Home
|
November 27, 2010 Contact person for questions regarding this statement: Suzy Kim, suzyk@hotmail.com
The appeal was formally made at a press conference in Seoul on August 20th. The conference was well attended by many prominent Korean endorsers, including Paik Nakchung and Lim Dong-Won, as well as by Ed Baker of Harvard representing American supporters and Wada Haruki of Tokyo University on behalf of Japanese endorsers. Toward Peace and Security in Northeast Asia: Heartened by recent positive developments over the Korean peninsula, but deeply concerned about the dangerous state of current affairs, we citizens of Japan, South Korea, the U.S. and other regional countries appeal to the peoples and governments concerned to seize the opportunity created by the visits to North Korea of former President Clinton and Hyundai Group chair Hyun to further dialogue and diplomacy in the service of peace. Their visits and meetings with National Defense Council Chairman Kim Jong-Il, as well as the release of two American journalists and a South Korean employee, are welcome steps toward comprehensive dialogue. However, Northeast Asia as a whole is teetering toward disaster. The United States, South Korea, and Japan are tightening sanctions against North Korea; and North Korea is proceeding with its nuclear programs. Tension on the Korean peninsula, inherent in the state of war, is rising yet higher with this week’s military exercises. Yet there is no talk among the governments to resolve their differences. It is high time that the concerned governments stop talking about talks and start talking with each other, bilaterally and multilaterally, to ease the tensions and search for lasting peace. The urgency of the situation, as well as the hope inspired by the Clinton-Kim and Hyun-Kim meetings, leads us to issue the following joint citizens’ statement. ---------------------------------------------------- At the beginning of this year President Obama called for dialogue and cooperation with North Korea and stated his readiness to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Throughout Northeast Asia and beyond, hopes soared for a diplomatic breakthrough. But military tensions actually increased and the Northeast Asian region was swept by fears of a sudden change in the nuclear situation. Coinciding with the opening of the Supreme People’s Assembly, Pyongyang announced that it would launch a satellite. It did so in April on the very day that President Obama gave his Prague speech seeking “a world free from nuclear weapons.” President Obama criticized North Korea for breach of the “rules” and said “violations must be punished.” The Security Council condemned the launch in a presidential statement and tightened existing sanctions. On 25 May, North Korea responded to what it viewed as the statement’s infringement on its sovereign right by conducting a nuclear test. In response, on 12 June, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1874 to punish North Korea for what it believed was a breach of its previous resolutions. On 2 and 4 July, North Korea in turn tested four short and seven medium-range ballistic missiles, prompting further calls for tightening the grip of Resolution 1874 and other measures. The vicious cycle of confrontation in which hardline response elicits hardline response, must be broken. Security Council Resolution 1874 prohibited North Korea from exporting weapons, threatened its ships with inspection, and specified items that could be confiscated. If a North Korean ship were to be interdicted by the US, South Korea, or Japan, the tensions in Northeast Asia could reach critical level. There has to be a turning back if Northeast Asia is not again to be engulfed in war. The situation that brought on the crisis must be reexamined and realistic policies adopted to avoid conflict. This is something that has been sought by all related governments since the early summer of this year. Now, we recommend the following. First, we urgently call on President Obama and Chairman Kim Jong-il to return to a course of dialogue and negotiation, and to take resolute steps to reduce tensions. To that end, we urge that they immediately open US-North Korea negotiation, whether by public or non-public, bilateral or multilateral means, including by the dispatch of a special envoy. The two leaders should make clear that the goal of such negotiation is to normalize the relationship between the two countries, end the state of war, and denuclearize the Korean peninsula. As a first step, they should declare that they recognize each other’s sovereignty. The peoples of the two countries should support their governments in pushing ahead in this direction. Second, in order to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear weapons development, we call on the nuclear weapon states of the Northeast Asian region – the US, Russia and China – to show readiness for nuclear disarmament in accord with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Further, Japan and South Korea should recognize that the US nuclear umbrella (extended nuclear deterrent), on which they themselves rely, has to be on the agenda for the denuclearization of Northeast Asia. Toward this end, the six governments should reiterate their commitment to the September 19th Statement's goals, including the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and creation of a regional peace structure, and convene a Northeast Asian disarmament conference to lower the level of regional military preparations, including conventional arms as well as weapons of mass destruction. Third, we call on Japan to recommit to a path of negotiating with North Korea. The Japanese government and people have been calling for the punishment of North Korea over the abduction question, and Japan has banned all trade with North Korea and forbidden North Korean ships from entering its ports. Diplomatic negotiations have completely broken down. Japan has refused to fulfil its obligations to provide oil to North Korea under the Six-Party agreements. Japan also took the lead in calling for UN sanctions over the rocket launch. The Japanese government and people must be aware of their own historical responsibility for the present crisis and reopen negotiations to normalize relations with North Korea on the basis of the Pyongyang Declaration (September 17, 2002). Fourth, we call on the government and people of South Korea to take up the valuable opening provided by Hyundai Group Chairwoman Hyun Jeong-eun's recent visit to Pyongyang and her meeting with Chairman Kim Jong-Il, making clear that they unconditionally oppose raising military tensions on the Korean peninsula and that they will not participate in inspection of North Korean ships. South Korea should strive to construct opportunities to improve relations. Just as the North-South summit meeting of June 2000 provided a historic moment toward dissolving the Cold War regime in Northeast Asia, so the South Korean government should now take the initiative to resolve new tensions in the region by honoring previous summit agreements and returning to a course of dialogue and cooperation with North Korea. Fifth, we call on the governments of China and Russia, with their deep familiarity with the issues pertaining to North Korea, the security of Northeast Asia, and the nuclear arms race, to halt the cycle of escalation and bring the parties in conflict back to the negotiating table by proposing reconciliation among them and committing to the elimination of nuclear weapons and general arms reduction in Northeast Asia. Finally, we urge the Secretary General, the President of the Security Council, and the United Nations as a whole, to reverse the cycle of escalation and make maximum efforts to bring all parties back to the negotiating table for resolution of the full range of nuclear and peace issues including US-DPRK and Japan-DPRK normalization and a peace treaty to end the Korean War. (August 20, 2009) The
appeal in Korean, Japanese, and English (with signatories)
Despite some hopeful signs in the last two years, the Korean peninsula is again teetering toward crisis. The Six Party Talks are stymied. Progress toward normalizing relations between the United States and North Korea has stalled. Relations between the two Koreas have deteriorated. In this context, North Korea’s rocket launch this week and the overreaction to it threaten to trigger another round of escalation. We urge all the governments in the region to remain calm and turn to dialogue and diplomacy to stop the peninsula from degenerating into a conflict. We believe that this crisis is a reminder of the absolute imperative of achieving permanent peace in the region. Frustrated by the lack of progress in the Six Party Talks and genuinely interested in advancing its space program, Pyongyang is making its second attempt to put a satellite into orbit. This time, North Korea has signed the appropriate international protocols governing satellites and given the proper notification. The UN resolution sanctioning North Korea after its 2006 nuclear test does not explicitly forbid satellite launches. That North Korea is attempting to abide by this resolution suggests that Pyongyang still wants to engage with the international community. We are concerned about the growing militarism in Northeast Asia, including increased military spending, destabilizing U.S. military exercises around the peninsula, and the bellicose rhetoric from North Korea. Japan has taken the current crisis as an opportunity to accelerate its missile defense programs; South Korea is solidifying its uncompromising position. We believe that an overreaction to North Korea’s rocket launch would only fuel North Korea’s suspicions and make further negotiations difficult. Talk of sanctions would only help end dialogue in the region. We call on the region’s governments to reaffirm the principles declared in the September 19 Joint Statement of the Six Party talks as well as the roadmap identified in the February 13 agreement. The six countries should abide by their commitments and move forward not only on denuclearization but also with the larger engagement package, which includes a peace treaty to replace the Korean War armistice, concrete steps toward normalization, and a roadmap that Pyongyang can follow to become integrated in the global economy and a peace structure. A narrow focus on non-proliferation is a recipe for prolonged, fitful, and probably fruitless negotiations. Only by expanding the number of options on the table can the Six Party Talks make headway. All avenues of communication and exchange, including bilateral ones, must be pursued. A bold move to open dialogue must begin now. Signatories (institutional affiliation for the purpose of identification):* Charles K. Armstrong ( Columbia University) *Signatures are collected by Alliance of Scholars Concerned
about Korea (www.asck.org).
ASCK sponsored two events at the March 2009 AAS meeting in Chicago. First event: March 27, Friday, 10:45 a.m. – 12:45 p.m., Panel Number 48, Long Journey Toward Truth: Findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Korea.
Second event: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 1 p.m. – 2:30 p. m., Erie Room, A reception for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Republic of Korea (TRCK). The program included opening remarks by Professor Martin Hart-Landsberg (Lewis and Clark College); a brief presentation by Professor Kim Dong-Choon (Sung Kong Hoe University), standing commissioner of the (TRCK); and informal conversations with members of the TRCK. A limited number of free copies of a book documenting the work of the TRCK were distributed. ASCK also helped organize a speaking tour by the TRC that
included stops in six cities: New York, Boston, Portland, Berkeley, Los
Angeles, and Vancouver. ASCK is supporting an important effort by historians in South Korea to defend the principle of political neutrality in education. Statement by Historians in South Korea and Abroad We [the undersigned] demand that the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology stop the revision of [high school] history textbooks, undermining the principle of political neutrality in education. On October 8th, twenty one academic associations related to the field of history held a press conference, criticizing the government’s plan to revise modern Korean history textbooks [used in high schools]. The following day, the Joint Committee for the Resolution of the History Textbook Issue, composed of 39 groups – including the National Association of History Teachers, National University Workers’ Union, and Asia Peace and History Education Network – also held a press conference in front of the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. They did so because, instead of safeguarding political neutrality in education and respecting historical expertise, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology has brought about a crisis in historical research and education. But the Ministry has refused to acknowledge such criticism/opposition, and continues to stick to its plans for revision. On October 15th, the Ministry announced that it would “pursue a balanced revision of textbooks by the end of November reflecting the academic and educational perspectives in a comprehensive manner” by utilizing the report submitted by the National Institute of Korean History entitled “Review of modern Korean history textbooks and Proposed Guidelines for Narration” and the participation of the Association of Experts in History Education made up of teachers, educational professionals and professors. The textbooks that the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology plans to revise had already been reviewed in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and [in those reviews] were not judged to be “left-leaning.” If the revisions are carried out [only] because the new President, Lee Myung-bak, proposed such changes as part of his so-called policy of “normalization of textbooks,” will future administrations also revise textbooks whenever there is a change in government? If that were to happen, political neutrality in education will be undermined, and there will be a proliferation of research on modern Korean history that caters solely to the government in power. Moreover, the way the Ministry has pursued the revision of history textbooks does not conform to the Regulations concerning Textbooks. According to these regulations, the Ministry may order the authors or the publishers to revise the contents, and if such orders go unheeded, the Ministry may revoke its official approval or suspend publication and circulation of the textbooks within one year. But even in such cases, the regulations have no provisions for the direct revision of textbooks by the government [as the government threatens to do]. The report submitted by the National Institute of Korean History did make note of 49 different revisions to be made in the textbooks to enhance validity and fairness, avoiding bias in historical interpretation, but did not provide detailed guidelines for the 257 different expressions deemed problematic by the Ministry. It is of grave concern that the current attempt to revise history textbooks appears to be driven by a specific political agenda to homogenize history textbooks, as demanded by the "New Right" and parts of the governing group. First, the Ministry’s revision of history textbooks, by allowing only one historical interpretation, prevents diverse interpretations, based on accumulated historical research, from being reflected in the textbooks. This suppression of diversity leads to the repression of academic freedom in research and publication. Second, the Ministry’s revisions will further narrow the range of historical interpretations that had been guaranteed to some extent under the textbook authorization system. This distortion of the textbook authorization system will result in the publication of authorized textbooks that are no different from the government authored textbooks that were published under the Yushin System. This will result in the infringement of history teachers’ right to teach, and students’ right to learn. Third, the homogenization of history education will undermine students’ creative and spontaneous learning and furthermore hamper the cultivation of open-ended and pluralistic thought necessary in the age of globalization. Because the Ministry’s attempt to revise history textbooks will inevitably lead to the erosion of academic freedom and political neutrality in education, we, the undersigned scholars of history, hereby launch a nation-wide signature campaign and make the following demands:
For an overview of the issue see: Choe
Sang-Hun, "History
textbook causes an uproar in South Korea," International
Herald Tribune, November 17, 2008. The ASCK steering committee authored a letter to the Prosecutor General of South Korea on behalf of Professor Oh Sei-Chull who, along with six other people, was arrested on charges of violating the National Security Law. Korea Peace Day 2007 On November 30, 2007, the ASCK Steering Committee sponsored
(with the support of UCLA’s Center for Korean Studies) a Korea
Peace Day 2007 event at UCLA, with the theme “Ending the War
on Korea, Building Peace for Northeast Asia.” The following is the ASCK statement
in support of House Resolution 121 on the "comfort women" issue. As scholars working on East Asian and
Asian American issues, we call upon members of Congress to support House
Resolution 121 proposed by Congressman Mike Honda. We believe
that the government of Japan should make an official and unequivocal apology.
It should take responsibility for how the Japanese Imperial Armed Force
subjected thousands of girls and women of Asia, as well as those of European
descent, to sexual slavery as "comfort women" during World War II.
The ASCK steering committee authored two letters to the president of Dongguk University in Seoul, South Korea on behalf of Professor Kang Jeong-koo who was indicted in December 2005 and convicted in May 2006 under provisions of the National Security Law for making statements alleged to be pro-North Korean. Professor Kang has been suspended from his teaching and research jobs.
Korea Peace Day 2006 With relations between the United States and North Korea growing steadily worse, the Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea declared December 1, 2006 to be Korea Peace Day 2006. On that day ASCK held a major conference at Stanford University which featured a panel of distinguished scholars including Bruce Cumings, John Lewis, Jae-Jung Suh, and Xiyu Yang.
The Future of U.S.-Korean Relations: Profound asymmetries of power and perception haunt U.S. relations with both North and South Korea . Over the last four years, these power imbalances have led to increased tensions among the three countries. An uneasy, eight-year truce concerning North Korea 's nuclear ambitions ended in 2002, and the United States moved closer to a war footing. In South Korea, meanwhile, anger and resentment over an unequal military and political relationship, combined with an ongoing U.S. reevaluation of its military role on the peninsula, have put an enormous strain on a longstanding military alliance. The shifts in U.S. policy toward the two Koreas have taken place against the backup of a radically reconfigured American foreign policy. Upon taking office in 2001, George W. Bush signaled a new direction in U.S. relations with the world. Particularly after September 11, the Bush administration has increasingly broken with a "balance of power" tradition to put greater emphasis on military force and unilateral diplomacy. Dramatic changes have taken place in East Asia as well. These include rising Japan-North Korea tensions in the wake of disclosures of the kidnapping of Japanese citizens; the growing military strength and reach of Japan and China together with China's emergence at the center of a range of diplomatic activities including the Korean nuclear issue; and movement forward in inter-Korean rapprochement. In light of these trends, the United States faces important decisions in dealing with the Korean peninsula and, by extension, East Asia . Along one path lies increased conflict - diplomatic, economic, and even military. Along another path lies the prospect of greater cooperation and mutual benefit that arise from a greater equality in relations and multilateral diplomatic, political, and economic interaction. In The Future of U.S. -Korean Relations, twelve prominent experts on U.S.-Korean and U.S.-Pacific relations explore the many dimensions of this critical choice. They analyze current U.S. foreign policy, how it has changed over the last decade, and, as importantly, how it should change over the next ten years. They chart critical new developments in North and South Korea . And they examine U.S.-Korean relations through such prisms as nationalism, the media, and regional relations. This book will contain essays that were published in the Winter 2004 issue of Asian Perspective and written by Charles Armstrong, Paul Chang, John Feffer, Martin Hart-Landsberg, Samuel Kim, Karin Lee, Adam Miles, Katharine Moon, Gi-Wook Shin, and Jae-Jung Suh. The book will have additional chapters by Gavan McCormack, James Seymour, and Haruki Wada.
With renewed tensions once again raising the specter of war on the Korean peninsula, the Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea declared November 10, 2005 to be Korea Peace Day.
On February 25, 2005, the ASCK helped organized a conference at George Washington University to assess the future of U.S. foreign policy towards the two Koreas in light of the reelection of George W. Bush to a second term as U.S. president.
At a time of heightening tensions and increasing threats of war on the Korean peninsula, ASCK organized the first Korea Peace Day to build support for the peaceful resolution of U.S.-North Korean conflicts. On Thursday, November 6, events were held on over forty college campuses in the United States and around the world educating participants about the history of U.S.-Korean relations and calling for a new U.S. policy towards Korea, North and South..
On July 27, 2003, on the occassion of the fiftieth
anniversary of the signing of the armistice ending the fighing in the Korean
War, ASCK issued a statement entitled "Time
to End the Korean War." |
