NAPSNet Daily Report 21 January, 1999

IN TODAY’S REPORT:

I. United States

II. Republic of Korea

III. People’s Republic of China

I. United States

1. Four-Party Peace Talks

The Associated Press (Geir Moulson, “KOREAS PEACE TALKS MOVE FORWARD,” Geneva, 01/20/99) reported that delegates to the four-party talks met in working groups on Wednesday to discuss tension reduction measures on the Korean peninsula and the establishment of a permanent peace. Li Gun, DPRK deputy delegation leader, said that committee meetings would continue Thursday, although he would not comment on the substance of discussions thus far. Li stated, “To talk about these issues will take a tremendous time.”

2. US Arms Supplies for ROK

Pacific Stars And Stripes (Jim Lea, “U.S. GIVES ROK SURPLUS MILITARY AMMUNITION,” Seoul, 01/21/99, 4) reported that the US Forces Korea (USFK) announced that it is turning over some US$320 million in surplus munitions to the ROK military for use in time of war. USFK said in a statement that the munitions transfer has been approved by Congress under a program called War Reserve Stocks for Allies-Korea that began in 1976. The statement added that about US$40 million in surplus munitions were made available to the ROK military in 1997 and 1998. Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Holt, a USFK spokesman, said the munitions include “all types of conventional weapons, including artillery ammunition, bombs and various types of guided missiles.” The US retains title and access to the munitions in peacetime and provides quality assurance, accountability and funding for the ammunition maintenance. The ROK government provides storage, transportation and labor for maintenance. The statement said that the munitions make it unnecessary for the ROK to fund peacetime purchase of munitions for wartime stockpiles. [Ed. note: This article appeared in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for January 21.]

3. US Military in ROK

The Associated Press carried an analytical article (Pauline Jelinek, “KOREAN, US GIS WORK PAST FRICTION, Seoul, 01/17/99) which said that one of every seven soldiers in the US 8th Army in the ROK is an ROK citizen, part of the Korean Augmentation to the US Army (KATUSA) program. The article said that the ROK is the only place on Earth where foreign soldiers serve in the US military. The 4,400 KATUSAs are selected, promoted, disciplined and paid by the ROK army, but eat, sleep, work, and train with the US Army, wear US uniforms, and answer to the US chain of command. US officials said that the program saves the US between US$40 million and US$80 million a year that otherwise would be needed for interpreters and more US soldiers. Claude Hunter, manager of the program, stated, “If you stand back and look at it on the macro level, it works. If you start looking at the micro, you find a lot of pimples.” Colonel Lee Myong-wan, an ROK liaison officer who oversees the KATUSAs, stated, “Even in families, brothers fight. With different cultures, different societies, different ways of thinking, the effort of trying to understand each other is more important.” Last year, more than 100 ROK military officers and ROK parents were indicted for bribing army placement officers to have their sons assigned to the KATUSA program or exempted from military service altogether.

4. US Military in Japan

The Associated Press (“AIR FORCE JET CRASHES IN JAPAN,” Tokyo, 01/21/99) reported that a US Air Force F-16 fighter crashed in a wooded area in northern Japan on Thursday, the second crash in as many days involving US military planes. A senior Japanese Foreign Ministry official complained about the accidents to the US military and demanded an investigation. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka said that Japan takes the accidents very seriously. US Brigadier General Stephen Wood, commander of the Misawa air base, told Misawa Mayor Shigeyoshi Suzuki that the US would suspend F-16 exercises beginning Friday to check the planes, adding that he would notify the mayor before resuming flights.

5. US Military Posture in Asia

European Stars And Stripes (Chuck Vinch, “ANALYSTS OUTLINE PACIFIC PROBLEM,” Washington, 01/21/99, 4) reported that US defense analysts said during a recent symposium at Georgetown University that deploying and sustaining ground forces across the Pacific will be a major challenge for US military planners in the early 21st century. Richard Armitage, who served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs from 1983 to 1989, stated, “We have to restructure our ability to deploy ground forces there.” Armitage argued, “I don’t think the days of division warfare will be with us much longer. Yet the Army is still spending to modernize Abrams tanks to battle an enemy we haven’t identified yet. If it continues to procure systems like this in large numbers, the Army won’t be able to get to the fight in the Pacific.” Armitage added that US Navy aircraft carriers could be put in jeopardy over the next decade or two by the PRC’s developing cruise missile program. Lieutenant General William M. Steele, head of the US Army’s Combined Arms Center, stated, “We need more forward-based expeditionary forces in the Pacific. Not divisions, but brigades and even battalion-level units that are based near power-projection platforms like air bases. If we have to fall back on Hawaii, then we only increase the tyranny of distance.” Thomas Robinson, president of American-Asian Research Enterprises, asked, “If we have a confrontation with China over Taiwan, do we try to use our Japan-based forces? Will that pull Japan in?” Stephen Gibert, director of Georgetown University’s national security studies program, said that a key to future US security planning in the region should be to build collective agreements that shift more of the defense burden to the nations there, particularly Japan. [Ed. note: This article appeared in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for January 21.]

6. Repatriation of Chinese Hijackers

The Associated Press (“TAIWAN TO SEND HIJACKERS TO CHINA,” Beijing, 01/20/99) reported that Taiwan has decided to repatriate nine hijackers to the PRC. The PRC’s state-run Xinhua News Agency reported that the PRC welcomed the decision on Wednesday and urged Taiwanese authorities to send back all other Chinese hijackers as soon as possible. Taiwan’s official Central News Agency reported on Wednesday that Taiwan’s offer to repatriate the hijackers was prompted by a notice from the PRC’s Justice Ministry that all of them qualified for parole.

7. Spratly Islands Dispute

The International Herald Tribune (Michael Richardson, “PHILIPPINES IS STYMIED IN DISPUTE WITH CHINA,” Singapore, 01/21/99) reported that Philippine President Joseph Estrada said that the Philippines is considering another protest over the PRC’s claim to ownership of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands. However, Philippine Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado conceded that the Philippine armed forces could do little to counter any PRC armed presence on or near the reef. He added, “We have a mutual defense treaty with the United States. It is in the interest not only of the US, but also of Japan, South Korea and all other countries that this particular area be kept free as a sea- lane from the dominant control of one power.” Douglas Paal, president of the Asia Pacific Policy Center in Washington, stated, “The Chinese skillfully timed their expansion when ASEAN (the Association of South East Asian Nations) is preoccupied by the Asian financial crisis and the Clinton administration is distracted by impeachment.” Ralph Cossa, executive director of the Pacific Forum CSIS foreign policy research institute in Hawaii, said that he had seen recent photographs of the PRC construction on the reef. Cossa stated, “A series of concrete structures have been built, complete with military communications facilities, and guarded by Chinese naval ships and anti-aircraft artillery. The facilities represent a clear, unambiguous change in the previously agreed status quo.” [Ed. note: This article appeared in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for January 21.]

8. PRC Views of US Missile Defense

Reuters (“CHINA BLASTS U.S. ANTI-MISSILE PROGRAMME BOOST,” Beijing, 01/21/99) and the Associated Press (Charles Hutzler CHINA CRITICIZES U.S. MISSILE PLAN Beijing, 01/21/99) reported that PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi on Thursday criticized the US decision to boost spending on anti-missile systems. Sun stated, “The U.S possesses the biggest and most advanced nuclear and conventional arsenal in the world. It is developing vigorously national and theater missile defense. This decision runs counter to the trend of the times and will not contribute to international arms control and disarmanent efforts.” He added, “China believes development and transfer of any missile system will only undermine security and stimulate the proliferation of missiles.” Sun also warned, “Any country’s provision of any weapons system, including theater missile defense, to Taiwan province is a serious infringement of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China.”

9. US Missile Defense

Reuters (Sue Pleming, “U.S. TO BOOST MISSILE DEFENSE DUE TO ROGUE STATES,” Washington, 01/21/99) and the Washington Post (Dana Priest, “COHEN SAYS U.S. WILL BUILD MISSILE DEFENSE,” 01/21/99, A01) reported that the US Secretary of Defense William Cohen said on Wednesday that the US planned to spend an additional US$6.6 billion on missile defense over the next five years. Cohen said that the additional money would bring the total budget until 2005 to US$10.5 billion. He stated, “We are affirming that there is a growing threat and that it will pose a danger not only to our troops overseas but also to Americans here at home.” He added, “The [DPRK’s] Taepo-dong I test was another strong indicator that the United States will, in fact, face a rogue nation missile threat to our homeland, against which we will have to defend the American people.” Cohen noted that for the missile defense system to be built, a sufficiently serious threat had to exist and the US had to be technologically ready. He argued, “What we are saying today is that we now expect the first criterion will soon be met and technological readiness will be the primary remaining criterion.” He said 2005 was the deployment target date, adding, “If testing goes flawlessly we may be able to deploy sooner.” [Ed. note: This article was one of the top stories in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for January 21.]

10. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

Reuters (Sue Pleming, “U.S. TO BOOST MISSILE DEFENSE DUE TO ROGUE STATES,” Washington, 01/21/99), the Associated Press (Robert Burns, “PENTAGON: CHANGE MISSILE TREATY,” Washington, 01/21/99), and the New York Times (Steven Lee Myers, “U.S. ASKING RUSSIA TO EASE THE PACT ON MISSILE DEFENSE,” Washington, 01/21/99) reported that US Defense Secretary William Cohen said Wednesday that the US would seek amendment of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to allow deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. Cohen stated, “While our NMD development program is being conducted consistent with the terms of the ABM treaty to date, our deployment may require modifications to the treaty and the administration is working to determine the nature and scope of these modifications.” Asked what would happen if the treaty could not be amended, Cohen stated, “Then we have the option of (citing) our national interest, indicating we would simply pull out of the treaty.” The treaty has a clause providing for six months notice if one side decides it is in its national interest to drop out. Cohen said administration officials are studying exactly what modifications would be needed. An unnamed senior Administration official said that US President Bill Clinton wrote to Russian President Boris Yeltsin last week outlining US NMD plans. US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is scheduled to visit Moscow next week. [Ed. note: This article was one of the top stories in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for January 21.]

The Associated Press (“U.S. AIDE: MIGHT NOT DROP ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE TREATY,” Washington, 01/21/99) reported that Robert Bell, an arms control specialist on the US National Security Council, said Thursday that news reports had misrepresented US Defense Secretary William Cohen’s statements on the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. Bell stated, “The secretary did not threaten to withdraw from the treaty.” He added, “Deployment [of a National Missile Defense system] may or may not require modifications to the treaty. If deployment required modifications, we would in good faith seek agreement [with Russia] on the needed amendments.” Earlier, Lieutenant General Lester Lyles, director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, had said that it was clear that an effective national missile defense could not be built without amending the ABM treaty.

The Associated Press (“RUSSIAN OFFICIAL: AMENDING ABM TREATY THREAT TO RUSSIA,” Moscow, 01/21/99) reported that Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, chief of the international cooperation department at the Russian Defense Ministry, said Thursday that US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty would represent a threat to Russia’s security. Ivashov stated, “Any military expert understands that these states [such as Iran and the DPRK] have not, and, in the near future, will not have guaranteed means of delivering weapons to US territory. Therefore, the Russian Defense Ministry regards the US statements on withdrawal from or revision of the ABM treaty as a threat to Russian security interests.” He added that “attempts to bypass the ABM treaty would upset strategic stability” and may jeopardize ratification of the START II arms reduction treaty by the Russian Duma. Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Rakhmanin said that Russian President Boris Yeltsin had received US President Bill Clinton’s message outlining the US proposals, and Russia’s “position is now being worked out.”

11. Indian Missile Tests

The Associated Press (“INDIA POSTPONES MISSILE TESTS,” New Delhi, 01/21/99) reported that the Hindustan Times said Thursday that India has postponed testing the Agni and Prithvi nuclear-capable ballistic missiles due to pressure from the US and Japan. The testing of the missiles had been widely reported in newspapers to be scheduled for January 26, although the government never confirmed that the tests were planned. An Indian defense spokesman called the report “speculative” but refused to elaborate.

12. Indian Adherence to CTBT

London Times (Michael Binyon, “INDIA RENOUNCES NUCLEAR TESTING,” 01/21/99) reported that Brajesh Mishra, the national security adviser to Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, told Derek Fatchett, a British Foreign Office Minister, that India would not explode any new nuclear device before signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). [Ed. note: This article appeared in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for January 21.]

II. Republic of Korea

1. Four-Party Talks

Korea Times (“NK DIPLOMAT’S ‘KIDNAPPING’ MARS 4-WAY TALKS,” 01/21/99) reported that the dispute over the alleged “abduction” of a DPRK diplomat in Germany has ruined the atmosphere for constructive dialogue among the four countries joining peace talks in Geneva on Wednesday and Thursday. The DPRK chief delegate to the subcommittee on tension reduction, Ambassador Li Gun, raised the issue, contending that the alleged “abduction” of Kim Kyong-pil was the result of a joint operation by the ROK and the US. Meanwhile, the ROK chief delegate, Ryoo Jin-kyu, director general of the Defense Ministry, dismissed the DPRK allegation as “nonsense,” noting that the issue is unrelated to the goals of the subcommittee designed to discuss tension reduction on the Korean peninsula. Originally, the subcommittee was designed to discuss how to implement a series of military confidence-building measures between the two Koreas, including the reciprocal visits of ranking military officers. Among the other “preliminary” steps for confidence-building measures are the creation of a military hotline and prior notification of military exercises. The DPRK reiterated its insistence in the subcommittee that the 37,000 US troops based in the ROK should be withdrawn first to create an atmosphere conducive to tension reduction. Along with the committee on tension reduction, the other committee on the establishment of a peace regime was also convened in Geneva. The DPRK also contended that a peace agreement should be established between the DPRK and the US, rebuffing the ROK proposal that the two Koreas sign a peace agreement.

2. DPRK-Japan Relations

Korea Times (“JAPAN DEMANDS END TO N.KOREA MISSILE TESTS,” 01/21/99) reported that the Asahi Shimbun said that Japan demanded that the DPRK stop testing ballistic missiles and also called for a resumption of dialogue. The director of the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s DPRK division met informally in New York with the DPRK’s deputy head at the UN mission on December 22. The report said that during the talks Japan demanded that the DPRK refrain from firing missiles and reopen talks, but did not get a positive answer. A Japanese foreign ministry official declined to comment on the report. “The Prime Minister and the foreign minister have made similar calls to the DPRK about the possibility of resuming dialogue,” he added. “We are waiting to see if there will be any forward- looking response from their side.” Japanese Premier Keizo Obuchi offered Tuesday to thaw relations with the DPRK, if it showed a “constructive attitude” over its missile development and suspected nuclear program. His call was backed up Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura. The DPRK’s official Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) on Wednesday insisted that “as for satellites and missiles, it is absolutely our independent right to develop, test, deploy and launch them. Whatever others say, the DPRK has no intention of giving up its legitimate right.” The Asahi also reported that a member of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, Masaaki Nakayama, met unofficially with a senior DPRK official in Beijing last week to try to reopen talks. His trip was a follow-up to the December meeting in New York, said the newspaper. It added that Nakayama had denied the story.

3. ROK-Japan Fishery Pact

Chosun Ilbo (“FISHERIES PACT GOES INTO EFFECT FRIDAY,” 01/21/99) reported that the new ROK-Japan fisheries pact goes into effect on Friday. Hong Soon-young, the ROK Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Okura Kazuo, the Japanese Ambassador to the ROK, are meeting to exchange copies of the agreement. The ROK National Assembly and the Japanese Diet have ratified the agreement. Although the pact has been signed, there are a number of critical issues that still have to be resolved. Some species of fish covered by the pending areas of the pact will be off-limits to fishermen from both countries until a final agreement is reached.

4. Y2K Bug

Chosun Ilbo (“ARMY WEAPONS 97 PERCENT Y2K-PROOF,” 01/21/99) reported that the ROK Ministry of Defense (MOD) announced Thursday that 97 percent of the army’s weapons are immune from the Y2K bug. The ministry said that it had been closely examining all computer-related arms, 677 types in all, in anticipation of the Y2K bug since last June, and found that 659 of the total showed no potential problems pertaining to the changeover from the year 1999 to the year 2000. For the remaining 15 types of weapons, which showed a potential for problems, the MOD said that it would take preventative measures, including replacement of all computer chips.

III. People’s Republic of China

1. DPRK Defector

People’s Daily (“DPRK ACCUSES ROK OF KIDNAPPING ITS DIPLOMAT,” Pyongyang, 1/21/99, A6) said that, according to a report by the DPRK’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the DPRK’s Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland issued a statement on January 19 strongly accusing the ROK of kidnapping a DPRK diplomat and his wife. The DPRK demanded that the US and the ROK return the two persons at once and without any condition.

2. Four-Party Talks

China Daily (“FOUR-PARTY DISCUSSIONS UNDER WAY OVER KOREA,” Geneva, 1/21/99, A11) reported that the latest talks aimed at ending almost 50 years of Cold War on the Korean peninsula began on January 19. Delegates were finally ready to get beyond procedural haggling and start discussing peace proposals. Although this fourth round of talks appeared to have made a smooth start, the way ahead is sure to be long and tortuous. “Significant differences of views” were evident on Tuesday, Kim Gye-gwan, the DPRK’s deputy foreign minister, told reporters. Kim is presiding over the talks as the DPRK has its first turn in the chair. The PRC’s chief negotiator, Qian Yongnian, stressed “we cannot hope to get a settlement in a few days.”

China Daily (“EFFORTS FOR PEACE CALLED FOR KOREAN PENINSULA,” 1/18/99, A4) carried an editorial saying that the situation [on the Korean Peninsula] is still sensitive. It calls for not just the two Koreas, but all countries with an interest in solving this dilemma, to show patience and restraint. Differences still exist about the implementation of the accord between the DPRK and the US, the article said. It argued that it is understandable that the DPRK should be sensitive. If it feels a “cold wind,” it is natural that it will increasingly isolate itself from the outside, especially in light of the country’s economic problems. The key to settling this issue lies in the improvement of the relations between the two Koreas, the article suggested. The correct way to effect such a reconciliation is to proceed through peaceful means.

3. DPRK-Japan Relations

People’s Daily (“DPRK ACCUSES JAPAN OF ITS HOSTILE POLICY,” Pyongyang, 1/21/99, A6) reported that when asked to comment on Japan’s accusation that the DPRK launched a missile last year, a DPRK Foreign Ministry spokesman stressed on January 20 that no matter whether it was a satellite or a missile, its development, testing, deployment, and launch totally belong to the DPRK’s sovereignty. He added that the DPRK will not give up its just right. The spokesman warned that if Japan continues its hostile policy toward the DPRK, the Korean people’s anti- Japanese sentiments will grow stronger and Japan will get nothing but the most catastrophic result.

4. ROK-French Defense Cooperation

China Daily (“DEFENSE LINKS,” Seoul, 1/20/99, A11) reported that French Defense Minister Alain Richard talked with his counterpart from the ROK, Cheon Yong-taek, on January 19 about cooperating in the production of jet fighters and submarines. “The two ministers talked about whether it is possible for France to participate in the ROK next- generation jet fighter and submarine project,” a spokesman at the ROK’s defense ministry said. “They also discussed whether the ROK can export its defense products to France,” he said. The ROK earmarked 13.7 trillion won (US$11.6 billion) in its 1999 budget for defense.

5. PRC Oil Aid to DPRK

People’s Daily (“CHINA’S OIL AID ARRIVES IN DPRK,” Pyongyang, 1/21/99, A6) reported that 80,000 tons of crude oil provided freely by the PRC Government arrived in the DPRK on January 14. The decision to supply this batch of oil was made last October after the PRC had sent 100,000 tons of food and 20,000 tons of fertilizer to the DPRK.

6. Cross-Taiwan Straits Relations

China Daily (“ARATS OPPOSES OBSTACLES TO REUNIFICATION,” Singapore, 1/21/99, A1) reported that a delegation of the PRC’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) said that the PRC opposes anything that interferes with the reunification of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland. A spokesman said that relations across the Taiwan Straits further eased in 1998, and ARATS will continue implementing a consensus reached with Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation and help launch cross-Straits political dialogue. Zhang Mingqing, head of the first ARATS delegation to visit Singapore (at the invitation of the East Asia Institute of the National University of Singapore) highlighted these points when his six-member delegation met with media, professors of the East Asia Institute, and members of the Singapore-China Friendship Association. When asked about Wang Daohan’s visit to Taiwan, Chen Kongli, a member of the delegation and professor of Xiamen University, said that Wang could not make the trip before May because of his tight schedule. He said officials from both sides must carefully prepare for the trip. Chen criticized Taiwan authorities for joining the Japan-US Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, saying it was “a pure lie” that they made the move for the sake of stability and security in the Asia-Pacific region. He said that Taiwan authorities’ real motive was to rely on US strength to threaten and confront the PRC politically, diplomatically and militarily. Team member Lian Xisheng, professor of the China University of Political Science and Law, said sincerity is of paramount importance to the development of the cross-Straits ties. He criticized Taiwan authorities who are obstructing reunification by playing the so-called “democracy” card.

People’s Daily (“TAIWAN RETURNS NINE HIJACKERS TO MAINLAND,” 1/21/99, A4) reported that in a letter to its counterpart in Taiwan, the Straits Exchange Foundation, the Beijing-based Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) expressed its appreciation for Taiwan authorities’ decision to return nine hijackers to the PRC. ARATS hopes that the Taiwan authorities will return all hijackers as early as possible.

7. US-Japanese Security Cooperation

China Daily (“INCLUSION OF TAIWAN IN JAPAN-US PACT OPPOSED,” 1/20/99, A1) reported that a PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman said on January 19 during a press briefing in Beijing that whether directly or indirectly, including Taiwan in a Japan-US Defense Cooperation Guideline would be an infringement of China’s sovereignty. Such an act would be firmly opposed by the Chinese Government and people, Sun Yuxi said. The Japanese Government has clarified to the PRC side through a diplomatic channel that recent remarks by Ichiro Ozawa, leader of the Japanese Liberal Party, are “totally wrong,” Sun said.

People’s Liberation Army Daily (“DPRK CRITICIZES US-JAPAN-ROK MILITARY COOPERATION,” 1/20/99, P5) reported that in a commentary on January 19, the DPRK’s Rodong Shinmun suggested that visits to the ROK by senior US and Japanese military officials this month, and their increased military cooperation, reveal that the parties are at the final stage of producing an “Asian version of NATO.” The US, Japan, and the ROK are holding talks on establishing a Theater Missile Defense System. Their military strengths have been integrated, operation command systems unified, and troops tempered in exercises. This demonstrates the triangular “Asian version of NATO” military alliance is in any sense more aggressive and more inclined to intervene than NATO.

China Daily (“JAPAN’S MILITARY AMBITION FUELLED BY COHEN’S VISIT,” 1/18/99, A4) said that the talks held by US Defense Secretary William Cohen with the Japanese Government about sharing resources and research for the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system mark the start of a revival of Japan’s military ambitions. Despite Japan’s insistence that it is merely taking these actions to prepare itself for any potential future threat of attack by other hostile nations, public opinion in general, and certainly throughout Asia, is that this is merely an excuse to boost its military power. It appears that Japan’s Science and Technology Agency was seeking to participate in TMD research several years ago, and that a Defense Agency draft budget for 1999 included the costs of taking part in the program even before Japan raised the issue of defending itself against any possible outside threats. Some strategists believe that Japan’s involvement in the TMD program is entirely unnecessary for the purpose of merely defending itself.

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: napsnet@nautilus.org
Berkeley, California, United States

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

Lee Dong-young: UNPOL@netsgo.com
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