NAPSNet Daily Report 10 April, 2001

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 10 April, 2001", NAPSNet Daily Report, April 10, 2001, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-10-april-2001/

 
CONTENTS

I. United States

1. Japanese NGO’s DPRK Visit
2. US-PRC Spy Plane Incident
3. US Government Position on Incident
4. PRC Government Position on Incident
5. Public Attitudes toward Collision
6. Situation of US Spy Plane Crew
7. Effect of Plane Collision on US-PRC Relations
8. South China Seas Espionage
9. PRC Olympic Bid
10. Taiwan Military Exercises
II. Republic of Korea 1. ROK Views of Missile Defense
III. People’s Republic of China 1. PRC on Air Collision
2. Taiwanese Position on Air-collision
3. World Opinion on PRC-US Air-Collision
4. PRC-Russian Relations
5. PRC on Japanese History Textbook
6. ROK on Japanese History Textbook

I. United States

1. Japanese NGO’s DPRK Visit

Dow Jones Newswire (“N. KOREA ACCEPTS VISIT BY JAPANESE NGO,” Tokyo, 04/10/01) reported that the Japanese nongovernmental Citizens’ Fund for Redress, Network for Redress of War Victims by Japan visited Pyongyang in March to interview DPRK women allegedly forced to serve as sex slaves for the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II. The group is led by Koken Tsuchiya, a former president of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. It was the first visit by such a Japanese group in eight and a half years. Ambassador Jong Thae-hwa, the DPRK’s top negotiator in normalization talks with Japan, received Tsuchiya and members of his delegation at the People’s Cultural Palace and talked with them for an hour and a half. Jong stated, “Your actions are activities for justice — activities that will go down in history.” He added, “Japan has not settled its militarism. There are growing voices in the United States and Asian countries demanding that Japan settle its past.” He expressed hope that the network will remain active to “improve Japan’s image.” Ken Arimitsu, the network’s coordinator, said that the realization of the trip was an indication of the DPRK’s intent to deal with Japanese civic groups. Jong Ryun-hoe, vice chairman of the DPRK’s Korean Measure Committee on Compensation for “Comfort Women for Army” and Victims of the Pacific War, discussed examples of an acceptable Japanese apology such as a “Diet resolution.” Stressing that it was his “personal opinion,” Jong said that Japan should express its apology as its intention “to resolve abnormal relations between the two countries.” He added that the two sides could discuss the amount of compensation after Japan has issued its apology. Shinichi Arai, a professor at Surugadai University and deputy chief of the delegation, said that the DPRK is inclined to be flexible in the negotiations once Japan comes forward with an apology with the compensation in view.

2. US-PRC Spy Plane Incident

The Washington Post (Mike Allen and Steven Mufson, “BUSH BACKS DIPLOMACY, BUT ALSO WARNS CHINA,” 4/10/01) reported that a US Defense Department official said that the US EP-3E Aries II that collided with the PRC F-8 fighter was on autopilot at the time of the crash. The official said that although the slow, propeller-driven US plane might have turned while on autopilot, it would not have been a sudden movement. US Defense Department officials also provided other new details, saying that the collision occurred as the PRC pilot made his third pass at the US aircraft, coming up from behind and below the EP- 3E. According to their account, the F-8 came within feet of the US plane during the earlier passes, and the final time around, its tail section struck the EP-3E. The PRC jet broke into two pieces, while the US aircraft plunged 5,000 to 8,000 feet. The official said that at that point, the US pilot, identified Monday as Navy Lieutenant Shane Osborn, had “only one choice,” which was to make an emergency landing on Hainan Island. US officials said that commercial and government satellite photos taken on Monday showed seven PRC military trucks parked next to the plane, fueling speculation that PRC specialists have begun removing intelligence-gathering equipment from the plane. Some former government analysts said that the commercial photos appeared to show PRC workers ripping apart the plane’s fuselage, but a senior US Defense Department official dismissed those claims. He said that a higher-resolution government photo taken four hours later showed the fuselage intact. John Pike, a defense and intelligence analyst who is director of GlobalSecurity.org, said that the commercial photos taken by Space Imaging showed “a big chunk out of the right rear fuselage.” Patrick G. Eddington, who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a satellite photo interpreter from 1988-1996, cautioned that light and shadow can play tricks with satellite images, but added that he also thought the Space Imaging photos showed that part of the plane was being disassembled. Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a US Defense Department official during the Reagan administration, predicted that the incident would be “the end of Bush’s honeymoon with conservatives” if he did not begin making more of a case about “the challenge China represents.” Gaffney said, “He thinks he’s sending the signal to the Chinese that the time is up, but I think they’re reading it as weakness and an invitation to take more time.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

The New York Times (Craig S. Smith, “CREW MAY BE HELD UNTIL PILOT IS FOUND,” Haikou, 4/10/01) reported that many PRC experts said that the 24 US crewmembers detained in Haikou since their surveillance plane collided with a PRC fighter jet are unlikely to be released until the search for the missing PRC pilot is over. Shen Dingli, a Sino-US relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai, said, “I consider it politically difficult to stop searching for him, particularly while negotiations for the release of the Americans are ongoing and there is a technical possibility that he is alive.” Liu Shi, the director of the Maritime Search and Rescue Center, which is coordinating the civilian boats’ search for the missing PRC pilot, said that although the skies have been clear, shifting winds and 10-foot waves had hampered progress. He said that a floating object could be carried more than 100 miles in 24 hours under such conditions. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

3. US Government Position on Incident

The Office of International Information Programs, US Department of State (“BUSH SAYS IT’S IN CHINA’S INTERESTS ‘TO BRING RESOLUTION’ TO THE SITUATION,” 4/10/01) reported that US President George W. Bush on April 10 urged the PRC to “bring resolution” to the issue of the 24 US Navy crewmembers still on the PRC’s Hainan Island. Bush said, “It’s time for our people to come home. I am making it clear to the Chinese that it’s in their nation’s interests to end this situation as quickly as possible. As all members of my administration have been saying, the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that it could — could — jeopardize relations, and we certainly don’t want that to happen.” Bush also said that he had talked the morning of April 10 with Brigadier General Neal Sealock, the US defense attache in Beijing, following Sealock’s fifth meeting earlier in the day with the crewmembers. Bush said, “He reported that spirits are high, that the troops are patient. He informed us that there is an exchange of e-mails between our troops and their families, which is, I found to be an important piece of news, that the families will be able to talk to each other.” White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters that Sealock’s fifth visit with the crewmembers lasted about 40 minutes. Fleisher said, “The General told the President in his words that the crew was in superb condition.” He also said that progress has been made in the diplomatic discussions between the US and the PRC “but the sensitivities, the necessities of diplomacy sometimes mean that to be the most productive, the less has to be said. And I think most people understand that, and that is the situation we find ourselves in.” He added, “it is in the hands of the Chinese to resolve this matter in accordance with the diplomatic procedures we have put in place.”

Agence France Presse (“US CAN’T BRING CREW HOME, CHINA MUST: WHITE HOUSE,” Washington, 4/10/01) reported that the US on Tuesday said that the onus was squarely on the PRC to end a 10-day standoff over the detained crew of a downed US spy plane. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, “Given the fact that it is the Chinese government that has our men and women on their land, means it is in their power to release them. The United States cannot bring them home, they must be released. And so it is in the hands of the Chinese to resolve this matter in accordance with the diplomatic procedures we have put in place.” A senior State Department official said, “We think we had the framework for working this out last week. It’s time for them to decide. We’ve made quite clear quite clear that we’ve done as much as we can.” A UN spokesman said Tuesday that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan meanwhile expressed his concern to both sides over the continuing standoff.

4. PRC Government Position on Incident

Reuters (“CHINA SAYS POWELL’S ‘SORRY’ HELPFUL IN PLANE ROW,” Beijing, 4/10/01) reported that the PRC said on Tuesday that the use of the word sorry by US Secretary of State Colin Powell over the death of a PRC pilot is a step towards resolving the standoff over the PRC detention of the US spy plane’s crew. However, PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi also repeated that the US must apologize for the incident. There was also a relaxation of the restrictions on the US crew. US Defense Attache Neal Sealock said, “They are being given additional privileges from previous meetings, with regard to their freedom within the building, the ability to do their PT (exercise) inside the building and things such as that. The Chinese side, and in fact, the folks that are with them provided some cigarettes for those who smoked, and they’re getting just about everything that they need. I can’t say enough about the conditions that they’re in. They’re extremely good conditions.” Neal Sealock suggested the Navy crew was reconciled to remaining in detention until a deal was worked out and was not downcast at the prospect. He said after meeting the crew on Monday, “Their spirits are extremely high. There’s no doubt that that unit has their heads up. They know their situation. We discussed the emotions on both sides. They realize it’s a political situation, they realize that their treatment is quite good in comparison to what it might be.”

5. Public Attitudes toward Collision

USA Today (Richard Benedetto, “POLL: MOST FAVOR BUSH, U.S. STANCE,” Washington, 4/10/01) reported that a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll showed that overall, 68 percent of the US public said that the US is not at fault in the spy plane incident, and 54 percent said that the US should not apologize. At the same time, 61 percent approve of US President George W. Bush’s handling of the situation so far. The tendency of the public to rally around the president early in an international crisis could be boosting Bush’s overall job-approval rating. Bush’s job approval jumped from 53 percent just before the crisis to 59 percent now. The April 6-8 poll of 1,025 adults has an error margin of +/- 3 percentage points. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

The Christian Science Monitor (Robert Marquand, “ON THE STREET, CHINESE ANGER NOT SO DEEP,” Beijing, 4/10/01) reported that nine days after a US-PRC mid-air collision, the news media in the PRC continue to ratchet up demands for a US apology and rhetoric about a “hegemonic” and “bullying” US. However, feelings on the streets do not run very deep. Chinese are expressing a mild mix of suspicion and admiration for the US, and many echo officialdom in asking for an apology. Many ordinary people have not heard of the incident, or do not think about it much. Many also make a distinction between the plane dispute and the 1999 US bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade, which they see as deliberate. Yang, a factory worker said, “I think of it as an accident. It is not all the Americans’ fault. Some percentage is China’s fault.” PRC experts said, however, that the episode is related to national pride over the PRC past and its rising role, worry over a free-market future, a historical fear of always being injured by the foreigner, and a carefully nurtured suspicion about the US. Mei Renyi, a political scientist at Beijing Foreign Studies Institute, said, “The incident occurred near the border of China. This was not a Chinese plane off Hawaii or San Francisco. People in the know may be aware that spy planes have been out there for 30 years – but ordinary people aren’t. Most Chinese were offended by Bush’s statement for quick return of the crew…. If this were a Chinese plane on American territory … Americans and the Congress would make an uproar.” An anonymous prominent scholar said, “The leadership in Beijing is more worried about a crowd getting out of control, than about these spy missions, that’s for sure. You whip up a crowd … and you have to worry about the crowd turning on you. The leaders were shocked at how quickly people were stirred in 1999.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

6. Situation of US Spy Plane Crew

The New York Times (Steven Lee Myers, “QUESTIONING BY CHINESE IS INTENSE,” Washington, 4/10/01) reported that US Defense Department officials said on Monday that the meetings with the US crew of the spy plane collision were shedding additional light on the circumstances of the collision. They declined to discuss them in detail, citing the sensitivity of the negotiations. Officials said that while the US crew members have been treated well, they told US officials that they have been subjected to intense questioning not only about the collision, but also about other aspects of their duties and operations. One US military officer said, “It’s going over the line of what happened in the incident.” A senior officer said that the crewmembers had been questioned by the PRC “for several hours at a time.” One official said that while PRC officials no longer insisted on being present at each meeting, Brigadier General Neal Sealock and others meeting with the crew remained circumspect, assuming they are being monitored. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

Agence France Presse (“U.S. DIPLOMATS DRAWING UP EVACUATION PLAN FOR SPY PLANE CREW,” Haikou, 4/10/01) reported that a source close to the talks said Tuesday that US diplomats on the southern PRC island of Hainan are working on an evacuation plan for the detained crew of a US spy plane. The source said that the team of US diplomats in the Hainan capital of Haikou has been boosted from six to “more than 10” in the past few days by back-up staff charged with organizing transport following a release of the crew. The United States would like a chartered plane to take the crew out of Hainan to avoid exposing them to journalists who would be able to buy tickets for a regular commercial flight. However the source said that a charter would require permission from the PRC authorities. The source said the crew would head to the United States, where most of their families are, but that there could be a stopover on the way. It is believed the most likely destination for the crew on release is the US Pacific Command on Hawaii where they will be debriefed about their detention and the April 1 collision.

7. Effect of Plane Collision on US-PRC Relations

The New York Times (David E. Sanger, “U.S. SHYING AWAY FROM THREATS TO RESOLVE STANDOFF WITH CHINA,” Washington, 4/10/01) reported that US President George W. Bush’s senior advisers have concluded for now that threatening retaliation in the spy-plane standoff with the PRC would not speed the release of the 24 crewmembers and could harm longer-term US interests in Asia. One official said Monday that in reviewing those options “it became clear how little room for maneuver either side has” in a relationship that is “this interdependent and complex.” One senior US diplomat said, “The reality is that the Chinese hold the short-term tactical cards, because they have the crew, and we hold the long-term strategic cards. And both sides are using those to circle the other.” The official acknowledged that the administration is under growing pressure from conservatives in the US Congress to threaten stronger action. However, experts on PRC trade, including Nicholas Lardy of the Brookings Institution, have noted that a delay in opening the PRC market through PRC ascension to the World Trade Organization might be welcomed by many PRC officials. Selling Taiwan advanced arms and destroyers equipped with the Aegis radar system, which many in the US Congress are pressuring for, also has its drawbacks. One senior Bush administration official said, “Look, if we have a bad relationship with China, does it make sense to sell more weapons to Taiwan? That would be ridiculous – almost as ridiculous as the converse, that if we have good relations with China, we should starve the Taiwanese of what they need.” US Senator Dan Torricelli said in an interview Monday, “Beijing has made it impossible for the Bush administration, no matter what it decides. They cannot appear to have compromised on their previous intentions. In fact, every day that passes in this will make it harder not to do the sale of the Aegis destroyers. The only one who has benefited is the Taiwan military.” US State Department officials however are worried that administration action could hurt PRC President Jiang Zemin. One senior administration official said, “What happens to Jiang, and our hopes for avoiding a hard-line successor, if he lets the crew go and then we turn around and sell more gear to Taiwan?” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

8. South China Seas Espionage

The Washington Times (Bill Gertz, “CHINESE PLANES COLLECT ELECTRONIC DATA,” 4/10/01) reported that the PRC is continuing aerial surveillance off southern China as the US Defense Department is reviewing whether to halt its flights in the region until the EP-3E dispute is resolved. US Defense Department officials said there has been no halt in PRC military reconnaissance flights targeted at collecting electronic communications from Taiwan, Vietnam and areas of the South China Sea. US Defense Department officials said there have been no routine US surveillance flights of the same region since the April 1 collision between an US EP- 3E and a PRC F-8 interceptor. However, the next scheduled EP-3E mission is set for the next several days. A second defense official said, “The Pentagon is reviewing whether that flight will go forward.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

9. PRC Olympic Bid

Agence France Presse (“KEEP 2008 OLYMPICS BID OUT OF SPY-PLANE ROW: CHINESE EMBASSY,” Washington, 4/10/01) reported that according to a letter received by some US lawmakers on Tuesday, the PRC has advised US members of Congress to separate the PRC bid to hold the 2008 Olympics from the current spy-plane diplomatic row. The letter, signed by PRC Ambassador to the US Yang Jiechi, said, “You are probably aware that it is entirely under the jurisdiction of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to judge whether a city is suitable for the Games. No individual or organization has the right to influence the IOC on the matter. The bills in Congress against Beijing’s bid, therefore, constitute gross interference in the internal affairs and inherent rights of the IOC.” US Democratic Senator John Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, criticized the letter as inappropriate given the current standoff.

10. Taiwan Military Exercises

Agence France Presse (“TAIWAN TO FLEX MILITARY MUSCLE IN YEAR’S BIGGEST WAR GAMES,” Taipei, 4/10/01) reported that the Taiwan Defense Ministry said Tuesday that it will review its defense capabilities against the PRC when it holds an anti-landing exercise next week in the climax of the year’s biggest war games. Ministry spokesman Huang Sui-sheng said that the army will play a key role in the live fire anti-landing maneuvers on April 20 in the southern county of Pingtung. Army helicopters, tanks, mortars and howitzers will be mobilized in the exercise, which will be the climax of the island’s 2001 drill codenamed “Han Kuang (Han Glory) 17.” The Han Kuang war games started last month. In addition to cyber wargames, the military had also held exercises to test air defenses, anti-submarine and anti-ship capability.

II. Republic of Korea

1. ROK Views of Missile Defense

The Korea Times (Soh Ji-young, “CIVIC GROUPS UNITED TO BLOCK US MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM,” 4/10/01) reported that more than 40 ROK civic groups on Monday formed an alliance to oppose US missile defense programs, claiming that such moves will prevent peace from prevailing on the Korean peninsula. The Korean Committee Against NMD-TMD and For Peace said at a press conference held on Monday morning, “The Theater Missile Defense (TMD) and National Missile Defense (NMD) projects being pushed by the United States will only spark an international arms race, with the Korean peninsula as the main victim.” Major nongovernmental organizations, such as the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and the People’s Action for Reform of the Unjust SOFA are taking part in the coalition. The Korean Committee said, “The initiative of the U.S. government to deploy the NMD-TMD system is nothing more than a design to secure its hegemony. As the Bush government is intent on fabricating North Korea’s military threat to justify its program, it will ultimately damage the prospect of peace and unification between the two Koreas, which is starting to take root. We will undertake all necessary efforts to stop the NMD-TMD plan.” The Korean Committee also wrote a letter to US President George W. Bush and urged him to give up the missile plan. The coalition also called on ROK President Kim Dae-jung to “take a clear stand on the NMD- TMD issue,” and give up all efforts to participate in the controversial missile defense programs. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 10, 2001.]

III. People’s Republic of China

1. PRC on Air Collision

PLA Daily (Yang Guoqiang, Wu Liming, “JIANG ZEMIN: US OWES CHINA AN APOLOGY,” Beijing, 04/05/01, P1) reported that just before PRC President Jiang Zemin left for a state visit to Latin America and South America on April 4, he said that the US should apologize to the Chinese people for Sunday’s collision between PRC and US military planes. He said the US should bear all responsibility for the collision incident. While once again expressing concern for the safety of the missing pilot, Jiang instructed Navy Commander Shi Yunsheng and other officials to use all available means to search for Chinese pilot Wang Wei. The US should do something conducive to the smooth development of Sino-US relations rather than continue to make remarks that confuse right and wrong and are harmful to relations between the two countries, Jiang said.

China Daily (Shao Zongwei, Liu Li, “US REGRET POSITIVE BUT NOT ENOUGH,” 04/06/01, P1) reported that at a regular briefing, PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi said on April 5 that the US statement of regret over Sunday’s collision between a US spy plane and Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea is a positive step but not enough. “The regret expressed by the US side is a step taken in the right direction,” Sun said. However, he reiterated that the US should assume full responsibility and apologize to the Chinese people. Sun’s remarks followed US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s statement on Wednesday in which he said that his nation “regrets that the Chinese plane did not get down safely” and “regrets the loss of life of that Chinese pilot.” He also sent a letter of regret to PRC Vice-Premier Qian Qichen. “The US side knows clearly China’s stance and solemn demands on this issue,” Sun said. “What I want to stress is that the US must assume total responsibility and make a full apology.” He said, “The crucial point is that the US side should adopt a cooperative attitude and treat China’s representations and protests seriously, admit their mistakes and apologize. China will make proper arrangements for future visits (by US diplomats to the crew) as long as the US side adopts a cooperative attitude.”

PLA Daily (Ma Wenying, Fu Dalin, “US TRAMPLES UNPON INTERNATIONAL LAW,” 04/06/01, P4) reported that PRC legal experts from Xi’an Political Institution expressed their “utmost indignation” about the US spy plane’s collision with the PRC fighter jet. Yu Zhengshan, an armed conflict law expert, said that the fact that the US side used the “freedom of flight” (FOF) principle to defend its espionage activity fully discloses that US tried to distort the FOF principle into the freedom of undermining other countries’ security. In terms of the “sovereignty immunity” rights, Song Xinping, a Deputy Director in research division of Law Study, said that this is the usual trick used by the US, for it always took hard positions when dealing with overseas accidents. The Director in research division of Military Law recalled a event in the former Soviet Union when a private German flyer landed in Red Square in Moscow and was sentenced according to relevant laws. This incident, he pointed out, goes even farther and immunity in no way applies under this condition.

2. Taiwanese Position on Air-collision

Global Times (Zhu Xianlong, Zhaoshen, “TAIWAN AUTHORITIES: DIFFER OVER AIR-COLLISION,” 04/10/01, P3) reported that in the wake of the PRC-US military planes midair collision, all circles in Taiwan are showing extraordinary concern about this issue, which is mainly reflected in official remarks, media articles and commentary and from scholars as well. On April 1, the Taiwan “Defense Department” defined it as a chance occurrence, and said that future cross-Straits relations and Taiwan security will not be hurt by this accident. However, according to Taiwan’s “Cabinet Committee on Mainland Affairs,” the collision is likely to evolve into a serious incident and should be followed closely. The Taiwan leader, Chen Shui-bian, has kept a silent attitude toward it. On the relationship between the collision and US arms sales to Taiwan, the Taiwan authorities’ opinions diverged. The “Defense Department” said that if the US and the PRC both adopt hard positions, Taiwan will benefit in terms of acquiring arms from US. The “Foreign Ministry” claimed that, currently, it is difficult to foresee any direct impact on the US-Taiwan arms-sale meeting, and one should not view the “Aegis” ship as the sole indicator but consider Taiwan security from a larger perspective. Meanwhile, the Taiwan academic community differs in opinion from government officials. The official line is basically optimistic, while the academics are pretty concerned. An article pointed out that as Taiwan is the most sensitive flashpoint between the PRC and the US, the more stable PRC-US relations are, the more stable cross-Straits relations are.

3. World Opinion on PRC-US Air-Collision

Jiefang Daily (“US REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE: ILLOGICAL,” 04/07/01, P4) and PLA Daily (Hu Guangyao, “CANADA CRITICEZES US BEHAVIOR,” Ottawa, 04/06/01, P4) reported that in recent days world leaders and media have made comments on the PRC-US military planes collision, condemning the hegemonic way of the US side. Cuban leader Fidel Castro said on April 5 that US rhetoric after the air-collision is typical Cold-War language. This matter is very serious and things will deteriorate further if the US Government keeps its arrogant attitude, he argued. The US Government’s behavior results totally from the Cold-War mentality, and is a manifestation of hegemony and power politics. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir was quoted as saying on April 5 that he felt regretful over the air collision. He said that there is no country in the world that likes to be spied upon and that the US renaissance plane should not have conducted the spy activities against the PRC. He expressed his hope for a resolution of this incident between the two countries. The Vietnam Communist Party Central News Agency published a commentary saying that the incident where a US renaissance plane collided with and destroyed a Chinese fighter jet is an intrusion into Chinese territorial airspace and a hegemonic act. According to an important Mexico newspaper, the US Government should bear full responsibility for this incident. It further pointed out that, as long as the most powerful country thinks it is in its own interests and needs, it can re-step onto the road of militarism. In a meeting with Congress members, Canadian Prime Minister Jacques Chretien condemned the damaging attitude from the US side. He said that the request PRC President George W. Bush to the PRC Government to repatriate the crewmembers is an act of a “western cowboy.”

4. PRC-Russian Relations

China Daily (“STRATEGIC STABILITY HIGHLIGHTED,” 04/05/01, P1) reported that the PRC and Russia reached a broad consensus on April 4 on issues related to strategic stability, including missile defense, disarmament and arms control, according to the PRC Foreign Ministry. During the consultations on strategic stability, PRC Deputy Foreign Minister Zhang Deguang and his Russian counterpart G. Mamedov reiterated both sides’ opposition to the deployment of the NMD system, which is prohibited by the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and the development of the TMD system of a military bloc nature for the Aisa-Pacific region. They pointed out that the ABM Treaty must be safeguarded, strengthened and complied with. They stressed the need to do everything possible to maintain regional and global strategic balance and stability.

5. PRC on Japanese History Textbook

China Daily (Zhu Wei, “PRC CONDEMNS NEW TEXTBOOK,” 04/05/01, P1) reported that on April 4, the PRC urged Japan to minimize the negative effects of an approved textbook that glorifies Japan’s history of invasion during WWII. PRC Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan expressed the PRC Government’s indignation over the decision by the Japanese Government to approve the textbook to Japanese Ambassador to the PRC Anami Koreshige. The matter upset the Chinese people and could disrupt the normal development of bilateral relations, Tang said. “This cannot help but make the Chinese Government and people question the true stance of the Japanese Government on historic issues and doubt if the solemn commitments made by Japan on these issues can be trusted,” said Tang, stressing that Japan’s correct attitude towards its history of invasion is the important political foundation of Sino-Japanese relations. The new textbook not only denies the invasive nature of the war started by Japanese militarists, but also advocates the horrifying theory that the Japanese invasion helped liberate the Asian countries, Tang said. “The textbook, once used in classrooms, will seriously poison Japan’s history education.”

6. ROK on Japanese History Textbook

People’s Daily (Gao Haorong, “ROK RECALLED ITS AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN TEMPORARILY,” Seoul, 04/10/01, P7) reported that on April 9, the ROK Government declared that it would temporarily recall its Ambassador to Japan to protest against the modified textbook approved by Japan, which distorts Japanese invasion history. According to the ROK Foreign Commerce Minister’s assistant, Japanese history textbook is a very serious issue that will affect the foundation of the ROK-Japanese relationship. ROK Government demands Japan correct the distorted history facts, he added. To fulfill this aim, the ROK will at all cost adopt hard measures, he stressed.

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
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

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.