Soldiers Shake Hands in the DMZ

Instead of pointing guns at each other, soldiers from North and South Korea shook hands at the demarcation line in the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two sides of Korea. These sort of things happened only in imaginative Korean movies, but is now a solid reality. Hope this welcoming momentum of genuine peace continues and spills over to multilateral negotiations, agreements and implementations to ensure lasting peace in the Korean Peninsula.

Fact Check: This piece erroneously says the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) was created in 1948. Actually, the 38th Parallel was the arbitrary boundary proposed by the U.S. for zonal occupation of liberated Korea at the end of WWII and accepted by the USSR in 1945 that remained as a boundary until the war broke out in 1950. The DMZ was created in 1953 as a part of the Korean War armistice agreement, which still is in effect pending a long-promised peace treaty.

Inter-Korean Military Cooperation Expands

The two sides of Korea are moving forward rapidly and widely with the demilitarizing process in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), making the DMZ live up to its name for the first time since its inception in 1953. The next logical step is to officially end the Korean War by replacing the current armistice agreement with peace treaty, READ MORE

Petition Campaign in Opposition to the Deployment of THAAD in South Korea Surpasses 100,000

The "We the People" whitehouse.gov petition campaign in opposition to the deployment of the THAAD anti-missile defense system in South Korea has surpassed the 100,000 threshold mark needed to obtain an official response from the White House on the issue.

The petition campaign was initiated by Korean Americans based in the Washington, DC area and spread across the U.S., and the momentum intensified as Koreans in South Korea joined in, including citizens of Seongju where the deployment will take place,  signifying widespread opposition to the move by the South Korean government.

Opposition to THAAD Deployment in South Korea Grows

Opposition to THAAD antimissile system in South Korea is growing, especially fervently by the residents of Seongju (where the THAAD system will be placed), who are concerned about adverse health effects on residents nearby the system.


Koreans in the U.S. has initiated a petition campaign:


Rescind the decision to deploy THAAD antimissile system in South Korea.


The U.S. and South Korean governments, against wide opposition of South Koreans (and strong subsequent backlash from local citizens of the deployment site), have agreed to deploy U.S.-made THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) system in South Korea. This measure is supposedly to counter North Korean ballistic missiles and provide additional security, yet this is a controversial move that will likely to escalate tension in the region, by provoking North Korea, China and Russia into a spiraling arms race in the region that is already heavily militarized with weapons of mass destruction. Now, more than ever, is the time to step back and de-escalate tensions by pursuing negotiated settlements that will provide sustainable peace mechanism in the Korean Peninsula and the surrounding region. 
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/rescind-decision-deploy-thaad-antimissile-system-south-korea

Military Spendings on the Rise in East Asia

According to the latest report ("Trends in World Military Expenditure") from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the global military spending has gone down 1.9% from the previous year, yet it is still a staggering figure of $1.74 trillion.

The spending by the U.S. has decreased due to its internal cuts in military spending, but the U.S. remains as the top spender with $640 billion. This amounts to whopping 37% of the total global military spending, equaling the combined spending of the next 14 nations after the U.S.  Despite worries expressed over the rising military power of China (second in military spending, 11% of global spending) and Russia (third in spending, 5% of global spending), the U.S. remains as the undisputed sole global military superpower, pouring huge sums of money in military spending despite domestic economic problems and the growing federal budget deficit.  Despite its proclaimed self-defense military, Japan is 8th in global military spending.

With the exception of North America, Western Europe and Oceania, all regions of the world have seen dramatic increase in military spending, reflecting ongoing military tensions and political volatility. Southeast Asia saw 5% increase and Northeast Asia got 4.7% jump in military spending.

South Korea's spending increased to $33.9 billion, jumping from 12th place to 10th place in the global scale. This amounts to 2.8% of South Korea's GDP and 15% of government's budget. Despite portrayal of North Korea's military threat, Pyongyang's military spending amounts to $6 billion (25% of state budget), a mere 18% of South Korea's military spending. The continued tensions in the Korean Peninsula diverts much needed funds away from South Korea's domestic social program spending and North Korea's economic development.

Globally, there is a need to drastically cut down on military spending, freeing funds that can go towards programs aimed to curtail poverty, economic disparities, and environmental degradation.

AFSC Statement in Response to the Recent Crisis in the Korean Peninsula

U.S. flies nuclear capable B2 Stealth bombers in practice bombing run over South Korea.

Statement in Response to U.S. Simulated Nuclear Attacks on North Korea

and Cyber Attacks in North and South Korea
American Friends Service Committee (April 2, 2013) 

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) has long opposed military actions on the Korean peninsula that serve to deepen and prolong a conflict that has persisted since the Korean War. This month another round of military actions and escalations by all parties are now underway in the region, including repeated simulated U.S. nuclear attacks against North Korea by B-2 and B-52 bombers in the midst of ongoing U.S.-South Korean war games. We call once again for an end to such provocative actions and a concerted effort to de-escalate and resolve the longstanding regional conflict that has taken a deep, generations-long toll on the region.

Such simulations and the history of U.S. nuclear threats during past Korean crises contributed to the development of North Korea's nuclear arsenal and its recent nuclear test, threatening to ignite a regional nuclear arms race. Military threats made routinely by North and South Korea as well as recent and possibly related cyber-attacks against North Korean media outlets and against South Korean broadcasters and banks further escalate the conflict.

Provocations of this sort - routine or otherwise - can too easily lead to miscalculations, and generate fears and passions that make it difficult for political leaders to respond with necessary caution. We are sobered by the memory of how such miscalculations have triggered cataclysmic wars in the past and even brought nuclear powers to the brink of all-out war.

The escalation of tensions and confrontations needs to be halted:

• AFSC urges all parties to step back from further provocations.
• AFSC further calls for the suspension of war games and military exercises on all sides. In particular, the U.S. should halt its provocative simulated nuclear attacks which are more likely to reinforce the DPRK's commitment to its incipient nuclear arsenal, rather than to open a constructive dialogue.

To set relations on a better course:

• AFSC urges renewed diplomatic engagement and negotiations between the North and South Korean Governments.
• Echoing the views of former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Donald Gregg, AFSC reminds the U.S. government that sanctions and military threats will not succeed in ending decades of militarized tensions. The Obama Administration should reach out to North Korea with the goal of negotiating a peace agreement to finally end the Korean War.

Opposition to Jeju Naval Base Construction Intensifies

Opposition to the construction of proposed new naval base in Jeju Island in South Korea is intensifying. Though the South Korean government is touting the base as a "blue navy" port to protect South Korean waters and interests, Jeju residents and civil society organizations oppose the project, arguing that the base would bring forth additional naval arms race in the region as the U.S. will likely use it to monitor and check on the Chinese navy. They also point out that this development would counter the current image of the Jeju Island as a "peace island" that would help bring forth reconciliation and peace in Northeast Asia.

US Troops Dumped Agent Orange in South Korea

Since the revelations by former US soldiers stationed in Korea that they buried toxic defoliant Agent Orange in a US base in Korea, more and more related revelations are surfacing, making this issue a tip of an iceberg of potentially massive environmental disaster (the photo shows soil testing in the US base for possible contamination). US troops may have secretly buried the Agent Orange tanks in several base locations, and has sprayed the chemical over the DMZ near the border with North Korea to clear foliage (the Demilitarized Zone is touted as a pristine, undisturbed natural preserve, but that may be only true on the northern side as the southern side's forests have been sprayed with defoliants). In an affront to Koreans, it was revealed that the actual spraying of the dangerous chemical was done by Koreans, with US soldiers monitoring and supervising the operations from far away.

This scenario is alike the situation when US troops practiced deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Korea prior to their removal in the early 90s. A standard war exercise involved South Korean troops carrying backpacks filled with small nuclear weapons and moving closer to the field where likely North Korean troops would have amassed, with US soldiers staying far away, holding remote controls that would detonate the nuclear bombs. It clearly showed an unequal relationship between Americans and South Koreans.

Although the US military authorities have acted quickly this time and agreed to a joint investigation with South Korean authorities, this incident will not likely quell anti-US sentiments of South Koreans, as Koreans will see US getting away with another misdeed (since the current Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA] will likely preclude any prosecution of US military wrongdoing in Korea).

South Korea and Japan Talk of Military Cooperation

Something unthinkable is happenning -- South Korea and Japan are talking of closer military cooperation, starting with sharing of military intelligence, but which may lead to other forms of closer cooperation. There have been loose cooperations in the context with the U.S.-Japan-South Korea alliance in the region, but never a direct military cooperation between Tokyo and Seoul. The governments point this as a response to North Korean provocations, but South Korean citizens are outraged at a possibility that Japanese troops may again set foot on Korea [see above photo].

This is another step that will inadvertently contribute in escalating the tense situation in the Korean Peninsula, combined with the refusals on recent offers of dialog from Pyongyang.

The Confrontation in the West Sea Area Begs Peaceful Settlement

Guns have flared again dangerously in Korea -- in Yeonpyeong Island in the West Sea (Yellow Sea), within the disputed maritime border area between the two sides of Korea. Despite North Korea's claim that its action was in retaliation to its vocally-protested South Korea's naval exercises in the region, the North Korean military was wrong to fire its artillery directly at the island, hitting both military and civilian targets, resulting in military and civilian casualties and substantial damage to the island. This in turn prompted South Korea to return artillery fire to the North Korean shore.

This confrontation is one of many deadly clashes that has occurred in this area, due to the long-standing dispute arising from the unsettled vestige of the Korean War and the fragility of its armistice, which still stands to this day -- 57 years after its signing. Unlike the land-based DMZ agreed upon by the Korean War armistice, the maritime border was not clearly delineated. The UN command then unilaterally created the Northern Limit Line (NLL), which encroaches dangerously close to North Korea's shores in the area (just 7.5 miles from Yeonpyeong Island to North Korea) -- and which expectedly North Korea does not acknowledge.

The above photo shows an outline of the proposed "Special Area for West Sea Peace Cooperation" around the NLL, agreed as a part of the October 4, 2007 Joint Declaration by then-President Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea and Chairman Kim Jong-il of North Korea. The shaded, numbered areas indicate proposed areas of cooperation and development for joint peaceful usage such as joint fishery and economic zone, with the idea of promoting inter-Korea collaboration instead of continuously engaging in deadly military standoff in the area. Had this agreement been implemented by the succeeding administration of President Lee Myong-bak, the clashes in the West Sea would have surely been prevented. Lee administration's other hardline policies toward North Korea did not help the situation.

With Washington's refusal on North Korea's request for direct talks and Seoul's denouncement of the Sunshine Policy of inter-Korea rapproachement, Pyongyang may have hastily and dangerously gambled on a dramatic attempt to get the issue in the front burner of the world stage, along with its recent revelation of uranium enrichment activities. If all parties agree that escalation of the current crisis needs to be prevented to avoid an all-out war and its unimaginable destruction and casualties, all avenues towards a peaceful settlement must be pursued. In this spirit, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter responded quickly to the current crisis, calling for engagement with North Korea. On the other hand, the usual repetition of show of military force using joint U.S.-South Korea exercises including a nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier in the West Sea will not be conducive to this path.

Korean Scholars Launch "Truth About the Cheonan" Website

Korean scholars who have been in forefront in analyzing and providing alternative insights into the Cheonan naval ship sinking incident have produced a website called Truth About the Cheonan, which includes links to official governmental reports and findings, as well as alternative viewpoints and questions raised about the official findings. The scholars are experts of diverse academic fields: J.J. Suh of SAIS/Johns Hopkins University (political science), Seunghun Lee of University of Virginia (physics), Sunwon Park of the Brookings Institution (political science), and Pan-seok Yang of University of Manitoba (Geology).

"Testing North Korean Waters"

As China (photo), the U.S. and South Korea engage in more military exercises in the Yellow Sea (West Sea) and as Washington implement further sanctions against North Korea, there are also talks of possible resumptions of six-party talks, as hinted during Kim Jong-il's meeting with Hu Jintao in China.

Unusually, two op-ed articles on Korea appeared in The New York Times on the same day on Aug. 31: neocon Paul Wofowitz's article "In Korea, a Model for Iraq," comparing US troops' role and legacy to that of South Korea appeared in the US edition, and Donald Gregg's piece "Testing North Korean Waters," explaining Cheonan incident and the need for engagement policy was featured in the global edition only.

It is interesting what Gregg had to say: "South Korea has not officially referred to the Russian conclusions [its own investigation of the Cheonan report]. When I asked a well-placed Russian friend why the report has not been made public, he replied, 'Because it would do much political damage to President Lee Myung-bak and would embarrass President Obama.'" Looks like the controversy over the Cheonan incident findings will not go away easily.

War Games Amidst Korean War Armistice Anniversary, OPCON Transfer Delayed

July 27 was the 57th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice, when the ceace-fire and precarious peace is still marked in absence of a peace treaty, yet the U.S. and South Korea went ahead with massive naval exercises in the East Sea during this time, much to the consternations of North Korea and China. The war games were in response to the Cheonan incident (which is still a controversial issue in South Korea), but such a military response and show of force tend to escalate tensions, rather than diffusing a volatile situation.

In Washington, peace activists mobilized during July 27th to urge US Congress and the Obama administration to seek a permanent peace settlement in the Korean Peninsula. The National Campaing to End the Korean War held a series of events in DC, and the Committee for the Implementation of the June 15 Joint Declaration for Reunification of Korea (with delegates from South Korea, Australia, Mexico, and around the US) held a forum in the US Congress on Korea's peace/security issues.

In another development, not much covered by the media, is the postponement of the wartime OPCON (operational control) transfer from the US military to the South Korean military. The long overdue transfer of OPCON, a remnant of the Korean War-era arrangement when the South Korean government voluntarily relinquished its military control to US commanders, was agreed by both governments and was to take place in 2012, but it now has been pushed back to 2015, due to insistence by the Lee Myung-bak government, with pressure from ultra-conservative forces. The delay in the transfer does not help the image of South Korea which is about to host a G-20 meeting and reveals the contradiction and oddity of an independent nation and economic powerhouse with strong military not having control of its own forces during wartime -- an arrangement that resembles a protectorate.

China Sends Warning on US-Korea Joint Naval Exercises

Increasing intensity, Beijing has aired its resentment and condemnation of planned joint US-South Korea naval exercises (moved already from the West Sea [Yellow Sea] to the Eas Sea in likely deferrance to China's concerns). The two powers are flexing their diplomatic and military muscles, but in a way, isn't it somewhat fair and timely for China to express its security concerns to the US?

This development may become a new dimension that will likely counter or limit US influence in the Asia-Pacific, which will lead to new military/security implications on US-Korea and US-Japan relations. Besides the opposition to US-South Korea military exercises from North Korea and peace activists in South Korea, China is now in the picture. And yes, China has gained formidable military and economic might in few decades, vis-a-vis the US, to put some teeth into what it says (definitely not a "paper tiger"), which will make the US military planners think twice before engagning in unilateralism in the Asia-Pacific. Perhaps China doesn't want to be bullied by the US anymore, as it sheds its inferiority complex brought out by Western and Japanese imperialism of 100 years ago and its self-imposed isolation during the Cultural Revolution.

If Russia and Cuba held a large naval exercise in the Gulf of Mexico near the US border, what likely response would Washington take? It would be simiilar to China's -- or more drastic and vocal. Remember the high tensions during the Cuban missile crisis? This maybe a kind of manifestation of the big powers' NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome. But the reality is that the Pacific is no longer the "American lake." China develops security contingency plans on Korea, as the US does the same, but the notion of North Korea becoming a possible colony of China is far-fetched.

Of course, Koreans in both south and north, need to be mindful of the big powers maneuverings and their implications for Korea (mindful of their disastrous effect on Korea during the turn of the 20th century), while developing their own strategy to promote independent and united Korea that will not be a military threat to their neighbors.

The Cheonan Controversy Continues

Follow-up to: Questions Raised on the Cheonan Incident Report

The Cheonan incident was discussed at the UN and resulted in a UN Security Council presidential statement that included both South and North Korea's positions on the incident and "calls for full adherence to the Korean Armistice Agreement and encourages the settlement of outstanding issues on the Korean peninsula by peaceful means to resume direct dialogue and negotiation through appropriate channels as early as possible, with a view to avoiding conflicts and averting escalation."

Prior to this, on June 10, the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), a major South Korean NGO, sent an open letter to the UN Security Council in which it raised questions concerning the contents of the official investigation report. This action, considered normal by UN-registered NGOs, raised ire in the South Korean foreign ministry and amongst ultra-conservatives in South Korea, who demonstrated in front of the PSPD office for several days -- even making threats to PSPD staff.

Scientists have been raising questions as well. Seung-Hun Lee, a Korean-born physicist at the University of Virginia and Jae-Jung Suh, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC (who also has a degree in physics) are questioning scientific validity of evidences set forth by the official investigative team and calls for further independent investigation. [The photo above shows a press conference by Lee and Suh on July 9 at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Tokyo.]

Questions Raised on the Cheonan Incident Report

The Lee Myung-bak government of South Korea has released its official report on the Cheonan ship sinking incident, concluding that a North Korean torpoedo sank the ship. Unlike in similar situations of the past, not all South Koreans are believing the government's findings wholeheartedly, as they point out to many unanswered loose ends. See also a video highlighting the questions and doubts.

For one --they say-- is it plausible to believe that a single torpedo from a small North Korean submarine, operating in heavily-monitored South Korean waters, sink a large warship cleanly in half in one single shot, with such high precision, and escape undetected? Moreover, the sinking occurred in the area where South Korean and US navies were enagaged in a joint military exercise, which must have raised surveilllance and monitoring activities at the time. Why did South Korea announce at first that it detected no North Korean submarine movements around Cheonan at the time of the sinking? Has North Korean navy perfected a stealth technology and a precision attack method unknown to the US and South Korean forces?

The evidence presented by the investigative team was a torpedo component with a number and Korean marking inside (photo above). Some observers say that this is incredulous since the magic marker writing seems so pristine compared to the rusty condition of the torpedo part, that one is tempted to say that the marking may have been forged after the recovery of the part (which may have been an old junk part debris that may have been floating in the area).

The timing of the release of the report is a suspect too -- just two weeks before crucial local and regional elections in South Korea that will impact the ruling party's standings for the next presidential election. Often times in the past, incidents involving North Korea were exposed immediately prior to important elections, in order to favor "security-minded" pro-government candidates.

North Korea has denied any involvement in this incident and has warned of war if there is a retaliation, but in an unprecedented twist, it has offered to send its own investigative team to look at the evidences provided by South Korea. It would be interesting how Lee Myung-bak handles this.

There is no doubt about the severity of this incident and its aftermath. All parties concerned must exercise restraint and wise judgment as not to escalate the situation to a "point of no return."

South Korea's Choenan Navy Ship Sinking Mystery

While the search for the missing 46 Korean sailors continues (as families of the missing eagerly wait for the search results), the mystery over the sinking of South Korean naval ship Choenan is intensifying. No definitive cause of the sinking has been identified. The South Korean government initially downplayed any possible North Korea's involvement, but now suggests a possibility of North Korean mine, or a mine left over from the Korean War. This is unlikely as the location of the sinking took place south of a South Korean island that is near the disputed sea border with North Korea. And it is more unlikely that Korean War-era mine could have created a blast severe enough to break the large 1200-ton Choenan in half.

Some observers are asking why Choenan, a large ship, was sailing in the part of the West Sea (Yellow Sea) where the water is shallow and currents are rapid. Usually, small and fast boats patrol this area. Could this have been a result of an accident during a military exercise in the area? The South Korean government has not been forthcoming with definitive information on the incident, further fueling doubts and uncertainties. Because this incident took place near the disputed sea border with North Korea, it highlights the dangers of unresolved issues of the Korean War, which is still technically not over (due to the lack of formal peace treaty ending it).

War Rhetorics Flare Again in Korea's West Sea

Contrary to conciliatory New Year's Day messages, war rhetorics and artillery shells are being tossed across by both sides of Korea. Angered by the South Korean government's leaked emergency contingency plan for possible North Korean regime collapse, North Korean authorities have increased their warlike statements.

On top of this, North Korea has fired artillely shells near the disputed sea border with South Korea, for which South Korea responded likewise. The photo shows a narrow sea border area on North Korea's west coast, observed from South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island in disputed waters in the West Sea (Yellow Sea) -- indicating the proximity, and hence the danger of clashes, of the two sides on the disputed border. The disputed sea border is another ramnent of the Korean War since the sea border was not mentioned in the armistice agreement but rather declared unilaterally by the UN-led forces on behalf of South Korea. To avoid future confrontations in this area (there were several fatal clashes in the past), the dispute over the sea border called the Northern Limit Line (NLL) needs to be settled in inter-Korea and multilateral peace/security negotiations.

"North Korea Attacking Hawaii?"

As tensions are running high in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia with no easy resolution on the horizon, John Feffer of the Foreign Policy in Focus breaks some "myths" about North Korea in the current crisis (re-posted at The Huntington Post).

Scholars Express Concerns About Current Crisis in Northeast Asia

"Scholars Around the World Express Concerns about Current Crisis in Northeast Asia"
*Signatures collected by Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea

Despite some hopeful signs in the last two years, the Korean peninsula is againteetering 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 notexplicitly 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), Donald Baker (University of British Columbia), Tim Beal (Victoria University of Wellington), Herbert P. Bix (Binghamton University), Mark Caprio (Rikkyo University), Koen De Ceuster (Leiden University), Hyo-Je CHO (SungKongHoe University), John P. DiMoia (National University of Singapore), Myoun-hoi Do (Daejeon University), Alexis Dudden (University of Connecticut), Henry Em (New York University), Stephen J Epstein (Victoria University of Wellington), John Feffer (Foreign Policy in Focus), W. Chad Futrell (Cornell University), John Gittings (School of Oriental and African Studies), Mel Gurtov (Portland State University), Suk-Jung Han (Dong-A University), Marty Hart-Landsberg (Lewis and Clark College), Larry G. Hepinstall (University of Maryland University College), Theodore Hughes (Columbia University), Roger L. Janelli (Indiana University), Kelly Y. Jeong(UC Riverside), Jennifer Jung-Kim (UCLA), Jungmin Kang (Stanford University), Monica Kim (University of Michigan), Nan Kim (University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee), Samuel S. Kim (Columbia University), Suzy Kim (Boston College), Yong Hyun Kim (Dongguk University), Kab Woo Koo (University of North Korean Studies), Heajeong Lee (Chung-Ang University), Keun Lee (Seoul National University), Namhee Lee (UCLA), Seung-joon Lee (National University of Singapore), Ramsay Liem (Boston College), Gavan McCormack (Australian National University), Chung-in Moon (Yonsei University), Robert Oppenheim (University of Texas at Austin), Haksoon Paik (Sejong Institute), Albert L. Park (Claremont McKenna College), Katherine Park (nodutdol), Samuel Perry (Brown University), Andre Schmid (University of Toronto), Mark Selden (Cornell University), Eric Sirotkin (Korean Peace Project – National Lawyers Guild), Jae-Jung Suh (Johns Hopkins University), Seung Hye Suh (Scripps College), Vladimir Tikhonov (Pak Noja) (Oslo University), Jun Yu (University of Hawaii), Haruki Wada (University of Tokyo)