confrontation and historical and territorial conflicts between countries in the region.

With a varying degree, civil society is developing in all countries in the region, creating favorable conditions for building consensus on regional peace issues beyond the narrow perspective of national interest.

It is necessary to establish a regional form of civil society representatives of the countries in the region where various proposals for peace, coexistence and conflict resolution can be placed and discussed. To be connected to researcher groups, local autonomous governments and parliamentary groups, this forum will serve as a civic system of communication, sharing ideas, and cooperation.

Shift to Diplomacy for Peace and Cooperation and Strengthening Ethics in Diplomacy

Diplomacy that pursues immediate interest such as access to resource and market is not only shallow but actually contradicts the interest of the country in the long run. Moreover, such diplomacy often serves the interest of particular, privileged elite rather than the general interest of the public in the country.

It is strengthening and enforcing ethics, transparency, international accountability and democratic control of decision making in diplomacy that will make diplomacy serve the interest of the public.

For PSIK, a new diplomacy is required, diplomacy for conflict prevention, fair and mutually beneficial trade, sustainable development, contribution to democracy and human rights, and for peace and cooperation. Such diplomacy will be in communication and cooperation with diverse actors of the government, parliament, civil society and academia. Such diplomacy will refrain from dispatching troops abroad for the interest of superpowers or commercial purpose, while expanding overseas grant for development cooperation.

5. Democratic Reform of Security Sector and Institutionalization of Civic Participation in Security Governance

Democratizing Threat Interpretation and from Security to Safety

The use of national security logic to threaten or sacrifice citizen’s peaceful life must be stopped.

The practice of the state monopoly over information and interpretation of threat must be stopped and replaced by an open environment where various perspectives on citizen’s safety can discussed and shared.

Particularly important and mandatory are to totally reexamine the content and level of threat posed to community, the cost and benefit of mobilizing physical means to dissolve threat, the appropriate level of non-offensive and rational military power, the opportunity cost of military spending in comparison with that of other social spending, and the priorities in state’s and social investment for citizen’s safety. In this review, participation should be fully guaranteed for various perspectives and interests to be expressed.

Transparency in Security Decision Making and Stronger Democratic Control

Democratic control must be strengthened: transparency in security policy must be raised, mechanisms of civilian control of the security sector must be reformed, and participation of civil society in decision-making and monitoring of security policy must be institutionalized.

Measures should be taken to prevent misuse of the authority of determining confidential information and to strictly control the management of security and diplomatic information so that maximum information is made public without much distortion.

The parliamentary scrutiny of military and other security-related budgets must be strengthened to be able to review rationality, justification, opportunity cost of each spending. For this, civil society participation must be institutionalized. Parliamentary authority must be strengthened in controlling the military command of the President, his use of military force domestically and internationally. Parliamentary authority must be strengthened by installing mandatory reporting and hearing procedures over security policy in the parliament.

Institutional Prevention of Human Rights Violations by Security Agencies

Security-related human rights violations can be reduced by imposing strict restrictions on the activities of security agencies such as intelligence gathering, phone and email surveillance, limiting freedom of expression and movement, etc, according to international human rights standards and by new legislations that properly enact the standards.

In order to prevent human rights violations in military facilities, a human rights act for military servicepersons must be legislated, human rights education must be strengthened in the military, a monitoring mechanism must be set up outside the military and the military judiciary must be reformed.

Conscientious objection must be recognized as a human right, and alternative service to military service must be institutionalized.

A strict set of criteria and procedures must be institutionalized for identifying residents consent to military exercises and construction of military facilities in the vicinity of residence and also for pre and post ecological assessment of them.,

Active Peace Education and Forming Peace-cognitive Culture

The formation of PSIK will ultimately determined by the will and capability for peace of those citizens and civil servants who will lead the process.

For this, the central and local governments must set up professional bodies and develop programs for peaceful resolution of diversity of conflicts. The unilateral and often-forcible imposition of collective security education must be replaced by active peace education, and civil society efforts for peace education must be supported by the government in a joint aspiration of creating a deep culture of peace.

Mission and Activities of Center for Peace and Disarmament

Mission and Activities of PSPD

PSPD

People’s Solidarityfor

Participatory Democracy

Background

Until the 1980s, achievement of democracy was driven by students’ movements resisting government violence and oppression. Eventually the military dictatorship, which lasted over three decades, was terminated by the power of the people. Nevertheless, democratization of the society was not fully realized immediately.

The true realization of democracy could only be achieved by the people who ordinarily participate in politics and closely watch the abuse of power of the state and the corporate. The PSPD was founded in 1994 by activists, scholars and lawyers who had engaged in various democratic movements during military dictatorship decades. Hoping to open a new era of participatory democracy and human rights, the PSPD has been working on institutionalization of civil participation in democracy, state power and socioeconomic reform.

4 Missions of the PSPD

Alternatives We research and propose alternative policies, bills and measures for enhancing livelihood and rights of ordinary people.

Watch We watch closely whether the power is abused.

Participation We operate with membership fee of more than 10,000 members, irregular donations, and involvement of members and volunteers.

Solidarity We would like to hold up solidarity as forming a society that honest, hard- working persons enjoy a decent life and anyone participates in democracy.

Divisions

The Center for National Assembly Watch monitors activities of the National Assembly and promotes voters’ participation in politics.

The Center for Administration Watch monitors public bureaus and policy making process to make them more transparent and accountable.

The Center for Judiciary Watch motivates citizens to participate and to suggest alternatives for institutional reform of the judiciary body.

The Public Interest Law Center supports public interest litigations for democracy and human rights.

The Social Welfare Committee focuses on strengthening of social welfare system and social safety net and allow anyone to enjoy Socio-economic rights.

The Committee for Fair Labor Society carries out monitoring labor policies to eliminate unfair treatment between workers and enhancing rights of unorganized workers.

Campaign for Anyone with Stable Life promotes and proposes alternative measures for enhancing livelihood of citizen and ensuring their rights are not violated but protected.

The People’s Economic Committee suggests alternatives for sound market order and monitors unfair trading activities.

The Center for Tax Reform recommends alternative measures to achieve fairness and equality in taxations.

The Center for Peace and Disarmament monitors security policies and researches alternatives for peace and disarmament on the Korean Peninsula.

The International Solidarity Committee promotes international networking for human rights and democratization movements in Asian countries, and monitors the ODA(Official Development Aid) policies.

Auxiliaries

Civic Education Center runs the Civil Academy for providing citizens with civil education on democracy, liberty, humanity and happiness.

he Institute for Participatory Society researches civil movements and publicize alternatives suggested by the PSPD.

Principles of the PSPD Financing

We are mainly operated by membership fees.

We receive NO government grants.

We put the priority on financial independence.

The PSPD Figures (as of Dec 31, 2010)

12,450 Members paying monthly fee

50 Full-time Coordinators

Income : 180 million won ($1,827,000 ; $1=1000won)

Membership Fee 68.7%

Donations/Contributions 20.8%

Income from projects 10.0%

Other incomes 0.5%

What PSPD has done

Campaign for Strengthening Social Safety Net to Secure Minimum Living Standard 1994~2001

Campaign for Judiciary Reform For the People, By the People 1995~present

Campaign for Anti-Corruption Enactment for a Transparent Society 1996~2002

Campaign for Protection of Socio-Economic Rights of Citizen in Daily life 1997~present

Campaign of Monitoring Corporate Activities by Utilizing Rights of Minor Shareholders 1997~2002

Class Actions of Minor Shareholders against CEO’s Illegal Activities of CHEIL Industries, DAESANG Co., DAEWOO Co., LG CI, Korea First Bank, SAMSUNG Electronics 1997-2007

CAGE(Civil Action for the General Election), Campaign for “No Vote for Corrupted Candidates” in the 2000 general election and Disobedience Movement Against the Election Laws with Unconstitutional Provisions 2000, 2004

“1 Million Signatures” Movement to Lower the High Mobile Phone Rates 2001

Campaign against Korean Government’s Buying F-15 Fighter 2002

Candle Light Vigils for revising the SOFA (the Status of Forces Agreement ) 2002

Campaign against Dispatching Korean Troops to Iraq 2003-2008

“Raise Hope” Campaign for Realizing the Legal Minimum Living Cost 2004

Initiate the National Assembly members’ DB Web-Site for “Open the National Assembly, watch.peoplepower21.org” 2006~present

Campaign against Korea-US FTA 2006~present

Watch over Government Officials in Collusion with Business 2006~present

Campaign against Lee Geon Hee, the Chair of SAMSUNG Group for illegal lobbying and tax evasion 2007

Campaign for Lowering the Domestic Expenses of Education, Housing and Medical Service by providing sufficient public services 2007~present

Candle Light Vigils Against the Import of US Beef with BSE(Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) risk 2008

Campaign “Return Square to People, Return Democracy to People” for freedom of assembly to revise the Ordinance of Seoul Square 2009

Campaign for the disclosure of investigation on the sunken Cheonan warship and verification of the National Assembly 2010~present

Peace and Disarmament Fair 2010~

Campaign for ‘Welfare State Comes True’ 2011

Campaign for Opposing to the Construction of a Naval Base in Jeju Island 2011~

Co-Representative

Prof. Jong-Dae Lim / Prof. Hyun-Back Chung /
Ven. Chunghwa / Att. Suk-Tae Lee

Secretary General TaeHo Lee

Deputy Secretary General  SeungHee Lee / Park Wonsuk

Address 16, Jahamunro 9-gil Jongno-Gu Seoul ROK 110-043

Tel +82-2-723-5051  Fax +82-2-6919-2004

Website  peoplepower21.org/english  E-mail  pspdint@pspd.org

Center for Peace & Disarmament of PSPD

Background & Directions

The PSPD noticed the visible transformational processes of dismantling separation in the Korean Peninsula after the South-North Korea Summit in 2000. We began to discuss the expected influences of a nuclear issue of North Korea, a new obstacle in the ice-melting environment in the Korean Peninsula in half-century, and the war on terror led by the U.S.

Facing the changes of times, the PSPD reached the conclusion that we should deal with overcoming the separated situation and preventing the international military conflict with more clear visions and responsibilities: the civil movements in Korea had aimed at the democracy and social justice in South Korea.

Even before the establishment of the center, the PSPD had carried out some campaigns to improve the transparency and accountability of the area of defense such as the protection of informants in the military industry.

The start of the Center for Peace and Disarmament meant the expansion of the PSPD’s experience towards defense and security beyond authority monitoring through civil power. Members of the center felt the need of ‘democratization of field of security’, which meant challenge to the exclusive interpreting power about security by the state and security experts. They also paid their attentions to the importance of solidarity with the subjects of new visions and philosophy to prepare a new social and world paradigm.

Missions

Peace Initiatives in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia

Monitoring the military spending and Disarmament

Promoting civil participation

Main Activities

Peace Initiatives in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia

After a doubtful case of nuclear test by North Korea in October 2002, the Center for Peace and Disarmament has tried to construct rational suggestions and gather wills for peace in and out of the civil society to achieve the denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. Moreover, we have participated in the global solidarity for the reduction of nuclear weapons. The center has suggested plans for the reconciliation between two Koreas towards the peaceful unification and proposed ways for humanitarian support and improvement of human rights of North Koreans.

Denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia

People Council for Peace in Korean Peninsula (2003)

Information Website of Conflict between North Korea and the U.S. (2004-)

Campaign for Nuclear-weapon Free Northeast Asia (2004-)

Report on Nuclear Disarmament: Analysis of voting patterns on UN nuclear resolutions (2009/2010)

‘Nuclear Free World’ Campaign since the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2011~)

Peace System through Civil Participation

Enactment of South-North Korean Relations Development Act(2004-2006)

Expansion of Humanitarian Aid to North Korea and Improvement of Human Rights in the Korean Peninsula (2005-)

Non-governmental Exchanges between South-North Korea (2005-)

‘Civil Proposal for Peace system of Korea’ (2011)

Monitoring the military spending and Disarmament

Military affairs are not an area of perfect monitoring and check in any country. The situation of the division of Korea and the armistice has showed serious ineffective and non-transparent policy making for military and security areas, so even the National Assembly cannot gain access to available information easily. PSPD has vigorously carried out movements for disarmament under the severe lack of civilian experts.

Cut in the Defense Budget and Reform of Military Structure

Objection to the Plan of Military Reinforcement and National Defense Reform (2005-)

Pacific Freeze Campaign for freezing arms racing in the Asia-Pacific region (2009-)

Peace and Disarmament Fair (2010~)

Global Day of Action on Military Spending (2011~)

Objection to Weapon Purchase and Development

Objection to the purchase of F-15 with the 80,000 signatures of citizens (2001)

Objection to the Development of Korean-style Helicopter (2003-2006)

Objection to MD and SAM-X (2004)

Objection to Cluster Bomb Unit (2010-)

U.S. Forces in Korea and Military Bases

Campaign for urging re-negotiation on the configuration of the U.S bases in Korea (2003-2007)

Monitoring of the burden-sharing (SMA•Special Measure Agreement) for the U.S. Forces in Korea (2007-9)

Campaign for Opposing to the Construction of a Jeju Naval Base (2002-)

Objection to Military Dispatch Overseas

Objection to the War and the Dispatch of Troops to Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-)

Objection to PKO Act (2007~2009)

** Campaign for the disclosure of investigation on the sunken Cheonan warship and verification of the National Assembly 2010~present

Promoting Civil Participation

Construction of Peace State

Korea Peace Report (biennial) (2003, 2005)

Civil Peace White Paper (biennial) (2008~)

Symposiums for Peace State (2006)

Symposiums for Peace System of Korea (2011~)

GPPAC (Global Partnership for Prevention of Arms Conflict 2004-)

Education of Peace for Citizens and Training Peace Activists

Peace School /Peace Camps (2007-)

Peace Activist Assembly (annual, 2004-)

Internship/Fellowship

Center for Peace and Disarmament

Chair  Namjoo Lee / Sungkonghoe University

Director  Jungeun Park

Coordinators  Huisun Kim, Hanboram Kim

Tel	+82-2-723-4250

e-mail   peace@pspd.org

Site	http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace