NAPSNet Daily Report 17 June, 1999

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 17 June, 1999", NAPSNet Daily Report, June 17, 1999,


I. United States

II. Republic of Korea

III. Russian Federation

IV. Announcements

I. United States

1. DPRK-ROK Naval Confrontation

The Associated Press (Paul Shin, “U.S. SHIP MOVES INTO KOREAN WATERS,” Seoul, 06/17/99) and Reuters (“US SENDS SHIPS, PLANES OFF KOREA,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that, according to an ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) spokesman, five DPRK fishing boats were spotted operating on their side of the border early on Thursday, but the ships were not moving south. The official said, “North Korean naval vessels are floating six kilometers north of the NLL (Northern Limit Line) and we see no signs of either the North Korean fishing or the navy ships moving toward the south yet.”

2. US-ROK Military Cooperation

The Associated Press (Paul Shin, “U.S. SHIP MOVES INTO KOREAN WATERS,” Seoul, 06/17/99) and Reuters (“US SENDS SHIPS, PLANES OFF KOREA,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that, according to US Defense Department spokesman Mike Doubleday, a US Navy ship, USS Vincennes, sailed into ROK waters on Wednesday. Doubleday added that a small number of additional US EA-6B electronic warfare jets were also added to existing air patrols. According to Lieutenant Jeff Davis, a US 7th Fleet spokesman, two US nuclear-powered submarines, the USS Kamehameha and USS Buffalo, also arrived at ROK’s main naval base of Chinhae late Wednesday. Davis added, however, that it was a routine port call not related to the clash.

3. Analysis of the Naval Confrontation

The New York Times (David E. Sanger, “KOREAN CLASH MAY RUIN U.S. RECONCILIATION BID,” Washington, 06/17/99) reported that the naval confrontation between the two Koreas may strain the US proposal for reconciliation between the DPRK and the US. Donald Gregg, a former US Ambassador to the ROK who heads the Korea Society in New York, stated, “It’s very damaging. And like everything the North Koreans do, no one is entirely sure why they did it.” Referring to ROK President Kim Dae-jung’s firmness to not retreat from his “sunshine policy,” Gregg said, “It was a sign of a growing maturity on the part of South Korea. There is a confidence among the South Koreans we did not used to see.” A senior US administration official stated, “Every time the North Koreans do something defiant or something stupid, all it does is harden the view that they could never be trusted to execute whatever deal we strike. If you think ‘engagement’ is a hard sell with China, try it with North Korea.” Another unnamed US official stated, “There was plenty of time for North Korea’s military leadership to tell them to back off. But clearly they wanted to send a message that they were not about to back down.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17.]

The Los Angeles Times carried an opinion article by Moo-hong Moon, who was ROK Assistant Minister for Unification and Presidential Press Secretary from 1981 to 1993, (“AIM FOR REALISM WITH PYONGYANG,” 06/17/99) which argued that the naval confrontation between the two Koreas emphasized that that there is still no peace on the Korean peninsula. Moon, who is also a Guest Scholar at the US Institute of Peace, said that reforms such as “political pluralism and a system of free markets [within the DPRK], as desirable as that may be, should not be the goal of US policy. The primary objective must be to ensure the security and stability of the Korean peninsula and northeast Asia.” Moon stressed that rather than trying to urge the DPRK to undertake internal reforms, the US goal should be to reduce the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction and its missile program. Moon argued that the DPRK’s response to the inducement of international standards on weapons of mass destruction will reveal the DPRK’s real intentions. However, Moon also noted that none of these measures can succeed without DPRK delegates with the authority to negotiate. Moon pointed out that the resolution of the DPRK problem should be undertaken within the broader context of building a new regional order. Moon argued, however, that only the US is capable of playing the role, which would preserve peace and stability in the region. Moon concluded, ” The crucial point is that the United States should develop a mechanism by which regional states will continue to accept the U.S. presence.”

4. DPRK Missile Test

The Washington Times (Bill Gertz, “NORTH KOREA POISED TO TEST LONGER-RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE,” Washington, 06/17/99) reported that the DPRK will soon conduct a second test firing of its new Taepodong ballistic missile. According to an unnamed US administration official, images taken by US spy satellites over a launch site in northern DPRK have provided the clues to the upcoming launch. The official said that the Taepodong test preparations also indicate that the PRC is backing away from helping the US deal with the DPRK. An unnamed intelligence official who is familiar with the recent US intelligence report, stated, “The test could take place at any time. At this point, [the test] is in the probable stage.” The official said the test preparations first were reported late last month by the US Air Force’s National Air Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. The official added that other intelligence agencies also are anticipating the missile test. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17.]

The Associated Press (“NORTH KOREA MISSILE STRONG,” Tokyo, 06/16/99) and Reuters (“N.KOREA TESTING LONG-RANGE MISSILE PROPULSION,” Tokyo, 06/17/99) reported that Japan’s NHK television said that the DPRK has been conducting propulsion tests on Taepodong-2 missile with a range of up to 3,750 miles that could reach Alaska. Quoting unnamed US military sources, NHK said that the DPRK might test-fire the newly developed Taepodong-2 missile by the end of this year. The US Defense Department did not comment on the NHK report.

The Associated Press (“NORTH KOREA MISSILE STRONG,” Tokyo, 06/16/99) and Reuters (“N.KOREA TESTING LONG-RANGE MISSILE PROPULSION,” Tokyo, 06/17/99) reported that, according to Kyodo News on Wednesday, Japan believes that the DPRK will test-fire Taepodong missile as early as July. Citing information obtained through US intelligence satellites, Kyodo said that the launch pad for the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile has been enlarged and fuel has been transported to storehouses. Experts believe that the new ballistic missile is a much more powerful three- stage projectile.

5. Congressional Reaction to Missile Test Reports

The US House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin A. Gilman (” GILMAN REACTION TO PROSPECTIVE NORTH KOREA MISSILE LAUNCH,” Washington) issued the following statement on June 17: “Press reports that North Korea may launch a ballistic missile capable of striking the continental United States are alarming. What has the Administration done to stop the deployment and proliferation of these missiles? When will North Korea be able to combine its ballistic missile program with its nuclear weapons effort to create a ‘balance of terror’ in the Pacific? Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that the White House has continued to pursue a misguided policy of appeasement towards North Korea – despite congressional opposition – and will have failed to prevent the development of this serious threat to our nation and our allies. This troubling development and its proliferation implications further underscores congressional concerns about the delay in submitting the final report of the Perry Review. Initially, we were hopeful that the Congress and the White House could come to agreement on how to approach the nettlesome North Korea question. The impending launch of yet another missile, however, clearly demonstrates the deficiency of the Administration’s current approach and the need for a new policy. That is why I have introduced H.R. 1835, The North Korea Threat Reduction Act, which would mandate North Korean cooperation before US assistance can go forward.”

6. Remains of US Soldiers from Korean War

The Associated Press (“RETURN OF U.S. MIAS POSTPONED,” Seoul, 06/16/99) reported that, according to the United Nations Command (UNC) spokesman Lee Ferguson, the return of remains believed to be those of US soldiers killed in the Korean War, scheduled for Thursday, has been temporarily postponed. Ferguson said that the UNC hoped the DPRK would return five sets of remains at the border village of Panmunjom on Friday, but was not sure the ceremony could be rescheduled then. Ferguson denied that it was related to an ROK-DPRK naval confrontation. Ferguson stated, “The postponement is temporary, and it has nothing to do with the sea incident.”

7. Bombing of PRC Embassy

Agence France-Press (“CHINA CALLS U.S. REPORT ON EMBASSY BOMBING UNCONVINCING,” Beijing, 06/17/99) and Reuters (“CHINA REBUFFS U.S. ENVOY OVER EMBASSY BOMBING,” Beijing, 06/17/99) reported that, according to the PRC state-run Xinhua news agency, the PRC government rejected an explanation by visiting US envoy Thomas Pickering that NATO’s bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade was an accident. Pickering blamed the bombing on a series of errors, not just faulty maps. However, members of the US delegation acknowledged that the PRC officials were not persuaded by the day-long presentation. PRC Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said, “The Chinese government and people cannot accept the conclusion that the ‘bombing was a mistake.'” Tang said that the US must make a “satisfactory explanation.” However, one western diplomat said that the PRC’s rebuff to Pickering did not necessarily mean that ties with the US would remain strained. The diplomat said, “They don’t want the relationship to fall to bits, that’s been clear from what’s being said.”

The Associated Press (John Leicester, “U.S. ENVOY FAILS TO PERSUADE CHINA,” Beijing, 06/17/99) reported that the PRC government demanded to the US delegation led by Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering that the US pay prompt and adequate compensation for the deaths of three PRC reporters, injuries to twenty others, and property damage. According to PRC Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue, Pickering offered compensation, and talks will work out the details. Zhang said that the PRC valued relations with the US, but responsibility for restoring normal ties was up to the US.

The Washington Post (Michael Laris “BEIJING OFFICIALS REMAIN ‘SKEPTICAL’,” Beijing, 06/17/99) and the Associated Press (John Leicester, “U.S. ENVOY FAILS TO PERSUADE CHINA,” Beijing, 06/17/99) reported that, according to members of the US delegation, PRC government officials remained “skeptical” that the bombing of the PRC embassy was an accident. Susan Shirk, deputy assistant secretary of state, who was also a member of the delegation, stated, “We don’t have any illusions that they will turn around on a dime and say, ‘Oh, we were wrong. We see the light.’ In the end, (they may) never buy what they would say is our version of the facts.” Shirk added that PRC officials said that it was hard to believe so many things could go wrong at the same time. Shirk also said that the PRC officials appeared satisfied with a US pledge that “the issue of accountability would be addressed.” Another member of the US delegation added, ” It may be in the end that we have to agree to disagree.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17.]

8. PRC Accession to WTO

Reuters (“CHINA SAYS NOT READY TO REOPEN WTO TALKS,” Beijing, 06/17/99) reported that PRC Trade Minister Shi Guangsheng on Thursday reiterated the PRC demand for a satisfactory explanation by the US of the bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade before reopening talks on World Trade Organization (WTO) membership. The PRC state-run Xinhua news agency quoted Shi as saying that it was “not the proper time now to resume the WTO talks with either the United States or the European Union. Only after the U.S.-led NATO has made a response satisfactory to China and a good atmosphere is reinstated can the talks be resumed.” Shi also stressed that the PRC can only join the WTO as a developing country, and the obligations it should undertake “must be in compliance with China’s current national strength.”

9. Taiwan-PRC Cultural Dispute

The Associated Press (“TAIWAN TO STAGE CONTROVERSIAL OPERA,” Taipei, 06/17/99) reported that a controversial opera will be staged in Taiwan despite criticism from the PRC government. According to Lin Kai, Taiwanese organizer of the Beijing Opera Ensemble, the PRC Ministry of Culture had asked the Beijing Opera Ensemble to cancel a performance of “Hairei Baguan,” or “Hairei’s Resignation.” Lin said that PRC officials relented early this week amid complaints in Taiwan against what was seen as an attempt to stifle the recounting of a historical fact. The opera, which had its premiere in Beijing in 1961, involves an official in the Ming dynasty bureaucracy who resigned because of frustration over court corruption and abuses of power. At the time of the premiere during the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution, however, the PRC leadership alleged that the opera attacked the government. The opera’s composer, then vice mayor of Beijing, Wu Han, and lead singer Ma Lienliang were tortured and sent to labor camps.

10. US-Russia Arms Reduction

The New York Times (Judith Miller, “U.S. AND RUSSIA EXTEND DEAL REDUCING THREAT FROM ARMS,” 06/17/99) reported that the US and Russia in Washington on Wednesday concluded an agreement extending for seven years the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to reduce the threat posed by nuclear, biological, chemical and other weapons of mass destruction. In a ceremony at the Russian Embassy on Wednesday morning, Ambassador Yuri Ushakov signed the agreement. Amy Smithson, a senior associate of the Henry L. Stimson Center, stated, “The collapse of the Soviet Union left tens of thousands of nuclear, chemical and biological munitions and agents unsecured. These funds have helped secure and dismantle a lot of that arsenal. ” However some members in the US House of Representatives are skeptical of the program. Representative Floyd Spence, Republican-South Carolina, the chairman of the US House Armed Services Committee, accused Russia of being increasingly reluctant to pay its fair share of the burden for disarmament and better security. Spence stated, “Funding for these Cooperative Threat Reduction programs seems to be becoming less ‘cooperative’ and more one-sided.” Mikhail Shurgalin, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in the US, called the agreement “very important,” and said that Russia was pleased that it had been signed on time. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17]

11. US Missile Defense

Inside The Pentagon (Daniel G. Dupont, “DOD’S FIRST NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE INTERCEPT ATTEMPT DELAYED AGAIN,” 06/17/99, Pg.1) reported that the first intercept test flight of the National Missile Defense system has been delayed again. Lieutenant Colonel Rick Lehner, spokesman for the NMD joint program office, has determined the test will “probably” slip “at least [until] mid- to late-September.” US Army officials believe that late September is the earliest the test could be conducted. [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17.]

Reader’s Digest carried an opinion article by Ralph Kinney Bennett (“NEEDED: MISSILE DEFENSE,” July edition, Pg. 117) which argued that US President Bill Clinton’s adherence to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty is preventing the US from building an effective missile defense system. William Schneider, Jr., a member of the Rumsfeld Commission that investigated the missile threat last year, argued, “By clinging to the ABM treaty, the Administration ensures that any missile defense it might deploy would be ineffective. The treaty is a poison pill.” Gregory H. Canavan, senior scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, said that a single-site, centrally based missile system might be able to handle a half-dozen incoming missiles. He argued, “But if a country is determined to amass a half-dozen ICBMs, and crazy enough to fire them at us, why wouldn’t it put out the effort to build a dozen? A land- based system is good enough to get you into a fight, but not good enough to get you out.” Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger argued, “The ABM treaty was barely plausible in a bipolar world. Now it makes no sense in a multipolar world of proliferating missile states.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17.]

12. India-Pakistan Kashmir Dispute

The Associated Press (“INDIA PUTS NAVY ON ALERT,” New Delhi, 06/17/99) reported that, according to Indian Navy Admiral Sushil Kumar, the Indian navy is on alert following a buildup of Pakistan’s fleet in apparent response to the fighting in Kashmir. Kumar stated, “It is imperative for the Indian navy to prepare itself to prevent any surprises at sea.” Kumar added that Pakistan’s navy has been on alert since last Friday.

Reuters (“PAKISTAN BRUSHES OFF CLINTON CALL FOR PULLOUT,” Islamabad, 06/17/99) reported that Pakistan on Wednesday denied it commanded guerrillas fighting in Kashmir. Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz stated, “They are not under our control.” Aziz said that India also needed to show respect for the Line of Control. Referring to US President Bill Clinton’s phone call, Aziz said, “I think I am equally encouraged by the emphasis on defusing the situation. On the dialogue process, peace and stability and dealing with the underlying issues.” Aziz added, “The only way we can avert war and deal with the problem is through dialogue.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for June 17.]

II. Republic of Korea

1. ROK aftermath of Naval Confrontation

The Korea Times (Son Key-young, “NORTH KOREAN RETALIATION FEARED,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that ROK military experts warned that, as Tuesday’s armed clash ended with an ROK victory, the DPRK may launch retaliatory attacks on ROK vessels using its forces on the west coast. ROK Defense Ministry officials said that the DPRK “Silkworm” missiles deployed along the west coast could be fired at ROK warships. The “Silkworm” missile, with a 95-km range, could reach any point in the contested area on the west coast, posing a grave threat to the ROK warships patrolling the area. Furthermore, the DPRK’s SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, which are known to be deployed 60 km north of Yonpyong-do Island, could also hit ROK fighter jets that are now engaging in patrols in the area. According to the ROK Defense Ministry, the DPRK maintains shore guns along the west coast which could reach six km south of the Northern Limit Line (NLL), making it difficult for the ROK vessels to fulfill their patrol missions in the West Sea. ROK intelligence officials said that they were monitoring the movement of DPRK submarines and spy boats to prevent any secret incursions. One unnamed official stated, “North Korea may take advantage of the no- moonlight period which will run through Friday to send its infiltration agents to the ROK and we are preparing for this potential threat.”

2. ROK-US Military Cooperation

The Korea Herald (Lee Sung-yul, “S. KOREA, U.S. KEEP CLOSE EYE ON NORTH AS TENSION PERSISTS,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that ROK and US forces increased their surveillance of DPRK troops on Wednesday. The ROK Air Force sent 40 additional fighter jets on patrol over the sea border off the west coast, while US U-2 and AWACS reconnaissance aircraft kept a close eye on the movement of DPRK troops, the ROK Defense Ministry said. US Forces Korea said that they are “monitoring the situation closely and will take appropriate steps as required,” but that they have not heightened the readiness of their force in the ROK. The US has decided to dispatch more aircraft to the ROK following Tuesday’s heavy artillery exchange. Defense Ministry spokesman Brigadier General Cha Young- koo said that no signs of extraordinary movements by DPRK troops have been detected so far. He added that ROK fishermen were allowed to resume fishing in the area. “However, tension persists in the sea border area, because the North Korean naval boats may intrude the NLL any time and attack our Navy again,” Cha said. A large flotilla of naval ships was patrolling the waters south of Yonpyong Island, where shore guns and missiles are placed on maximum readiness. Defense Minister Cho Sung-tae ordered the Navy to prepare for renewed DPRK provocation of “any kind.”

3. PRC Reaction to Naval Confrontation

The Korea Herald (Jun Kwan-woo, “SEOUL ASKS FOR CHINA’S HELP TO DEFUSE INTER-KOREAN TENSION IN WEST SEA,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that ROK Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Hong Soon-young on Wednesday requested the PRC’s diplomatic efforts to help ease the tension between the ROK and the DPRK over gunfire exchanges in the West Sea Tuesday. Calling in PRC Ambassador Wu Dawei to his office, Minister Hong asked the PRC government to help persuade the DPRK regime to stop making further military provocation. Hong explained to the PRC envoy that the DPRK’s navy ships, not the ROK’s, had first sparked the gunfire, and that the ROK would sternly cope with the DPRK’s further military provocation. Hong made it clear, however, that the ROK will continue to push ahead with its present “sunshine policy” of greater economic and diplomatic engagement with the DPRK steadily and consistently. In response, Wu said that the PRC government hopes for a peaceful solution to the incident through dialogues between the ROK and the DPRK, said ministry officials who attended the meeting.

4. DPRK-ROK Family Reunion Talks

The Korea Herald (Shin Yong-bae, “FAMILY REUNION TALKS MAY BE OVERSHADOWED BY ARMED CLASH,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that analysts said on Wednesday that they did not see much hope that next week’s inter-Korean vice ministers’ talks will lead to reunion of the more than 10 million separated family members in the two Koreas. Yu Suk-ryul, a professor at the ROK Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, said “the DPRK is highly likely to exploit [the talks] as a chance to denounce the armed clash between naval vessels from the two sides, sidelining the reunion issue.” Yu also cast doubt over the possibility that the two Koreas will make a breakthrough in the deadlocked reunion issue at the Beijing talks. “Above all, the North is feeling the burden of reuniting dispersed families,” said Park Kie-duck, a research fellow at the Sejong Institute. “At any rate, the Beijing talks will not proceed smoothly. We should not harbor too much hope for the realization of reuniting separated families.”

5. ROK Visits to DPRK

Joongang Ilbo (Shim Shang-bok, “NK SUSPENDS S.KOREAN VISITS TO PYONGYANG,” 06/17/99) and Chosun Ilbo (“NK LIMITS SEOUL PEOPLE’S PYONGYANG VISITS,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that the DPRK announced on June 16 that for the time being it will limit or suspend visits by ROK citizens to Pyongyang, citing the recent “reckless military provocation to North Korea.” The DPRK’s Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said in a statement that the ROK should apologize immediately for the exchange of fire that occurred in the West Sea a day earlier. The statement also asserted that the DPRK is considering retaliating a thousand times for the damage sustained. However, the DPRK did not comment on the vice-ministerial talks scheduled for June 21 in Beijing.

6. DPRK Missile Launch

Joongang Ilbo (Shim Shang-bok, “NK LIKELY TO LAUNCH MISSILE IN TWO MONTHS,” Seoul, 06/17/99) reported that Japan’s Nihon Keizai newspaper said the DPRK is planning to launch a ballistic missile within two months. US satellite images and ROK intelligence reports show that the DPRK has gone into preparations for a test launch of its Taepodong ballistic missile. Japanese government officials declined to comment on the report.

III. Russian Federation

1. DPRK-ROK Naval Confrontation Izvestia’s Yury Savenkov (“KOREANS’ BATTLE IN THE YELLOW SEA,” Moscow, 4, 6/15/99) reported that the DPRK-ROK naval showdown had been going on for seven days in the Yellow Sea, looking like a “cat and mouse game.” The sea demarcation line was unilaterally drawn by the UN Command in 1953, and it was made without enough precision. As a result, an area between the DPRK’s coast and five ROK’s island 100 kilometers from Seoul became disputable. The DPRK claims the waters and in the past has been sending its naval ships to accompany crab- catching vessels up to 20 times a year. While in the past DPRK’s ships used to leave the waters immediately after the first ROK warning, this time they remained. The ROK admits a possibility of the line not being precise enough, but protests against incursions into its territorial waters. Some observers believe the present DPRK behavior is aimed to distract the ROK Navy’s attention and to undertake some new spy action. Others say that the export of crab meat is indeed one source of hard currency for the DPRK. Izvestia’s author speculated that the main reason is the DPRK’s wish “to raise the stakes” on the eve of DPRK-ROK meeting in Beijing and in the context of its bargaining with the US over its nuclear and missile programs. Izvestia’s Yury Savenkov (“MORNING BATTLE IN THE YELLOW SEA,” Moscow, 4, 6/16/99) reported details about the ROK-DPRK naval confrontation on 6/15/99 nicknamed “a crab confrontation,” during which both sides exchanged fire ironically 40 minutes after the start of talks between the DPRK generals and the UN Command. The talks were canceled. According to the DPRK Central News Agency, the ROK’s “planned provocation aimed to put the situation on the Korean Peninsula on the verge of war” resulted in one of the DPRK’s ships sunk and three others seriously damaged. No DPRK crew casualties were reported. According to ROK sources, one DPRK ship was seriously damaged and was drifting Southward from the delimitation line, while two ships were rescued by other ships. Two ROK ships were slightly damaged and two crewmembers wounded. According to the ROK, the DPRK crab- catching schooners accompanied by DPRK patrol boats crossed the sea borderline. When ROK ships tried to chase them out, they were the first to open fire. Now the DPRK demands apologies from the ROK. ROK President Kim Dae-jung said he would not just inform the RF, the PRC, and Japan about the sea border violation committed by the DPRK, but would try to gain their support in order to lower the tension. The RF Foreign Ministry has made no comments yet. An RF diplomat who has specialized in Northeast Asian affairs for several decades said there were no serious ground for concern. He stated, “as Pyongyang feels better in a tough conflict atmosphere, it decided to state its rights more firmly before the forthcoming talks with the United States.”

Nezavisimaia gazeta’s Andrey Ilyashenko (“CRABS TURNED OUT TO BE COSTLY,” Tokyo, 2, 6/16/99) reported on the DPRK-ROK “crab confrontation.” In Seoul, a session of the Permanent State Security Commission was held. The session called the DPRK’s actions “provocative,” yet confirmed the intention of the ROK to pursue flexible policies toward the DPRK and to continue preparations for the bilateral deputy ministerial level meeting planned to take place on 6/21/99. The ROK Armed Forces are on alert. The ROK Defense Minister called for emergency interaction with US troops stationed in the ROK.

2. RF Juche Conference

Sovetskaya Rossia (“JUCHE – IDEAS OF SOCIALISM,” Moscow, 3, 6/16/99) reported that a regional European conference dedicated to “the ideas of juche and socialism” will take place in Moscow on June 17-18. It is to commemorate the 35th anniversary since DPRK leader Kim Jong-il started his work at the Korean Workers Party headquarters. The conference will discuss Kim Jong-il’s ideas and will be attended by political and public figures, as well as scholars from European countries, delegations of the International Institute of Juche Studies, and the Society of Korean Social Science Researchers.

3. RF-PRC Military Relations

Segodnya (“ACTIVE RAPPROCHEMENT,” Moscow, 2, 6/15/99) reported that Jang Wannian, Deputy Chairman of the Central Military Council of the PRC, on his visit to Russia attended the exercises of the RF Pacific Navy in Vladivostok. He pointed out that the RF Pacific Fleet has “big prospects” for a military-technical cooperation with the PRC and that there is “an active rapprochement” between the RF and the PRC, necessary to oppose the aggressiveness of NATO. He described such bilateral cooperation in terms of production and export to the PRC of certain items from RF defense industry enterprises in the Far East.

Nezavisimaia gazeta’s Aleksandr Alf (“IN FRIENDLY EMBRACES,” Moscow, 2, 6/16/99) reported that General Colonel Jang Wannian, Deputy Chairman of the PRC Central Military Council, visited the RF. He had talks with RF Premier Sergey Stepashin and talked over the phone with RF President Boris Yeltsin. Talks with the RF military were the main goal. After their meeting, RF Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev stressed that the two shared “the same understanding of the emerging circumstances, the same understanding of the prospects of the world order development.” A number of bilateral cooperation documents were signed, including a general contract on PRC military officers’ training at RF military education institutions. Other agreements provide for deliveries of RF-made weapon systems to the PRC, in particular Su-27 planes, radar stations, S-300PMU missile air defense complexes, submarines, “Moskit” anti-ship missile-armed destroyers, and sea-based short and medium range cruise missiles. The list, Nezavisimaia gazeta’s author pointed out, “makes it possible to say with confidence about a transition to single standards and that, in its turn, symbolizes some military block-like state of relations.” Although the volume of RF exports of arms and military equipment to the PRC might reach US$5-6 billion by 2005, the settlement might take form of mutual debt servicing, with “live money” not coming to RF defense enterprises.

4. PRC Space Program

Nezavisimaia gazeta’s Dmitry Paison (“APPEARANCE OF ‘SOYUZ’ FROM THE EAST,” Moscow, 2, 6/11/99) reported that photographs of the PRC’s “Long March” CZ-2F space rocket on its launch pad appeared for the first time on the Internet. Its manned spaceship looks very similar to Soviet/RF “Soyuz.” Its first unmanned flight is scheduled for the 50th anniversary of the PRC, to be celebrated this October. In the past, PRC scientists and engineers obtained a large number of “Soyuz” equipment, including the landing device and the emergency rescue system together with rescue suits. PRC rocket-makers and even two “instructor cosmonauts,” or “Chiconauts,” underwent training in the RF. The day after the Internet publication, it was explained that they can be 70 percent verifiable, having been scanned from an advertisement booklet of a certain industrial company in Inner Mongolia. The photos were allegedly taken in May, 1998. As nobody would keep a rocket standing on the launching pad for over a year, it is more probable that those are photos of a real-size real-weight model. Nezavisimaia gazeta’s author concluded that the new proof of rapid development of the PRC’s space program again give rise to the question “Whom to be friends with?”

IV. Announcements

1. Latest NATO Nuclear Flash

The following is the table of contents for the latest NATO Nuclear Flash. The flash is available online at:

1. Article in Chinese Central Committee Paper Comments on the Cox Report. 2. Chinese Group Tours Russian Far East Navy Base. 3. Chinese Delegation Tours Russian Strategic Missile Force Unit. 4. China Rethinks Security After NATO Attack. 5. Kissinger Tells India He “Understands” Its Nuclear Move. 6. PIR Analysis of Russian Security Council Meeting. 7. Nuclear Arms: The Clock is Still Ticking. 8. IAEA Head Tells Arab Newspaper That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons. 9. Europe and Russia Strategize About Each Other. 10. The Nuclear Battle Over Nanoose Bay. 11. U.K. House of Commons Debates Nuclear Policy.

2. Benefit for DPRK Aid

The Institute for Strategic Reconciliation is sponsoring a Gala Benefit Film Presentations of the English-subtitled film “Spring in My Hometown.” Proceeds from the entire cost of admission ($15) will go for shipping medicines and medical supplies to the children, patients, and pregnant women of the DPRK under US government license. The benefit presentation is chaired by: Honorary Chairman, Congressman Tony Hall, Ohio; Honarary Co-chairmen, President Jim Moody, InterAction; President Paul Thompson, MAP International; and Chairman Reverand Inhwa Sohn, Institute for Strategic Reconciliation, and movie star, Ahn Sung-Ki, UNICEF Ambassador to the ROK. The key sponsors of the nationwide benefit film shows are George Mason University (GMU) Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, VA; GMU Institute for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, VA; National Association of Korean Americans – New York; US Committee for UNICEF, New York; Join Together Society, New York; The Korea Times, Chicago; UCLA Center for Korean Studies, Los Angeles; The Korea Times, Los Angeles; Los Angeles Campaign to Stop Famine in north Korea; The Korea Times, Washington, DC; and Institute for Strategic Reconciliation, Inc., Washington, DC. Show times are as follows:

Washington, D.C., Saturday June 19, 5:30 pm, and 8 pm (Two shows), George Mason University – Johnson Center, Fairfax, VA (For directions, call 703-993-1000. For inquiry, call ISR, 301-570-3948)

New York, Sunday, June 27, 5 pm, and 7:30 pm (Two shows) Florence Gould Hall of the French Institute, 55 E. 59th Street (Between Park & Madison Ave.) (For directions, call 212-355-6160. For inquiry, call NAKA, 212-679-3482)

Chicago, Tuesday, June 29, 9 pm Skokie Theater, Chicago (For directions and inquiry, call the Korea Times of Chicago 773-463-1050)

Los Angeles, Friday, July 2, 6:30 pm, 9 pm UCLA James Bridges Theater (For directions and inquiry, call LA- CSFNK, 213-389-6664)

Reservations for individual or group attendance can be made by contacting the above regional groups. For further inquiries, contact Program Coordinator Tom Evans at 301-457-3255; E-mail at; or by FAX at 301-570-0911.

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:
Berkeley, California, United States

Kim Sae-ryo
Berkeley, California, United States

Kim Heesun:
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Hiroyasu Akutsu:
Tokyo, Japan

Peter Razvin:
Moscow, Russian Federation

Chunsi Wu:
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Dingli Shen:
Shanghai, People’s Republic of China


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.