CONTENTS
1. US Policy toward DPRK
2. PRC Reaction to Terrorist Attacks
3. Japanese Investigation of Attacks
I. United States
1. US Policy toward DPRK
The Associated Press (Christopher Torchia, “U.S. ASSURES KOREAS ON POLICY,” SEOUL, 9/14/01) reported that US Ambassador to the ROK Thomas C. Hubbard said Friday that terrorist attacks in the US are unlikely to affect US willingness to negotiate with the DPRK. Hubbard said, “I can’t imagine why (the terrorist attacks) should have any impact” on the US goal of engaging in dialogue with the DPRK. He hinted that the attacks in New York and Washington could delay US policy on the Korean Peninsula. Hubbard added, “We remain interested in building peace around the world even as we deal with this terrible terrorism problem.” Lee Jong-sok, a DPRK expert at the ROK’s independent Sejong Institute said that the DPRK’s prompt denunciation of the US terrorist attacks “may signal that it does not want any confrontation with the United States at this moment. Despite its rhetoric, it does really want to engage in dialogue and improve relations with the United States.”
2. PRC Reaction to Terrorist Attacks
The South China Morning Post (Jasper Becker, “AMERICA UNDER ATTACK, MAINLAND TO FEEL THE HEAT OVER ‘ROGUE’ ARMS DEALS,” Beijing, 9/14/01) reported that the US response to the terrorist attacks is certain to lead to much tougher policies towards the DPRK and PRC arms sales to the Middle East. The official PRC Xinhua news agency reported that PRC President Jiang Zemin told US President George W. Bush on September 12, “China is ready to strengthen dialogue and cooperation with the US and the international community in combating all manner of terrorist violence.” However, the report gave no details of what role the PRC could play in a US-led war against terrorism. Bush also said that he would attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting next month as planned. In Beijing on September 13, Western diplomats said that they expected the PRC would be forced to stop equivocating about sales of missile and nuclear technology to Pakistan, as well as Iran and Iraq and other states accused of sponsoring terrorism. One diplomat said, “China’s quick response to back President Bush’s call for a coordinated crackdown on terrorism shows they have got the message.” PRC analysts privately concede that the PRC will now have to halt aiding or abetting any of the Middle Eastern countries believed to be sponsoring terrorist acts. However, some US specialists, including Qiao Liang, at the PRC air force headquarters, argued that Tuesday’s attacks against the US were an understandable response to US hegemony. Qiao said, “Many innocent people became victims of American policy after the Cold War.”
3. Japanese Investigation of Attacks
Reuters (“JAPAN CHECKING SECURITIES TRADE FOR BIN LADEN LINK,” Tokyo, 09/14/01) reported that the Japanese Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission said on Friday that it was investigating trading around the time of this week’s terror attacks in the US to see if any transactions were linked to Osama bin Laden. A report from London in the Sankei Shimbun newspaper said that US and British intelligence agencies were investigating if there were links between bin Laden and some trades in securities futures in the US and Europe before and after the attacks. Such transactions could have reaped huge profits for people knowing in advance of the attacks and speculating on a resulting fall in share prices.
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