CONTENTS
1. DPRK-Japan Talks
2. US-ROK Missile Talks
3. PRC Threat to Taiwan
4. Israeli Arms Sales to PRC
5. PRC View of US Missile Defense
I. United States
1. DPRK-Japan Talks
Japan Economic Newswire (“KONO HOPING FOR EARLY RESUMPTION OF TALKS WITH N. KOREA,” Miyazaki, 7/13/00) reported that Japanese Foreign Minister Yohei Kono on Thursday indicated that he fervently hopes to resume stalled negotiations with the DPRK on normalizing bilateral ties. Kono said, “I think such a time will come before long…. Should an agreement be reached by both sides, Japan intends to respond accordingly.” He remained cautious, however, about providing additional food aid to the DPRK, saying, “At this point, we have no specific idea. We need to carefully watch what kind of exchanges we will have with North Korea in the future.”
2. US-ROK Missile Talks
The International Herald Tribune (Don Kirk, “U.S. TO BACK SEOUL’S PLAN FOR EXTENDED MISSILE FORCE,” Seoul, 7/13/00) reported that officials said on July 12 that the US plans to endorse the ROK’s desire to produce missiles capable of landing anywhere in the DPRK. US assistant secretary of state Robert Einhorn was to arrive in Seoul Thursday prepared to agree that the ROK has the right to make missiles with a range up to 300 kilometers (190 miles). A US official said that the US ambassador to the ROK, Stephen Bosworth, “expects an agreement to come soon” under which “Korea can develop missiles with a 300-kilometer range.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for July 13, 2000.]
Agence France Presse (“US NEGOTIATORS HEAD TO SEOUL TO BROKER S.KOREA MISSILE DEAL,” Seoul, 7/13/00) reported that US and the ROK officials will hold informal talks in the ROK on July 14. The US team, led by assistant secretary of state for arms non-proliferation Robert Einhorn, will meet ROK foreign ministry officials to discuss the ROK’s entry to the Missile Control Technology Regime (MCTR). ROK foreign ministry officials said that “three or four” issues remained unresolved, but that they were optimistic that a deal could be reached by the end of the year. Shin Min-Ho, ROK deputy director of the ministry’s North American division, stated, “We are trying to develop our rocket system. But if we are not members of MCTR we are not able to buy parts. It’s a very short range … we don’t think it will be a threat. North Korea might consider that this extension of our capacity is contrary to present co- operation but by joining the MCTR we are showing total transparency of our program. The MCTR is very clear.”
3. PRC Threat to Taiwan
The Washington Times (Bill Gertz, “CHINA SAYS IT DOES NOT INTEND TO ATTACK TAIWAN,” Beijing, 7/13/00), The Washington Post (John Pomfret, “CHINA SOFTENS TONE ON TAIWAN,” Beijing, 7/13/00), The Los Angeles Times (Henry Chu, “BEIJING STRESSES PEACEFUL INTENT TOWARD TAIWAN,” Beijing, 7/13/00), and Knight Ridder News Service (Michael Dorgan, “TO U.S.: NO PLANS TO ATTACK TAIWAN,” Beijing, 7/13/00) reported that PRC defense minister General Chi Haotian said that the buildup of PRC short-range missiles opposite Taiwan is “exaggerated.” Chi said after a signing ceremony with US Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, “This is entirely China’s own business. On Taiwan our policy is all too clear. It is a policy of peaceful reunification and one country, two systems. We have also made it very clear that we do not undertake to give up the use of force.” Some analysts said that Chi’s comments fit into the sometimes incomprehensible maneuvering between Taiwan and the PRC as they try to return to the negotiating table. Others said that it was unclear whether PRC officials are actually presenting a new tone or whether the US delegation is putting a positive interpretation on its meetings. However, a senior US official said that during an hour-long private meeting, Chi said that the PRC has the right to use its military, but that there is “no intent to use force” against Taiwan. The official said, “That was an important point that was made during the course of the session.” The only concrete agreement signed during Cohen’s three-day stay has been an accord on sharing information about military-related environmental protection measures. Cohen declared that overall “the meeting was very positive, and there was a receptivity I think that has not been there as much in the past.” He also said the PRC had agreed to send a senior military officer to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. [Ed. note: These articles were included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for July 13, 2000.]
4. Israeli Arms Sales to PRC
New York Times (Jane Perlez, “ISRAEL DROPS PLAN TO SELL AIR RADAR TO CHINA MILITARY,” Thurmont, 7/13/00) reported that Israel announced on July 12 that it had canceled its sale of a sophisticated US$250 million airborne radar system to the PRC. US White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, said: “Israel has made a decision here; they took into account our security concerns. We appreciate that.” An Israeli official said that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak sent a letter to PRC President Jiang Zemin laying out the cancellation and expressed the hope that there might be room for future cooperation. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for July 13, 2000.]
5. PRC View of US Missile Defense
Agence France Presse (“CHINA TO COUNTER U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE, BUT NOT WITH ARMS RACE,” Beijing, 7/13/00) reported that Sha Zukang, director of the PRC foreign ministry’s department of disarmament, said on Thursday that the PRC will take unspecified measures to oppose the proposed US National Missile Defense (NMD) but will not engage in any form of arms race. Sha said, “If NMD is established, China will not sit on its hands and do nothing while watching its security breached. [But,] if established, China will not have a race with anyone, we have no capability to race with anyone.” Sha refused to specify the PRC’s response should the US decide to build the proposed system that it is hoped will be capable of destroying incoming nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, but said that consultations with Russia on a joint response were likely.
The NAPSNet Daily Report aims to serve as a forum for dialogue and exchange among peace and security specialists. Conventions for readers and a list of acronyms and abbreviations are available to all recipients. For descriptions of the world wide web sites used to gather information for this report, or for more information on web sites with related information, see the collection of other NAPSNet resources.
We invite you to reply to today’s report, and we welcome commentary or papers for distribution to the network.
Produced by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development in partnership with:
International Policy Studies Institute Seoul, Republic of Korea
The Center for Global Communications, Tokyo, Japan
Center for American Studies,
Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Monash Asia Institute,
Monash University, Clayton, Australia
Timothy L. Savage: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States
Gee Gee Wong: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States
Robert Brown: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States
Kim Hee-sun: khs688@hotmail.com
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Hiroyasu Akutsu: akutsu@glocomnet.or.jp
Tokyo, Japan
Peter Razvin: icipu@glas.apc.org
Moscow, Russian Federation
Chunsi Wu: cswu@fudan.ac.cn
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
Leanne Payton: lbpat1@smtp.monash.edu.au
Clayton, Australia