Peace, Denuclearziation, and the Gap Between Liberal and Progressive Security Policy

One of my former students, Van Jackson, put together a roundtable on the future of progressive foreign policy in the Texas National Security Review. On his Facebook, I weighed in on a discussion in which someone questioned whether there was enough diversity of views on "progressive" f.p., especially since the writers were all established foreign policy scholars. These progressive ideas are not new, but have been articulated by peace activists. However, the foreign policy/security views of peace activists are generally dismissed as radical, naïve, or unrealistic by mainstream policymakers (what Walt calls the establishment).

I was reminded of the roundtable (which I still haven't read but should) when I saw this clip of activists Sung-hee Choi, an activist I might call a friend, interrupting a peace and denuclearization conference hosted by the ROK government and the UN. In the video, she demands how such a conference could be held on Jeju Island without inviting or hearing the input of the local villagers who live by a naval base which permits nuclear submarines to port. In her rant, she criticizes the President Moon's policies and refers to his government as a puppet of the US.

What I find interesting, if not mildly puzzling, is how progressive activists criticize a president who's staked so much capital in building peace with North Korea and taking the engagement path towards denuclearization. In this case, I want to argue that there might be a distinction between liberal vs. progressive policy views. The established left support liberal foreign policy, whereas activists support progressive foreign policy. Of course, this may just be another name for the mainstream (or center) left and the radical (or far) left so no need to reinvent the wheel. Is it possible, though that policymakers are picking up some of the ideas of the radical left. If liberals are still part of the foreign  policy establishment, they are in cahoots with conservatives. Thus if someone wants to break the mold of the establishment, they have to enter the territory of progressives.

Revisiting Jeju Anti-Base Protests

I'm making a return to my blog after a long absence...

Exactly 3 years ago I was on Jeju Island doing research on anti-base protests against the construction of the South Korean naval base. The paper I’ve written has gone through the grinder at several journals. I agree with much of what critics have to say, and most reviews do mention that I do have a potential argument worth making. I just haven’t figured out a good way to deliver it in 10,000 words or less. I’m using this blog post as a warm-up exercise to retool the article for a non-IR/poli-sci journal.

It’s no surprise that peace activists and national security/foreign policy government officials often clash on a number of issues. But little understood is how or why such differences occur – especially when both sides profess to make claims advancing peace and security. Usually differences are attributed to different political ideologies wrapped around labels such as progressive and conservative.  

Moving beyond such obvious labels, I examine discourse and text to help us understand why activists and policymakers in South Korea came to major blows (literally) regarding the construction of a naval base designed to protect South Koreans. While many reasons exist in favor of or against the naval base – the claims made by local and transnational activists on one hand and ROK government and military officials on the other align fairly neatly along two dimensions. The first is based purely on arguments based on the logic of “realism.”  Bases (as an element of power) are either a source of security or insecurity depending on whether one sees bases as defending the national interest or provoking China and other countries in the region. The government claims the former, activists claim the latter logic. The second dimension focuses on the primary referent of security: states or people. Government focus on the state; activists focus on individual lives at the very local level.

Activists and government officials tend to carry different assumptions regarding international politics. Based on these two dimensions, we can see how far they might diverge on their views about Jeju naval base construction. The figures below (click to enlarge) are ideal types, but you get the picture how, why, peace activists and government diverge sharply in their views about peace and security.

Figure 1: Coding scheme mapping realist and critical worldviews

Jeju Naval Base Protests in Seoul

I've given several talks about the Jeju anti-base protests the past few months, the latest one at Stanford's  FSI/Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. The Jeju anti-base movement has survived longer than I (and probably activists themselves) anticipated. Here's a good overview from a Hawaii activist...although I remind readers that the article tends to embellish if not overexaggerate the "threat" of U.S. military presence. 

Not having heard much about Jeju Island, several researchers at FSI took interest in Jeju Island. They'll probably be hearing more about Jeju now that a major film about the Jeju 4.3 Uprising took the top prize at Sundance. It'll be interesting to see if activists capitalize on this Sundance victory to rejuvenate protests. The obvious frame extension is that war and suffering must not be repeated again on Jeju Island.

Social Movement Outcomes

I just saw this blogpost discussing social movement outcomes and the impact of the Occupy Movements. I'm largely in agreement with the author that the impact will be more indirect, having some influence on culture, than direct.




Anyway, it's made me think about my chapter on Jeju anti-base protests I'm supposed to write for an edited volume. I'm not sure if protestors will actually prevent the construction of the ROK naval base. One potential huge political opportunity for activists is if the progressive Democratic United Party (DUP) win the National Assembly elections in April. The DUP has claimed it will review (if not halt) current base construction plans. Aside from the immediate effect of halting base construction, anti-base activists are forcing at least some segments of political society to rethink the purpose of the base and what it actually means for South Korean security.

ROK Naval Base Protest Comes to DC

Interesting to see the naval base protest come to my home in DC....right when I'm away for a conference.



Good to see an exercising of Freedom of Speech. But seeing President Lee M.B. referred to as a dictator on one of the signs, I wonder if protestors are aware of Lee M.B.'s own rags-to-riches story.

Jeju Protestors Arrested

I predicted this about a month ago, but the ROK government has steadily increased the level of coercion the past two months to end protests against the construction of the ROK naval facility in Jeju.

NY Times reports 25 activists were detained today. Activists and residents have a valid point about environmental consequences. Who wants a giant military base on a beautiful island known best for honeymooning? On the other hand, the ROK government's heightened sensitivy to security threats following a turn of events the past couple of years (read Chinese assertiveness and DPRK aggression) have made them adamant about this base. One way or another, the ROK government will have its base.