2017: A Peacebuilding Approach

Wiedervereinigung Koreas

Eine sehr gute Analyse erreichte uns vom Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPCS) in Siem Reap, Cambodia.
In einem Begleitschreiben vom 18.5.2017 schreibt Emma Leslie:

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Today we have released on social a small publication which seeks to analyze the Korean peninsula conflict in light of some of the historical analysis along with current dynamics, using a conflict transformation approach. It is available here - http://www.centrepeaceconflictstudies.org/strengthening-understanding-through-dialogue-a-peacebuilding-approach-to-the-korean-peninsula-conflict/ The hard copy will follow soon. Of course it calls for dialogue and understanding amongst other recommendations.
Please share as you see fit.
We plan to host a conference later in the year of like minded friends in Siem Reap along the same lines. We will keep you posted on dates.
Best wishes to all and may peace rain on the Korean Peninsula soon, Emma

Das pdf-Dokument umfasst 89 Seiten.
Download     Strengthening Understanding Through Dialogue
                 A Peacebuilding Approach to the Korean Peninsula Conflict

Hier nur das erste Kapitel:  OVERVIEW

OVERVIEW
A review of events in 2015 and 2016 demonstrate the dynamic tensions between the DPRK, often backed by the PRC, and the ROK and the US. These two years involved military skirmishes along the De-Militarised Zone (DMZ); the toughest US-led economic sanctions on the DPRK government, trade sectors and individuals to date; over 30 DPRK missile launches and two nuclear tests; and the largest-ever US - ROK joint military exercise. From the perspective of the US, sanctions, joint military exercises, and isolation have been a necessary response to discourage further provocative DPRK actions against the ROK and Japan, as well as US bases located in both countries. The US plan has included “pressure, deterrence and diplomacy” towards the DPRK in an attempt to lead them towards the decision to denuclearise and shift to democratic governance.1

Equally, the DPRK view is that nuclear tests and missile launches are necessary to demonstrate its military strength to protect its sovereignty and national security from the US and the ROK.2 Responses by both sides only serve to provoke the other, resulting in a cycle of provocation.

This is a protracted conflict that began with the indecision of the US and the Soviet Union to allow the other to serve as trustee over the whole nation of Korea following Japan’s defeat in the Second World War. The conflict persists because the Korean War ended in a temporary ceasefire in 1953, and a peace agreement could not be reached. Nearly seven decades later, the conflicting parties have failed to reach a permanent settlement.

An additional layer to the conflict is the competition between the US and the PRC over economic and military influence in East Asia. The governments in Beijing and Washington accuse each other of militarizing the Korean peninsula and the surrounding area, while simultaneously competing for economic influence in the region. Meanwhile, DPRK weapon testing heightens the perceived need for American military presence in the region, thereby, strengthening the bond between the US and its Northeast Asian allies. Due to the disagreements over influence in the region between the US and the PRC, the opportunity for the US to expand its military presence in Northeast Asia may reduce the incentive for Washington to pursue peaceful relations with Pyongyang, as it can better position itself in the region against Beijing. 

This conflict has had the greatest impact on the citizens in the DPRK and the ROK. Both governments prohibit their citizens from engaging with each other or traveling to the other side of the DMZ without prior permission.3 Citizens of both Koreas have also been detained for speaking positively of the other government.4 These policies repress the rights of Korean citizens in the ROK and the DPRK, and have divided Korean families and barred Koreans from returning to their birthplace on both sides of the DMZ for over six decades.5 In addition, all four of the governments party to the conflict – the US, PRC, DPRK, and ROK - have contributed to the on-going arms race in the region.6 The continued cycle of provocation and heightening of tensions is placing the parties on the brink of a possible nuclear conflict.

While a common response is to place blame for escalating tensions and stalled negotiations on another party, all parties should closely examine their actions in terms of how it may provoke the other or hinder progress towards returning to negotiations. The parties must reconsider all actions and determine concessions that can be offered to ease tensions and make progress towards transforming the conflict.7 The parties must decide to prioritise improving the quality of life for all Koreans on the peninsula, as well as the prevention of nuclear conflict.

In this analysis the following key driving factors of the conflict are identified:
(1) Punitive military and economic measures by the United States and the Republic of Korea towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
(2) Weapons development and testing by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
(3) One-sided narratives subscribed to by parties to the conflict;
(4) Economic and military competition between the United States and the People’s Republic of China for influence in East Asia.

To address these issues, eight leverage points have been identified that present opportunities to break the provocation cycle, and establish peaceful and
productive relationships between conflicting parties. 

The leverage points identified are as follows:
1. Engage with the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and address disputes through dialogue and negotiation.
2. Adopt long-term perspectives and realistic expectations for progress and change in the conflict.
3. Elevate and listen to alternative narratives to understand the complexities of the conflict and humanize North Koreans.
4. Understand and acknowledge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s national priorities and perspectives while engaging with them.
5. Approach all parties to the conflict with impartiality by responding to contributions to the cycle of provocation in an equal and balanced way.
6. Engage in diplomatic activities with the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to build the confidence required to establish
sustainable diplomatic relationships with the country.
7. Integrate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea economy into the global economy to influence the government and the people, improve
the quality of life for North Korean people, and gain leverage for negotiation.
8. Acknowledge the merging of the disputes between the United States and the People’s Republic of China with the conflict between the United
States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and make a conscious decision to separate them.
.....

Please, download the pdf.







Video: F. Enns

Evang. Landeskirche in Baden: Arbeitsstelle Frieden 
Voice for peace Nr. 6: Friedensfragen 
"Können wir unsere christliche Ethik bei Konflikten mit anderen Religionen zugrunde legen?" Diese Frage beantwortet Prof. Dr. Fernando Enns, Leiter der Arbeitsstelle „Theologie der Friedenskirchen“ Universität Hamburg & Vorstandsmitglied der DOAM. Link: 
https://youtu.be/_Js4f3seossMehr videoclips aus der Reihe "Voices for Peace: Friedensfragen" der Arbeitsstelle Frieden in der Evang. Landeskirche in Baden | YOUTUBE.COM

Projekte

Wiedervereinigung

pr_fs_tozan

pr_fs_tozan