The Amateur
Computerist
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 6
UNSC Response to NK Nuclear Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
Path for UNSC to Resolve the Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11
SC Violates Article 32 of UN Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17
Channel to Send Communication to UNSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
Art. 32: Right to Due Process Violated by SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 24
Appeal for Diplomatic Solution in N.E. Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30
Letter: Wm to UNSG Guterres on Korea Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42
Introduction
During the Summer and Fall of 2017 there has been a very tense
environment on the Korean Peninsula. 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., Donald Trump and the
Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzô Abe made public statements about the
situation which demonstrate either that they have little knowledge of
the past history or the current situation or if they are familiar with what
has come before, they now choose to misrepresent it.
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Page 1
One example, both Trump
1
and Abe
2
in separate situations
claimed all negotiations with the DPRK have failed. A substantial arti-
cle 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.
3
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 negotiation 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.
4
The six parties
agreed to take coordinated steps to implement 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 Japanese 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 misrepresen-
tations and the United Nations itself allows such misrepresentations.
For example, take the name the “UN Command.” It is for an institu-
tional form made up of the U.S. and the ROK militaries. The UN plays
no role of oversight or supervision 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. government’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 negotiations as is
their obligation.
Two recent issues of the Amateur Computerist took up to review
the UN’s actions toward resolving 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”
5
and Vol. 28 No. 2 (Winter 2017) “Forces Working for Peaceful Conflict
Resolution.”
6
Page 2
The articles in Vol. 28 No. 1 demonstrate the failure during the 10
year term of UN Secretary 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 problem. One example is how the Security
Council functioned in June of 2010 under the Mexican Presidency. In
this situation the DPRK was invited to make its position known on an
issue before the Security Council. This is a requirement of the UN
Charter,
7
but in recent times it is rarely upheld. Other processes in the
UN Security Council required procedures that are helpful are similarly
documented, particularly the S/NC procedure, a procedure included in
the Appendix to the Security Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure.
Under this procedure, communications can be sent to the Security
Council from private individuals and non-governmental bodies relating
to matters of which the Security Council is seized. The Secretariat is to
provide a publicly available list of such communication so the Security
Council members can ask for copies of communication they find of in-
terest.
The importance of Vol. 28 No. 2 is that it documents 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 communi-
cating with the Security Council on issues before the Council members.
The situation is described when such means were utilized in the dispute
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 Security 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 communicate with the members
of the Security Council.
Page 3
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:
8
North Korea sent a letter to the Security Council, referring to
the widespread international suspicions over the JIG investi-
gation [South Korean investigation]. North Korea urged the
members not to become victims of the Lee government’s
deceptive accusation against North Korea and asked for a
more independent 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 Security Council, discussed the
Cheonan issue at an informal session with the Security
Council members, and Sin Son-ho, the North Korean Am-
bassador to the UN, specially scheduled an unprecedented
press conference to present his government’s refutation of
the allegations 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 requires 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 processes 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 processes and procedures of the Charter are being applied
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/916750042014404608
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
Page 4
https://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/72/jp_en.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:
ht t p s :/ /c i sa c . f si. s t a nfo rd.e d u/si te s/ d e f aul t/ f il e s/ N e g ot ia t in g_ wi th_
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 Coun-
cil, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dis-
pute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the par-
ticipation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.”
8. “Revisiting the Cheonan sinking in the Yellow Sea,” The Pacific Review, Vol. 30
Issue 3, 2017, pp. 348-364.
Page 5
[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizenblog on June 7, 2010
behind_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
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 misleading
claims being made by the South Korean government to put the blame
on North Korea.
The June 2 election in South Korea for local and regional govern-
ment 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 government from its goal.
The election results were announced demonstrating the criticism of the
government’s hostile policy toward North Korean represented 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 Security Council. A helpful per-
spective 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 administration to exploit the geopolitical opportu-
nity presented by the sinking.” He explains how the South Korean pres-
ident not only tried to use the incident, “as a 9/11 opportunity” to get
support for his government in the local and regional elections, which
Page 6
clearly failed, but also to “strengthen the South Korean alliance with the
U.S.” to offer a counterweight to China.
Even more serious, however, is the observation made by some in
South Korea, that the Lee administration 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. govern-
ment is playing in this dangerous South Korean gambit.
The South Korean NGO People’s Solidarity for Participatory De-
mocracy (PSPD) recently published an English translation of a critique
of the South Korean government’s “international” investigation 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 criti-
cism of the fact that the South Korean military was conducting the “in-
vestigation” 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 in-
vestigation. PSPD reports that the head of the U.S. group appeared at
the press conference announcing the results of the investigation, to ex-
press U.S. government support. He said that there had been close coop-
eration 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 investigation and whether they had any ability to contribute an inde-
pendent perspective.
North Korea asked to be allowed to send a team of investigators to
examine the supposed evidence. South Korea refused the request.
One of the civilian members of the investigation 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 government
about the torpedo as the cause of the sinking, and that the investigation
was conducted to support that theory.
Page 7
The government has brought lawsuits or charges against several
citizens and netizens and a national assembly representative who ex-
pressed disagreement with the claims of the government.
The PSPD report raises a number of other important issues about
the nature of the South Korean government investigation.
By bringing the Cheonan issue to the UN Security Council, the
South Korean government is presenting the UN with a serious chal-
lenge. The PSPD report has urged the South Korean government to re-
frain from international actions until the National Assembly has been
assisted in conducting a fact-finding process. The effort of the South
Korean government to ignore the questions of its citizens and politi-
cians and take the matter to the UN Security Council is the effort to use
the UN Security Council to deny democratic processes to its own citi-
zens. 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 oppo-
site 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 char-
ter to the other member nations of the UN and to the people of those
nations.
For PSPD Report See:
file&act=procFileDownload&file_srl=40158&sid=7ab45eab894bb
107361ef5447c30048b&module_srl=37681&usg=AFQjCNFTU9vP98
NdyzvCupVWG0HqgMhLlw
Page 8
[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizenblog on Feb. 1, 2016
security-council-response-to-north-koreas-4th-nuclear-test-needs-seriou
s-discussion-and-consideration/]
The UN Security Council Response to
North Korea’s 4
th
Nuclear Test Needs
Serious Discussion and Consideration
by Ronda Hauben
The United Nations Security Council is currently in the process of
negotiating a resolution in response to the 4
th
nuclear test by the Demo-
cratic People’s Republic of Korea (the DPRK more commonly known
as North Korea) conducted in early January 2016.
There has been little open discussion at the Security Council about
the resolution, but some media have reported about the content of an
early version by the U.S. which is the pen holder to draft the resolution.
They have described some of the measures, particularly some which
require stiff action by China against North Korea.
1
Though there has not been much sign of negotiations at the UN
headquarters, there has been diplomatic activity by government offi-
cials of some of the nations who are on the Security Council. Recently,
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 Chinese perspective of the
issue on CCTV.
2
One recent program featured two Chinese Foreign
Policy experts, 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
Page 9
and the UN Security Council, which stiffening sanctions only reinforces.
Examining the dynamics between the UN Security Council and
North Korea helps to clarify that there is a need to consider how this
conflict developed 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 obli-
gation 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 September 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. An-
other 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. ac-
tion 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 carried 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
th
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 in-
creasing 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 re-
solve 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.
3
Page 10
Notes:
1. An article on inews163 on Jan 23, 2016, refers to the tough sanctions as “an eco-
nomic 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).
2.
http://english.cntv.cn/2016/01/30/VIDEmYZxgdgJh81Ax1 WcE76v160130.shtml
ism-matters
http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2015/06/10/mudubong-detained-by-unsc/
http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2013/08/31/united-nations-command-as-camouflage/
[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizenblog on March 17,
what-path-to-resolve-conflict/]
What Path for the UN Security Council
to Resolve the Conflict on the Korean
Peninsula?
by Ronda Hauben
Recently a Chinese commentator, observing the relationship be-
tween the need for a peace treaty to end the Korean War and North Ko-
rea’s four nuclear tests wrote:
North Korea, in a statement after its nuclear 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 mili-
tary 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 ….
1
The Armistice Agreement that ended the fighting of the Korean
War was signed on July 27, 1953. While the Armistice Agreement pro-
vided for a cease fire, it did not end the Korean War.
Page 11
The Armistice Agreement that the U.S. and North Korea signed
states that a political agreement 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 Penin-
sula. 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 settlement 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 agree-
ment to end the Korean War. Nor is there a political agreement to with-
draw foreign troops from the Korean Peninsula. Korea continues 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 stationed in South Ko-
rea. U.S. troops take part in exercises 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 oper-
ational command over the South Korean troops.
Moreover, there is a formal agreement between the U.S. and
South Korea that includes the U.S. commitment to provide nuclear
weapon protection for South Korea. This is referred to as a nuclear um-
brella.
Recently, China proposed that the UN Security Council find a
way to engage North Korea in political negotiations toward a peace re-
gime for the Korean Peninsula. China supported the need for a peace
treaty which at long last would end the Korean 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
system that China explained would represent a stepped up use of for-
eign military equipment on the peninsula, a process forbidden under the
terms of the 1953 Armistice Agreement. (See Article 13A2d)
Page 12
In response to the proposed deployment of THAAD on the Ko-
rean 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 subordinate its
focus on the need for dialogue with North Korea to resolve the conflict
situation to its opposition 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.”
2
The sanctions in the Security Council resolution 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 Ko-
rea of its gold, its coal and other minerals. Also the resolution restricts
countries from providing 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 forbidden
form of blockade of North Korea, intensifying the war-provoking situa-
tion on the Korean Peninsula.
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 resolution.
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
Page 13
dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to
participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute.”
There is no indication that the Security Council 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 explanations made by
member nations after the vote in favor of the resolution, some nations
commented about the lack of a proper period of time for the Security
Council to consider and discuss the resolution 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 resolu-
tion and whether it could contribute to a peaceful settlement of the con-
flict.
In their statements after passing by unanimous consent Security
Council Resolution S/RES/2270 (2016) imposing these new sanctions
on North Korea, both Russia and China explained their opposition to
the installation of THAAD on the Korean Peninsula. Japan, however,
welcomed such an increased militarization.
In a statement after the resolution was approved by the Security
Council, the South Korean Ambassador to the UN, directed his com-
ments to North Korea, though it was not at the meeting. He said
3
:
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 intercontinental 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 mili-
tary Power in the world threaten a small country far across
the Pacific? There is no threat. It is a figment of your imagi-
nation. 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.
Page 14
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 Ko-
rea have a formal agreement for the U.S. to protect South Korea under
the U.S. nuclear umbrella. It is dishonest to hide that nuclear weapon
protection is indeed part of the military assurance provided to South
Korea by the U.S. Similarly, 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 exercise 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 in-
volving 17,000 U.S. troops and 300,000 South Korean troops. These
maneuvers are practicing for a war with North Korea.
4
The fact that there is no peace treaty after more than 60 years de-
spite the provisions in the Armistice Agreement calling for the political
negotiations to officially end the war demonstrates that the Korean War
is not over. Similarly, the statement by South Korea that there is no se-
curity 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 Secu-
rity Council meeting, neither of them nor any other member of the Se-
curity Council objected to the inaccuracy of the South Korean Ambas-
sador’s statement.
5
That the South Korean Ambassador could make such a statement
at a Security Council meeting, with not one Security Council member
objecting 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.
Page 15
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
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 : / / w w 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 = E n g l i s h &
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 resolution.
A party to a conflict is permitted to dominate the process 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 recognized the serious secu-
rity 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 People’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 Pyong-
yang,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said. http://tass.ru/en/politics/860974
Page 16
[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on the netizenblog on Oct 24,
unsc-violates-article-32-charter/]
UN Security Council Violates Article 32
of UN Charter in its Sanctions Against
DPRK
by Ronda Hauben
On September 9, 2016 the Democratic People’s Republic of Ko-
rea (DPRK) carried out its 5
th
nuclear test.
In the past the UN Security Council has imposed a series of sanc-
tions 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 Ambassador 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 Japanese Ambassador
responded that the DPRK wants “to develop nuclear weapons in order
to be a full nuclear weapons state.”
1
Such a response, especially considering the long standing role Ja-
pan has played in the conflict with the DPRK, demonstrates a serious
lack of accountability by the Security Council in its treatment of the
DPRK.
Japan not only was on the Security Council but also was the Presi-
dent of the UN Security Council 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 ex-
plained
2
:
It is gangster-like for the UN Security Council to have
adopted today a coercive resolution, while neglecting the
nuclear threat, moves for sanctions and pressure of the Unit-
Page 17
ed States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Ko-
rea. This clearly testifies that the Security Council has com-
pletely lost its impartiality and persists in applying double
standards in its work.
The Ambassador continued:
The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Ko-
rea expresses its disappointment over the fact that the Secu-
rity Council finds itself incapable of saying even a word of
concern to the United States, which threatens the Demo-
cratic People’s Republic of Korea with nuclear pre-emptive
attack and conducting large-scale joint military exercises
near the Korean peninsula.
The DPRK Ambassador explained that the October 9, 2006 nu-
clear test “was entirely attributable to the United States nuclear threat,
sanctions and pressure.”
The DPRK noted that it had “exerted every possible effort to set-
tle 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 and
sincere effort and magnanimity with a policy of sanctions and blockade.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was compelled to substan-
tially prove its possession of nukes to protect its sovereignty and the
right to existence from the daily increasing 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 Peo-
ple’s Republic of Korea, my country 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 pro-
cess 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 involv-
ing the DPRK to participate in the Security Council discussion of the
dispute.
Page 18
This provision of the UN charter makes it possible for the mem-
bers of the Security Council to listen to the different sides in a dispute
before a decision 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 Security 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 Ambassa-
dor so as to better understand his side of the dispute.
The lack of any response from Security Council 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, member 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 ….”
3
Yet this requirement of the UN Charter has in general been sys-
tematically violated by the UN Security Council with the DPRK. This
makes it possible 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
guarantee 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-proliferat
ion-and-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-dprk-security-council-media-stakeo
ut-9-september-2016/5118990324001 (start: 4:00 to 5:08)
2. See pp. 7-8 S/PV.5551, Saturday 14 October, 2006, available at: http://www.un.org/
en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.5551, See also S/PV.5490 15 July, 2006 pp.
Page 19
8-9, available at: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-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 netizenblog 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
Since the early days of the UN Security Council, there has been a
procedure for private individuals and non-governmental organizations
to be able to send communications to the Security Council on matters of
which it is seized.
1
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
because 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.
2
It seemed particularly inappropriate for the South Korean govern-
ment to accuse an NGO of disloyalty because of a letter sent to mem-
bers 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 Coun-
cil. Security Council documents show that there are lists of probably
thousands of such communications.
In doing some research at the UN into the background of this pro-
cedure of the UN I came to realize that in the early days of the Security
Council, lists of such communications were issued by the Secretariat on
Page 20
a frequent basis. The procedure is described in the Appendix of the Pro-
visional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council. It states:
Provisional Procedure for Dealing with Communications
from Private Individuals and Non-Governmental Bodies
A. A list of all communications from private individuals and
non-governmental bodies relating to matters of which the
Security Council is seized shall be circulated to all represen-
tatives 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
Council at his request.
The lists published by the UN Secretariat of the communications
received by the Security Council 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 referred to.
If a Security Council member saw some communication on a list
that was of interest, the Security 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 quar-
terly basis by the UN Secretariat. Then for some reason not yet under-
stood, 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 communica-
tions sent to the Security Council, there appears to be no publicly avail-
able information indicating how or where an individual or non-govern-
mental 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 communi-
Page 21
cation 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 communication to the Security Council about a mat-
ter 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 responded to a
question raised by a journalist. He said that he would support, “the
greater involvement of women” in line with Security Council Resolu-
tion 1325 to help address the high level of tension on the Korean Penin-
sula.
In response to his statement, Christine Ahn, the International Co-
ordinator 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 Resolution 1325 planned for
October 25, 2016.
When she tried to find where to send her letter to have it consid-
ered as a communication to the Security Council, however, there was
no clear information publicly available about where an individual or
NGO should send their communication. A press inquiry demonstrated
that such information was not easy to locate.
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 Ambassador 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
answer to the mystery.
Ambassador Román Oyarzun Marchesi, the Spanish Ambassador
to the UN, welcomed the question on how to send communication to
the Security Council saying that his delegation “really believed in the
participation of civil society.” He promised that if information was sent
Page 22
to him documenting the problem, “I’ll do my best … I’ll see what I can
do.”
3
An inquiry by his press secretary led to a response from the Secre-
tariat. The e-mail from the Office of the President of the Security Coun-
cil in the UN Department of Political Affairs in the Secretariat stated
that if an e-mail or surface mail on a topic being considered by the Se-
curity 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 informally circulated by the Security Council President via their
“political coordinators’ network.” If the document “falls under one of
the agenda items seized 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.
4
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 communication
received “Concerning Franco Regime in Spain.”
Looking at the names of those who are listed as sending commu-
nication 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 ex-
ample, 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 diffi-
cult 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 un-
der Article 12 of the UN Charter.” See:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be_ seized_of
Page 23
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,
taz.de/netizenblog/2010/06/26/s_korean_govt_urged_to_end_criminal_
investigation_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 Na-
tions 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
[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-has-been-violated-by-security-council/.]
Article 32: Right to Due Process
Enshrined in the UN Charter, Violated
by Security Council
By Ronda Hauben
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 Article 32 of the Charter.
1
Page 24
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 comply with this
requirement of the UN Charter. The many resolutions that have been
passed by the Security Council condemning actions of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) were passed without the members
of the Security Council including the DPRK in the discussion as is re-
quired 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 rea-
sons why it took this action. In violation of the Charter, however, 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 Rep-
resentative of the DPRK allowed to speak.
How can the members of the Security Council understand the na-
ture 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 Security 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 resolu-
tions 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 offered to
freeze further nuclear development if the U.S. and the Republic of Ko-
rea (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
Page 25
Security Council members continue to support the U.S.-created resolu-
tions increasing the Security Council’s sanctions against the DPRK.
2
While the Security Council ignores the letters from the DPRK and
the Charter requirement that it hear DPRK’s views about the dispute,
several Security Council members publicly proclaim inaccurately that it
is the DPRK that refuses to negotiate about its nuclear program.
3
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
nd
Session of the General As-
sembly. A press conference was held by the Foreign Minister of the
Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov. In response to a question raised by
a journalist at the press conference, FM Lavrov provided not only an
understanding of the nature of the obligation that Article 32 bestows on
the Security Council, but also an understanding of the importance of
this obligation.
4
The journalist asked Foreign Minister Lavrov:
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 ex-
ercises. They’ve sent numerous letters to the Security Coun-
cil and yet we are told they don’t want to negotiate. But if
the Security Council constantly doesn’t even follow the
Charter 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 in-
vitation 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 re-
views 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
Page 26
Council. For me, this is a given and it is enshrined 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,
member states. Well, in any case, despite this article [in the
Charter], the routine practice is the following that we need
consensus. Not everything depends on us.”
Lavrov’s response clarified that while the obligation 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 pres-
ent 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 Charter.
Lavrov is not alone in recognizing the violation by the Security
Council of the right to due process under the Charter for those being
condemned by the Security Council. This violation of the Charter by
the practice of the Security Council also has been the subject of criti-
cism by member states demonstrating the need for Security Council
Reform.
For example at the 62
nd
General Assembly meeting on the need
for Security Council Reform, Ambassador Hilario Davide of the Philip-
pines told the Council
5
:
(D)ue process and the rule of law demand 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 proceedings
concerning them to state or defend their positions on the is-
sues 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 principle of the rule of law. Due process and the rule
of law require that a party must be heard before it is con-
demned.
Page 27
Also this violation of the Charter had been criticized by civil soci-
ety groups, as for example, in a recent letter sent to the Secretary Gen-
eral and signed by over 300 women and women’s groups from 45 coun-
tries. In the letter, the women wrote:
6
In accordance with UN Charter rules, we urge you to re-
spond to North Korea’s security 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 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.’ Yet the
DPRK has never been invited to participate in UNSC ses-
sions on sanctions resolutions, and the Permanent Mission of
the DPRK to the UN has not received a response to its Au-
gust 25, 2017 letter where they strongly request[ed] the Se-
curity Council 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.
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 Security Council
to change its procedures.
7
Also, there is an example of the Security Council acting differ-
ently. In 2010 the Security Council took up a dispute regarding the Re-
public of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and
invited both parties to present their view of the dispute. Then the Secu-
rity Council issued a Presidential Statement documenting the nature of
the dispute and urging the two parties to settle it in a peaceful manner.
8
It is significant that Lavrov recognizes the obligation of the Secu-
rity 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 Coun-
Page 28
cil 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
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-minister-addresses-general-
debate-72nd-session/5581786476001/
“Japan – Prime Minister Addresses General Debate, 72
nd
Session 20 Sep 2017 –
Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, addresses the general debate of the 72
nd
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-september-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, ad-
dresses 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 meeting, 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
html
Ronda Hauben, “At Legal Crossroads: Security Council sanctions 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 Presidential Statement S/PRST/2010/13.
Page 29
[Editor’s Note: The following statement appeared on September 26,
2017 on the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
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 disarmament 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 instead adopt a diplomatic
approach to prevent war.
We call for the immediate commencement of negotiations to pre-
vent 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 involving 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 capabilities makes a diplomatic solution of
vital importance and the highest priority. The increasing risk of war –
and possibly even the use of nuclear weapons by miscalculation, acci-
dent, 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. Indeed, a nuclear conflict erupt-
ing in Korea could engulf the entire world in a nuclear catastrophe that
would end civilization as we know it. In supporting diplomacy rather
than war, we:
1. Oppose any pre-emptive use of force by any of the parties, which
would be counter-productive and likely lead to nuclear war;
Page 30
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 arrange-
ment,* which already has cross-party support 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 Armistice 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 successfully in the negotiations on Iran’s nu-
clear program;
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 Korea, nor to
attack or threaten to attack them with nuclear weapons.
Endorsers of the Appeal for a diplomatic solution 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)
Page 31
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
Page 32
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)
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)
Page 33
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 Freedom) 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 (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri
Lanka).
Zone Libre (Mexico)
Individuals:
(Titles and organization names included for identification purposes only)
Junko Abe (Japan)
Mostafiz Ahmed (Bangladesh). President, Leo Club of Sunflower 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, International Association of Law-
yers Against Nuclear Arms
Page 34
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. affiliate of the International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear 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 Somalia 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 Education, 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, International Association of Law-
yers Against Nuclear Arms
William H. Dent, Jr. (USA)
Dr Kate Dewes (Aotearoa/New Zealand). Co-Director, Disarmament and Security
Centre
Akib Dipu (Bangladesh). Youth NND Group
Sergio Duarte (Brazil). President of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Af-
fairs. Former UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs.
Leonard Eiger (USA). Coordinator, NO to NEW TRIDENT Campaign
Cheryl Eiger (USA). Member, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action
Page 35
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)
Anwar Fazal (Malaysia). Director of the Right Livelihood College. Right Livelihood
Laureate, 1982
Rosemary Field (U.K.). Medact - IPPNW U.K. section.
Anda Filip (Romania/Switzerland). Member of the World Future Council
Cr Grace Fletcher-Hackwood (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities English Forum
Vice Chair, Manchester City Council
Dr. Royston Flude (Switzerland). President, World Circle of the Consensus: Self-sus-
taining People, Organizations and Communities
Dr. Frank A. Fromherz (USA). Professor of sociology of religion, war, peace, and so-
cial 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 Zea-
land). 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, Trident Ploughshares and
CND.
Gwyn Gwyntopher (U.K.). Retired Social Workers and Lecturer. Member of FOR,
Religious Society of Friends,
Trident Ploughshares and CND.
Regina Hagen (Germany). Atomwaffenfrei Jetz (Nuclear Weapons-Free Now) Cam-
paign 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, Victoria University Melbourne
Mary Hanson (USA), Co-chair, Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action Steward-
ship 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
Page 36
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. Member, Pirate Party. PNND
Council Member. Chair of the International 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 Representatives
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 Research, 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
Page 37
Cr Sue Lent (U.K.), Nuclear Free Local Authorities Welsh Forum, Cardiff City Coun-
cil
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 Proliferation Information Centre
(EPIC)
Tim Lynch (New Zealand). Our Planet
Lachlan Mackay (New Zealand), Parliament of the World’s Religions Youth Ambas-
sador. Abolition 2000 Global Council Member
Dirk Van der Maelen MP (Belgium). Chairman Commission for Foreign Affairs, Bel-
gian Parliament
Mairead Corrigan Maguire (Ireland). Nobel Peace Laureate 1976
Muna Makhamreh (Jordan). Lawyer. Board director of "MASAR" for Human Devel-
opment. 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 English, 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 Justice Center
John Morgan (New Zealand). Special Officer for Human Rights, UNA New Zealand
Sean Morris (U.K.). Secretary (Principal Policy Officer), Nuclear Free Local Authori-
ties.
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
Page 38
Jan Oberg (Sweden) Co-founder & director of the Transnational 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. Member of Medact, U.K. sec-
tion 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 without War or Violence. Abo-
lition 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. Abolition 2000 Global Coun-
cil Member
Tanja Ranke (Germany)
Hemamali Yasintha Rathnayake (Sri Lanka). Youth NND Group
Prof Nasila Selasini Rembe (South Africa). UNESCO ‘Oliver Tambo’ Chair of Hu-
man 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 Peace-
making
Philippa Rowland (Australia). President, Multi-faith Association 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 Council 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
Page 39
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 Directors, Veterans For Peace
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 Australia. 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 Association
Page 40
Paul F. Walker, Ph.D. (USA). International Program Director, Green Cross Interna-
tional
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 Disarmament. 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. Member 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 Nuclear Arms
Angie Zelter (U.K.). Trident Ploughshares. Right Livelihood Laureate 2001
Page 41
[Editor’s Note: On September 22, 2017, nearly 300 women leaders and
several major women’s organizations from 45 countries, sent the fol-
lowing letter to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urging him
to immediately appoint a Special Envoy to de-escalate the threat of war
facing the Korean Peninsula. The letter was initiated by Women Cross
DMZ*. This letter is online at: https://www.women crossdmz.org/
web/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Final_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 united by our belief
that diplomacy is the only way to resolve the nuclear crisis and threat of
war now facing the Korean Peninsula, China, Russia, Japan, and other
U.S. allies and territories in the region.
In his first General Assembly address, President Trump threat-
ened, “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 popula-
tion that annihilated 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 another country
are unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the community of nations.
We must work to abolish nuclear weapons worldwide, including
in India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and among all Permanent Mem-
bers of the Security Council. We oppose North Korea’s increased
Page 42
militarization, including testing missiles and nuclear weapons, and
threats to retaliate against the United States, its allies, and its territories
where significant U.S. military bases are located. However, we under-
stand 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, including 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 becoming
ground zero for a global nuclear war. We urge you to:
1. Immediately appoint a Special Envoy to deescalate the Korean con-
flict to “encourage dialogue, compromise and the peaceful resolution
of tensions.” Past Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, initiated peace processes for the Korean Peninsula.
Given the well documented fact of women peacemakers’ significant
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 threatening to wage war
against another sovereign country at the United Nations. U.S. and North
Korean leaders regularly exchange such threats, but we do not believe
such threats to annihilate an entire population 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 Gen-
eral 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 politi-
cal 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 security con-
cerns regarding these war drills, the world’s largest, which rehearse sur-
gical strikes on North Korea, “decapitation,” and regime change. Ac-
cording to Article 32 of the UN Charter, “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 in-
Page 43
vited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dis-
pute.” 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 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 de-
stroyed.” North Korea refers to its own history of surviving indiscrimi-
nate U.S. bombing during the Korean War and the enduring hostile U.S.
policy in justifying its nuclear 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 adminis-
tration to engage in dialogue with North Korea. For the Trump adminis-
tration, 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 sec-
tors 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 desperate to strengthen its nuclear and missile deter-
rence.
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 agree-
ment as promised under the 1953 Armistice Agreement, Article 4, Para-
graph 60.
Averting war and a global nuclear disaster rests with your ability
to act now.
Page 44
Respectfully yours,**
1. Abigail Disney, USA, Filmmaker and Philanthropist
2. Ai-jen Poo, USA, Executive Director, National Domestic Workers Alliance
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 Immigrant 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 California, Davis
13. Amira Ali, Ethiopia, Author and Activist
14. Ana Oliveira, USA, Philanthropist
15. Anasuya Sengupta, India/USA, Feminist author and activist, 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 & Business-
woman
20. Anjali Roy, USA, Women’s Voices Women Speak
21. Annabel Park, USA, Filmmaker
22. Ann Frisch, USA, Professor Emerita University of Wisconsin 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 Institute
26. Ann Patterson, Northern Ireland, Peace People
27. Ann Wright, USA, Retired U.S. Army Colonel & Diplomat
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 Community Housing
33. Becky Rafter, USA, Executive Director, Georgia Women’s Action for New Direc-
tions (WAND)
34. Betty Burkes, USA, Cambridge Insight Meditation Center
35. Betty Reardon, USA, Founding Director of the International Institute on Peace
Education
36. Breana Butler, USA, National Board Member, Women’s March
Page 45
37. Bridget Burns, Co-Director, Women’s Environment and Development Organiza-
tion (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 Cali-
fornia Irvine Law
42. Catherine Christie, Canada, United Church Canada
43. Catherine Hoffman, USA, Coordinator, Cambridge Restorative 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 Bu-
reau
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 Orga-
nization (WEDO)
Page 46
70. Ellen Carol DuBois, Professor, History and Gender Studies, University of Califor-
nia, Los Angeles
71. Ellen-Rae Cachola, USA, Women’s Voices Women Speak
72. Ellen Friedman, USA, Executive Director, Compton Foundation
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 Alliance, 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
80. Faye Leone, USA, Writer and Editor, International Institute for Sustainable Devel-
opment
81. Fenna ten Berge, Netherlands, Director of Muslims for Progressive Values
82. Fiona Dove, Netherlands, Executive Director, Transnational Institute
83. Fragkiska Megaloudi, Greece, Journalist
84. Frances Kissling, USA, University of Pennsylvania; former President, Catholics
for Choice
85. Francisca de Haan, Netherlands, Professor, Central European 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 Independent 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 Physicians for Social Responsi-
bility
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
Page 47
105. Hyun Lee, USA, Zoom In Korea
106. Hyunju Bae, Republic of Korea, Central and Executive Committee, World Coun-
cil of Churches
107. Ingeborg Breines, Norway, Co-President, International Peace Bureau; former Di-
rector UNESCO
108. Isabella Sargsyan, Armenia, Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly
109. Isabelle Geukens, Netherlands, Executive Director, Women Peacemakers Pro-
gram
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 Education, 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 Conservationists On Call for Environmental Services
125. Joy Dunsheath, New Zealand, President, United Nations Association New Zea-
land
126. JT Takagi, USA, Filmmaker, Third World Newsreel
127. Judith LeBlanc, USA, Director, Native Organizers Alliance
128. Judy Hatcher, USA, Activist
129. Judy Rebick, Canada, Former President, National Action Committee on the Sta-
tus of Women
130. Julie Burton, USA, President, Women’s Media Center
131. Julie Johnson Staples, USA, Board Member, Peace Action 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 Gen-
eral’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters; Co-Director of the Disarmament and
Security Centre
136. Kate Hudson, United Kingdom, General Secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disar-
mament
Page 48
137. Kate Kroeger, USA, Executive Director, Urgent Action Fund for Women
138. Katherine King, USA, Professor, University of California, 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 & Northwest Conference, United
Church of Canada
142. Kavita Ramdas, USA, MADRE
143. Khin Ohmar, Burma/Myanmar, Coordinator, Burma Partnership
144. Kim Ku’ulei Birnie, Hawaii/USA, Women’s Voices, Women Speak
145. Kim Phuc, Canada/Vietnam, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador
146. Koohan Paik, USA, Journalist and Activist
147. Kosima Weber Liu, China, Executive Director, Environmental Education Media
Project
148. Kozue Akibayashi, Japan, Intl. President, Women’s International 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
151. Kristin Stoneking, USA, Executive Director, Fellowship of Reconciliation
152. Kyeong-Hee Choi, USA, Professor, University of Chicago
153. Kyung-Hee Ha, Japan, Assistant Professor, Meiji University
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 Disarmament Committee
159. Laurie Sackler, USA, Mother, Food & Water Activist
160. Lekkie Hopkins, Australia, Professor, Edith Cowan University
161. Leymah Gbowee, Liberia, 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate
162. Linda Burnham, USA, National Domestic Workers Alliance
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 (Association of Women’s
Rights in Development)
Page 49
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 Net-
work 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 Francisco 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 Policy, 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 Coordinator, 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 Direc-
tion (WAND)
194. Megan Burke, USA, Former, Director, International Campaign to Ban Landmines
Coalition
195. Melissa Giovale, USA, Founder and Board Member, Bell Garden Buddhist Cen-
ter
196. Meredith Woo, USA, Open Society Foundations
197. Meri Joyce, Australia, Regional Coordinator, Global Partnership 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 Active Museum on War and
Peace
Page 50
202. Miranda Cahn, New Zealand, Head of Programme Development 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 American National Coordinat-
ing Council Ohio
205. Nada Drobnjak, Montenegro, Member of Parliament
206. Nada Khader, USA, Executive Director, WESPAC Foundation
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 Oakland
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, International Center on
Conflict and Negotiation
219. Noura Erakat, USA, Human Rights Attorney
220. Nunu Kidane, USA, Board Member, Priority Africa Network
221. Orysia Sushko, Ukraine, President, World Federation of Ukrainian Women’s Or-
ganizations
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 College
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 University
231. Rebecca Subar, USA, Adjunct Professor, Peace and Conflict Studies, West Ches-
ter University
232. Regina Munoz, Sweden, Peace Activist
233. Robina Marie Winbush, USA, Minister, Member of World Council of Churches
Exec and Central Committee
Page 51
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 Re-
gion, 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 Prevention 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 Network 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 Preven-
tion 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 Seminary
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 Traf-
ficking 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 American Labor Alliance
263. Una Kim, USA, Researcher
264. Unzu Lee, USA, Presbyterian Minister, Women for Genuine Security
265. Valerie Plame, USA, Former Covert CIA Operations Officer
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
Page 52
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 Toronto
275. Youngju Ryu, USA, Professor, University of Michigan
**(Note: Organizations/Affiliations Listed Only for Identification 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
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
Page 53
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/
The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not neces-
sarily 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 of the Amateur Computerist are on-line.
All issues can be accessed from the Index at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf
Page 54
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:
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.
Page 55
