CONTENTS
1. DPRK Power Grid
2. Prospects for Korean Reunification
3. ROK President’s European Trip
4. Korean War Massacre
5. Comfort Women Compensation
6. US-Taiwan Relations
II. Republic of Korea 1. ROK-DPRK Military Talks
2. Korean War Massacre
3. US-ROK SOFA Talks
III. Russian Federation 1. DPRK Leader’s Visit to RF
2. RF View of Korean Reunification
3. RF Defense Minister in Japan
4. PRC-RF Talks
5. Tibet Issue
6. RF-US Military Contacts
7. RF Far Eastern Energy Crisis
8. RF International Interests
9. RF Communists Party Congress
I. United States
1. DPRK Power Grid
The global technology company ABB issued a press release (“ABB SIGNS COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA,” Zurich, 12/01/00) which said that it had signed a “wide- ranging, long-term” cooperation agreement with the DPRK aimed at improving the performance of the country’s electricity transmission network and basic industries. The statement said, “The agreement was signed in Pyongyang during a recent four-day visit by an ABB delegation led by President and CEO Goran Lindahl. It covers investment opportunities and technical cooperation in the area of modernizing DPRK’s national electrical grid, and upgrading electrical equipment and control systems in power plants and industrial plants. It also covers cooperation in the field of wind power and solar energy systems as well as the opening of a representative office in Pyongyang in 2001.” ABB said that it will review joint investment opportunities with partner enterprises in the DPRK electrical products and services sector. ABB would assume management control and transfer technology and management expertise. A delegation of DPRK Ministers said that ABB would be provided with “favorable frame conditions for their investment and technical cooperation.”
2. Prospects for Korean Reunification
The Associated Press (Thomas Wagner, “KOREAN REUNIFICATION SAID WAY OFF,” Kyoto, 12/06/00) reported that US Ambassador to the ROK Steven W. Bosworth said Wednesday that despite improvements in relations between the Koreas this year, reunification is not a realistic short-term goal. He said that instead, the two Koreas should continue to work on reconciliation. Bosworth praised ROK President Kim Dae-jung and DPRK leader Kim Jong-il for taking major steps to reduce tensions during their June summit in Pyongyang. However, he said that the US will keep a strong military force in the ROK to deter possible DPRK aggression, and would continue to try to negotiate an end to the DPRK’s development and export of weapons of mass destruction. Bosworth stated, “We have a long way to go in such talks, but there has been an encouraging series of developments.” Kim Myong-chol, a pro-DPRK Korean- Japanese, criticized Bosworth’s comments, saying that reunification is the top goal of the two Koreas. He said that he hopes to see them form a joint central government within five years to share decisions on issues such as defense and foreign policy. Kim also said that the US opposes such a goal because it could lead the Koreas to ask for the withdrawal of US troops. Kim also denied that the DPRK presents a big military threat to ROK and US forces, saying, “From our point of view, our missile forces and military spending are a joke compared to the massive ones of the United States.”
3. ROK President’s European Trip
The Associated Press (“SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT TO VISIT NORWAY, SWEDEN,” Seoul, 12/06/00) reported that ROK President Kim Dae-jung will make a state visit to Norway this week during which he will receive the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in Oslo on Sunday. He will also meet King Harold V and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg to discuss strengthening bilateral ties. Kim will then visit Sweden on December 12-13 and meet with Prime Minister Goran Persson to discuss world peace and the DPRK. Sweden is the only European country to have embassies in both the DPRK and the ROK.
4. Korean War Massacre
The Washington Post (Thomas E. Ricks, “NO GUN RI MASSACRE BLAMED ON PANIC,” 12/06/00, A01) and the Associated Press (Robert Burns, “ARMY HAS MIXED REPORT ON NO GUN RI,” Washington, 12/06/00) reported that a year-long US Defense Department investigation concluded that US soldiers panicked and fired into a crowd of unarmed refugees near the village of No Gun Ri in the early days of the Korean War, but did not find conclusive evidence that the troops had orders to shoot civilians. The yet-unpublished draft report said that Army investigators were unable to determine exactly how many civilians died in the incident. Members of a panel of outside experts advising the Pentagon on its inquiry were briefed on its conclusions last week, and US officials began discussing the findings with representatives of the ROK government in Seoul on Tuesday. One member of the advisory panel for the report, former representative Pete McCloskey (Republican-Calif.), said Tuesday that he strongly disagrees with the “hazy” conclusion that there may or may not have been orders to shoot the refugees, saying that the Defense Department was too quick to dismiss the testimony of US veterans who recalled such orders. McCloskey stated, “There is no question that there were orders.” The panel of eight outside advisers was also reportedly divided over whether the families of the victims should receive financial compensation. The US government’s position on compensation is unclear. Kelly Smith Tunney, a spokeswoman for the Associated Press (AP), stated, “We are confident that any fair investigation will confirm AP’s central finding that the U.S. military was involved in the killing of a large number of Korean refugees at No Gun Ri.” [Ed. note: This article was one of the top stories in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for December 6.]
The Associated Press (Kyong-Hwa Seok, “SEOUL WANTS QUICKER NO GUN RI PROBE,” Seoul, 12/05/00) reported that the ROK National Assembly’s Defense Committee by a unanimous vote on Tuesday called on the US to conduct an open, objective probe of the alleged killing of Korean civilians by US soldiers during the Korean War. The resolution criticized that “the U.S. government is buried in investigating unessential and peripheral issues, raising questions over whether it has the will to resolve the incident.” Lawmakers said that the resolution was expected to be approved by the full National Assembly later this week. US Army spokesman Colonel Tom Begines said that the Army would not comment until it had seen the resolution. Shim Kyu-chul, who introduced the resolution, warned, “If the nation’s pains and wounds are not quickly healed, the traditional friendship and partnership between South Korea and the United States might turn into a relationship of conflict in the 21st century.”
5. Comfort Women Compensation
The Associated Press (Joji Sakurai, “JAPAN COURT REJECTS EX-SEX SLAVES,” Tokyo, 12/06/00) reported that the Tokyo High Court on Wednesday rejected a US$9 million compensation demand from Filipino women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army during World War II. Court official Ikuo Morita said that the court upheld a lower-court ruling that the government has no obligation to pay damages to the 80 women. Prosecution lawyer Fumio Takemura said that the judge cited an international law saying individuals are not allowed to sue a government for human right abuses, and that the statute of limitations also expired. Legal authorities and human rights activists will hold a “Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal” in Tokyo starting Friday on Japan’s sexual enslavement of “comfort women.” The mock tribunal will listen to the testimony of former sex slaves from several Asian countries. Several historical figures will be on trial, including Japanese Emperor Hirohito and wartime cabinet ministers. Gabrielle McDonald, the former president of the UN’s Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, stated, “It’s certainly not too late for Japan to assume responsibility, and that’s what the purpose of this proceeding is.” Jan Ruff-O’Herne, a Dutch former comfort woman, stated, “We want our honor and dignity restored. A country can’t go on in the future if it doesn’t admit the wrongs of the past.”
6. US-Taiwan Relations
Jane’s Defence Weekly (Wendell Minnick, “PENTAGON MAY FORMALISE TAIWAN TIES,” Taipei, 12/06/00) reported that, according to a source involved in the process, the US Department of Defense (DoD) is conducting an evaluation of whether it should reintroduce formal military attaches to Taiwan. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense announced on 9 November that the two countries will strengthen “software” military cooperation after the new US administration assumes office. Deputy Defense Minister Sun Tao-yu said that this would involve weapon systems integration, manpower training and maximizing the performance of US-obtained weapon systems. They will also cooperate on Taiwan’s efforts to upgrade its command, control, communications and intelligence system. The DoD may also establish a “hotline” between Taiwan military headquarters and the US Pacific Command in Hawaii to improve communications during any potential crisis. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for December 6.]
The Associated Press (“TAIWANESE LEADER URGES US TO CHANGE ITS TAIWAN POLICY,” Taipei, 12/06/00) reported that Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian on Wednesday, met a US delegation that included Winston Lord, former US ambassador to the PRC; Kenneth Lieberthal, a former senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council; and Douglas Paal, president of the Washington-based Asia Pacific Policy Center. Chen that the US should stop opposing Taiwan’s membership in international organizations. Chen also argued that the US should remove restrictions on Taiwanese officials visiting the US. Chen told them that he hoped the US would avoid mentioning its “three-no’s policy” of opposing Taiwan independence, the recognition of two Chinas or of one Taiwan and one China, or Taiwanese participation in international organization. Chen stated, “If the United States really needs its ‘three no’s,’ then a fourth ‘no’ should be added, and that should be an opposition to the use of force by China to resolve the Taiwan issue.” He also said that he would be willing to meet PRC leaders and discuss forming a “federation,” “confederation,” “special state-to-state relationship” or a “European Union-style” relationship. He added, “But we must first have the support of the 23 million people on Taiwan.”
II. Republic of Korea
1. ROK-DPRK Military Talks
The Korea Herald (Kang Seok-jae, “KOREAS NEAR AGREEMENT ON MILITARY HOT LINE,” 12/06/00) reported that the ROK Defense Ministry said that the ROK and the DPRK on Tuesday neared an agreement on the establishment of a military hot line to help prevent accidental clashes within the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) during the restoration of the inter-Korean railway and road links. It said that the two Koreas also reached a consensus on most other issues related to the project at the second round of working-level military talks at Panmunjom. It refused to reveal the final outcome of the talks, however, citing the DPRK’s opposition to the announcement. The two sides agreed to meet again on December 21 at the DPRK’s Tongilgak (Unification Pavilion) on the northern side of Panmunjom. Brigadier General Kim Kyoung-duck, deputy director-general of the ministry’s Arms Control Bureau, stated, “The talks, which lasted one and a half hours, were held in a sincere, businesslike manner. The two sides discussed overall military cooperation matters for the planned inter-Korean projects and made much progress.” Kim said that the delegations negotiated the details of their respective work schedules and safety issues for soldiers and civilian workers to be mobilized within the DMZ. He said that they discussed the establishment of the width and scope of their respective management zones in the DMZ, adding, “We also discussed in detail matters related to the establishment and operation of military facilities in each other’s administrative sections within the DMZ.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for December 6.]
2. Korean War Massacre
The Korea Herald (Shin Yong-bae, “U.S. SAYS NOGUN-RI INCIDENT NOT ‘MASSACRE’,” 12/06/00) reported that an anonymous ROK government official said Tuesday that the US opposes including such words as “massacre” or “holocaust” in a joint statement on the Nogun-ri incident. The official stated, “U.S. investigators have a dislike for using the term ‘haksal’ (massacre) in the final announcement. The U.S. side seems to want to use the word ‘killings’ in the statement.” Deputy Assistant Army Secretary Patrick Henry led a US delegation to Seoul Wednesday that included senior US Defense Department officials like chief investigator Army General Michael Ackerman. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for December 6.]
3. US-ROK SOFA Talks
The Korea Times (Son Key-young, “KOREA, US REMAIN FAR APART ON KEY SOFA ISSUES,” 12/06/00) reported that an anonymous ROK Foreign Affairs-Trade Ministry official said Tuesday that the ROK and the US have managed to work out draft agreements on six pending issues of bilateral negotiations aimed at revising the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). However, he said that the two sides failed to agree on major issues. He stated, “It is still hard to forecast the prospects for the talks. We still believe that no deal is better than a bad deal.” With regard to the criminal jurisdiction issue, the two sides already worked out a joint draft, although there are still several issues to be resolved. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for December 6.]
III. Russian Federation
1. DPRK Leader’s Visit to RF
Nezavisimaya gazeta (“KIM JONG-IL WILL COME TO RUSSIA IN 2001,” Moscow, 1 12/2/00) reported that Leonid Moiseyev, Director, 1st Asia Department, RF Foreign Ministry, commenting on RF-DPRK deputy foreign minister level consultations going on in Moscow, said that DPRK leader Kim Jong-il’s visit to the RF “most probably” would take place in the first half of 2001.
2. RF View of Korean Reunification
Nezavisimaya gazeta (“KOREAN DIMENSION OF RUSSIA’S FOREING FOLICY,” Moscow, 3, 12/06/00) published an article by Andrey Fyodorov, Director of Political Programs, RF Council on Foreign and Defense Policies, who that thought the expected Korean re- unification would be a much more complex process than the German one and stressed its economic implications for RF: 1) “the unique capacities” of the proposed inter-Korean railway in terms of the RF transit role between the East Asia and Europe; 2) ROK participation in Kovytkino natural gas development; 3) RF interest in attraction of East Asian human resources to develop RF Far East and Siberia – “for us it would be more advantageous if the priority in that direction were to be given to Korea rather than China”; 4) “united Korea will become a most important economic center” in the Asia Pacific “because combination of the capacities of the South with all resources of the North can bring about “an economic miracle. Russia has got a chance to take an active enough part in the inevitable modernization of the industry of the North”; 5) “Korea re-unification process seems to be a weighty argument … to remove the myth of a missile threat on the part of DPRK” and it permit Moscow to talk to Washington about the problem of the ABM Treaty in a somewhat different plane.” In the author’s opinion, RF should not repeat here the mistake it committed as regards the Middle East peace process. Considering the above-said, “there are all necessary prerequisites for a fruitful visit by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to Seoul to take place early next year.”
3. RF Defense Minister in Japan
Nezavisimoye voyennoye obozreniye (“MARSHAL SERGEYEV IN JAPAN,” Moscow, 1, 12/1-7/00, #45(218)) reported that RF Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev was on November 28-30 made an official visit to Japan and had talks with Kadzuo Torashima, Chief of the National Defense Agency of Japan. The discussions largely centered on the problem of activation of work in Japan on development of Theater Missile Defense (TMD). Sergeyev said that it would be “expedient” to make a decision on TMD deployment “at an appropriate regional quorum.” He also visited the Yokosuka naval base. Before his departure he said, “We are prepared to consider any suggestions of the Japanese party concerning deliveries of Russian-made weapons and military equipment, including air-defense systems.”
Vasiliy Golovnin of Izvestia (“THERE ARE NO MILITARISTS IN JAPAN ANYMORE,” Tokyo, 4, 12/1/00) reported that RF Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev during his visit to Japan told his hosts about a planned reduction of RF troops in the region. Sergeyev also “made no scandal” while listening to their reproaches concerning the recent spy case in Tokyo and told journalists that he saw no reasons to accuse Japan of militarism. An extensive program of contacts was adopted. The visit demonstrated that “Tokyo still considers the development of military dialogue with Russia an important trump-card by means of which it can render a deterring impact of China, the chief scarecrow to Japan. With Moscow’s help the Japanese hope to carefully create a system of multilateral defense contacts in the region. In Tokyo they believe it would successfully augment the alliance with USA, the basis of their military policy.” To those ends a suggestion was made to Marshal Igor Sergeyev to think about arranging multilateral military search and rescue exercises. The idea will now to be discussed at experts level.
Nezavisimaya gazeta’s Igor Korotchenko (“MARSHAL SERGEYEV AS A DIPLOMAT,” Moscow, 6, 12/05/00) commented on RF Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev’s visit to Japan . During the talks, the RF military delegation expressed readiness to arrange for a visit to Moscow by the Chief of Air Force Staff of the National Defense Agency (NDA) of Japan, along with 30 NDA officers. Early next year General Colonel Yuriy Bukreyev, Chief, Main Directorate, Land Forces, RF Armed Forces, is to visit Tokyo. Sergeyev pointed out the following main areas of cooperation: widening and strengthening confidence-building measures; continuation of the practice of visits by top military officials to exchange opinions and information on international and regional security, mutual defense policies, and armed forces development; annual exchanges of military delegations within the framework of the bilateral Agreement on prevention of incidents at sea outside territorial waters and in the air space over them; and contacts in the area of military science and military education. Sergeyev dwelled on Theater Missile Defense TMD prospects. He stressed the reconciliation process in the Korean peninsula as a strategic stability factor of great importance as testified, in particular, by the RF Presidential visit to Pyongyang and the admission of the DPRK to the ASEAN Regional Forum. He said that the Northeast Asian Security Dialogue with participation of the PRC, the RF, the US, the ROK and Japan, as well as the ARF are of much importance. He informed his hosts on the RF Military Doctrine, the reform of RF Armed Forces in the Far Eastern and Siberian military districts, and the plans to reduce those troops by 20 percent in 2001-2005. He accused the US of stepping up its military presence in the Asia Pacific and said that, judging by statements of top Republican party representatives, US future plans there would include: creating US economic, political and military domination, increasing US allies’ contributions, stepping up TMD development in parallel with deployment of NMD, weakening RF positions in the region, opposition to PRC turning into a world power, and prevention of a reunification of China by strengthening the actual independence of Taiwan and its rearmament with high technology weapons, a tougher policy toward the DPRK with an emphasis on its missile programs, and playing an arbiter between India and Pakistan. The RF faces two intertwined tasks: 1) to stop the shrinking of its sphere of regional influence and prepare grounds for its enlargement and 2) to restore and increase the economic capacities of the RF Far East, using in particular international economic relations in the Asia Pacific. In the author’s conclusion, the visit’s main result was “the putting into action of a real machinery of mutual consultations between two defense institutions and entry to a new stage of cooperation…. That means the military risks to FR Far Eastern boundaries will grow smaller.”
4. PRC-RF Talks
Izvestia (“DEPUTY PREMIER OF CHINA’S STATE COUNCIL CAME TO MOSCOW,” Moscow, 2, 12/4/00) reported that Li Lanquin, Deputy Premier of the PRC State Council, came to Moscow Sunday on an official visit to discuss cooperation in culture, science, education and sports with RF Premier Mikhail Kasyanov and other RF officials. On 12/07/00 he is to go to Saint Petersburg and two other cities.
5. Tibet Issue
Izvestia (“DALAI LAMA RESUMES DIALOGUE WITH BEIJING,” Moscow, 7, 12/5/00) reported that the Dalai Lama of Tibet presently in exile abroad declared resumption of his contacts with the PRC Government that were severed in early 1990s. On the 50th anniversary of his exile, which he has spent chiefly in Northern India, he told journalists that recently his brother visited Beijing and brought him a message from PRC leaders. In his words, in return he suggested sending an official delegation to Beijing and is now waiting for a reply.
6. RF-US Military Contacts
Nezavisimaya gazeta (“U.S. ARMED FORCES JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF CHAIRMAN WILL VISIT RUSSIA,” Moscow, 1, 12/01/00) reported that General Henry Shelton, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Armed Forces would visit the RF December 11-13, presumably to have talks with top officials of the RF Defense Ministry.
7. RF Far Eastern Energy Crisis
Zavtra (“TO SURRENDER PRIMORIYE SOON,” Moscow, 2, December, 2000, #49(366)) filled one page with articles by different authors reporting and commenting on the current energy crisis in Primorskiy Krai in the RF Far East and the socioeconomic situation there in general. In particular, a sharp criticism was leveled against the state program under discussion to resettle the local population to the RF’s European territory. Such programs must not be developed and the population must not be evacuated, “freeing the space for the Chinese and the Americans!” wrote Georgy Sudovtsev in “Liberalist Virus.” Aleksandr Sergeyev in “Crawling Capitulation” argued that each new energy crisis there destroys the integrity of the country. The present Governor, Yevgeny Nazdratenko, might eventually be replaced by some other people who would like to proclaim something like a new “Far Eastern Republic.” They might say that the region should not live in cold and poverty with prosperous Japan and the ROK nearby. “If we lose Primoriye tomorrow, then the day after we’ll have to leave not only Kamchatka and Sakhalin, but the whole of the Eastern Siberia.” As for the PRC, the Government, in the author’s words, “simply provokes China (or more precisely the Chinese) to draw conclusions…. We are interested in overpopulated China to channel its ‘extra’ tens of millions of inhabitants to develop Tibet and Sinquang, to Indonesia and Thailand, finally to the US West Coast, where a Chinese has been elected a state governor. Anywhere, so that ‘the yellow stream’ does not flood Siberia and the Far East!… ‘A crawling colonization’ is in full swing… Already now hundreds of thousands of Chinese live in Primorskiy Krai as ‘tourists’. After the three-month long visa period they go back home for a day and get a new visa, doing that continuously. Such situation may cause a conflict between Russia and China. And its clear that the benefits then would be those of the US and their allies.”
8. RF International Interests
Spetsnaz Rossii (“IN THE SPECIAL ATTENTION ZONE,” Moscow, 14, November, 2000, #11(50)) published an article based on information from the “Alfa” (a special-purpose force unit) Analytical Center. According to public opinion polls carried out by ROMIR center, 81.4 percent of those polled believe that the whole zone of RF national interests is wider than the present RF territory. As concerns RF national interest zones abroad, 94.3 percent of the respondents named Asia, 91.9 percent named Europe, 56.8 percent named North America, 42.6 percent named South America and 27.6 percent named Africa, “an obviously seen gradual departure from Euro-centrism…. Possibly it was much facilitated by the recent successes of President Putin exactly in the Asian direction – in relations with China and India.”
9. RF Communists Party Congress
Sovetskaya Rissia’s Zhanna Kasyanenko (“PLENIPOTENTIARY REPRESENTATIVES OF RUSSIA’S PEOPLE,” Moscow, 4, 12/5/00) reported that the 7th Congress of the Communist Party of the RF took place in Moscow on December 2-3. Representatives of 80 foreign Communist parties took part. The Congress made standing applause to the speeches by representatives of the Communist parties of “China, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea that lead the building of socialism in their countries and firmly believe that socialism is the future of the planet.”
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
Robert Brown: 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
Yunxia Cao: yule111@sina.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
Clayton, Australia