Daily Report Archives
Established in December 1993, the Nautilus Institute’s *N*ortheast *A*sia *P*eace and *S*ecurity *N*etwork (NAPSNet) Daily Report served thousands of readers in more than forty countries, including policy makers, diplomats, aid organizations, scholars, donors, activists, students, and journalists.
The NAPSNet Daily Report aimed to serve a community of practitioners engaged in solving the complex security and sustainability issues in the region, especially those posed by the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program and the threat of nuclear war in the region. It was distributed by email rom 1993-1997, and went on-line in December 1997, which is when the archive on this site begins. The format at that time can be seen here.
However, for multiple reasons—the rise of instantaneous news services, the evolution of the North Korea and nuclear issues, the increasing demand for specialized and synthetic analysis of these and related issues, and the decline in donor support for NAPSNet—the Institute stopped producing the Daily Report news summary service as of December 17, 2010.
Roger Cavazos writes, “Zhang Dejiang’s ascension as Party Chief in Chongqing is modeled on a proven formula fo…
Go to the article
Hiromichi Umebayashi, President of the Peace Depot, assesses the prospects for a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NEA-NWFZ) and the applicability of lessons learned during the establishment of similar treaties in other regions of the world. He writes, “there are specific wisdoms to be found in the existing NWFZ treaties . . . One is related to the provision for the entry-into-force of the treaty. If one or more state parties have concern about others’ possible noncompliance with a hard-woven NEA-NWFZ treaty, one could invent a . . . certain kind of waiving system such as the one adopted in the Tlatelolco Treaty. Also, learning from the precedent of ABACC, it seems worthwhile to re-examine the possibility of South-North (North-South) Joint Nuclear Control Commission, which is stipulated by the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, or its modification, as the first step of confidence building measures in the region.”
This report is from the East Asia Nuclear Security workshop held on November 11, 2011 in Tokyo, Japan.
Papers and presentations given at the East Asia Nuclear Workshop are available here, along with the full agenda, participant list and a workshop photo gallery.
Go to the article
Colin McAskill acted as an advisor for a decade during the period of the ‘Bullion Shipments’ into London and acted as a mandated representative for the DPRK during the Banco Delta Asia banking crisis in Macau. In this article Colin writes, “The stability established by a smooth transition of power has created a window of opportunity to put the past behind and re-open a new phase of negotiations to put in place a lasting agreement that would launch a nuclear free Korean Peninsula, and usher in a new era of peaceful coexistence. Given KJ-U’s young age, this opportunity may not reoccur for a very long time.
Go to the article
Thomas Graham, Jr., former U.S. Ambassador and Executive Chairman of the Board, Lightbridge Corp, reviews the status of the current nonproliferation regime and assesses the impacts that a Northeast Asian Nuclear weapons free zone could have on lessening the threat North Korea poses to that regime. He states that such a zone “could be a large step forward for peace. All avenues toward this laudable but seemingly very distant objective should be examined. The Treaty of Tlatelolco is a possible model that could be considered.”
This report is from the East Asia Nuclear Security workshop held on November 11, 2011 in Tokyo, Japan. The workshop aimed to evaluate the robustness of proposals to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in Northeast Asia (NEA-NWFZ) and to identify pathways leading to its creation. The workshop was organized by the Nautilus Institute, the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation and Nautilus Australia – RMIT Global Studies, and co-hosted by the Asia Pacific Leadership Network.
Papers and presentations given at the East Asia Nuclear Workshop are available here, along with the full agenda, participant list and a workshop photo gallery.
Go to the article
During the 1970s, Japan had transformed its economy into one of the leading economies in the world with a GNP second only to the United States. Japan’s military prowess, however, had not been in keeping with her economic might as the country relied heavily on the U.S. for national security. Limits in the Japanese constitution, a brief economic slump in the mid-1980s, a strong animosity towards military build up among the Japanese people and the geographical importance of Japan in the Cold War complicated America’s calls for Japan to increase its efforts in taking control of its national defense. Major Ernest G. Beinhart III’s 1985 report assesses the role the growing relationship between the Japan Self-Defense Force and the United States Marine Corps had in influencing changes in Japan. The report considers the defense policy of Japan, the organization and structure of the USMC and the JSDF and development of USMC-JSDF relations.
This report was released to the Nautilus Institute under the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). See the Institute’s FOIA Global Disclosure Project page to read more chronologies, histories and reports released to Nautilus.
Go to the article
Jennifer M. Gibson, J.D. Candidate, and Sarah Shirazyan, J.S.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School, state that “Resolution 1540 has the potential to play an important role in forming universally recognized norms of state behavior with respect to WMDs. To do so, however, states must enact and enforce domestic controls over WMD material, wherever and whenever possible.” The authors. The following study assess the extent to which states have applied their domestic WMD controls extraterritorially by examining national reports and matrices submitted to the 1540 Committee to answer three questions. First, how many and which states apply their laws extraterritorially? Second, of those that do apply their laws extraterritorially, what is the scope of that application, i.e. does it apply to nuclear, biological and/or chemical materials? And, finally, what is the jurisdictional basis for the extraterritorial application?
This report is from the Nautilus Institute workshop “Cooperation to Control Non-State Nuclear Proliferation: Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction and UN Resolutions 1540 and 1373” held on April 4th and 5th in Washington DC with the Stanley Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Go to the article
