NAPSNet Daily Report 17 June, 1998

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 17 June, 1998", NAPSNet Daily Report, June 17, 1998, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-17-june-1998/

IN TODAY’S REPORT:

I. United States

II. Republic of Korea

III. Announcements

I. United States

[][]

1. DPRK Missile Sales

The Associated Press (“N. KOREA MISSILE SALES WORRIES U.S.,” Washington, 06/17/98) reported that the US State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the DPRK’s “irresponsible” declaration that it has sold missiles abroad and plans to keep doing so threatens any progress toward easing US sanctions. The department said, “North Korean missile proliferation activities are of serious concern to the United States. It has sold missiles and missile equipment and technology virtually indiscriminately, including to missile programs in unstable regions such as the Middle East and South Asia.” It added, “If North Korea wishes to improve relations with the United States and see an easing of sanctions, it must show restraint in the missile area, both with regard to its missile related exports and its indigenous missile development activities.”

US Defense Department Spokesman Ken Bacon (“PENTAGON SPOKESMAN’S REGULAR BRIEFING, JUNE 16, 1998,” USIA Transcript, Washington, 06/17/98) said Tuesday that the US is aware of DPRK missile technology exports and has been engaged with the DPRK government in trying to stop this proliferation. He added, “We have not made as much progress as we would like to make, but we are continuing to work with them on that.” Regarding US sanctions against the DPRK, Bacon stated, “right now, the sanctions remain in place. If we were to begin to make progress in some of these areas we’re discussing with the North Koreans, we might be able to consider lifting sanctions, but I don’t think the time has arrived yet.” Bacon would not confirm the identities of the countries to which the DPRK has sold missiles.

The Washington Post (Kevin Sullivan, “N. KOREA ADMITS SELLING MISSILES,” Seoul, 06/17/98, A01) reported that some analysts feel that the DPRK may have timed its statements regarding missile sales to take advantage of concern over the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. It also may be trying to build on any momentum toward the easing of US sanctions created by ROK President Kim Dae-jung’s recent visit to the US. Donald Gregg, former US ambassador to the ROK and now chairman of the Korea Society, said that he met Tuesday with officials of the DPRK UN delegation and was told they were dissatisfied with the pace of oil deliveries from the US under the 1994 Geneva accord. Gregg said that the DPRK officials argued that steady deliveries of fuel are especially important now during the agricultural growing season. He added that the DPRK also might feel that there had been less movement on the sanctions issue than they expected following Kim’s US visit. Gregg stated, “The hard-liners may have thought, ‘Well, we’ve got to make a move.'”

[][][]

2. ROK-DPRK Relations

The Associated Press (“NORTH KOREA CALLS FOR RECONCILIATION FESTIVAL WITH SOUTH,” Tokyo 06/17/98) reported that Pyongyang Radio on Wednesday proposed that citizens from the ROK and DPRK gather in the border truce village of Panmunjom August 14-15 for a “grand festival for national reconciliation, unity and reunification.” The broadcast said the proposal was contained in letters sent Monday through Panmunjom to ROK President Kim Dae-jung, political party leaders, and various sector leaders.

Dow Jones Newswires (Chang Woo-hyuk, “S. KOREA’S HYUNDAI CHMN MAY PROPOSE AUTO DEAL TO NORTH,” Seoul, 06/17/98) reported that a spokesman at Hyundai Motor Co. said Wednesday that Hyundai Group honorary chairman Chung Ju-yung may propose cooperative production of cars or auto parts in the DPRK during his eight-day visit there. The spokesman said that the possibility of joint car manufacturing is being raised because Chung Se-yung, honorary chairman of Hyundai Motor and younger brother of Chung Ju-yung, is accompanying his older brother.

[][][]

3. DPRK-Japan Relations

The Los Angeles Times (“EDITORIAL ROUNDUP,” 06/17/98) carried an excerpt from an editorial regarding bilateral relations between Japan and the DPRK that appeared in Tokyo’s Yomiuri Shimbun on June 12. The editorial said that, unless the DPRK deals in good faith with the issues of Japanese citizens allegedly abducted by DPRK agents and homecoming visits by Japanese spouses of DPRK citizens, “it will be difficult to discuss the normalization of bilateral ties and any additional supply of food aid.” It added, “Japan repents the colonial rule of Korea before and during World War II, and regards normalization talks as a requisite step for settling war-related issues with the North. Through normalized ties, peace and stability may be established in East Asia. The nation, therefore, is not unwilling to extend food aid, but this will only be possible if there is mutual trust that the two countries will act in accordance with international rules.”

[][][]

4. US-PRC Missile Targeting

US Defense Department Spokesman Ken Bacon (“PENTAGON SPOKESMAN’S REGULAR BRIEFING, JUNE 16, 1998,” USIA Transcript, 06/17/98) said Tuesday that a missile detargeting agreement with the PRC would be an important confidence building measure, because it would reduce the dangers from an accidental launch. He said that, while the US believes the chances of an accidental launch are extremely minute, with a detargeting agreement, if an accident were to happen, “the missile would not be targeted at a specific place. It would go off into the ocean or something like that.” Bacon said that, while the process of retargeting is relatively simple and quick, “the issue here is to find ways to reduce the hair-trigger aspect of the strategic nuclear arsenals, and that is why we think the agreement we have with Russia is significant, and that is why we think that a similar agreement with China would help stabilize the nuclear balance.” Bacon said that the US maintenance of a much larger nuclear arsenal than the PRC “is a very important part of our deterrent strategy, that is, to deter anybody from attacking us, because they would know that they would receive an overwhelming and devastating response…. But, without getting into specifics, what we are trying to do is to make sure that we don’t get into a situation where a mistake could increase the possibility of a nuclear strike.” He added that he did not anticipate that the US would change its policy against signing a no-first use agreement.

Reuters (“U.S. SEEKS NUCLEAR DEAL WITH CHINA,” Washington, 06/17/98) and the Associated Press (David Briscoe, “U.S. WANTS CHINA MISSILE DETARGETED,” Washington, 06/16/98) reported that White House spokesman Mike McCurry said on Tuesday that the proposed US-PRC detargeting agreement would be similar to the one negotiated with Russia in 1994. McCurry said that the idea of the agreement was to enhance security and contribute to Sino-American “confidence building.” Bruce Blair of the Brookings Institution, a former US nuclear missile launch officer, said that land-based US missiles were programmed exclusively to hit targets in the former Soviet Union despite the detargeting accord. He stated that the PRC was taken out of the US strategic war plan in the early 1980s and has not been reinstated, although US missile-launching submarines carry target coordinates for both the PRC and Russia that could be programmed in about 15 minutes. Meanwhile Yu Shuning, spokesman for the PRC Embassy in Washington, said that his foreign ministry had not informed him of any accord on detargeting. He added that the PRC thinks an agreement between the two countries not to make the first nuclear strike would be “more meaningful.”

[][][]

5. Alleged PRC Missile Sales

The Washington Times (Bill Gertz, “CLINTON TO DISCUSS MISSILES WITH CHINA,” 06/17/98) reported that US Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said Tuesday that US President Bill Clinton will raise the issue of missile proliferation with senior PRC leaders when he travels to Beijing later this month. Albright told the Senate Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, “I think that it’s very important that it be clear that we strongly oppose any missile cooperation with Iran.” She added that she believes the PRC has decreased weapons sales, but “they still need to improve.” Albright said that, as a “major producer” of nuclear, chemical and missile equipment, the PRC “has a responsibility to meet internationally accepted non-proliferation standards.” The report said that, according to US officials with access to intelligence reports, the PRC last month discussed the sale of telemetry equipment used in missile testing to Iran. The officials also said that intelligence reports last month showed that Chinese missile technicians are working in Libya to help develop that country’s ballistic missile program.

[][][]

6. US-PRC Relations

Reuters (Scott Hillis, “TOP CHINA ADVISER WARNS U.S. OF CONFLICT PERIL,” Beijing, 06/17/98) reported that the PRC’s official Worker’s Daily newspaper on Wednesday carried a speech by Liu Ji, vice-president of the government think-tank the Chinese Academy of Social Scientists, which warned that US-PRC relations could easily take a negative turn. Liu stated, “China, out of ideological and moral obligations, can easily become an anti-American force.” He added, “If you really want to make China your enemy, you will find that China not only is an unbeatable enemy, it is also a most unreasonable enemy.” Liu criticized the US for arrogantly pushing its values on the rest of the world. He stated, “As the Cold War victor, the United States is seeking to promote American-style democracy, using ideology as a basic diplomatic lever, and could follow the same path to ruin as the former Soviet Union. The United States is one of the most closed countries in the world, does not conform with the tide of history, and easily makes mistaken judgments.” He warned, “Because of sensitivity to some international anti-China and anti-communist adverse currents and hegemonistic politics, the PRC can easily be aroused to parochial nationalism and make irrational mistakes.” He added that the PRC’s economic success has “been a kind of encouragement, and at the same time easily produces emotions of pride and self-satisfaction, thus leading to make this or that mistake.” Nonetheless, Liu argued that the 21st century provided a golden opportunity for improving US-PRC relations after decades of mutual antagonism.

The Associated Press (Renee Schoof, “CHINA HOPES TO IMPROVE US RELATIONS,” Beijing, 06/17/98) reported that most PRC citizens are looking forward to US President Bill Clinton’s visit as an opportunity to improve US-PRC relations. Jia Qingguo, a professor of international relations at Beijing University, stated, “There’s no one in China now who doesn’t think the United States is important. Most want good cooperation because good relations with the United States are in China’s interest for its economic modernization.” In a recent same survey, of the 76 percent of PRC citizens who knew of Clinton’s impending visit, 85 percent thought it would help improve relations.

[][][]

7. US-PRC Military Cooperation

US Defense Department Spokesman Ken Bacon (“PENTAGON SPOKESMAN’S REGULAR BRIEFING, JUNE 16, 1998,” USIA Transcript, 06/17/98) said Tuesday that the US recently invited the PRC to come and observe the annual RIMPAC military exercise. He added that the US traditionally had search and rescue operations with Hong Kong, “And when Hong Kong changed control to the People’s Republic of China we continued that search and rescue exercise with the Hong Kong Navy (the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department), now the PRC Navy. So we have had one joint exercise with the Chinese.”

[][][]

8. Taiwanese Reaction to Clinton’s PRC Visit

The Washington Times (Gus Constantine, “TAIWANESE EXPRESS CONCERN OVER CLINTON’S VISIT TO CHINA,” 06/17/98) reported that a delegation of Taiwanese legislators visiting the US expressed hope Tuesday that US President Bill Clinton’s upcoming visit to the PRC will not adversely affect the US-Taiwan relationship. Alice Kao of the New Party stated, “The major parties on Taiwan may differ on whether Taiwan should move toward unification or independence, but all agree that, without the participation of the representatives of the people on the island, no one is authorized to speak for us.” Willy Ng of the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) warned that when Clinton visits Hong Kong, he should bear in mind that the “one-nation, two systems” formula for union with the PRC is not applicable to Taiwan. Ng argued, “We are sovereign, with our own army and a freely elected government. Hong Kong has never been that. It had been a colony for a century and a half before last year.” Chen Hong-chi of the KMT stated, “Of course, we want the summit to help build stability in the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region. But not at our expense.” A joint statement by the delegation said, “Our main concern is that the rights and interests of Taiwan will not be affected as a result of President Clinton’s upcoming visit to China and his summit talks with Jiang Zemin.” Meanwhile, in Taipei on Tuesday, Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui said that his vision for the future is of a free and democratic united China. He stated that Taiwan’s policy toward the mainland is based on the principles of “peace, equality, rationale and good will. The eventual goal is to build a China blessed with freedom, democracy and equitable distribution of wealth.”

[][][]

9. PRC-Japan Relations

Dow Jones Newswires (“JAPAN FOREIGN MINISTER TO VISIT CHINA JULY 15 – KYODO,” Tokyo, 06/17/98) reported that Japan’s Kyodo news service on Wednesday cited Foreign Ministry sources as saying that Japanese Foreign Minister Keizo Obuchi plans to visit the PRC for four days from July 15. The sources said that Obuchi’s trip is intended to pave the way for PRC President Jiang Zemin’s visit to Japan planned for September. Obuchi hopes to hold talks with Jiang, Premier Zhu Rongji, and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan. They are expected to discuss a joint declaration which the two nations are planning to issue during Jiang’s visit to establish a new cooperative relationship to mark the 20th anniversary this year of the signing of the bilateral peace and friendship treaty. The sources said that Obuchi would probably ask the PRC to take a cautious approach over its exports of missile technology to Pakistan.

[][][]

10. US Adherence to START I

The Associated Press (“REPORT: RUSSIA SAYS US BROKE TREATY,” Moscow, 06/16/98) reported that Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified senior Russian Defense Ministry official as saying that Russian military leaders on Monday, at a meeting in Moscow with General Henry Shelton, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, raised concerns that the US has violated some provisions of the START I arms reduction treaty. The Russian military reportedly complained that Britain is testing Trident ballistic missiles to see whether they could carry 10 to 12 warheads, more than the eight allowed by START I. They added that Britain is conducting the tests at a US testing range with US assistance, raising fears the two countries are cooperating to circumvent the treaty. They also alleged that the US has changed the coating on landing gear parts of B-1B strategic bombers, which would make it easier for the US to restore the bombers’ capability to carry cruise missiles. They also objected to uncontrolled scrapping of US MX missiles, arguing that that approach raised uncertainty that all stages of all MX missiles would be destroyed. A Defense Ministry spokesman refused to comment on the report, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Igor Nesterushkin said that he was not aware of any complaints.

II. Republic of Korea

[][][]

1. DPRK Missile Deployment

The DPRK is expected to deploy its long-range Daepodong-1 missile without testing, US Defense News reported on Tuesday. The magazine said that Pakistan had provided the DPRK with technical information on its derivative missile, the Ghaouri, and as a result the DPRK is likely to skip tests. The missile has a range of 1,600 kilometers, enough to cover all of Northeast Asia, including the ROK and Japan. US military experts have said that the Ghaouri is a technical clone and that by not testing the Daepodong, the DPRK would avoid drawing attention to its missile program. (Chosun Ilbo, “NK LIKELY TO DEPLOY LONG RANGE MISSILE,” 06/17/98)

[][][]

2. UNC-DPRK Meeting

The US-led United Nations Command (UNC) and the DPRK People’s Army (KPA) have agreed that the first general officers’ meeting will be held on June 23 at the truce village of Panmunjom, the UNC announced Monday. The four-member UNC delegation includes US Air Force Major General Michael Hayden, deputy chief of staff of the UNC, ROK Air Force Brigadier General Kum Ki-yon, British Brigadier General Colin Parr, and a colonel-level officer from another UN member country, the UNC said. The list of the DPRK delegation was not made available. On June 8, the UNC and the KPA reached a landmark agreement to resume high-level military talks in a bid to reduce tension on the Korean Peninsula. Under the agreement, the two sides will hold general officers’ talks in the truce village of Panmunjom in the first such contact in seven years. The agreement was reached between US Colonel Thomas Riley and DPRK army Colonel Park Im-soo. The UNC said that all the delegates would have an “equal voice” in the meeting. The command said the meeting between the UNC and the DPRK was different from previous military talks. The general-officer talks will be held within the framework of the 1953 Armistice Agreement. The dialogue is not the direct military talks between the US and the DPRK that has been demanded by the DPRK, the official said. Lieutenant General Cha Ki-moon, the senior representative to the UNC-side Military Armistice Commission, will not attend the talks. An ROK Defense Ministry official said that the ROK had agreed to allow a US general to play a leading role in the talks in a bid to bring the DPRK back to the negotiating table to help reduce tension on the Korean Peninsula. (Korea Herald, “UNC-NORTH KOREA MEETING SLATED FOR JUNE 23,” 06/15/98)

[][][]

3. ROK Food Aid for DPRK

Hyundai Business Group founder Chung Ju-yung and his family members, who are also top executives of Hyundai subsidiaries, will stay in the DPRK for eight days, visiting Pyongyang, their hometown Tongchon in Kangwon-do, and Mt. Kumgang. It marks the first trip by civilians to the DPRK via the Panmunjom route, although Chung had to agree with DPRK officials to donate 50,000 tons of corn and 1,000 head of cattle to realize this unprecedented trip. The trucks carrying the cattle, which left a Hyundai-owned farm in Sosan, Chungchong-namdo, Monday night, will join Chung and his entourage before crossing the Military Demarcation Line. Meanwhile, a group of seven Hyundai executives left for Beijing Monday in preparation to visit the DPRK on a chartered flight. By blocking them from using the Panmunjom route, the DPRK is apparently seeking to control the number of passages through that route. Upon his return home from a nine-day visit to the US, President Kim Dae-jung said in a press conference Sunday that Chung’s visit epitomized his policy initiative of separating business from political considerations. Officials here hope that Chung’s trip via the inter-Korean ground route will help promote inter-Korean exchanges through Panmunjom. (Korea Herald, “CHUNG JU-YUNG TO ENTER NK TODAY VIA PANMUNJOM,” 06/15/98)

Hyundai Business Group founder Chung Ju-yung will not carry any message from the ROK government during his visit to the DPRK starting from Tuesday, ROK officials said Monday. “Chung’s trip is not an occasion for a clandestine delivery of the government’s positions on inter-Korean dialogue, but an opportunity for the negotiation of business cooperation, including a tourism development project in Mt. Kumgang envisioned by Hyundai, as one example of private exchanges,” a senior government official said. “We cannot rule out the possibility that Chairman Chung would meet Kim Jong-il, general secretary of the Workers’ Party. However, it is unlikely that Chairman Chung would discuss the resumption of dialogue between ROK and DPRK authorities,” he said. (Korea Times, “CHUNG WILL NOT CARRY OFFICIAL MESSAGE,” 06/15/98)

[][][]

4. DPRK Economy

The DPRK posed negative economic growth in 1997 of -6.8 percent, according to figures released by the Bank of Korea (BOK) on Tuesday. The figure is the lowest since 1992’s -7.7 percent. The BOK commented that the DPRK has exhibited negative growth for eight consecutive years since 1990, with manufacturing slowing due to lack of investment and raw materials. The nominal Gross National Product for the country was US$17.7 billion, a 17.3 percent reduction over the previous year, and annual Gross Domestic Product fell 18.6 percent to US$741 million. These figures are 1/25th and 1/13th respectively those of the ROK, and the gap between the two has widened from 1996’s 1/22nd and 1/12th. Analysts said that the reason for this drop was the 3.49 million-ton grain harvest, well below the 4.2 million-ton average, giving agriculture a growth rate of 3.49 percent, compared with manufacturing at 16.8 percent and construction at -9.9 percent. (Chosun Ilbo, “NK GROWTH RATE -6.8 PERCENT IN 1997”, 06/16/98)

[][][]

5. Foreign Investors Talks at Panmunjom

A group of foreign business executives and international investors will hold one of their round-table economic conferences at the truce village of Panmunjom next Tuesday. Organizers of the conference said that the Panmunjom visitors will discuss the security situation and business opportunities in the ROK during their trip to the border village. The organizers said that ROK Unification Minister Kang In-duk would debrief participants on the security situation and the ROK’s efforts to expand inter-Korean economic cooperation. A DPRK minister-level official, Kim Mun-song of the Trade Promotion Commission, will send a videotaped message to the conference, they said. The Panmunjom meeting is being prepared to help dispel doubts among foreign investors about the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, the organizers said. The Economist round-table conference, the sixth of its kind to be held in the ROK since 1976, will draw executives from about 140 big corporations like BMW, Federal Express, General Electric, DuPont, Motorola, and Metlife. Government officials said that President Kim Dae-jung, hoping to use the conference to lure foreign investment needed to overcome the foreign exchange crisis, is scheduled to address the opening dinner of the round-table next Monday. ROK participants will also include Finance and Economy Minister Lee Kyu-sung, Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Lee Hun-jai, and North Cholla Governor You Jong-keun, who is also an economic advisor to the President. (Korea Herald, “INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC TALKS SLATED FOR JUNE 23 AT PANMUNJOM,” 06/15/98)

III. Announcements

[][][]

1. Call for a UN Global Conference on Nuclear Weapons

[Ed. Note: The following was submitted by Yoshikazu Sakamoto, Former Secretary-General of the International Peace Research Association and Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo. He can be reached by fax at 81-3-3996-8626, or by e-mail.]

“Having grave concern about the political and military consequences of the Indian-Pakistani nuclear tests, I have recently contributed to an independent newspaper in Japan, The Asahi Shimbun (with 8 million circulation), an article in which I emphasized the following two points:

First, Asia, including South Asia, is a region of enormous diversity or even heterogeneity. In terms of cultural backgrounds, Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and Judaism have been involved in a number of ethnic and communal conflicts. Further, the colonial experience and the legacies and wounds it left on the states and societies of Asia have manifold sources: Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, British, French, Russian, and German. This comprehensive list of imperialist invaders, which includes even the imperialist rule of an Asian state, Japan, does not apply to Africa or Latin America. The structure of developmental disparities is also diverse.

This heterogeneity can give rise to two opposite scenarios. On the one hand, Asia in the 21st century may be in the state of Balkanization, with conflicts within the region entangling other regions of the world. The emerging belt of actual and potential military nuclearization, extending from the Korean peninsula, through China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq to Israel, coupled with the scramble of major powers and multinationals for the oil deposits in the Caspian region (a Middle East of the 21st century) testifies to the danger of the Balkanization of Asia.

On the other hand, if Asian people succeed in achieving coexistence and cooperation of states and nations characterized by diversity and heterogeneity, Asia may serve as a promoter of the dialogue among world civilizations and a mediator of the conflicts among other regions.

For Asia to take this latter, positive direction, which is not only in the interest of the region but also of the world, it is imperative to halt and reverse nuclear proliferation without delay and embark on genuine nuclear and conventional disarmament.

Second, in reaction to the Indian-Pakistani nuclear tests, governments have held and will continue to hold meetings at various levels–the Security Council, G-8, the conference of the foreign ministers of eight non-nuclear states, and so forth. Although some of them may play a constructive role, their deliberations and statements are confined to intergovernmental arrangements, mostly legal measures, whether for the reconfirmation of the NPT and CTBT regimes or for advancing a new agenda.

Most of the proposals put forward by experts so far have similar flaws. Sufficient reflections have not been made on the reality that so many treaty proposals presented in the last fifty years have attained so little; that states agree on binding legal arrangements that do not affect their basic vested interests; and that one arms control agreement with a loophole has been followed by another agreement with another loophole.

It is clear that the matter cannot and should not be left in the hands of governments and experts alone. From our experience, we all know that disarmament will not be put into practice without the powerful pressures generated by the people.

In fact, one of the lamentable consequences of the end of the Cold War is that the popular interest in nuclear disarmament has become so low that the five nuclear powers were allowed to give low priority to it, which in turn gave pretext to India and Pakistan to go nuclear, allegedly in protest to the discriminatory NPT and CTBT regimes. It is imperative to reactivate citizens’ participation in the nuclear disarmament process, as has been done in regard to the Ottawa process focused on anti-personnel landmines.

To this end, I have called on the Japanese government to take an initiative, in cooperation with like-minded governments, to hold a United Nations special conference on “nuclear force and humanity” in the year 2000 prior to the next NPT review conference. The proposal was made with a view to taking this opportunity to organize a parallel conference of NGOs with the aim of sensitizing world public opinion and strengthening the global network of citizens to bring effective pressures to bear on their respective governments to seriously take steps toward nuclear disarmament. Among others, NGOs from India, Pakistan, and Israel (the three “nuclear-weapons-capable states”) and those from the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and other nuclear powers that should play a crucial role in putting disarmament into effect, are encouraged to develop dialogue and work out a common agenda of action.

My personal preference is to take up the issue of nuclear energy and the environment as well as nuclear weapons and peace, as I think the time has come to undertake a comprehensive approach to these two dimensions that are closely interrelated. Whether this is politically advisable or not should be subject to the judgment of the NGO and governmental promoters of this program.

Let me call on you and your colleague NGOs to raise a voice in favor of holding the proposed global conference, and ask your government to endorse the proposal in cooperation with the governments of shared concern. I make this plea on the conviction that it is only on the basis of a transnational network of active citizens whose views and action the governments must heed that the global process toward real nuclear disarmament will be set in motion.”

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:
The Center for International Studies,
Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
The Center for Global Communications, Tokyo, Japan
Center for American Studies,
Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

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

Timothy L. Savage: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States

Shin Dong-bom: dongbom_shin@wisenet.co.kr
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Choi Chung-moon: cily@star.elim.co.kr
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.