November, 06 2017, 09:45am EDT
As Trump Visits Asia, Civil Society in the U.S., South Korea, and Japan Call for Bold Shift in Policy to Avert War in Korea
Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region.
WASHINGTON
Today, hundreds of national civil society organizations from Japan, South Korea and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis of belligerent rhetoric between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Based in countries whose populations could greatly suffer in the event of war, they call on their respective governments to take bold action now to safeguard peace and build long-lasting trust in the region.
" Washington is forcing a trilateral military alliance and provocative war drills on Tokyo and Seoul that threatens North Korea and the region," said Christine Ahn, international coordinator of Women Cross DMZ. "The people of Japan, South Korea and United States oppose war. Our demands are an urgent pivot towards peace."
"In Japan, Prime Minister Abe utilizes the U.S.-North Korea crisis to promote public hysteria and fear and encourage right-wing groups that call for Japan's militarization, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons for itself," explains Yoshioka Tatsuya, Co-Founder and Director of Peace Boat, Japan's largest peace organization. "But we really have to understand that the joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of war in this region. Japan has the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have to work to abolish nuclear weapons, but it's unreasonable to demand that North Korea be the only one to give up theirs. All of us, including the U.S. and Japan, must say no to them."
"The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump for making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something 'over there,'" says Choi Eun-a of the Korean Alliance for Progressive Movements, which is among the 222 South Korean civil society organizations from the Candlelight Revolution that have called for nationwide protest timed with Trump's visit to South Korea. "The war-threatening, weapons salesman Trump is not welcome here, especially as he demands that South Korea pay more to host U.S. troops and set aside land for useless weapons like the THAAD missile defense system."
"Peace-loving people in the United States, Japan, and South Korea reject the war-mongering policies of our governments and express our friendship and solidarity with the people of North Korea," said Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation in California, and the National Co-Convener of United for Peace and Justice. "The U.S. government must end its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea, cease the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction to the Korean peninsula and the region, and halt large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea."
"It's time for peace-makers, for diplomats, and particularly for the people of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to demand a peaceful resolution from our governments," noted Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action, the United States' largest grassroots peace and disarmament organization. "While not excusing its behavior, North Korea has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed in order to move toward an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula."
On 2 November 2017, American lawmakers announced new bipartisan, bicameral legislation to ensure that President Trump cannot attack North Korea without the consent of Congress. Under this legislation, Congress would be empowered to prohibit any expenditure of funds for such a strike. The No Unconstitutional Strike Against North Korea Act of 2017 prohibits funds available to the Department of Defense or to any other federal department or agency from being used to launch a military strike against North Korea without the prior approval of Congress. The bill reflects the wishes of citizens seen in recent polls, which show that more than two-thirds of Americans oppose military action in dealing with North Korea.
Joint Statement
U.S., South Korean, and Japanese Civil Society Organizations Call for a Bold Shift in Policy for Peace in Korea and Northeast Asia
As U.S. President Trump travels to Asia, we civil society groups from the United States, South Korea, and Japan call for a diplomatic solution to the dangerous conflict between the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). As those who would be directly impacted by the outbreak of such a conflict, we call on our leaders to take bold steps to ensure lasting peace.
Recent events have set the stage for a possible catastrophe on the Korean Peninsula and even throughout the greater Northeast Asian region. Any further escalation of tensions could rapidly degenerate into violence. In its 27 October 2017 report, the U.S. Congressional Research Service estimates that over 300,000 people would die in the opening days of a military conflict on the Korean Peninsula, even without nuclear weapons, and would ultimately claim 25 million lives.
Even as President Trump calls his predecessor's policy of "strategic patience" on North Korea a failure, he continues the same policy, i.e., intensifying U.N. and unilateral sanctions and military threats. Meanwhile, North Korea continues to escalate the pace and scale of its nuclear and missile tests. The Abe government, seizing on the crisis in Korea, has quickened the pace of remilitarization and revision of Article 9 of its constitution. South Korean President Moon Jae-in meanwhile, despite an unambiguous mandate from the South Korean people, who ousted his hawkish predecessor in hopes of a radical transition to harmonious North-South relations, instead continues to do the bidding of the United States as he assumes a hostile posture vis-a-vis North Korea. We therefore demand that:
1. The Trump administration boldly shift to a policy of peace by:
- Ending its policy of sanctions and military threats against North Korea;
- Ceasing the deployment of more weapons of mass destruction on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and withdrawing the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system from South Korea as it only exacerbates tensions in the region; and
- Halting large-scale military exercises that impede dialogue with North Korea
2. The administration of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea honor the spirit of past North-South joint declarations for peace and reconciliation by:
- Assertively pursuing inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation;
- Halting future large-scale U.S.-South Korea combined military exercises to minimize the risk of confrontation ahead of the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyongchang, South Korea; and
- No longer cooperating with investments in costly weapon systems with the United States and Japan, including spending on missile defense, which only exacerbates tensions in the region and diverts precious resources away from human needs.
3. The government of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe immediately cease all further moves toward military buildup and instead contribute to regional peace by:
- Abolishing the controversial "Conspiracy Law" and "State Secrecy Law," as well as the 2015 "Peace and Security Legislation" or war bills which permit the use of the so-called right to collective self-defense;
- Pursuing the normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea based upon the principles of the Pyongyang Declaration and the Stockholm Agreement; and
- Ceasing moves to change Article 9, the peace clause in its constitution.
These are among the hundreds of civil society organizations who have signed on:
Japan
- Citizens Association against Constitutional Revision (Xu suna!Xian Fa Gai E Shi Min Lian Luo Hui )
- Femin Women's Democratic Club (hueminFu Ren Min Zhu kurabu)
- Japan-Korea People's Solidarity Network (Ri Han Min Zhong Lian Dai Quan Guo netsutowaku)
- Kyoto/Kinki Association against the U.S. X-band Radar Base (Mi Jun XbandoredaJi Di Fan Dui Jing Du /Jin Ji Lian Luo )
- Network of Religious Persons Making Peace
- Nonviolent Peaceforce Japan (Fei Bao Li Ping He Dui Ri Ben )
- Peace Boat (pisuboto)
- Veterans for Peace Japan (beteranzuhuopisuziyapan)
South Korea
- Federation of Korean Trade Unions (hangugnodongjohabcongyeonmaeng)
- Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (hangugjinboyeondae)
- Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (jeongugminjunodongjohabcongyeonmaeng)
- Korean Peasants League (jeongugnongminhoecongyeonmaeng)
- Korean Street Vendors Confederation (jeongugnojeomsangyeonhab)
- Korean Women's Alliance (jeongugyeoseongyeondae)
- Korean Women Peasants Alliance (jeongugyeoseongnongminhoecongyeonhab)
- Korean Youth Solidarity (hangugceongnyeonyeondae)
- National Alliance of Squatters and Evictees (jeongugceolgeominyeonhab)
United States
- Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security
- International Forum on Globalization
- Peace Action
- Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea and Militarism in Asia and the Pacific
- United for Peace and Justice
- Veterans for Peace National
- Western States Legal Foundation
- Women Cross DMZ
LATEST NEWS
New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting. But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level."
Dec 29, 2025
Even as President Donald Trump and his administration have been ripping up environmental and consumer protection regulations, a number of state laws are set to take effect next year that could at least mitigate some of the damage.
A Monday statement from Environment America and the Public Interest Network highlighted a number of new laws aimed at curbing corporate polluters and enhancing consumer welfare.
First, the groups highlighted "Right to Repair" laws set to take effect in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, which give people the right to repair their own appliances and electronics without burdensome costs or barriers.
The groups lavished particular praise on Colorado's "Right to Repair" laws that they said provide "the broadest repair protections in the country," with new regulations that will give businesses in the state "access to what they and independent repair providers need to fix their electronics themselves."
Illinois, meanwhile, will fully phase out the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs, which will be replaced by energy-efficient LED bulbs. The groups estimate that eliminating the fluorescent bulbs will collectively save Illinois households more than $1.5 billion on their utility bills by 2050, while also reducing energy waste and mercury pollution.
Illinois also drew praise for enacting a ban on polystyrene foam foodware that will take effect on January 1.
The groups also highlighted the work being done in Oregon to protect consumers with legislation mandating price transparency to eliminate surprise junk fees on purchases; prohibiting ambulance companies from socking out-of-network patients with massive fees for rides to nearby hospitals; and placing new restrictions on the ability of medical debt to negatively impact a person's credit score.
California also got a mention in the groups' release for closing a loophole that allowed supermarkets to continue using plastic bags and for creating a new privacy tool for consumers allowing them to request that online data brokers delete all of the personal information they have gathered on them over the years.
Emily Rusch, vice president and senior director of state offices for the Public Interest Network, contrasted the action being taken in the states to protect consumers and the environment with a lack of action being done at the federal level.
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting," said Rusch. "But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level. As we build on this progress in 2026, we look forward to working with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—with whom we can find common ground."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Warns Trump and Burgum's Halting of Offshore Wind Projects Is Illegal
“Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests."
Dec 29, 2025
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Suggests US Bombed 'Big Facility' in Venezuela. No One Seems to Know What He's Talking About
Administration officials have yet to provide any details about the supposed strike, which would mark a massive escalation in the president's lawless military campaign.
Dec 29, 2025
President Donald Trump claimed during a recent discussion about his high-seas boat bombing blitz that US forces took out "a big facility" as part of the Venezuela-centered campaign—but no one seems to know what he's talking about.
Trump said Friday during an apparently impromptu phone call to billionaire supporter John Catsimatidis—who owns and hosts programming on WABC radio in New York—that South American narcotraffickers "have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from," and that “two nights ago, we knocked that out.”
"We hit them very hard," the president added.
On Monday, Trump was asked during a meeting with fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to clarify Friday's claim.
"There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs," the president said, "so we hit all the boats and now we hit the area. It's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around."
Neither Trump nor anyone in his administration offered any evidence to support the claim. There have also been no public statements from any Venezuelan government official regarding any US attack.
Q: Can you say any more about the explosion in Venezuela that you mentioned in a radio interview. Did the military do that?
TRUMP: Well, it doesn't matter. But there was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. We hit the area. pic.twitter.com/hvZa7fKxbq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 29, 2025
Trump did say during a Christmas Eve call to troops taking part in escalating hostilities against Venezuela—whose socialist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, has long been in Trump's regime-change crosshairs—that, after more than two dozen boat strikes, "now we're going after the land."
Threats by Trump to bomb targets inside Venezuela—or even invade the oil-rich South American nation in order to oust Maduro—are nothing new. The president has deployed an armada of warships and thousands of US troops to the region and has also authorized covert Central Intelligence Agency action against Maduro. Earlier this month, Trump vowed that the US would attack Venezuela "on land," and "very soon, too."
However, Trump's remarks on Friday left observers scratching their heads and scouring news reports in a fruitless effort to make sense of the president's claim.
One US official interviewed by the Intercept on condition of anonymity said the US targeted a “facility"—but declined to disclose its location, or whether it was attacked by US forces.
“That announcement was misleading,” the official said of Trump's claim last week.
There is some speculation that a Christmas Eve explosion and fire at a warehouse on the grounds of a Primazol chemical plant in Zulia state may have been caused by a US strike. However, the site—which reportedly makes products including chicken feed—is not located directly on any coast, and Primazol issued a statement "categorically" rejecting claims that the facility was bombed.
If Trump did order any bombing of targets in Venezuela, it would be a major escalation and clear act of war by a man who, while billing himself as "the most anti-war president in history," has now, with last week's attack on Nigeria, bombed more countries than any president in history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular