Should the US Invade North Korea? War Ethics (Cases in Applied Ethics) - Page 2 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
ThirdTerm wrote:

Gunboat diplomacy or the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power is the answer when we deal with the Korean dictator. We just have to pretend to attack North Korea.

Anyone know why the video states that the Vinson leads Japanese destroyers, when they have US flags?
edit>sorry for the multi-post
anasawad wrote:@Oxymoron
Israel is not an economic center, nor would survive economically if the world economy collapsed or suffered a major hit, since Israel is dependent on foreign investments and aid.

For a world nuclear confrontation, let me see. China, Russia, US would be involved. Nothing bad can happen :knife:

1. I am an American
2. Israel can sustain itself
3. US is the main Ally of Israel, and like I said this would not harm us.
4. N Korea using Nukes would get a appropriate response, I do not see how China or Russia would be justified to use Nukes or get anymore involved in the conflict?

Can you give me a scenario that would start WW3 after N Korea nukes S Korea and Japan?
Both the US and Israel would suffer a major economic blow if a nuke hit either South Korea or Japan.
Israel can not sustain it self, evident by the effects it suffered from the last economic crisis which would be kids' play compared to a nuclear attack on Japan or South Korea.

US west coast is already in range of a north Korean nuclear response.

China is already preparing for a confrontation if the US attacked North Korea.
Israel can not sustain it self, evident by the effects it suffered from the last economic crisis which would be kids' play compared to a nuclear attack on Japan or South Korea.

what are you talking about the 2008 crisis? Israel was fine that crisis did not hit Israel very hard. actually Russia and China suffered much more

Both the US and Israel would suffer a major economic blow if a nuke hit either South Korea or Japan.

all countries will suffer from this not only US and Israel
anasawad wrote:You guys do realize that North Korea have nuclear weapons and have the means of delivery over short range right ?
It cant deliver a nuclear strike to the US, but it can land several on South Korea and Japan.

No it cant.

North Korea didnt developed the technology to create nuclear warheads and even if they manage to launch a missile at the US it will be shot down
@Zionist Nationalist
Yes it does, they tested it multiple times and they managed to create a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on a missile.
The only thing left for them to be able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US is completing the fourth stage of their ICBM program, which is the re-entry part.
Other than that they have all it takes.
what are you talking about the 2008 crisis? Israel was fine that crisis did not hit Israel very hard. actually Russia and China suffered much more

Just going into negative growth, and both exports and imports taking a hit until the recovery started at late 2009 ?

all countries will suffer from this not only US and Israel

True. So you agree it is stupid to go to war with North Korea.
Metacounciousness wrote:Anyone know why the video states that the Vinson leads Japanese destroyers, when they have US flags?
edit>sorry for the multi-post


The Japanese naval flag looks like the Stars and Stripes. The Rising Sun flag was the symbol of the Empire of Japan.

Last edited by ThirdTerm on 02 May 2017 21:28, edited 1 time in total.
Oxymoron wrote:Better our economic center, worked out pretty well for us after WW2.
I do not see how this can start a world wide nuclear exchange.

Until Pearl Harbour, America was profiting by supply both sides of the war. Evenso, taxes escalated to 90 % at the top income level, until Kennedy started to reduce it. Thereafter you've been in on the ground floor, and it's cost you dearly. Also bear in mind, Japan and Hong Kong could be affected

From wiki
List of states with nuclear weapons

Map of nuclear-armed states of the world.
NPT-designated nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States)
Other states with nuclear weapons (India, North Korea, Pakistan)
Other states presumed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)
NATO nuclear weapons sharing states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey)
States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Ukraine)
There are eight sovereign states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons.[1] Five are considered to be "nuclear-weapon states" (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, the Russian Federation (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China.

Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but withdrew in 2003. Israel is also widely known to have nuclear weapons,[2][3][4][5][6] though it maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding this (has not acknowledged it), and is not known definitively to have conducted a nuclear test.[7] According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's SIPRI Yearbook of 2014, Israel has approximately 80 nuclear warheads.[8]

According to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Nuclear Notebook 2014, the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide is estimated at 10,144.[9]

South Africa developed nuclear weapons but then disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT.[10] Nations that are known or thought to have nuclear weapons are sometimes referred to informally as the nuclear club.
Rich wrote:The time for negotiation is long gone. In addition to what I said above the President should announce his wish to recognise the Russian annexation of Crimea, recognise Russia's legitimate interest in the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and remove all sanctions against Russia. There should be also be a clear declaration that a all American troops will be withdrawn from a united Korea.

Damn straight and ................ let's surprise everyone and invade Nigeria while nobody is looking. I hear they have lot's of oil over there............
True. So you agree it is stupid to go to war with North Korea.

I said that I dont think anyone should bother with North Korea as it will collapse on itself within the coming decades

just going into negative growth, and both exports and imports taking a hit until the recovery started at late 2009 ?

all countries went though it some had it rough other more lightly like Israel
that wasnt a big deal
The last time there was a war in Korea, the United States almost lost its hold on the peninsula. And, yes, even though things have changed somewhat, people shouldnt underestimate the Chinese.
China wont allow the United States to station troops right by its home border. They want the DPRK as a buffer state and, besides, they have had enough of US expansionism in Asia as it is.
If the United States wants to fight the new and improved China on its home territory then they are in for a world of hurt. Nuclear weapons or no, the Chinese will overrun the peninsula the first excuse they get and then Japan will be in the firing line.
South and North Korea Hold Talks; US War Hawks Are Alarmed at the Prospect of Peace
Underpinning such thinking is the assumption that neither Seoul nor Pyongyang has the right to make peace on its own terms.

Despite the naysaying of US hawks more interested in war than in a negotiated peace, representatives from North and South Korea met today at the border village of Panmunjom. With surprising ease, they hammered out an agreement that will allow the North to participate fully in next month’s Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea.

The surprise talks were led by Cho Myoung-gyon, the minister of unification for the Moon Jae-in government in Seoul, and Ri Son-gwon, chairman of North Korea’s “Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland.”

During the discussions, which were beamed live on closed-circuit television to state officials in both Seoul and Pyongyang, Ri agreed to send what he called a “high-level delegation” to the Games, which will last from February 9 to 25. It will be the North’s first participation in the Olympics in eight years.

The delegation will include athletes, a cheering squad, an art troupe, a Taekwondo demonstration team, and a group of reporters, South Korea’s Vice Unification Minister Chun Hae-sung told reporters. The North also “proposed resolving issues regarding inter-Korean ties through dialogue and negotiations for peace and unity on the peninsula,” he said.

The South, in turn, proposed that the two Koreas march together for the Games’ opening and closing ceremonies (it will be the basis for the next discussion) and that they resume reunions of families divided by the Korean War (also undecided). The talks were “a New Year’s gift to the entire nation,” North Korea’s Ri said.

The meeting, one of the most highly anticipated events of 2018, was the first bilateral discussion between the two sides of the Korean Peninsula since December 2015. It also marked the first direct contact between Kim Jong-un’s government and Moon, a progressive human-rights lawyer who was elected president of South Korea last May.

The talks fulfilled promises Moon made during that presidential campaign, when he ran on a platform to restore bilateral diplomacy with North Korea as a way to de-escalate the conflict over its nuclear-weapons program. But his initial calls for bilateral military and Red Cross talks was rebuffed by Pyongyang, which considers him too close to Washington.

The impetus for the talks came in Kim’s annual New Year’s speech on January 1, when he proposed direct discussions with Seoul “over the issue of improving inter-Korean relations by our nation itself,” with the goal to “defuse the current military tension.” Kim also welcomed the upcoming Winter Olympics as a “good occasion for demonstrating our nation’s prestige,” and said he wanted to send a delegation.

Moon accepted the offer almost immediately, and days later the two countries reopened a telephonic “hot line” that was shut down by the North in 2016. Its restoration “creates an environment where communication will be possible at all times,” Moon’s press secretary proudly told reporters in Seoul.

In an important step toward relieving tension at today’s talks, the North Koreans also said they had opened a separate military hotline that had been severed in a dispute over the impeached President Park Geun-hye’s controversial decision to close the jointly run Kaesong Industrial Zone just north of the DMZ. It was the last vestige of the détente-like “Sunshine Policy” that reigned in South Korea from 1998 to 2008.

But while the bilateral talks were widely praised in South Korea’s media, the US media seemed like a deer caught in the headlights from the first announcement of the breakthrough. Unclear how to respond to a possible outbreak of peace, the press immediately zeroed in on the section of Kim’s New Year’s speech where he declared that his “nuclear forces are capable of thwarting and countering” anything from the United States. Kim also reminded Washington that the “nuclear button” is on his office desk “all the time.”

Although the Supreme Leader left out some of the harsh anti-US language he’s used in previous declarations, the implied threat became the story for nearly every US media outlet covering his New Year’s speech. At CNN, for example, reporter Brian Todd went on the air to warn Wolf Blitzer that the prospect of talks was dangerous because it could mask a North Korean military attack during the Olympics. In some broadcasts, Kim’s offer to talk, and Moon’s quick endorsement, were barely mentioned.

Kim’s reference to his nuclear arsenal also drew a typical response from President Trump. He took to Twitter to declare that he, too, had a “button,” but it was “much bigger & more powerful” than Kim’s. His childish taunt quickly led to speculation about his state of mind and fitness to be president, a topic that dominated the White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s first media briefing of the year.

The furor extended well into the next week, with the publication of Fire and Fury, Michael Wolff’s tell-all book about Trump that lifted his most violent threats against North Korea for its title. Someone at the White House—possibly National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster—apparently tried to shift the focus by having Trump claim credit for the apparent thaw between North and South Korea.

“With all of the failed ‘experts’ weighing in, does anybody really believe that talks and dialogue would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn’t firm, strong and willing to commit our total “might” against the North.” Trump tweeted. By January 6, the president was almost completely on board with the talks.

Asked at a press briefing at Camp David about the potential for negotiations with Kim, he replied: “Sure, I always believe in talking.… absolutely I would do that.” Trump “appeared to be strongly indicating that he would join talks with North Korea after the high-level inter-Korean talks, if the conditions are right,” South Korea’s liberal Hankyoreh concluded.

Meanwhile, after Moon and Trump discussed North Korea’s offer during a phone call, the two governments agreed to delay joint military drills during the Olympics. The temporary halt had been a key demand of South Korea, and helped improve the atmosphere for the upcoming talks with Pyongyang, which notified South Korea that it would join the talks after the halt was announced, according to Yonhap News Agency.

In the lead-up to the talks in Seoul, the mood was close to jubilant. “Hopes are high that inter-Korean relations will improve,” Hankyoreh reported on January 4. “Since Kim delivered his New Year’s address on Jan. 1, North Korea’s actions have been completely aligned with the South’s response.”

But this was definitely not the view in DC, where pundits quickly coalesced around the conventional wisdom that the talks would inevitably divide Washington and Seoul and split the US-Korean military alliance. In the week leading up to Tuesday’s talks, the US media were filled with speculation from former US officials that South Korea was walking into a clever trap laid by the North.

The pace was set early on by The New York Times, in a front-page story on January 1 posted literally hours after Kim’s New Year’s speech. It instantly became the leitmotif for media coverage throughout the week.

Behind Kim’s New Year’s declaration “lies a canny new strategy to initiate direct talks with South Korea in the hope of driving a wedge into its seven-decade alliance with the United States,” reported Choe Sang-Hun and David Sanger, the latter a recipient of dozens of US intelligence leaks about North Korea over the years.

And, they added darkly: “hard-liners” in Seoul and Washington “fear that if dialogue on the Korean Peninsula creates a temporary reprieve from tensions, the enforcement of sanctions could also be relaxed.”

Like Trump’s initial tweets claiming credit, it was as if the South—which first opened unification talks with the North in 1972 and has had two summit meetings in Pyongyang, in 2000 and 2008—has had no experience at this.

In the Choe-Sanger article, the Times cited Robert Litwak—a senior vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars who is well-known in Japan and Korea for his hard-right views on security issues—to back its claim that Kim is seeking to “take the side of the South Koreans, against President Trump.” He was then given a large block of space on the Times’s January 3 op-ed page to spell out his grave concerns for the wayward South Koreans.

“Washington and Seoul should not take Mr. Kim’s bait,” Litwak argued. “Instead, the North Korean offer should be put to the diplomatic test through a united Washington-Seoul front.”

Meanwhile, as the prospect of talks increased over the week, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert warned South Korea not to go beyond US guidelines. “Our understanding is that these talks…will be limited to conversations about the Olympics and perhaps some other domestic matters,” she said. Nauert assured the press that South Korea isn’t “going to go off freelancing.”

At the UN, US ambassador Nikki Haley flatly dismissed the potential for progress. “We won’t take any of the talks seriously if they don’t do something to ban all nuclear weapons in North Korea,” she said.

Gen. Vincent Brooks, the commander of the 28,500-strong US Forces Korea, chimed in from Seoul with an admonition to South Korea not to have any illusions about North Korea. “We must keep our expectations at the appropriate level,” he cautioned in a public speech. Under the current structure of the US-South Korea Joint Command, Brooks would command the entire South Korean army if a war broke out.

Underpinning such thinking is the assumption that neither South nor North Korea has the right to make peace on its own terms.

This was spelled out in remarkably candid admissions to the Times’s Mark Landler from two key figures in the historically bipartisan policy on Korea. They are Michael Green, a top Asia adviser to President George W. Bush who was on the 2002 delegation to Pyongyang that killed the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea, and Daniel Russel, the former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in the Obama administration.

In a story titled “As North and South Korea Begin to Talk, Trump Watches From Sidelines,” Green—who is senior vice president and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where his responsibilities include CSIS projects on the two Koreas—declared that the North-South talks somehow created a “dilemma” for the Trump administration.

While assuring that “the default position of the United States should be to support North-South dialogue,” Green added a strong dose of caution. “At the same time, they are understandably nervous about the Moon government, which has some members who are too breathless about the prospects for dialogue.”

The arrogance almost leapt off the page; but an even more imperial attitude came from Russel, who is a senior fellow at the Asia Society. “It is fine for the South Koreans to take the lead, but if they don’t have the U.S. behind them, they won’t get far with North Korea,” he insisted. “And if the South Koreans are viewed as running off the leash, it will exacerbate tensions within the alliance.”

“Leash” is an odd term to describe a relationship with a country that’s supposed to be one of our closest military allies. (After reading these comments, I told reporter Aaron Maté on The Real News that it reflects “thinking that South Korea is sort of operating on its own, as if it’s not a real independent country. That’s a real danger here.”)

The onslaught on negative press continued on January 8, when Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies published an article in Foreign Policy that was audaciously headlined “It’s Time to Bomb North Korea.”

Then, just as the talks were set to begin on January 9, US officials let it be known to The Wall Street Journal that they were “quietly debating” the possibility of what they called a “bloody nose” tactic that would involve a “limited military strike” against North Korea’s nuclear and missiles sites without somehow setting off “an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula.”

Later in the day, Axios posted a story based on the Journal’s report that hit the Internet at almost the exact moment the Panmunjom talks began.

Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Foundation, mocked the timing of the alarming stories. “Looks like officials opposed to any talks with #NorthKorea are leaking these stories to undermine any possible diplomatic solutions,” he tweeted. “But it could backfire, convincing Moon that he can’t trust Trump.”

Yet despite the clear signals of disapproval from US hard-liners, the Moon and Kim governments pressed on, saying they would soon embark on “working-level” talks to discuss the details of the North’s participation in the Olympics, the family visits, and “solve bilateral issues among themselves without relying on outside” forces, according to the Joongang Daily.

“This positive atmosphere raises hopes that if South and North can harness their wisdom, these talks may be a chance to break the vicious cycle of hostility and move toward peace on the peninsula,” Hankyoreh proclaimed.

In a commentary published Tuesday, North Korean state media tweaked the US attitude toward the talks, according to CNN Korea correspondent Will Ripley. The “U.S. should properly choose between the two things: whether it would continue [a] military standoff with [North Korea] to meet its end or peacefully coexist,” the editorial stated.

Dates for the next round of talks are not set. To allow some higher-level North Korean officials to attend the Olympics, Moon’s foreign ministry said Seoul may consider easing some of its sanctions imposed on Pyongyang. That could easily set off another round of acrimony with US officials and Korea hard-liners in Washington.

On Wednesday, however, President Moon himself denied any friction between his government and the Trump administration. In a wide-ranging press conference in Seoul, he praised the US president, saying he deserved “a lot of credit” for helping to create the environments for Tuesday’s meeting. “My government has no intention of easing sanctions unilaterally,” Moon said. “The two issues—improving inter-Korean relations and resolving the North Korean nuclear issue—cannot be separated.” ... -of-peace/

North and South Korea Want a Peace Treaty: The US Must Join Them
Two years ago, I crossed the world's most fortified border from North to South Korea with 30 women peacemakers from 15 countries, calling for a peace treaty to end the six-decade Korean War. On July 13, I was denied entry into South Korea from the United States as retribution for my peace activism, including the 2015 women's peace march.

As I checked in for my Asiana Airlines flight to Shanghai at San Francisco International Airport, the ticket agent at the counter informed me that I would not be boarding the plane headed first to Seoul Incheon International. The supervisor handed me back my passport and informed me that she had just gotten off the phone with a South Korean government official who had told her I was "denied entry" into the country.

"This must be a mistake," I said. "Is South Korea really going to ban me because I organized a women's peace walk across the demilitarized zone?" I asked, appealing to her conscience. If there was indeed a travel ban, I thought, it must have been put in place by the disgraced President Park. But she wouldn't make eye contact with me. She walked away and said there was nothing to be done. I would need to apply for a visa and book a new flight to Shanghai. I did, but before I boarded my flight, I spoke with veteran journalists Tim Shorrock of The Nation and Choe Sang-hun of the New York Times.

When I landed in Shanghai, along with my travel companion Ann Wright, retired US Army Colonel and former US diplomat, we reached out to our networks, from congressional offices to high-level contacts at the United Nations to the powerful and connected women who marched with us across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in 2015.

Within hours, Mairead Maguire, the Nobel Peace laureate from Northern Ireland, and Gloria Steinem sent emails urging the South Korean ambassador to the US, Ahn Ho-young, to reconsider their travel ban. "I could not forgive myself if I did not do everything I can to keep Christine from being punished for an act of patriotism and love that should be rewarded," Gloria wrote. They both highlighted how the travel ban would preclude me from attending a meeting convened by South Korean women's peace organizations on July 27, the anniversary of the ceasefire that halted, but did not formally end, the Korean War.

According to the New York Times, which broke the story, I was denied entry on the grounds that I could "hurt the national interests and public safety." The travel ban was instituted in 2015 during the administration of Park Geun-hye, the impeached president now in prison on charges of massive corruption, including creating a blacklist of 10,000 writers and artists critical of the administration's policies and labeled "pro-North Korean."

In 24 hours, after massive public outcry -- including even from my critics -- the newly elected Moon administration lifted the travel ban. Not only would I be able to return to Seoul, where I was born and where my parents' ashes lie near a Buddhist temple in the surrounding Bukhansan mountains, I would be able to continue working with South Korean women peacemakers to achieve our common goal: to end the Korean War with a peace treaty.

The swift lifting of the ban signaled a new day on the Korean Peninsula with a more democratic and transparent South Korea, but also the real prospects of achieving a peace agreement with President Moon [Jae-in] in power.

Unanimous Calls for Korean Peace Treaty
On July 7, in Berlin, Germany, ahead of the G20 Summit, President Moon called for "a peace treaty joined by all relevant parties at the end of the Korean War to settle a lasting peace on the peninsula." South Korea has now joined North Korea and China in calling for a peace treaty to address the longstanding conflict.

Moon's Berlin speech followed on the heels of his summit in Washington, where Moon apparently received the blessings of President Trump to resume inter-Korean dialogue. "I am ready to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at any time and any place," Moon declared, if the conditions were right. In a significant departure from his hardline predecessors, Moon clarified, "We do not want North Korea to collapse, nor will we seek any form of unification by absorption."

In a Blue House report (equivalent to a White House paper) released on July 19, Moon outlined 100 tasks he plans to accomplish during his single five-year term. Foremost on his list included signing a peace treaty by 2020 and the "complete denuclearization" of the Korean Peninsula. In a pivot towards regaining full South Korean sovereignty, Moon also included negotiating the early return of wartime military operational control from the United States. It also included ambitious economic and development plans that could be moved forward if inter-Korean dialogues proceed, such as building an energy belt along both coasts of the Korean Peninsula that would link the divided country, and reinstating inter-Korean markets.

While these goals may seem incredible in the hardened terrain between the two Koreas, they are possible, particularly given Moon's pragmatic emphasis on diplomacy, dialogue and people-to-people engagement, from family reunions to civil society exchanges, to humanitarian aid to military-to-military talks. On Tuesday, he proposed talks with North Korea at the DMZ to discuss these issues, though Pyongyang has yet to respond.

President Moon's mother was born in the north before Korea was divided. She now lives in South Korea and remains separated from her sister, who lives in North Korea. Not only does Moon understand deeply the pain and suffering of the estimated 60,000 remaining divided families in South Korea, he knows from his experience as the chief of staff to President Roh Moo-hyun (2002-2007), the last liberal South Korean president, that inter-Korean progress can only go so far without the formal resolution of the Korean War between the United States and North Korea. Recognizing this, Moon now faces the daunting challenge of mending inter-Korean ties that have unraveled over the past decade and building a bridge between Washington and Pyongyang that has collapsed over two previous US administrations.

Women: Key to Reaching a Peace Accord
With South Korea, North Korea and China all calling for a peace treaty, it is worth noting that women are now in key foreign ministry posts in those countries. In a groundbreaking move, Moon appointed the first female foreign minister in South Korean history: Kang Kyung-hwa, a seasoned politician with a decorated career at the United Nations. Appointed by former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Kang served as deputy high commissioner for human rights and assistant secretary-general for humanitarian affairs before becoming a senior policy adviser to the new UN chief António Guterres.

In Pyongyang, the lead North Korean negotiator with American officials in dialogues with former US officials is Choe Son-hui, director general for North American affairs in the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Choe was supposed to meet a bi-partisan delegation of US officials from the Obama and Bush administrations in New York this March before the meeting was scuttled. Choe served as an aide and interpreter for the Six-Party Talks and other high-level meetings with US officials, including the August 2009 trip to Pyongyang by President Bill Clinton. She was the adviser and interpreter for the late Kim Kye-gwan, the chief North Korean nuclear negotiator.

Meanwhile, in China, Fu Ying is chairperson [of the Foreign Affairs Committee] of the National People's Congress. She led the Chinese delegation to the Six-Party Talks in the mid-2000s that yielded a temporary diplomatic breakthrough to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. In a recent piece for the Brookings Institution, Fu posited, "To open the rusty lock of the Korean nuclear issue, we should look for the right key." Fu believes the key is the "suspension for suspension" proposal by China, which calls for freezing North Korea's nuclear and long-range missile program in exchange for halting the US-South Korean military exercises. This proposal, first introduced by the North Koreans in 2015, is now also backed by Russia and is being seriously considered by South Korea.

Kang, Choe and Fu all share a similar trajectory in their rise to power -- they started their careers as English interpreters for high-level foreign ministry meetings. They all have children, and balance their families with their demanding careers. While we should have no illusions that a peace deal is guaranteed just because these women are in power, the fact that women are even in these top foreign ministry positions creates a rare historic alignment and opportunity.

What we do know from three decades of experience is that a peace agreement is more likely with the active involvement of women's peace groups in the peacebuilding process. According to a major study covering 30 years of 40 peace processes in 35 countries, an agreement was reached in all but one case when women's groups directly influenced the peace process. Their participation also led to higher rates of implementation and durability of the agreements. From 1989-2011, of 182 signed peace agreements, an agreement was 35 percent more likely to last 15 years if women participated in its creation.

If there ever was a time when women's peace groups must work across boundaries, it is now, when multiple barriers -- language, culture and ideology -- make it that much easier for misunderstanding to prevail, and dangerous miscalculations to take place, paving the way for governments to declare war. At our July 27 meeting in Seoul, we hope to start outlining a regional peace mechanism or process whereby women's peace groups from South Korea, North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States could actively contribute to the official governmental peace-building process.

Broad Support for Peace
Clearly, the missing piece in this puzzle is the United States, where Trump has only surrounded himself with white men, mostly military generals, with the exception of Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, whose statements on North Korea -- as well as virtually every other country -- have set back international diplomatic efforts.

While the Trump administration may not yet be calling for a peace treaty, a growing circle of elites are calling for engaging in direct talks with Pyongyang to halt North Korea's long-range missile program before it could strike the US mainland. A bipartisan letter to Trump signed by six former US government officials spanning over 30 years urged, "Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe." Without stating support for China's call for "suspension for suspension," the letter warned that despite sanctions and isolation, North Korea is advancing in its missile and nuclear technology. "Without a diplomatic effort to stop its progress, there is little doubt that it will develop a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States."

This builds on a letter to Trump signed in June by 64 Congressional Democrats urging direct talks with North Korea to avert an "unimaginable conflict." The letter was co-led by John Conyers, one of two remaining congressmen who served in the Korean War. "As someone who has watched this conflict evolve since I was sent to Korea as a young Army Lieutenant," Conyers said, "it is a reckless, inexperienced move to threaten military action that could end in devastation instead of pursuing vigorous diplomacy."

These major shifts in Washington reflect a growing consensus among the public: Americans want peace with North Korea. According to a May Economist/YouGov poll, 60 percent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support direct negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang. On the day of the Moon-Trump summit, nearly a dozen national civic organizations, including Win Without War and CREDO [Action], delivered a petition to Moon signed by more than 150,000 Americans offering strong support for his commitment to diplomacy with North Korea.

The US government divided the Korean Peninsula (with the former Soviet Union) and signed the armistice agreement promising to return to talks in 90 days to negotiate a permanent peace settlement. The US government has a moral and legal responsibility to end the Korean War with a peace treaty.

With Moon in power in South Korea and pro-diplomacy women in key foreign ministry posts in the region, the prospects for reaching a peace agreement are hopeful. Now, US peace movements must push for an end to the Obama administration's failed policy of Strategic Patience -- and push back against the Trump administration's threats of military escalation.

Ahead of his Senate briefing in the White House, more than 200 women leaders from over 40 countries -- including North and South Korea -- urged Trump to sign a peace treaty that would lead to greater security for the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia region and halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

As our letter states, "Peace is the most powerful deterrent of all." ... -join-them

He made a plea deal to save his son from the FARA[…]

@wat0n 1. The Fryer paper does not provide ev[…]

Well another 15k case in FL... As Disney is openin[…]

Election 2020

New York is going to get him on either Tax Fraud […]