SECURITY ISSUES ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA AND PARLIAMENTARY PEACE EFFORTS

SECURITY ISSUES ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA AND

PARLIAMENTARY PEACE EFFORTS

Introduction

Security issues in various regions of the world that have not yet seen peaceful solutions

are of concern to the international community, including security issues on the Peninsula.

Korea that has surfaced again recently. The security situation on the Korean Peninsula has

not been fully conducive until now, as a result of the failure to reach a peace agreement

between the two Koreas (North and South Korea), and the North Korean nuclear issue. In

August 2015, for example, tensions erupted in the region due to provocative actions between

the two Koreas. In August 2015, for example, tensions occurred in the region due to

provocative actions between the two Koreas. Tensions returned to the Korean Peninsula

following North Korea's announcement that it had successfully conducted a hydrogen bomb

test in the first week of January 2016.3 The joint military exercises of South Korea and the

United States held in March 2016, and Pyongyang's strong response to the joint military

activities, added to tensions on the Korean Peninsula.4 Tensions were further heightened

when North Korea, on March 9, 2016, also claimed to have produced a mini-sized nuclear

bomb, which could be placed on a warhead and launched on a ballistic missile, which could

be aimed at the United States, South Korea's main ally, if open conflict was inevitable.

Security situation on the Korean Peninsula The unfavorable situation in the region, with

all its potential for conflict, has become a concern for the international community given the

implications for regional and even world stability, if the regional security issues are not

successfully addressed. The potential for conflict cannot be ignored, if we look at the

situation developing in the region, where the "opposing" parties (North Korea versus South

Korea and the United States) are still carrying out military maneuvers that are interpreted as

acts of provocation among themselves. North Korea, with its test nuclear weapons and its

war rhetoric, is one example. Indeed, there are doubts about North Korea's nuclear

capabilities, as well as its seriousness about carrying out a military attack. However, if we

look at the response of the international community as reflected in the recent United Nations

Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against North Korea in the form of resolutions,7 we can

see that the international community takes the security situation on the Korean Peninsula

seriously. Therefore, the search for a peaceful solution to the regional security issue needs to

be continuously pursued by the international community, including by the parliament.

Parliament's response to regional security issues cannot be separated from its position as

a representative institution of the people, and also as an actor in international relations,

which should pay attention and be concerned about various problems faced by society,

including the international community. This means that parliament must also be concerned

with finding peaceful solutions to regional security issues and creating security stability in a

region. The creation of security stability in a region will contribute to efforts to maintain

international peace and security. Parliamentary responses in the framework of supporting

peaceful efforts on regional security issues are carried out by parliaments through

parliamentary diplomacy activities in inter-parliamentary forums. Specifically related to

security issues on the Korean Peninsula, the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum (APPF) is

the most serious inter-parliamentary forum to discuss it, where the issue has become a

strategic discussion in the agenda of the APPF annual session which also discusses regional

security issues. Through a literature study and data search of various relevant reading

materials (books, journals, newspapers, and other written documents as well as online

media), this paper attempts to discuss parliamentary peace efforts on security issues on the

Korean Peninsula, especially within the framework of the implementation of APPF

parliamentary diplomacy, both institutionally by APPF and by individual parliamentarians

from APPF member countries.

Problems

Security stability of a region is important for countries in the world, especially countries

in certain regions where there are regional security issues that are quite disturbing and

contain potential conflicts in them. A region free from security issues is the hope of the

international community and many countries in the world, because then the countries in the

region can focus on carrying out state development activities, as well as their international

relations activities, without being disturbed by regional security issues. This ideal condition

has not yet been seen in the Korean Peninsula region, at least security threats are still a

serious problem for countries in this region.

The unfavorable security situation on the Korean Peninsula, if allowed to continue and

there are no peaceful efforts to resolve it, has the potential to lead to open conflict, and in

turn, will threaten the stability of regional security and peace. This is a challenge for

parliament, as one of the actors in international relations, which should also take part in

efforts to find peaceful solutions to security problems on the Korean Peninsula through

parliamentary diplomacy. Unfortunately, parliamentary diplomacy has not been very visible

in handling security issues on the Korean Peninsula. The problem in this paper is, how does

parliamentary diplomacy work? What is the role of parliamentary diplomacy, especially in

the implementation of APPF parliamentary diplomacy (both institutionally and by individual

parliamentarians), in handling security issues on the Korean Peninsula? This paper attempts

to discuss this, by first reviewing the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, which has

recently returned to the attention of the international community, especially countries in the

region.

Purpose and Usefulness of Writing

The purpose of this study is to understand the issues surrounding parliamentary

diplomacy, especially within the framework of the APPF and the implementation of the

duties of parliamentarians who are members of the APPF in responding to security issues on

the Korean Peninsula. In addition, this paper is also intended to add to the repertoire of

studies related to parliamentary diplomacy, which is still very lacking at present, especially

among observers of international relations. This paper, of course, can also be used as

information and input for the government and parliament (DPR RI), especially in addressing

regional security issues. Regional security issues are not solely the business of the

government, but also need to be the concern of parliament, as one of the actors of

international relations, which must also care about efforts to create security stability in a

region.

Analysis Framework

The peaceful efforts of the parliament in this paper can be understood as part of the

implementation of the concept of "network diplomacy", one of the concepts related to

diplomatic activities in international relations introduced by Jorge Heine in the book The

Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Heine mentions that within the framework of the

network In network diplomacy, diplomatic activities in international relations do not depend

on one particular actor, as has been done by ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) with their

foreign policy missions. In the framework of network diplomacy, diplomatic activities can

be carried out more dynamically and flexibly, because diplomatic activities are built through

a more fluid and open network, not only regarding the technical aspects (because it can be

done by relying on advances in communication technology, for example), but also the

increasingly diverse actors of diplomacy players themselves. In the perspective of network

diplomacy, the involvement of diverse and extensive diplomacy actors along with their

international networks and forums is a necessity to respond to the increasingly complex

problems and challenges of international relations. This means that the problems and

challenges of increasingly complex international relations are not sufficiently responded to

by one diplomatic actor traditionally held by diplomats of the foreign ministry. The network

of diplomacy must be expanded, including other actors outside the government, and also

through available international forums.

In the repertoire of international relations, A further implementation of network

diplomacy is seen in the activity of "multi-track diplomacy". Multi-track diplomacy

identifies that diplomatic activities are not only carried out by government (executive)

diplomats, but can also be carried out by other actors outside the government.9 Other actors

outside the government include parliaments, NGO's (Non Government Organizations),

business groups, influential (national/international) public figures, and even ordinary

citizens, who take an interest in diplomatic activities.10 The involvement of other

international relations actors in diplomacy. This is in line with the increasingly complex

demands and challenges of diplomacy in international relations, where dealing with them is

not enough to rely on government diplomats, but can also involve non-governmental actors.

It also shows that diplomatic activities can be carried out through a diverse and extensive

diplomatic network of non-governmental actors. Their involvement (non-governmental

actors) in diplomatic activities aims to support or strengthen government diplomacy,

including those related to peace and conflict resolution efforts.

Parliament, as one of the actors of international relations outside the government, and

within the framework of network diplomacy, can also participate in such diplomatic

activities, known as "parliamentary diplomacy", which is carried out through available

international forums, especially inter-parliamentary forums, and also by utilizing its

diplomatic network. Conceptually, parliamentary diplomacy is defined as a diplomatic

activity built through communication and interaction among fellow parliamentarians, as

parliamentary representatives of a country, which aims to strengthen inter-parliamentary,

inter-state cooperation relations, and also to respond to an international issue of common

concern. In the context of this paper, the security situation on the Korean Peninsula can be

categorized as an international issue of common concern. Parliamentary diplomacy is carried

out through parliamentary networks in inter-parliamentary forums, which in their meetings

also discuss various international issues. The international issues discussed usually also

become the agenda of discussion in government-level meetings between countries.

In an increasingly globalized world order, the growing trend is that parliamentarians are

also beginning to play a role in the processes of representation, negotiation and mediation

that were generally dominated by governments in the past. The existence of several

privileges possessed by parliamentarians has become an important factor that provides new

alternatives in the practice of diplomacy. Jeffrey Roberston identifies these privileges as the

availability of access, the ability to build trust, discretion, and the opportunity to explore an

issue from various sides and dimensions without promising commitment. The access

referred to here is in relation to the position of parliamentarians who have the convenience

to meet with decision-makers in the countries they visit. In addition, parliamentarians gain

trust that grows from the fact that parliamentarians are elected by the people to represent

their interests in parliament. This can be a basic capital to carry out diplomatic missions that

are closely related to the interests of the people in a country and region.

The privileges of parliament do not mean that parliamentary diplomacy is free from

criticism and negative views. Critics of parliamentary diplomacy argue that allowing

members of parliament to play a diplomatic role at the international level contradicts

conventions on executive authority in a country's foreign policy. The role of parliament is a

challenge for the government of a country. This is because there is a high likelihood of

parliament and government disagreeing on a global issue. In addition, parliament's limited

budget also raises concerns about the possible ineffectiveness of parliament's international

advocacy role. In this context, it needs to be explained that in addition to its legislative,

budgetary and oversight functions, parliament as an actor in international relations also has a

diplomatic function in terms of participating in maintaining international peace and security.

Meanwhile, it is inevitable that in the midst of increasingly dynamic international relations,

as a result of globalization, the implementation of diplomacy is required to be intensified

through the activation of various diplomatic channels and networks available. This means

that, as part of the network diplomacy, parliaments can play a role in the process of

international relations, both in the individual context as members of parliament and

institutionally through the participation of parliamentary delegations in inter-parliamentary

forums. Here, parliaments can encourage the development of cooperative rather than

conflictual international relations. Parliaments can also encourage international relations to

be built through strengthening inter-state cooperation, and by reducing problems. In short,

parliamentary diplomacy, with its network of diplomacy, should also be aimed at creating a

conducive climate in various regions of the world and in inter-state relations. In short,

parliamentary diplomacy, with its diplomatic networks, should also be aimed at creating a

conducive climate in various regions of the world and in inter-state relations. This kind of

parliamentary diplomacy can actually also be aimed at responding to the security situation

on the Korean Peninsula, where there have been activities of states with their power, both in

the framework of state existence and to dominate the region, which contain potential

conflicts and can threaten regional peace and stability.

In the context of security issues on the Korean Peninsula, network diplomacy carried out

through parliamentary diplomacy activities can be present as part of the search for a peaceful

solution, which is now being pursued by the international community, to the security

problems of the region. As an international relations actor, parliament, especially through

the network of parliamentarians at the international level, can interact and build political

communication among fellow parliamentarians, as well as with other international relations

actors, to discuss steps that can be taken by parliament in supporting the efforts of the

international community peace on the Korean Peninsula. The APPF, as an inter-

parliamentary forum concerned with security issues on the Korean Peninsula, could be

present as part of parliamentary peace efforts on the region's security concerns.

Security Situation on the Korean Peninsula

First, it is interesting to briefly review the security situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Security issues on the Korean Peninsula cannot be separated from the background situation,

namely the conflict between North and South Korea and the North Korean nuclear issue,

which has not been resolved and agreed upon for a peaceful settlement. The Korean conflict

occurred as an implication of the division of Korea into two sovereign states after the end of

World War II, precisely in 1948, when the Soviet Union and the United States (two

superpowers competing for influence and ideology in Korea) agreed to divide the Korean

territory into two, North Korea and South Korea, with a surveillance zone demarcated along

38 degrees north latitude (see Korean Peninsula Map below). The division of Korea into two

is inseparable from the Liberal-Democratic and Communist-Socialist ideological conflict

between the Western Bloc (America) and the South.

The first time tension occurred was on June 25, 1950 when the North Korean military

crossed the border and invaded South Korea. This act started the Korean War that lasted for

three years, leaving more than two million dead, damaging the country's infrastructure and

economy, and leaving a wide rift between Koreans. The Korean War ended on July 27, 1953

when the United States, China and North Korea signed an armistice agreement, and both

sides agreed to create a three-mile-wide buffer zone between the two countries, which

became known as the Demilitarized Zone. South Korean President Syngman-Rhee refused

to sign the agreement, but he promised to honor the armistice agreement. This means that

the Korean War has not officially ended until now, and it is not surprising then that tensions

still color the course of relations between the two Koreas.

The atmosphere of hostility is very strong indeed is visible between the two Koreas and

influences the perception of each country that sees its neighbor as an enemy and a threat. For

North Korea, South Korea is a threat with the presence of US military power to protect

South Korea. For South Korea, the experience of North Korean invasion during the Korean

War, showed that North Korea's aggressiveness to unify Korea was a threat that could rise

again at any time. As a result, there are no agreed norms to govern relations between the two

Koreas. Moreover, North Korea, since the division of the Korean state, has turned into a

very closed country, so that communication between the two Koreas has been limited. The

North has very little contact with the outside world, including South Korea, and is very

tightly controlled. Tensions have colored the relationship between the two. Tensions

triggered by one party's provocative actions against the other, plus North Korea's non-

transparent nuclear program, have caused anxiety in the international community because

they are considered to threaten regional stability and security.

North Korea's non-transparent nuclear program has made the security situation on the

Korean Peninsula uncertain. North Korea's nuclear development program is influenced and

dominated by Kim Il-sung's thinking, and has been since the late 1970s. Kim Il-sung, as the

supreme leader of North Korea at the time, believed that his country's actions would provide

the strategic, symbolic and technological advantages needed in the long run to realize a

strong and prosperous North Korea. It can also be interpreted that North Korea is trying not

to depend on other countries (the Soviet Union) in protecting its national security. North

Korea's actions have alarmed countries in the region, especially after the United States, in

the mid-1980s, revealed that North Korea was building a nuclear facility at Yongbyon and

that this gave North Korea the opportunity to produce the plutonium needed for nuclear

warheads.

In the 1990s, the Korean nuclear threat North Korea's withdrawal from the nuclear non-

proliferation treaty in March 1993 intensified. This period was also marked by the death of

Kim Il-sung in 1994 who was then succeeded by Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-sung's eldest son, who

also had a great desire to develop a nuclear program. Nuclear program North Korea aims,

among others:19 1) to increase strength to reach a position of equality with South Korea, 2)

to increase North Korea's authority and influence in relations between countries in the

world, 3) as a counterweight strategy to South Korea's weapons. Politically, nukes

(especially nuclear weapons) give Kim Jong-il prestige and bargaining power in the face of

the international community, as well as a tool for regime maintenance that can expand

domestic support and a potential deterrent in the face of external threats. Since the absence

of security guarantees from the Soviet Union after the Cold War, Pyongyang felt it had to

obtain security guarantees from the acquisition of its own nuclear weapons.

In 1998, for example, North Korea had designed two long-range missiles that could

reach parts of the United States and Japan. This missile program raised serious concerns

about North Korea's nuclear aspirations because an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)

would mean nothing without a nuclear warhead. This issue arose on August 31, 1998 when

North Korea launched one of its missiles with a range of 1700-2200 km that passed through

Japanese territory and landed in the western part of Hawaii, in the Pacific Ocean. Seeing

this situation, it is not only the United States and Japan that feel threatened but all countries

in East Asia feel that they must strengthen their defense systems so that they do not become

targets of North Korean missiles. Concerns were heightened when North Korea officially

did not deny a statement by the US Assistant Secretary of State, James A. Kelly, stating that

Pyongyang has a nuclear weapons program.

It can be seen here that in addition to the unresolved inter-Korean conflict, North

Korea's development of missile and nuclear programs has been a trigger for tensions on the

Korean Peninsula and concerns of countries in the region. This immediately prompted

countries in the region, especially those with a direct interest in the security of the Korean

Peninsula, to invite North Korea to negotiate to discuss its nuclear program. Through the

six-party multilateral negotiations, known as the Six Party Talks (involving China, the

United States, Russia, Japan, North Korea and South Korea), North Korea's nuclear program

was discussed in order to find a peaceful solution. Unfortunately, the multilateral

negotiations, which have been held since 2003 and have taken place several times, have not

succeeded in producing an agreement and have been stalled since 2008.22 The United

States, one of the participating countries, refused to restart the negotiations unless North

Korea stopped its nuclear program first. Meanwhile, North Korea considers that the "hostile"

attitude of the United States is the main obstacle to restarting negotiations.

The breakdown of the six-party talks indirectly gave North Korea the space to continue

developing its nuclear program and also conduct test launches of its missiles. The April

2009 launch of a long-range rocket (Unha-2), for example, signaled an intercontinental

ballistic missile capability. Although North Korea insists that the rocket launch was only for

the purpose of placing a communication satellite in orbit, some experts think that the rocket

technique can be applied in the development of a ballistic missile capable of reaching 3,100

km. Stalled The six-party talks have also had implications for inter-Korean relations, which

have not been conducive, even heating up especially after the South Korean Navy corvette,

named Cheonan, sank in March 2010 which Seoul claimed had been torpedoed by a North

Korean submarine.

The coming to power of Kim Jong-un in 2012, after his father Kim Jong-il died in 2011,

did not stop North Korea from developing its nuclear program and conducting missile

launch tests. In December 2012 North Korea conducted another rocket launch (Unha-3),

citing the need to deploy a communications satellite, but the international community

identified the North Korean action as provocative and a covert test of a ballistic missile.25

The international community also considered North Korea's action to have violated UN

Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1874 of 2009, which among other things prohibits

North Korea from conducting ballistic missile launch tests. Furthermore, in May 2013, at

least three short-range missiles were launched in a military exercise held in the eastern

coastal region of North Korea.26 North Korea called the missile launches a response to the

implementation of joint military exercises of South Korea and the United States on the

Korean Peninsula. The joint military exercises of South Korea and the United States, which

are held regularly every year, are often negatively perceived by North Korea. Kim Jong- un

called the joint military exercises an indirect declaration of war. Jong- un said this again

when addressing the joint South Korea-United States military exercises on the Korean

Peninsula, July-August 2015, resulting in renewed tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

Tensions were heightened in August 2015 when two South Korean soldiers patrolling

the demilitarized zone were hit by a landmine. Seoul accused Pyongyang of laying

landmines, but Pyongyang denied the allegations and asserted that Seoul's accusations were

just propaganda to back Pyongyang into a corner. In response to South Korea's accusations,

Kim Jong-un ordered North Korean troops to occupy the front line of the border in a "semi

war" situation. Meanwhile, South Korea has also put its military on high alert and is ready

to retaliate against any type of attack from the North. The escalation of tension increased

when the two Koreas also carried out missile launch test activities and reacted to provocative

actions of either party on the border.

In the first week of January 2016 The international community was once again shocked

by North Korea's claim that the country had successfully conducted a hydrogen bomb test.30

Data released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) states that an earthquake measuring 5.1

on the Richter Scale (SR) was detected at a location about 19 kilometers from

Sungjibaegam, North Korea's nuclear test site, at a depth of 10 kilometers. The cause of the

quake is unknown, but it is suspected that the quake was related to the nuclear test activities.

A magnitude 4.9 earthquake had occurred at the same location in 2013, prior to the test.

The brief description of the security situation in the Korean Peninsula above shows that

security on the Korean Peninsula has not been conducive until now. The international

community still often witnesses tensions in the region. Various efforts have indeed been

made to ease tensions and find peaceful solutions on the Korean Peninsula, both within the

framework of inter-Korean peaceful solutions (through the reunification program) and on

the North Korean nuclear issue (through the six-party talks). However, these peaceful efforts

have always run aground, as mistrust remains strong between the "opposing" parties, such as

between North and South Korea, and between North Korea and the United States. It is not

surprising then that propaganda activities and hostile rhetoric between them continue, as

well as military maneuvers, as has happened recently. The possibility of a new war breaking

out between the two Koreas has again become a global concern. Plus, North Korea has

nuclear weapons and the regime in Pyongyang could take unexpected actions.

Parliamentary Peace Efforts

The security situation on the Korean Peninsula certainly needs attention parliament, at

least it is part of the agenda of inter-parliamentary forum sessions, especially when

discussing regional security issues. In the sessions of the inter-parliamentary forum, a

number of actual and/or strategic issues that are of concern to the international community

are discussed, and usually they are also of concern to international fora in the scope of inter-

state governments. This means that parliaments must also care and pay attention to actual

and/or strategic issues of concern to the international community, which is also intended to

strengthen government efforts in responding to these actual and/or strategic issues. Thus,

there is synergy between the parliament and the government in an effort to find solutions to

international problems. These efforts are carried out in accordance with their respective

capacities and through diplomatic channels. The security situation on the Korean Peninsula

is certainly a regional security issue that needs to be responded to and a peaceful solution

sought.

Parliamentary peace efforts on security issues security issues on the Korean Peninsula,

as noted above, are carried out through inter-parliamentary forums, and the APPF has so far

been the most serious inter-parliamentary forum to address them. This is evident from the

frequency with which security issues in the region are discussed at the APPF's annual

sessions.33 The APPF's discussion of security issues on the Korean Peninsula is quite

natural, given that the inter-parliamentary organization, which was formally established in

1993 in Tokyo and comprises 27 national parliaments of Asia-Pacific countries (see table

below), also includes parliaments of East Asian countries, where the security situation on the

Korean Peninsula is directly related to their national interests. It is therefore not surprising

that the APPF, with its network of parliamentary diplomacy, has become the most serious

inter-parliamentary forum to discuss the Korean Peninsula security situation security issues

on the Korean Peninsula, especially when tensions return to the region. The discussions at

the APPF forum are of course also intended as part of efforts to find peaceful solutions to

security issues on the Korean Peninsula. Within the framework of the APPF, individual

parliamentarians from the parliaments of APPF member countries can also carry out

diplomatic activities as a continuation of the APPF's commitment to security issues on the

Korean Peninsula.

Looking back, the APPF, which was initiated by former Japanese Prime Minister

Yasuhiro Nakasone and formally established in 1993 through the Tokyo Declaration, aims

to: provide an opportunity for parliaments from the Asia-Pacific region to identify and

discuss issues that have become common problems and put them into a global context;

explore policy understandings, interests, and exchange experiences in the parliaments of

each country in the region; look at social, political and cultural developments stemming

from economic integration and growth; foster and strengthen the work of parliaments in the

Asia-Pacific region regional cooperation at all levels on matters of common interest in the

region; and encouraging each parliament to play its role in strengthening regional unity,

cooperation and understanding.34 This means that the APPF is interested in fostering and

strengthening regional cooperation, geared towards achieving progress on issues of peace,

freedom, democracy and prosperity, as the basis for ensuring regional security and peace.

Within this framework, the APPF has an interest in maintaining regional security

stability, while at the same time criticizing the dynamics and security situation in the region,

such as what is happening on the Korean Peninsula. The Korean Peninsula is a conflict-

prone area, particularly in relation to the ongoing feud between North and South Korea,

which has yet to see a peaceful solution. Not to mention the North Korean nuclear issue,

which is considered non-transparent by the international community and controlled by the

authoritarian regime in Pyongyang, has caused anxiety among countries in the region. If one

of the parties cannot restrain itself, it is not impossible that a nuclear war has the potential to

occur in this region. Nuclear war is a clear threat to international security. The tensions that

occur on the Korean Peninsula are not only felt in neighboring countries or adjacent regions,

but can also provoke conflicts and wars in regions far from North and South Korea, due to

the geostrategic interests of countries in the region and the "connected" political lines

between them. The unfavorable security situation on the Korean Peninsula has also become

a concern of the APPF and received special attention from parliamentarians in the session

discussing regional security issues.

At the APPF forum, especially in the session discussing security issues on the Korean

Peninsula, parliamentarians not only expressed their critical views on the situation on the

Korean Peninsula, but also expressed views on the importance of strengthening international

cooperation in realizing peace on the Korean Peninsula. For parliament, as the representation

of the people, a peaceful solution to the problems that occur on the Korean Peninsula,

whether it is related to the conflict between North and South Korea or the North Korean

nuclear issue, is important to continue to be pursued because this is also related to the

interests and survival of the people, not only the people in the two Koreas (North and South

Korea), but also the people in regional countries. Such parliamentary views were so

prominent in the APPF session, because their presence in the inter-parliamentary forum not

only represented the people of their countries, but also voiced the interests of the people of

regional countries. Through parliamentary diplomacy activities, parliamentarians interact

with each other to integrate, formulate, and express the views that emerged and developed in

the session into a resolution as an official parliamentary stance.

At the 22nd Annual Session of the APPF in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, January 12-16,

2014, for example, produced a resolution entitled "The Situation on the Korean

Peninsula".36 At that time, the APPF critically addressed the security situation on the

Korean Peninsula, which has not yet shown signs of peace, even on the contrary, the

military maneuvers of the two Korean countries are still in the status of "war". The situation

on the Korean Peninsula, in APPF's view, reflects the failure of diplomacy in the region, one

indication of which is the stalled six-party multilateral negotiations. The unfavorable

situation on the Korean Peninsula, in APPF's view, reflects the unsuccessful diplomatic

efforts in the region, one indication of which is the stalled six-party multilateral negotiations.

The regional and international cooperation that was tried to be built at that time, especially

to discuss North Korea's nuclear program, also did not receive a positive response from

Pyongyang. This situation then prompted APPF to issue the resolution. In the framework of

parliamentary peace efforts, through this resolution, APPF calls on its member countries to

strengthen parliamentary diplomacy at the multilateral level to support the realization of

security stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific region.

APPF's seriousness in addressing Security issues on the Korean Peninsula were also

addressed at the 23rd Annual Session of the APPF in Quito, Ecuador, January 10-15, 2015.

The session produced a resolution entitled "Achieving Denuclearization and Peace on the

Korean Peninsula".37 Through the resolution, the parliament reaffirmed the importance of

regional and international cooperation in promoting peace on the Korean Peninsula,

particularly by inviting APPF member states to jointly safeguard and realize the Korean

Peninsula as a region free from the presence of nuclear weapons, which is not only

important for stability and peace on the Korean Peninsula, but also the Asia Pacific region.

Through this resolution, the APPF also called on North Korea to comply with UNSC

resolutions and abandon its nuclear weapons programs, including uranium enrichment

activities and ballistic missile programs, as a whole. APPF also encourages the resumption

of the six-party multilateral negotiation process as the most effective peaceful solution to the

North Korean nuclear issue. In this context, APPF calls on the international community,

including parliamentarians from APPF countries, to actively promote peaceful resolution of

security issues on the Korean Peninsula.

Parliamentary affirmation of the importance of stability and peace on the Korean

Peninsula was reaffirmed at the 24th Annual Session of the APPF in Vancouver, Canada,

January 17-21, 2016, through the resolution "Promoting Peace on the Korean Peninsula and

Improving Inter-Korean Relations".38 The debate around North Korea's repeated nuclear

tests became a prominent issue and received attention from almost all participants in the

APPF session in Vancouver, including from the Chinese parliamentary delegation, which

has been known to be close to North Korea.39 The APPF resolution produced in

Vancouver, Canada, was a direct parliamentary response to North Korea's provocative

actions in conducting another nuclear test in the first week of January 2016. This shows that

the North Korean nuclear issue needs to be criticized within the framework of maintaining

regional stability, and parliaments also have the responsibility to fight for it through

parliamentary diplomacy activities and networks at the regional and international levels.

North Korea's parliament is not part of the APPF session, but the presence of almost all

parliaments of Asia-Pacific countries in this forum is enough to build a network of

diplomacy and encourage the governments of their respective countries to be more

committed to the issue intensify efforts for peace on the Korean Peninsula through a process

of dialogue and negotiation.

Regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, APPF reiterated that it needs to be discussed

more openly through the six-party talks process, which involves the two Koreas (North and

South Korea), China, Russia, Japan, and the United States. It is recognized that discussing

the North Korean nuclear issue with the authoritarian and closed Pyongyang regime is not

easy, but it must be done through network diplomacy. The APPF has opened up space for

inter-parliamentary interactions and diplomatic activities, and so far it has been well utilized

by participating parliamentarians to build a common view in addressing the security

situation on the Korean Peninsula, as stated in the APPF resolution above. At the APPF

forum, on the sidelines of the session, parliamentarians also interacted with each other and

held bilateral meetings to discuss further steps that the APPF needs to take to support peace

efforts on the Korean Peninsula.40 The further steps that the APPF needs to take include

encouraging parliamentarians from APPF countries to continue actively promoting peace

efforts on the Korean Peninsula in various international forums.

APPF's next steps for promoting and guarding parliamentary peace efforts on security

issues on the Korean Peninsula, among others, was seen at the Inter-Parliamentary Union

(IPU) forum in March 2014. At the IPU forum, parliamentarians from APPF countries

networked to mobilize a broader stance on peace efforts on the Korean Peninsula, as the

forum comprises national parliaments from all over the world from almost all countries in

the world. Parliamentarians from APPF countries, using their diplomatic networks, have

sought to raise the issue of security on the Korean Peninsula in the context of global

security. This means that security issues on the Korean Peninsula cannot be separated from

the interests of the international community, which wishes to see all regions in the world

free from the threat of conflict between countries, including free from the threat of nuclear

weapons. In this context, the parliamentarians who are members of the APPF dealt with the

security issue on the Korean Peninsula at the IPU forum by supporting the issuance of an

IPU resolution entitled: "Towards A Nuclear-Weapon Free World: The Contributions of

Parliaments". The resolution, produced by the 130th Session of the IPU in Geneva,

Switzerland, March 2014, contains parliamentary hopes for a world free from the threat of

nuclear weapons. The existence of North Korea's nuclear weapons program clearly

contradicts the hopes of parliaments, as well as the hopes of the international community,

which strongly hopes that all regions in the world are free from the threat of nuclear

weapons.

MPs of APPF countries, who are also active in the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-

Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) forum, are even more assertive in addressing

security issues on the Korean Peninsula, especially related to North Korea's nuclear weapons

program. They strongly condemned North Korea's actions that have repeatedly conducted

nuclear tests, including a nuclear test conducted in early January 2016, which North Korea

claimed to be a hydrogen bomb. They are of the view that the development of North Korea's

nuclear weapons program has given rise to competition among nuclear weapon states in the

region (which security on the Korean Peninsula is unsafe. Natalia Diaz Quintana, a member

of the Costa Rican parliament, who is also active in the APPF and PNND, even mentioned

that a nuclear test like North Korea's could lead to a nuclear war, and therefore, international

organizations such as the UN must work to prevent this nuclear crisis from developing

because the implications will not only damage regional stability but also destroy the planet

earth.

Most of the participants in the APPF meeting in Vancouver (Canada) in January 2016

have also expressed their critical views on the North Korean nuclear issue, especially on the

hydrogen bomb test. Regardless of whether the North Korean nuclear test was successful or

not, if North Korea's claim is true that the test conducted in early January 2016 was a

hydrogen bomb, then it is clearly a high-level nuclear weapons threat. Therefore, the APPF

reiterates the need to strengthen diplomatic measures and more tangible international

cooperation to realize peace on the Korean Peninsula.45 This means that the international

community does not need rhetoric, but rather real action to prevent and stop the

development of nuclear weapons through international agreements that are binding and

adhered to by countries in the world.

APPF, through its network of parliamentarians in various countries, seems to have and

continues to build international commitment to the importance of security stability and peace

on the Korean Peninsula. From the APPF's perspective, tensions and conflicts on the Korean

Peninsula, if not resolved, especially with the issue of nuclear weapons, will be has far-

reaching implications, not only for the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, but also

for the security of the Asia Pacific region as a whole. This is of concern to the APPF, as an

inter-parliamentary organization in the region, which should also help maintain and strive

for peace in the Asia Pacific region. Although APPF's peace efforts are not the only

diplomatic channel in handling security issues on the Korean Peninsula, the presence of

parliamentary diplomacy within the framework of APPF's peace efforts has strategic

importance and cannot be ruled out in supporting peace efforts on security issues on the

Korean Peninsula. Within the framework of these peace efforts, APPF, with its inter-

parliamentary networks, invites the parliaments of countries in the region, which are also

active in APPF, to also promote peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Utilization of this inter-parliamentary network, The APPF, among others, has

communicated with a number of parliaments of ASEAN countries, which have also been

active in the APPF, to encourage them to pay attention to security issues on the Korean

Peninsula. This inter-parliamentary communication was evident, for example, during the

36th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly (AIPA) in Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia, in September 2015, where the issue of security on the Korean Peninsula

was one of the topics discussed in a bilateral dialog forum between parliamentarians of

AIPA countries and parliamentary counterparts of observer countries that are also members

of APPF, including South Korea, Japan and China.46 Through the dialog forum, they built

a commitment to participate in guarding and supporting the peace process on the Korean

Peninsula.

Such peace efforts have been made by, among others, Japanese parliamentarian

Toshihiro Nikai. Within the framework of these peace efforts, Nikai first established

communication with the South Korean president, Park Geun-hye, during a visit to Seoul in

February 2015.48 During his visit to Seoul, Nikai had a mission to strengthen Japan-South

Korea relations that had declined, but he also used the visit to discuss peace efforts on the

Korean Peninsula. Nikai even asked President Park for her views on the possibility of him

traveling to Pyongyang to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in the context of

peace efforts on the Korean Peninsula. Nikai has not yet had the opportunity to visit

Pyongyang, but his desire to contribute to peace on the Korean Peninsula should be

appreciated, and be part of APPF's parliamentary diplomacy and peace efforts.

APPF, during its annual meeting in Vancouver (Canada) in January 2016, called on

parliamentarians of APPF countries to actively support peaceful resolution of security issues

on the Korean Peninsula. The APPF's call was based on concerns over the recent

unfavorable security situation on the Korean Peninsula, which has been increasingly

characterized by tensions, particularly as a result of North Korea's nuclear tests, which have

received strong reactions from neighboring countries in the region. The active involvement

of parliamentarians from APPF countries in parliamentary diplomacy activities related to the

handling of security issues on the Korean Peninsula has become a serious concern of the

APPF in recent years. In fact, there was an idea among parliamentarians to form a

"diplomacy team", comprising a number of parliamentarians from APPF countries, which

would be specifically tasked with conducting political communication with the North

Korean parliament to discuss the possibility of holding an inter-parliamentary dialogue in

the framework of finding a peaceful solution to security issues on the Korean Peninsula,

particularly related to strengthening relations between North and South Korea. The idea has

not yet been realized, but it is worth noting the parliament's determination to be part of the

search for a peaceful solution to the security problems on the Korean Peninsula.

A number of parliamentarians from countries APPF, which was initiated by Canadian

parliamentarians, ahead of the APPF annual meeting in Vancouver in January 2016, has also

expressed views on the importance of parliamentarians being involved in addressing global

issues, including security issues on the Korean Peninsula.49 In their perspective,

parliamentarians have advantages and an expert in parliamentary diplomacy. He is also

known for as Chairman of the Japan-United States Parliamentary League. During the

Japanese delegation's visit to United States in November 2015, Toshihiro Nikai was awarded

the Bintang Jasa Utama (Star of Honor) from President Joko Widodo, for his contribution to

improving United States-Japan relations.

In building political communication, because the dialogue approach is not as rigid as

government diplomats, as well as the language style used, making it easier for them (MPs)

to carry out diplomatic activities flexibly with other international relations actors. This

means that members of parliament, in their diplomatic activities, in addition to establishing

political communication with fellow members of parliament, can also conduct political

communication with government officials from other countries in the search for peaceful

solutions to regional security problems. In the context of security issues on the Korean

Peninsula, this can be seen, among others, in the diplomacy conducted by Japanese

parliamentarian Toshihiro Nikai above. Parliamentarians from other APPF countries, with

their capabilities and networks, should also engage in such diplomatic activities.

Diplomacy activities carried out So far, parliamentary diplomacy has been limited to

building commitment among parliamentarians of APPF countries to support efforts to find

peaceful solutions to security issues on the Korean Peninsula. Parliamentary diplomacy is

not easy, especially when it comes to building political communication with the North

Korean parliament, or even with the regime in Pyongyang, as one of the parties that actually

needs to be talked to, if diplomacy in the search for a peaceful solution to security issues on

the Korean Peninsula is to succeed as expected. As is well known, the authoritarian and

closed regime in Pyongyang has dominated governance in North Korea, and this has

restricted the North Korean parliament from being open, including in terms of building

political communication with other parliamentary partners. Nonetheless, within the

framework of parliamentary diplomacy, efforts to build political communication with North

Korea's parliamentary counterparts are important. North Korea's parliament, even with the

authoritarian Kim Jong-un regime, should continue to be pursued as a logical consequence

of choosing diplomacy as the main way to address security concerns on the Korean

Peninsula.

Such parliamentary diplomacy efforts are not impossible, at least they have been, and

are likely to be, attempted again by parliamentarians of the two Koreas (North and South

Korea). North and South Korean parliamentarians are politically the most interested in

building dialog within the framework of this parliamentary diplomacy. In the record of inter-

Korean relations, the two parliamentarians from these separate countries have indeed

interacted, and this can be seen, among others, from the meetings that have been held

between them in the framework of supporting the reunification program. The first meeting

between the Korean parliamentarians took place in 1985 in Panmunjom Village, the border

area between the two countries, as the first step for the two parliaments to open a dialog. At

that time the atmosphere of relations between the two countries was relatively good, after

previously in 1984 North Korea provided assistance to South Korea which had just been hit

by a major flood disaster.50 Unfortunately, communication between members of the

Korean parliament did not run smoothly, due to frequent tensions coloring relations between

the two countries. It is not easy to build dialog in the midst of strong mistrust between the

two Koreas, which are separated and ideologically different, and technically still in a state of

"war" after the 1950-1953 Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty dialog

between the two Koreas. Through the Sunshine Policy, Kim Dae-jung tried to include North

Korea in any economic cooperation, and endeavored to create an atmosphere of peace,

harmony and cooperation between the Koreas rather than a conflict-ridden relationship.

Intense dialogue ensued between the two countries to build understanding, culminating in

the historic meeting between the two Korean leaders, Kim De-jung and Kim Jong-il, which

took place in June 2000 in Pyongyang.51 During the high-level meeting, the two sides

discussed the possibilities of cooperation and reunification programs that could be carried

out by the two countries in the future. The warm relations between the two Koreas continued

during the presidency of Roh Moo-hyun (2003-2007) who pursued policies similar to those

of his predecessor, Kim Dae-jung. The conducive situation was then used by the parliaments

of both countries to re-establish more intense communication to support the Korean

reunification program, which was marked by the visit of a North Korean parliamentary

delegation to the South Korean parliament for the first time in August 2005.

Momentum for inter-parliamentary meetings Korea has raised hopes and desires from

both Korean parliaments to organize an inter-Korean parliamentary summit as a form of

parliamentary seriousness in supporting peace efforts on the Korean Peninsula. However,

these hopes and desires faded during the presidency of Lee Myung-Bak (2008-2013) when

inter-Korean relations cooled down again, especially after the ship's launch. South Korea's

Cheonan corvette sank in 2010, which Seoul claims was torpedoed by a North Korean

submarine. Two years later, the desire to realize a summit between the Korean parliaments

has surfaced again. The proposal came from the Speaker of the National Assembly of South

Korea, Chung Ui- hwa, who has been making it since he took office as speaker of

parliament in May 2014. South Korean parliamentary leaders had previously made similar

proposals, but received no response from the North.

It is not easy for the South Korean parliament to invite the North Korean parliament to

meet and discuss peace efforts amidst the differences in ideology and political systems in the

two countries and the tensions that often occur in the Korean Peninsula region. Nevertheless,

the efforts made by the South Korean parliament to bring inter-Korean relations closer and

invite dialogue with its North Korean counterpart should be noted as a constructive step to

support the achievement of a peaceful solution to security issues on the Korean Peninsula.

Based on the above record of inter-Korean parliamentary relations, it appears that they met

in 1985 and 2005, and it is possible that they will meet again through an inter-Korean

parliamentary summit, as proposed by South Korean parliamentary speaker Chung Ui-hwa,

to discuss concrete steps to support efforts to realize peace on the Korean Peninsula. The

peace efforts initiated by the Speaker of the South Korean Parliament cannot be separated

from the peace efforts of the APPF, where the inter-parliamentary organization in the Asia

Pacific region has always encouraged its members (parliaments of APPF countries) to

actively conduct parliamentary diplomacy in the framework of finding peaceful solutions to

security issues on the Korean Peninsula.

Based on the discussion above, it can be seen that that security issues on the Korean

Peninsula have become one of the international issues that attract the attention of

parliamentarians of countries in the region, not only an issue in government-level meetings

between countries. This means that the issue of security on the Korean Peninsula deserves

parliamentary attention, as it relates to the security of society, especially the people of the

region. Parliament, as one of the actors of international relations outside the government,

and in the international community within the framework of network diplomacy, can

participate in diplomatic activities to support or strengthen government diplomacy measures,

including by building communication and interaction among fellow parliamentarians, which

aims not only to strengthen inter-parliamentary and inter-state cooperation relations, but also

to support efforts to address regional security issues of concern to the international

community.

This also shows that parliaments, in addition to having legislative, budgetary and

oversight functions, as actors in international relations also have diplomatic functions within

the framework of participating in maintaining international peace and security. Parliament

can play its role in international relations, both in the individual context as members of

parliament and institutionally through the participation of national parliaments in inter-

parliamentary forums, to strengthen the realization of cooperative rather than conflictual

international relations and the creation of a conducive climate in various regions of the

world. This kind of parliamentary diplomacy is exactly what the APPF has done and needs

to continue to do in responding to the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, where the

activities of countries with power are present, which contain the potential for conflict and

could threaten regional peace and stability. The APPF, as an inter-parliamentary forum

concerned with security issues on the Korean Peninsula, needs to increase its diplomatic

activities, both institutionally and by individual parliamentarians, to support peaceful

resolution of security issues in the region.

Parliamentary engagement in peace efforts This, as stated in the analytical framework

above, is in line with the increasingly complex demands and challenges of diplomacy in

international relations, where dealing with them is not enough to rely on government

diplomats, but also needs to be done by government diplomats involving non-governmental

actors, which aims to support or strengthen government diplomacy, including those related

to peace and conflict resolution efforts. This means, just to reiterate, that parliaments should

be concerned with finding peaceful solutions to regional security issues and creating security

stability in a region. The creation of security stability in a region will contribute to efforts to

maintain international peace and security.

Parliament's peaceful efforts, as stated above, cannot be separated from its position as a

representative institution of the people, and also as an actor of international relations, which

should pay attention and be concerned about various problems faced by the community,

including the international community. This is a challenge for parliament in its capacity as

an international relations actor, as stated above, which should also take part in efforts to find

a peaceful solution to the security problems on the Korean Peninsula through parliamentary

diplomacy. Parliamentary diplomacy can be a complementary part of government diplomacy

in handling security issues on the Korean Peninsula. Through its diplomatic network,

parliament can play its role, both in the individual context as members of parliament and

institutionally through inter-parliamentary forums.

Conclusion

Regional security issues that have yet to see a peaceful solution are of concern to the

international community, given their implications for regional stability. The Korean

Peninsula is one of the regions that still faces security issues as a result of the lack of a peace

agreement between North and South Korea, and North Korea's nuclear issue have raised

international concerns, especially among countries in the region. Various peaceful efforts

have been made to ease tensions and find peaceful solutions to security issues on the Korean

Peninsula, but these peaceful efforts have not been fruitful because distrust is still strong in

the "opposing" parties (North Korea versus South Korea, and North Korea versus the United

States). It is not surprising then that propaganda activities and hostile rhetoric between the

opposing parties continue, including military maneuvers, as has happened recently. The

possibility of a new war breaking out has become an international concern.

Parliament, as an actor in international relations and within the framework of networked

diplomacy, can be part of efforts to find peaceful solutions to regional security issues,

including the security issues on the Korean Peninsula which have recently heated up again

and attracted international attention. Parliamentary involvement in peaceful efforts on

regional security issues is carried out through parliamentary diplomacy activities, especially

through the APPF as an inter-parliamentary forum that pays serious attention to security

issues on the Korean Peninsula. APPF, through its annual sessions, has passed a number of

resolutions related to security issues on the Korean Peninsula, and parliamentarians from a

number of APPF countries, through their networks, have also tried to conduct parliamentary

diplomacy in order to support peaceful efforts on security issues on the Korean Peninsula.

It is not easy for parliament to conducting diplomatic activities in the framework of finding

peaceful solutions to the region's security problems, given the complexity of the issues,

including when the parliaments of APPF countries, including the South Korean parliament,

are faced with efforts to build political communication with the South Korean parliament.

The North Korean parliament is closed and under the influence of the authoritarian

Pyongyang regime. Nevertheless, parliamentary diplomacy should still be part of efforts to

find peaceful solutions to security issues on the Korean Peninsula, as APPF has done, both

institutionally and by individual parliamentarians. Parliamentary peace efforts are not aimed

at directly addressing the region's security problems, but rather at supporting and

complementing the diplomacy that has been carried out by the government (executive).

Parliamentary peace efforts are also part of the choice of diplomacy as the main way to

address security issues on the Korean Peninsula. APPF, as an actor in international relations,

and one that has been concerned with security issues on the Korean Peninsula, must increase

its diplomatic activities in the framework of peace efforts in the region. APPF's diplomatic

activities are not sufficient to be carried out only during the APPF annual meeting, but must

be followed up by the diplomatic activities of parliamentarians of APPF countries, through

their networks, at the bilateral and multilateral levels. Such parliamentary peace efforts are

in line with the increasingly complex demands and challenges of diplomacy in international

relations, in which dealing with them is not enough to rely on government diplomats. This

means that in an increasingly globalized world order, parliamentary diplomacy has become

one of the important factors that provide alternatives in the practice of diplomacy.