News and analysis on the war threats by the United States against the people of Korea, compiled on A Socialist In Canada, Aug 22, 2017
Enclosed are three feature articles plus weblinks to other news and analysis.
Locked and loaded: War with North Korea cannot be contained but must be prevented
K.J. Noh is a writer, peace activist and scholar in the U.S. on the geopolitics of the Asian continent.
Ann Garrison: North Korea is standing up to the U.S.’s 4800 “locked and loaded” nuclear weapons with an estimated 30 to 60 of its own. Do you think it would still be standing without them?
K.J. Noh: It’s hard to imagine so.
North Korea has been in a defensive crouch since the inception of its state. It has been under risk of nuclear attack almost continuously since 1950. Starting during the Korean War (1950-1953), the use of nuclear bombs against North Korea was considered at least seven times; after the cessation of hostilities in 1953, the U.S. refused to enter into further negotiations, letting the 90 day period to negotiate a peace treaty expire. It subsequently refused to remove troops, weapons, and not introduce new weapons systems into the peninsula, as required by the Armistice Agreement (Paragraph 13d).
Starting in 1958, the U.S. placed ‘Honest John’ nuclear missiles, 280mm atomic cannons and nuclear cruise missiles onto the peninsula, and kept them there until 1991. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, ICBM’s pointed at the former Soviet Union were redirected at North Korea.
War games conducted every year (Key Resolve-Foal Eagle and Ulchi Freedom Guardian) rehearse the attack and occupation of North Korea and decapitation of its leadership. The recent spring war games (Key Resolve-Foal Eagle) have been twice the size of the Normandy invasion, involving carrier battle group and submarine maneuvers, amphibious landings of mechanized brigades, naval blockade, live fire drills, special forces infiltration as well as B-1B, B-2, & B-52 nuclear bombing runs. North Korea’s leadership is also well aware of the fact that Clinton’s 1997 Presidential Decision Directive 60 authorizes pre-emptive nuclear war.
Let’s also not forget the fact that North Korea was literally bombed into the Stone Age during the Korean war, where between 20-30 per cent of its population was exterminated. The country was bombed into a moonscape, scorched into ashes with napalm, drowned by flooding, and independent reports allege the use of bioweapons. You have to go back to the Punic Wars and the sacking of Carthage to imagine destruction of such scale and violence. Even General Douglas MacArthur, no stranger to bloodshed, said in his congressional testimony: “I have never seen such devastation…you are perpetuating a slaughter such as I have never heard of in the history of mankind.”
The current threats by the current president, although a little more off-the-cuff and colorful than usual, are nothing new for the North Koreans. For example, on two occasions, Colin Powell blithely threatened to turn North Korea into charcoal briquette–a chilling statement to a country that for three years had 50,000 gallons of napalm dropped daily on it.
The North Koreans, having lived through not merely the threat of Armageddon but the experience of it, are highly unlikely to let go of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Framework of distrust
There was once a possibility of de-nuclearizing North Korea, back in the 1990’s. The North Koreans had agreed to monitoring and dismantling of their nuclear reactor, in exchange for normalization of diplomatic relations, removal of sanctions, fuel oil and a light breeder reactor. The North Koreans fulfilled (at least the letter of) the bargain for four years, but the treaty (the 1994 Agreed Framework) was dead on arrival in Washington two weeks after signing, and none of the conditions were upheld by the U.S. side. After eight years of waiting for Godot, the North Koreans found themselves branded as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’. The North Koreans read the writing on the wall, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and restarted their program in 2003.
In 2005, the Chinese negotiated a deal (through the six party talks from 2003-2005) between the U.S. and North Korea whereby the North Koreans would again dismantle their program and the U.S. would normalize relations. The very day after the signing, the U.S. branded North Korea as a currency counterfeiter and increased sanctions. North Korea withdrew from the deal and in 2006, tested a nuclear device. The pattern of distrust is repetitious, going all the way back to the armistice of 1953–which the U.S. announced its intention to abrogate the day after signing–to the current moment. The current situation–a nuclear armed North Korea–is the result, and it’s unlikely that it can be reversed. Given their own history, not to mention the examples of Libya and Iraq, the North Koreans are unlikely to give up their deterrent, and have said so explicitly. That horse has long left the barn.
The political economy of fear
AG: Does the U.S. have an issue with North Korea aside from the fact that it exists and has a few nuclear weapons?
K.J. Noh: The current system is a political economy of fear.
From a viewpoint of propaganda, it’s the recycling of the Aristotelian devices of Fear and Pity for the political theater of this current historical moment. But it’s also the psychology of the political economy: a culture built on individualism lives always in an existential terror of isolation, and has to dominate its way out of its fear. On a national level, this becomes the bad conscience and projected (karmic) terror of a system built on genocide.
In reality, most commentators have assessed North Korea’s actual threat as the threat to defend itself in the case of attack by the U.S. If there is no attack on North Korea, there is little chance of an actual threat to the U.S. North Korea’s nuclear program is, as Tim Beal put it, a [suicidal] ‘Sampson Option’, and a deterrent unlikely to be exercised except under the threat (or perceived threat) of its own annihilation.
However, like Haiti or Cuba, for instance, because it poses the threat of a counterexample of resistance (to global geopolitical design), the Korean example must be extinguished.
Imagined resistance, lethal submission
By way of analogy, we can think of the policing of African American communities. The history of slavery renders the policing of African American bodies subject to a threshold of compliance and submission so immediate, so absolute, so total, that lethal force is routinely exercised at the first sign of imagined resistance, threat, or non-compliance.
U.S. engagement in Asia, Africa or America involves a similar paranoid “threat” inflation and a similar exercise of lethal “compliance”. The Korean War itself was referred to as a “police action”.
It’s useful to re-examine the history in this light.
U.S.-Korea relations go back to 1866, when the USS General Sherman forced its way up the Taedong River in Korea, attempting to force open the closed, isolationist state through gunboat diplomacy. The last dynasty of Korea, the 500 year old Chosun dynasty, was steadfastly Confucian and isolationist, and refused to trade and interact with U.S., European, or Japanese colonial powers, believing that these colonial powers were “totally ignorant of any human morality” and utterly alien to them, “craved only material goods”. They sent envoys entreating the Sherman to leave, and to leave Korea alone. The Sherman would not take “no” as an answer, defied entreaties to leave, took the envoys as hostages and opened fire. It, in turn, was attacked and burned to the ground and its troops killed.
Five years later, the U.S. returned to settle scores in 1871 with a full scale marine invasion–five warships and 24 supporting vessels–and obliterated the Korea defenders. After this, Korea (Chosun) surrendered, opened wide its borders and ports to Western trade, and a “friendship” treaty was eventually signed in 1882. Similar to the treaties that the Native American Nations signed with the U.S., the treaty guaranteed “perpetual peace and friendship”, “a perfect, permanent and universal peace, and a sincere and cordial amity”, and promised to “render assistance and protection” if other powers “deal unjustly or oppressively” with it. Two decades after the signing of this mutual “friendship treaty”, the U.S. went into secret talks with a rising, imperialist Japan and pawned Korea over to Japan–green lighting the colonial occupation of Japan–in return for Japan’s non-interference in U.S. colonization of the Philippines. This is the infamous ‘Taft-Katsura Memorandum’ of 1905, which is widely viewed in South Korea as an abrogation and betrayal of the 1882 treaty.
The Japanese colonial occupation of Korea from 1910-1945 was brutal. Koreans were conscripted by the millions into slave labor, where they died in untold numbers. One out of five people killed in atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conscripted Korean slave laborers. The Japanese also kidnapped and enslaved hundreds of thousands of Korean women as military sexual slaves, euphemistically called ‘comfort women’, the world’s largest and most violent system of sexual slavery and trafficking. This became the prototype for modern transnational sexual trafficking. Seventy five to 90 per cent of these women would die during their sexual enslavement.
But to understand this current moment, you have to go to Manchuria of the 1930’s. Japanese-colonized Manchuria, as the puppet state of Manchukuo, is where these excesses were the worst. Historian Mark Driscoll compares Manchukuo to the Belgian Congo in terms of its wanton brutality and disregard for human life. He coins the term “Manchurian Passage”, an Asian “Middle Passage”, to characterize the mass enslavement of Chinese and Koreans to fuel forced industrialization of Manchuria. This became the industrial engine that powered the Japanese Imperial war machine that went on to conquer and colonize all of Asia.
Three key figures are associated with Manchuria; all three are key influences on the current situation: Park Chung Hee, a Korean collaborator who served in the Japanese Imperial forces smashing anti-Japanese resistance; Kishi Nobusuke, the minister of munitions and development; and Kim Il Sung, a guerilla leader fighting the Japanese colonization. Kishi, rehabilitated by the U.S., later becomes Prime Minister of Japan (his grandson, the far right militarist, Shinzo Abe, is the current president of Japan). Park Chung Hee becomes the President/dictator of South Korea (his daughter is the recently impeached quisling president of Korea). Kim Il Sung becomes the Leader of North Korea (his grandson, Kim Jung Un, is the current Leader of North Korea).
Fast forward to 1945, the end of the war. Japan surrenders, Korea is liberated. The liberated Koreans create their own state, the Korean People’s Republic, a democratic, populist state comprised of thousands of people’s committees who fought the Japanese colonization. Its political economy is an indigenous socialism consisting of thousands of labor and farming cooperatives. U.S. cold war policy, cannot countenance an indigenous, grassroots socialism, especially within the possible orbit of a newly arisen China, and divides Korea into two (much like Vietnam), thwarting national elections, creating by force a capitalist state in the south and installing an American-friendly puppet, Syngman Rhee as dictator. It also puts Japanese collaborators back into power, along with entire structure of Japanese colonial domination back into place: police, courts, prisons, military, comfort women. The almost complete reinstallation by the U.S. of this military colonial capitalist system, with the same despotic bloody Japanese collaborators back in power, is the worst nightmare the Koreans can imagine. They fight back, first in mass civil resistance, which is suppressed by mass killings, then guerilla resistance, which results in scorched-earth tactics. The suppression reaches genocidal, atrocity-level proportions in the South: hundreds of thousands are mowed down and murdered by the U.S.-installed Southern dictatorship. Eventually, this crests into a full scale war in 1950.
‘Closer than lips to teeth’
The Chinese, who fought together with the Koreans against the Japanese in Manchuria, consider the creation of the People’s Republic of China indelibly linked to the efforts of Korean fighters, a blood debt. When the U.S. sends troops into in the Korean War, the Chinese, impoverished and weary from their own liberation struggles, send over a million volunteer troops to fight with the North Koreans–just as they had in 1592, when they sent 300,000 troops to repel an earlier Japanese invasion. “Closer than lips to teeth”, is how Chairman Mao characterizes the Korea-China relationship; he sends his own sons to fight in the Korean war; one of them is buried in Korean soil. The Chinese repel the U.S. and South Korean Army in the early stages of the war; the U.S. reacts by a carpet bombing that takes on the character of a full-blown genocide, a military violence unseen in the annals of warfare up until then. North Korea is razed to the ground, “bombed into the Stone Age” and beyond, napalmed into one long fiery barbecue pit, then flooded as dams are destroyed. Mass slaughter of civilians is routine and blamed on the North, although later studies indicates that the vast majority of civilian casualties were caused by the U.S. or the South Korean army under U.S. control.
In 1953, an armistice is signed, but the key provisions of the armistice are not upheld–withdrawal of foreign troops, no introduction of new weapons, and initiating of proceedings within 90 days to procure a lasting peace. No peace treaty is ever signed or pursued; in fact the U.S. announces its intention to let the clock run down on the 90 day provision, covertly introduces new arms the following year (including 166 fighter planes), then dismantles the UN Neutral Nations Inspection Team when it reports on these violations. By 1968, there are 950 nuclear weapons on the peninsula threatening North Korea and the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is routinely punctuated with sporadic raids, border incidents and firefights.
U.S. troops still occupy South Korea to this day; all of South Korea’s military and other facilities still fall under U.S. Operational Control the moment the U.S. president decides (by declaring Defcon 3); nuclear weapons have been on the ground or in play since the beginning. Every entreaty on the part of the North Korea for negotiations for a peace treaty or a non-aggression pact has been rebuffed or conditioned to non-starter demands such as unilateral disarmament. Instead, the U.S. conducts twice yearly the largest military exercises on the planet and recurrently threatens North Korea with annihilation. Donald Trump’s “fire and fury like the world has never seen” is just the most recent.
A clear eyed assessment of the history and the situation could conclude that it would be irrational for North Korean survival if it gave up nuclear weapons. They also seem to have been using a calibrated Tit-for-Tat approach for escalation and de-escalation of threat–the only strategy to prevent war under a situation of deep distrust. However, this capacity for deterrence itself is seen as a threat from the standpoint of the U.S..
The China connection
AG: Syria has no nuclear weapons, but they probably wouldn’t be standing without Russia, which got some backup from China. China sent its destroyers and aircraft carriers into the Mediterranean, though I didn’t hear of them actually engaging. Do you think China and Russia can somehow defuse this?
K.J. Noh: China is enmeshed with North Korea through culture, history, geography, proximity, propinquity, consanguinity. It’s also bound to North (and South) Korea through tradition and treaty. There is the 1961 Sino-Korean Mutual Defense Treaty between China and North Korea that is still binding and has never been disavowed: China will come to North Korea’s aid if attacked. Recent top level statements have reaffirmed and re-emphasized this; party officials who have suggested otherwise have been shown the door. In other words, a war with North Korea, will be a war with China. It’s also important to remember that Russia also shares a border with North Korea, and has interests in maintaining the current status quo.
China is currently leveraging all its diplomatic forces to deescalate the possibility of war–it would rather have a nuclear North Korea than a war or chaos on its border–although the U.S. seems to be trying to suggest that the first will inevitably lead to the others. In 2003, China spearheaded the six-party talks which also attempted to stop a similar escalation. China has also backed the North’s “double freeze (freeze nuclear programs in exchange for freezing military exercises)”, although both Obama and Trump administrations have ignored these proposals. It has also warned the U.S. that any attempt “to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so.” Moreover, it will not do what the U.S. expects it to do: force North Korea to disarm by strong arming it economically or politically. China has neither the power nor the inclination to be a subcontractor to U.S. foreign policy. Any policy that takes that as a starting point is doomed to fail; that may be the point of it for certain involved parties.
China’s goals in the region are significantly, if not diametrically, opposed to those of the U.S. China is acutely aware that the U.S. has been pursuing a policy of military and economic encirclement/containment from the 1990’s onward, but most overtly since 2011, when Hillary Clinton announced the ‘Pivot to Asia’ and an explicit war doctrine has been mapped out and elements progressively implemented vis-a-vis China. Those factions analyzing or proposing war with China have pointed out that it will be less costly to the U.S. if this happens sooner rather than later.
At the catastrophic edge of the eternal present
AG: Is conventional warfare even imaginable in this situation?
K.J. Noh: War is always a failure of the moral imagination. In the case of Korea, it’s also a limit situation of imagination itself: it’s hard to conceive of a “limited” attack that would not spiral into something much more catastrophic: the cascading contingencies are just too complex and unpredictable, the historical trauma vortex is simply too overdetermined.
French mathematician Rene Thom developed a model of “catastrophic” change, where, for example, the axes of fear and rage, of threat of war and its cost, slide situation incrementally and discretely into an unstable, unpredictable, catastrophic attack. Threat signaling of the type we have seen is not cost-free, and will not bring about de-escalation through tit-for-tat actions, or submission, or escape, but rather pushes parties deeper into the cusp of the catastrophe, fixing an enraged “war trance”, setting the stage for unpredictable, catastrophic violence.
The last Korean War was horrific beyond imagination, which is why it has been completely forgotten and repressed in the West. For the North Koreans, it is eternally present. They live in the eternal present of that experience, which they cannot, will not, metabolize or release into memory, until a lasting peace and security is created on the peninsula. That’s why all concerned parties have to put their shoulder into negotiations for peace, otherwise the consequences will be unimaginable. Inside this current crisis, there is a small seed of opportunity: the current South Korean president, who is in favor of de-escalation with North Korea, has put forth concrete measures to initiate the process.
Peace is possible for the peninsula. There is no other choice for the world.
In coordinated protests, Korean Americans denounce U.S. war threats
On August 14–ahead of the 72nd anniversary of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule in 1945–Korean Americans across the United States rallied to demand the U.S. government stop war provocations against North Korea and start talks towards peace. Korean Americans and other anti-war peace activists held coordinated protest actions in New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles.
Following the impeachment of former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and the election of liberal Moon Jae-in [on May 9, 2017], Korean people around the world had high hopes for the resumption of North-South engagement. Many had expected North-South and overseas Koreans to come together for a joint conference in Pyongyang or Seoul on August 15 in commemoration of Korea’s liberation. Just as Korea’s liberation was cut short by the arrival of U.S. occupying troops in 1945, however, the prospect of peace on the peninsula is once again thwarted, this time by Trump’s threats of “fire and fury like the world has never seen”.
In New York, Korean American and other progressive peace activists protested outside the UN headquarters to protest UN sanctions against North Korea and demand the U.S. stop war-provoking military exercises.
In Washington DC, Korean American activists gathered in front of the White House to call on the U.S. to take the path of peace talks over military action.
In Los Angeles, 15 different peace groups rallied in Koreatown with drumming and a liberation dance performance.
The coordinated actions also released a joint statement calling on the Trump administration to stop war provocations aimed at North Korea. The statement draws attention to the long history of U.S. war provocations in the form of economic sanctions and military exercises:
[The] on-going state of suspended war, in addition the decades of U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises and threats of nuclear war have pushed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)… We strongly urge the U.S. government to actively take the path toward dialogue and peace instead of continuing on the current path of sanctions and war.
More calls for peace
Other Korean American organizations issued statements denouncing the U.S. government’s war war threats in Korea. New York-based ‘Nodutdol for Korean Community Development’ called on the U.S. to de-escalate and denounced the U.S. State Department’s recent ban preventing U.S. citizens from traveling to North Korea:
Such isolation — the end goal being regime collapse — is often put forth as the only possible option for dealing with a country the UN has described as guilty of crimes against humanity. But there are growing number of people, including diplomats and foreign policy experts, who say that U.S. policy toward North Korea has simply not worked and that talks are the only way forward.
Read the full statement here.
The Korea Policy Institute (KPI) released an open letter on August 9, calling on Trump to start bilateral negotiations immediately:
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s … offer of a freeze and the U.S. State Department’s recent offer to open dialog with the DPRK, should it hold off on further testing of its nuclear weapons, indicates that there is will on both sides to pull back from the brink of war. That is sufficient ground for diplomacy to take root. Indeed, where other U.S. presidents have failed, you have the rare opportunity to succeed in achieving a durable peace with North Korea.
KPI called on the U.S. government to start the process by cancelling the upcoming Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises scheduled to start on August 21:
On the heels of highly inflammatory threats being hurled back and forth between your administration and North Korea, the Ulchi Freedom Guardian war game, starting August 21, 2017, is fraught with danger. A miscalculation on either side could set us on an irreversible path to war, possibly nuclear war in which millions are projected to perish in the first hours of fighting, and which would turn much of the region into an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland.
Read the full letter here.
Liberation Day [Aug 15] peace demonstration in Seoul calls for halt to joint Korea-U.S. military exercises, The Hankyoreh, Aug.16, 2017
On August 15, members from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, the Korean Progressive Solidarity Group and over 200 other citizens groups marched through Jongno-gu in Seoul to demand action on a variety of issues, including a halt to the upcoming Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises, installation of the THAAD missile defense system and resolution of the ‘comfort women’ issue. [End report]
Thousands take to the streets of Seoul on August 15 demanding peace on Korean Peninsula, photo story on RT.com, Aug 15, 2017
We need a mass movement to prevent nuclear conflict in the Korean Peninsula
On August 2, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham paraphrased President Donald Trump’s stance on the prospect of conflict in the Korean Peninsula as follows: “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there.” Less than a week later, on August 8, President Trump responded to North Korea’s latest missile test by threatening to unleash “fire and fury” against Pyongyang, raising alarms throughout the international community.
These statements were only the latest excerpts of the ongoing hostile dialog between North Korea and the United States since both parties signed an armistice 64 years ago. A peace treaty was never reached.
Will Trump’s heightened rhetoric lead the Korean Peninsula to the brink of war anytime soon? Most likely not. As many analysts point out, deterrence still holds in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia, despite bellicose rhetoric on both sides. The United States knows that North Korea now has the capability and willingness to strike back if attacked. North Korea knows firsthand the overwhelming power of the United States, well proven in the devastation visited on the populace during the Korean War, when more than 30 per cent of Koreans were either killed or injured.
However, without strong public protest against his aggressive rhetoric and a unified demand for peace, Trump and the more hawkish among his retinue may well feel empowered to channel his “fire and fury” rhetoric into actions leading to nuclear conflict in the Korean Peninsula. That is why there must be immediate mobilization to stem Trump’s moves toward the warpath.
While a war is not imminent in the Korean Peninsula as a result of Trump’s bluster, the real reason for alarm is not what the president has said, but rather what he has done since being elected.
Donald Trump has proved to be the most hawkish president in modern history. During the first six months of his presidency, the United States has escalated the bombing of Iraq and Syria to unprecedented levels. By July 21, 2017, according to Foreign Policy magazine, the Trump administration had dropped close to 20,750 bombs, nearly 80 per cent of Obama’s total for all of 2016.
Trump’s hawkish policies have resulted in devastating costs to Iraqi and Syrian civilians. A military campaign of “fire and fury” in the Korean Peninsula would also carry staggering human costs.
There are more than 75,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and Japan, along with more than 136,000 U.S. civilians in South Korea. In addition to all the lives that would be lost in North Korea as a result of U.S. military action, millions of South Korean lives and many thousands of American lives will be in the range of North Korean firepower. This alone should rule out the prospect of military action in the Korean Peninsula.
Nor can U.S.-led UN sanctions on North Korea achieve an effective solution. The North Korean regime has proven to be extremely resilient in enduring sanctions, the costs of which fall upon the most vulnerable of North Korea’s citizens — sick people, elderly people, and women and children who play no part in Kim Jong-un’s policies.
Moreover, time is running out. Even if sanctions are successfully implemented, it will take months for them to take effect, during which time North Korea can continue to develop its missile and nuclear programs, and the cycle of hostile and bellicose exchanges can lead further down the path to war.
During his recent phone call with Trump, South Korean President Moon Jae-in stressed that “South Korea can never accept a war erupting again on the Korean Peninsula,” insisting that “the North Korean nuclear issue must be resolved in a peaceful, diplomatic manner through a close coordination between South Korea and the United States.” Indeed, the only viable option to end the current standoff is diplomacy, best exemplified in concrete proposals such as the freeze-for-freeze dictum, which proposes that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile testing in return for the United States and South Korea halting their annual military exercises.
More than 60 per cent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support direct negotiation between the United States and North Korea, a sentiment shared by 80 per cent of South Koreans. According to the latest survey by Chicago Council on Global Affairs, “Military action … as in past surveys, lacks public support. Overall, 28 per cent of Americans favor sending U.S. troops to destroy North Korea’s nuclear facilities.”
North Korea’s recent advances in bolstering its deterrence capability are creating a structural condition of deterrence buttressed by a balance of power in the Korean Peninsula. While this development represents a potential game-changer in the region, it also creates a historic opportunity for President Trump to leverage diplomacy in order to strike a deal with North Korea, thereby achieving what no other U.S. president has been able to. Without a mass public mobilization demanding peace, however, Trump may feel empowered to push toward a nuclear conflict rather than seizing this opportunity for diplomacy.
On August 10, a day after Trump’s “fire and fury” threat, an emergency antiwar rally was held in front of the White House. Unfurling banners declaring, “no war,” “reunification, not nuclear annihilation” and “who will keep us safe?” protesters called on the president to pursue diplomacy rather than conflict. H.K. Suh, the vice president of the National Association of Korean Americans, appealed to Trump to “stand down,” warning that “one misstep could lead to catastrophe.” Suh is one of hundreds of thousands of Korean-Americans fighting for a peaceful reunification of Korea. It’s time for Koreans and Americans to unite in a people’s movement of broad-based “fire and fury” against any attack on human security from any force in the Korean Peninsula.
Dr. Simone Chun has taught at Northeastern University in Boston, and served as an associate in research at Harvard University’s Korea Institute. She is an active member of the Korea Peace Network, and a member of the steering committee of the Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea.
THAAD issue pushes South Korea-China relations to new lows, The Hankyoreh, Aug 23,2017
U.S.-South Korea drills to go ahead despite spike in tension with North – officials, RT.com, Aug 11, 2017
Joint U.S. and South Korean military drills will go ahead as planned begining on August21 despite a spike in tensions in the region, officials in Seoul said, as Donald Trump continues to threaten the use of force to make North Korea curb its missile program. The ‘Ulchi-Freedom Guardian’ exercises are held annually and cause outrage from North Korea, with Pyongyang calling them preparation for war…
U.S.-South Korea drills could lead to ‘uncontrollable phase of nuclear war,’ North warns, RT.com, Aug 20, 2017
Trump White House continues its talk of ‘preventive war’ against North Korea, report in New York Times, Aug 20, 2017