International Meeting
2024 World Conference against A and H Bombs
Session 2
Lee Jun-kyu
Adjunct Researcher at Hanshin University
ROK
Make Korean Peninsula and East Asia Nuclear-Free and Peaceful Again
Dear friends gathered in the 2024 World Conference against A and H Bombs, I am delighted to see you this year again.
The Russia-Ukraine war, which broke out by Russian aggression, has turned into a war of attrition and is now in its third year after the failure of Russia’s plan for regime change in Ukraine. The ongoing Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, which has been going on since last year, is a global challenge for the international community to resolve urgently.
Both of these two issues are likely to turn world history backwards, disregarding and violating international law, international norms and universal values that have been built up by mankind through the era of imperialism and two world wars.
On the other hand, NATO countries have embarked on a major military buildup on the pretext of “Russian threat”, taking advantage of this opportunity to realize a “global NATO”. In fact, NATO has already extended its intervention into Asia and the Pacific and is strengthening military partnership with U.S., Japan, South Korea and Australia as seen in increasing joint military exercises with them. In East Asia and the Pacific, there is not only a strategic competition between the United States and China, but also a complex of great power politics and geopolitical struggles. In July this year, the U.S. announced the deployment of its long-range missiles in Germany, which will not only destroy the achievement of arms control effort, but will act also as another factor to accelerate the nuclear arms race in the world.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), while the number of nuclear warheads possessed by nuclear powers around the world has decreased slightly, that of “usable nuclear weapons” has increased (as of June 16, 2024). This is regarded as the result of “modernization of nuclear weapons”, the preemptive strike doctrine, the threat of use, and development and deployment of usable nuclear weapons.
In order to stop the world arms race and prevent the repetition of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies, the anti-nuclear peace movements around the world that succeeded in ushering the “nuclear weapons prohibition era”, should work together to establish the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as a solid international norm and advance towards the elimination of these weapons, so that they can encircle and pressure the nuclear weapon states.
Recent attention in relation to the international situation on the Korean Peninsula has focused on the DPRK-Russia summit and the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, and the North-South exchanges of dirty balloons and the operation of propaganda loudspeakers near the armistice line, but the deepening of confrontation and increased tension need to be explained by looking back the situation on the Korean Peninsula since the breakup of the DPRK-U.S. summit meeting held in Hanoi in 2019.
After the closure of peaceful phase in 2018-19, North Korea first declared a frontal breakthrough and launched a self-reliance policy and strengthening of its national defense capabilities. The centerpiece of this strengthening of its national defense capability is the buildup of its nuclear arsenal and the development and deployment of strategic weapons, called “nuclear force sophistication.” In particular, North Korea is developing tactical nuclear weapons, SLBMs, hypersonic missiles, multiple warhead missiles, and intelligence satellites.
In line with these developments, North Korea changed its nuclear doctrine in an aggressive manner. State Committee Chairman Kim Jong-un and Kim Yojung referred to a nuclear first-strike through their official statements and talks, and they also mentioned the policy that South Korea would be the target of such an attack. That policy was institutionalized in September 2022 under the name of the “Nuclear Armed Forces Policy Act.”
The U.S. has already implemented the military strategy based on preemptive strike doctrine. Taking into account that South Korea and Japan are tied up under this strategy, we can say that the doctrines of preemptive nuclear strike have collided with each other, which means that there is always a risk of a minor accidental military clash escalating into a nuclear war.
Second, North Korea refused any dialogue or negotiation with the U.S. and approached China and Russia instead. As made clear by its official statements, North Korea thinks that the current world situation could be characterized by the “advent of a new cold war age” and “multipolarization”. North Korea seems to pursue a different foreign policy that allows it to stay away from the present world capitalist system, instead of trying to improve the relation with the U.S.
In particular, the close ties with Russia are conspicuous, but this relationship between the two countries is due to the coincidence of their interests. Of course, there is the view that the treaty signed in June of this year is equivalent to a military alliance, but many argue that it is impossible to compare the treaty on the same line as the Cold War-era “Soviet-DPRK alliance treaty” based on ideological cohesion and “automatic involvement”. Above all, taking China’s attitude into consideration, it is an overreaction to conclude that a “DPRK-Russia-China bloc” has been formed in Northeast Asia. Rather, it must be a “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy” that will encourage the creation of a new Cold War system in the region.
Third, North Korean State Chairman Kim Jong-un, at the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea at the end of last year and at the Supreme People’s Assembly in January this year, defined North-South relations on the Korean Peninsula as “relations between two hostile states, not cognatic relations” and as “belligerent relations during war”. North Korea is dismantling the governmental institutions, the WPK agencies and their affiliated organizations that were in charge of negotiations and exchanges with South Korea. This means the scrapping of the “unification policy.”
It could be said that North Korea’s changes are intended to justify military action or the prosecution of war, including the use of nuclear weapons against South Korea, or to block South Korean influence on North Korea. However, in light of the aforementioned developments, it must be seen that North-South relations on the Korean Peninsula have moved beyond the rupture and entered a new phase. In other words, North Korea appears to have made a major shift in its national strategy.
The shift in the DPRK’s national strategy is taking place in the context of the changing international situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula for the past several years. Above all, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has promoted division of military blocs. State Committee Chairman Kim Jong-un described the DPRK-Russia treaty of June this year as “a driving force for creating a multipolar world.”
The other is the emergence of the Biden and Yun Sok-yol administrations. Originally, the Biden administration prioritized deterrence against China and was busy dealing with the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war, and it is fair to say that it was inept in its policy toward North Korea. Meanwhile, the South Korean administration of Yoon Suk-yeol is strengthening extended deterrence, including the nuclear umbrella based on the South Korea-U.S. alliance. This move has led to the formation of a South Korea-US-Japan military alliance, which resulted in the “Camp David Accord” among the leaders of the US, Japan and South Korea last August.
In fact, the ROK and the U.S. established the Nuclear Consultative Group (NCG) and this year adopted the “Guidelines for Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Operations” for the ROK-U.S. Allied Forces. With the resumption and expansion of ROK-US joint military exercises, US strategic weapons are to be forward-deployed frequently on the Korean Peninsula. In June this year, “multidomain” joint military drills between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea were conducted, and there is talk of even “regularization” of joint exercises among the three countries.
Under its Indo-Pacific strategy, the US has been building a network to contain China by involving its allies and creating various security frameworks such as AUKUS, QUAD, and QUAD Plus. South Korea and Japan are fully integrated into the U.S. geopolitical strategy through the U.S.-Japan-South Korea military alliance. The US uses such a security framework to maintain US dominance in the region and to deter China. Furthermore, it is able to shift the military risks and human and economic costs associated with geopolitical conflicts to its allies.
The Yoon administration, which approaches international and domestic politics with the dichotomous view of separating friend from foe, is taking the initiative in jumping into the geopolitical fray between the United States and China, even to the point of stepping on the historical issue between Korea and Japan.
However, the formation of a military bloc in the region, with the United States at the top, invites counter-movements. The recent move of the DPRK, Russia, and China is an example. If such negative reactions continue, the “New Cold War” will become a reality rather than a discourse. The policy of the Yoon administration is nothing but to exacerbate nuclear confrontation between the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia and to extend the confrontation line across the Korean Peninsula to the whole of East Asia. The Yoon administration has abandoned the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the establishment of a peace regime, and has made the Korean Peninsula the epicenter of the bloc confrontation.
Flashpoints in the region include the Taiwan Strait, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea. Those flashpoints are where China, the United States, and Southeast Asian countries have conflicting interests. Japan has intervened in those conflicts in the name of securing its territorial rights and sea lanes. A clash at a flashpoint could spark an all-out war involving countries in the region, and the more the conflict between the U.S., China, and related countries sharpens, the greater the risk that the flashpoint will ignite. This is why we must say that efforts to prevent bloc confrontation in East Asia and to create a multilateral framework for dialogue and cooperation are an urgent task.
From the perspective of the Korean Peninsula, we must recognize the DPRK as a real state and work on a vision and practice to transform the “hostile two-state relationship” into a two-state relationship of peace and coexistence. In order to resume the nuclear-free peace process on the Korean Peninsula, we should be aware of the reality that now is no longer an era of “we are one same nation (Woori Minjok Kiri). From this perspective, a multilateral international framework for dialogue and cooperation is required in this region for the sake of nuclear-free peace process on the Korean Peninsula.
In concluding, I would like to underline two things. One is that at this time of uncertainty about the course of North Korea, the Yoon administration and political changes in South Korea, and the U.S. presidential election, efforts to prevent military clash and war are required. The other is that when nuclear confrontation, arms race, conflicts and war are highlighted on the Korean Peninsula and in world politics, the TPNW movement is creating an alternative trend. I would like to emphasize the importance of this movement again.
(Woori Minjok Kiri, 우리민족끼리)”.