The Amateur

Computerist

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

Fall 2017 DPRK, UN Security Council and the UN Charter Volume 30 No. 1

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Behind SK Bringing the Cheonan to UNSC . . . . . Page 3

UNSC Response to NK Nuclear Test . . . . . . . . . Page 4

Path for UNSC to Resolve the Conflict . . . . . . . . Page 5

SC Violates Article 32 of UN Charter . . . . . . . . . Page 8

Channel to Send Communication to UNSC . . . . Page 9

Art. 32: Right to Due Process Violated by SC . . Page 11

Appeal for Diplomatic Solution in N.E. Asia . . . . Page 14

Letter: Wm to UNSG Guterres on Korea Crisis . Page 19

Introduction

During the Summer and Fall of 2017 there has

been a very tense environment on the Korean Pen-

insula. A number of those who have been observing

the situation for many years, along with people who

call some part of Korea home are nervous about the

level of tension in these past few months.

The relatively new president of the U.S., Don-

ald Trump and the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzô

Abe made public statements about the situation

which demonstrate either that they have little know-

ledge of the past history or the current situation or if

they are familiar with what has come before, they

now choose to misrepresent it.

One example, both Trump

and Abe

in sepa-

rate situations claimed all negotiations with the

DPRK have failed. A substantial article by Robert

Carlin and John W. Lewis demonstrates how false

such a claim is. The article documents the process

of negotiations between the DPRK and the U.S. that

led to the Agreed Framework.

That agreement

lasted almost eight years, during which time the

DPRK suspended its nuclear program and the U.S.

decreased its hostility toward the DPRK.

Another important example of successful ne-

gotiation was the Six-Party Talks which produced

the Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-

Party Talks in Beijing on September 19, 2005.

The

six parties agreed to take coordinated steps to im-

plement the Joint Statement. It was the product of

negotiations between the DPRK and the other five

parties to the Six-Party Talks which had gone on

from 2003 to 2005. The six parties which signed the

agreement included the U.S. and the DPRK.

Instead of the new U.S. President and the Jap-

anese Prime Minister reviewing these examples of

successful negotiations and learning from them,

they brazenly try to wipe such past experience from

memory and substitute a false version of history to

justify their own missteps.

The mainstream media in general commonly

spread misrepresentations and the United Nations

itself allows such misrepresentations. For example,

take the name the “UN Command.” It is for an in-

stitutional form made up of the U.S. and the ROK

militaries. The UN plays no role of oversight or su-

pervision of the actions of this so-called UN

Command, yet U.S. and the ROK are allowed to use

the UN’s name to camouflage the U.S. govern-

ment’s control over its actions.

Such misrepresentations help the U.S. and

Japanese government officials in their efforts to

rewrite the history of negotiations with the DPRK

in order to justify their refusal to engage in negotia-

tions as is their obligation.

Two recent issues of the Amateur Computerist

took up to review the UN’s actions toward resolv-

ing the tensions on the Korean Peninsula while Ban

Ki-moon was Secretary General. The two issues

were: Vol. 28 No. 1 (Fall 2016) “Ten Years: Ban

Ki-moon, UN Tension in Korea”

and Vol. 28 No. 2

(Winter 2017) “Forces Working for Peaceful Con-

flict Resolution.”

The articles in Vol. 28 No. 1 demonstrate the

failure during the 10 year term of UN Secretary

Page 1

General Ban Ki-moon to solve the problem of the

increasing tension on the Korean Peninsula.

The articles in Vol. 28 No. 2 document how

there have been forces working to solve the prob-

lem. One example is how the Security Council

functioned in June of 2010 under the Mexican Pres-

idency. In this situation the DPRK was invited to

make its position known on an issue before the Se-

curity Council. This is a requirement of the UN

Charter,

but in recent times it is rarely upheld.

Other processes in the UN Security Council re-

quired procedures that are helpful are similarly doc-

umented, particularly the S/NC procedure, a proce-

dure included in the Appendix to the Security Coun-

cil’s Provisional Rules of Procedure. Under this

procedure, communications can be sent to the Secu-

rity Council from private individuals and non-gov-

ernmental bodies relating to matters of which the

Security Council is seized. The Secretariat is to pro-

vide a publicly available list of such communication

so the Security Council members can ask for copies

of communication they find of interest.

The importance of Vol. 28 No. 2 is that it doc-

uments not only the required actions for Security

Council members with respect to hearing all sides

of a dispute, but also that the public has a means of

communicating with the Security Council on issues

before the Council members. The situation is

described when such means were utilized in the dis-

pute over whether North Korea should be blamed

for the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean

Corvette. A more all sided process prevailed which

supported a peaceful settlement of the dispute.

The current issue of the Amateur Computerist,

Vol. 30, No. 1 (Fall 2017) includes several articles

supplementing the issues raised by Vol. 28 No. 1

and Vol. 28 No. 2.

This issue documents how important Article

32 of the Charter is to the processes of the UN Se-

curity Council. Article 32 provides due process to

all nations that are parties to a dispute instead of

one side constantly being accused of wrong doing

by the Security Council. The issue also documents

the importance of private individuals and non-

gvernmental bodies having a means to communi-

cate with the members of the Security Council.

In a journal article documenting many of the

Security Council processes in the dispute brought to

it in 2010 over the sinking of the Cheonan, Mi-yeon

Hur writes:

North Korea sent a letter to the Security

Council, referring to the widespread in-

ternational suspicions over the JIG in-

vestigation [South Korean investiga-

tion]. North Korea urged the members

not to become victims of the Lee govern-

ment’s deceptive accusation against

North Korea and asked for a more inde-

pendent and balanced approach on the

Cheonan incident (Hauben, 2013). The

North Korean delegation, in response to

an invitation from UN Ambassador

Claude Heller, the President of the Secu-

rity Council, discussed the Cheonan is-

sue at an informal session with the Secu-

rity Council members, and Sin Son-ho,

the North Korean Ambassador to the

UN, specially scheduled an unprece-

dented press conference to present his

government’s refutation of the allega-

tions made by the Lee government.

This journal article compliments the articles in Vol.

28 No. 2 that show it is possible for the Security

Council processes to be supportive of the needed

due process procedures, but that such processes re-

quires support from various parties toward such an

outcome.

The three issues of the Amateur Computerist

review the 10 years of Ban Ki-moon’s terms at the

UN, the continuing developments over the pro-

cesses accorded to North Korea by the Security

Council and the violations of Article 32. They help

to demonstrate the need to review how well the pro-

cesses and procedures of the Charter are being ap-

plied in order to have the UN serve the desire for

peace that led to its birth.

Notes:

1. “Presidents and their administrations have been talking to

North Korea for 25 years, agreements made and massive

amounts of money paid … hasn't worked, agreements violated

before the ink was dry, makings fools of U.S. negotiators.

Sorry, but only one thing will work!”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/916750042014

404608 and https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/916751

271960436737

2. “We cannot afford being deceived by them again.”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/08/abe-says-

japan-fully-behind-us-on-pressuring-north-korea.html

https://gadebate.un.org/en/72/japan

Page 2

https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/jp_e

n.pdf.

3. “Negotiating with North Korea: 1992–2007,” in Korea

Yearbook, 2007: Politics, Economy and Society edited by

Rüdiger Frank, James E. Hoare, Patrick Köllner, and Susan

Pares, pages 235-251. A copy of the article is available online

at:

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Negotiating

_with_North_Korea_1992-2007.pdf

4. Online at https://www.state.gov/p/eap/regional/c15455.htm

5. http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn28-1.pdf

6. http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn28-2.pdf

7. UN Charter Chapter V, Article 32: “Any Member of the

United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council

or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it

is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security

Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the

discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall

lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation

of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.”

http://legal.un.org/repertory/art32.shtml

8. “Revisiting the Cheonan sinking in the Yellow Sea,” The

Pacific Review, Vol. 30 Issue 3, 2017, pp. 348-364.

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizen-

blog on June 7, 2010 and can be seen at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2010/06/07/whats_b

ehind_south_korea_bringing_the_cheonan_issue_to

_the_un_security_council/]

What’s Behind South Korea

Bringing the Cheonan Issue

to the UN Security Council?

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

An article on the Cheonan warship sinking,

“The whole story of the South Korean government

as a false account?” was published in Telepolis on

June 1, 2010. It documents several of the mislead-

ing claims being made by the South Korean govern-

ment to put the blame on North Korea.

The June 2 election in South Korea for local

and regional government showed that many South

Koreas citizens and netizens rejected the Lee

Myung-bak government claims and rendered his

Grand National Party candidates a surprising and

serious defeat.

This, however, has not deterred the Lee gov-

ernment from its goal. The election results were

announced demonstrating the criticism of the gov-

ernment’s hostile policy toward North Korean rep-

resented by the so called “investigation” blaming

North Korea for the sinking of the Cheonan. Yet,

the South Korean government initiated action to

take its spurious claims to the United Nations Secu-

rity Council. A helpful perspective is offered by

Peter Lee in his Asia Times Online article, “The

Cheonan sinking … and Korea rising.”

“What is indisputable,” Peter Lee writes, “is

the determination of the Lee Myung-bak adminis-

tration to exploit the geopolitical opportunity pre-

sented by the sinking.” He explains how the South

Korean president not only tried to use the incident,

“as a 9/11 opportunity” to get support for his gov-

ernment in the local and regional elections, which

clearly failed, but also to “strengthen the South Ko-

rean alliance with the U.S.” to offer a counterweight

to China.

Even more serious, however, is the observa-

tion made by some in South Korea, that the Lee ad-

ministration is endangering their lives by its hostile

acts toward North Korea. Similarly the strategy of

trying to use the UN Security Council to give a seal

of approval for the so called “investigation” which

drew significant criticisms from politicians and the

public at home is but a sign of the significant role

the U.S. government is playing in this dangerous

South Korean gambit.

The South Korean NGO People’s Solidarity

for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) recently pub-

lished an English translation of a critique of the

South Korean government’s “international” investi-

gation of the Cheonan sinking. The PSPD report

provides helpful documentation of a number of the

inconsistencies and fallacies of the whole process of

the claimed “investigation.”

According to the PSPD critique, it was only

after significant criticism of the fact that the South

Korean military was conducting the “investigation”

of the Cheonan sinking, that it was announced that

four other nations had been invited to be part of the

“investigation.” Little is known, however, about

what role these other nations played in the investi-

gation. PSPD reports that the head of the U.S. group

appeared at the press conference announcing the

results of the investigation, to express U.S. govern-

ment support. He said that there had been close co-

operation between South Korea and the U.S. in the

investigation. This did not, however, answer the

question about the role the foreign nations in the

Page 3

investigation and whether they had any ability to

contribute an independent perspective.

North Korea asked to be allowed to send a

team of investigators to examine the supposed evi-

dence. South Korea refused the request.

One of the civilian members of the investiga-

tion said that he was not provided with any briefing

materials or basic information. Also he said that the

investigation only considered the theory of the gov-

ernment about the torpedo as the cause of the sink-

ing, and that the investigation was conducted to

support that theory.

The government has brought lawsuits or

charges against several citizens and netizens and a

national assembly representative who expressed

disagreement with the claims of the government.

The PSPD report raises a number of other im-

portant issues about the nature of the South Korean

government investigation.

By bringing the Cheonan issue to the UN Se-

curity Council, the South Korean government is

presenting the UN with a serious challenge. The

PSPD report has urged the South Korean govern-

ment to refrain from international actions until the

National Assembly has been assisted in conducting

a fact-finding process. The effort of the South Ko-

rean government to ignore the questions of its citi-

zens and politicians and take the matter to the UN

Security Council is the effort to use the UN Secu-

rity Council to deny democratic processes to its

own citizens. PSPD has documented how what the

South Korean government is doing by bringing the

issue to the Security Council is increasing the threat

to peace and security on the Korean peninsula. This

is the opposite of what the Security Council is to be

involved with under the UN Charter.

How the Security Council handles this issue

will be an important demonstration of its ability to

fulfill its obligations under the UN charter to the

other member nations of the UN and to the people

of those nations.

For PSPD Report See: http://www.people-

power2 1 .org/? m o dule=file&act=procFi l e

Download&file_srl=40158&sid=7ab45eab894bb10

7361ef5447c30048b&module_srl=37681&usg=AF

QjCNFTU9vP98NdyzvCupVWG0HqgMhLlw

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizen-

blog on Feb. 1, 2016 and can be seen at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/02/01/the-un-se

curity-council-response-to-north-koreas-4th-nuclear

-test-needs-serious-discussion-and-consideration/]

The UN Security Council

Response to North Korea’s

Nuclear Test Needs

Serious Discussion and

Consideration

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

The United Nations Security Council is cur-

rently in the process of negotiating a resolution in

response to the 4

nuclear test by the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea (the DPRK more com-

monly known as North Korea) conducted in early

January 2016.

There has been little open discussion at the

Security Council about the resolution, but some me-

dia have reported about the content of an early ver-

sion by the U.S. which is the pen holder to draft the

resolution. They have described some of the meas-

ures, particularly some which require stiff action by

China against North Korea.

Though there has not been much sign of nego-

tiations at the UN headquarters, there has been dip-

lomatic activity by government officials of some of

the nations who are on the Security Council. Re-

cently, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry went

to China to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping

and Wang Yi, China’s Foreign Minister, about the

nature of the sanctions that the U.S. is proposing.

There have been discussions about the Chi-

nese perspective of the issue on CCTV.

One recent

program featured two Chinese Foreign Policy ex-

perts, Ruan Zongze and Yang Xiyu discussing the

situation. They commented that there have been a

series of sanctions against North Korea, but these

sanctions only result in subsequent new nuclear

tests. A different process is needed, they proposed,

and felt the need to make a change in the hostile

environment created between North Korea and the

Page 4

UN Security Council, which stiffening sanctions

only reinforces.

Examining the dynamics between the UN Se-

curity Council and North Korea helps to clarify that

there is a need to consider how this conflict devel-

oped and what is a means to help to resolve it.

Looking back at the situation that has led to

this dilemma, it is important to recognize that the

Korean War has never been officially ended by a

peace treaty. Instead there is only an armistice and

the obligation set forth in the armistice to settle the

political disputes via a peace treaty has never been

fulfilled.

Similarly, the six party talks began in 2003

and resulted in an agreement referred to as the Sep-

tember 19, 2005 joint statement of the six-party

talks. This agreement was quickly broken by the

U.S. action to put sanctions on the Banco Delta

Asia (BDA) under the claim that this was justified

by Section 311 of the U.S. Patriot Act. This resulted

in the freezing of $25 million of North Korean

funds in the bank. Another serious result was that

North Korea lost access to the international banking

system. Initially, despite the six party agreement,

the other four members of the six party talks took

no action to challenge the U.S. action and thus the

agreement was shown to be too weak to protect its

implementation. Subsequently, North Korea left the

six party talks and found that only after it had car-

ried out a nuclear test did the U.S. agree to talk with

North Korea over the problem.

There have been subsequent examples of the

problem that North Korea is faced with given the

political and military power of the U.S.

Thus the problem for the Security Council

with respect to North Korea’s 4

nuclear test, is not

only a problem with North Korea. It is similarly a

problem that the Security Council has failed to go

to the root of the problem and to examine both the

role played by the U.S. in increasing the tension,

and the role played by North Korea in believing it

has to threaten a nuclear defense if it is attacked.

In a series of earlier articles, I explore the

problem and raise some of the background that

needs to be understood to consider how to resolve

the conflict. Eventually a recognition of the need

for a peace treaty to end the Korean War is critical

rather than merely asking North Korea to cease to

build up what it relies on for its defense.

Notes:

1. An article on inews163 on Jan 23, 2016, refers to the tough

sanctions as “an economic blockade” against the DPRK.

“Japanese Media the United States and-South Korea Asked

China to Draft Sanctions to Include a Ban on Oil” (link n/a).

http://english.cntv.cn/2016/01/30/VIDEmYZxgdgJh81Ax1

WcE76v160130.shtml

3. See for example: http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2013/12/

17/why-netizen-journalism-matters

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2015/06/10/mudubong-detained

-by-unsc/

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2013/08/31/united-nations-com

mand-as-camouflage/

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizen-

blog on March 17, 2016 and can be seen at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/03/17/what-pat

h-to-resolve-conflict/]

What Path for the UN

Security Council to Resolve

the Conflict on the Korean

Peninsula?

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Recently a Chinese commentator, observing

the relationship between the need for a peace treaty

to end the Korean War and North Korea’s four nu-

clear tests wrote:

North Korea, in a statement after its nu-

clear test, has made it clear that if it

could sign a peace treaty with the United

States, and if the United States could

stop holding joint military exercises with

South Korea, it would not conduct fur-

ther nuclear tests. This proved that the

North Korean nuclear issue is, in

essence, an issue between the United

States and North Korea ….

The Armistice Agreement that ended the

fighting of the Korean War was signed on July 27,

1953. While the Armistice Agreement provided for

a cease fire, it did not end the Korean War.

The Armistice Agreement that the U.S. and

North Korea signed states that a political agreement

Page 5

is needed by the parties to end the war. A political

conference was to be held to set the terms for an

agreement among the parties to provide for a peace

regime on the Korean Peninsula. Such a political

conference was to provide the means to “settle

through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal

of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settle-

ment of the Korean question,” etc. (See Article IV

of the Armistice Agreement.)

Though a political conference was eventually

held, the parties did not succeed in drafting a treaty

to end the war.

It is now more than 60 years later. There still

is no political agreement to end the Korean War.

Nor is there a political agreement to withdraw for-

eign troops from the Korean Peninsula. Korea con-

tinues to be divided into the Republic of Korea,

more commonly known as South Korea, and the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, more com-

monly known as North Korea.

There are 28,000 U.S. troops permanently sta-

tioned in South Korea. U.S. troops take part in exer-

cises along with South Korean troops to simulate

war activities against North Korea. In the event of a

war, the U.S. and South Korea have agreed that the

U.S. will have wartime operational command over

the South Korean troops.

Moreover, there is a formal agreement be-

tween the U.S. and South Korea that includes the

U.S. commitment to provide nuclear weapon pro-

tection for South Korea. This is referred to as a nu-

clear umbrella.

Recently, China proposed that the UN Secu-

rity Council find a way to engage North Korea in

political negotiations toward a peace regime for the

Korean Peninsula. China supported the need for a

peace treaty which at long last would end the Ko-

rean War. But then the U.S. and South Korea

agreed to negotiate for the positioning of the U.S.

THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense)

system in South Korea under the command of the

U.S. troops stationed there. The THAAD is a sys-

tem that China explained would represent a stepped

up use of foreign military equipment on the penin-

sula, a process forbidden under the terms of the

1953 Armistice Agreement. (See Article 13A2d)

In response to the proposed deployment of

THAAD on the Korean Peninsula, China expressed

its opposition to the increased militarization that

THAAD would represent to the region. Once the

U.S. and South Korea added the possibility of their

agreement to deploy THAAD in South Korea, the

discussion between the U.S. and China appeared to

focus on THAAD and China appeared to subordi-

nate its focus on the need for dialogue with North

Korea to resolve the conflict situation to its opposi-

tion to THAAD.

There is also opposition to the placement of

THAAD in South Korea among South Koreans who

have offered their critiques of how it will be used.

For example, according to a public statement by

one South Korean NGO “a multitude of experts”

contend it is easy to use THAAD to put “most of

Chinese territory under detectable range, regardless

of THAAD’s location in South Korea.”

The sanctions in the Security Council resolu-

tion drawn up by the U.S. require nations to search

any cargo from or to North Korea in their territory.

The sanctions include the restriction on the sale by

North Korea of its gold, its coal and other minerals.

Also the resolution restricts countries from provid-

ing fuel for planes to North Korea.

The 1953 Armistice Agreement forbids any

naval blockade of Korea. In her comments about the

sanctions, the U.S. UN Ambassador bragged that

the resolution restricts North Korean cargo

“whether by land, sea or air.” Hence, the Security

Council resolution replaces what little remains of

the 1953 Armistice regime with a previously forbid-

den form of blockade of North Korea, intensifying

the war-provoking situation on the Korean Penin-

sula.

With China agreeing to a minimal reference to

negotiations in the Security Council Resolution

against North Korea, the U.S. and China bilaterally

agreed to a U.S. draft resolution. Then the U.S.

brought the resolution to the other members of the

Security Council, pressuring them to quickly adopt

it.

The UN Charter calls for the UN Security

Council to consider issues it deems violations of

international peace and security, and to investigate

the conflict situation toward finding a peaceful res-

olution.

Also, Chapter V, Article 32 of the UN Charter

mandates that any state which is not a member of

the Security Council, “if it is a party to a dispute

under consideration by the Security Council, shall

be invited to participate, without vote, in the discus-

sion relating to the dispute.”

Page 6

There is no indication that the Security Coun-

cil made any effort to invite North Korea to the

minimal discussion of the U.S. draft that was held

by Security Council members. During the explana-

tions made by member nations after the vote in fa-

vor of the resolution, some nations commented

about the lack of a proper period of time for the Se-

curity Council to consider and discuss the resolu-

tion and its implications. The U.S., by rushing the

adoption of the resolution by the Security Council

denied not only North Korea, but even the Security

Council members themselves, the time needed for

responsible discussion about the resolution and

whether it could contribute to a peaceful settlement

of the conflict.

In their statements after passing by unanimous

consent Security Council Resolution S/RES/2270

(2016) imposing these new sanctions on North Ko-

rea, both Russia and China explained their opposi-

tion to the installation of THAAD on the Korean

Peninsula. Japan, however, welcomed such an

increased militarization.

In a statement after the resolution was ap-

proved by the Security Council, the South Korean

Ambassador to the UN, directed his comments to

North Korea, though it was not at the meeting. He

said

I would like to say a few words in appeal

to those who are ruling North Korea. I

would say in Korean, ‘please stop it

now.’ I would ask them: Why do you

need these weapons? In South Korea we

do not have a nuclear bomb. As we bor-

der each other, you do not need an inter-

continental missile if you are targeting

us. Why do you need these weapons?

You say the United States is a threat to

you. Why would the United States

threaten you? Why would the strongest

military Power in the world threaten a

small country far across the Pacific?

There is no threat. It is a figment of your

imagination. If you continue in this way,

the only people who will suffer from

what you are doing are your own people,

and our people as well. So please, wake

up, open your eyes, look out at what is

happening in the world. Give up the

nukes. Join the rest of us in the world

and we can live together in safety and

peace.

The problem with such a statement is that the

U.S. and South Korea have a formal agreement for

the U.S. to protect South Korea under the U.S. nu-

clear umbrella. It is dishonest to hide that nuclear

weapon protection is indeed part of the military as-

surance provided to South Korea by the U.S. Simi-

larly, North Korea notes that U.S. troops remain in

South Korea and in the case of a war not only will

these troops be used, but the U.S. military will exer-

cise operational command over the South Korean

military. The U.S. and South Korea and at times

other nations join in military maneuvers several

times a year that directly threaten the security of

North Korea. For example, as of March 7 this year,

the U.S. and South Korea are carrying out military

maneuvers involving 17,000 U.S. troops and

300,000 South Korean troops. These maneuvers are

practicing for a war with North Korea.

The fact that there is no peace treaty after

more than 60 years despite the provisions in the Ar-

mistice Agreement calling for the political negotia-

tions to officially end the war demonstrates that the

Korean War is not over. Similarly, the statement by

South Korea that there is no security threat facing

North Korea, is but a demonstration of the belittling

attitude of the South Korean government toward

North Korea.

While in other situations, Russia and China

have recognized that North Korea has serious and

legitimate security concerns, at this Security Coun-

cil meeting, neither of them nor any other member

of the Security Council objected to the inaccuracy

of the South Korean Ambassador’s statement.

That the South Korean Ambassador could

make such a statement at a Security Council meet-

ing, with not one Security Council member object-

ing that it is an inaccurate statement, demonstrates

the failure of the UN Security Council to provide a

process to understand and resolve a serious and

dangerous conflict threatening international peace

and security.

Notes:

1. Wu Zhenglong, “Create Conditions to Restart North Korean

Nuclear Talks”

https://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/

create-conditions-to-restart-north-korean-nuclear-talks

Page 7

2. See for example, the PSPD Statement “We Oppose THAAD

System Deployment in South Korea-PSPD in English.” PSPD

is a South Korean NGO. See:

h t t p : / / ww w . p e o p l e p o w e r 2 1 . o r g / I n d e x . p h p ? m i d

=English&document_srl=1393339&listStyle=list

3. UN Security Council Meeting, Wednesday, March 2, 2016,

S/PV.7638, p.14.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.

asp?symbol=S/PV.7638

4. The U.S. is a party to the conflict that involves North

Korea’s claim that it needs nuclear weapons for self defense

because the U.S. continues to be at war with North Korea. Yet

in the actions of the Security Council on this dispute not only

is the U.S. the pen holder drafting the resolution, but it also

pressured other members for a quick vote on its proposed reso-

lution.

A party to a conflict is permitted to dominate the pro-

cess by which the Security Council acts on the conflict. Such

actions are contrary to the spirit and provisions of the UN

Charter.

5. In other circumstances, at least Russia and China have rec-

ognized the serious security threat facing North Korea. For

example on March 7, 2016, the Russian Foreign Ministry

wrote: “Naturally, as a state, which is directly named as an

object of this kind of military activities, the Democratic Peo-

ple’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) cannot but feel reasonably

concerned for its security. Russia has many times stated its

openly negative attitude to such manifestations of military and

political pressure on Pyongyang,” the Russian Foreign Minis-

try said.

http://tass.ru/en/politics/860974

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizen-

blog on Oct 24, 2016 and can be seen at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/10/24/unsc-

violates-article-32-charter/]

UN Security Council Violates

Article 32 of UN Charter in its

Sanctions Against DPRK

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

On September 9, 2016 the Democratic Peo-

ple’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) carried out its 5

nuclear test.

In the past the UN Security Council has im-

posed a series of sanctions as the response to each

nuclear test carried out by the DPRK.

This situation has continued for over 10 years.

During a press stakeout, the Japanese Ambas-

sador to the UN, who is currently a member of the

Security Council, was asked by a journalist if he

could say what the DPRK demands are. The Japa-

nese Ambassador responded that the DPRK wants

“to develop nuclear weapons in order to be a full

nuclear weapons state.”

Such a response, especially considering the

long standing role Japan has played in the conflict

with the DPRK, demonstrates a serious lack of ac-

countability by the Security Council in its treatment

of the DPRK.

Japan not only was on the Security Council

but also was the President of the UN Security Coun-

cil on October 14, 2006 when the DPRK made a

statement at the Security Council explaining why it

had carried out its first nuclear test on October 9,

2006. In the Security Council meeting of October

14, 2006, which is documented in the UN transcript

of that meeting the DPRK Ambassador to the UN,

Pak Gil Yon explained

It is gangster-like for the UN Security

Council to have adopted today a coer-

cive resolution, while neglecting the nu-

clear threat, moves for sanctions and

pressure of the United States against the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

This clearly testifies that the Security

Council has completely lost its impar-

tiality and persists in applying double

standards in its work.

The Ambassador continued:

The delegation of the Democratic Peo-

ple’s Republic of Korea expresses its

disappointment over the fact that the

Security Council finds itself incapable of

saying even a word of concern to the

United States, which threatens the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

with nuclear pre-emptive attack and con-

ducting large-scale joint military exer-

cises near the Korean peninsula.

The DPRK Ambassador explained that the

October 9, 2006 nuclear test “was entirely attribut-

able to the United States nuclear threat, sanctions

and pressure.”

The DPRK noted that it had “exerted every

possible effort to settle the nuclear issue through

dialogue and negotiations, prompted by its sincere

desire to realize the denuclearization of the Korean

peninsula.” The DPRK Ambassador then described

how the Bush Administration, “responded to the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s patient

Page 8

and sincere effort and magnanimity with a policy of

sanctions and blockade. The Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea was compelled to substantially

prove its possession of nukes to protect its sover-

eignty and the right to existence from the daily in-

creasing danger of war from the United States.”

The statement ended by asserting that “The

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is ready for

both dialogue and confrontation. If the United

States persistently increases pressure upon the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, my coun-

try will continue to take physical countermeasures,

considering such pressure to be a declaration of

war.”

According to the language and spirit of the

UN Charter, the process of deciding how to handle

a dispute needs to be a process where the Security

Council invites a party to a dispute such as the one

involving the DPRK to participate in the Security

Council discussion of the dispute.

This provision of the UN charter makes it pos-

sible for the members of the Security Council to

listen to the different sides in a dispute before a de-

cision is reached about how to resolve the dispute.

In the UN Security Council consideration of

the dispute leading to the first nuclear explosion,

the DPRK was only allowed to speak after the Se-

curity Council had already decided to support the

U.S. and punish the DPRK. The meeting transcript

does not provide any record of any questions asked

by Security Council members of the DPRK Ambas-

sador so as to better understand his side of the dis-

pute.

The lack of any response from Security Coun-

cil members to the DPRK side of the dispute might

seem understandable if one did not know about

Chapter V Article 32 of the UN Charter.

This Article says that when the Security

Council takes a dispute under consideration, mem-

ber nations who are a party to the conflict but not a

member of the Security Council, “shall be invited to

participate without vote, in the discussion relating

to the dispute ….”

Yet this requirement of the UN Charter has in

general been systematically violated by the UN Se-

curity Council with the DPRK. This makes it possi-

ble for most Security Council member nations to

appear to have no idea of the basis of the dispute

between the U.S. and the DPRK which the DPRK

says is the reason it needs a nuclear weapon to guar-

antee its security.

The implication of this situation is that as long

as the Security Council ignores its obligation under

the UN charter to properly invite the DPRK to the

Security Council to be a participant in its discussion

of the dispute between the U.S. and the DPRK, the

dispute only becomes more intractable and more

dangerous to peace and security, not only on the

Korean Peninsula but to the world.

Notes:

1. UN webcast, Friday, Sept 9, 2016 available at:

http://webtv.un.org/media/media-stakeouts/watch/koro-bessho

-japan-on-non-proliferation-and-the-democratic-peoples-repub

lic-of-korea-dprk-security-council-media-stakeout-9-septembe

r-2016/5118990324001 (start: 4:00 to 5:08)

2. See pp. 7-8 S/PV.5551, Saturday 14 October, 2006, avail-

able at:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sym-

bol=S/PV. 5551, See also S/PV.5490 15 July, 2006 pp. 8-9,

available at:

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B

65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Chap%

20VII%20SPV%205490.pdf

3. UN Charter, Chapter V, Article 32, p. 23.

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizen-

blog on Jan. 29, 2017 and can be seen at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2017/01/29/channel-

for-communication-to-unsc/]

Channel for Individuals

or NGO’s to Send

Communication to the UN

Security Council

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Since the early days of the UN Security Coun-

cil, there has been a procedure for private individu-

als and non-governmental organizations to be able

to send communications to the Security Council on

matters of which it is seized.

The procedure has

been referred to by its library classification symbol

which is S/NC.

I first came across this procedure when an

NGO in South Korea had been accused of being

unpatriotic to the South Korean government be-

Page 9

cause that NGO (and others as well) sent a critique

to the Security Council about something the South

Korean government was presenting to the Security

Council.

It seemed particularly inappropriate for the

South Korean government to accuse an NGO of

disloyalty because of a letter sent to members of the

Security Council as there is a long tradition from

1946 to the present for private individuals or

NGO’s to write to the Security Council. Security

Council documents show that there are lists of prob-

ably thousands of such communications.

In doing some research at the UN into the

background of this procedure of the UN I came to

realize that in the early days of the Security Coun-

cil, lists of such communications were issued by the

Secretariat on a frequent basis. The procedure is

described in the Appendix of the Provisional Rules

of Procedure of the Security Council. It states:

Provisional Procedure for Dealing with

Communications from Private Individu-

als and Non-Governmental Bodies

A. A list of all communications from

private individuals and non-governmen-

tal bodies relating to matters of which

the Security Council is seized shall be

circulated to all representatives on the

Security Council.

B. A copy of any communication on the

list shall be given by the Secretariat to

any representative on the Security Coun-

cil at his request.

The lists published by the UN Secretariat of

the communications received by the Security Coun-

cil from individuals or non-governmental entities

included the name and organization of the sender,

the date of the communication, the city or town and

country of the sender, and originally whether the

communication was a telegram, letter, petition etc.

The communications were grouped by the Security

Council agenda item that the communication re-

ferred to.

If a Security Council member saw some com-

munication on a list that was of interest, the Secu-

rity Council member could request a copy of the

communication from the Secretariat.

From 1946 and for several years afterwards,

lists were issued on a frequent basis. By the mid

1990's the lists would be issued on a quarterly basis

by the UN Secretariat. Then for some reason not yet

understood, starting from the 2000 list, lists by the

Secretariat would only be issued once a year,

around April.

Along with the less frequent issuing of the

lists of communications sent to the Security Coun-

cil, there appears to be no publicly available infor-

mation indicating how or where an individual or

non-governmental entity can send a communication

to the Security Council.

Recently when asking some Security Council

members if they were aware of this procedure, only

one indicated he remembered seeing some

correspondence from individuals or NGO’s sent to

the Security Council. Others appeared to have no

knowledge of this process. While this brief survey

was only based on a small sample, it demonstrated a

breakdown in one of the few publicly available

channels of communication between members of

the public and members of the Security Council.

In 2010 some NGO’s and some academics

who were scientists attempted to send communica-

tion to the Security Council about a matter being

considered by the Security Council. They sent e-

mail to all the member states then on the Security

Council. None of these communications, however,

appeared on the annual S/NC list published by the

UN Secretariat for 2010.

More recently, during the press conference

marking the beginning of the Russian Federation’s

Presidency of the Security Council for the month of

October 2016, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin re-

sponded to a question raised by a journalist. He said

that he would support, “the greater involvement of

women” in line with Security Council Resolution

1325 to help address the high level of tension on the

Korean Peninsula.

In response to his statement, Christine Ahn,

the International Coordinator for the NGO “Women

Cross DMZ” wrote to the Security Council asking

that several recommendations the group proposed

be raised at the Security Council Debate on Resolu-

tion 1325 planned for October 25, 2016.

When she tried to find where to send her letter

to have it considered as a communication to the Se-

curity Council, however, there was no clear infor-

mation publicly available about where an individual

or NGO should send their communication. A press

inquiry demonstrated that such information was not

easy to locate.

Page 10

Similarly, a press inquiry to some Security

Council members yielded little help with how to

find such information. It was only a month later, at

the press conference held by the Spanish Ambassa-

dor on the occasion of assuming the Presidency of

the Security Council for the month of December

2016, that there was an offer of help to find the an-

swer to the mystery.

Ambassador Román Oyarzun Marchesi, the

Spanish Ambassador to the UN, welcomed the

question on how to send communication to the Se-

curity Council saying that his delegation “really

believed in the participation of civil society.” He

promised that if information was sent to him docu-

menting the problem, “I’ll do my best … I’ll see

what I can do.”

An inquiry by his press secretary led to a re-

sponse from the Secretariat. The e-mail from the

Office of the President of the Security Council in

the UN Department of Political Affairs in the Secre-

tariat stated that if an e-mail or surface mail on a

topic being considered by the Security Council is

sent to the e-mail address given in the UN Journal

for communications for UN member nations to send

their communication to the Security Council, or to

the postal address provided, it will usually be infor-

mally circulated by the Security Council President

via their “political coordinators’ network.” If the

document “falls under one of the agenda items seiz-

ed by the Security Council, it gets listed and pub-

lished as a Security Council document under

S/NC[year]/1.” Then it will appear on the list that is

published for that year by the Secretariat.

Looking at the earliest S/NC lists, one is

impressed by the fact that there are communications

from individuals and groups around the world. For

example some of the earliest lists present commun-

ication received “Concerning Franco Regime in

Spain.”

Looking at the names of those who are listed

as sending communication to the UN Security

Council from 1946 to the present, one gets a sense

of the UN existing in bigger world in a way that is

different from what is conveyed when one just

watches the workings of, for example, the Security

Council. It would appear that more serious attention

should be paid to making the address for sending

communication to the Security Council publicly

available. Also more frequent publication of the

lists would make it possible for Security Council

members to make timely requests for copies of the

communications that interested them. That could

help broaden the perspectives of Security Council

members to enable them to be better able to find

peaceful ways to resolve difficult conflicts.

Notes:

1. The term “seized” as used at the UN indicates, “that, while

the Security Council is seized of a matter, no other organ of

the United Nations may legally take it up, as under Article 12

of the UN Charter.” See:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be_

seized_of

2. Ronda Hauben, “S. Korean Gov’t Urged to End Criminal

Investigation of NGO for Questions on Cheonan Sent to UN,”

taz.de/netizenblog, June 26, 2010,

http://blogs.taz.de/netizen-

blog/2010/06/26/s_korean_govt_urged_to_end_criminal_inves

tigation_of_ngo/

3. Román Oyarzun Marchesi (Spain), President of the Security

Council for the month of December 2016 – Press Conference.

See “1 Dec 2016 – Press Conference by H.E. Mr. Román

Oyarzun Marchesi, Permanent Representative of Spain to the

United Nations and President of the Security Council for the

month of December 2016, on the Security Council Programme

of work for the month” at:

http://webtv.un.org/watch/rom%

C3%A1n-oyarzun-marchesi-spain-president-of-the-security-

council-for-the-month-of-december-2016-press-conference/

5232207921001

4. Communication from private individuals, NGO’s or other

entities which relate to the work of the Security Council can be

sent to the e-mail address listed in the UN Journal,

[email protected] or mailed to:

United Nations Security Council

405 East 42nd Street

New York, NY 10017

Page 11

[Editor’s Note: A version of the following article

appeared on La Voce di New York under the title

“Crisis with North Korea: the UN Charter Has Been

Violated by the Security Council” on Oct 13, 2017,

online at: http://www.lavocedinewyork.com/en/un/

2017/10/13/crisis-with-north-korea-the-un-charter-h

as-been-violated-by-security-council/.]

Article 32: Right to Due

Process Enshrined in

the UN Charter, Violated

by Security Council

By Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

There is a provision in the UN Charter which

requires the Security Council, when it discusses a

dispute, to invite those countries that are parties to

the dispute to participate in that discussion. This

requirement of the UN Charter is explained in Arti-

cle 32 of the Charter.

The language of Article 32 says:

Any member of the United Nations

which is not a member of the Security

Council … if it is a party to a dispute

under consideration by the Security

Council shall be invited to participate,

without vote, in the discussion relating

to the dispute. (Emphasis added)

The Security Council, however, does not com-

ply with this requirement of the UN Charter. The

many resolutions that have been passed by the Se-

curity Council condemning actions of the Demo-

cratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) were

passed without the members of the Security Council

including the DPRK in the discussion as is required

by the UN Charter.

For example, shortly after the first nuclear test

was carried out by the DPRK on October 9, 2006,

the DPRK indicated that there were reasons why it

took this action. In violation of the Charter, how-

ever, the members of the Security Council did not

invite the DPRK to participate in the discussion in

the Council about the dispute. Instead sanctions

were imposed by the Security Council on the DPRK

without hearing its side of the dispute. Only after

the sanctions were voted on was the Representative

of the DPRK allowed to speak.

How can the members of the Security Council

understand the nature of a dispute without hearing

from the parties to the dispute? How can Security

Council members decide how to act to resolve a

dispute unless they hear from those involved in the

dispute.

It is now more than 10 years after the UN Se-

curity Council passed Resolution 1718 punishing

the DPRK for its first nuclear test.

The DPRK has conducted several additional

nuclear or missile tests. The UN Security Council

has passed several additional resolutions against the

DPRK, without making any attempt to hear from

the DPRK. The DPRK has written to the Security

Council several letters asking to have the Security

Council consider why the DPRK says it needs to

develop a nuclear weapon. The DPRK has also of-

fered to freeze further nuclear development if the

U.S. and the Republic of Korea (ROK) cease large

scale military drills against the DPRK that they hold

several times a year. The U.S. refuses to consider

this offer and the Security Council members con-

tinue to support the U.S.-created resolu-

tions increasing the Security Council’s sanctions

against the DPRK.

While the Security Council ignores the letters

from the DPRK and the Charter requirement that it

hear DPRK’s views about the dispute, several Secu-

rity Council members publicly proclaim inaccu-

rately that it is the DPRK that refuses to negotiate

about its nuclear program.

The failure of the Security Council to adhere

to the obligation of the UN Charter, has led to an

ever more tense situation over the dispute between

the DPRK and the U.S.

An event, however, which helps to shed light

on this situation took place at UN headquarters on

September 22, 2017 during the week of the General

Debate that began the 72

Session of the General

Assembly. A press conference was held by the For-

eign Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergey

Lavrov. In response to a question raised by a jour-

nalist at the press conference, FM Lavrov

provided not only an understanding of the nature of

the obligation that Article 32 bestows on the Secu-

rity Council, but also an understanding of the im-

portance of this obligation.

The journalist asked

Foreign Minister Lavrov:

Page 12

Journalist Q: “My question is about the

significance of the Security Council and

the world not hearing, in the process of

the sanctions, from the DPRK. Under

Article 32, it says that the DPRK should

be invited to the Security Council.

They’ve [the DPRK] also asked to come

about the joint exercises. They’ve sent

numerous letters to the Security Council

and yet we are told they don’t want to

negotiate. But if the Security Council

constantly doesn’t even follow the Char-

ter inviting them, how can they [the

DPRK] have a sense there’s any process

going on within the Security Council?

Can you say Russia’s position about

having an invitation the way Article 32

provides for of a country who is being

discussed and hearing their side of the

story?”

Foreign Minister Lavrov responded:

Lavrov: “I believe that when the UN

Security Council reviews the issues

which regard any country, any member

country, this country has to be invited

and has to have an opportunity to present

their position to the UN Security Coun-

cil. For me, this is a given and it is en-

shrined in [the] Charter as you quite

rightfully say. But when it goes for the

practical actions not everything depends

on us. There are many opportunities for

other Security Council members, mem-

ber states. Well, in any case, despite this

article [in the Charter], the routine prac-

tice is the following that we need con-

sensus. Not everything depends on us.”

Lavrov’s response clarified that while the ob-

ligation is “enshrined in the Charter” to provide an

opportunity for any country, involved in a dispute

considered by the Security Council to be invited

and to be able to present its view of the dispute to

the Security Council, he also acknowledges that this

obligation of the Charter is not practiced at present

by Security Council members. Instead Security

Council members determine by consensus what

their practice will be. In addition, Lavrov explains

that on its own the Russian Federation is not able to

change this Security Council violation of the Char-

ter.

Lavrov is not alone in recognizing the viola-

tion by the Security Council of the right to due pro-

cess under the Charter for those being condemned

by the Security Council. This violation of the Char-

ter by the practice of the Security Council also has

been the subject of criticism by member states dem-

onstrating the need for Security Council Reform.

For example at the 62

General Assembly

meeting on the need for Security Council Reform,

Ambassador Hilario Davide of the Philippines told

the Council

(D)ue process and the rule of law de-

mand that Member States that are not

members of the Security Council but are

the subjects of the Council’s scrutiny

should have the right to appear before

the Council at all stages of the proceed-

ings concerning them to state or defend

their positions on the issues that are the

subjects of or are related to that scrutiny

…. This is a denial of due process,

which is a violation of the basic princi-

ple of the rule of law. Due process and

the rule of law require that a party must

be heard before it is condemned.

Also this violation of the Charter had been

criticized by civil society groups, as for example, in

a recent letter sent to the Secretary General and

signed by over 300 women and women’s groups

from 45 countries. In the letter, the women wrote:

In accordance with UN Charter rules, we

urge you to respond to North Korea’s security con-

cerns regarding these war drills, the world’s largest,

which rehearse surgical strikes on North Korea, ‘de-

capitation,’ and regime change. According to Arti-

cle 32 of the UN Charter, ‘Any Member of the

United Nations which is not a member of the Secu-

rity Council … if it is a party to a dispute under

consideration by the Security Council, shall be in-

vited to participate, without vote, in the discussion

relating to the dispute.’ Yet the DPRK has never

been invited to participate in UNSC sessions on

sanctions resolutions, and the Permanent Mission of

the DPRK to the UN has not received a response to

its August 25, 2017 letter where they strongly

request[ed] the Security Council of the United Na-

tions to place the issue of the joint military exercise

as its emergent agenda and discuss in the meeting

with no further delay.

Page 13

Criticism of the Security Council’s failure to

provide due process to those they condemn has

even been raised in court proceedings as with SC

resolution 1267, with the Court requiring the Secu-

rity Council to change its procedures.

Also, there is an example of the Security

Council acting differently. In 2010 the Security

Council took up a dispute regarding the Republic of

Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea, and invited both parties to present their view

of the dispute. Then the Security Council issued a

Presidential Statement documenting the nature of

the dispute and urging the two parties to settle it in

a peaceful manner.

It is significant that Lavrov recognizes the

obligation of the Security Council to hear the views

of nations involved in a dispute being considered by

the Security Council. His acknowledgment that

such problems need others to take them up in order

to be resolved, implies a current challenge for the

UN. The ongoing failure of the Security Council to

operate according to the Charter undermines the

legitimacy of the Security Council and even of the

UN.

Notes:

1. Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 5, Article 32

http://legal.un.org/repertory/art32.shtml

2. The U.S. is the penholder writing the SC Resolutions

against the DPRK and then using various forms of pressure to

get the SC to pass the resolution. This is the case even though

the U.S. is a party to the dispute with the DPRK.

3. See for example

http://webtv.un.org/watch/japan-prime-min

ister-addresses-general-debate-72nd-session/5581786476001/

“Japan – Prime Minister Addresses General Debate, 72

Ses-

sion 20 Sep 2017 – Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, ad-

dresses the general debate of the 72

Session of the General

Assembly of the UN (New York, 19 - 25 September 2017).”

4. See

http://webtv.un.org/media/watch/sergey-lavrov-russian-

federdation-press-conference-22 -s ept emb er-2017/

5583136573001/?term= (Start 30:23; End 32:03).

“Sergey Lavrov (Russian Federation) – Press Conference (22

September 2017) 22 Sep 2017 – Sergey V. Lavrov, Minister

for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, addresses the

press on disarmament and other topics.”

5. See

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=

S/PV.5968(Resumption1) Transcript Security Council meet-

ing, August 27, 2008, S/PV.5968, Resumption 1. p. 8

6. See for example

https://www.womencrossdmz.org/web/wp-

content/uploads/2017/09/Final_Letter-to-UNSG-ver6.pdf

7. See for example https://www.heise.de/tp/features/At-Legal-

Crossroads-3419131.html

Ronda Hauben, “At Legal Crossroads: Security Council sanc-

tions imposed without Due Process,” Telepolis, 29 June, 2008.

8. See for example http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc

.asp?symbol=S/PRST/2010/13 UN Security Council Presiden-

tial Statement S/PRST/2010/13.

[Editor’s Note: The following statement appeared

on September 26, 2017 on the People’s Solidarity

for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) website at

http://www.peoplepower21.org/index.php?mid=Eng

lish&document_srl=1528596&listStyle=list and

other websites. Abolition 2000 is a network of over

2000 organizations in more than 90 countries

worldwide working for a global treaty to eliminate

nuclear weapons.]

Appeal for a Diplomatic

Solution in North East Asia

The Abolition 2000 members and affiliated

networks listed below, representing peace and dis-

armament organisations from around the world, call

on the United States and North Korea to step back

from the brink of war in North East Asia, and in-

stead adopt a diplomatic approach to prevent war.

We call for the immediate commencement of

negotiations to prevent a military conflict from

erupting, and to resolve the underlying conflicts.

Such negotiations should take place both bilaterally

and through a renewed Six-Party framework involv-

ing China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea

and the United States.

The escalating tensions and threat of military

conflict over North Korea’s nuclear and missile ca-

pabilities makes a diplomatic solution of vital im-

portance and the highest priority. The increasing

risk of war – and possibly even the use of nuclear

weapons by miscalculation, accident, or intent – is

frightening.

More than three million citizens of Korea,

China, USA and other countries lost their lives in

the Korean War from 1950-1953. Should a war

erupt again, the loss of lives could be considerably

worse, especially if nuclear weapons are used. In-

deed, a nuclear conflict erupting in Korea could en-

gulf the entire world in a nuclear catastrophe that

would end civilization as we know it. In supporting

diplomacy rather than war, we:

Page 14

1. Oppose any pre-emptive use of force by any of

the parties, which would be counter-productive and

likely lead to nuclear war;

2. Call on all parties to refrain from militaristic

rhetoric and provocative military exercises;

3. Encourage China, Japan, North Korea, Russia,

South Korea and the United States to consider the

phased and comprehensive approach for a North-

East Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone with a 3+3

arrangement,* which already has cross-party sup-

port in Japan and South Korea and interest from the

North Korean government;

4. Encourage China, Japan, North Korea, Russia,

South Korea and the United States to also consider

options and modalities for turning the 1953 Armi-

stice Agreement into a formal end to the 1950-1953

Korean War;

5. Welcome the call of the UN Secretary-General

for a resumption of Six-Party Talks and his offer to

assist in negotiations;

6. Welcome also the offer of the European Union to

assist in diplomatic negotiations, as they did suc-

cessfully in the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear pro-

gram;

7. Call on the United Nations Security Council to

prioritise a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

* The 3+3 arrangement would include Japan, South Korea and

North Korea agreeing not to possess or host nuclear weapons,

and would require China, Russia and the USA agreeing not to

deploy nuclear weapons in Japan, South Korea or North Ko-

rea, nor to attack or threaten to attack them with nuclear weap-

ons.

Endorsers of the Appeal for a diplomatic solu-

tion in North East Asia:

Organizations:

Abolition 2000 U.K. (U.K.)

Albert Schweitzer Institute (USA)

All Souls Nuclear Disarmament Task Force (USA)

Anglican Pacifist Fellowship of New Zealand (N.Z.)

Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace (New Zealand)

Artistes pour la Paix (Canada)

Artsen voor Vrede - Flemish IPPNW (Belgium)

Association Des Medecins Francais Pour La Prevention de la

Guerre Nucleaire - IPPNW France (France)

Association of World Citizens (Germany)

The ATOM Project (Kazakhstan)

Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition (Australia)

Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (USA)

Basel Peace Office (Switzerland, International)

Beyond Nuclear (USA, International)

Blue Banner (Mongolia)

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – CND (U.K.)

Canadian Pugwash Group (Canada)

CND New Zealand (New Zealand)

CND Scotland (Scotland)

Christian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (U.K.)

Coalition for Peace Action, New Jersey (USA)

Coalition for Peace Action, Pennsylvania (USA)

Colorado Coalition for the Prevention of Nuclear War

Committee of 100 (Finland)

Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition (USA)

Cymru Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Wales)

Denman Island Peace Group (Canada)

DPRK Friendship and Cultural Society (Australia)

Earth Action (USA, International)

Earthcare not Warfare (USA)

Economists for Peace and Security (USA)

Edinburgh Peace & Justice Centre (Scotland)

Edinburgh CND (Scotland)

Environmentalists Against War (USA)

European Environment Foundation (Switzerland)

Frauen für den Frieden – Women for Peace (Switzerland)

Gandhi Development Trust (South Africa)

Gensuikyo - Japan Council against A and H Bombs (Japan)

Grandmothers for Peace (USA, International)

Green Party of Washington State (USA)

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action (USA)

Harrison fellowship of Reconciliation (USA)

Hokotehi Moriori Trust (Rekohu, Chatham Islands)

Human Survival Project (Australia, International)

IALANA (International Association of Lawyers Against

Nuclear Arms) Italy Section (Italy)

IALANA Germany – Vereinigung für Friedensrecht

International Fellowship of Reconciliation - Austria

IPPNW Germany

Iona Community (Scotland)

Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Ireland)

Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Ke Aupuni O Hawaii (The Hawaiian Kingdom) (Hawaii)

Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (USA)

Leo Club of Sunflower Saidpur City (Bangladesh)

Mankato Area Peace vigil (USA)

Medact (IPPNW U.K.) Nuclear Weapons Group (U.K.)

Le Mouvement de la Paix (France)

Network of Spiritual Progressives (USA)

Nobel Peace Prize Watch (Norway)

Norges Fredslag - Norwegian Peace Society (Norway)

Norwegian Peace Council (Norway)

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (USA)

Nuclear Free Local Authorities (U.K.)

N.Z. DPRK Society (New Zealand)

One People One Planet (New Zealand)

Oxford Network for Global Justice and Peace (U.K.)

Pacific Institute of Resource Management (N.Z.)

Pax Christi International (Belgium, International)

Pax Christi Metro New York (USA)

Peace Action Manhattan (USA)

Peace Action NY State (USA)

Page 15

Peace Depot (Japan)

Peace Foundation – Te Taupapa Rongomau o Aotearoa (N.Z.)

Peace People (Northern Ireland)

Peace Union of Finland (Finland)

Peaceworkers (USA)

People for Nuclear Disarmament (Australia)

Peoples Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (Republic of

Korea)

Phoenix Settlement Trust (South Africa)

Physicians for Social Responsibility/IPPNW (Switzerland)

Portland Fellowship of Reconciliation (USA)

Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (Italy,

International)

Quaker Peace and Service Aotearoa New Zealand (N.Z.)

Religions for Peace (USA, International)

Religions for Peace Canada (Canada)

Rideau Institute (Canada)

Scientists for Global Responsibility (Australia)

Shining Bangladesh Foundation (Bangladesh)

Soka Gakkai International New Zealand (N.Z.)

STOP the War Coalition (Philippines)

Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (Sweden)

Swedish IALANA (Sweden)

Swiss Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament (Switzerland)

Trident Ploughshares (U.K.)

Tri-Valley CAREs (USA)

United Religions Initiative (USA)

Uniting for Peace (U.K.)

Forum voor Vredesactie - Peace Action (Belgium)

Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA)

Western States Legal Foundation (USA)

Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation (USA)

Women for Peace Germany (Germany)

WILPF (Women’s International League for Peace and Free-

dom) German Section (Germany)

WILPF Scottish Section (Scotland)

Seattle Fellowship of Reconciliation (USA)

World Beyond War (USA, International)

World Future Council (Germany, International)

Yorkshire Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (U.K.)

Youth for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (Ban-

gladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka).

Zone Libre (Mexico)

Individuals:

(Titles and organization names included for identification pur-

poses only)

Junko Abe (Japan)

Mostafiz Ahmed (Bangladesh). President, Leo Club of Sun-

flower Saidpur City

Nur E Alam (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Giorgio Alba (Italy). Abolition 2000 Global Council

Paul Alexander, Ph.D. (U.K.). Visiting Scholar, College of

Arts and Law. University of Birmingham

John Amidon (USA). President, Veterans fr Peace, Chapter 10

Jean Anderson (Aotearoa/New Zealand)

Irshad Ansari (Nepal). Youth NND Group

Carol Archer (U.K.). Peace activist

M.K. Bashar Bahar (Bangladesh). Chairman, BSB Cambrian

Education Group.

Nivy Balachandran (Australia). Religions for Peace Regional

Coordinator, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands

Patti Bass (USA)

David Barrows (USA)

Rev. Kathleen Bellefeuille-Rice (USA)

Dr. Terry Bergeson (USA). Former WA State Superintendent

of Public Instruction

Phon van den Biesen (Netherlands). Vice-President, Interna-

tional Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Ranjit Bhagat (Nepal). Youth NND Group

Cr David Blackburn (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities

English Forum Chair, Leeds City Council

Dr Frank Boulton (U.K.). Trustee of MEDACT, the U.K. affil-

iate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nu-

clear War (IPPNW)

Francis Anthony Boyle (USA). Professor of international law,

University of Illinois College of Law

Dr Derman Boztok MD (Turkey). President of IPPNW Turkey

Dr Adam Broinowski (Australia). Research Fellow, College of

Asia and the Pacific. Australian National University

Allen Brubaker (USA). Former development worker in Soma-

lia and member of the Mennonite Board of Missions

Mark & Margaret Bubenik (USA). Members of Ground Zero

Center for Nonviolent Action

Shawkat Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh)

Rob Clarke (Aotearoa/New Zealand). Special Officer for Edu-

cation, United Nations Association of New Zealand

Prof. Ana María Cetto (Mexico). Director, Museum of Light,

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Peter von Christierson (USA)

Brenda Clowes (USA). Couples Counsellor

Harriett Cody (USA)

Betsy Collins (USA)

Dr Tony Colman (U.K.) World Future Councillor

Phyllis Creighton (Canada), Science for Peace

Tarja Cronberg (Finland), Chair of the Middle Powers

Initiative. Abolition 2000 Global Council Member

Cr Feargal Dalton (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Scotland Forum Convener, Glasgow City Council

Rev. John Dear (USA). Author and activist

Cr Mark Dearey (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities All

Ireland Forum Co-Chair, Louth County Council

Dr. Dieter Deiseroth (Germany). Academic Council, Interna-

tional Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

William H. Dent, Jr. (USA)

Dr Kate Dewes (Aotearoa/New Zealand). Co-Director, Disar-

mament and Security Centre

Akib Dipu (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Sergio Duarte (Brazil). President of Pugwash Conferences on

Science and World Affairs. Former UN Under-Secretary Gen-

eral for Disarmament Affairs.

Leonard Eiger (USA). Coordinator, NO to NEW TRIDENT

Campaign

Cheryl Eiger (USA). Member, Ground Zero Center for Nonvi-

olent Action

Dr Scilla Elworthy (U.K.). Founder, Oxford Research Group

and of Peace Direct. Councillor, World Future Council

Andreas Emerson-Moering (U.K.). Head of Religious Studies,

Norwich High School, U.K.

Edwin G. Ehmke (USA)

Page 16

Anwar Fazal (Malaysia). Director of the Right Livelihood Col-

lege. Right Livelihood Laureate, 1982

Rosemary Field (U.K.). Medact - IPPNW U.K. section.

Anda Filip (Romania/Switzerland). Member of the World Fu-

ture Council

Cr Grace Fletcher-Hackwood (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Au-

thorities English Forum Vice Chair, Manchester City Council

Dr. Royston Flude (Switzerland). President, World Circle of

the Consensus: Self-sustaining People, Organizations and

Communities

Dr. Frank A. Fromherz (USA). Professor of sociology of reli-

gion, war, peace, and social justice, Portland State University,

Oregon

Ela Gandhi (South Africa). Vice-President, Religions for

Peace

Prof Emilie Gaillard (France). Law professor at University of

Caen Normandy. IALANA Board member Roger Gordon

(USA). Retired psychotherapist

Commander (ret.) Robert Green (Aotearoa/New Zealand).

Co-Director, Disarmament and Security Centre Robin

Greenberg (Aotearoa/New Zealand). Filmmaker & conflict

resolution practitioner

Daniel Gingras (Canada). Former president of Artistes pour la

Paix. Member of la Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal

Chris Gwyntopher (U.K.). Refugee and Migrants Advice

Worker. Member of FOR, Religious Society of Friends, Tri-

dent Ploughshares and CND.

Gwyn Gwyntopher (U.K.). Retired Social Workers and Lec-

turer. Member of FOR, Religious Society of Friends,

Trident Ploughshares and CND.

Regina Hagen (Germany). Atomwaffenfrei Jetz (Nuclear

Weapons-Free Now) Campaign Council member. Abolition

2000 Global Council Member

David C Hall MD (USA). Past president, Physicians for Social

Responsibility

Rev. Anne S. Hall (USA). Retired Lutheran pastor (ELCA),

member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action and

Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.

John Hallam (Australia), People for Nuclear Disarmament.

Human Survival Project. Abolition 2000 Global Council

Member

Michael Hamel-Green (Australia). Emeritus Professor, Victo-

ria University Melbourne

Mary Hanson (USA), Co-chair, Ground Zero Center for Non-

violent Action Stewardship Council

Stephen A. Harrison (USA). Lawyer. Member of Peace Action

Thea Harvey-Barratt (USA). Executive Director, Economists

for Peace and Security

M.A, Hasan (Bangladesh). Chairman, Aristopharma Ltd.

Aminul Haque (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Elaine Hickman (USA). Member of Ground Zero Center for

Non-Violent Action

Ronja Ievers (New Zealand), National Administrator United

Nations Association of New Zealand

S.M. Imtiaz Alam (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Yaeka Inoue (Japan). JALANA

Chand Babu Iraki (Nepal) Youth NND Group

Mehboob Babu Iraki (Nepal). Youth NND Group

Moinul Islam (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Mokhlasur Islam (Bangladesh). Principal, Sunflower School &

College, Saidpur.

David T. Ives (USA). Executive Director of the Albert

chweitzer Institute. Adjunct Professor of Political Science,

Philosophy, and Latin American Culture

Frank Jackson (U.K.). Abolition 2000 U.K. Committee

Enkhsaikhan Jargalsaikhan (Mongolia), Blue Banner

Bishakha Jha (Nepal). Youth NND Group\

Birgitta Jonsdottir MP (Iceland). Parliamentarian. Poet. Mem-

ber, Pirate Party. PNND Council Member. Chair of the Inter-

national Modern Media institute.

Senator Sehar Kamran (Pakistan). Member Senate of Pakistan

Standing Committees on Defence, Human Rights & Federal

Education. President Centre for Pakistan & Gulf Studies

Akira KASAI (Japan). Member of the House of Representa-

tives

Richard Keller (Aotearoa/New Zealand)

Rabbi Jonathan Keren-Black (Australia)

Naimul Haque Khan (Bangladesh). Director, Lubnan Trade

Consortium Ltd.

Bill Kidd MSP (Scotland). Co-President of Parliamentarians

for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament. Abolition

2000 Global Council Member

Maruf Zaman Koyel (Bangladesh). President, Nilphamari

Chamber of Commerce & Industries.

Kristi (Canada). Peace campaigner from Edmonton

Raffaella Kristmann (Switzerland). Frauen für den Frieden,

Basel

Stephen Vincent Kobasa (USA), Trident Resistance Network

Prof. Rolf Kreibich (Germany). Secretariat for Future Re-

search, Freie University Berlin. Member of the World Future

Council\

David Krieger (USA). President of the Nuclear Age Peace

Foundation

Dennis Kucinich (USA). Former Congressman and Mayor of

Cleveland Ohio

Prof. Elizabeth Kucinich (USA). Regenerative Agriculture &

Agroforestry Advocate

Barry Ladendorf (USA). President, Veterans For Peace

Dominique Lalanne (France). Nuclear physicist. Coordinator

of Armes nucléaires STOP. Abolition 2000 Global Council

Member

Jean-Yvon Landrac (France). Abolition 2000 Global Council

member

Sarah Lasenby (U.K.). Oxford Quaker

Nydia Leaf (USA). Member of Granny Peace Brigade

Cr Sue Lent (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities Welsh

Forum, Cardiff City Council

Rabbi Michael Lerner (USA). Editor, Tikkun Magazine

Joyce Leeson (U.K.) Public Health Physician

Andrew Lichterman (USA). Western States Legal Foundation.

Abolition 2000 Global Council Member

Dr David Lowry (U.K.). Former director, European Prolifera-

tion Information Centre (EPIC)

Tim Lynch (New Zealand). Our Planet

Lachlan Mackay (New Zealand), Parliament of the World’s

Religions Youth Ambassador. Abolition 2000 Global Council

Member

Dirk Van der Maelen MP (Belgium). Chairman Commission

for Foreign Affairs, Belgian Parliament

Page 17

Mairead Corrigan Maguire (Ireland). Nobel Peace Laureate

1976

Muna Makhamreh (Jordan). Lawyer. Board director of

"MASAR" for Human Development. PNND Coordinator for

Arab Countries.

Jean-Marie Matagne (France). Action des Citoyens pour le

Désarmement Nucléaire. Abolition 2000 Global Council

Member

Prof. Manfred Max-Neef (Chile). Universidad Austral de

Chile. Member of the World Future Council

Fabio Marcelli (Italy). Association of Democratic Lawyers.

Board Member of IALANA

Joanie McClellan (USA). Fellowship of Reconciliation

Cr Norman McDonald (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Steering Committee Vice Chair, Western Isles Council

Nancy McGill (USA). Journalist

R. Michael Medley, Ph.D. (USA). Professor Emeritus of Eng-

lish, Eastern Mennonite University

Dr Philip Michael (Ireland). Past VP (Europe) International

Society of Doctors for the Environment

Patricia A. Milliren (USA)

Mokhsedul Momenin (Bangladesh). Union Chairman

LeRoy Moore PhD, (USA). Rocky Mountain Peace and Jus-

tice Center

John Morgan (New Zealand). Special Officer for Human

Rights, UNA New Zealand

Sean Morris (U.K.). Secretary (Principal Policy Officer), Nu-

clear Free Local Authorities.

Prof. Keiko Nakamura (Japan). Research Center for Nuclear

Abolition at Nagasaki University (RECNA)

Kara Nelson (N.Z.). 97-year old peace marcher

Alan Newberg (USA)

Ian Newman (Australia). Biophysicist

Roland Nivet (France). Spokesman, Le Mouvement de la Paix

Jan Oberg (Sweden) Co-founder & director of the Transna-

tional Foundation for Peace & Future Research

Kenichi Okubo (Japan). JALANA

Sister Kay O’Neil (USA). Presentation Sisters Social Justice

Team, Minnesota

Dr Kirsten Osen (Norway). Member Norske leger

motatomvåpen – IPPNW Norway

John Otranto (Germany)

Rev. LeDayne McLeese Polaski (USA). Executive Director,

Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America

Rosemarie Pace (USA). Director of Pax Christi Metro NY

Mary Jane Parrine (USA). Stanford University. Pacific Life

Community.

Lorin Peters (USA). Physics teacher. Daughter of a Manhattan

Project scientist.

Dr Tomasz Pierscionek (U.K.). Psychiatrist. Journalist. Mem-

ber of Medact, U.K. section of IPPNW

Prof Pasquale Policastro (Poland), Law Professor. Board

Member of IALANA

Mary Popeo (USA). Peace Culture Village

Judi Poulson (USA)

Montserrat Prieto (Spain). Mundo sin Guerres – World with-

out War or Violence. Abolition 2000 Global Council

Michael and Patricia Pulham (U.K.). Christian CND

Mukund Purohit (India)

Eva Quistorp (Germany), Women for Peace

Rezaul Islam Raju (Bangladesh). Principal, Lions School &

College, Saidpur

M. V. Ramana (Canada), Liu Institute for Global Issues. Abo-

lition 2000 Global Council Member

Tanja Ranke (Germany)

Hemamali Yasintha Rathnayake (Sri Lanka). Youth NND

Group

Prof Nasila Selasini Rembe (South Africa). UNESCO ‘Oliver

Tambo’ Chair of Human Rights, University of Fort Hare

Reetika (India). Youth NND Group

Nasim Reza (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Laurie Ross (Aotearoa-New Zealand). New Zealand/Aotearoa

Nuclear Free Peacemaking

Philippa Rowland (Australia). President, Multi-faith Associa-

tion of South Australia

Audrey van Ryn (Aotearoa-New Zealand)

Harvey Sadis (USA)

Steve Saelzler (USA). Veterans for Peace Chapter 74

Sadman Sakib (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Richard Salvador (Belau/Palau). Abolition 2000 Global Coun-

cil Member

Rahanuma Saraha (Bangladesh) Youth NND Group

Amzad Hossain Sarkar (Bangladesh). Mayor of Saidpur

Takeya Sasaki (Japan). JALANA

A.H.M. Sazzad (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group

Jürgen Scheffran (Germany). Abolition 2000 Global Council

Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck (Germany). Chairman,

Friedenswerkstatt Mutlangen.

Sister Gladys Schmitz (USA). Mankato Peace vigil.

Suzanne Schwarz (Switzerland), Journalist. Member Frauen

für den Frieden Schweiz

Sukla Sen (India), Abolition 2000 Global Council Member

John and Mary Sevanick (USA)

Elizabeth J. Shafer J.D (USA). Board member of Lawyers’

Committee on Nuclear Policy

Janet Siano (USA)

Benjamin H Sibelman (USA)

Helen Simpson (U.K.). Entrepreneur. Wholestep Ltd.

Ivo Šlaus (Croatia). Physicist. Honorary President of the

World Academy of Art and Science.

Gar Smith (USA). Co-founder of EAW, author of Nuclear

Roulette and editor of The War and Environment Reader

Maui Solomon (Rekohu, Chatham Islands, N.Z.). Barrister.

Chairman, Hokotehi Moriori Trust

Gray Southon (New Zealand)

Rae Street (U.K.). Greater Manchester & District CND

Noel Stott (South Africa, U.K.). VERTIC

Shigemasa Sugiyama (Japan). JALANA

Lornita R. Swain (USA). Fellowship of Reconciliation

Alamgir Swapan (Bangladesh). Reporter, Somoy News.

Bishop Bill Swing (USA). United Religions Initiative

Kyoko Tanaka (Japan). JALANA

Prof. Armin Tenner (Netherlands). Former Chair, International

Network of Engineers and Scientists for Social Responsibility

Aaron Tovish (Mexico). Executive Director, Zone Libre

Cr John Trainor (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities All

Ireland Forum Co-Chair, Newry, Mourne and Down Council.

Brian Trautman (USA). Treasurer, National Board of Direc-

tors, Veterans For Peace

Page 18

Cr Stephen Tollestrup (New Zealand). Member of the

Auckland City Council, Waitakere Ranges Local Board.

Diane Turner (USA). Director, Meaningful Movies Project

Hiromichi Umebayashi (Japan). Special Advisor, Peace Depot.

Yasuo Umeda (Japan). JALANA

Prof Kenji Urata (Japan). Waseda University School of Law.

Board Member of the International Association of Lawyers

Against Nuclear Arms

Corazon Valdez Fabros (Philippines) Abolition 2000 Global

Council Member

Jo Valentine (Australia). Former senator for Western Austra-

lia. Abolition 2000 Global Council Member

Mrinal Verma (India). Abolition 2000 Youth Working Group

Thore Vestby (Norway). Vice-President, Mayors for Peace.

Gordana Vukomanovic (Serbia). Yugo sport & Art Associa-

tion

Paul F. Walker, Ph.D. (USA). International Program Director,

Green Cross International

Jimi Wallace (New Zealand). Soka Gakkai International N.Z.

Alyn Ware (New Zealand/Czech Republic). Abolition 2000

Global Council Member.

Barbara H Warren, MD, MPH (USA). Physicians for Social

Responsibility, Arizona

Brian E. Watson (USA). Artist

Dave Webb (U.K.). Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarma-

ment. Member, Abolition 2000 Global Council

Anders Wijkman (Sweden), Co-President of the Club of

Rome, Member of the World Future Council

Lucas Wirl (Germany). International Association of Lawyers

Against Nuclear Arms. Abolition 2000 Global Council.

Lawrence S. Wittner, Ph.D. (USA). Professor of History

Yoji Yahagi (Japan). JALANA

Daisuke Yamaguchi (Japan). PNND Japan Coordinator. Mem-

ber of the Abolition 2000 Global Council

Dr Ichiro Yuasa (Japan). Vice-President of Peace Depot

Mounir Zahran (Egypt). Egypt Council for Foreign Affairs.

Abolition 2000 Global Council Member

Luis Roberto Zamora Bolaños (Costa Rica). Lawyer. Board

Member of International Association of Lawyers Against Nu-

clear Arms

Angie Zelter (U.K.). Trident Ploughshares. Right Livelihood

Laureate 2001

[Editor’s Note: On September 22, 2017, nearly 300

women leaders and several major women’s organi-

zations from 45 countries, sent the following letter

to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urg-

ing him to immediately appoint a Special Envoy to

de-escalate the threat of war facing the Korean Pen-

insula. The letter was initiated by Women Cross

DMZ*. This letter is online at:

https://www.women

crossdmz.org/web/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Fin

al_Letter-to-UNSG-ver6.pdf.]

Letter from Women Calling

for UN Efforts for Peace on

the Korean Peninsula

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

United Nations, New York

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

We are peace-loving women from over 45

countries, including the United States, Republic of

Korea (ROK), Japan, and Guam, and many from

nations that fought in the Korean War. We are unit-

ed by our belief that diplomacy is the only way to

resolve the nuclear crisis and threat of war now fac-

ing the Korean Peninsula, China, Russia, Japan, and

other U.S. allies and territories in the region.

In his first General Assembly address, Presi-

dent Trump threatened, “to totally destroy North

Korea,” if the United States or its allies were

attacked. As the world’s greatest military power,

the United States is the only nation ever to use

atomic bombs against a civilian population that an-

nihilated a quarter million people in Nagasaki and

Hiroshima. We call on you, as Secretary-General of

the United Nations, to counsel in the strongest of

terms, the President of the United States and its

Ambassador to the UN, that threats to destroy an-

other country are unacceptable and will not be toler-

ated by the community of nations.

We must work to abolish nuclear weapons

worldwide, including in India, Israel, North Korea,

Pakistan, and among all Permanent Members of the

Security Council. We oppose North Korea’s in-

creased militarization, including testing missiles

and nuclear weapons, and threats to retaliate against

the United States, its allies, and its territories where

Page 19

significant U.S. military bases are located. How-

ever, we understand North Korea’s fears of a U.S.

pre-emptive strike. There is still no Peace Treaty

ending the Korean War, during which the United

States carpet-bombed 85 percent of North Korea.

From 1950-53, four million people were killed, in-

cluding a quarter of the North Korean population.

As the leader of the United Nations, which

was established “to save succeeding generations

from the scourge of war,” we appeal to you to act

swiftly to prevent the Korean Peninsula from be-

coming ground zero for a global nuclear war. We

urge you to:

1. Immediately appoint a Special Envoy to

deescalate the Korean conflict to “encourage dia-

logue, compromise and the peaceful resolution of

tensions.” Past Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan

and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, initiated peace pro-

cesses for the Korean Peninsula. Given the well

documented fact of women peacemakers’ signifi-

cant impact toward reaching peace settlements, a

high-level intervention of women mediators is

needed now to avert war.

2. Hold the United States accountable for threaten-

ing to wage war against another sovereign country

at the United Nations. U.S. and North Korean lead-

ers regularly exchange such threats, but we do not

believe such threats to annihilate an entire popula-

tion of 25 million people should go unchecked, and

certainly not in the international forum for peace,

cooperation and diplomacy. In his September 19,

2017 UN General Assembly speech, Mr. Trump

violated Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter:

“All Members shall refrain in their international

relations from the threat or use of force against the

territorial integrity or political independence of any

state.”

3. Support a freeze of North Korea’s nuclear and

missile programs in exchange for halting U.S.-

R.O.K. war drills. In accordance with UN Charter

rules, we urge you to respond to North Korea’s se-

curity concerns regarding these war drills, the

world’s largest, which rehearse surgical strikes on

North Korea, “decapitation,” and regime change.

According to Article 32 of the UN Charter, “Any

Member of the United Nations which is not a mem-

ber of the Security Council … if it is a party to a

dispute under consideration by the Security Coun-

cil, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in

the discussion relating to the dispute.” Yet the

DPRK has never been invited to participate in

UNSC sessions on sanctions resolutions, and the

Permanent Mission of the DPRK to the UN has not

received a response to its August 25, 2017 letter

where they “strongly request[ed] the Security Coun-

cil of the United Nations to place the issue of the

joint military exercise as its emergent agenda and

discuss in the meeting with no further delay.” U.S.

Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley recently

warned, “If North Korea keeps on with this reckless

behavior … North Korea will be destroyed.” North

Korea refers to its own history of surviving indis-

criminate U.S. bombing during the Korean War and

the enduring hostile U.S. policy in justifying its nu-

clear weapons. North Korea also points to Iraq and

Libya as examples of countries that suffered heavily

under U.S. military intervention because they did

not have a nuclear deterrent or agreed to give it up.

With the United States now threatening to abrogate

the Iran deal, North Korea has fewer incentives to

denuclearize.

The world community cannot simply wait for

the Trump administration to engage in dialogue

with North Korea. For the Trump administration,

current acts of diplomacy are narrowly defined as

instituting more sanctions against North Korea and

cajoling other countries to cut off diplomatic ties

with Pyongyang. Not only have sanctions failed to

halt North Korea’s nuclear and missile program, by

now targeting sectors not directly linked to them,

new sanctions under UNSCR 2375 and 2371, which

ban exports such as textiles and seafood, will inflict

more economic misery on the North Korean people

and make the DPRK ever more isolated and desper-

ate to strengthen its nuclear and missile deterrence.

In this dangerous hour, with no Korean peace

process and when threats of annihilation are made

in the halls of diplomacy, we urge you to act on

these three recommendations to de-fuse the crisis

and work towards the peaceful conclusion of the

Korean War with a peace agreement as promised

under the 1953 Armistice Agreement, Article 4,

Paragraph 60.

Averting war and a global nuclear disaster

rests with your ability to act now.

Respectfully yours,**

1. Abigail Disney, USA, Filmmaker and Philanthropist

2. Ai-jen Poo, USA, Executive Director, National Domestic

Workers Alliance

Page 20

3. Aiko Yamashiro, USA, Women’s Voices Women Speak

4. Aimee Alison, USA, President Democracy in Color

5. Aiyoung Choi, USA, Steering Committee Member, Women

Cross DMZ

6. Akiko Minami, USA, University of California, Santa Cruz

7. Alana Price, USA, Editor of Truthout

8. Alexandra Suh, USA, Executive Director, Koreatown Immi-

grant Workers Alliance

9. Alice Slater, USA, Coordinating Committee Member,

World Beyond War

10. Alice Walker, USA, Author and Activist

11. Alicia Garza, USA, National Domestic Workers Alliance

and Black Lives Matter

12. Amina Mama, Nigeria/USA, Professor, University of Cali-

fornia, Davis

13. Amira Ali, Ethiopia, Author and Activist

14. Ana Oliveira, USA, Philanthropist

15. Anasuya Sengupta, India/USA, Feminist author and activ-

ist, co-founder Whose Voices?

16. Angela Chung, USA, Attorney and Human Rights Activist

17. Angela Davis, USA, Professor, University of California,

Santa Cruz

18. Angeline Dorzil, France, Student at the University of Paris

19. Ani DiFranco, USA, Singer, Songwriter, Poet, Multi-

instrumentalist & Businesswoman

20. Anjali Roy, USA, Women’s Voices Women Speak

21. Annabel Park, USA, Filmmaker

22. Ann Frisch, USA, Professor Emerita University of Wis-

consin Rotary Club of White Bear Lake, 5960

23. Anne Delaney, USA, Artist and Philanthropist

24. Anne Wheelock, USA, National Education Policy Center

25. Anuradha Mittal, USA, Executive Director, Oakland Insti-

tute

26. Ann Patterson, Northern Ireland, Peace People

27. Ann Wright, USA, Retired U.S. Army Colonel & Diplo-

mat

28. Anne Beldo, Norway, Lawyer and Partner of Hegg & Co.

Law Firm

29. Annette Groth, Germany, Member of Bundestag

30. Annie Isabel Fukushima, USA, Professor, University of

Utah

31. Audrey McLaughlin, Canada, Former President, Socialist

International Women

32. Barbara Milliken, USA, Board Member Venice Commu-

nity Housing

33. Becky Rafter, USA, Executive Director, Georgia Women’s

Action for New Directions (WAND)

34. Betty Burkes, USA, Cambridge Insight Meditation Center

35. Betty Reardon, USA, Founding Director of the Interna-

tional Institute on Peace Education

36. Breana Butler, USA, National Board Member, Women’s

March

37. Bridget Burns, Co-Director, Women’s Environment and

Development Organization (WEDO)

38. Brinton Lykes, USA, Professor, Boston College

39. Caitlin Kee, USA, Attorney, Thomson-Reuters

40. Caitlin Stanton, USA, Urgent Action Fund for Women

41. Carrie Menkel-Meadow, USA, Chancellor’s Professor of

Law, University of California Irvine Law

42. Catherine Christie, Canada, United Church Canada

43. Catherine Hoffman, USA, Coordinator, Cambridge Restor-

ative Justice Working Group

44. Catherine Killough, USA, Ploughshares Fund

45. Carter McKenzie, USA, Springfield-Eugene Chapter of

Showing Up for Racial Justice

46. Charlotte Bunch, USA, Founder, Center for Global

Women’s Leadership, Rutgers University

47. Charlotte Wiktorsson, Sweden, Swedish Physicians

Against War

48. Christine Ahn, USA, International Coordinator, Women

Cross DMZ

49. Christine Chai, USA, Asian Women United

50. Christine Cordero, USA, Center for Story-based Strategy

51. Chung-Wha Hong, USA, Executive Director, Grassroots

International

52. Cindy Wiesner, USA, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance

National Coordinator

53. Clare Bayard, USA, Catalyst Project

54. Coleen Baik, USA, Twitter @Design Alumna

55. Cora Weiss, USA, UN Representative, International Peace

Bureau

56. Corazon Valdez Fabros, Philippines, Co-Vice President,

International Peace Bureau

57. Cynda Collins Arsenault, USA, Philanthropist

58. Cynthia Enloe, USA, Professor, Clark University

59. Darakshan Raja, USA, Executive Director, Washington

Peace Center

60. Deann Borshay Liem, USA, Filmmaker

61. Devra Weber, USA, Professor, University of California

62. Don Mee Choi, USA, Poet & Translator, International

Women’s Network Against Militarism

63. Dorchen A. Leidholdt, USA, Attorney, Professor, Feminist

64. Dorothy Ogle, USA, National Council of Churches

65. Dorothy J. Solinger, USA, Professor Emerita, University

of California, Irvine

66. Ekaterina Zagladina, Russia, Permanent Secretariat, Nobel

Peace Summit

67. Elaine H. Kim, USA, Professor, University of California,

Berkeley

68. Eleana J. Kim, Professor, Department of Anthropology,

University of California, Irvine

69. Eleanor Blomstrom, Co-Director, Women’s Environment

and Development Organization (WEDO)

70. Ellen Carol DuBois, Professor, History and Gender Stud-

ies, University of California, Los Angeles

71. Ellen-Rae Cachola, USA, Women’s Voices Women Speak

72. Ellen Friedman, USA, Executive Director, Compton Foun-

dation

73. Elizabeth Colton, USA, Founding President, International

Museum of Women

74. Elisabeth Porter, Australia, Professor, University of South

Australia

75. Emilia Castro, Canada, Co-Representative of Intl. Com.,

Americas Region, World March of Women

76. Eunice How, USA, Asian Pacific American Labor Alli-

ance, AFL-CIO, Seattle chapter

77. Eve Ensler, USA, Playwright

78. Eveline Shen, USA, Executive Director, Forward Together

79. Ewa Eriksson Fortier, Sweden, Humanitarian Aid Worker

Page 21

80. Faye Leone, USA, Writer and Editor, International Insti-

tute for Sustainable Development

81. Fenna ten Berge, Netherlands, Director of Muslims for

Progressive Values

82. Fiona Dove, Netherlands, Executive Director, Transna-

tional Institute

83. Fragkiska Megaloudi, Greece, Journalist

84. Frances Kissling, USA, University of Pennsylvania; for-

mer President, Catholics for Choice

85. Francisca de Haan, Netherlands, Professor, Central Euro-

pean University

86. Gabriela Zapata Alvarez, Mexico, Consultative Group to

Assist the Poor

87. Gay Dillingham, USA, Filmmaker, Former Advisor to

Governor Bill Richardson

88. Gayle Wells, USA, Business owner

89. Glenda Paige, USA, Secretary, Governing Council, Center

for Global Nonkilling

90. Gloria Steinem, USA, Writer and Activist, Presidential

Medal of Freedom Awardee

91. Grace Cho, USA, Professor, College of Staten Island, City

University of New York

92. Grace Kyungwon Hong, USA, Professor, University of

California, Los Angeles

93. Gwen Kim, USA, Ohana Koa, Nuclear Free and Independ-

ent Hawaii

94. Gwyn Kirk, USA, Women for Genuine Security

95. Haeyoung Kim, USA, Graduate Student, University of

Chicago

96. Haeyoung Yoon, USA, human rights lawyer

97. Heather Booth, USA, Organizer, Democracy Partners

98. Helen Caldicott, Australia, Founding President of Physi-

cians for Social Responsibility

99. Helen Kim, USA Building Movement ProjecÀ

100. Helena Wong, USA, U.S. National Organizer, World

March of Women

101. Hope A. Cristobal, Guam, Former Senator

102. Hye-Jung Park, USA, Filmmaker, Community Media

Activist

103. Hyaeweol Choi, Australia, Professor, Australian National

University

104. Hye Ran Kim-Cragg, Canada, Professor, St. Andrews

College, Saskatoon

105. Hyun Lee, USA, Zoom In Korea

106. Hyunju Bae, Republic of Korea, Central and Executive

Committee, World Council of Churches

107. Ingeborg Breines, Norway, Co-President, International

Peace Bureau; former Director UNESCO

108. Isabella Sargsyan, Armenia, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly

109. Isabelle Geukens, Netherlands, Executive Director,

Women Peacemakers Program

110. Jaana Rehnstrom, Finland, President, KOTA Alliance

111. Jackie Cabasso, USA, U.S. Mayors for Peace

112. Jacquelyn Wells, USA, Women Cross DMZzs

113. Jacqui True, Australia, Professor, Monash University

114. Jane Chung-Do, Professor, University of Hawaii Manoa

115. Jane Jin Kaisen, Denmark, Artist and Filmmaker

116. Janis Alton, Canada, Co-Chair, Canadian Voice of

Women for Peace

117. Jasmine Galace, Philippines, The Center for Peace Edu-

cation, Miriam College

118. Jean Chung, Republic of Korea/USA, Founder, Action

for One Korea

119. Jennifer Kwon-Dobbs, USA, Professor, St. Olaf College

120. Ji-yeon Yuh, USA, Associate Professor of History,

Northwestern University

121. Joanne Yoon Fukumoto, USA, Trinity United Methodist

Church

122. Joan Russow, Canada, Global Compliance Project

123. Jodie Evans, USA, Co-founder, Code Pink

124. Josephine Kahambu Mutangi, Democratic Republic of

Congo, President, Women Department in The Conservation-

ists On Call for Environmental Services

125. Joy Dunsheath, New Zealand, President, United Nations

Association New Zealand

126. JT Takagi, USA, Filmmaker, Third World Newsreel

127. Judith LeBlanc, USA, Director, Native Organizers Alli-

ance

128. Judy Hatcher, USA, Activist

129. Judy Rebick, Canada, Former President, National Action

Committee on the Status of Women

130. Julie Burton, USA, President, Women’s Media Center

131. Julie Johnson Staples, USA, Board Member, Peace Ac-

tion Fund of New York

132. Julie Young, USA, Board Chair, Korean American Story

133. Justine Kwachu Kumche, Cameroon, Executive Director,

Women in Alternative Action—WAA

134. Justine Masika, Democratic Republic of Congo, Synergie

des Femmes pour les Victimes des Violences Sexuelles

135. Kate Dewes, New Zealand, Former Member of United

Nations Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament

Matters; Co-Director of the Disarmament and Security Centre

136. Kate Hudson, United Kingdom, General Secretary, Cam-

paign for Nuclear Disarmament

137. Kate Kroeger, USA, Executive Director, Urgent Action

Fund for Women

138. Katherine King, USA, Professor, University of Califor-

nia, Los Angeles

139. Kathy Crandall Robinson, USA, Women in International

Security

140. Kathy Kelly, USA, Voices for Creative Nonviolence

141. Kathy Yamashita, Canada, President of Alberta & North-

west Conference, United Church of Canada

142. Kavita Ramdas, USA, MADRE

143. Khin Ohmar, Burma/Myanmar, Coordinator, Burma Part-

nership

144. Kim Ku’ulei Birnie, Hawaii/USA, Women’s Voices,

Women Speak

145. Kim Phuc, Canada/Vietnam, UNESCO Goodwill Ambas-

sador

146. Koohan Paik, USA, Journalist and Activist

147. Kosima Weber Liu, China, Executive Director, Environ-

mental Education Media Project

148. Kozue Akibayashi, Japan, Intl. President, Women’s Inter-

national League for Peace and Freedom

149. Krassimira Daskalova, Bulgaria, Professor, University of

Sofia

150. Krishanti Dharmaraj, USA, Executive Director, Center

for Women’s Global Leadership

Page 22

151. Kristin Stoneking, USA, Executive Director, Fellowship

of Reconciliation

152. Kyeong-Hee Choi, USA, Professor, University of Chi-

cago

153. Kyung-Hee Ha, Japan, Assistant Professor, Meiji Univer-

sity

154. Laura Dawn, USA, filmmaker & Founder, ART NOT

WAR

155. Laura Hein, USA, Professor, Northwestern University

156. Laura Pollecutt, South Africa, Peace Activist

157. Laura Shapiro, USA, Designer

158. Laurie Ross, New Zealand, The Peace Foundation of

New Zealand Aotearoa, International Affairs and Disarma-

ment Committee

159. Laurie Sackler, USA, Mother, Food & Water Activist

160. Lekkie Hopkins, Australia, Professor, Edith Cowan Uni-

versity

161. Leymah Gbowee, Liberia, 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate

162. Linda Burnham, USA, National Domestic Workers Alli-

ance

163. Lindsey Asher, USA, Global Women’s March

164. Lindsey German, United Kingdom, National Convener,

Stop the War Coalition

165. Lisa Natividad, Guam, President, Guahan Coalition for

Peace and Justice

166. Liz Bernstein, Canada, Executive Director, Nobel

Women’s Initiative

167. Liza Maza, Philippines, former Parliamentarian;

Gabriella Network

168. Lois Wilson, Canada, Former Canadian Senator and

Moderator, United Church of Canada

169. Lourdes Leon Guerrero, Guam, Fuetsan Famalao’an

170. Luisa Morgantini, Italy, Member, European Parliament

171. Lydia Alpizar, Mexico, Executive Director, AWID (As-

sociation of Women’s Rights in Development)

172. Madeline Rees, United Kingdom, Secretary General,

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

173. Madelyn Hoffman, USA, Executive Director, New Jersey

Peace Action

174. Maggie Martin, USA, Iraq Veterans Against the War

175. Mairead Maguire, Northern Ireland, 1976 Nobel Peace

Laureate

176. Maja Vitas Majstorovic, Serbia, Gender Coordinator,

Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict

177. Marevic Parcon, Philippines, Asia Regional Coordinator,

Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights

178. Margaret Gerhardt, USA, Graduate Student, University of

Pennsylvania

179. Margaret Melkonian,USA, Long Island Alliance for

Peaceful Alternatives

180. Margaret McMichael, USA

181. Margo Okazawa-Rey, USA, Professor Emerita, San Fran-

cisco State University

182. Marie Kennedy, USA, Professor Emerita, University of

Massachusetts Boston

183. Marylia Kelley, USA, Executive Director, Tri-Valley

CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)

184. Marilyn Waring, New Zealand, Professor of Public Pol-

icy, Auckland University of Technology

185. Marta Benavides, El Salvador, Siglo XXIII

186. Mary C. Murphree, USA, Sociologist

187. Mary Scott, Canada, Institute for International Women’s

Rights – Manitoba

188. Mavic Cabrera-Balleza, Philippines, International Coor-

dinator, Global Network of Women Peacebuilders

189. May Boeve, USA, 350.org

190. Maya Schenwar, USA, Truthout Editor

191. Medea Benjamin, USA, Co-founder, Code Pink

192. Meenakshi Gopinath, India, Women in Security, Conflict

Management and Peace (WISCOMP)

193. Megan Amundson, USA, Executive Director, Women’s

Action for New Direction (WAND)

194. Megan Burke, USA, Former, Director, International

Campaign to Ban Landmines Coalition

195. Melissa Giovale, USA, Founder and Board Member, Bell

Garden Buddhist Center

196. Meredith Woo, USA, Open Society Foundations

197. Meri Joyce, Australia, Regional Coordinator, Global Part-

nership for Prevention of Armed Conflict

198. Mimi Han, Republic of Korea/USA, International Vice

President, YWCA

199. Mimi Ho, USA, Co-Director, Movement Strategy Center

200. Mimi Kim, USA, Professor, Cal State University, Long

Beach

201. Mina Watanabe, Japan, Secretary General, Women’s Ac-

tive Museum on War and Peace

202. Miranda Cahn, New Zealand, Head of Programme Devel-

opment and Quality, Save the Children New Zealand

203. Musimbi Kanyoro, Kenya/USA, Executive Director of

Global Fund for Women

204. Myung Ji Cho, USA, Methodist Minister Korean Ameri-

can National Coordinating Council Ohio

205. Nada Drobnjak, Montenegro, Member of Parliament

206. Nada Khader, USA, Executive Director, WESPAC Foun-

dation

207. Nadia Hallgren, USA, Filmmaker

208. Namhee Lee, USA, Professor, University of California,

Los Angeles

209. Nan Kim, USA, Professor, University of Wisconsin

210. Nancy Holmstrom, USA, Professor of Philosophy

Emerita, Rutgers University

211. Nancy Ruth, Canada, Senator

212. Naomi Klein, Canada, Journalist and Activist

213. Nathalie Margie, USA, Urgent Action Fund

214. Navina Khanna, USA, Director, Heal Food Alliance Oak-

land

215. Na-young Ha, USA, Minister, Organizing Director, Hana

Center Chicago

216. Netsai Mushonga, Zimbabwe, Commissioner, Zimbabwe

Electoral Commission; African Women Active Nonviolence

Initiative for Social Change

217. Nighat Said Khan, Pakistan, Executive Chair, DidiBahini

218. Nina Tsikhistavi-Khutsishvili, Georgia, Board Chair, In-

ternational Center on Conflict and Negotiation

219. Noura Erakat, USA, Human Rights Attorney

220. Nunu Kidane, USA, Board Member, Priority Africa Net-

work

221. Orysia Sushko, Ukraine, President, World Federation of

Ukrainian Women’s Organizations

Page 23

222. Ouypourn Khuankaew, Thailand, Founder, International

Women’s Partnership for Peace and Justice

223. Pam McMichael, USA, Director of Highlander Research

and Education Center

224. Pamela Brubaker, USA, Professor Emerita, California

Lutheran University

225. Patricia Guerrero, Colombia, Human Rights Lawyer,

League of Displaced Women

226. Patricia Thane, United Kingdom, Professor, Kings Col-

lege

227. Paula Garb, USA, Co-Director, Center for Citizen

Peacebuilding, University of California, Irvine

228. Penny Rosenwasser, USA, Founding Board Member,

Jewish Voice for Peace

229. Phyllis Bennis, USA, Director, New Internationalism

Project, Institute for Policy Studies

230. Radhika Balakrishnan, USA, Professor, Rutgers Univer-

sity

231. Rebecca Subar, USA, Adjunct Professor, Peace and Con-

flict Studies, West Chester University

232. Regina Munoz, Sweden, Peace Activist

233. Robina Marie Winbush, USA, Minister, Member of

World Council of Churches Exec and Central Committee

234. Rose Othieno, Uganda, Executive Director, Center for

Conflict Resolution

235. Sally Jones, USA, Chair, Peace Action Fund New York

State

236. Saloni Singh, Nepal, Executive Chair, DidiBahini

237. Samanthi Gunwardana, Australia, Monash University

238. Sandra Moran, Guatemala, Co-Representative of Intl.

Committee, Americas Region, World March of Women

239. Sarah Lazare, USA, Editor, In These Times

240. Satoko Norimatsu, Canada, Director of Peace Philosophy

Centre

241. Setsuko Thurlow, Canada, International Educator,

Hibakusha/A-Bomb Survivor

242. Sharon Bhagwan Rolls, Fiji, Executive Producer,

FemLINKpacific; Board Chair, Global Partnership for the Pre-

vention of Armed Conflict

243. Shirley Douglas, Canada, Actor and Activist

244. Simone Chun, USA, Journalist and Activist

245. Sophia Close, Australia, Australia National University,

Canberra

246. Sophie Toupin, Canada, Women Peace and Security Net-

work Canada

247. Sophie Kim, USA, University of Hawaii, Manoa

248. Soya Jung, USA, Writer and Activist

249. Sue Wareham OAM, Australia, Vice-President, Medical

Association for Prevention of War

250. Sung-ok Lee, USA, Assistant General Secretary, United

Methodist Women

251. Susan Cundiff, USA, Oregon Women’s Action for New

Directions (WAND)

252. Susan Smith, USA, Muslim Peace Fellowship

253. Su Yon Pak, USA, Professor, Union Theological Semi-

nary

254. Suzuyo Takazato, Japan, Okinawa Women Act Against

Military Violence

255. Suzy Kim, USA, Professor, Rutgers University

256. Taina Bien-Aime, USA, Executive Director, International

Coalition Against Trafficking in Women

257. Tani Barlow, USA, Professor, Rice University

258. Tanya Selvaratnam, USA, Senior Producer, Art Not War

259. Terrilee Kekoolani, Ko Pae’Aina Hawai’i, Kanaka Maoli

260. Terry Greenblatt, Israel/USA, The Ploughshares Fund

261. Thu-huong Nguyen-vo, USA, University of California,

Los Angeles

262. Tracy Lai, USA, National Secretary, Asian Pacific Amer-

ican Labor Alliance

263. Una Kim, USA, Researcher

264. Unzu Lee, USA, Presbyterian Minister, Women for Gen-

uine Security

265. Valerie Plame, USA, Former Covert CIA Operations Of-

ficer

266. Vana Kim, USA, Spiritual Teacher

267. Visaka Dharmadasa, Sri Lanka, Founder, Association of

War Affected Women

268. Wei Zhang, USA, Folk Art Researcher

269. Wendi Deetz, USA, Global Fund for Women

270. Winnie Wang, USA, Center for Global Nonkilling

271. Wonhee Anne Joh, USA, Professor of Theology,

Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary

272. Yayoi Tsuchida, Japan, General Secretary, Japan Council

Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs

273. Yifat Susskind, USA, Executive Director, MADRE

274. Yoonkyung Lee, Canada, Professor, University of To-

ronto

275. Youngju Ryu, USA, Professor, University of Michigan

**(Note: Organizations/Affiliations Listed Only for Identifica-

tion Purposes)

International Women’s Organizations

Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers University

Church Women United CODE PINK Global Fund for Women

Global Women’s March International Women’s Network

Against Militarism MADRE Urgent Action Fund Women’s

Media Center Women’s International League for Peace and

Freedom

South Korean Women’s and Peace Organizations

1. Women Making Peace

2. Korea Women’s Association United

3. Korean Association of Women Theologians

4. The Council of Churches in Korea, Women’s Committee

5. The Association of Major Superiors of Women Religious in

Korea

6. The Righteous People for Korean Unification

7. The Gongju Women Human Rights Center

8. The World Council of Churches

9. The Christian Network for Peace and Unification

10. beyondit

11. Okedongmu Children in Korea

12. Women History Forum

13. Peace Mother

14. Kyunggi Women’s Association United

15. Kyunggi Goyang-Paju Women Link

16. Kyunggi Women’s Network

17. The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military

Sexual Slavery by Japan

Page 24

18. Korea Women’s Political Solidarity

19. Korean Sharing Movement

20. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

21. Iftopia

22. Ewha Women’s Alumni Meeting for Democracy

23. Kyunggi Jinbo Women United

24. Kyunggi Council of Women

25. Chungchung-namdo Education Center for Equality

26. 21st Century Seoul Women’s Union

27. Common Nourishing and Education

28. Ecumenical Youth Network

29. Women Ministers Association of Presbyterian Churches

Korea

30. Women Ministers’ Association of Presbyterian Church in

the Republic of Korea)

31. Korea Association Methodist Women in Ministry

32. Korea Methodist Women’s Leadership Institute

33. Korea Church Women United

34. Duraebang

35. Sunlit Sisters’ Center

36. United for Women’s Rights Against U.S. Military Bases’

Crime

37. United Voice for the Eradication of Prostitution: Hansori

*Women Cross DMZ

https://www.womencrossdmz.org/

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben (1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions.

Articles can be submitted via e-mail:

jrh29@columbia.edu

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in a non

profit publication provided credit is given, with name of author

and source of article cited.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the Amateur

Computerist newsletter. We welcome submissions from

a spectrum of viewpoints.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

ACN Webpage:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/

All issues from1988 to present of the Amateur Computerist

are on-line at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 25