NAPSNet Daily Report 03 October, 2001

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 03 October, 2001", NAPSNet Daily Report, October 03, 2001, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-03-october-2001/

 
CONTENTS

I. United States

1. Inter-Korean Tourism Project
2. Japanese Participation in US Retaliation
3. Japanese Public Opinion on Retaliation
4. Japanese Nuclear Security
5. Japanese Anti-Terrorism Measures
6. US-Japan Talks
7. Japanese Textbooks
8. Taiwanese Views of PRC Threat
9. Taiwan Arms Purchases from US
10. US Military Policy in Asia
II. Republic of Korea 1. US Fighter Deployments in ROK
II. Russian Federation 1. RF-PRC Military Cooperation
2. RF-PRC Relations
3. PRC Internet Policies
4. Moslems in PRC, Japan and RF
5. Japan’s Involvement in Anti-Terrorism
6. RF-Japan Territorial Issue

I. United States

1. Inter-Korean Tourism Project

Reuters (“TWO KOREAS SET FOR MORE TALKS ON TOURISM PROJECT,” Seoul, 10/02/01) reported that ROK and DPRK officials were to open three days of talks on Wednesday at Mount Kumgang to discuss plans to build a land route to enable tourists from the ROK to travel by road to the resort. The DPRK’s official Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) warned, “If the inter-Korean dialogue that has progressed since it was resumed with so much effort is brought to a stalemate owing to the U.S. intervention and obstructions, its consequences will be more serious than ever before.”

2. Japanese Participation in US Retaliation

Reuters (“NORTH KOREA SLAMS JAPANESE PROPOSAL FOR U.S. SUPPORT,” Tokyo, 10/02/01) reported that the Rodong Sinmun newspaper, in a commentary carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), on Tuesday criticized Japanese proposals to allow its military to provide logistical support for the US. The commentary said that the proposals were “intended to hurl the SDF [Self-Defense Forces] into (the) shambles of war and realize their dream of ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’ which they failed to do in the past.” It added, “By realizing this dream they seek to put other Asian countries under their control, enslave the peoples and exercise their unlimited privilege as a colonial ruler. The danger of the Japanese militarist aggression is looming as a real one.”

Agence France-Presse (“KOIZUMI DENIES JAPAN’S DISPATCH OF TROOPS TO SHAKE ASIA’S STABILITY,” Tokyo, 10/02/01) reported that Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi on Tuesday denied that a plan to dispatch Japanese troops to participate US retaliation would destabilize Asia. Koizumi stated, “Japan’s stance on the terrorist attacks in the United States is designed to join the framework of international efforts to root out terrorism. Therefore, it will not be a factor to make the Asian region uncertain.” He added, “Considering the importance of friendly relations with neighboring countries, including China and South Korea, we have been explaining to Asian nations about our country’s stance appropriately. We have been paying attention to responses from China and South Korea.” Regarding Japan’s aggression in World War II, Koizumi stated, “Why did Japan wage the war? It was because Japan was isolated from the international community. Japan is now to take responsibility as a member of the international community in accordance with the strength of our country. But we will not take forceful action.”

3. Japanese Public Opinion on Retaliation

Reuters (“JAPANESE PM STAYS POPULAR AS TOKYO DEBATES U.S. SUPPORT,” Tokyo, 10/03/01) reported that in a nationwide survey by the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper of some 1,800 voters, 82.8 percent supported Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s cabinet. Sixty-six percent of the respondents said that they would support possible US military retaliation against the recent attacks. Nearly fifty percent said that they would not object to changing the interpretation, if necessary, of the constitution so that Japan’s Self-Defense Forces could fully back US-led forces fighting a war on terrorism. Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said on Wednesday that the US had given Japan “convincing explanations” linking Osama bin Laden to the attacks. Steven Reed, political science professor at Chuo University in Tokyo, argued, “If the terrorist attacks hadn’t happened, there would be more questions about reform and why nothing is happening.”

4. Japanese Nuclear Security

The Associated Press (“SECURITY AROUND NUCLEAR REACTORS UP,” Tokyo, 10/02/01) reported that Japanese Coast Guard spokesman Yoichi Toda said Tuesday that the Japanese coast guard has started 24-hour patrols of nuclear reactors to prevent terrorist attacks. Toda added that police were also increasing vigilance. Toda said that in the past, security around the plants was commonly increased only during anti-nuclear protests or shipments of plutonium.

5. Japanese Anti-Terrorism Measures

Reuters (“JAPANESE FIRM TO START SELLING GAS MASKS TO PUBLIC,” Tokyo, 10/03/01) reported that a spokesman for Koken Limited said on Wednesday that it would start selling gas masks capable of protecting people from chemical or biological weapons. The spokesman stated, “There have been many requests for gas masks since the [US] attacks, as people fear a similar attack could take place here.” However, the spokesman emphasized the masks were not as effective as heavy-duty versions used by Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and could only protect against inhaled toxins. He said, “They are strictly for temporary use in emergency situations, such as evacuation.”

The Associated Press (Eric Talmadge, “NERVE GAS ATTACK SHOWED VULNERABILITY,” Tokyo, 10/03/01) reported that experts said that Japanese cities remain as vulnerable to terrorist attacks as they were at the time of the gassing of the Tokyo subway in 1995. Tadasu Kumagai, a private military analyst, stated, “There is no safe place in Japanese cities. After about two months, people stopped seriously discussing what to do if and when another attack were to occur.” Ryuichi Kinoshita, a spokesman for the Teito Rapid Transit Authority, which operates several Tokyo subways, said that there are more surveillance cameras in the underground and subway workers conduct daily checks for suspicious objects. Kinoshita stated, “We can’t rule out the possibility that the same kind of incident will happen again. In 1995, it just happened to occur in a subway. But there are so many other unguarded places everywhere in Japan where people converge, from department stores to stadiums to parks.”

6. US-Japan Talks

Reuters (“JAPAN’S KOIZUMI TO MEET BUSH ON APEC SIDELINES,” Tokyo, 10/03/01) reported that Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said on Wednesday that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will meet US President George W. Bush on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Shanghai on October 20 and 21. Fukuda stated, “At the (US-Japan meeting) various topics including responses to the terrorist attacks in the United States, US-Japan relations and international affairs are expected to be discussed.”

7. Japanese Textbooks

The Associated Press (“NATIONALISTS TO WRITE JAPAN TEXTS,” Tokyo 10/03/01) reported that Japanese officials said Wednesday that the same group of scholars who wrote a controversial junior high school textbook now plan to write books for elementary and high school students. Masaharu Miyazaki, a spokesman for the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, which supports the authors, said that the scholars are writing the new books because they believe that continuity in education is important. Miyazaki added that the group hopes that the new books will be approved for use in the next government inspection of elementary-level textbooks, which is scheduled for 2003.

8. Taiwanese Views of PRC Threat

Reuters (Benjamin Kang Lim, “STRIKES ON U.S. MAKE TAIWAN CHINA WATCHERS UNEASY,” Taipei, 10/03/01) reported that some Taiwanese academics view the September 11 attacks on the US highlight Taiwan’s vulnerability to non-conventional attacks from the PRC. Chao Chien-min, a professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute for Social Sciences and Humanities, stated, “It is not impossible for the mainland to use unconventional tactics against Taiwan in the future.” He added, “There are many ultra- nationalists on the mainland.” Lin Bih-jaw, who served as deputy chief of staff to former president Lee Teng-hui, argued, however, “I don’t agree with speculation by some that the mainland will imitate terrorists and take military action against Taiwan.” Lin stated, “The concept of war has changed. Little Bush faces new rules of the game, a new world order.” He added, “The pace of exchanges between the two sides should not be too fast. Taiwan is too small. Things must slow down.” Ho Szu- yin, director of the Institute of International Relations, “China could use economic rather than terrorist tactics against Taiwan.” Ho added, “The mainland may be a gangster, but it is not a terrorist. It intimidates, but does not necessarily inflict harm.” Lin Chong-pin, first vice-chairman of the Taiwan cabinet’s Mainland Affairs Council, said that the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army lags behind Taiwan’s forces in terms of modernization, but is unlikely to give up “dirty war” tactics. Lin stated, “This has been part of their plan although they are not abandoning nuclear and non-nuclear warfare. They have been developing a third leg — acupunctural or pressure point warfare. It’ll be a war of paralysis rather than a war of annihilation.”

9. Taiwan Arms Purchases from US

The Associated Press (William Foreman, “TAIWAN WANTS TO BUY U.S. DESTROYERS,” Taipei, 10/02/01) reported that Taiwanese Defense Ministry spokesman Huang Suey-sheng said Tuesday that Taiwan wants to buy four Kidd-class destroyers from the US. Huang said that the military decided that the guided-missile destroyers would “meet the battle needs” of the navy. Erich Shih, an editor at Defense International magazine in Taiwan, said that getting the Taiwan legislature’s support for the purchase should not be difficult. Shih agreed that the destroyers would be more useful than smaller vessels in stopping a PRC naval blockade, especially in the South China Sea. Shih stated, “You need to carry powerful weapons, and these weapons are very large. You need a big destroyer, like a Kidd-class destroyer.”

10. US Military Policy in Asia

Reuters (Charles Aldinger, “NEW PENTAGON STRATEGY PLANS MILITARY EXPANSION IN ASIA,” Washington, 10/02/01) reported that the US Defense Department sent to Congress the Quadrennial Defense Review on Monday, which called for increased “homeland defense” and an expansion of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. Without being specific, the report stressed that “additional access” would be sought for US military forces in Asia at the same time that the US “will maintain its critical bases in Western Europe and Northeast Asia.” The report also stated, “At the direction of the President, U.S. forces will be capable of decisively defeating an adversary in one of the two theatres in which U.S. forces are conducting major combat operations by imposing America’s will and removing any future threat it could pose. This capability will include the ability to occupy territory or set the conditions for a regime change if so directed.” It argued, “Asia is gradually emerging as a region susceptible to large-scale military competition. The East Asia littoral–from the Bay of Bengal to the Sea of Japan–represents a particularly challenging area.” It added, “Maintaining a stable balance in Asia will be a complex task,” noting that distances were vast in Asia and that US basing and en-route infrastructure were lower than in other regions. It said, “This places a premium on securing additional access and infrastructure agreements and on developing systems capable of sustained operations at great distances with minimal theatre-bases support.”

II. Republic of Korea

1. US Fighter Deployments in ROK

The Korea Herald (Hwang Jang-jin, “U.S. TO DEPLOY MORE FIGHTERS ON PENINSULA,” 10/03/01) reported that a joint US-ROK statement released by the ROK Defense Ministry said that the US Air Force will deploy more fighters on the Korean Peninsula in order to make up for the redeployment of a US aircraft carrier from the western Pacific to an unidentified region. The statement said that the US fighters will ensure that sufficient combat power remains on the peninsula to sustain current defense levels. The statement said that air wing assets and surface vessels of the aircraft carrier will remain in its original theater and will be prepared to support the defense efforts of the US- Korea Combined Forces Command.

II. Russian Federation

1. RF-PRC Military Cooperation

Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye’s Mikhail Khodaryonok (“‘ALMAZ’ STRENGTHENS P.R.C. AIR-DEFENSES,” Moscow, 4, 09/21-27/01, #35(257)) reported that experts of “Almaz” [“Diamond”] Scientific- Industrial Society Ltd. carried out a deep modernization of S-300 air-defense missile complexes and fire control systems. PRC military experts got interested in that and made a proposal to RF experts to increase the combat capabilities of the previously bought S-300PMU1 complexes and their 83M6E command sites. In early August, “Rosoboronexport,” Federal State Unitary Enterprise, and “Almaz” signed final documents concerning the modernization of PRC air-defense missiles.

2. RF-PRC Relations

Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye (“THE THIRD THREAT,” Moscow, 4, 09/28- 10/04/01, #38(258)) published an article by Aleksandr Sharavin, Director, Institute of Political and Strategic Analysis, disputing some previously published articles by other authors. He argued that all of them foresee only two possible types of war that the RF might face in the future, namely a Chechnya-type of conflict and a NATO aggression similar to the action against Yugoslavia in 1999. While both cannot be totally ruled out, Sharavin claimed, analysts ignore “a real prospect” of a conflict with the PRC. Moreover, RF leaders and practically all political forces in the RF totally dismiss that threat, actually saying “it cannot happen because it cannot happen.” Yet, while the territory of RF Far East and Siberia is bigger that of the whole PRC territory, their population of 40 million is 30 times smaller than the PRC’s population. The PRC economy is dynamic, but it is of a socialist nature–that is a costly extensive type requiring ever-increasing raw material supplies scarce in PRC, but abundant to the north of it. “PRC propaganda constantly shows us sky-scrapers in free economic areas…. But let’s not forget that just 200-300 million people live there…. A billion Chinese still exist in poverty…. They have nothing to lose. Thus there are all prerequisites for ‘the final thrust to the north’.” The author reminds about the USSR-PRC border events in 1969. Presently the PRC “will hardly wish to see Russia even as ‘a junior brother’. Russia is useful only in a role of an obedient vassal to a stronger China.” PRC military might has been growing even faster then its economy. “Russia has managed with its own hands to eliminate its most important advantage, that is its technological superiority,” by its military sales to PRC. The RF faces “a wonderful” prospect of confrontation with a PRC Army numerically comparable in case of mobilization to the whole RF population, armed with nukes (and tactical ones become strategic if deployed close to the border) and “totally insensitive to casualties (death of even several million servicemen is quite acceptable to the Chinese). Such a war will be more frightening than the year of 1941. It will require a maximum effort and total mobilization and full engagement of the Armed Forces in one direction…. Finally the only remedy left will be a mass nuclear strike against major army groupings and cities of China, after which Russia will be left totally disarmed. We haven’t got a second set of ICBMs and submarine-carried ballistic missiles, while the general purpose forces will be fully depleted in border battles…. Our country indeed will find itself defenseless against both ‘Chechen’ and ‘Balkan’ scenarios. And even against the first frost-bites of a possible nuclear winter…. One does not wish to believe that prospect…. But it’s no less realistic than a war against NATO or Islamic extremists. Total ignorance by our political and military elite of the Chinese threat is obviously of a psychological nature–in many case a person facing a lethal danger falls into a paralysis or even into a sleep.” [A much abridged version of the article was published in Nezavisimaya gazeta, Moscow, 5, 09/28/01)

3. PRC Internet Policies

Yekaterina Vykhukholeva of Izvestia (“LIVE QUIETLY,” Moscow, 7, 09/28/01) reported that the PRC government denied its citizens access to “a lion’s share” of global Internet resources. Previously during the media coverage of the terrorist attacks against the US, a certain liberalization took place. The real reason for that liberalization was unclear, but it is hopeful if compared to the situation in the DPRK, the citizens of which remained ignorant about the attacks and the preparations for retaliation.

4. Moslems in PRC, Japan and RF

Nezavisimaya gazeta’s Mikhail Tulskiy (“ISLAM IN NON-ISLAMIC WORLD,” Moscow, 7, 09/29/01) published a full-page article of systematized information on Moslems and their organizations and activities in non- Islamic countries including the US, Germany, France and some other European countries, as well as the RF, the PRC and Japan. In particular, Moslems in the PRC number some 18 million and live in the most backward areas. They are predominantly Uighur. In addition to official bodies, there are up to 27 terrorist groups beyond the authorities’ control, the biggest of which is the United National Revolutionary Front of Eastern Turkestan. Its members kill policemen and explode bombs and it runs about 90 terrorist training camps. “Motherland’s Spark,” which is another one, specializes in killings and weapon theft. Its members stole 6,000 guns in 1996. There are also smaller groups connected to the Taliban in Afghanistan. In Japan there were a little bit over 1,000 Moslems in 1998, whose bodies are engaged in purely proselyting activities. “Ethnic Moslems” in the RF number 13.17 million. They include Tatars, Bashkirs, Chechens and other peoples of North Caucasus, as well as Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs and Central Asians whose countries or origin are abroad. Yet only 0.5 million fully practice Islam requirements. There are several Islamic political parties in the RF and some foundations that in the past financed Wahhabite proselytism.

5. Japan’s Involvement in Anti-Terrorism

Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye (“JAPAN IS RETURNING,” Moscow, 2, 09/28-10/04/01, #38(258)) reported that Gen Nakatani, Chief, National Defense Agency of Japan, issued an order to send 4 ships to the Indian Ocean on 09/27/01 to assist US retaliatory measures. Japanese navy personnel are to gather intelligence information and carry out patrol missions without engaging in hostilities. The question of sending Japanese land forces to Pakistan was discussed.

Izvestia (“LAST EVENTS,” Moscow, 7, 10/02/01) and Nezavisimaya gazeta’s R.R. (“U.S.A.,” Moscow, 6, 10/02/01) reported that the aircraft-carrier USS “Kitty Hawk” left Yokosuka port in Japan for the area of expected hostilities within the retaliatory action framework. It has got about 70 warplanes on board ad is accompanied by several Japanese naval ships.

Izvestia (“LAST EVENTS,” Moscow, 9, 10/03/01) reported that five US naval ships left US naval base in Sasebo in Japan for a secret destination. Those include the “Essex” large landing ship, “Germantown” and Fort McHenry” landing ships, and “Guardian” and “Patriot” mine- sweepers

6. RF-Japan Territorial Issue

Denis Borisov of Izvestia (“ISLES UNLIMITED,” Moscow, 4, 09/19/01) reported that Boris Tretyak, Chairman, Sakhalin Oblast Duma, brought to Moscow recommendations adopted by Oblast parliamentary hearings and addressed to RF Government and RF President Vladimir Putin. The document corresponds to the views of the Sakhalin Governor, its Duma and some scholars. Their advice is that the RF should denounce the Soviet- Japanese Declaration of 1956 according to which the USSR promised to give Japan two of the South Kuril Isles. Also they refer to the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, under which Japan gave up the Kuril Islands and which mentioned the Kuril Islands as such without making any distinction for the South Kurils. There is no clear answer so far as where the limits of the Kuril Islands lie. The Sakhalin Oblast Duma advised the RF Government to recognize the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Sakhalin Governor Igor Farkhutdinov likes to repeat, “For us the territorial problem everybody talks about is non-existent. The Kurils belong to Russia and nobody will dare to encroach on its integrity.” RF State Duma members who were present at the hearings were more neutral, and a report from the RF Foreign Ministry sent and read there urged it not to hurry, to leave everything as it is and to continue negotiations with Japan. In reply, the Sakhalin Duma members called for closed hearings in Moscow and introduction of a draft law on denunciation of the 1956 Declaration and urged RF President Vladimir Putin to stop giving foreign vessels the right to fish in the South Kuril area and to limit Japanese Embassy’s propaganda activities with the same kind of bans as are used in Japan in regard to the RF Embassy.

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
Center for American Studies,
Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
International Peace Research Institute (PRIME),
Meiji Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan
Monash Asia Institute,
Monash University, Clayton, Australia

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

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

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

Hibiki Yamaguchi: hibikiy@dh.mbn.or.jp
Tokyo, Japan

Rumiko Seya: rumiko- seya@geocities.co.jp
Tokyo, Japan

Hiroya Takagi: hiroya_takagi@hotmail.com
Tokyo, Japan

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

Yunxia Cao: yunxiac@yahoo.com
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< /a>
Clayton, Australia

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.