학내 언론사

제 30 호 Shared Bicycles: A Street Nuisance or a Global Solution?

Kicker: WORLD Shared Bicycles: A Street Nuisance or a Global Solution? By Eun-jin Kim, Cub-Reporter eunxvn@naver.com Shared bicycles are now common in many cities. However, problems caused by careless parking are also increasing. Many people complain about shared bicycles left on sidewalks or roads after use. On the other hand, several cities around the world are introducing new ways to reduce these issues, such as setting up specific parking zones, requiring return photos through mobile apps, or even adding digital reward systems. Structured Stations: The Paris Model One of the oldest and most stable examples of managing this issue can be found in Paris, France, with its service known as “Vélib’ Métropole.” This public bicycle system operates throughout Paris and the Greater Paris region. Users must return the bicycles to fixed stations after using them. Because shared bicycles in Paris do not follow a system where they can be left anywhere on the street, they function alongside fixed hubs. Therefore, the system has successfully established itself as a relatively stable part of urban transportation. However, the system is still changing over time. Starting from August 2025, the fee structure was changed, and the usage conditions for certain electric bicycles were also adjusted. This shows that cities need proper management systems, not just more bicycles. Instead, good management systems, proper prices, and strict return rules must work together to reduce problems on the streets. Regulatory Expansion and Technical Limitations in London Unlike Paris, London has serious problems with bicycles blocking sidewalks. The city of London and Transport for London, which is commonly known as TfL, are currently reviewing plans to expand designated parking zones painted on the ground, which are called “bays,” to ensure the safer parking for dockless e-bikes. In some specific areas, local authorities are taking much stronger measures against bicycles that block public sidewalks. According to local reports, some operating companies are using app-based photo verifications to filter out incorrectly parked bicycles. Some services also give rewards to encourage users to return bicycles properly. Despite these technological efforts, the problem of bicycles piling up on sidewalks and pavements still remains. This means that technology by itself is not enough to solve the problem. It clearly shows that support and rules from local governments must be combined with technical solutions. Incentives and Gamification in Singapore Singapore is also trying different ways to improve shared bicycle culture. Some bicycle companies provide points or small rewards when users return bicycles properly. These bicycles are often placed near MRT stations, bus centers, and residential areas for easier access. This case shows that rewards can encourage people to use shared bicycles more responsibly. Designing Sustainable Shared Mobility These three cases show that the success of shared bicycles does not depend only on the number of bicycles. Instead, the focus must be on how companies manage the fleet and how they encourage people to use them responsibly. Paris emphasizes stability through a fixed return framework, London strengthens regulations to reduce messy parking, and Singapore increases user participation through rewards and corporate collaborations. In conclusion, shared bicycles can be a useful transportation method in cities. However, overseas cases show that the conditions for success require designing management systems, clear rules, and active user engagement rather than simple expansion. In the future, if shared bicycles in South Korea want to become a tool that makes urban mobility more flexible, rather than a nuisance that increases pedestrian discomfort, clear rules and good management systems will be important. sources : https://www.sortiraparis.com/en/news/in-paris/articles/339163-transport-in-paris-and-ile-de-france-what-s-changing-in-2026-for-ratp-velib-zfe-and-parking https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/transport/walking-cycling/cycling/dockless-hire-e-bikes-and-e-scooters/ https://wonderwall.sg/workplay/anywheel-helloride-bike-sharing-in-singapore

• 작성일 2026-06-10
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 27 호 Israel-Hamas War: The Never-Ending Middle East Conflict

Kicker: WORLD Israel-Hamas War: The Never-Ending Middle East Conflict By Ji-Won Choi, reporter Support0321@naver.com On August 17, a large-scale anti-government protest took place across Israel, opposing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Gaza City occupation plan” and demanding an end to the Gaza war. The protest began at 6:29 a.m., the exact time when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. It was triggered after the Israeli cabinet approved the plan to occupy Gaza City, a major city in northern Gaza, on August 7. Protesters argued that the plan put the lives of hostages in even greater danger and insisted that they should be rescued without further military operations. These demonstrations were not merely domestic protests but a reflection of the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. This war stems from the complex historical background of territorial disputes, refugee issues, and continued military clashes with Palestine that have persisted since the establishment of Israel in 1948. Historical Background After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East during World War I, Britain took control of the Palestinian territory. At that time, Palestine was home to a small Jewish minority, a large Arab population, and several other ethnic groups. In 1917, Britain issued a promise to the Jewish community known as the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration granted permission for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Later, the United Nations also gave its approval, and in 1948, the Jews occupied half of Palestinian land and declared the founding of Israel. While Palestine was historically the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, Arabs had also lived there continuously, leading to strong opposition. The creation of Israel forced many Palestinians from their homes, turning them into refugees. In response, neighboring Islamic countries such as Jordan and Egypt attacked Israel in what became known as the First Arab- Israeli War. However, with support from Western powers, Israel emerged victorious. Even after the First Arab Israeli War, conflict continued because Jerusalem, a city sacred to both Judaism and Islam, remained deeply contested. This led to the outbreak of the Second, Third, and Fourth Arab-Israeli Wars. To ease ongoing tensions, the international community proposed the Oslo Accords, which called for a two-state solution allowing Israel and Palestine to share governance over the region. Under the agreement, Israel recognized the West Bank and Gaza Strip as Palestinian territory. However, the peace process collapsed after the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister[FMB1] Yitzhak Rabin at the time, preventing the resolution of disputes between the two sides. As a result of these conflicts, around 5.3 million Palestinians were displaced. Meanwhile, Israel established Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, relocating Israeli citizens into these areas and stationing its military forces there. Outbreak of the War The Palestinian militant group Hamas has long pursued its goal of eliminating Israel through armed struggle and establishing an Islamic state. Hamas opposed the Oslo Accords signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and carried out frequent bomb attacks. During this period, Benjamin Netanyahu, known for his far-right nationalist stance, came to power in Israel, intensifying repression against Palestinians. Jewish settlements expanded, and Palestinians were forcibly removed from Islamic mosques with police intervention. Amid such oppression, on October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, igniting the war in full scale. Progress of the War Hamas fired approximately 2,500 rockets and took more than 100 hostages. In response, Israel officially declared war and launched retaliatory strikes on the Palestinian territory of Gaza. At the same time, Israel cut off the supply of water, electricity, food, and fuel into Gaza, enforcing a blockade. By late October 2023, Israeli ground forces advanced into Gaza, escalating the conflict further. Ceasefire Negotiations and Setbacks As the war dragged on until the end of 2023, heavy civilian casualties and widespread destruction drew mounting international pressure. With mediation from the United States, Egypt, and Qatar, a framework for possible ceasefire talks was established. The first round of negotiations resulted in a one-week ceasefire, followed by a 42-day truce in the second round. However, in March 2025, the ceasefire collapsed after renewed Israeli airstrikes, and subsequent talks failed to narrow the differences between Israel and Hamas. Elimination of Hamas Leadership On May 28, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the death of Mohammed Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza. While this marked a major turning point in the conflict, ceasefire talks mediated by the United States have so far failed to produce an agreement due to deep divisions between the two sides. A Severe Humanitarian Crisis Figure 1 The scene of people struggling to get food handed out by a charity group With the war continuing, supplies of food, water, and medicine to Gaza have been nearly cut off, plunging residents into a dire humanitarian crisis. According to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), one-third of Gaza’s population has gone without food, while 470,000 people are experiencing the most severe phase of famine. Facing intensifying criticism from the international community, the Israeli military, in cooperation with international organizations, carried out an airdrop of humanitarian aid on July 26, 2025. The war between Israel and Hamas is not merely a military conflict but a repetition of long-standing historical disputes and complex interests. Despite the heavy civilian casualties and deepening humanitarian crisis, the gap between the two sides remains unresolved. Although the international community is making efforts to mediate, a clear solution has yet to emerge. This war demonstrates that the issue is not confined to one region but is a global challenge of peace and human rights that require collective attention. As students, we should also pay attention to such international issues and reflect on the importance of peace. Source: https://www.bbc.com/korean/articles/crg1e8xl9v0o https://www.chosun.com/video_photo/2025/04/30/KXUM7YPPEJEGBHE2PNNL4XMJ54/ https://newneek.co/@newneek/article/34384 [FMB1]Maybe add name: Yitzhak Rabin awarded Nobel Peace Prize

• 작성일 2025-09-18
• 좋아요 Like 1

제 26 호 Tariff War

Kicker: WORLD Tariff War By Myung-Kwan Kang, Editor-in-chief Kmmg199999@naver.com Have you ever heard of a tariff war? Since the term "tariff war" is part of the topic, I assume you’ve come across it at least once. In 2018, President Donald Trump initiated a tariff war that shook the global economy. He claimed that the United States would no longer be taken advantage of and imposed tariffs on major foreign trading countries. Let’s take a closer look at the tariff war that began in 2018 and continues to this day. https://kr.pinterest.com/pin/604045368810103943/ Background of the Tariff War The first reason is the rise of U.S. economic protectionism. The United States has been strengthening its protectionist policies to safeguard its domestic industries. This strategy aims to promote job creation and economic growth within the country, particularly by enhancing competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. Such protectionism is intended to raise the prices of foreign goods through the imposition of tariffs, thereby encouraging the consumption of domestically produced products. Secondly, it stems from changes in the global economic order. As globalization has progressed, the world's economies have become increasingly interdependent. However, the United States has pushed back against this trend by advocating an "America First" approach. This has led to shifts in the global economic landscape, prompting other countries to explore various strategies in response. Thirdly, the revision of NAFTA is a significant background factor in the U.S. tariff war. The Trump administration sought to renegotiate NAFTA in order to maximize American interests, which had a major impact on trade relations with Canada and Mexico. These changes increased uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy and contributed to the backdrop of the tariff war. Development of the Tariff War The first major development is the conflict with China. The trade dispute between the United States and China lies at the heart of the tariff war. The U.S. imposed high tariffs on Chinese goods, citing unfair trade practices and intellectual property violations. This has significantly heightened tensions between the two countries and is having a profound impact on the global economy. The second development involves actions against Canada and Mexico. The United States imposed tariffs on both countries as a means of pressure during the renegotiation of NAFTA. These measures had a negative impact on trade relations with Canada and Mexico and served as a wake-up call to America's other trade partners. The third development is the renegotiation of NAFTA. The renegotiation of NAFTA was a key element in the United States' tariff war. The U.S. signed a new agreement called the USMCA, which was designed to further strengthen American interests. This change significantly altered the trade environment in the North American region. Economic Impact The first concern is the potential slowdown of economic growth within the United States. The tariff war may negatively affect the U.S. economy. High tariffs can lead to an increase in consumer prices, which in turn can reduce consumers' purchasing power. This situation may have an adverse impact on economic growth. The second issue is the increasing uncertainty for domestic businesses. Due to the tariff war, domestic companies are facing heightened uncertainty. As unpredictability surrounding imports and exports grows, businesses find it more difficult to make investment decisions. This can negatively impact business growth and employment. The third factor is the variable of interest rate policy. The U.S. tariff policy can also influence the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions. If inflation and economic slowdown occur simultaneously, the Fed will have to carefully consider whether to raise interest rates. This could introduce significant volatility into the financial markets. International Market Reactions The first is volatility in financial markets. The tariff war is having a significant impact on global financial markets. Investors are reallocating their assets amid uncertain conditions, which is increasing volatility in the stock markets. The second is the weakening of international cooperation. The United States' tariff policies are undermining international cooperation. Countries are prioritizing their own national interests, which can jeopardize the stability of the global economy. This situation may further escalate tensions within the international community. The third is the wait-and-see stance of foreign investors. Due to the tariff war, foreign investors are hesitant to invest in the U.S. market. This can undermine confidence in the U.S. economy and may have a negative impact on long-term economic growth. Impact on South Korea First, industry-specific effects. South Korea may be affected in various industries due to the U.S. tariff war. In particular, the automotive and electronics industries, which have a significant presence in the U.S. market, are facing concerns over rising prices caused by imposed tariffs. Second, diplomatic posture. In this situation, South Korea must strengthen its diplomatic posture. While maintaining strong relations with the United States, it is also important to enhance cooperation with China and other countries. This is essential for protecting South Korea's economic interests. Third, demand for economic reform. The tariff war has exposed structural problems within the South Korean economy. South Korea should take this opportunity to pursue economic reform, which will contribute to long-term growth. The tariff war that began in 2018 under the Trump administration has reshaped the global trade landscape. What initially appeared to be a domestic protectionist policy quickly escalated into a worldwide economic conflict, affecting major economies including China, Canada, Mexico, and even close allies like South Korea. While the United States aimed to strengthen its own economic standing, the ripple effects of its aggressive tariff strategy have led to market volatility, weakened international cooperation, and heightened uncertainty for businesses and investors alike. For countries like South Korea, the tariff war has served as both a challenge and a wake-up call—highlighting the need for diplomatic agility and structural economic reform. As the global economy continues to adapt to new trade dynamics, it is essential for nations to strike a balance between protecting national interests and upholding the principles of open and cooperative trade. Ultimately, the tariff war underscores the complex interdependence of the modern global economy—where unilateral actions can trigger far-reaching consequences, and long-term stability relies on collaborative solutions. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4atXqHkjWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg_lbTqrWr8 https://blog.naver.com/mastermindchoi/223790317670 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR7yaHTMilk https://kr.pinterest.com/pin/362258363796824018/

• 작성일 2025-06-04
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 26 호 India-Pakistan Clashes: The Unending Struggle Over Kashmir

Kicker: WORLD India-Pakistan Clashes: The Unending Struggle Over Kashmir By Ji-Won Choi, Reporter support0321@naver.com 그림1 A Kashmiri resident inspecting a house damaged by shelling. On May 7, 2025, a new war broke out between India and Pakistan in the Kashmir region, which had been under a ceasefire for 36 years. Kashmir is a strategically important area where the borders of India, Pakistan, and China converge. India was established as a Hindu-majority state, while Pakistan was founded as an Islamic state. Although the majority of Kashmir's population is Muslim, the region was incorporated into India due to the decision of its Hindu ruler. The Kashmir conflict is not merely a territorial dispute but a complex issue intertwined with religious and cultural tensions, and it remains unresolved to this day. This article aims to explore the historical background of the Kashmir conflict and the recent developments surrounding it.. Beginning of the Conflict In 1947, India gained independence from British colonial rule, emerging as a nation with a diverse mix of ethnicities and religions. At that time, tensions between Hindus and Muslims escalated, ultimately leading to the partition of India into a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. The borders between the two newly formed nations were drawn without sufficient consideration of ethnic and religious demographics. Kashmir, located along the border between India and Pakistan, had a population that was approximately 75% Muslim, but it was ruled by a Hindu monarch. As tensions between India and Pakistan grew, Pakistan claimed Kashmir as its own territory and launched an attack, triggering the First Indo-Pakistani War. However, the conflict was halted in 1949 when a ceasefire was brokered by the United Nations. Continuation of the Conflict After the ceasefire, Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan; however, both nations continued to claim sovereignty over the entire region. Pakistan argued that since the majority of the Kashmiri population was Muslim, the territory rightfully belonged to them. On the other hand, India maintained that Kashmir was lawfully ceded to it by the region’s Hindu monarch. In this tense atmosphere, the Second Indo-Pakistani War broke out in 1965. Pakistan received support from the United States, while India was backed by the Soviet Union, turning the war into a proxy conflict during the Cold War. After five weeks of fighting, the United Nations intervened and brokered another ceasefire. As a result, the borders returned to their pre-war status. In 1971, the Third Indo-Pakistani War erupted—not in Kashmir, but in East Pakistan. At the time, Pakistan was divided into East and West regions, with West Pakistan dominating politically and economically. East Pakistan demanded independence, but West Pakistan responded with brutal military suppression. As a result, around 10 million refugees fled to India and hundreds of thousands were killed. India intervened in support of the East Pakistani independence movement. Eventually, East Pakistan gained independence and became the present-day Bangladesh. This defeat intensified Pakistan’s determination to reclaim Kashmir, prompting its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In 1998, both India and Pakistan officially declared themselves as nuclear-armed states, escalating the Kashmir dispute into a potential nuclear flashpoint. Conflicts After Nuclear Armament The first war following nuclear armament was the Fourth Indo-Pakistani War. Taking advantage of the Indian army’s withdrawal, Pakistani forces secretly occupied the highlands of the Kargil region in Kashmir. Once the Indian military discovered the incursion, they launched a counteroffensive, triggering the war. India managed to recapture most of the occupied territory. Under strong pressure from the United States and the international community, Pakistan eventually withdrew, and the conflict ended after two months. However, the underlying tensions remained unresolved and only deepened. Islamist militant groups based in Pakistan carried out multiple terrorist attacks targeting mainland India. Cycles of terrorism, crackdowns, and retaliations continued, keeping tensions high between the two countries. Development of the 2025 Kashmir Crisis The current crisis began with a terrorist attack on April 22. Near Pahalgam, a well-known tourist destination in Kashmir, a militant group killed 26 tourists. Before opening fire, the attackers reportedly demanded that the victims recite an Islamic prayer, and those who failed to do so were executed. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed that Pakistan was behind the attack and vowed a strong retaliation. The most severe response was India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, signed in 1960. The treaty prohibits India, which controls the upper reaches of the Indus River in Kashmir, from interfering with the river’s flow. Since Pakistan obtains about 80% of its water supply from tributaries of the Indus, halting the treaty would put Pakistan at risk of a severe water crisis. In response, Pakistan denied involvement in the Kashmir attack and declared that the suspension of the treaty was effectively an act of war. While minor skirmishes occurred during India’s pursuit of the terrorists, no major military clashes initially took place. However, on May 7, India launched “Operation Sindhur,” carrying out 24 airstrikes on militant facilities located in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In retaliation, Pakistan conducted missile strikes on Indian-administered Kashmir and shot down five Indian fighter jets. On May 10, with the mediation of U.S. President Donald Trump, both sides agreed to a ceasefire. The Kashmir conflict is more than a mere territorial dispute; it is a complex international security threat intertwined with religious and historical tensions, as well as the presence of nuclear weapons. Although a ceasefire agreement has been reached, the recent terrorist attacks and military clashes suggest that full-scale war could erupt at any moment. Therefore, diplomatic solutions and continued mediation by the international community are essential in order to develop a peaceful resolution acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Sourses: https://www.imaeil.com/page/view/2025051814482328198 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwy_vBs3j5A https://www.chosun.com/kid/kid_history/2025/05/12/DFJOPZATWNHIDOI4A3FU2GLZ3M/

• 작성일 2025-06-02
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 25 호 Korea’s Forex Reserves Hit: Impact on Students and the Economy

Kicker: Economy Korea’s Forex Reserves Hit: Impact on Students and the Economy By Sol-Mi Lim, Cub-reporter imsolver4@gmail.com 그림1 Trend of Foreign Exchange Reserves South Korea’s foreign exchange reserves have fallen to their lowest level in 4 years and 7 months, raising concerns about the country's financial stability. As foreign exchange reserves serve as a buffer against economic shocks and play a crucial role in stabilizing the financial system, a decline of this magnitude warrants close attention. This article examines the key factors behind this trend and its broader implications.This phenomenon is poised to permeate every facet of daily existence. Factors Behind the Decline in Foreign Exchange Reserves One of the primary reasons for the decrease is the government’s intervention in the foreign exchange market. In an effort to curb excessive volatility in the Korean won, authorities have been selling U.S. dollars to stabilize the currency. While such measures help prevent sharp exchange rate fluctuations, they inevitably lead to a reduction in the country’s foreign exchange reserves. Additionally, the foreign exchange swap between the National Pension Service and the Bank of Korea has influenced the reserves. As part of efforts to secure liquidity for overseas investments, the National Pension Service has engaged in foreign exchange swaps with the central bank, effectively reallocating a portion of the reserves to these transactions. Another contributing factor is the outflow of foreign investment from the domestic market. Rising interest rates in the United States have made dollar-denominated assets more attractive to global investors, prompting capital withdrawals from South Korean stocks and bonds. This capital flight has placed additional pressure on the Korean won and contributed to the overall decline in foreign exchange reserves. The reduction in foreign currency deposits held by financial institutions has also played a role. As demand for the U.S. dollar has increased, financial institutions have drawn down their foreign currency deposits, further depleting the nation’s reserve holdings. Economic Implications and Future Outlook The decline in foreign exchange reserves carries significant economic implications. A lower reserve level can limit the government’s ability to respond to external financial shocks, increasing market uncertainty. In particular, a weakened won raises the cost of imports, which could lead to higher inflation and greater financial burdens on consumers. Concerns over financial stability may also impact investor confidence. If South Korea’s foreign exchange reserves continue to decline, credit rating agencies and international markets may reassess the country’s economic resilience, potentially leading to higher borrowing costs for both the government and private sector. To mitigate these risks, policymakers must carefully balance currency stabilization efforts while ensuring sufficient reserve levels to maintain economic security. Impact on University Students While foreign exchange reserves may seem like a macroeconomic issue, their fluctuations have tangible consequences for university students. A weaker won leads to higher prices for imported goods, increasing the cost of daily necessities such as food, electronics, and fuel. For students planning to study abroad, unfavorable exchange rates could make tuition fees and living expenses significantly more expensive. The job market is also likely to be affected. Sectors that benefit from a weaker currency, such as export-driven industries including semiconductors and automobiles, may see increased hiring. Conversely, industries reliant on imports or foreign investment could face financial challenges, potentially limiting employment opportunities for graduates. In light of these economic shifts, students may need to adjust their financial planning and stay informed about market trends to better navigate the changing economic landscape. Proactive budgeting and awareness of industry developments will be essential in responding to the broader implications of foreign exchange fluctuations. From a policy perspective, a sustained decline in reserves could lead to higher borrowing costs for both the government and private sector, as credit rating agencies assess a country’s reserve adequacy when determining sovereign risk. Studies have shown that countries with lower foreign exchange reserves tend to experience higher exchange rate volatility, which can amplify inflationary pressures by increasing the cost of imports. This is particularly relevant in Korea, where imported raw materials play a critical role in key industries, including semiconductor manufacturing and energy production. In response to this, economic policymakers must strike a balance between stabilizing the currency and preserving reserve adequacy. The Bank of Korea has emphasized the need for prudent reserve management while continuing to monitor global financial conditions. For students and young professionals, adapting to these economic shifts requires financial awareness and strategic planning. Understanding exchange rate trends, considering scholarship opportunities for studying abroad, and seeking employment in export-driven industries could serve as practical measures to mitigate the adverse effects of currency fluctuations. Going forward, Korea’s ability to manage its foreign exchange reserves effectively will play a crucial role in maintaining financial stability and economic resilience. Source: https://www.bok.or.kr/portal/main/contents.do?menuNo=200411

• 작성일 2025-03-13
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 24 호 United States Forces Korea and the Korea-U.S. Alliance

Kicker: World United States Forces Korea and the Korea-U.S. Alliance by Si-ho Park, Editor pnshse05@naver.com The US military has been stationed in South Korea since the time of the US military government that was established between 1945-1948. According to the results of the three Moscow summits, the US military government in South Korea was implemented. During the Korean War, it was stationed under the name of the United Nations to repel communist forces. Since the Armistice Agreement, it has been stationed to cope with security threats on the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. Let's take a deeper look at the detailed contents of United States Forces Korea (USFK) with Colonel Marvin Haynes, the Deputy Director for Plans, Policy, and Strategy at USFK. He studied together with Professor Samuel Alexander Denny, a professor of English Education at Sangmyung University, in the University of Hawaii MA Program for East Asian Studies. What a small world it is! the picture of Col. Haynes from the Mr. D’s special lecture with Dr. Kim on July 24th ROK-U.S. Alliance and United States Forces Korea (USFK) Throughout history, alliances between nations have formed when those countries have aligned interests. The closer those interests align, the stronger the alliance. The core values of the United States line up very closely with those of an independent, democratic, and economically blooming Republic of Korea, including the provision and maintenance of peninsula and regional security enabling free trade throughout the global community. The importance of the alliance is three-fold: 1) over the course of multiple conflicts, South Korea and the U.S. forged a partnership in blood that binds them at an emotional level; 2) the two economies are intricately intertwined in such a way that if one succeeds both succeed, a true win-win situation; and 3) the presence of a strong, capable, and ready allied military force in South Korea acts as a deterrent to those nations or non-state actors desiring to upend the rules-based international order for their own gain or simply to bring down those nations which are succeeding. Based on this ROK-U.S. alliance, United States Forces Korea (USFK) currently resides at Camp Humphreys, South Korea, the largest U.S. Army base located outside of the United States. USFK is a sub-unified command of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) stationed at Oahu, Hawaii. This essentially means that the USFK is a subordinate command to that larger regional headquarters and maintains authority and responsibility for all U.S. forces stationed or otherwise operating on the Korean Peninsula. More than anything the presence of U.S. Forces within the alliance, specifically those stationed here in the Republic of Korea, signals the close diplomatic, economic, and military relationship the two nations share. Historically, the U.S. and Republic of Korea have physically shed blood together battling against the aggressive actions of communist nations seeking to snuff out the democratic South in 1950, and worked to provide terms of continued and enduring support to the established rules-based international order. As well, from a military point of view, the presence of the U.S. signals a willingness to once more stand beside the ROK in arms to defend the people and institutions of this wonderful nation against any form of external aggression. The presence of the U.S. in the ROK reminds potential adversaries that the Republic of Korea has a powerful friend—close at hand—contributing to a deterrent effect upon potential actions intended to harm this country. The United Nations Command takes that a step further in reminding potential adversaries that the Republic of Korea has many powerful friends from around the world, ready and willing to lend material support in times of crisis. UNC, CFC, and USFK: How Are They Different? Combined Forces Command (CFC) is the ROK-US headquarters element that would direct military operations in the case of crisis or contingency on the Korean Peninsula. It is first and foremost a wartime command and control element that during the Armistice develops and revises operational planning and does everything it can to facilitate the shift to combat operations should the need arise. CFC has no forces of its own but would be provided operational control over military forces provided by the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff, United States Forces Korea, and the United Nations Command. United States Forces Korea (USFK) has many roles, including the day-to-day management of the ROK-US alliance, and providing U.S. Forces and support to the Combined Forces Command in case of a crisis or contingency. United Nations Command (UNC) commanded all allied forces during the Korean War but passed that role on to the CFC. Today, the United Nations Command acts as a force provider to the CFC in the event of crisis or contingency, but also provides significant messaging and diplomatic support from the 18 UNC member states as well as many others through various multinational partnerships with those nations (ASEAN, NATO, etc.). Finally, UNC provides international legitimacy to the defense of the Republic of Korea, in accordance with numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions and the shared understanding by democratic nations of how a rules-based order does and should function. Other Stories from Marvin Haynes about His Korean Life Marvin Haynes, a Colonel in the USFK, began his career as a Field Artillery Officer but transitioned to the Foreign Area Officer Corps in 2002. In total, he has spent over nine years in the Republic of Korea at various postings going back to the first in 1995. He is currently the Deputy Director for Plans, Policy, and Strategy at USFK, a position he has held since January 2023. He has always found it to be a positive experience to live in other countries, frankly, with very few negative incidents over the course of nearly a decade. It’s always hard living in another country; especially one that is culturally so different from the one in which you are raised. He has always felt that nobody in the world can actually see their own culture until they’ve lived in another. Not merely visited, as that experience is simply too transitory to make an impact, but physically lived in another country. Then and only then can you truly appreciate the ‘why’ behind how you perceive things, and how that perception can be altered when viewed through others’ eyes and other cultural norms. He says everyone should live in another country for a while and Korea is as good a choice as any and better than most! He says that he loves all the things in Korea, from the lively exchange of people on the street and in restaurants to the technical ingenuity and advancements daily on display here. He generally finds the Korean approach to solving problems to be pragmatic and commonsensical, important to him given the types of jobs he has been assigned to over the years. Finally, he loves the respect shown to the elderly, the grandmothers and grandfathers who endured so much to gift us the wonderfully flourishing Korea of today. They went through more societal and economic change in a shorter period of time, perhaps, than any comparable people anywhere or at any time in history and we should take special care of them in their waning years. Finally, I would like to deliver a message from Colonel Haynes to our students. I hope you recognize the importance of the opportunity to get an education that you have. He says that “education” is a means, not an end. It can provide the tools needed to achieve success—however one might define success—but simply sitting in class doesn’t guarantee anything. The diploma isn’t magical. Those among you who can take the tools Sangmyung gives you and then energetically put them into practice in the world outside the walls of this institution are those most likely to achieve their goals. The ability to study is a blessing. Never forget that. It’s not a given everywhere in the world, but there are a good many people working hard and even sacrificing every day to ensure that future generations have the freedom to pursue higher education, making yourselves, your families, your communities, and your country better in the process. One shouldn’t take the opportunity for granted.

• 작성일 2024-11-27
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 23 호 APEC vs. IPEF: Shift from Asia-Pacific Strategy to Indo-Pacific Strategy

Kicker: World APEC vs. IPEF: Shift from Asia-Pacific Strategy to Indo-Pacific Strategy by Si-ho Park, Reporter pnshse05@naver.com In line with recent changes in the international situation, the importance of the Asia-Pacific strategy is gradually changing to the Indo-Pacific strategy. This change is based on various political and diplomatic causes, and this is well seen in the shift from APEC to IPEF. Then, let's find out together what the difference between these two economic cooperation organizations is and what the exact cause will be. APEC vs. IPEF: What Are They? The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a regional economic forum established in 1989 to leverage the growing interdependence of the Asia-Pacific. APEC's 21 members aim to create greater prosperity for the people of the region by promoting balanced, inclusive, sustainable, innovative, and secure growth and by accelerating regional economic integration. APEC has 21 members. The word 'economies' describes APEC members because the APEC cooperative process is predominantly concerned with trade and economic issues, with members engaging with one another as economic entities. APEC ensures that goods, services, investments, and people move easily across borders. Members facilitate this trade through faster customs procedures at borders; more favorable business climates behind the border; and aligning regulations and standards across the region. For example, APEC's initiatives to synchronize regulatory systems are key to integrating the Asia-Pacific economy. In such cases, a product can be more easily exported with just one set of common standards across all economies. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) is an economic framework launched by the United States in May 2022, with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. This framework will advance resilience, sustainability, inclusiveness, economic growth, fairness, and competitiveness for our economies. Through this initiative, the IPEF partners aim to contribute to cooperation, stability, prosperity, development, and peace within the region. This framework will offer tangible benefits that fuel economic activity and investment, promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth, and benefit workers and consumers across the region. The 14 IPEF partners represent 40 percent of global GDP and 28 percent of international goods and services trade. The launch began discussions of future negotiations on the following pillars: (1) Trade; (2) Supply Chains; (3) Clean Energy, Decarbonization, and Infrastructure; and (4) Tax and Anti-Corruption. The IPEF is designed to be flexible, meaning that IPEF partners are not required to join all four pillars. APEC vs. IPEF: What Are the Differences? Both APEC and IPEF are designed to promote economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. However, APEC was created in the late 1980s to coordinate competition and conflict over each country's economic interests and to share growth and prosperity through regional economic cooperation, whereas IPEF began in the 2020s with a feeling of the need to maintain the U.S. influence and lead a new economic cooperation system in the Indo-Pacific region while China's economic influence is expanding. Furthermore, with global supply chains unstable due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the IPEF was created based on the need for cooperation to stabilize the regional supply chain. APEC promotes the expansion of trade and investment in the region as a principle of economic cooperation and expands cooperation in trade, investment, technology, infrastructure, and the environment. However, as the IPEF was established more recently, it seeks to lead a new system of economic cooperation. The IPEF's main goal is to establish a comprehensive economic cooperation system for new trade issues that have not been addressed by the existing multilateral trading system, such as stabilizing supply chains, high-tech industries, digital trade, and energy. It also aims to check China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region based on this economic alliance system. From Asia-Pacific Strategy to Indo-Pacific Strategy The global value chain has changed with time. After 1949, an alliance-oriented value chain was pursued to block the Soviet Union. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a global value chain was established based on the logic of efficiency. At that time, the international economy was separated from ideology and political systems, and active investment was made between the United States and China. However, as China's hegemony has recently grown, and has damaged the free market by technology takeover etc., the United States is starting to impose sanctions on this aspect. Thus, the U.S. began to pursue the "trust value chain" to prevent China's influence from expanding further. The United States established the IPEF to form regional alliances, deviating from the Asia-Pacific strategy to counter China's military and economic threats. Through this, the United States seeks to weaken the existing China-led agreement and come up with joint countermeasures with allies and strategic partners. In other words, the IPEF was established following the restructuring of the supply chain in the United States, which is changing from free trade to friend-shoring based on the U.S.-China trade conflict. “Friend-shoring” refers to the practice of shifting trade and supply chain networks towards countries that are geopolitics allies, sharing similar political values, economic policies, and security interests. The U.S. wants to localize strategic supplies in response to COVID-19 and strengthen the supply chain in the U.S. related to infrastructure through the Invest in America Act. Through the IPEF, the U.S. is trying to reorganize its global supply chain and expand its influence. In line with these changes, the U.S.-China trade conflict is intensifying, and the polarization of alliances is becoming more pronounced even within Asia. Here are two questions that would drive your deep thinking. How will the importance of Asia change in the future? How should Korea cope with these changes in the international situation and economic consultative body? For Korea to gain a stronger position amid change, we would have to play a major role in the IPEF, increase its influence in the Indo-Pacific region, and make efforts to become a global hub. Sources: https://www.apec.org/ https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/indo-pacific-economic-framework-prosperity-ipef https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-friend-shoring-new-era-trade-recipe-fragmentation-santosh-g-y4ncc#:~:text=Friend%2Dshoring%20refers%20to%20the,economic%20policies%2C%20and%20security%20interests.

• 작성일 2024-09-09
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 23 호 2024 Paris Olympics: Is It Eco-friendly?

Kicker: WORLD 2024 Paris Olympics: Is It Eco-friendly? By Su-Young Kim, Editor /kimsuyoung1342@gmail.com The 2024 Paris Olympics were held for about two weeks from July 24 to August 12.Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo expressed strong confidence in running the eco-friendly Olympics with the keyword "Green Olympics" for the French Olympics. The goal is not to emit more than 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and on average, about 3.5 million tons have been emitted at the Summer Olympics so far. To this end, equestrian events will be held at the Palace of Versailles, beach volleyball matches will be held in front of the Eiffel Tower, and only one new place will be built for the event at the Olympics. 95% of the stadiums were selected using existing facilities or temporary facilities. picture1https://biz.chosun.com/science-chosun/science/2024/07/28/G4WMJ2SSNRHR3I7N4AQ2LEK2YI/ The 2024 Paris Olympics, Paralympics were the first international sporting event to meet the zero-carbon goals set by the International Olympic Committee, showing a strong commitment to halving the carbon footprint and offsetting more than the carbon emitted compared to the 2012 and 2016 Games. According to organizers, about 1.58 million tons of carbon dioxide are expected to be emitted at the 2024 Olympics and Paralympics compared to 2012 when 3.4 million tons were emitted and 2016 when 3.6 million tons were emitted. In addition to numerous sustainable initiatives related to movement, construction, accommodation and dining, voluntary contribution programs will also be in place to offset the inevitable emissions. The program is based on carbon impact measurement tools. All selected programs, including those already in place, will be distributed across the five continents that meet the highest certification criteria. The 2024 Paris Olympics, Paralympics chose to save 95% of its facilities, relying on existing facilities or temporary facilities such as the Grand Palais Épémere in de Mars, where judo and wheelchair rugby are held. This would be a good way to reduce the carbon footprint while making the most of the building assets and heritage by reducing infrastructure construction, and beautiful structures would be the most special stage decoration in Paris. It also aims to provide renewable electricity to all the Olympic venues. Organizers said they prefer wind and solar power over fossil fuels. Energy produced in other regions using a "guarantee of origin" system valid throughout the European Union would be used on days without windy and sunny weather. However, despite these French efforts and plans, questions continue to be raised about whether an eco-friendly Olympics is possible. Paris has built a new 415-kilometer bicycle lane so that you can travel from all corners of the city with only one bicycle, even outside the stadium, and has increased the course and frequency of subway operations to revitalize public transportation. Unfortunately, these preparations emit more carbon dioxide. Therefore, it is said that it is green washing that is not actually for the environment but is engaged in related activities to have an eco-friendly image only on the outside. This is not the first controversy over greenwashing in an international sports competition. After hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics, then-President Putin promised the best eco-friendly Olympics ever, but it was revealed that land and buildings were newly built with a huge budget and waste was illegally reclaimed. In addition, FIFA's 2022 Qatar World Cup used 10,000 liters of water every day for grass management, calling it the first carbon-neutral competition, and an ironic situation occurred in which the environment was destroyed while desalinating to supply such water. In addition to the environmental aspect, the athletes who participated in the competition were also dissatisfied. For eco-friendly preparations, the U.S. men's basketball team boycotted the accommodation of the Paris Olympic Village on a cardboard bed in an air-conditioned room. Instead, it spent about $15 million to rent the entire luxury hotel in the city. Athletes were dissatisfied with the Paris Olympics, which advocates eco-friendly carbon zero. The vegetarian diet on offer was also a complaint for athletes who needed protein such as meat and eggs to do a lot of hard-working exercise. picture2https://www.mk.co.kr/news/world/10954524 I have always thought of the Olympics as a "festival of joyous people around the world," but it puts a lot of pressure on the environment to prepare and hold the festival, so I learned that the host countries are trying to make an eco-friendly way with the slogan of the Green Olympics. I think it is better to develop than to act irresponsibly without paying attention to the environment at all, but I think there is a need for a more certain policy that will be able to satisfy the needs and concerns of all the athletes who participate. Sources:https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/c57e73b44db3ab8368bb08fc6c86c6a1 https://kidd.co.kr/news/237691 https://v.daum.net/v/20221123043217546

• 작성일 2024-09-09
• 좋아요 Like 0

제 22 호 TikTok Ban in the U.S.

Kicker: WORLD TikTok Ban in the U.S. by Si-ho Park, Reporter pnshse05@naver.com With TikTok facing its biggest existential crisis in the U.S., the world has been in an uproar over this issue. TikTok supporters protested outside the U.S. capitol and countless TikTok-reliant brands, who have used the video app to boost their sales, were trembling with anxiety. Amid the controversy, a bill to ban the short-form video app, unless it does not sell to an American company, was finally approved. Opinions are still divided on whether this bill is really necessary for the national security of the United States, or if it is an excessive suppression of freedom of expression. So why and how was the bill enacted? What changes will this make to TikTok users in the United States, TikTok, and other companies? Let's take a closer look at this issue. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240426-the-ghosts-of-indias-tiktok-social-media-ban Why and How Was the TikTok Bill Enacted? The official name of the U.S. TikTok bill is “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” As the name of the bill suggests, national security is the cause of the ban on TikTok in the United States. Then, how is TikTok affecting the U.S. national security? Many in the U.S. voice concerns that ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, is leaking sensitive dataof 150 million users in the U.S. They argue that ByteDance can hand over user information to the Chinese government based on Chinese law that allows the Chinese government to secretly demand data from Chinese companies and citizens for intelligence-gathering operations. They also worry that China could manipulate TikTok algorithms in content recommendations, fueling misinformation about the U.S. presidential election, the Israel-Hamas war, or any other crucial issues. The TikTok bill was passed directly by the Senate on April 23, 2024, after the U.S. House of Representatives passed it by a landslide on April 13. The bill was finalized when President Biden immediately signed it on April 24. TikTok’s Response and Effective Date of the TikTok Ban The Chinese government and ByteDance are saying they will not sell TikTok, and TikTok released a statement on X. “This unconstitutional law is a TikTok ban, and we will challenge it in court,” the statement reads. “We believe the facts and the law are clearly on our side, and we will ultimately prevail.” The statement noted that the ban would “devastate seven million businesses and silence 170 million Americans.” The original proposal gave ByteDance just six months to divest from its U.S. subsidiary, but negotiations lengthened it to nine. Then, if the sale is already in progress, the company will get another three months to complete it. Therefore, it would be at least a year before the ban goes into effect – but as it said directly, TikTok has sued the federal government, and it may take months or years to resolve the issue between TikTok and the U.S. government. The Potential Impact on TikTok and Other Companies or Communities As seen in the chart below, the United States is TikTok's biggest market, and if TikTok is banned in the U.S., the damage will be enormous. However, what makes the problem more serious is that this damage will not be limited to TikTok, and many companies and influencers who use TikTok as a marketing tool are also expected to suffer. According to a March 2024 Oxford Economics report, which surveyed 1,050 small business owners and 7,500 TikTok users, over seven million businesses use TikTok to promote their products. More than half the respondents to the study said TikTok has helped them reach a new audience that they wouldn’t have otherwise been able to tap into, while 45% of those surveyed said a “meaningful portion of their business’ success and/or growth is directly attributable to their TikTok marketing efforts.” Not only companies but also individuals are expected to be affected by the TikTok ban. TikTok is an essential place for marginalized groups, such as disabled people, or social issues, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, to get attention from many people. Disability rights activists are building a community and getting lots of support through TikTok. Also, Ukrainians are informing the situation in their country, expressing their hopes of stopping the war, and calling for U.S. and world attention and support by uploading a short video to TikTok. Thus, there are concerns that the U.S. TikTok bill will weaken their influence. Countries with the largest TikTok audience as of April 2023 (in millions) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1299807/number-of-monthly-unique-tiktok-users/ Precedent of India’s TikTok Ban There are lots of controversies over this bill since the U.S. is an influential country, but the TikTok ban is not only implemented by the U.S. There are so many countries that have banned TikTok from the public sector or official devices, and India, which was one of the biggest markets of TikTok but banned it nationwide like the U.S., has drawn the most attention. TikTok was one of India’s most popular apps until it was banned in 2020. There were 200 million TikTok users in India, but the border skirmish between China and India led the Indian government to ban the app. There was lots of backlash in India because TikTok was a channel for people with low socio-economic status to access news. However, with the TikTok ban, many Indian startups enjoyed new business opportunities. Of course, many alternatives such as Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts already exist in the U.S., so this will not be the case in the U.S., but as many people are using TikTok, there are still many opinions that banning it violates freedom of expression. Now, it’s your turn to think about it. Is the TikTok ban in the U.S. an overregulation that violates freedom of expression, or is it justifiably necessary for national security? Was there any other way to stop the leakage of information to China without banning it? I hope this article was an opportunity for the readers to learn a lot about this issue and think about it in various ways. Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/article/tiktok-ban.html https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/05/tiktok-ban-algorithm-decline https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/14/which-countries-have-banned-tiktok-cybersecurity-data-privacy-espionage-fears https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/25/business/bytedance-denies-reports-selling-tiktok-intl-hnk/index.html https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-divestment-ban-what-you-need-to-know-5e1ff786e89da10a1b799241ae025406 https://time.com/6971589/tiktok-ban-creators-react/ https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240426-the-ghosts-of-indias-tiktok-social-media-ban

• 작성일 2024-06-04
• 좋아요 Like 0