NAPSNet Daily Report 03 May, 2000

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 03 May, 2000", NAPSNet Daily Report, May 03, 2000, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-03-may-2000/

 
CONTENTS

I. United States

1. Future US-DPRK Relations
2. Third Inter-Korean Summit Preparatory Talk
3. US – DPRK Talks
4. Trilateral Consultations
5. Japanese Constitutional Revisions
6. Future Missile Threats and US Plans for NMD
II. Republic of Korea 1. DPRK-ROK Summit
2. DPRK Refugees in PRC
3. Korean War Massacre

I. United States

1. Future US-DPRK Relations

The Christian Science Monitor (“Justin Brown, “THAWING US POLICY ON AN ASIA DANGER SPOT,” Washington, 5/3/00, P.2) reported that the inter-Korean summit scheduled for June could change the diplomatic dynamic between the US and the DPRK and ease tensions on the Korean peninsula. It could also bolster the US Clinton administration’s dealings with the DPRK. Donald Gregg, head of the Korea Society in New York, stated, “the symbolism of the meeting is very strong. If the summit goes well, there might be some spillover [to US-DPRK relations].” Gregg, US ambassador to the ROK from 1989 to 1993, added, “I’m reluctant to give the president (Bill Clinton) credit. But in this case the [US administration’s approach] is doing quite well.” However, key issues such as the DPRK’s missile program, reports of missiles sales to other rogue nations by the DPRK, and the DPRK’s plutonium production are concerns that US officials take seriously. William Drennen, a DPRK expert at the US Institute for Peace argued that even if the DPRK halts missile tests and plutonium production, the US must maintain a tough military stance. He added, “we still don’t have a clear sign that there will be an end to hostilities.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for May 3, 2000.]

2. Third Inter-Korean Summit Preparatory Talk

Agence France Presse (“TWO KOREAS CLOSE TO AGREEMENT ON SUMMIT PROCEDURE AND AGENDA,” Panmunjom, 5/3/00) and the Associated Press (Kyong-Hwa Seok, “KOREAS CLOSER TO AGENDA FOR SUMMIT,” Panmunjom, 5/3/00) reported that ROK officials said Wednesday at the end of a third round of preparatory talks that the DPRK and the ROK were on the verge of confirming the procedure and broad agenda for the inter-Korean summit. They said final agreement was expected next week. ROK chief delegate Yang Young-Shik said, “at today’s talks, the two sides each presented a draft agreement and deliberated on the drafts.” ROK Unification Minister Park Jae-Kyu said there were only some “slight differences” in the wording of the two drafts and both sides agreed on key issues. ROK Ministry spokesman Lee Kwan-Se said, “we’ll make our best efforts to sign an agreement at the fourth round of talks,” next week. ROK officials said the signing of the agreement on procedural matters and a basic agenda will be followed by detailed discussions on specific topics. DPRK chief delegate Kim Ryung-Sung warned that there was no agreement on the summit agenda but “we agreed to have further discussions.” Yang would only say that the agenda would be broad and comprehensive, but declined to give further details.

3. US – DPRK Talks

The Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State, released a statement by US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher (“U.S., ROK, JAPAN TO MEET MAY 12 IN TOKYO U.S.-DPRK BILATERAL TALKS TO RESUME MAY 24 IN ROME,” 5/2/00) which announced that beginning May 24, delegations from the US and DPRK will meet in Rome to resume talks that adjourned March 15 in New York. The US will use this meeting to begin talks on Agreed Framework implementation.

4. Trilateral Consultations

The Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State, released a statement by US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher (“U.S., ROK, JAPAN TO MEET MAY 12 IN TOKYO U.S.-DPRK BILATERAL TALKS TO RESUME MAY 24 IN ROME,” 5/2/00) which announced that delegations representing the US, the ROK, and Japan will meet for trilateral consultations in Japan on May 12. Boucher said on-going policy towards the DPRK would be discussed.

5. Japanese Constitutional Revisions

The Associated Press (“CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN GETS YEA AND NAY,” Tokyo, 5/3/00) reported that Japan held a parliamentary committee session on Tuesday to grapple with possible revisions to the Japanese constitution, which has been criticized at home and abroad for preventing Japan from taking a greater role in international peacekeeping. The sticking point in the debate is Article 9, which promises that Japan will “forever renounce war” and never maintain armed forces. Japan’s constitution, written by two US citizens after World War II, has never been updated. Revision would require a national referendum. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for May 3, 2000.]

6. Future Missile Threats and US Plans for NMD

Huntsville Times (James McWilliams, “U.S. DEFENDS ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM NEED,” 5/2/00) reported that leaders from the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command urged the public on May 1 to support new anti-missile technology because Iraq, Iran and the DPRK could all develop missiles powerful enough to reach US soil with weapons of mass destruction by 2015. Robert Walpole, national intelligence officer with the US Central Intelligence Agency, said rogue states developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could pretend they are developing space rockets for launching satellites, which he called “ICBMs without the warheads.” He said that the DPRK could convert its Taepo Dong-1 (TD-1) space rocket into an ICBM capable of reaching the US with small chemical or biological weapons. Walpole continued that Iran and Iraq could test rockets similar to the TD-1, in a few years and Pakistan could try to simply buy a TD-1 for that country’s newly developed nuclear weapons. Walpole noted that weapons based on the TD-1 and similar rockets couldn’t be aimed very accurately, but they could kill a significant number of people in the US. Walpole also said that the PRC has 20 ICBMs that could hold a significant portion of the US population at risk. By 2015, he continued, the PRC is likely to have “several tens” of missiles that could be directed against the US, including “a few tens” of mobile missiles with smaller nuclear warheads influenced by stolen US technology. Army Major General Larry Dodgen, director of the Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization, noted that Syria, India, the PRC and 28 other nations are also developing a mix of advanced weapons capabilities that could be worrisome in 2010. Senator Wayne Allard, chairman of the strategic subcommittee on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also said on May 1 that building the National Missile Defense (NMD) system against rogue nations is “vital to the nation’s interests.” Allard said that amending the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to reflect US wishes will eventually benefit the Russians because they will gain the right to build defenses against rogue-nation attacks. He continued that even though Russia has threatened to pull out of all arms-control treaties if the US builds the NMD, the US military has been authorized to build the system as soon as technologically feasible. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for May 3, 2000.]

II. Republic of Korea

1. DPRK-ROK Summit

The Korea Herald (Kim Ji-ho, “TWO KOREAS EXPECTED TO AGREE ON SUMMIT PROCEDURES TODAY,” Seoul, 05/03/00) and The Korea Times (Lee Soo-jeong, “2 KOREAS TO STRIKE DEAL ON SUMMIT PROCEDURE TODAY,” Seoul, 05/03/00) reported that the ROK and the DPRK will hold their third round of preparatory talks for the inter-Korean summit in Panmunjom on Wednesday, and the discussions will likely result in agreements on the procedural matters and agenda for the meeting. Both sides are nearing an agreement to include a ‘comprehensive’ form in the preface of the pre-summit accord. According to sources, the agenda agreement, if reached, would likely state that the summit discussions should focus on the “three principles” of promoting national reconciliation, inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation, and unification. The DPRK has also demanded that the summit be aimed at reestablishing its three-point unification rules – independence, peace and grand national unity – as stipulated in the South-North Joint Communique concluded on July 4, 1972.

2. DPRK Refugees in PRC

Joongang Ilbo (“UN INVESTIGATES REPATRIATION OF NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES,” Seoul, 05/02/00) reported that, according to Yonhap News, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will look into allegations, first raised by the Washington Post, that the PRC had repatriated a large number of DPRK refugees seeking asylum in the PRC. According to the UN, an April 18 melee between PRC border guards and about fifty DPRK refugees led to the latter’s expulsion from the country. However, the UNHCR claimed that, contrary to the Post’s report, DPRK refugees from other prisons may have been repatriated along with those involved in the riot.

3. Korean War Massacre

Joongnang Ilbo (“NOGEUN-RI COMMITTEE MEET U.S. COUNTERPARTS,” Seoul, 05/03/00) reported that the Korean No Gun Ri case fact-finding advisory committee (chaired by retired ROK General Paik Sun-yup) will meet with its US counterpart on Wednesday to discuss ways the two countries can conduct a joint truth-finding investigation. The US team includes former US Ambassador to the ROK Donald Gregg and former Commander in Chief of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command General Robert W. RisCassi. The Korean advisory committee members, who arrived in Washington D.C., on May 1, met with the US Deputy Secretary of Defense Rudy de Leon, US Army Secretary General Louis Caldera, and the US government’s investigation team. They asked the US to actualize compensation and other measures on the case as early as possible.

The NAPSNet Daily Report aims to serve as a forum for dialogue and exchange among peace and security specialists. Conventions for readers and a list of acronyms and abbreviations are available to all recipients. For descriptions of the world wide web sites used to gather information for this report, or for more information on web sites with related information, see the collection of other NAPSNet resources.
We invite you to reply to today’s report, and we welcome commentary or papers for distribution to the network.

Produced by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development in partnership with:
International Policy Studies Institute Seoul, Republic of Korea
The Center for Global Communications, Tokyo, Japan
Center for American Studies,
Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Monash Asia Institute,
Monash University, Clayton, Australia

Timothy L. Savage: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States

Gee Gee Wong: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States

Kim Hee-sun: khs688@hotmail.com
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Hiroyasu Akutsu: akutsu@glocomnet.or.jp
Tokyo, Japan

Peter Razvin: icipu@glas.apc.org
Moscow, Russian Federation

Chunsi Wu: cswu@fudan.ac.cn
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Dingli Shen: dlshen@fudan.ac.cn
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

John McKay: John.McKay@adm.monash.edu.au
Clayton, Australia

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.