This chapter addresses the complex interplay that must exist between actors who are motivated to promote peace and the intersectional terrain of on-the-ground peacebuilding. There are multiple difficulties of definition and interpretation associated with “peace leadership,” as underscored by Paul Boyer in his review of the Harold Josephson’s Biographical Dictionary of Modern Peace Leaders. A post-liberal, or emancipatory peace would originate in the needs and wishes of subordinate groups and “transform structures of social stratification”. As a self-perpetuating loop or system of discourse and practice, liberal peacebuilding, needs to be disrupted by scholarly interventions such as ours that recast the South Korean student movement in terms of emancipatory peace. Leaders of South Korea and the international community have long conflated peace with stability in North–South relations for all practical purposes. The lack of social consensus on the division of Korea thus necessitated the development of robust state apparatuses of surveillance and repression throughout the Cold War period.