Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

JAPAN: "North Korea's Unacceptable Brinkmanship"

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri's editorial judged (1/26): "Both the Four-Party negotiations on peace on the Korean peninsula and U.S.-North Korean talks have ended in Geneva without progress. To prolong its leadership, North Korea is still calling for compensation in return for accepting inspections of its suspected underground nuclear facilities. The North is intentionally creating a crisis. Pyongyang's brinkmanship is the problem. The continuing stalemate in these talks is extremely regrettable to Japan, which faces a direct threat from North Korea. Tokyo will have to work closely with Washington and Seoul in order to deal effectively with the North. The suspected North Korean resumption of nuclear development not only runs counter to the KEDO accord, but also threatens to dissolve the framework.

"It is only natural that the United States turn down the North Korean call for $300 million in compensation for allowing inspections of the underground nuclear facilities. Prior to the four-way negotiations and the U.S.-North Korean talks, Secretary of Defense Cohen visited Japan and South Korea to discuss how the United States, Japan and South Korea should join hands in dealing with the North. A joint and resolute stance among the three allies will be effective in driving North Korean brinkmanship to the wall. The North must realize that its brinkmanship has deepened a sense of distrust among other members of the international community, even passing up chances of receiving humanitarian aid which could otherwise be readily implemented."

"North Korea Gives Priority To Normalizing Ties Wth U.S."

Liberal Mainichi maintained in an editorial (1/24): "The Four-Party Talks on peace on the Korean peninsula ended in Geneva on Friday without progress. Although negotiators from the United States, China, South and North Korea agreed to meet again in mid-April, no details were set concerning the date and place of the next round of talks. A North Korean diplomat and his wife had sought political asylum in the United States before the start of the four-way meeting. The North Korean charge that the United States and South Korea had abducted the North Korean couple hindered progress at the talks. But the talks were not necessarily unproductive. The North Korean side called South Korea the Republic of Korea for the first time. Was this a signal that the North is ready to resume dialogue with the South? It was through this signal that North Korea might have indicated its readiness to continue talks with South Korea and the United States no matter how strained the situation (on the Korean peninsula) becomes. In particular, Pyongyang is trying to convey a clear message to Washington that it will not disrupt dialogue with the United States. North Korea's real aim is to normalize relations with the United States. It gives greatest priority to negotiations with the United States, and gives less enthusiasm to the four-way talks."

"What Constitutes A 'Situation In Areas Surrounding Japan'?"

An editorial in liberal Asahi pointed out (1/24): "The Diet has started deliberating on bills related to the new U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines. The United States, the only military superpower in the post-Cold War period, is going ahead with the forward deployment of its military in the Asia-Pacific region. If a military conflict should occur on the Korean peninsula, the United States would play a major role in dealing with the regional conflict and restoring peace there. Japan must be prepared to cooperate with the United States (in dealing with such an emergency). It will also be necessary to enact 'minimum' emergency legislation to define the scope and limit of Japan's support for the U.S. military.

"We cannot allow the government of Japan to enact defense guidelines bills on its own. Both ruling and opposition legislators will have to thoroughly discuss the bills, some of which have

'ambiguous' and 'dangerous' points. What is the definition of a 'situation' (emergency) in areas surrounding Japan? Who will determine when such a 'situation' exists?... North Korea's Taepodong launch last August and its suspected construction of an underground (nuclear) site are 'shaking' the security of East Asia. Japanese politicians speculate on a possible crisis on the Korean peninsula this spring. The ruling parties are eager to take advantage of this rumored crisis to railroad the bills through the Diet. But legislators will have to discuss the bills in a cool manner, undisturbed by such rumors."

"U.S. Overestimates North Korea's War Card"

Conservative Sankei's guest commentator, former Keio University professor Fuji Kamiya, emphasized (1/22): "In Japan's traditional sumo wrestling, a Yokozuna (grand champion) will never meet a toriteki (a wrestler of minor rank) in the ring. In the diplomatic arena, however, a yokozuna (the United States) and toriteki (North Korea) are fighting a prolonged round of diplomatic games. Needless to say...it is hard to understand why the United States continues to submit itself to such 'unusual' games.... Although it would be suicidal for the North to actually wage a war (with another country), the United States continues to 'overestimate' the potentiality of the North's going to war. It appears that the North is taking advantage of America's overestimation. When all is said and done, Washington remains unable to free itself from this 'trap.'"

"U.S., North Korea Should Start Normalization Talks"

An editorial in liberal Mainichi observed (1/18): "Neither the U.S. government nor South Korea wants to see the collapse of North Korea in the near future. They have also concluded that it will be difficult to topple the Pyongyang leadership. That being the case, a new agreement, based on the 1994 accord, will become necessary to improve U.S.-North Korea relations. Both sides should conclude the new agreement, which would open the way for comprehensive normalization talks, while keeping the present KEDO and missile talks intact."

"U.S.-Japan Security Must Be Upgraded To Cope With N. Korean Threat"

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri's editorial emphasized (1/14): "North Korea remains the biggest threat to the peace and stability of Japan and the rest of East Asia. While North Korea is said to be preparing to launch another Taepodong missile shortly, there are renewed suspicions that it is also constructing nuclear-related facilities underground. There is even speculation that the Kim Jong Il regime, which faces collapse because of food shortages and economic woes, could launch a surprise military action. While Japan needs to make sustained diplomatic efforts to stop North Korea from developing nuclear or missile development, it will also have to reinforce its defense capabilities based on U.S.-Japan security arrangements."

"Ambiguities Threaten U.S.-Japan Security System"

An editorial in liberal Asahi maintained (1/12): "Documents, which have been kept on file at the NSA, are arousing suspicion that President Nixon and Prime Minister Sato exchanged notes concerning a secret accord on reintroducing American nuclear arms into Okinawa during an emergency. They exchanged notes following their agreement in the fall of 1969 on the return of a 'nuclear-free' Okinawa. The government of Japan again flatly denied the existence of the 1969 nuclear accord. The year 1969 was more than 30 years ago. During the ensuing period, the international security environment and U.S.-Japan relations have changed greatly. The legal and political effectiveness of a nuclear agreement, even if proven to exist, is already gone. But we cannot dismiss the matter as an 'already settled problem.'

"In the past, there have been testimonies and pieces of circumstantial evidence, each 'suggesting' that the United States and Japan did conclude a secret nuclear accord. The government of Japan's repeated denials are no longer persuasive. It has been negligent in dispelling the nation's suspicion about the accord. Does a sound democracy exist in Japan? The Japanese government often becomes ambiguous in its efforts to patch up policy differences with the United States. It has also been ambiguous in defining the geographical scope of East Asia, emergencies in 'areas surrounding Japan' and the implementation of the U.S.-Japan security system. National security cannot be fully ensured without obtaining public confidence. Japan cannot ensure its security as long as it continues to deny the existence of secret accords with the United States."

"Perry Report Will Mark Turning Point In North Korean Situation"

Liberal Mainichi's Seoul correspondent Nakajima observed (1/11), "The situation on the Korean peninsula is expected to undergo a major change in the near future. Although tensions remain high on the peninsula, a new and wider framework will be created for breaking the stalemated North Korean issue. Since the recent U.S.-British air strikes against Iraq, rumors have been rife that the United States will use force against the North, who continues to refuse inspections of suspected underground nuclear sites. Such rumors are wide of the mark, however. In 1994, the United States studied but abandoned a plan to attack North Korean nuclear-related facilities.

"Then how should the United States deal with Pyongyang? What will be the contents of a report U.S. North Korean policy coordinator Perry will submit to Congress following U.S.-North Korea talks and Four-Party Talks to be held shortly in Geneva? The 'Perry report' will determine U.S. policy toward the North. Perry is expected to propose that the United States and North Korea negotiate a comprehensive accord, under which the North will halt the development of nuclear arms or ballistic missiles. In return, the United States may propose that the world suspend sanctions against the North, resume humanitarian aid and recognize the North as a state. Pyongyang will likely comply with such a proposal. Kim Jong Il's strategy is clear. He is trying desperately to prolong his leadership, as his country is about to go under. He is well aware that the North's collapse will mean the end of his leadership. He will seize upon any chance to ensure his political survival."

"Reduce Shocks From Failing Nations"

According to top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri (1/8): "Threats from politically and economically unstable Russia and North Korea must be addressed immediately, for the worst-case scenarios there could have tremendous repercussions for the international community. Although there is a need to establish an international security system, with the United Nations playing the central role, the UN is not currently equipped to deal with such threats. Thus, post-Cold War threats must be countered based on healthy leadership by the United States and close cooperation among developed nations.

"The United States, which for decades was locked in a neck-and-neck nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, is now worried that conditions in Russia prevent nuclear facilities from properly safeguarding their fissile material.... For Japan, a bigger potential threat is posed by neighboring North Korea, which is showing signs of self-destruction. Considering the reclusive nation's geographic proximity, the collapse of North Korea would have a direct impact on Japan. To minimize fallout from the problems in North Korea, it is necessary for the United States, Japan and South Korea to shed optimism and carefully prepare for any eventuality."

NORTH KOREA: "U.S. Military Strategy Toward DPRK"

Official KCNA carried this news release (1/19) commenting on an article in workers' newspaper, Rodong Sinmun (1/19): "The United States is zealously intensifying military preparedness on the pretexts of our 'missile launch' and 'nuclear suspicion.'... The final aim of the United States' Korea policy is to destroy the socialist system in the DPRK.... The last resort of the United States is to carry out the 'Operation Plan 5027' for a second Korean War of aggression. That is why from the beginning of the year the United States, in league with Japan and the South Korean authorities, is now intensifying military preparedness, zealously bringing into shape the Asian version of NATO. Recently, some people of the United States cry for such a 'carrot' as granting diplomatic recognition and lifting economic sanctions to the DPRK for the prevention of the DPRK's missile development and the removal of the 'nuclear suspicion.' We make it clear that as long as the United States' strategic aim to undermine our socialism remains unchanged, there can be no true improved relations between the DPRK and United States. As long as the United States does not give up a design to undermine our system, there will inevitably be a military conflict anytime. We are in full readiness to annihilate the aggressors at one stroke. The U.S. design for monopolistic domination over the Asia-Pacific region will never be realized. Military showdown with the DPRK will only precipitate the destruction of the United States and its hirelings. They should be mindful of this."

"What Does Cohen's Trip Show?"

Official KCNA ran this commentary under the above headline (1/19): "U.S. Secretary of Defense Cohen recently toured Japan and South Korea. During the trip he had military confabs with senior political and military officials of Japan and South Korea almost every day at which they discussed a 'cooperation system' over 'inspections of [the] underground nuclear facility in North Korea' and its 'missile threat.' In a word, his junket showed that the U.S. moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK militarily are getting more reckless since the beginning of the year, assuming a new dangerous aspect.... What cannot be overlooked is the fact that Cohen, in a press conference, cried out on somebody's 'provocation' and declared the United States would 'punish it by all means, including the nuclear umbrella.' Worse still, Cohen hinted that the United States might use nuclear weapons. Before saying such threatening words, he should have considered what a destructive end such a gamble would bring to the United States. The U.S. hawks should know that if they think they can survive a nuclear war in the Korean peninsula kindled by them, it would be a serious mistake."

"Japan's Evil Ambitions For Re-Invasion"

Pyongyang's official Korean Central Broadcasting Network aired this view (1/10): "The Japanese reactionaries' ambition for the re-invasion of our country and other Asian countries is growing more naked with each passing day. Around mid-December of last year, Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi gave a so-called policy speech during his visit to an Asian country. In the speech, he blabbered about the importance of the U.S. presence in Asia and the Japan-U.S. Security System. This could be considered an example verifying the above fact. The U.S. army stationed in the Asian region and the Japan-U.S. Security System are fundamental factors threatening the peace and security of Asia. The whole world knows how Japan, while backed by the United States, is attempting to set off on the path to re-invade Asia.... The DPRK and Asian people, who are highly alert, are closely observing the Japanese reactionaries, who are always watching for an opportunity to realize their ambition for re-invasion."

SOUTH KOREA: "U.S., North Korea Talk Over Our Shoulder"

Conservative Segye Ilbo observed (1/26): "As we had anticipated, the Four-Party Talks did not go anywhere, while the U.S.-North Korea bilateral dialogue made progress.

"This, we know, is what North Korea planned and, at the end of the talks, we are left feeling uncomfortable with the outcome.... Obviously, while we expected a serious chance to address the Kumchangri issue, North Korea had something else in mind from the outset.... The North still believes that its bilateral dialogue with the United States offers the best chance for it to win benefits. As a matter of fact, the North was successful in winning compromises from the United States during this latest round of the Four-Party Talks. The United States now says it will review North Korea's demand that the United States provide political and economic benefits.... If the United States eases economic sanctions against the North, this would mark a new beginning in U.S.-North Korean relations.... While the United States is willing to hand over benefits to the North for security and political reasons, the North is alternating between threats and signs of flexibility in order to reap benefits."

"Are Four-Party Talks Worth The Effort?"

Conservative Chosun Ilbo told its readers (1/23): "It has been three months since the last Four-Party Talks, but they again failed to produce any results. Failure to reach agreement on any of the agenda items once again reminds us of what difficulties lie ahead along this path.... The reason the talks failed is most likely because North Korea does not want results. From the beginning, the North has shown no interest in the talks, joining in the dialogue just because the United States demands it. It is clear the North is trying hard to convert the Four-Party Talks into a structure in which U.S.-North Korea talks dominate.... We believe the North will continue to maintain this posture, making the dialogue nothing but a 'tedious game.' Under these circumstances, we are left wondering if Korea should hold onto its expectations for these talks, which are clearly unproductive. It may well be just a waste of money to try to stick to the talks."

"Four-Party Talks, Nothing More Than A Dance"

Geneva correspondent Bae Myoung-bok contended in business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo (1/22): "Making any progress toward peace on the Korean peninsula still appears a distant possibility. Part of the reason is the disparity in the goals of the involved parties.... While the head of the North Korean delegation to the Four-Party Talks still speaks of U.S. 'hostility,' South Korea is more interested in searching for any 'rays of sunshine.'... After all, it takes only two to dance. Obviously, it is not working well for four parties to dance together."

"ROK Should Take Lead In Negotiating With North"

Deputy Editor Choe Kyu-chul stressed in moderate Hankook Ilbo (1/20): "The crisis theory continues to spread, leaving many wondering why Korea is not saying much about it. Is that because its Sunshine Policy is in dire straights?... There have always been differences between U.S. and South Korean policy on North Korea, some larger than others. Great effort has gone into maintaining U.S.-Korea solidarity on this issue.... Differences can of course exist, but then the question becomes how to persuasively explain our position to the other party.... The United States is bombing Iraq at will despite international criticism.... Would the United States do the same regardless of whether the conflict is across the Pacific or in its own backyard?... It is time for us to establish a new paradigm in which we, not the United States, lead negotiations with North Korea."

"U.S.-South Korean Security Solidarity Confirmed"

Moderate Hankook Ilbo's editorial emphasized (1/16): "The United States and Korea shared views on how to maintain and continue their bilateral security policy, which is the greatest achievement of this year's U.S.-South Korean Security Committee Meeting.... Thanks to this year's security meeting in which specific measures were agreed to, much of the nervousness many Koreans have toward the Sunshine Policy may well be alleviated....

"Mr. Cohen's unusually firm warnings to the North, including his mention of continued U.S. nuclear protection of South Korea, are particularly significant.... This U.S. confirmation of its commitment to Korea's security and peaceful solutions of Korean issues are all signs of strong U.S.-South Korean solidarity. In addition, this year's meeting proved that there is no disparity between the two countries' North Korea policy, and this is significant in terms of its timing--just before the Four-Party Talks."

"Importance Of Military Cooperation With U.S."

Top-circulation Chosun Ilbo (1/15) editorialized: "At the annual Military Committee meeting, the United States and Korea agreed to set up a combined Psychological Operations Task Force, a sign of strengthened military cooperation between the two countries. This has significance not only in military terms, but also in helping to ease the anxiety the Korean people always have about security. This agreement between the two countries on a real project rather than an abstract concept is welcomed, especially when public opinion is becoming increasingly divisive because of the Sunshine Policy.... We cannot overemphasize the importance of military cooperation with the United States."

"Pros And Cons Of Engagement Policy Toward North Korea"

Hallim University Professor Kim In-young penned this op-ed in independent Hankook Ilbo (1/15): "North Korea's Kumchangri facility is one of the most critical issues of the year. Surprisingly, the Korean government continues to be optimistic over the issue, a position that has left many people worried. While a nervous, excessively tense government is never desirable, 'baseless' optimism is dangerous. It can lead to grave mistakes.... What should Korea do? It has to continue its policy of separating security issues from its pursuit of economic cooperation with the North, keeping open two different channels of dialogue for economic and security issues. Second, Korea's policy should eventually aim at establishing new circumstances in which the North does not feel it has to have nuclear weapons. Third, Korea has to carefully manage and preserve U.S.-Korean solidarity when pursuing a dialogue with the United States and North Korea. Once again, Kumchangri is an urgent issue, and the Korean government should realize that now."

"Anti-Personnel Mines, An Issue For Four-Party Talks"

Foreign Studies University Professor Lee Chang-hee wrote in anti-establishment Hankyoreh Shinmun (1/15): "If the Four-Party Talks deal with the issue of anti-personnel mines, it would provide an opportunity to help lay a foundation of trust between North and South Korea. It would also pave the way for both nations to join the Anti-Personnel Mine Prevention Treaty.... This issue...requires cooperation from both sides. The Four-Party Talks should deal with that issue."

"North Korea's Missiles: Japan, Too, Wants Them"

Kyungki University Professor Nam Kyu-hong maintained in business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo (1/14): "Japan is declaring it will establish a theater missile defense (TMD) system, setting off grave concern in the international community. To nations urging Japan's restraint, Tokyo says the TMD would be for defensive purposes only. The truth, however, is that Japan will exert a strong military presence once it has a TMD system. After that, it would be just a matter of time to prepare nuclear warheads, which will equip it to become a military superpower.... While there are positive aspects as well, Japan's plans for the TMD system and its aspirations for a reinforced defense role are dangerous because of their potential to easily trigger a new high-tech arms race in the region.... All this is why we are particularly concerned about North Korea's missile and nuclear programs.

"As long as North Korea continues those programs, that will give Japan all the excuses needed to build up its military, and this will inevitably increase tensions on the Korean Peninsula."

"When North Nullifies Geneva Agreement, Will U.S. Attack?"

Washington correspondent Kil Joung-woo noted in business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo (1/13): "One thing Korea experts agree on is the increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula as a result of the Kumchangri issue and the missile tests by North Korea.... While a U.S. attack against the North remains the worst-case-scenario, the general perception is that the Untied States would not be able to assault the North as easily as it did Iraq. The theory of a crisis on the peninsula, however, certainly could turn real if William Perry's report fails to win the sympathy of the U.S. Congress."

"The Kumchangri Issue, A Hot Potato"

Choi Won-ki pointed out in business-oriented Joong-Ang Ilbo (1/13): "The Kumchangri issue will certainly be the key agenda item at the upcoming Four-Party Talks. North Korea says it is willing to show the facility for a fee of $300 million, while the United States does not want to pay cash but seems willing to provide goods in that amount.... We are most interested in how both sides seek to settle the outstanding issues. The United States favors a gradual approach, wanting to resolve the Kumchangri issue first and then possibly address all other agenda items as one package. Meanwhile, North Korea appears to be geared toward settling all issues at the same time. Brinkmanship still is the North's main strategy."

"U.S., Japan, Korea Security Consultations"

Tokyo correspondent Hwang Young-shik told readers of moderate Hankook Ilbo (1/12): "While Secretary Cohen's visits to Japan and Korea are geared to strengthen military solidarity among the three allies, they are particularly significant because of the timing--just before high-level meetings scheduled between the United States and North Korea--and also the Four-Party Talks. During his gathering with Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi, Mr. Cohen will reemphasize the importance of the U.S.-Japanese miliary alliance, and will also urge an early passage of the U.S.-Japan Defense Cooperation Guidelines.... All these moves by the United States are part of its efforts to polish up policies among the allies before sitting down with North Korea. Meanwhile, the military readiness of these allies will also be checked to prevent a possible emergency on the Korean Peninsula."

"Different Views On North Korea"

An editorial in conservative Segye Ilbo held (1/12): "The Japanese government has recently set up a new security-related panel, further confirming the continuation of its hard-line stance with North Korea. So far, Tokyo has made clear that it won't pay for its billion-dollar share of the costs of the Korean Energy Development Organization, and during his latest visit to Korea, the Japanese defense minister reconfirmed his government's position. More significant for us is the U.S. attitude, which is also turning quite weary of North Korea.... While the 'sunshine policy' should remain the principle of our North Korea policy for now, our belief is that the policy is only possible and available when there is reciprocity between North and South Korea.... With the North still vehemently vowing to further strengthen its military might, Japan now says that it will do something--like launching reconnaissance satellites and participating in the Theatre Missile Defense System--a development which will definitely unnerve China. These complicated circumstances are our reality, and this is why we believe that our North Korea policy should reflect what is going on in our neighborhood. Our policy should be reviewed during meetings between the defense ministers of the United States, Japan and Korea."

"Time For North To Respond To Sunshine Policy"

Washington correspondent Chung Yun-joo noted in independent Hankyoreh Shinmun (1/11): "It is not strict reciprocity but a humane approach that we need in dealing with North Korea's food shortages. The much-touted tourism of Mt. Kumkang became possible only because the Korean government successfully separated its security policy toward the North from its economic relations with it. Once a humane relationship with the North is established, there are many things that both Koreas can do together.... For this to happen, the North needs to respond to our sunshine policy, especially now when the hawks in the United States and Japan are spreading the theory of an imminent crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Our most sincere hope is that the two Koreas will start to see a thaw in their relationship this year."

"Reciprocity Between North And South"

Moderate Hankook Ilbo's editorial stressed (1/11): "The Korean government is finally seeking to 'relax' its commitment to the principle of reciprocity (when dealing with North Korea.) This change of policy is inevitable, and there are two things to keep in mind when trying to make the new rule more workable and flexible. First, any government-level projects aimed at helping out North Korea must be explained publicly, and second, maintenance of solidarity with the United States should remain a key issue. This second point seems particularly significant as we believe that there may well be a rift in U.S.-ROK relations. How to maintain cooperation with the United States remains critical to the success of our North Korea policy, and we only hope that any policy changes of ours do not bring any negative impact on our solidarity with Washington."

"How To Pay For North Korean LWR Project"

The government-owned Korea Daily News had this editorial view (1/11): "The Korean government has decided to increase electricity fees, with the funds going to pay for the North Korean light water reactor (LWR) project. The government says it has no other option but to raise the fees.... Of course, criticism ensued, claiming that the government is trying to lay the costs of the project on the people. It is time for the government to explain to the Korean people exactly how it plans to pay for the project."

CHINA: "Japan's Military Ambition Fueled By Cohen Visit"

Official, English-language China Daily had this Xinhua item (1/18): "The talks between Defense Secretary Cohen and the Japanese government regarding resources and research for the Theater Missile Defense systems mark the start of the revival of Japan's military ambitions."

HONG KONG: "Infringement Of China's Sovereignty Is Not Allowed"

Pro-PRC Ta Kung Pao insisted (1/20): "The U.S. Congress intends to include Taiwan in the 'Theater Missile Defense' system. This indicates that the United States is attempting to make the inclusion of Taiwan in the U.S.-Japan security pact more concrete. This not only infringes upon China's sovereignty, but also hurts Sino-U.S. and Sino-Japanese relations. In addition, it will threaten the stability of the international strategic structure, causing insecurity in the Northeast Asian region.... Some believe that the U.S.-Japan alliance is a westward expansion in concert with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's eastward expansion. It is an attempt to encircle Asia and Europe strategically so as to prevent any power capable of making a challenge in these areas from rising again, to secure U.S. superiority, and to prepare the way to control the Asia-Pacific area as well as the whole world."

"Nuclear Pact Has Bad Rebound Factor"

The independent Hong Kong Standard's editorial pointed out (1/16): "A joint statement issued by U.S. Secretary for Defense William Cohen and his South Korean counterpart states that Washington will render prompt and effective defense to repel any armed attack under their defense treaty and to provide nuclear protection.... It would indeed be ironic if the very nation that is urging nuclear non-proliferation among states and exhorting all to sign international treaties to that effect, sparks off the proliferation it is trying to prevent.... But Pyongyang's reactions and policy pursuits are unpredictable. That is the major concern, particularly if some other regional powers also view this latest announcement with a degree of suspicion and skepticism."

TAIWAN: "Factors To Weigh In TMD"

In the editorial view of the liberal, pro-independence Taiwan Daily (1/15): "Even if the United States gives the green light to Taiwan's participation in the TMD system, Taiwan would still have to seriously evaluate the costs and results of joining the project. Washington surely will not ask Taiwan to join the TMD simply because it wants to defend Taiwan's democracy and freedom; and Taiwan, of course, does not have to share the responsibilities of the TMD cost just because of Washington's invitation, without considering what it might cost Taiwan. Under the various proposals, budget sharing is a key factor. For the next fiscal year, the [Taipei] central government's budget deficits will reach $500 billion Taiwan dollars. Under this financial situation, Taiwan must thoroughly assess the advantages and disadvantages of joining the TMD system from the perspective of its own interests."

"TMD Debate"

Washington correspondent James Wang had this to say in the conservative, pro-unification United Daily News (1/14): "Indeed, the United States has purposely played down Taiwan's importance. Taiwan actually deserves...greater support from the United States as well as its trust and cooperation. However, on Washington's big chessboard, Taiwan is something that doesn't even merit a second look. The same attitude may naturally be applied to the Theater Missile Defense system project.... If one were to look at the range covered under the Washington-Tokyo defense guidelines, one would know that chances are slim for the two countries to agree to Taiwan's participation in the development of their joint defense system. Both Washington and Tokyo could only stay vague about whether the defense guidelines would apply in the case of outbreaks across the Taiwan Strait. If the missile defense were to be formed into a [multi-lateral] system, which would mean an alliance, the last thing American policy makers would want to see would be Taiwan included.

"This does not mean that Taiwan would be excluded from acquiring a secondary anti-missile system to use for its own defense. What [Assistant Secretary of State] Stanley Roth meant by saying that 'countries facing missile threats have the rights to defend themselves' has actually left a door open for Taiwan. From the perspective of Taiwan's interests, Taipei need not bother to invest in this [TMD] project unless Washington takes the initiative, and makes a request. Taiwan can express interest in the project, but it need not bother to waste tons of money if the United States is afraid to offend Beijing. The missile defense system to be developed by Washington and Tokyo will only enlarge the mistrust and conflict between [the United States and Japan] and Beijing. Those 'big countries' can fight among themselves. Taiwan does not need to get involved and look for trouble."

"TMD Issue Highlights Washington-Beijing-Taipei Conflicts"

With regard to Beijing's strong opposition to the inclusion of Taiwan in the United States' Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, Yu Yu-Lin stressed in the centrist, pro-status quo China Times (1/12): "Whether Beijing's warning [to Washington against including Taiwan in the TMD system] will really work remains to be seen.... Nonetheless, Beijing's strong reaction triggered by Taiwan's participation in the TMD system has, on a deeper level, manifested the deep-rooted conflicts of 'national interests' among Washington, Beijing and Taipei. These conflicts have in fact reflected the great discrepancy among the three sides in the political, historical and ideological aspects.... As a matter of fact, Beijing's displeasure with Taiwan's possible participation in the TMD system is nothing but an extension of its containment strategy against Taiwan in the international society. Under such pressure, Taiwan has no choice but to fight back. Therefore, besides the arms race, the authorities in both Taipei and Beijing should work out a new way of thinking as early as possible and should not force the other to do something against its will."

"Taiwan, TMD And Regional Security"

In the editorial view of the liberal, pro-independence Liberty Times (1/12): "To judge from the international strategic angle, Taiwan's participation in the TMD system will naturally contribute to regional security and stability. Likewise, on Taiwan's part, it is obvious that China's attempts to threaten Taiwan militarily or to advocate in international society that 'the Taiwan issue is China's domestic issue' are aimed at placing Taiwan in an inferior position like that of Hong Kong. Taiwan thus must constantly strive for breakthroughs in its diplomatic relationships with other countries and also strengthen its defense capabilities. Joining the TMD system is a powerful means for Taiwan to strengthen its defense capabilities. It will also be very useful to link the island with the Asia-Pacific security mechanism."

INDONESIA: "North Korea--Starvation Vs. Nuclear Weapons"

Leading, independent Kompas's editorial opined (1/18): "The demand for [North Korean] nuclear inspections raise questions. The United States is viewed as partial, since it sides with South Korea regarding peninsular tensions. Other parties (China in particular) question the United States' right to inspect other countries' weapons programs because U.S. nuclear weapons have long threatened the world. Neither the United States nor China have any moral basis for beseeching other countries to abandon their nuclear programs.... Tension on the peninsula has worsened with nuclear development in North Korea. No matter the argument or motive, nuclear arms development makes no sense in the absence of any human welfare benefit. Therefore, it was surprising that U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen agreed with South Korea's development of long-range missiles to counter North Korea's threat.... It is also hard to understand North Korean nuclear development in the midst of economic bankruptcy. A nuclear program is high in cost and technology, while the North Korean people are starving to death. How ironic!"

PHILIPPINES: "Spratlys Alert"

Editorial consultant Amando Doronila noted on the front page of the second-leading Philippine Daily Inquirer (1/18) that Philippine President Joseph "Erap" Estrada had convened the National Security Council (NSC) on January 15 to consider the Spratly Islands dispute following the building by China of permanent structures on Mischief Reef and other nearby islets in the South China Sea. Doronila opined: "The move to convene the NSC...sends the signal that the South China Sea dispute is the top foreign policy concern of the Philippines, and this issue has galvanized multipartisan and wide public support since it has now become the foremost national security problem facing the country....

"Following the building of permanent structures on Mischief Reef (by China)...and the rise of military friction between the Philippines and China, the United States has been playing a more active broker role, trying to bring together the six claimant nations to find an amicable settlement to the dispute.... U.S. intervention, even if only in the form of mediation, has exacerbated already deep political divisions in ASEAN.... While China pays lip service to peaceful means of conflict resolution, it has not stopped its encroachment and it sees the (Asian Regional) forum as another form of internationalizing the South China Sea dispute. After the truncation of ASEAN political solidarity by the Asian crisis and rows between Malaysia and the Philippines and Indonesia over the latter's interference in the arrest of Anwar, ASEAN is a hollow mechanism for a collective response against Chinese penetration in the South China Sea.... The proposal for U.S. intervention has underlined ASEAN disunity. It has opened a new cleavage in the already frayed relations between the Philippines and Malaysia. The two countries find themselves in conflicting positions over the proposal, emphasizing the divisions in ASEAN and encouraging more bold moves by China to occupy territories virtually without resistance."

"Diplomacy The Only Weapon For Spratly Dispute"

The independent Manila Times judged (1/18): "The South China Sea is...the least of the Americans' priorities.... Will the Chinese risk their international reputation for a few rock formations in the Spratlys? In the same vein, will the United States risk incurring the ire of a potential one-billion market and go to war to settle a territorial dispute which it is literally not even a part of? The U.S. State Department has not changed its policy in dealing with conflicting claims in the Spratlys: hands off. The seeming interference of the United States in the Spratlys is nothing more than about people in the Pentagon who are interested in pushing weapons deals with the Philippine government. Second-hand weapons, yes. But those state-of-the-art, never. The local economy cannot really afford these advanced fighters, missiles, and...[and] intelligence systems, anyway. Let's be practical. Diplomacy is really our only weapon."

VIETNAM: "Wanting Does Not Necessarily Mean Achieving"

Vietnamese-language Hanoi Moi had this analysis (1/24): "[In the State of the Union Address,] the U.S. president called for the promotion of the so-called leading role of the United States in the world.... Even in the relations with Japan, an ally of the United States, Washington always want to have the upper hand. However, it is certain that the United States can not easily accomplish its goals to be the single world leader. Although the United States is the only superpower after the end of the Cold War, nations in the world show that they do not accept a monopolar world."

EUROPE

GERMANY: "Unpredictable"

Werner Adam judged in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (1/8): "South Korea and Japan have now reacted to North Korea's war-mongering and its missile program with an agreement on military cooperation. Even though Pyongyang's wild threats cannot be taken at face value, they cannot be ignored by Seoul and Tokyo. North Korea is even planning to 'sweep' the United States 'from this planet.' But the Americans in particular have made many concessions to Pyongyang.... This is why North Korea's most recent aggressiveness is even less understandable. And it will now even intensify in view of military cooperation between Seoul and Tokyo."

SPAIN: "The Korean Wall"

Conservative La Razon maintained (1/20): "Representatives of the two Koreas, China, and the United States initiated a new round of negotiations in Geneva yesterday to devise a peace plan that would replace the current armistice on the Korean peninsula.... After the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War...the next nation to be reunified could be Korea. However, this is seen as especially difficult given the North's manifestly hostile attitude and the substantial economic differences between the two countries. South Korea enjoys the benefits of an open market economy while the North suffers in a survival mode brought about by the failure of its devastating Communist economic model."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

1/26/99

# # #