NAPSNet Daily Report 09 October, 2001

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 09 October, 2001", NAPSNet Daily Report, October 09, 2001, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-09-october-2001/

 
CONTENTS

I. United States

1. DPRK Response to US Military Action
2. DPRK-US Relations
3. Cross-strait Relations
4. Sino-Japanese Relations
5. Asian Reactions to US Military Action
II. ROK 1. Domestic Economy Countermeasures
2. ROK Support to the Campaign
3. Impact of US Military Action on ROK Business
4. Food Aids to DPRK

I. United States

1. DPRK Response to US Military Action

Reuters (Martin Nesirky, “NORTH KOREA: WORLD FACES WAR AFTER US- LED RAIDS,” Seoul, 10/9/01) and The Associated Press (“NORTH KOREA URGES RESTRAINT OVER U.S. ATTACKS ON AFGHANISTAN,” Seoul, 10/9/01) reported that the DPRK said on Tuesday that the world was facing a war after the US-led retaliatory strikes on Afghanistan and vowed vigilance against what it called US hostile policy toward the DPRK. In the first comment on the military action launched on October 7, the DPRK Foreign Ministry said the country opposed terrorism but armed forces should not be used to aggravate regional stability and kill civilians. A DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesman on KCNA said, “The world faces another war. We hold that the action of the United States should not be a source of a vicious circle of terrorism and retaliation that may plunge the world into the holocaust of war. The use of armed forces or a war to kill innocent people and aggravate the regional situation and disturb regional stability…cannot be justified under any circumstances.” He added that the DPRK “had done what it was obliged to do to combat terrorism” but complained the US still kept the country on its list of sponsors of terrorism. The spokesman said, “Under this situation the DPRK is following the situation with vigilance. The DPRK is proud that it has increased its national defense capabilities of its own choice in every way no matter what others may say. The DPRK will closely watch the developments in full readiness to cope with any case.” It did not elaborate on the DPRK’s capabilities.

2. DPRK-US Relations

Reuters (“ATTACKS MAY HARDEN U.S. STANCE ON N.KOREA-EXPERTS,” Seoul, 10/9/01) reported that panelists at a symposium in Seoul on inter-Korean reconciliation on Tuesday said the September 11 attacks were likely to raise US concerns about DPRK missile proliferation and the state’s weapons programs. Kim Sung-han, an analyst at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, said, “The United States after terrorism will more concentrate on verification over weapons of mass destruction and missiles with regard to North Korea. [The US] will be more nervous about some Arabic countries possessing ballistic missiles, so it will make further efforts to stop the export of North Korean missiles and related technologies to those countries.” Joel Wit, a DPRK expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that he was “cautiously pessimistic” despite the prediction of some observers that the attacks would spur the US actively to engage the DPRK. Wit said, “I don’t think this is going to be translated into a more pragmatic policy, given the (Bush administration’s) views on North Korea.”

3. Cross-strait Relations

The Associated Press (“CHINA URGES TAIWAN TO ACCEPT PRINCIPLE OF `ONE CHINA’ AS PRELUDE TO UNIFICATION TALKS,” Beijing, 10/9/01) reported that PRC President Jiang Zemin urged Taiwan’s leaders on Tuesday to agree their island is part of “one China” and start talks on uniting the two sides. Jiang said talks on opening direct trade, transportation and communications could take place only after Taiwan has accepted the “one-China principle.” Jiang repeated the PRC offer of the “one country, two systems” framework for Taiwan. He said the PRC will continue to limit its contacts to Taiwanese who endorse unification indicating that it will ignore Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. However, Jiang said unification was inevitable and demanded that Taiwan drop its reservations. He did not mention the PRC threat to attack Taiwan if it declares independence or puts off unification talks, but warned that the PRC was “strongly determined” to block any attempt to make the division between the sides permanent.

4. Sino-Japanese Relations

New York Times (Erik Eckholm, “JAPANESE LEADER, VISITING CHINA, IS MILDLY REBUKED ON ARMY ROLE,” Beijing, 10/9/01) reported that a Japanese official said that in a meeting with the visiting Japanese prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, PRC President Jiang Zemin said it was “easy to understand” why Japan wants to be involved in the US-led campaign. However, Jiang and PRC Prime Minister Zhu Rongji in meetings Tuesday warned Japan to “remember the wariness of other Asian countries” as it considers sending military forces to play a supporting role in the war on terrorism. The PRC’s mild response suggested that it has tacitly accepted Japan’s plan for a modest loosening of postwar restrictions on sending military forces abroad. Koizumi will return to the PRC for the meeting on October 20 and 21 of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group. In remarks to reporters, Koizumi stressed Japan’s desire to contribute to the war on terrorism, subject to Constitutional limits. He said, “Japan will provide whatever support it can other than the use of force.” [Ed. note: This article appeared in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for October 9, 2001.]

5. Asian Reactions to US Military Action

Reuters (Geert De Clercq, “ASIAN PAPERS COOL ON AFGHANISTAN RAIDS,” Singapore, 10/9/01) reported that newspapers in Asia gave a cautious reception to the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and called for a diplomatic solution which would not only eradicate terrorism but also address age-old conflicts in the Arab world. Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post said, “It is of crucial importance that in the aftermath of the action in Afghanistan, the Bush administration throws its considerable weight into a final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The same coalition of nations that has thrown its weight behind the action against Osama bin Laden must back the United States in a peace effort as well.” Japanese papers in general were rather cool about the strikes, taking pains to emphasize that it was “a war against terror, not Muslims,” as the Daily Yomiuri put it. The Mainichi Shimbun said, “International society has set out on coordinated action against what was a huge challenge to freedom, democracy, human rights.” The Asahi Shimbun was more resigned, saying, “It is best to stay away from military action altogether. However, in order to destroy a terrorist organization that has taken on international society, a limited military action…is unavoidable.” PRC newspapers largely stuck to factual accounts of developments related to Afghanistan. In an editorial, the state-run China Daily newspaper said it did not doubt US sincerity in pursuing “carefully targeted actions” in Afghanistan and that it hoped ordinary people would not be hurt. Taiwan’s two main dailies both hoped for a speedy end to US military operations in Afghanistan. The United Daily News said in an editorial, “If the war fails or drags on, or if their are too many…casualties, anti-war voices in the U.S. and the West will become the mainstream, and governments in the Middle East will either face division or follow popular sentiment and oppose the West. At that time, the nightmare of the ‘clash of civilizations’ will come true.”

II. ROK

1. Domestic Economy Countermeasures

Joongang Ilbo (Song Sang-hoon, “KIM FULLY SUPPORTS U.S. RAIDS”, 10/08/01) reported that the ROK government said ripples through the domestic economy from the military actions in Afghanistan will be limited in the shorter term. However, in order to counter any fallout on the economy, top economic officials said on October 8 that they would implement a series of new measures including a second supplemental budget. The ROK Stock Exchange began trading as scheduled. Effects on the foreign exchange and bond markets were also limited. ROK Deputy Minister of Finance and Economy Kwon O-kyu said, “The military strikes have been expected for some time; the shock effects on the economy will not be as great as those felt right after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.” Still, the government said it would send a second supplemental budget proposal for 2 trillion won (US$1.5 billion) in additional spending to the National Assembly this week. The ROK Finance Ministry said it would ban financial transfers through the ROK financial system by entities it deems linked to Afghanistan’s Taliban regime; its assets uncovered will also be frozen.

2. ROK Support to the Campaign

JoongangIlbo (Kim Jin-kook, “TRANSPORT, MEDICAL AID ARE OFFERED”, 08/10/2001) reported that ROK President Kim Dae-jung said in a special address to the nation on October 8 that he fully supported the US military campaign against the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Kim said, “We must demonstrate our opposition to terrorism through resolute action.” ROK is prepared to dispatch a medical support group and transportation vehicles. Lee Hoi- chang, president of the main opposition Grand National Party, said that he wholeheartedly supported the anti-terrorism effort and that his party would provide bipartisan support necessary for the government. The ROK military and police went on alert on October 8, deploying additional forces to protect US and Islamic facilities around the country. The US Forces in Korea also strengthened the protection of its bases. US General Thomas Schwartz, commander of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command, visited Defense Minister Kim Dong-shin Monday afternoon and discussed cooperative measures between the two countries’ militaries.

3. Impact of US Military Action on ROK Business

Joongang Ilbo (Industrial News Team, “U.S. STRIKES: NO BUSINESS IMPACT”, 10/08/01) reported that the ROK business community foresee no immediate impact from the US retaliation against Afghanistan. Industries are preparing countermeasures against potential risks in case the war flare throughout the Middle East or become prolonged. Today, no Korean firm operates in Afghanistan. The ROK Trade Investment Promotion Agency forecast that the profitability of exporters will plummet due to the burden of war risk insurance premiums and rising oil prices. Exporters fear losses if traffic via the Indian Ocean is hindered during this crucial period. Construction firms delivered contingency plans to sites in the region – including evacuation plans. Currently, 2,700 ROK workers are on 64 sites in 12 Middle Eastern countries.

4. Food Aids to DPRK

Joongang Ilbp (Kim Hee-sung, “100,000-TON RICE AND 200,000-TON CORNS TO DPRK, SAYS UNIFICATION MINISTER”, 10/09/01) reported that ROK Minister of National Unification Hong Soon-young said Tuesday that the ROK “is likely to provide DPRK with 100,000 ton of rice and 200,000 ton of corns in near future.” Hong said further disclosing the food assistance will be provided in the conditions of the loan. He called for bipartisan cooperation of the opposition Grand National Party (GNP). GNP representative Park Myung-hwan gave no objections to the food aid but called for more benefits from the DPRK’s side, namely extending more exchange for the separated families and fast installation of the liaison office. ROK representative Cho Ung-gyu said, “This food aid to DPRK if materialized, would amount to 85.8 billion won (US$66 million) in total.” Meanwhile the ROK and the ruling MDP decided to adopt proposal to aid DPRK with 300,000 ton of rice on October 8. The specifics will be sorted out during the inter- Korean Economic Cooperation meeting slated this month on 23rd.

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
Clayton, Australia

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.