NAPSNet Daily Report 18 April, 2001

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 18 April, 2001", NAPSNet Daily Report, April 18, 2001, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-18-april-2001/

 
CONTENTS

I. United States

1. DPRK Missile Sales to Iran
2. Japanese History Textbook
3. US-PRC Talks
4. US Arms Sales to Taiwan
5. US Ambassador to PRC
6. PRC Human Rights
7. Missile Defense Report
II. Republic of Korea 1. Red Cross Chiefs to Meet in Spain
2. DPRK Military Inspections
3. DPRK Food Shortage
4. EU on DPRK Project
5. DPRK on USFK
III. People’s Republic of China 1. US on PRC-US Mid-air Collision
2. PRC Awards Missing Pilot
3. ROK-Japanese Relations
4. Lee Teng-hui’s planned Japan Visit
5. UK on NMD Program
6. Russia’s Countermeasures to US NMD Program

I. United States

1. DPRK Missile Sales to Iran

The Washington Times (Bill Gertz, “NORTH KOREA SENDS MISSILE PARTS, TECHNOLOGY TO IRAN,” 4/18/01) reported that the Washington Times has learned that the DPRK sent a shipment of missile components and technology to Iran two weeks ago aboard a transport aircraft. US intelligence officials familiar with reports of the arms transfer said the components were photographed late last month by a US spy satellite as they were being loaded aboard an Iranian Il-76 transport jet at a DPRK airfield. The officials identified the airfield as Sunan International Airport, located about 12 miles north of Pyongyang, the DPRK capital. The shipment is the second missile component transfer detected this year by US intelligence agencies and is a sign that the DPRK is stepping up its missile- related exports. That sale involved the export of 12 rocket motors made for DPRK’s 600-mile-range Nodong medium-range missiles. The engines were photographed being loaded on an Iranian 747 jetliner at Sunan Airport. Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said reports of the latest missile transfer raise new questions about whether there should be any deals with the DPRK. Sokolski said, “Missile sales seem to be business as usual, and there should be no deals between the United States and North Korea until they are halted.” [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 18, 2001.]

2. Japanese History Textbook

Washington Post (Doug Struck, “NEW TEXT REOPENING OLD WOUNDS REVISIONIST HISTORY IN JAPAN MINIMIZES ATROCITIES BEFORE, DURING WWII ,” Tokyo, 4/18/01) reported that there are strong reactions from the ROK, the DPRK, and the PRC over a new junior high school history textbook in Japan which failed to mention the abduction and forced prostitution of tens of thousands of “comfort women” for Japanese soldiers during World War II did not happen and the 1937 Nanjing massacre by Japanese. The ROK recalled its ambassador to Japan last week and canceled official visits. Lawmakers in the ROK are calling for a boycott of Japanese goods. Street demonstrations have erupted outside the Japanese Embassy in the ROK. Japanese relations with the ROK had improved tremendously since 1998 when Kim Dae-jung accepted Japan’s apology for its 1910-45 occupation of Korea. But now ROK newspaper editorials decry “Japan’s extreme nationalism.” The Korea Herald, in one such column, protested that “the Japanese must wake up from the erroneous perception that they were the victims of World War II.” The criticisms were echoed in the PRC. The official New China News Agency said “a handful of ultra-rightist forces are still trying to reverse the verdict on Japan’s wars of aggression.” However, co-author Nobukatsu Fujioka, a professor at Tokyo University, in an appearance last week to defend the Junior High School Social Studies New History Textbook, said, “This is blatant interference by a foreign country. All nations have a right to interpret their history in their own way, and pass down that interpretation. I think that is a part of sovereignty.” The revisionists argue that claims of Japanese atrocities in the war are, as Fujioka put it, “wartime propaganda . . . just a rumor”; that descriptions of its occupations are one-sided; and that Japan’s conquests should be seen in the context of empires held by European powers. The revisionists say descriptions of Japan’s colonization of Korea fail to give credit for roads, bridges and other infrastructure built by Japan at the time. But to many Koreans, that is akin to arguing that a condemned man got a good last meal. When the history book was submitted to the Education Ministry screening committee, critics outside Japan began to protest. But after requiring 137 amendments to the book – which the authors describe as minor – the screening committee on April 3 approved the text to be offered to school districts next year. The Japanese Education Ministry argues that it had no choice. However, critics in Japan see the government’s approval as a serious error. Hisao Ishiyama, part of a group formed in Japan to oppose dissemination of the text, said, “We feel the textbook is very dangerous, and risks the future of Japanese society.”

3. US-PRC Talks

Agence France Presse (“US SAYS SPY PLANE TALKS WITH CHINA FAIL, NO NEW ROUND SET,” Washington, 4/18/01) and the Associated Press (Barry Schweid, “US-CHINA TALKS ‘NOT PRODUCTIVE,'” Washington, 4/18/01) reported that a first round of US-PRC talks aimed at resolving the spy plane crisis failed to produce any results. An anonymous senior US official said Wednesday said the talks will not continue unless the US is assured by the PRC it intends to be “productive.” The officials said the PRC side refused during two-and-a-half hours of talks to budge on their insistence that the crew of the US spy plane was responsible for the April 1 collision. The official said, “It was a tough meeting. We said our piece, we gave our explanation, they said their piece and went no further.” A second official said, “No new ground was covered. The Chinese are very dug-in, they stuck to their positions.” He added that contrary to assurances the PRC had given the US that the talks would be “non-polemical,” they had been extremely tense. However, he stressed that the US was not surprised by the PRC stance, given the tone of recent official comments from the PRC. The official said no headway had been made on the main US objective in the talks – the return of the damaged EP-3 surveillance plane. The official also denied reports in the official PRC media that the talks would continue on Thursday. He said US Ambassador to PRC, Joseph Prueher, would meet with PRC Foreign Ministry officials on Thursday to determine whether a new round of discussions would be worthwhile. The official said, “The ambassador will go in tomorrow morning and and tell them what we’re going to need for the talks to continue. We think they need a better approach if we are going to have better meetings and a productive relationship.” A second senior official said Prueher would meet with PRC diplomats at 9:00 am on Thursday. In Beijing, neither the PRC nor the eight-member US delegation led offered any comment on the discussions, which took place at the PRC foreign ministry. A PRC foreign ministry spokeswoman told AFP “there is nothing to say, nothing to say.” But the PRC’s official Xinhua news agency announced the talks would continue Thursday.

4. US Arms Sales to Taiwan

The New York Times (David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, “BUSH TEAM URGES HOLDING OFF SHIP RADAR SALE TO TAIWAN,” Washington, 4/18/01) and Reuters (Charles Aldinger, “BUSH ADVISED AGAINST AEGIS FOR TAIWAN-OFFICIAL,” Washington, 4/18/01) reported that US President George W. Bush’s senior national security aides have recommended that he defer the sale to Taiwan of advanced destroyers but have advised him to provide a range of less advanced weapons to counter the growing PRC military capacity. The recommendation, by a team of senior US deputies in the State and Defense Departments and the White House, was discussed on Tuesday afternoon at a meeting of the National Security Council. Officials declined to discuss that session, other than to say that Bush is expected to make a final decision next week. According to officials familiar with the report, Bush’s top aides concluded that Taiwan did not yet have the technical skill or the command capacity to handle the Aegis system, which could protect Taiwan against a missile attack. Instead, they recommended selling less sophisticated Kidd-class destroyers. Nor would they sell Taiwan PAC-3 because it has yet to be deployed by US troops. There is continuing debate over whether to sell Taiwan diesel- powered submarines armed with conventional torpedoes. One senior US Administration official said that at the meeting on Tuesday “there was no big fight over” selling more sophisticated weapons to Taiwan. US Senator Craig Thomas, the Wyoming Republican who heads the Foreign Relations subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific affairs, said Wednesday that he supported deferring any immediate sale of the Aegis system to Taiwan, because it would be unnecessarily provocative. Thomas said, “We’re committed to helping Taiwan if they are attacked, but we don’t need to be waving red flags in people’s faces.” [Ed. note: The New York Times article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for April 18, 2001.]

The New York Times carried an analytical article (Michael R. Gordon, “MILITARY ANALYSIS: TAIWAN’S GUPPY-SIZE FORCE,” Hong Kong, 4/18/01) which said that even without the Aegis-equipped destroyers, US support for Taiwan is likely to increase and risk angering the PRC. While there has been enormous attention on the US role in selling arms, many of Taiwan’s deficiencies cannot be resolved through the sale of weapons alone. Instead, many stem from Taiwan’s military history of isolation and bureaucratic politics. The key to Taiwan’s security no longer rests with its army but with its air force and navy. However, Taiwan’s armed forces have some considerable limitations. Taiwan also has a weak system of civilian oversight for military planning. That has made it difficult to plan joint military operations and curb the tendencies of the army, air force and navy to go their separate ways. Taiwan’s admirals said that they are not sure how they would coordinate or even communicate with US forces should the US come to its aid in the event of a PRC attack. Kurt Campbell, the senior US Defense Department official for Asia policy during the Clinton administration said, “The aspect of the Taiwan security situation that is most unnerving to Taiwan’s military is not knowing what the U.S. military would do in a crisis.” There are many steps that the US could take to improve the defense of Taiwan. One big one would be to make the US deliberately ambiguous policy to defend Taiwan with US forces somewhat less ambiguous. Another would be to expand the limited effort to train Taiwan’s military.

The Wall Street Journal (Neil King Jr., “BUSH MAY YET FIND PATH TO COMPROMISE IN THORNY, TANGLED ISSUE OF TAIWAN ARMS,” Washington, 4/18/01) reported that US President George W. Bush’s decision in the coming days about the US arms sales to Taiwan will come under scrutiny by a variety of groups in the US Congress. The Heritage Foundation professes to have a middle path that would satisfy both parties of the US Congress where there is a diverse view of the arms sales. Its solution: Bush should punish the PRC with a host of tough diplomatic moves, including stronger controls over high-tech trade and opposing its bid to host the 2008 Olympics, while fudging this year’s arms-sales question. Larry Wortzel, head of Asian studies at Heritage, is urging Bush to defer a decision on Taiwan’s most sensitive request, for Aegis radar-equipped guided-missile destroyers. Instead, Bush would order the US Navy to start building the ships now, and then decide later whether they will be sent to Taiwan or added to the US inventory. However, Kurt Campbell, the senior US Defense Department official for Asia policy during the Clinton administration, said, “If any of the many actors here is completely happy, you fail. You want everyone complaining publicly, but also be able to sell the solution privately as the best deal possible under the circumstances.” Another possible compromise would be for Bush to sell Taiwan earlier-generation Kidd-class destroyers, which have a clear advantage in that they could be refitted within two to three years, compared with about eight years to build the new Aegis ships. Other analysts are floating a third scenario: that the US could defer a decision on Aegis, while pledging to sell Taiwan one or two of its own Aegis-equipped ships if the PRC hasn’t improved its behavior by next year. That would speed up delivery for Taiwan, while the US fleet would have to do with one or two fewer ships for a year or two.

5. US Ambassador to PRC

Reuters (“BUSH PICKS CLASSMATE AS CHINA AMBASSADOR, SAYS OFFICIAL,” Washington, 4/18/01) reported that a US official said on Tuesday that US President George W. Bush has chosen Clark Randt Junior, a Yale classmate of Bush and an expert on PRC business, to succeed Joseph Prueher as US ambassador to the PRC. Randt is a lawyer with the law firm Shearman and Sterling, and a partner in the firm’s mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance groups. He speaks Mandarin, according to his biography on the law firm’s Web site, and served as commercial attache at the U.S. embassy in Beijing from 1982-1984. The biography said that he has represented major international corporations in investment projects in the PRC, worked on privatization of PRC companies, and represented PRC- related initial public offerings on the New York Stock Exchange.

6. PRC Human Rights

The Associated Press (“CHINA ESCAPES CENSURE OF RECORD,” Geneva, 4/18/01) reported that the PRC on Wednesday defeated a US attempt to hold it accountable before the United Nations for human rights abuses. The 53- nation UN Human Rights Commission voted 23-17 against consideration of a US resolution. The PRC amassed support among African countries. The US submitted a resolution denouncing Beijing’s repression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, its “increased restrictions” on Tibetans and “harsh sentencing” of government opponents. It was the 10th time that a Western government has tried and failed to pass a resolution condemning the PRC at the annual meeting of the Human Rights Commission.

7. Missile Defense Report

The Stanley Foundation and the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies announced the release of a joint report Ballistic Missile Defense and Northeast Asian Security: Views From Washington, Beijing and Tokyo. Copies are available upon request from the Stanley Foundation (telephone 563-264- 1500) or can be downloaded from the Web at: or . The report is the product of a series of consultations on ballistic missile defenses and Northeast Asian security held in late 2000 in Washington, DC, and Monterey, California, between government officials and non-government experts in the US, the PRC, and Japan. The consultations revealed a range of challenges that US deployments of missile defense systems will pose for Northeast Asian security. The report will be released on April 19th at a breakfast briefing in Washington. More information about the project can be found at: .

II. Republic of Korea

1. Red Cross Chiefs to Meet in Spain

The Korea Herald (Kim Ji-ho, “TWO KOREAS’ RED CROSS CHIEFS TO MEET IN SPAIN NEXT MONTH,” Seoul, 04/17/01) reported that Red Cross chiefs from the ROK and the DPRK will meet in Spain next month, where they are scheduled to receive an award from the Spanish Red Cross for the organization of reunions of separated families, officials said here Tuesday. The meeting, slated for May 9, would be the first contact between the leaders of the two Red Cross societies since the DPRK canceled talks on family reunions earlier this month. The cancellation raised concerns that the DPRK, which had already been shunning dialogue with the ROK since March, will not put the inter-Korean rapprochement process back on track anytime soon. The ROK’s Korea National Red Cross (KNRC) President Suh Young-hoon said that he and his DPRK Korean counterpart, Jang Jae-on, had been chosen as the recipients of the Spanish prize.

2. DPRK Military Inspections

Chosun Ilbo (Kim In-mok, “KIM JONG IL’S MILITARY INSPECTIONS INCREASE,” Seoul, 04/17/01) reported that DPRK National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong-il has increased his number of military inspections, it was reported Tuesday, visiting air force unit 884 on April 10, army unit 2629 on the 15th, and artillery unit 3427 on the 16th. Also, he looked around a fish farm made by army unit 580 on the 15th, and a goat pasture newly established by unit 757. Chairman Kim has made five tours to military facilities this month alone, which is noteworthy considering that he visited military units only once in January and February. Furthermore, since April 25 is the anniversary of the People’s Army, the number of visits is likely to increase even more. A government source commented that the administration believes that such a move is thought to be the DPRK’s attempt to demonstrate its military power to the US administration.

3. DPRK Food Shortage

Joongang Ilbo (Oh Young-jin, “NORTH FALLS SHORT OF 1/3 OF ITS HARVEST,” Seoul, 04/17/01) reported that the DPRK has just reaped its worst harvests in four years. Falling short of one-third of its targeted food source, the nation again found itself bound to suffer another year, revealed US officials on Monday April 16. David Morton, the World Food Program (WFP)’s representative in the DPRK, reported that corn and wheat, the main harvest of the DPRK failed to reach its targeted 4.8 million tons, recording about 3.0 million tons instead. People are now foraging hills for wild mushrooms and edible leaves, continued Morton. Cabbage stalks and other leftover foods are used to make noodles along with wheat, but hardly offer much nutrition.

4. EU on DPRK Project

Joongang Ilbo (“EU LAUNCHES ‘TRIAL PROJECT’ ON N.K.,” Seoul, 04/18/01) reported that the executive committee of the European Union (EU) has launched a “trial project” based on the investigative reports of the EU economic cooperation delegation that entered Pyongyang on Monday April 16. The UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)’s report posted on the Internet revealed that the EU committee held a conference on Monday in Brussels, Belgium as advised by the EU delegation that visited the DPRK this February to discuss providing further aid to the DPRK. According to the report, the “trial project” was already underway. However it declined to further elaborate on its contents. The report also revealed that the EU delegation has investigated a wide range of sectors in the DPRK for two weeks from agriculture to energy, transportation, training, market economy, international finance and so forth to evaluate the DPRK’s potential for economy.

5. DPRK on USFK

Joongang Ilbo (“USFK MUST GO BEFORE ANY DISARMAMENT, CLAIMS N.K.,” Seoul, 04/18/01) reported that the DPRK announced on Monday April 16 that reducing armaments is impossible unless US troops stationed in Korean Peninsula move out. Rodong Shinmun, the DPRK’s state-run newspaper, in an article titled “Withdrawal of USFK Comes First,” wrote, “there is no way our nation would cut back our armaments with American imperialists out to threaten us all.” Also accusing the US President George W. Bush administration of “destroying” the thawing relations between the DPRK and the US of the Clinton-era, the paper asserted that requests for disarmament amid building tensions is a “dangerous and crafty manifestation of the US’s attempt to suddenly attack and eventually crush our nation.” “The arms cut we have in mind is based on being free from the threats of the American imperialists” the paper claimed. “The reason for such slow progress in disarmament attributes to the United States.” “The withdrawal of United States troops from the Korean Peninsula should be dealt prior to any disarmament process and that is the only way to proceed with the overall disarmament within the two Koreas. The U.S. has no need to shout out for peaceful disarmament because as along as they move out of the picture the two Koreas would get down to launch the unified federation” the paper finally added.

III. People’s Republic of China

1. US on PRC-US Mid-air Collision

Jiefang Daily (“KISSINGER: US SHOULD NOT CONFRONT WITH CHINA,” 04/17/01, P3) reported that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger expressed recently that the US should not confront the PRC concerning the issue of the US spy plane’s collision with a PRC fighter jet. When interviewed by the US Fox TV Station, he said that in the medium and long term, the US should not confront the PRC, for it has the world’s biggest population and a long history. Some congressmen also expressed similar views. According to the US Columbia Broadcasting Company, in spite of the pressures from some Congressmen after the mid-air collision, there are still Congresspeople both from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who hope that this incident would not affect bilateral trade relations.

Jiefang Daily (Jiang Min, “US LEADERS FAIL THEIR PROMISES,” New York, 04/17/01, P3) reported that after the release of 24 US crewmembers by the PRC from humanitarian considerations, US government officials suddenly changed their attitudes and rhetoric, totally different from the “cooperative” attitude of two days before. The first one who changed his face was President George W. Bush. On April 12, he made tough remarks in the White House and attributed the collision to Chinese side, saying that the Chinese side did not release the crew until 11 days later, which is incompatible with the kind of relationship we wish to achieve. The incident we experienced is impossible to deepen the constructive relationship between our two countries, he added. Meantime, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, on his way back from visiting the Balkans, threatened to sell the Aegis destroyer to Taiwan, who just expressed “regret” and “very sorry” in letters to the PRC two days before. National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice, when interviewed by CNN, said that the US would not discuss with the PRC the issue of the US stopping reconnaissance activities in international airspace along the Chinese coast, saying that it is both for the interest of the US and its allies to carry out reconnaissance against China. Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who kept silent after the incident, jumped out on April 13, saying at a press conference that the collision was the Chinese pilot’s fault.

2. PRC Awards Missing Pilot

People’s Daily (Xinhua News Agency, Chen Wanjun, “WANG WEI DECLARED NATIONAL MARTYR,” Beijing, 04/15/01, P1), People’s Daily (Yuan Huazhi, Chen Wanjun, “PRC NAVY LEADER SPEAKS HIGHLY OF WANG WEI,” Beijing, 04/15/01, P1) and People’s Daily (Xinhua News Agency, “WANG WEI IS AWARDED,” Beijing, 04/17/01, P1) reported that Wang Wei, the pilot who went missing following a mid-air collision between a US reconnaissance plane and a Chinese fighter jet on April 1, was declared a martyr by the Navy Committee of the Communist Party of China and awarded the title of “guardian of territorial air-space and waters” by the PRC Central Military Committee (CMC). The decree was recently signed by Jiang Zemin, Chairman of the CMC. The document said that on the morning of April 1, a US EP-3 military reconnaissance plan flew close to China’s airspace and territorial waters southeast of Hainan Island to conduct surveillance. Wang Wei, who was on duty that day, flew his fighter jet, under orders, to follow and monitor the US plane which then rammed and destroyed Wang Wei’s plane, causing him to eject. The CMC’s decree points out that Wang Wei had aspired to dedicate himself to serve his country since his childhood and he joined the Navy voluntarily after graduating from secondary school. The decree praised Wang’s bravery, courage and resolution in carrying out his mission to track and monitor the US reconnaissance plane. The decree calls on all officers and men to learn from Wang Wei’s high political consciousness, his daring to die in order to safeguard national sovereignty and dignity, his spirit of dedication towards safeguarding the interests of the motherland and the Chinese people, and his military struggle against a powerful enemy. The search for Wang Wei was concluded at 6pm of April 14. “Wang died a glorious death,” said the Navy Party Committee. Wang was an example that all navy officers and soldiers should learn from, said Navy Commander Shi Yunsheng when visiting Wang’s parents in Beijing on April 14.

3. ROK-Japanese Relations

China Daily (“KOREA TO JAPAN: CHANGE BOOK,” Seoul, 04/12/01, P12) reported that ROK President Kim Dae- jung, during his meeting with Japanese businessmen and Japan’s ambassador to the ROK on April 11, said that the Japanese textbook that distorts history needs to be amended because it fails to honor a joint communique signed in 1998 to improve bilateral relations. “The South Korean nation is expressing complaints about the mutual agreement,” Kim said. The ROK will raise the issue on the problematic text after experts examined the new book, Kim said in a statement. As civic anger over the book grows, the ROK Ministry of Education said that it had formed a task force on the matter to be spearheaded by the vice-minister of Education and Foreign Affairs. “It will look over the skewed parts of Japan’s new history book and work until they correct them,” the ministry said.

People’s Daily (Xinhua News Agency, Gao Haorong, “ROK SOCIAL COMMUNITIES CALL FOR RESISTING JAPANESE GOODS,” Seoul, 04/16/01, P3) reported that on April 14 about 40 various social groups held a rally in Seoul and protested against the Japanese textbook, saying that the textbook is product of the deviance of the Japanese right. The protestors called for citizens to resist Japanese culture and commodities. They even burned Japanese brand cigarettes and stationeries made in Japan. The ROK Buddhism Association on the same day held petition activities, asking Japan to revise its history textbook. Four other social groups, congregated in another city, called on people not to listen to Japanese music, not to watch Japanese movies and not to buy Japanese goods.

4. Lee Teng-hui’s planned Japan Visit

People’s Daily (Xinhua News Agency, “PRC OPPOSES LEE TENG-HUI’S JAPAN VISIT,” Beijing, 04/17/01, P4) reported that PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhang Qiyue, when asked at a press conference on April 16 about the PRC’s position on Lee Teng-hui’s planned Japan visit, responded that the PRC firmly opposes Lee’s visit under any name and wishes Japan to take a clear stand to prevent it. According to a journalist, various reports occurred recently in the Taiwanese and Japanese medias, among which some Japanese thought Lee is an ordinary civilian and, besides, he is planning to visit Japan for medical reason and his application should be permitted. Zhang answered, “Facts indicate that Lee’s planned visit is not one by ‘an ordinary civilian.'” Besides, she added, the medical treatment was nothing but a pretence, which is clear to people both in Taiwan and in Japan. Zhang stressed Taiwan leader Chen Shui- bian has personally asked Japan to grant a visa to Lee. She noted, “The Taiwan authorities said that whether Lee can go to Japan or not is ‘an issue concerning the whole country,’ and they are obliged to promote it.” She concluded that Lee, as a strong advocator of the “two-state theory,” will take the chance to promote Taiwan independence, which is not an issue of humanitarianism, but an out-and-out political issue. The Taiwan question is related to the political foundation of Sino-Japanese Government’s obligation to adhere to the one-China principle.

5. UK on NMD Program

People’s Daily (Xinhua News Agency, Huang Xingwei, “UK PROTESTS AGAINST US NMD PROGRAM,” London, 04/16/01, P1) reported that 500 people from British civilian organizations like “Nuclear Disarmament Movement”(NDM) assembled on April 14 in front of the British Prime Minister’s Mansion, calling for the British Government to refuse to cooperate with the US over the National Missile Defense (NMD) issue. The spokesperson of NDM, one of the organizers of the demonstration, was quoted as saying that US deployment of NMD will break the balance of international relations and trigger a new round of arms race. In the past year, we have kept urging the Government to debate on this question, he added. The protestors also pointed out that the deployment of US NMD system will surely use one British radar station and a communication center. If, they stressed, Britain provides the radar warning system for the US, Britain itself will become the target of attack. They requested that British Prime Minister Tony Blair should refuse to bring the two sites into the US NMD system.

6. Russia’s Countermeasures to US NMD Program

Wenhui Daily (Xinhua News Agency, “RUSSIA WILL IMPROVE ICBMS,” Moscow, 04/17/01, P2) reported that experts from the Russian Military Academy said that US deployment of an NMD system and research on new types of nuclear weapons are forcing Russia to improve its Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). According to Russia’s Itar-Tass News Agency, Russian military experts said that Russia can load 3 warheads on the single-headed Topol-M missiles, and can also increase the number of warheads in the SS-H-23 SLBMs from 4 to 10, which are not prohibited by the START-II. The news story said that Russia is manufacturing this “Topol-M” missiles with a range of 10,000 km. The SS-H-23 SLBMs has a range of 9,000 km. With high technology equipment inside the missiles, it can deal with the interception of missile defense system.

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
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

Yunxia Cao: yule111@sina.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

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.