NAPSNet Daily Report 11 May, 1999

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 11 May, 1999", NAPSNet Daily Report, May 11, 1999, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-11-may-1999/

IN TODAY’S REPORT:

I. United States

II. Republic of Korea

I. United States

1. Inspection of Underground Site

The Associated Press (“U.S. EXPERTS TO TOUR N.KOREA SITE,” Seoul, 05/11/99) reported that the DPRK’s official Korean Central News Agency said Tuesday that the DPRK Foreign Ministry invited a team of US technical experts to visit the underground construction site in Kumchangri on May 20. The report said that the US team will arrive in the DPRK next Tuesday and begin its inspection two days later.

2. Remains of US Soldiers from Korean War

The Associated Press (“N.KOREA RETURNING U.S. MIAS REMAINS,” Seoul, 05/11/99) reported that the UN Command said Tuesday that remains believed to be those of US soldiers missing from the Korean War will be repatriated from the DPRK on Friday at Panmunjom. The command declined to give other details, including how many sets of remains will be returned.

3. DPRK Famine

The Associated Press (“U.N. OFFICIAL SEES WORST OF NORTH KOREAN FAMINE OVER,” Beijing, 05/11/99) reported that Tun Myat, director of resources for the UN World Food Program (WFP), said Tuesday that the worst of the DPRK famine may have passed. He said that WFP donors who visited the DPRK in early May believe that 1997 was the worst year in the famine, although they found no evidence that the cycle of aid dependence will end soon. He added that food aid is getting to those who need it and that the DPRK is now producing “alternative foods” on a large scale, helping to prevent “mega-deaths.” Tun Myat said that two years ago, “‘A famine in slow motion’ was how I depicted the situation. I have no reason to change that other than to say maybe that the slow is getting even slower.” He said that the WFP is still checking the accuracy of DPRK estimates of approximately 220,000 dead from the famine, but he added that the release of the figures is itself “highly significant.” He added that donors are being given increased access to parts of the country that were once off-limits, and are being allowed to visit farms and meet with families. Tun Myat said that during the recent trip, DPRK officials admitted to the delegation that the famine resulted partly from loss of foreign trade after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. He stated, “For the first time they seem to be owning up that the problem they have is perhaps structural and more deep-rooted than just natural disasters.” He also said that the delegation saw many small-scale hydroelectric plants under construction, indicating that the DPRK is determined to remain self-sufficient in energy despite its economic problems. He noted that DPRK workers on food- for-work projects are urban industrial workers who lost their jobs due to a fuel shortages rather than farmers as in other countries where the WFP administers such projects.

4. Ethnic Koreans in Japan

The New York Times (Nicholas D. Kristof, “VYING FOR KOREAN HEARTS, KIM IL SUNG VS. HIP-HOP,” Tokyo, 05/11/99) reported that the number of ethnic Koreans in Japan who profess loyalty to the DPRK is decreasing. The article said that every year more than 10,000 Koreans take Japanese citizenship. Ku Dae-sok, the principal of the pro-DPRK Korean High School in Tokyo stated, “Intermarriage is increasing, and taking of Japanese nationality is increasing. So I think the trend for Koreans here is headed downhill.” The Japanese Education Ministry bars graduates of Korean schools from applying to Japan’s national universities. So Chung-on, an official of the pro-DPRK Chosun Soren organization in Japan, stated, “The original purpose of the schools was to prepare Koreans so that they could go back to their homeland. But now young people have no intention of going back to their homeland. Taking account of that reality, our organization has been trying to modify the contents of the education.” The article said that attendance of Korean schools has fallen to 17,000 from 35,000 in 1967. The amount of money sent by Korean families in Japan to the DPRK has also dropped from the earlier level of approximately US$100 million per year. More Koreans in Japan are now aligned with the ROK than with the DPRK. However, Shin Te-jyun, the president of the student body at the Korean High School, stated, “Are people proud of their mothers only in good times and then ashamed of their mothers when they run into troubles? No, of course not. We feel the same love for our mothers in bad times as in good. And it’s the same with our motherland.” Sok Kyong-suk, a teacher at the school, argued, “I could never think of becoming a Japanese citizen, because we were colonized by Japan. To become Japanese would be a humiliation.”

5. US Explanation for Bombing of PRC Embassy

The Associated Press (John Diamond, “CIA EXPLAINS CHINESE EMBASSY ERROR,” Washington, 05/11/99) reported that US intelligence officials told lawmakers in a closed-door session on Monday that the Central Intelligence Agency had the right address for the Yugoslavia munitions bureau, but could not correctly locate that address on a map of Belgrade. The point it selected for the address turned out to be the PRC Embassy. One of the officials stated, “It was the right address applied to the wrong building.” The other added, “None of the fail-safes worked.” The CIA was working with a 1992 map made by the Defense Mapping Agency that shows individual buildings in Belgrade but no specific street numbers. Although the map was updated in 1997 and 1998, it still showed the PRC Embassy in its former location. An anonymous US State Department official said that the US diplomatic mission in Belgrade was aware that the PRC moved its embassy in 1996, but the officials at the mission did not consider it their responsibility to notify NATO strike planners, so that the “no strike” list was outdated. The CIA tried to extrapolate the location of the arms directorate using known street addresses nearby, along with aerial imagery that showed a walled compound that fit intelligence information about the directorate’s function. An unnamed senior intelligence official said that when the CIA heard that the embassy had been struck, “We started looking, ‘Where’s (the Embassy) at? Oh my gosh, it’s the target.” John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists stated, “Our style of war increasingly involves targeting individual buildings. I don’t believe our intelligence community is currently focused on that requirement.”

The US Information Agency (Susan Ellis, “COHEN URGES CALM, CORDIALITY IN U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS,” Washington, 05/10/99) reported that US Defense Secretary William Cohen said that the idea that the US would deliberately target the PRC Embassy in Belgrade runs contrary to US attempts to promote better relations with the PRC. Cohen stated, “I understand that there is anger. I understand that the Chinese feel this sense of frustration and rage right now. But I would hope that cooler heads prevail because we have much larger and long-term interests with the Chinese people and the Chinese government, and hopefully we can help mollify those feelings of rage and anger and restore a sense of calm and cordiality in our relations.” He added that the US has taken steps to prevent such a mistake from happening again.

6. UN Response to Bombing of PRC Embassy

Reuters (Anthony Goodman, “U.N. WON’T CONDEMN CHINA EMBASSY BOMBING, United Nations, 05/10/99) reported that the UN Security Council adjourned on Monday without adopting a statement proposed by the PRC “strongly” condemning NATO’s attack on its Belgrade embassy as a “blatant encroachment on the sovereignty of a UN member state.” The statement would also have called on NATO to “bear all responsibilities for the casualties and property damage” and demand that “all individuals responsible for the incident be brought to justice.” Council president Denis Dangue Rewaka of Gabon said that members would confer individually on the issue until a date is set for a subsequent meeting. A council source said that only Russia and Namibia supported the PRC’s draft. British ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock stated, “We had really quite a calm and somber discussion in which again very sincere regrets were expressed by really all members of the council to China for this tragic mistake that NATO has made in its bombing of the Chinese embassy. But in terms of reaching a formal council conclusion, there is still too much difference between China and one or two delegations supporting China on one hand, and members of NATO at the other end of the spectrum.”

7. PRC Reaction to Embassy Bombing

The Associated Press (John Leicester, “CHINA DEMANDS PROBE OF NATO BOMBING,” Beijing, 05/11/99), the New York Times (Erik Eckholm, “CHINA RAISES THEN LOWERS TONE IN ANTI-U.S. PROTESTS,” Beijing, 05/11/99), the San Jose Mercury News (Jennifer Lin, “NEW WAVE OF PROTESTS IN BEIJING,” Beijing, 05/11/99) and the Los Angeles Times (Henry Chu, Maggie Farley, “AMID ANGER, CHINA HINTS AT DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION,” Beijing, 05/11/99) reported that PRC media on Tuesday for the first time reported US and NATO apologies for the bombing of the PRC Embassy in Yugoslavia. Hundreds of people marched past the US and British embassies in Beijing, but the demonstrations were smaller than previously. US Ambassador James Sasser said that police controls over the marches were an improvement, but warned that the return to Beijing on Wednesday of the cremated remains of the three Chinese journalists killed in the bombing could reignite anti-US protests. PRC President Jiang Zemin called the bombing a “provocation to all 1.2 billion Chinese people.” He stated, “In the last few days, the Chinese people have used protests, meetings, statements and all sorts of methods to express their utmost indignation. It shows the fervor, will and strength of the great patriotic spirit of the Chinese people.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhu Bangzao reiterated assurances that embassies and diplomatic personnel would be protected. He added that if “overreactions were seen to be supported by the Chinese government, that is a misunderstanding.” Zhu also said, “To describe [the bombing] in a dismissive way as a mistake cannot at all be convincing.” He said that Chinese officials had noted the apology and were watching for further signs. PRC Ambassador to the US Li Zhaoxing said that US officials “were so indifferent. They simply said: ‘Well, we’re sorry.’ Then they shrugged their shoulders and walked away.” He added, “So far I haven’t seen any sign of the readiness of the US-led NATO to bring the people responsible for the atrocity to justice.” An unnamed Chinese scholar said that the PRC government is attempting to calm the situation both to salvage US-PRC and to prevent the public protest from turning against itself. The scholar said that the government is afraid that citizens “will raise more and more irrational demands” for redress that it could not achieve, and that “That would make the government look like it betrayed the nation.” Shen Dingli, deputy director of American studies at Fudan University, argued, “It is desirable to receive an official apology from President Clinton, and compensation for loss of Chinese life and property. If the U.S. can [do that] and facilitate an open and fair investigation into the bombing, it should help resolve the problem.” Richard Solomon, president of the US Institute of Peace, said that PRC leaders are genuinely angry over the bombing of their embassy and worried about issues of national sovereignty in the war in Yugoslavia, but he also believes that some PRC leaders also now see an opportunity to gain the upper hand with the US on WTO negotiations.

The Los Angeles Times carried an opinion article by Jonathan D. Pollack of the Rand Corporation (“PERSPECTIVE ON THE CHINA CRISIS,” 05/11/99) which said that the PRC government is orchestrating public demonstrations against the NATO attack on its embassy to harness public anger for political advantage. The article stated, “The leadership has evidently concluded that it can exercise effective control over the demonstrations, thereby preventing any protests from spiraling out of control. Not unlike the NATO air campaign, however, miscalculations and unforeseen developments can overwhelm the plans and calculations of high-level leaders.” It added, “the bombing has vindicated those leaders who view U.S. intentions (both in the Balkans and toward China) in the most negative light possible, and these voices are undoubtedly being paid more heed.” It said that the bombing will effect the political standing of PRC President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji, PRC membership in the World Trade Organization, and allegations of PRC nuclear espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and illicit technology transfer. The author argued, “Jiang and Zhu may have had little alternative but to ride the wave of popular revulsion against the United States, with the hope that these sentiments will soon subside.” He concluded, “Amid the rubble of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the risks of lasting damage to U.S.-China relations seem palpable. There is still a window for both leaderships to reassess their respective policies in the aftermath of the embassy bombing, but the moment could prove fleeting, lest both Washington and Beijing find themselves locked into courses of action from which neither is prepared to retreat.”

8. PRC-US Relations

The Washington Post (Steven Mufson, “‘STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP’ TAKES A HIT HISTORICALLY UNEASY RELATIONS DEALT MAJOR BLOW BY BOMBING,” 05/11/99, A17) reported that US officials and China experts expect the NATO bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade to cause long-term damage to US-PRC relations. David M. Lampton of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced and International Studies said that the bombing “has created a smoking hulk that will remain an image in Chinese minds for years to come. We don’t know what the bottom is here, but it’s going to be long-lasting.” Former US ambassador James Lilley stated, “I’ve seen relations at lower points. I was in the Korean War.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, stated, “Personally, I never thought we had a strategic partnership with China. We have to be realistic and talk about China as a strategic competitor, and hopefully not an adversary. We should be very alert that China is not our partner and never will be.” An unnamed US-based Chinese diplomat complained that US President Bill Clinton’s apology pointed to the Yugoslavian attacks on ethnic Albanians as the reason for the bombing campaign. The diplomat stated, “I don’t like this ‘but.’ Chinese people will doubt the sincerity of his apology.”

9. PRC Internal Situation

The Wall Street Journal (Leslie Chang and Matt Forney, “TEN YEARS AFTER TIANANMEN SQUARE, BEIJING HAS STUDENTS TOEING THE LINE,” Shanghai, 05/11/99) carried an analytical article which said that the anti-US protests in the PRC this weekend demonstrate the change in Chinese attitudes since the Tiananmen Square anti- government protests ten years ago. The article said that government-led economic and educational reforms have removed many of the complaints that the students had in 1989, while government propaganda contributes to the lack of dissent. Liu Junning, a political scientist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, stated, “Most students still have only one source of information, and it shapes their image of the world.”

The Associated Press (Charles Hutzler, “ANALYSIS: PUBLIC OUTCRY DRIVES CHINA TO TOLERATE PROTESTS,” Beijing, 05/10/99) carried an analytical article which said that the PRC government decided to lead, rather than oppose, protests over NATO’s bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade in order to prevent the protests from getting out of hand. Han Feizhou, a student at the Nationalities University, said Monday, “Even if the government forbids protests, we’ll still demonstrate until the Americans give us a good answer.” Wang Shan, an author and political commentator, said that the embassy bombing “will have bad consequences. Anti-U.S. forces will take advantage of this.”

10. PRC-Russian Views of Balkan War

The Associated Press (Alexander G. Higgins, “CHINA, RUSSIA DENOUNCE NATO STRIKES,” Geneva, 05/11/99) and Reuters (Philippa Fletcher, “U.S. SPURNS SINO-RUSSIAN DEMAND TO END WAR,” Belgrade, 05/11/99) reported that the PRC and Russia on Tuesday jointly condemned NATO airstrikes on Yugoslavia at the Conference on Disarmament. Russian Ambassador Vasily S. Sidorov stated, “The Russian side strongly condemns NATO action against sovereign Yugoslavia, which continues to cause casualties among the civilian population.” PRC Ambassador Li Changhe said the NATO campaign amounted to “48 successive days of indiscriminate bombing, causing large-scale civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing their homes.” Russian special Balkans envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin said in Beijing after talks with President Jiang Zemin, “The main principle is to stop the bombing.” PRC Ambassador UN Qin Huasun said Monday, “We strongly call upon NATO to stop immediately its military strikes against the sovereign state of Yugoslavia so as to create a conducive atmosphere for a political solution. Anything short of that, it is impossible for the United Nations Security Council to discuss any plan to solve the problem.” However, White House spokesman Joe Lockhart stated, “We are going to continue with prosecuting the air campaign until the NATO conditions are met, and that and that alone will be the cause of any suspension of the bombing.”

11. PRC-Russian Views of US Missile Defense

Reuters (Stephanie Nebehay, “RUSSIA AND CHINA WARN OF NEW ARMS RACE IN SPACE,” Geneva, 05/11/99) reported that Russian Ambassador Vasily Sidorov and PRC Ambassador Li Changhe at the Conference on Disarmament on Tuesday criticized US plans to deploy a national anti-missile defense system. Sidorov said that it was hard to over-estimate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty’s “tremendous significance as a factor of strategic stability and international security.” He warned, “Implementation of existing plans for deployment of national anti- missile defense systems would constitute a violation of fundamental obligations under the ABM treaty — not to deploy ABM systems for the defense of national territory — and will lead to actual abolition of the treaty.” He added, “Such a development would inevitably upset the whole system of international treaties in the disarmament field, it can trigger a new round of a strategic arms race including in outer space, and undermine the existing non-proliferation regime.” Li stated, “This decision will have profound negative influence on the global and regional strategic balance and stability and trigger a new round of arms race to the detriment of the international disarmament process.”

12. US Technology Exports to PRC

Reuters (“CLINTON APPROVES SATELLITE FUEL EXPORT TO CHINA,” Washington, 05/10/99) and the New York Times (John M. Broder, “CLINTON APPROVES TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO CHINA,” Washington, 05/11/99) reported that US President Bill Clinton said on Monday that the export of satellite fuels and other equipment to the PRC for the Iridium LLC satellite telephone company would not enhance the PRC’s missile and space capabilities. US National Security Adviser Sandy Berger said that Clinton’s approval of the deal, announced in letter to Congress released by the White House, was “absolutely routine.” National Security Council spokesman David Leavy added, “The timing of this certification is not connected in any way to the accidental bombing” of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade. Leavy said that the fuel and “explosion bolts” help the satellite separate from its rocket. He said that the US government in 1993 granted a waiver to Iridium from a US law banning launches of US satellites, and that the new actions simply certifies “that the fuel and explosive bolts are not going to help China’s ballistic program.”

13. PRC Entrance to WTO

The Associated Press (Martin Fackler, “CHINA’S WTO MEMBERSHIP SOUGHT,” Tokyo, 05/11/99) reported that officials from the US, the European Union (EU), Japan, and Canada expressed hope on Tuesday that the PRC’s reaction to the bombing of its Embassy in Belgrade will not effect its bid to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) by the end of the year. The officials, who were meeting for trade talks in Tokyo, said they would stress that the PRC should not link its protest to its WTO negotiations. Sergio Marchi, Canadian minister for international trade, “I am hopeful that we can have a common position.” He added that to link the bombing to the WTO “is the beginning of the end.”

14. Alleged PRC Nuclear Espionage

The Los Angeles Times (Bob Drogin, “CHINESE HAD DETAILS OF U.S. NUCLEAR MISSILES,” Washington, 05/11/99) reported that US officials said Monday that a 1988 PRC military document obtained by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1995 describes the weight, dimensions, explosive yield and other details of six US nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles that carry them. The officials said, however, that the document does not contain sufficient information to copy US nuclear weapons. One unnamed official stated, “Knowing the dimensions and the size doesn’t tell you how to build a nuclear weapon.” Among the specific details in the document is the “circular error probability,” which describes how accurate each missile is likely to be. The accompanying drawings are done freehand, rather than being blueprints or engineering documents, and include the dimensions of the nose cones. Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council said that some of the details or pictures of the weapons have been published in US books and magazines, and several US nose cones have been displayed at military trade. The material also contained top-secret details on using an egg-shaped, or “aspheric,” design to shrink the size of the W-88 warhead. One official said that the information on the W-88, while top-secret, also is printed in a classified booklet that is kept on US Navy ships, at Air Force bases, and elsewhere. He stated, “The information about the W-88 in the 1988 document could have come from thousands of places in the US government.” A PRC official gave the documents to US diplomats, apparently in Taiwan, in 1995 and offered to spy for the US, but the CIA determined in 1996 that he was acting as a double agent. The material was contained in a much larger stack of documents that had no intelligence value.

15. Nuclear Fuel Storage

NuclearFuel (05/03/99, p4) reported that the US company Non-Proliferation Trust Inc is seeking approval to take title to at least 6,000 tons of spent fuel from countries such as Taiwan and the ROK and ship it to Russia for storage for at least 40 years. The venture is expected to generate least US$4 billion, which would go towards the disposal of 50 tons of excess Russian warhead plutonium, cleaning up contaminated nuclear sites in Russia, paying back wages of Russian nuclear employees, and helping Russian pensioners and orphans.

II. Republic of Korea

1. DPRK Consulate in Hong Kong

Joongang Ilbo (Kang Jooan, “NK CONSUL GENERAL TO BE ESTABLISHED IN HONGKONG,” Seoul, 05/11/99) and the Korea Times (Son Key Young, “NK LIKELY TO SET UP CONSULATE GENERAL IN HK,” Seoul, 05/11/99) reported that the DPRK and the PRC reportedly agreed on the establishment of a DPRK Consulate General in Hong Kong this year to commemorate the 50th anniversary of DPRK-PRC diplomatic relations. An unnamed ROK government official said, “NK has continuously requested the establishment of the consul to China and the two countries recently agreed on its establishment through close negotiations in Beijing. It will be opened in the latter half of this year after the establishment of South Korean Consul in Shenyang.” The DPRK Consul General in Hong Kong, the second such Consul General in the PRC, will take charge of visas and protection of DPRK citizens residing in Hong Kong, Macao, Guangzhou, and Shenzen. The opening of the Consul General mission is likely to be announced timed with DPRK Foreign Minister Paik Nam-sun’s forthcoming visit to the PRC in the first half of this year.

2. PRC Views of Sunshine Policy

The Korea Times (Lee Chang-sup, “CHINA BACKS EASING OF S-N TENSION: LI,” 05/11/99) reported that Li Luihuan, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, said Monday that the PRC supports efforts to ease inter-Korean tension. In a luncheon with ROK President Kim Dae-jung at Chong Wa Dae, Li said it is a matter of time before the two Koreas are unified. He also said that PRC government stands behind Kim’s move to build confidence and understanding between the ROK and the DPRK. Li noted the emergence of many positive developments that might lead to peace and stability on the peninsula.

3. Conference on East Asian Security

The Korea Times carried a summary of the 27th Williamsburg Conference (Son Key-young, “TIME TO END RIVALRY AMONG ASIAN NATIONS,” Seoul, 05/11/99). The conference, which was chaired by former US Trade Representative Carla Hills, Singaporean Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh and Yoshio Okawara, president of the Institute for International Policy Studies, brought together 54 leaders in government, business, academia, and journalism from 16 countries. The summary reads, “The time has come to bring about an historic reconciliation between Japan and Korea and China and Japan. Participants were gratified by recent developments, initiated by [ROK] President Kim Dae-jung and [Japanese] Prime Minister [Keizo] Obuchi, which could pave the way for an historic reconciliation between Japan and Korea.” “(Recent positive developments were) made possible by a congruence of national interests, by visionary leadership and the need to work together to meet a common challenge. It is important to bring about such a reconciliation between China and Japan because they could be rivals for power in Asia.” The participants said that although this initiative should come from the two countries, it is possible for third countries to make a positive contribution by, for example, bringing together historians from the two sides to seek a common understanding of the past. The participants also noted that it is in the region’s interest that the US and the PRC improve relations. In an initial step, all participants welcomed the early accession of the PRC and Taiwan to the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, several participants expressed concern that the proposed Theater Missile Defense (TMD) may destabilize relations in Northeast Asia. With regard to recent developments in inter-Korean relations, the participants expressed concerns over the DPRK’s apparent addiction to “easy money,” as seen in the Hyundai Group’s Mt. Kumgang project. The participants noted that this addiction presents both challenges and opportunities to the outside world.

4. ROK National Security Law Arrests

The Korea Herald (“SIX PRO-NORTH KOREAN YOUTH GROUP MEMBERS ARRESTED,” Seoul, 05/11/99) reported that police arrested six members of a pro-DPRK youth organization, “Seoul Progressive Youth Association,” on charges of violating the National Security Law. The organization adopted rhetoric that was sympathetic with DPRK propaganda, police said. The six arrested were accused of playing active roles in instigating scores of illegal labor strikes and demonstrations in Seoul and Inchon. They were also charged with trying to indoctrinate laborers with Communist ideologies. Police said they confiscated from the suspects computers, diskettes, placards and other objects containing “enemy-benefiting content.”

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

Wade L. Huntley: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States

Lee Dong-young: UNPOL@netsgo.com
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Hiroyasu Akutsu: akutsu@glocomnet.or.jp
Tokyo, Japan

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

Chunsi Wu: dlshen@fudan.ac.cn
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Dingli Shen: dlshen@fudan.ac.cn
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.