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.
Peter Hayes, Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute, and David von Hippel, Nautilus Institute Senior Associate, write, “Whether precipitated by war, coup, or simply continuing slow economic decline, it is incumbent on the international community to help to provide services and support to stabilize North Korea in the unlikely event of outright collapse. Fortunately, many of the measures that would be needed are the same as should be undertaken in the non-collapse pathways. Among the many likely needs of the North Korean population following a collapse—food, clean water, heath care, and economic development among them—the need to promptly provide the population with reliable and demonstrably improving access to energy services (heat, light, mechanized transportation, and so on) will be a key to stabilizing the country, meeting other post-collapse needs, and readying the North for eventual smooth (one hopes) integration with South Korea.”
Read a response from Aidan Foster-Carter here.
Go to the article
Jeffrey Lewis Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation, writes, “Why not put U.S. nuclear weapons back into South Korea? Well, there are lots of reasons. The first reason is that the United States Air Force has absolutely zero interest in forward deploying tactical nuclear weapons.”
Go to the article
Brent Choi and Mi Jeong Hibbitts, Washington-based specialists in North Korean issues, write, “It is possible that we will see the young Kim emerge as the next leader of North Korea. This possibility may drive Washington and Seoul to ponder new political options rather than continue current policy toward North Korea…The two allies should prepare for a scenario in which Kim Jong Un will indeed make it as regime leader, as much as for the contingencies in the case that he fails.”
Go to the article
Moon Chung-in, Professor of Political Science at Yonsei University, writes, “We have to have good relations with China. To do that we need to develop a more balanced practical diplomacy. A triangular alliance that is ‘Anti-China’ made up of South Korea, Japan and the U.S. cannot be an alternative. Relations between the U.S. and China as well as relations between Japan and China must be good to ensure the peace, stability and prosperity of the Korean peninsula. In particular, it also is necessary to put emphasis on the improvement of North-South relations.”
Go to the article
Peter Hayes, Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute, and David von Hippel, Nautilus Institute Senior Associate, write, “it may be possible to slow and even reverse the DPRK’s nuclear breakout by collaboration that assists it to develop small light water reactors (LWRs) that are safe, reliable, and above all, safeguarded, and integrates its enrichment capacity into a regional enrichment consortium, possibly as part of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.”
Go to the article
This report, written by S. Levy for the World Bank/UNDP in April 1982, analyzes the safety aspects of the ROK’s nuclear power program “with a special emphasis on the regulatory aspects and operational safety of nuclear power plants.” The report noted the need for a “…strong, independent, and competent nuclear regulatory function as well as associated Korean safety laws, regulations, criteria, codes, and standards.”
Read a short summary of this report here.
Go to the article
This report, written by L. J. Droutman, et al in October 1979 for Oak Ridge National Laboratory, notes that “the development of a quality control/assurance consciousness [necessary for a modern LWR] together with a cadre of qualified and experienced supervisors and skilled workers would take 15-20 years involvement and experience in nuclear plant construction… There is no short cut to gaining the needed experience”
Read a short summary of this report here.
Go to the article
James E. Goodby, former US ambassador and special representative for Nuclear Security and Dismantlement and affiliate of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution and Donald Gross, former senior advisor in the U.S. Department of State and former Asia policy advisor to President Obama, write, “Although a solution to the basic political and security issues in Northeast Asia is not likely to be found in the near future, we should be clear about one other thing: U.S. disengagement from talks with North Korea effectively contributes to instability in the region. Strategic patience is no longer viable. Diplomatic initiatives and vision must replace passivity, and soon.”
Go to the article
Tong Kim, visiting professor at the University of North Korean Studies and visiting research professor at Korea University, writes, “If the South Korean government were operating in the wake of the Yeonpyeong incident with the assumption that the North Koreans would not be ready for a war, it would be too risky. President Lee said, “…a disgraceful peace achieved through intimidation only brings greater harm in the end. Only courage that defies retreat under any threat or provocation will bring about genuine peace.” The South Koreans do not have to be intimated or retreat from threats or provocation. Yet, they should be able to find a better path to achieve “genuine peace” with confidence that they can prevent a war that nobody wants. It will take courage to talk to the North in the current environment. Maybe dialogue should wait until the dust settles. Nevertheless, dialogue is the best solution. People want peace, not war. Peace is achievable.”
Go to the article
Contents in this Issue: I. NAPSNet 1. DPRK on ROK Military Drill 2. Russia on ROK Military Drill 3. US-DPRK Relations 4. PRC on DPRK Nuclear Talks 5. Japan Defense Guidelines 1. DPRK on ROK Military Drill Agence France-Presse (“N.KOREA VOWS TO STRIKE BACK IF SOUTH HOLDS ISLAND DRILL”, 2010/12/17) reported that the DPRK’s […]
Go to the article