NAPSNet Daily Report 06 May, 1999

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 06 May, 1999", NAPSNet Daily Report, May 06, 1999,


I. United States

II. Republic of Korea

III. Russian Federation

IV. Announcements

I. United States

1. Inspection of DPRK Underground Facility

The Associated Press (“U.S. TO INSPECT NORTH KOREAN SITE,” Seoul, 05/06/99) reported that ROK officials said Thursday that a US team will begin inspecting an underground construction site in the DPRK on May 18. The unnamed officials said that about 15 US officials and nuclear experts will spend several days inspecting the site at Kumchangri.

2. Alleged ROK Covert Activities in PRC

The Associated Press (“NKOREA ACCUSES SEOUL OF CHINA LINK,” Seoul, 05/06/99) reported that a statement by the DPRK’s Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland on Wednesday accused the ROK of using the PRC as a base to train guerrillas for an armed revolt and terrorism in the DPRK. The statement said, “They have gone the length of offering money and weapons to reactionary organizations to train armed bandits for an armed revolt and terrorism in our areas.” It alleged that covert ROK operations are active in the three northeastern PRC provinces of Jilin, Liaoning and Heilongjiang, where ROK agents posing as businessmen or missionaries are hiring people to train “dishonest young people” for armed anti-DPRK plots. The ROK National Intelligence Service dismissed the claim as “nonsense.”

3. ROK Policy toward DPRK

Reuters (“S.KOREA’S KIM: SUNSHINE POLICY WAY TO AVOID WAR,” Seoul, 05/06/99) reported that ROK President Kim Dae-jung said in an interview with the Voice of America on Thursday that his “sunshine” policy toward the DPRK was the only realistic option to avoid a war. He added, “On the other hand, we will ask North Korea to give up its nuclear and missile programs and to secure their promise that they will never attack South Korea in any circumstance.” Kim also said that he was ready to hold summit talks with Kim Jong-il, but that the meeting was now unlikely to be held within this year. He stated, “So far nothing has been planned, but we will participate in any kind of talks between the North and the South. And if the opportunity for North-South talks come up, we will participate without hesitating.”

4. US Evacuation Drills for Korean Peninsula

The Associated Press (Pauline Jelinek, “AMERICANS PRACTICE KOREA EVACUATION,” Osan Air Base, 05/06/99) reported that the US recently held an exercise of Noncombatant Evacuation Operations to evacuate US civilians in case of a crisis on the Korean peninsula. Robert Dolce, chief of American Citizen Services at the US Embassy in Seoul, stated, “There’s probably never been anything that would be considered on this scale, except Europe during the Cold War. It would be a very, very difficult one.” The US government estimates that in case of war on the peninsula, up to 110,000 US citizens and other foreigners might have to be evacuated. Sargent 1st Class William Hall, monitoring part of the recent evacuation exercise, stated, “It would be like if we had a bunch of noncombatants sitting right on the Iraqi border right before the start of the (Gulf) War.” For the exercise, US troops set up 13 processing centers across the ROK and focused on military families and civilian employees.

5. Japanese Prime Minister’s US Visit

The Los Angeles Times (Jim Mann, “AS U.S., JAPAN BOND, CHINA TAKES NOTICE,” Washington, 05/05/99) carried an analytical article which said that Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi’s visit to the US demonstrated to the PRC and Russia how the US is attempting to redesign its old Cold War alliances in Asia. Former US Defense Department official Richard L. Armitage stated, “In the strategic realm, we’re at the beginning of a brand new relationship with Japan. This gives American military planners much more confidence that if a shooting war broke out in Asia, the best-trained, best-equipped military force in the region would be of as much assistance as possible to the United States.” The article said that US willingness to share military technology with its allies is now at least equally important as US military bases overseas. However, Chalmers Johnson of the Japan Policy Research Institute argued, “Obuchi’s visit to Washington is like an East Asian version of the NATO summit. They’re all a bunch of old flunkies dominated by the United States.” He added that the current efforts are the dying gasps of the Cold War order. The article argued that the US no longer fears a resurgent Japan, adding “as Asia’s economy revives, the broader trend of Japanese-American strategic cooperation is coming to the fore once again.”

6. US Theater Missile Defense

Inside The Pentagon (Daniel G. Dupont, “DOD EVALUATES MISSILE DEFENSE OPTIONS FOR JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, TAIWAN,” 05/06/99, 13) reported that a new US Defense Department analysis looked at various options for participation by US allies in the Asia-Pacific region in a missile defense program, including systems “similar to” Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot PAC-3, Navy Area, and Navy Theater Wide (NTW). The report added, “However, no decisions on deployment have been made other than for protecting forward-deployed U.S. forces in the region.” The report said that for Japan, four THAAD systems, if coupled with an additional three THAAD radars, would be sufficient to cover the entire country. Similarly, four systems like NTW Block I would work, while a single upgraded NTW Block II system featuring a faster missile and better kill vehicle could “provide full national coverage.” The report also said that a lower-tier option for Japan would be “impractical,” because as many as 100 PAC-3 fire units would be needed to cover the entire country. It added that the US “continues to be concerned over the ballistic missile threat to the Republic of Korea and is prepared to cooperate with our ally in developing effective means for addressing this threat.” It stated, “Most of South Korea could be covered with a larger deployment” of about 25 “lower-tier assets.” The report also said that a lower-tier sea-based system like Navy Area defense “could provide protection to the coastal targets, but could not reach far enough inland to defend all critical assets and population centers against all threat trajectories.” Lower-tier systems are necessary in any case because “the upper tier could not intercept ballistic missiles targeted on Seoul.” The report argued that with four THAAD-like batteries and seven PAC-3-like batteries, “all of the country beyond the immediate reach of very short-range ballistic missiles could be covered,” but sea-based upper-tier systems could not defend the “northern two-thirds of the ROK against the low-flying short-range [theater ballistic missiles].” The report said that Taiwan has expressed an “interest in an improved early warning capability and additional technical information on their current capabilities, future requirements, and potential cost associated with establishment of a TBMD architecture.” It added that against short-range threats, either PAC-3 or Navy Area could defend “most of Taiwan’s critical assets,” but neither could provide defense against longer-range missiles. It said that one land-based upper-tier unit, like THAAD, could be sufficient for the defense of the entire island of Taiwan. Either version of the NTW system could protect the entire country, while the “fast” version would allow “shoot-look-shoot” coverage. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for May 6.]

7. PRC View of Theater Missile Defense

The Associated Press (“CHINA OPPOSES US SHIELD FOR TAIWAN,” Beijing, 05/06/99) reported that PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao on Thursday called on the US to exclude Taiwan from a planned theater missile defense (TMD) system. Zhu said that a US Defense Department report on the PRC’s buildup of missiles along its southeastern coast “is trying to whip up the public opinion to justify the sales of sophisticated weapons to Taiwan.” He called on the US to “stop sales of sophisticated weapons and explicitly pledge not to sell TMD system and related technology and equipment to Taiwan and not conduct activities that will hinder the reunification cause of China.” He added that selling Taiwan missile defenses or incorporating it into a regional system would be “severe interference in China’s internal affairs and not conducive to the stability across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese government expresses its strong dissatisfaction and full opposition to this.”

8. Taiwan Independence Movement

The New York Times (Erik Eckholm, “TAIWAN’S OPPOSITION PARTY TONES DOWN CALL FOR INDEPENDENCE,” Beijing, 05/05/99) reported that Taiwan’s main opposition party Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will hold a party congress this weekend at which a new statement will be added to the party’s charter. The statement will pledge that, if elected to national power, the DPP would not take precipitous action toward independence that might provoke the PRC. A draft of the new statement was adopted by a committee on Wednesday for final approval on Sunday. The draft statement says that the status quo is acceptable because Taiwan is already sovereign in fact, and it rejects the concept of “one China.” DPP legislator Fu-Hsiung Shen said that the statement “should give [party leader] Chen Shui-bian what he needs to show that the party is not to be feared. But any deeper change would create another hazard: people would say the party sold its soul.” Chu Yun-han, a political scientist at National Taiwan University, argued, “Taiwanese politics in coming years may be in for an upheaval.” He added, “If the Nationalist Party is united, then I think it can crush Chen Shui-bian. But if [Nationalist] James Soong enters [as an independent candidate] and there is a three-way race, then Chen Shui-bian will have a fighting chance.”

9. US Technology Transfers to PRC

The Associated Press (“SENATE SCRUTINIZES US-CHINA DEALS,” Washington, 05/06/99) reported that the US Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded in a bipartisan report that the President Bill Clinton administration failed to protect US missile technology from leaking to the PRC through commercial satellite exports. Senator Bob Kerrey, D-Nebraska, the panel’s vice chairman, said Wednesday, “There’s an inherent conflict in this policy. It is in our interest to have China, in their launch capability, to be as ineffective as possible … because they can transfer it over to the military side.” An official familiar with the report said that it finds no direct link between the PRC’s alleged illegal contributions to US political campaigns and the satellite export issue.

10. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

The Omaha World-Herald (Jake Thompson, “JOINT MISSILE DEFENSE PROPOSED WITH RUSSIA,” Washington, 05/06/99) reported that retired General Eugene Habiger, former head of the US Strategic Command, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that the US should begin building an anti-missile defense system soon. Habiger added, however, that the US should not abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. He stated, “If we … walk away from the ABM treaty we would do great harm in my view.” Habiger said that in dealing with Russian officials, he found that they were serious about curbing the stockpiles of nuclear weapons but feared US technology and US development of a TMD system. He argued, “They’d be reluctant to go along with arms control if we walked out on the ABM treaty.” He said, however, that Russia would go along with joint development with the US of a global missile defense system. Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, said that the 1972 ABM treaty is no longer relevant because it was between the US and the former Soviet Union, and it limits US protections against new dangers posed by “rogue” nations and terrorists. Hagel stated, “I personally believe the United States must begin the task of designing, building and deploying a national missile defense to protect the American people from the growing threat of ballistic missile attack.” He added, “I am deeply troubled that this country is being held hostage to an outdated concept of strategic deterrence that has outlived its purpose.” James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said that the ABM treaty’s goal of limiting Soviet defenses does not apply to today’s Russia because it no longer threatens Europe with conventional forces or the US with nuclear weapons targeting similar weapons in the US. Woolsey argued, “The only rationale for the ABM treaty today is one rooted in current foreign-relations concerns. The Russians do not want us to withdraw from it, so doing so would presumably upset them and perhaps lead them to do other things that we don’t want.” He added, “They clearly regard their nuclear forces as their trump card and that they are the only thing that makes them a superpower.” Woolsey said that in light of the development of new missile threats, the US should “move out smartly now” in early stage development of a missile-defense system, while trying to share technology with Russia and perhaps with India and the PRC in the future. Ron Lehman, former director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, argued, “The U.S. should develop its ballistic-missile programs primarily to address its own requirements and time frames. But a better way is to proceed cooperatively with Russia, Israel, Japan and others.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for May 6.]

11. Indian Adherence to CTBT

Reuters (“INDIA, STUCK IN POLITICAL LIMBO, CANNOT SIGN TEST BAN TREATY,” New Delhi, 05/06/99) reported that Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes said Wednesday that India will not be able to commit itself to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) before October at the earliest, due to the political situation in the country. Fernandes stated, “As far as signing of the CTBT is concerned, our Parliament is dissolved and therefore nothing is going to happen on that front, certainly not until late October.” Fernandes added that his government’s policies “have made India secure and stronger than ever before.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for May 6.]

II. Republic of Korea

1. US Policy toward DPRK

The Korea Times (“US SEEKS INT’L ANTI-NK MISSILE EFFORT,” Seoul, 05/06/99) reported that US lawmakers are seeking to promote international cooperation against the DPRK’s growing missile capability. On Tuesday, US Republican Representative Benjamin Gilman handed Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi a report urging for a creation of a joint US-Japan-ROK early warning system against ballistic missile attack. [Ed. note: See the NAPSNet Special Report for May 5.] Gilman, who chairs the House of Representatives’ International Relations Committee, said that the US, Japan, and the ROK face a common threat from the DPRK and that it was the right time to coordinate the defense of all three countries against the DPRK threat. On Wednesday, at a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing on the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), US Democrat Senator Joseph Biden suggested that the US should share anti-missile technology with Russia to win its agreement to reform the 1972 ABM treaty. Biden suggested that having a deal with Russia to station a boost-phase intercept missile system near Vladivostok to protect against DPRK missiles might be a way to promote cooperation with Russia. “This would not only be in their interest, but would contribute to confidence-building as well,” Biden said. Former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey agreed that there are some aspects of (ABM) technology the US can share with the Russians, but expressed doubt that the current Russian government would agree.

2. Inter-Korean Soccer Game

Joongang Ilbo (“LABOR SOCCER EVENT COULD BE A TURNING POINT,” Seoul, 05/06/99) carried an editorial arguing that the inter-Korean soccer game in Pyongyang on August 10 should not simply be a one-time event, but rather it should be a turning point for peaceful relations on the Korean Peninsula. The editorial pointed out that although a soccer match was held between the two Koreas in January 1990, the two Koreas failed to hold successive games, which shows how difficult it is to overcome barriers despite the relative ease of hosting a soccer game every year. The article said that although the DPRK welcomed the ROK labor delegation’s proposal of a soccer game, it has routinely ignored other athletic exchange proposals so far. Therefore now that both countries have agreed, the event should be well-executed, not simply as a game but as a touchstone for future peace. The editorial also expressed hope that the current momentum is ultimately the turning point for mutual participation in the 2002 World Cup.

3. DPRK Business in the ROK

The Korea Times carried an opinion article by Moo-jong Park (“‘Naengmyon’ and ‘Naengjon’,” Seoul, 05/06/99) which said that although the Korean peninsula is still engaged in a “Cold War,” or “naengjon,” the frost has recently shown signs of being melted by “naengmyon,” or cold buckwheat noodles. Park said that the opening of the DPRK’s trademark state-run cold noodle restaurant, “Okryukwan,” in Seoul is significant because this unprecedented event signals the gradual opening of the DPRK to the outside world. Park said, “It seems to be a time when the economy counts first, politics come next.” He also said that he hoped that economic exchanges would eventually lead to a political thaw and that “No one can predict when North Korean leaders will open their minds and come to the negotiating table to discuss the national unification.” Park concluded by saying that a good beginning is half the battle.

III. Russian Federation

1. RF Nuclear Doctrine

Segodnya’s Aleksandr Koretsky (“A PIN-PRICK BY THE NUCLEAR UMBRELLA,” Moscow, 1, 30/4/99) reported on “adequate measures” to be taken by the RF in response to the war in Yugoslavia, the new NATO doctrine, and “the actual withdrawal of the USA from the ABM Treaty of 1972.” Some decisions taken by a secret session of the RF Security Council on April 29, which officially was to consider the state of the national nuclear weapon complex, proved “unexpectedly radical.” First of all those concern the readiness of the RF to undertake “a forced large-scale program of modernization of its nuclear stockpiles…. Obviously, in the nearest future an amendment declaring the renunciation of the principle of no first use of nuclear weapons will be made to Russia’s military doctrine. That will be a ‘mirror’ response to the relevant position of the new NATO military doctrine.” Secondly, “Moscow intends to step up negotiations with its allies about granting them its own nuclear security guarantees, that is, internationalizing its ‘nuclear umbrella’.” So far only Belarus qualifies, but the consequences are predictable in case NATO reciprocates as regards, for instance, the Baltic states. A “concept of development and use of non-strategic nuclear weapons” was approved. It was learned also that resumption of nuclear tests was a key issue at the meeting, but it was decided not to resort to full-fledged tests at Novaya Zemlya. Rather, the main efforts are to be aimed at using “special channels” to obtain high technologies for computer simulation of the tests. Yet, if those efforts fail, resumption of “natural nuclear tests” cannot be ruled out.

Izvestia’s Vladimir Yermolin (“RUSSIA ARMS ITS INFANTRY WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS,” Moscow, 2, 4/30/99) reported that the April 29 session of the RF Security Council presided over by RF President Boris Yeltsin approved a “concept of development and use of non-strategic nuclear weapons,” following which two decrees and a program were signed. Presumably, there will be principal amendments across the whole range of the RF nuclear deterrent development. For example, the RF might revoke the present exclusively counterstrike strategy of its Strategic Purpose Missile Forces (SPMF) and return to the old meeting-counterstrike strategy, with the appropriate distribution of warheads within the nuclear triad to be made: 65 percent to Strategic Deterrence Forces (SDF), 25 percent to submarine-based ICBMs, and 10 percent to heavy bombers. The adopted documents deal as well with non-strategic nuclear weapons, and that implies preparing conventional troops to use tactical nuclear missiles and artillery shells. Possible measures might include an accelerated build-up of the number of “Topol-M” ICBMs and deployment of a space-based anti-missile defense. The fact that of 9 anti-missile early-warning stations only 6 now operate also invites new measures. As 60 percent of industrial capacities that provided nuclear stockpiles of the USSR were left outside the RF borders after 1991, the above-mentioned possible measures would require a restoration of the industrial basis within the RF, which implies a huge expenditure. That will become clear in the second half of May, when the Strategic Nuclear Forces funding bill is to be considered at the RF State Duma session. The SPMF press service told Izvestia that presently it has 756 ICBMs and 3590 nuclear ammunition units. The SDF also include 75 strategic bombers (816 nuclear ammunition units) and 384 submarine-based ballistic missiles (1824 nuclear ammunition units).

2. PRC-Kazakhstan Border Dispute

Izvestia’s Aleksey Gulyaev (“THE BORDER DISPUTE GOES ON,” Alma Ata, 3, 4/30/99) reported that there is a hot discussion going on in Kazakhstan’s newspapers concerning the Kazakhstan-PRC State Border Agreement ratified by Kazakhstan’s parliament this spring. The papers analyze its text and make “sorry conclusions” about the so-called “problem of disputed territories.” In the past the PRC claimed almost one million square kilometers of Kazakhstan’s territory. In recent years only 944 square kilometers have been disputed. According to the agreement, the PRC is to get 43.1 percent of those, with 56.9 percent left to Kazakhstan. Many experts point out, however, that bilateral documents claiming the absence of territorial disputes were regularly signed in 1994, 1995 and 1996, yet soon afterwards the PRC said again and again that the problem still exists. The present agreement was not made public, although this was supposed to be done 10 days after it was signed by the President of Kazakhstan. Local analysts especially fear that the PRC is to get lands from where the Black Irtysh River originate, coupled with PRC plans to construct a canal to divert some water. The ecological consequences of such action have not been assessed yet. Another cause for concern is that all border defense fortifications were build along the USSR-PRC border, but presently Kazakhstan has no funds to create similar defenses along the new border. Also Kazakhs are concerned with the massive inflow to the adjacent PRC territories of new settlers numbering already hundreds of thousands. The PRC “sweetens the pill,” as each concession by Kazakhstan is accompanied by new PRC investments in its economy.

3. Separatist Movement in PRC

Segodnya’s Anna Apostolova (“A SEPARATIST CONSPIRACY PUT INTO THE OPEN IN CHINA,” Moscow, 2, 4/30/99) reported that PRC authorities brought into the open a large clandestine separatist Uighur organization with its headquarters operating in Urumchi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Area. After the terrorists killed a policeman there, the police carried out a large-scale operation and detained the separatists’ alleged leader known as Wahaf, and arrested some other terrorists in other cities of the PRC.

4. Japanese Aid to Azerbaijan

Izvestia’s Sohbet Mamedov (“JAPAN INCREASES AID TO AZERBAIJAN,” Baky, 4, 5/5/99) reported that Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura’s 2-day official visit to Azerbaijan, the first ever of that kind, ended with the signing of a bilateral protocol under which Japan will grant that country 49.3 million yen as gratuitous aid for cultural purposes. Although Komura failed to meet with Azerbaijan President Geidar Aliyev, who was undergoing heart surgery at that time, the visit showed that “Japan sees Azerbaijan as a key country at the junction between Europe and Asia. Oil is at the basis of that interest.” Japanese oil companies are well represented there and Japan plans to provide Azerbaijan with a US$1 billion loan. Total Japanese aid to that country has reached 21 billion yen, including 1 billion granted gratuitously.

5. Singapore Naval Exhibition

Nezavisimaia gazeta’s Pyotr Polkovnikov (“‘AMUR’ IN SINGAPORE,” Moscow, 1, 4/30/99) reported that some 150 companies from over 20 countries are to take part in the IMDEX ASIA 99 International Naval Exhibition to be held in Singapore on May 4-9. Naval ships from 7 countries will visit Singapore at that time. Under the Rosvooruzheniey state weapons trading company, over 20 RF-based enterprises will present over 50 weapon samples, including an RF-made low-noise submarine nicknamed “Black Hole in the Ocean.” Also a new generation “Amur” submarine is to be presented.

6. Indian Aircraft Carrier

Nezavisimaia gazeta’s Aleksey Tamilin (“INDIA BUILDS AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER,” Delhi, 6, 4/30/99) reported that India’s governmental Committee on Security approved a plan to build that country’s first aircraft carrier. The ship with over 20,000-ton displacement is expected to be built in 10 years and cost 17.3 billion rupees. The aircraft carrier would replace “Vikrant,” India’s only ship of that class, which will be written off in the first quarter of the 21st century. Sources at India’s Defense Ministry indicate that the carrier will host Indian-made light fighters upgraded for naval flight conditions. Presently, the RF-made MiG-29K capable of fighting Pakistani R-3S “Orion” planes are considered “ideal” for that carrier. The ship is also to be armed with “ship-to-air” class missiles. In the opinion of the Hindustan Times, now it is time to think about submarines. In that case India relies on the RF to build “Kilo” class submarines for the Indian Navy.

IV. Announcements

1. Position Available

The Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) invites applications for a researcher/senior researcher to conduct policy-relevant research into the scientific and technological aspects of the verification and monitoring of international arms control, disarmament and peace agreements. Applicants should have a higher degree in science or technology, or equivalent experience. Applicants should also have a wide-ranging interest in scientific and technological developments outside their own area of expertise and a demonstrated interest in the implications of such developments for international politics, including verification. Proficiency in English and the ability to write for a generalist audience are essential. Salary range for a researcher is £15,000 to £21,000; for a senior researcher £21,000 to £30,000. Closing date for applications is 21 May 1999. Applicants should send a letter addressing the selection criteria, nominating 3 referees, and providing a curriculum vitae. For job descriptions, selection criteria and application information see VERTIC’s website or contact: The Administrator, Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, Baird House, 15-17 St. Cross Street, London EC1N 8UW, United Kingdom, tel: 44 (0)171 440 6960; fax: 44 (0)171 242 3266. Vertic is an equal opportunity employer. This is a re-advertised position.

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

Timothy L. Savage:
Berkeley, California, United States

Wade L. Huntley:
Berkeley, California, United States

Lee Dong-young:
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Hiroyasu Akutsu:
Tokyo, Japan

Peter Razvin:
Moscow, Russian Federation

Chunsi Wu:
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Dingli Shen:
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *