Watch Report No.19

Watch Report No.19   Dec. 25, 2019

§Demanding Multi-Faceted, Fact-Based Reports from the Japanese Media

The negotiations between the US and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) for peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula have been at a stalemate. There are rising concerns that an impending collapse of the negotiations may once again heighten the tensions on the peninsula.

The US government is mulling over resumption of the talks. The DPRK, however, is demanding the US abandon its “hostile policy,” which the DPRK contends is imperative to the fulfillment of the Singapore Declaration, and does not seem to be interested at all in negotiations that are not intended to result in agreements providing for mutual actions [1]. In December of 2019, the DPRK made two announcements that it had conducted “crucial tests,” [2] which appear to have been related to Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) technology. This, combined with Kim Jong Un’s past statement that the DPRK would patiently wait until the end of 2019 to “see whether the United States makes a courageous decision or not,” [3] have led to speculations that the DPRK may resume ICBM launch tests sometime soon. Although President Donald Trump has been more or less silent on the short distance missile tests that the DPRK has been conducting since May 2019, he will unlikely treat ICBM launch tests the same. At the December 3, 2019 press conference, Trump referred to the possibility of military action against the DPRK for the first time since the Singapore Summit in June 2019, although he also emphasized that he had been maintaining a good relationship with Kim Jong Un [4].

The view that the DPRK is responsible for the deadlocked negotiations dominates the Japanese society, which is accustomed to observe global affairs through the US/Western lens. The Asahi Shimbun’s December 18, 2019 editorial [5] is a typical example.

This editorial, entitled “North Korea’s Provocations: Returning to the State of Crisis?” explains that the reason for the DPRK’s recent “provocative” behavior is because the DPRK, increasingly impatient over the lack of success of its economic policy, is attempting to get the sanctions eased through bargaining with the US government. The editorial goes on to assert that the DPRK should “drop its outdated way of thinking. So long as it thinks a hardline attitude is the only way to elicit concessions from the international community, there would be no prospect for truly beneficial outcomes to be had. In order to break the deadlock, North Korea must take concrete action toward denuclearization,” and the calls for resumption of working-level talks. The editorial admonishes the Trump administration for having been silent on the DPRK’s short distance missile tests and advises that the administration should “acknowledge its responsibility for the arrogant North Korea” and should not fall for “easy deals” in denuclearization negotiations with the DPRK. The editorial further urges the governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) to “closely coordinate” relevant policies while “keeping the US from deviating,” “tame North Korean provocations,” and “explore the path toward the DPRK’s denuclearization.”

The Asahi’s contentions are not based on facts.

First of all, the Asahi ignores most of the agreements enumerated in the Singapore Declaration, which are the basis of the current US-DPRK negotiations. At the Singapore Summit, the US and DPRK leaders agreed to “establishing new US-DPRK relations,” “building a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula,” “the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” and the return of the remains of US soldiers to the US. Moreover, Trump promised security guarantees to the DPRK, and Kim Jong Un “reaffirmed the commitment to working toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Nonetheless, the Asahi only focuses on the DPRK’s denuclearization, rather than the denuclearization of the entire Korean Peninsula, and disregards “establishing new US-DPRK relations” and “building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.” If both countries are to fulfill the Singapore Declaration, the DPRK’s demand for US abandonment of its “hostile policy”– including lifting sanctions and halting the US-ROK joint military exercises – should be taken into account in order to “establish new US-DPRK relations” and “build a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” in addition to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It should not be dismissed as a mere tactic for “bargaining” or “easy deals.”

Furthermore, the Asahi singles out the DPRK’s “provocative behavior” and overlooks the US’s provocative behavior. The joint military exercises the US and the ROK conducted in August 2019 and the delivery to the ROK military of state-of-the-art weapons, such as the F35-B stealth fighter jets the ROK purchased from the US, undeniably qualify as “provocative behavior” from the DPRK’s perspective. The US and the ROK are strengthening their joint military force; the DPRK, which ultimately is still in a state of war with the US, has no choice but to take counter measures for national security. It is incorrect to only criticize the DPRK’s missile tests as “provocative behavior.”

Moreover, one cannot help but wonder whether the “outdated way of thinking” to elicit concessions with a “hardline attitude,” in fact, applies to the US. In comparing the two countries’ progress in the fulfillment of the Singapore Declaration, the DPRK not only halted ICBM launch tests and took decisive actions, such as halting nuclear tests and dismantling a nuclear test site – although critics point out reconstruction is possible – pre-Singapore Summit, but also post-Summit partially dismantled a missile facility and returned the remains of US soldiers. In contrast, the US has merely downsized and suspended the US-ROK joint military exercises. The facts demonstrate that it is the US government, which is unilaterally demanding the DPRK’s denuclearization despite the agreements, that needs to “drop the outdated way of thinking.” Ultimately, the only way to “break the deadlock” may be for the US to “take concrete action” to abandon its “hostile policy” towards the DPRK. Considering that the DPRK developed nuclear weapons for the purpose of deterrence because it was fearful of threats of US invasion, the DPRK’s demand for US abandonment of its “hostile policy” as a condition for the country’s denuclearization is reasonable.

Nevertheless, the Asahi urges the Trump administration not to make “easy deals” while worrying about the administration’s “deviation.” This may be explained by the Asahi’s inaccurate understanding that external pressure forced Kim Jong Un to come to the negotiation table. It was not the sanctions or threats of military attacks that eased the tension leading up to 2017 on the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK claimed it had “completed” its nuclear force prior to turning to talks with the US. This implies that the DPRK only turned to talks because it perceived it had gained an equal footing with the US as a nuclear power. Of course, ROK President Moon Jae In should also be credited for opening a path to the US-DPRK talks by using the Pyeongchang Olympics to improve ROK-DPRK relations and encouraging the DPRK to join the dialogue.

Although the Asahi’s contentions are inconsistent with facts, nevertheless, they may be accepted within Japanese society as a credible viewpoint. In fact, it is not limited to the Asahi; the Japanese media in general have a tendency to report on the Korean Peninsula from a one-dimensional, US point of view. As noted earlier, within Japanese society, the issues pertaining to peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula have been reduced to the issues of the DPRK’s denuclearization, and the view that the DPRK is obligated to act first predominates.

Seeing the reality without the US lens would clarify who deserves to be the target of criticism. Objective analysis of the current situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula is extremely important to achieving denuclearization of the Peninsula. In achieving denuclearization of the Peninsula, civil society, which is the driving force of society as a whole, needs to have a correct understanding of the issues. The media ought to do their job of journalism, which is to accurately report facts from multi-faceted perspectives. (Hajime MAEKAWA)

(Thanks to Toshie OZAKI and Patti WILLIS for translating from Japanese to English and proof-reading.)

[1] “U.S. Should not Dream about Negotiation for Denuclearization before Dropping Its Hostile Policy towards DPRK,” KCNA, November 18, 2019; “Advisor to DPRK Foreign Ministry Issues Statement,” KCNA, November 18, 2019. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm  Search for the article by date.

[2] “Statement of Spokesman for Academy of National Defense Science Issued,” KCNA, December 8, 2019; “Spokesman for Academy of Defense Science of DPRK Issues Statement,” KCNA, December 14, 2019. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm Search for the article by date.

[3] “Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un's Policy Speech,” KCNA, April 14, 2019. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm Search for the article by date.

[4] “Remarks by President Trump and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg After 1:1 Meeting,” The White House, December 3, 2019. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-nato-secretary-general-stoltenberg-11-meeting-london-united-kingdom/

[5] “Kitachosen no chohatsu. Kincho jotai ni modoru kika” (Tentative Translation: “North Korea’s Provocations: Returning to the State of Crisis?”) Asahi Shimbun, December 18, 2019. https://digital.asahi.com/articles/DA3S14298525.html (in Japanese)

Watch Report No.18

Watch Report No.18   Dec. 16, 2019

§Seek Realization of the Singapore Agreement through the Framework of a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

As the working-level talks that resumed in Stockholm, Sweden, on October 4 broke down with no agreement, US-DPRK negotiations toward peace and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula remain stalled. Although the US government has shown concessions to a certain degree to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) by suspending the US-ROK joint military exercise originally scheduled for December, the DPRK government has rejected the US request for dialogue, calling for the US to completely give up its hostile policy toward the DPRK [1]. With the 2019 year-end deadline set by the DPRK approaching, it is concerned that negotiations could end in a stalemate. However, for the sake of peace and stability in the Northeast Asian region, we cannot give up the realization of “establishment of a peace regime on the Koran Peninsula” and “complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” This goal was committed to by US and DPRK leaders at the US-DPRK summit in Singapore in June 2018. This Watch Report will propose solutions toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula other than a framework between the US-DPRK.

What has impeded the realization of peace and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula?

On the DPRK side, as can be seen from the DPRK government’s request, it is that the US has continued its hostile policy toward the DPRK. For the DPRK, with its homeland being completely destroyed by the US during the Korean War and still in a state of war with the US, its possession of nuclear weapons is critical as deterrence against US aggression. Therefore, US withdrawal of its hostile policy toward the DPRK, which the DPRK government has repeatedly called for, is fully understandable as a condition of its denuclearization.

On the other hand, the US government seems to consider that its hostile policies, such as military pressure and economic sanctions, should be withdrawn only after the DPRK has completed denuclearization. For instance, in February 2019, at the Hanoi Summit, the US government demanded that the DPRK dismantle all of its nuclear facilities as a condition for lifting sanctions against the DPRK. This stance of the Trump administration has been consistent in that it will keep sanctions in place until the DPRK denuclearizes, although the administration has once hinted at relaxation of sanctions some time ago. Through UN Security Council sanction resolutions, the US has constructed a case that the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapon is a threat to international security, even if it is as deterrence against US aggression. Based on the logic of that case, the US would not be able to relax sanctions until the DPRK denuclearizes and demobilizes military capabilities premised on the assumption that the DPRK is a potential enemy.

Putting aside which side’s claim is justifiable, if both sides will not make concession on the grounds of deterrence and national security, it would be impossible to solve this issue peacefully.

Does it mean the realization of the Singapore agreement is impossible? No. Fortunately, there is a precedent in other places in the world that offers a possible solution. That is the security system called a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ).

A nuclear-weapon-free zone bans development, manufacture, acquisition, possession and storage of nuclear weapons and also prohibits nuclear powers from using and threatening to use nuclear weapons in a given area by a treaty or a convention. Currently, there are five NWFZs such as in Latin America (the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, which came into force in 1969 ) and in the South Pacific (the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, came into force in 1986) and function as security frameworks based on nuclear-free policies.

Based on the following two reasons, in order to ensure realization of denuclearization and to maintain peace of the Korean Peninsula, it is necessary to expand the geographical area to be denuclearized to Northeast Asia instead of limiting it solely to the Korean Peninsula, as laid out in the Singapore agreement does.

1) “Complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” agreed upon by the US and the DPRK also covers nuclear weapons possessed by the Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) and US Forces Korea (USFK). Therefore, assurance by Russia and China that they will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the ROK is necessary as a measure which would compensate for extended nuclear deterrence provided by the US to the ROK.

2) If capabilities of the USFK are transferred to or replaced by the US Forces Japan (USFJ), national security of the DPRK could not be fully guaranteed.

Additionally, if a NEA-NWFZ is modeled on existing NWFZs which have legally binding mechanisms for verification, it would come with advantage of being able to realize “complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization (CVID),” which the Japanese government has been insisting on.

Some people may doubt if it is possible to ensure security in Northeast Asia that includes Russia and China, military powers with nuclear weapons, without relying on the US “nuclear umbrella.” Thinking about demanding the DPRK to denuclearize, that question sounds a bit selfish. However, the answer is that there is no need to worry.

Within the same Northeast Asian region, there is a country that has established its national security system by declaring itself to be strictly nuclear-free, even though it is a single-state NWFZ. It has gained the trust of the international community by making denuclearization an obligation of its domestic law. Sandwiched between Russia and China, Mongolia gained international recognition of its nuclear-weapons-free status through a UN General Assembly resolution in 1998, and since then, ensures its national security by confirming its nuclear-weapon-free status at the UN General Assembly every year. As the Mongolian case is not a NWFZ composed of a group of states, there is no legally binding treaty, but still the case shows that, if a nuclear-weapon-free status is recognized at the UN, it is possible to ensure national security at minimal cost in Northeast Asia without depending on the great powers’ “nuclear umbrellas”.

It is sometimes said that the Cold War structure still remains in the Korean Peninsula. It is related to the situation where some states, including Japan, are hostile to countries with different political systems such as the DPRK and China and are bound by an old idea of ensuring national security by depending on a “nuclear umbrella” instead of through dialogue. Additionally, not only in Northeast Asia, but also all over the world, including Western Asia and Eastern Europe, the presence of US armed forces and its military alliance have destabilized those regions. We need to become aware of this reality and free ourselves from an old way of thinking.

In the “Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” the first joint declaration with South Korean government on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the DPRK government agreed that it “shall not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.” Furthermore the 1994 Agreed Framework between the US and DPRK and the 2005 Joint Statement of the six-party talks reaffirmed a commitment to make efforts toward the implementation of the 1992 declaration. After that, the DPRK became a nuclear power but it has consistently stated that if there is no US nuclear threat, there is no reason for the DPRK to possess nuclear weapons. There is a high possibility that the DPRK would accept realization of denuclearization through such measures as a NWFZ which would satisfy the condition that there is no US nuclear threat.

The obstacle might be the US and its allies. The US government that wants to maintain its hegemony in Asia would need to keep the means to bring in nuclear weapons into the Northeast Asian region to counteract the influence of Russia and China. In fact, immediately after the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) became void, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper expressed his willingness to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Asia [2]. Japan is one of the possible deployment sites. Additionally, as can be seen from the fact that the US has opposed the establishment of a Middle East WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)-Free Zone, which is believed to be most effective way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons [3], it’s the US that prioritizes a strategy to maintain its hegemony over denuclearization and regional peace.

In truth, the government of Japan, the nation devastated by atomic bombings, would be expected to play a leading role in proposing the establishment of a Northeast Asia NWFZ and persuading the Trump administration, taking full advantage of “strong Japan-US Alliance” about which the Abe administration boasts. When Pope Francis visited Japan this November, in the meeting with diplomatic corps, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a speech and stated that “Japan, as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombs, has a duty to lead the efforts of international community to realize a ‘World without Nuclear Weapons’. This is my unshakable faith and solid policy of the Japanese government.” [4] If what he said was what he meant, isn’t it a perfect opportunity for him to carry out “the duty”?

Unfortunately, it is impossible to expect that the current Japanese administration will demonstrate such leadership given that it has been opposed to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The current administration talks about “the solid Japan-US Alliance,” but in reality it is the Japanese government’s unquestioning dependence on the US. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s “unshakable faith” is just rhetoric and it can hardly be expected that the Abe administration will voluntarily take the leadership toward denuclearization in Northeast Asia.

As stated at the beginning of this Watch Report, the year-end deadline set by the DPRK government is approaching. It’s time for citizens to take actions to realize denuclearization, instead of leaving this issue in hands of “leaders.” It’s wrong to leave the fate of this issue in the hands of only a few people, considering that the issue could threaten lives of all people living in the Northeast Asian region. Citizens seeking peace in the Northeast Asian region have to recognize the need for a Northeast Asia NWFZ and create a major movement for its realization, and pressure each government to reflect our hope for peace in its policies.

It may sound idealistic, but it is the surest way to change society. Examples that citizens’ movements changed society are too numerous to list, and thinking of the protests against the governments taking place around the world today, there seems to be no need to give examples for that.

If just one instance is cited to encourage citizens desiring peace, it is worth noting a sign at the entrance of a residential area of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico. The sign was protesting the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which benefits only large companies. The citizens rose up in rebellion for betterment of the lives of farmers who are indigenous people and for democracy, with a sign saying:

“Here the people command and the government obey.” [5] (Hajime MAEKAWA)

(Thanks to Miho ASANO and Patti WILLIS for translating from Japanese to English and proof-reading.)

[1] See, for example, a statement by Kim Yong-chol, chairman of the Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, on the US decision to suspend the joint aerial drill with South Korea (KCNA, November 18, 2019), and a statement by Kim Kye-guan, advisor to the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK, on a remark posted by President Trump on Twitter, “You should act quickly, get the deal done. See you soon!” (KCNA, November 18, 2019).

KCNA http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm Search for the article from date.

[2] “Secretary of Defense Esper Media Engagement En Route to Sydney, Australia,” US Department of Defense, August 2, 2019

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/1925072/secretary-of-defense-esper-media-engagement-en-route-to-sydney-australia/

[3] Along with Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, the US didn’t participate in a conference on the establishment of a Middle East WMD-Free Zone held at the UN in November 2019. Iran and Arab countries are willing to establish such a zone, but the US, along with Israel, didn’t participate in the similar kind of conference held in Helsinki, Finland in 2012.

[4] “Meeting between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and His Holiness Pope Francis,” Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, November 25, 2019 (in Japanese) https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/98_abe/actions/201911/25vatican.html

[5] Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation