Public Lecture Series (2019.2.21) Assessing Reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula, Part 2
Assessing Reconciliation on
The Korean Peninsula –
Contentious History, Summits,
Denuclearization, & Prospects for a
Part One – Mark Caprio
"From Collective Responsibility to Collective
Solution: The Shared History Korean
Part Two – David Satterwhite
"Clausewitz on His Head – A Paradigm Shift
for Durable Peace on the Korean Peninsula"
ICAS Public Lecture Series
21 February 2019 @ TUJ
"Clausewitz on His Head – A Paradigm Shift for
Durable Peace on the Korean Peninsula"
An intense, 47-yr encounter with Korea – self-introduction
China’s “Century of Humiliation” – Korea’s 125 yrs of incessant war
Decisions w/out Korean input – colonial rule & “blameless” division
Cold War’s 1st Hot War – enduring legacies of perpetual war-footing
A broken “security-first” paradigm – How is “Clausewitz on his head”?
Nuclear-Korea reminder – “Operation Hudson Harbor”, ROK, DPRK pgrms
Stepping-stones towards a Paradigm Shift – key steps to denuclearization
Pomp & Circumstance – but forecasting surprises out of the Hanoi Summit
China’s “Century of Humiliation” –
Korea’s 125 yrs of incessant war, 1894 to 2019
70 yrs after the “Century of Humiliation” – legacy lingers
Korea’s less-publicized but potent ”Century+ of War”, cont.
1894-1895 – Sino-Japanese War – fought over Korea, Japan wins
1904-1905 – Russo-Japanese War – fought over Korea, Japan wins
1910-1945 – Japan’s Colonial Cultural War – Japan wins, Korea suffers
1945-1950 – Internal warfare, Guerrilla warfare, prelude to a Civil War
1950-1953 – The “Almost Nuclear” but devastating int’l Korean War
1953-present – Armistice, “DMZ”, hair-trigger “Cold War hangover war”
Who wins a war with no end in sight? Who & what are the victims?
How does perpetual war “secure the peace” – or prolong the war?
Might the Hanoi Summit surprise us with the path to a Peace Treaty?
Korean Politics 101 – Who, what, when &
why was the Korean Peninsula divided?
“We all know who divided the Korean Peninsula” said a
seasoned State Dept Japan-hand… but evidently he didn’t!
Reminders of historical context & the Cold War’s 1st step in Asia
WWII in Europe ends in April 1945, E. Europe under Soviet control
Soviet troops transported to Far East, ready to enter war vs. Japan
At Potsdam, Truman learns of the successful test of the Atomic Bomb
Aug 6 Hiroshima, Aug 8 USSR War, Aug 9 Nagasaki, Aug 15 Surrender
Aug 8, Soviet troops enter Korean Peninsula, advance south past 38th
Aug 10-11, U.S. proposes 38th to Stalin – accept Jpn’s surrender, N & S
Stalin agrees, Peninsula is “temporarily” divided, formal states in 1948
[Historical puzzle: did Stalin expect to receive half of defeated Japan?]
A broken “security-first” paradigm since the
Korean War – How is “Clausewitz on his head”?
”War is but an extension of politics [diplomacy]
by other means” – Carl von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831)
“War is not merely a political act, but also a real
political instrument, a continuation of political
commerce, a carrying out of the same by other
means” (On War, Book 1, Chap. 1, 24, J.J. Graham 1873 translation)
Karl Wilhelm Wach painting
A Security Paradigm in which diplomacy
is an afterthought, an extension of war
What Korea has witnessed since the Armistice was signed
in 1953 is perpetual war – a readiness & calculated capability to
engage in active hostilities at any moment, with virtually any means
at the security forces’ disposal, including nuclear weapons. “Extension of
diplomacy by other means” has been a continuous war, in the almost
total absence of diplomacy. In other words, when diplomacy has been
attempted, it has been the opposite of what Clausewitz articulated – it
has been an “extension of war” rather than “war as the extension of
diplomacy...” War has been “in the driver’s seat”; war has been the
dominant paradigm; diplomacy has been an afterthought as a part-time
endeavor merely as an extension of war by other means. (Satterwhite 2018)
As with any dominant paradigm, in Korea,
too, there are key assumptions…
An “enemy image” of implicit distrust, doubting any non-
A portrayal of the DPRK as “unpredictable”, a ”rogue state”;
A sense that “preservation of the regime” is paramount &
pathological for the DPRK, ignoring reality that any regime
views regime preservation as a natural national priority;
A readiness to engage in warfare, including nuclear weapons
deployed in the U.S. arsenal pre-targeted on the DPRK;
A non-negotiable posture of sanctions (“Maximum Pressure”)
to force unilateral denuclearization by the DPRK, with no
reciprocal security guarantee or U.S. denuclearization steps.
Nuclear-Korea & Denuclearization in Context –
“Operation Hudson Harbor”, ROK, the DPRK
The DPRK can be understood to have embarked on a
nuclear weapons’ program in response to the existential
threat of nuclear attack it has faced since early in its existence,
beginning with “Operation Hudson Harbor” during the Korean War.
Oct 1950 – Dummy bombs dropped over Pyongyang by
sole B-29s just 5 yrs after the bombing of Hiroshima.
“Davy Crockett” portable atomic canon developed for
& deployed in Korea for battlefield use in resumed war.
1958-1993 – only atomic weapons in Korea were U.S.
U.S. strategic forces targeting DPRK are deployed 24/7.
Crafting a paradigm that enables practical
steps towards a durable, sustainable peace
1. Timely steps towards a Peace Treaty to replace the Armistice.
2. Full, reciprocal diplomatic relations among DPRK, U.S., Japan.
3. Confidence-building measures in military, cultural, political arenas.
4. Timely lifting of economic sanctions, combined with promotion of a
rebuilding of the economic infrastructure to alleviate poverty and
build foundations for eventual ROK & DPRK economic integration.
5. Reciprocal reduction in DPRK & ROK offensive military capabilities,
combining verifiable denuclearization of DPRK & a verifiable “No
First-Use” pledge by the U.S. as key security guarantee to the DPRK.
6. Build jointly-administered institutions fostering systemic trust.
Assessing the 2nd U.S.-DPRK Summit –
Deliverables, Mging Expectations, Surprises?
Applause for the quiet statesman-like role played by President
Moon Jae-In to ensure dialogue stays on track.
Recognition for the bold initiatives taken by Pres. Trump to
conduct unprecedented senior-level dialogue with the DPRK.
Exploring reciprocity – what is the U.S. willing to “deliver” in
order to begin the long process of verifiable denuclearization?
How will the interests of the Korean people be ensured and
reflected by a narcissistic President not nuanced in diplomacy?
Willing to be surprised – steps towards a Peace Treaty? 10