December 7, 2021
China Uncovered


We are excited to announce the second season of the China Uncovered podcast is now available on Acast <[link removed]>, Apple Podcasts <[link removed]>, Spotify <[link removed]>, or your favorite podcast app. In this podcast, Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Olivia Enos hosts representatives of world-class data projects to discuss how their projects are shining a spotlight on the Chinese Communist Party’s actions and emerging trends from their data.
*NEW EPISODE!*: we released our sixth episode: Tracking the CCP's Efforts to Undermine Democracy featuring Etienne Soula <[link removed]>. Stay tuned for our season finale on December 20!
Korea Peace Declaration Wouldn't Secure Real Peace
Despite North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons buildup and provocations, South Korean President Moon Jae-in is trying to convince the United States to declare an end to the Korean War. While the 1950-53 war seems a relic of the past, North Korea today poses a very real security threat. In his waning months in office, President Moon is
increasingly desperate to jump-start dialogue with the recalcitrant Kim regime and secure his legacy as a peacemaker on the Korean Peninsula. President Biden should reject Mr. Moon’s entreaties while continuing to highlight the importance of the bilateral alliance to deter North Korean adventurism.



Heritage Senior Research Fellow Bruce Klingner writes <[link removed]> that a peace declaration would be a feel-good diplomatic gesture, an empty promise based on dangerous naïveté that did nothing to improve the security situation on the Korean Peninsula. It would only provide a vague hope of improving inter-Korean relations and persuading Pyongyang to less belligerent behavior. There is a real downside, however, to this simplistic, non-binding diplomatic gesture. A peace declaration could have serious negative consequences for alliance security by creating a false sense of security. Declaring peace prior to addressing the real threat to peace—North Korea’s nuclear and conventional forces—could generate a domino-effect advocacy for prematurely reducing U.S. deterrence and defense capabilities that protect America’s allies in the region.

North Korea’s continued refusal to engage in dialogue should not induce the U.S. and South Korea to rush to yet another bad agreement with Pyongyang. The Korean landscape is already littered with the detritus of failed and broken pacts. In addition, the United States has provided non-hostility declarations and promises not to attack North Korea with either conventional or nuclear weapons. Those declarations had no impact on Pyongyang’s aggressive behavior or production of nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that a peace declaration would have any greater effect on North Korean behavior than those previous efforts.

A proper peace treaty ending the Korean War should instead require reduction and redeployment of North Korea’s massive array of artillery and maneuver units that are offensively deployed near South Korea. It also should include confidence-building and security-building measures, a comprehensive verification regime, and be conditioned on tangible progress toward North Korea denuclearization.

While the armistice provided the framework for peace, it has been the presence of strong South Korean and U.S. military forces that actually guaranteed the peace. Washington and Seoul should continue efforts at dialogue, but neither should risk degrading the shield which has protected America’s allies and strategic interests.
Improving the NDAA for FY2022
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year (FY) 2022 has passed with wide bipartisan margins—by 316 to 113 votes in the House of Representatives. Once the Senate acts, lawmakers will have to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill.

Both versions share one laudable characteristic: They increase the resources dedicated to the national defense and thus allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to prepare for better deterrence of conflict with China and Russia. As the new 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength reports, more attention and resources are needed in order for the U.S. Armed Forces to develop the capabilities required to counter the threats posed by U.S. adversaries abroad.


The NDAA should narrowly focus on the areas that increase the nation’s military capability, capacity, and readiness. Congress took an important step in that direction by funding most of the unfunded priorities submitted by the senior officers in each of the Services. This action suggests that Congress recognizes the insufficiency of the initial budget request submitted by President Joe Biden. However, there are still some important issues to be resolved. Click here <[link removed]> to read The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder highlighting the important provisions in both versions of the NDAA that lawmakers should emphasize.

-