NAPSNet Daily Report 21 March, 2001

Recommended Citation

"NAPSNet Daily Report 21 March, 2001", NAPSNet Daily Report, March 21, 2001, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-daily-report/napsnet-daily-report-21-march-2001/

 
CONTENTS

I. United States

1. Agreed Framework
2. DPRK Energy Aid
3. DPRK Policy Coordination
4. US-ROK Alliance
5. ROK Entry to MCTR
6. US Weapons Sales to Taiwan
7. US-PRC Missile Agreement
8. US-PRC Talks
II. Announcements 1. DPRK Visit to US
2. Call for Papers

I. United States

1. Agreed Framework

Reuters (Carol Giacomo, “N. KOREA NUCLEAR ACCORD PART OF U.S. POLICY REVIEW,” Washington, 03/21/01) reported that the US President George W. Bush administration will look at the 1994 Agreed Framework as part of its review of US policy toward the DPRK. An unnamed senior US official stated, “we’re not walking away from the agreed framework,” but added, “we always leave open the possibility of improving something like this.” The official stated, “We’re taking stock of the agreement…. The implementation of the framework has run into some difficulties so we have to take a look at whether we think it can be implemented, how to move forward.” He added, “We’re looking to see if the assumptions (in the agreement) remain valid and does it need to be fine-tuned or do we need to change major elements of it.” The official said that “There is no time limit” on the policy review. He also argued, “there is no predisposed outcome. It’s not predetermined that we want to change” the agreed framework. He also stated, “we won’t change it without consultation” with the other parties to the agreement, including the ROK, Japan and the European Union, as well as the DPRK. Former US Representative Stephen Solarz, a Democrat, stated, “The purpose of this (agreed framework) is to provide North Korea with the capacity to generate electric power. The light-water reactors we’re giving them make very little sense.” He predicted that the administration’s policy review would conclude with a proposal “to explore the possibility of reopening the agreement to put an end to the construction of their nuclear reactors and move toward construction of conventional power plants.”

2. DPRK Energy Aid

The Wall Street Journal (Jay Solomon, “EUROPE ENGINEERS WAIT FOR U.S. MOVE TO OFFER ENERGY HELP TO NORTH KOREA,” Seoul, 03/21/01) reported that European corporations are waiting for US President George W. Bush’s administration to decide on its policy toward the DPRK so that they can begin working on the DPRK power system. In recent months, European engineering companies such as Asea Brown Boveri Group of Switzerland and Siemens AG of Germany have taken initial steps to enter the DPRK market. An ABB executive who visited the DPRK recently stated, “There is opportunity everywhere. We are looking to build up relationships and cooperation.” Siemens has made an initial study of the DPRK power situation in preparation for entering the market, and found that the DPRK’s 24 million people have access to just 19.3 billion kilowatts of electricity per hour, in contrast to the ROK’s 46 million people’s access to 224 billion kilowatts. [Ed. Note: These figures, given in the original article, appear to be mistaken. The correct figures are probably 19.3 billion kilowatt-hours per year for the DPRK, and 224 billion kilowatt-hours per year for the ROK.] Suk-bum Jun, who leads Siemens’ power-generation office in Seoul, stated, “The country desperately needs power. But the question is: Who is going to pay for it?” Gunter Unterbeck of the German Asia-Pacific Business Association in Pyongyang stated, “North Korea needs to improve its industry so that it has the money to buy food.” Ole Dahlberg of the Norwegian engineering company Norconsult AS visited Pyongyang in October to explore business opportunities in the energy industry, and said that he was making progress. He stated, however, “As long as the U.S. is restrictive, everyone else is going to be very tentative.”

3. DPRK Policy Coordination

The Associated Press (“US, ASIAN ALLIES TO TALK,” Washington, 03/21/01) reported that the US State Department said Wednesday that the US, the ROK, and Japan will send representatives to Seoul on March 26 for a meeting of the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group to coordinate policy toward the DPRK. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that representatives will discuss “a range of issues in our ongoing coordination of policy toward North Korea.” The US delegation will be led by Tom Hubbard, the acting assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

4. US-ROK Alliance

The Associated Press (“GENERAL: KEEP KOREAN ALLIANCE FIRM,” Seoul, 03/21/01) reported that US Forces Korea commander General Thomas A. Schwartz said Wednesday that the US and the RROK must engage the DPRK while maintaining a strong military alliance. Schwartz stated, “Both of our governments understand the fact that we cannot ignore Kim Jong Il and must rightfully engage his regime from a position of strength and unity.”

5. ROK Entry to MCTR

The Associated Press (“GENERAL: KEEP KOREAN ALLIANCE FIRM,” Seoul, 03/21/01) reported that the ROK Foreign Ministry announced Wednesday that it will the Missile Technology Control Regime next week.

6. US Weapons Sales to Taiwan

The South China Morning Post (Greg Torode, “US BACKING AWAY FROM SELLING TAIPEI KEY AEGIS RADAR SHIPS,” Washington, 03/20/01, 1) reported that US officials said that the US is unlikely to sell Taiwan Aegis radar ships this year. One official stated, “There is a great deal we can do for Taiwan without even considering Aegis destroyers. It is now unlikely that we will go that far this time around … it is not appropriate for a host of reasons.” [Ed. Note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for March 21.]

The Wall Street Journal (Greg Jaffe, “U.S. NAVY, DEFENSE INDUSTRY PUSH SALE OF AEGIS DESTROYERS TO TAIWAN,” Washington, 03/21/01) reported that the US Navy and the defense industry have been lobbying Congress to support the sale of Aegis radar-equipped destroyers to Taiwan. Under the Navy’s current shipbuilding plan, the companies that build the destroyers, General Dynamics Corporation and Litton Industries Incorporated, will be busy until 2005, but from 2005 to 2007 only one destroyer will be built at the two shipyards. Navy officials have said that a sale to Taiwan would drive down infrastructure costs that the Navy would otherwise have to bear to keep the yards running, as no other foreign buyers have shown any recent interest in purchasing Aegis-class destroyers. An unnamed Republican Congressional staff member stated, however, “China will be able to pound Taiwan no matter what we sell the Taiwanese. It is in everyone’s best interest to maintain an even keel and not overly mess with the status quo.” Some Republican staff members have suggested that if the US does not agree to the sale, members of the House of Representatives will reintroduce the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, which calls for closer military ties between the US and Taiwan. One unnamed staff member stated, “There is no plan right now to bring it up, but it is an option. It is a card that people are holding. The administration needs to make a major break with the policy of the last eight years on the arms sales.” [Ed. Note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for March 21.]

7. US-PRC Missile Agreement

The Office of the Spokesman, US Department of State, issued the following statement in response to a question at a regular State Department briefing (“TEXT: U.S.-CHINA MISSILE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION,” 03/20/01). “Our November 21, 2000, missile nonproliferation arrangement commits China not to assist other countries in developing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles in any way, and to put in place comprehensive missile-related export controls. The key will be whether China implements fully these commitments. We will monitor this situation closely and will continue to press for full implementation. As Secretary Powell has said, the administration will take a firm stand opposing Chinese transfers of missile- or weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related technology to other countries.”

8. US-PRC Talks

The Wall Street carried an analytical article (Gerald F. Seib, “TAIWAN TUSSLE: BUSH’S FOREIGN POLICY TEAM IS ABOUT TO BEGIN FIRST TEST IN COOPERATION,” 03/21/01) which said that US President George W. Bush is likely to encounter disagreement among his foreign policy advisors over US policy toward the PRC. The article said that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is assembling a team with fairly hawkish views toward the PRC, and most analysts think that Vice President Dick Cheney also tends toward the hawkish view. It added that institutional pressures in the US State Department will likely push Secretary of State Colin Powell toward a more friendly posture on the PRC. The article concluded that the real test of Bush’s foreign policy will be whether he can compel his advisors “to stick with the script once a decision is made. Taiwan poses the first big test.” [Ed. Note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for March 21.]

The New York Times carried an opinion article by Jiemian Yang, senior fellow and director of the Department of American Studies, Shanghai Institute for International Studies (“A PARTNERSHIP WORTH PRESERVING,” Shanghai, 03/21/01) which said that the primary task for the meeting between PRC Deputy Premier Qian Qichen and US President George W. Bush meet tomorrow, will be to reach agreement on the general framework for bilateral relations in the coming four years. The author argued that the Bush administration’s apparent move from an emphasis on constructive cooperation to focusing on differences and disagreements “is a step backward.” He stated, “With globalization and regionalization gathering momentum, there is plenty of room for China and the United States to cooperate to further their common objectives. This week’s meeting could help sketch out an agenda for discussion between President Bush and President Jiang Zemin when they meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in October.” He called on the two sides to begin a strategic dialogue on the issue of missile defense systems, stating, “How the two nations handle this issue will have a great impact on global and regional security.” He also argued that the Bush administration should review the PRC’s objection to the sale of Aegis-class destroyers to Taiwan “with an eye toward maintaining America’s long-term interest in stability in the Taiwan Strait.” He concluded, “The success or failure of Mr. Qian’s visit should not be based on a single issue. Only frequent communications – including those about issues on which the two nations disagree – will make possible a general improvement in bilateral relations, which could enhance regional security in Asia, and globally as well.” [Ed. Note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense’s Early Bird news service for March 21.]

II. Announcements

1. DPRK Visit to US

A delegation of five officials from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Trade visited Washington, DC February 27 to March 3 to participate in a private seminar at George Washington University’s Sigur Center for Asian Studies. The seminar focused on international business practices and financial organizations. The delegation made brief visits to the International Monetary Fund, International Finance Corporation and the World Bank. They also toured the US Capital building and northern Virginia. Planning for the seminar began two years ago. Dr. Young C. Kim, director of the American Research Center for Asia and the Pacific, and Dr. Sherry Gray of the Stanley Foundation co-hosted the seminar. Dr. C. Kenneth Quinones coordinated the program with the assistance of Mercy Corps International’s Washington, DC office.

2. Call for Papers

The Institute for Strategic Reconciliation (ISR) seeks proposals for panels and papers to be presented at the 10th Washington North Korea Forum to be held on the subject “New Economic Policies of DPRK, and Reconciliation Strategies between DPRK and USA,” June 7-8, 2001, at the Capitol. Among others, ISR welcomes proposals on the themes: Rehabilitation of Public Health Sector in DPRK; Challenges and Opportunities of Micro-credit Programs in DPRK; New Economic Policies of DPRK and Collaboration with International Financial Institutions; Opportunities of Enterprise Ventures in DPRK; Evaluation and Prospects of Reconciliation Initiatives between USA and DPRK; MIAs from the Korean War; and Families Separated between DPRK and USA. The deadline for the submissions of abstracts, which must include a general description of the paper along with the mailing address, e-mail and telephone number for each author, is April 30, 2001. Send proposals by fax (301 570 0911), e-mail (ISR@ureach.com), or by mail to: The Institute for Strategic Reconciliation, Forum Committee Chair Asaph Young Chun, 18510 Shadowridge Terrace, Olney, MD 20832.

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.