Japan Expands Mutual Security Definition The Washington Post ("JAPAN TO JOIN U.S. POLICY ON TAIWAN ", 2005-02-18) reported that the United States and Japan will declare for the first time in a joint agreement that Taiwan is a mutual security concern, according to a draft of the document. Analysts called the move a demonstration of Japan's willingness to confront the rapidly growing might of the PRC. The United States has long focused attention on the PRC government's threat to use military force against Taiwan if the island, which the PRC views as a renegade province, moves toward independence. Until now, Japan has been content to let the United States bear the brunt of Beijing's displeasure.

At the same time, Japan is becoming more active in its territorial disputes with its neighbors. The issue of Takeshima (Tokdo) by the Japanese causes great ire on the part of the Koreans who seized the island in 1954. (See Tokdo Dispute History for historical data and information on Tokdo.) This has caused some to call for the abrogation of the 1999 fisheries agreement with Japan that concluded after the Japanese government unilaterally canceled a 1965 pact, announcing an EEZ after the United States and the Soviet Union in 1977 declared their seas as EEZs. The Korean government had been blamed previously for making too many concessions to Japanese government demands during the negotiations, a situation which fueled fierce national antagonism at the time toward Japan. (NOTE: The row escalated in March 2005 to a level of great friction between the two countries. See March 2005)

Japan is also now openly confronting Russia and China over disputed islands taken from it at the end of WWII. Activists invaded a lighthouse maintained by the Chinese on a disputed island and set up a Japanese flag on it. To the north, the Japanese refused the offer of the Russians to split four islands between the two and negotiate on the two in its possession at a later date.

NEW WORRY: IMPROVED SCUD The Chosun Ilbo on 15 Feb reported that the North had developed a new SCUD missile. According to the report, the DPRK developed an upgraded Scud missile, dubbed the Scud-ER, with an estimated range of 600 - 1,000 kilometers. The missiles have a longer range and are more accurate than existing Scud missiles. A government source that US spy satellites discovered the new Scuds one or two years ago, and were currently trying to determine whether they have been deployed. The source said the missiles are capable of striking targets in nearly all of the ROK even from bases in rear areas of the DPRK. The missiles have longer ranges than North Korea's existing arsenal of 600 Scud B (300km) and Scud C (500km) missiles.

Accuracy has always been the weak point of existing Scud missiles. Rumors of the upgraded Scuds E-R (for "extended range") spread among some specialists in the latter half of the 1990s, but their existence was never confirmed.

But the range of the new Scuds is considerably shorter than that of Pyongyang’s arsenal of Rodong missiles (1,300km) and newly designed intermediate-range ballistic missiles (3,000 - 4,000km), which have already been deployed; its Taepodong-1 missile (2,500km), which was test-fired in 1998 but never deployed; and the Taepodong-2 missile (6,700km), which is currently under development. However, they are reportedly all aimed at Japan and the U.S. rather than South Korea.

Taepodong 2

The Scud upgrades, by contrast, were designed with South Korea in mind, and intelligence authorities believe they represent a greater threat than the long-range missiles.

Joint Close Air Support Exercise Korea Times ("CFC PROPOSES ROK-US JOINT MILITARY DRILL", 2005-02-16) reported that the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC) recently proposed to the ROK military a joint special forces training drill with troops from the US, the US Forces Korea (USFK) said Wednesday. The CFC made the proposal to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Army, asking if the military drill could be held next month and open to the news media, said Kim Young-kyu, spokesman of the USFK. The military drill will be focused on "close air support" in which aircraft are mobilized to support nearby ground combat operations by launching air strikes against the ground enemy.

The A-10 Warthogs of Osan AB have trained in Korea primarily as "tank-killers" though it is a primary weapon for Close Air Support (CAS) as seen in Desert Storm and in the Iraq War. However, there has not been much interface in the past with the USAF and its ROK counterparts who would be the primary recipients of any CAS in case of a North Korean breakout. For as long as there has been an Army and an Air Force, there have been differing definitions of what is CAS. Even now in the US military, there are differing definitions of CAS for the Marines versus Navy and Air Force. It will be interesting for the ROKAF and USAF to compare notes on their respective definitions.

In March 2005, there was to be a "small scale" joint exercise with only dozens of soldiers. Most likely computer interface for Command Post functions such as in Ulchi Focus Lens.

USS Pueblo Return Demanded??? In a propaganda move, Congressional Record (Senate) ("SENATE RESOLUTION 53--DEMANDING THE RETURN OF THE USS "PUEBLO" TO THE UNITED STATES NAVY", 2005-02-14) Whereas the USS Pueblo, which was attacked and captured by the North Korean Navy on January 23, 1968; Whereas the capture of the USS Pueblo resulted in no reprisals against the Government or people of North Korea and no military action at any time; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate--(1) demands the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy; and (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of this resolution to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State.

The USS Pueblo is now a floating museum in Wonson to recall the DPRK "victory."

Two Aegis Destroyers to Yokosuka The Japan Times on 17 Feb 2005 reported that the US Navy in Japan has said it will replace a cruiser and a destroyer forward-deployed here with two Aegis-equipped destroyers later this year. With its ability to acquire and track ballistic missiles by radar, the vessel is expected to operate as part of the US-led missile defense shield, which Japan joined in December 2003, against possible missile attacks by the DPRK.

The Stars and Stripes on 18 Feb stated the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes is expected to depart in April after nearly eight years in Yokosuka. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Lassen will arrive to replace it around June, Navy officials announced. In June, the Spruance-class destroyer USS Cushing is expected to depart, to be replaced in September by the guided missile destroyer USS Stethem, commissioned in 1995.

“The big difference is they have a greater combat capability,” said Cmdr. John Wallach, spokesman for Commander, Naval Forces Japan. “Newer, advanced Aegis combat systems and better capabilities.” "Both USS Cushing and USS Vincennes are nearing the end of their service lives," stated a Navy release. "These ship rotations are part of the Navy's long-range plan to routinely replace older ships assigned to the Navy's Forward Deployed Naval Forces with newer or more capable surface combatants."

The Vincennes, the Navy’s first Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruiser to operate in the Pacific Fleet, was commissioned in 1985 and holds a crew of about 362. The Lassen, commissioned in 2001, will bring a crew of 317. The Cushing, commissioned in 1979, carries a crew of 345 and has been based at Yokosuka for eight years. The Stethem carries a crew of 317. The new ships have fewer personnel aboard, and therefore fewer families will be moving to Yokosuka.

This action also places Korea on the outside of this Missile Defense Shield. Korea recently backed off on the purchase of used PAC-2 Patriots from Germany to fill the void in its missile defense, instead opting to use the U.S. Patriot missile defense umbrella that was expanded with upgraded PAC-3 Patriots in 2004 and positioned in Kwangju and increased at Osan AB.

US, Japan to Develop Missile Shield in FY 2006 According to Seoul Times. citing a Kyodo News report, Japanese Defense Agency Director General Yoshinori Ono and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agreed in Feb 2005 to advance ongoing bilateral research on a missile defense system to the development stage in fiscal 2006. In a Washington date lined story, Japan news agency reported that the two nations are expected to move swiftly to the production and deployment stage as Japan has already paved the way for exporting related components to the United States by relaxing in December its ban on arms exports.

The agreement came days after U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director Porter Goss said North Korea could be ready to test-fire a new long-range Taepodong 2 ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the United States 'at any time.' Goss was referring to an upgraded version of the Taepodong 1 missile fired by North Korea in August 1998, part of which flew over Japan into the Pacific. The incident led Japan and the United States to begin their joint missile defense system research in 1999. The following is from the Seoul Times article:

Pyongyang maintains the launch was of a rocket for sending a satellite into orbit. But it has agreed to halt the launching of ballistic missiles, and has kept to the moratorium to date. Uncertainties have grown over North Korea since Pyongyang declared Feb.10 its possession of nuclear weapons and an indefinite boycott of six-party talks on its nuclear ambitions.

... Rumsfeld proposed upgrading the missile shield research to the development stage in fiscal 2006, and Ono welcomed the plan, the official said, adding that they also agreed to step up cooperation on information and other aspects to make the missile defense system effective.

The proposal came after the U.S. Defense Department decided recently to develop a bigger enhanced version of its independently developed sea-based Standard Missile 3 interceptor to defend against ballistic missiles. The Japan-U.S. joint research involves key components of the enhanced SM3 interceptor. The U.S. Navy has strongly pressed for its development despite skepticism expressed by some experts about its effectiveness. The Japanese officials said Ono and Rumsfeld also agreed to accelerate bilateral consultations on the realignment of the U.S. military presence in Japan with the aim of maintaining the deterrence provided by U.S. forces and reducing the burden on local hosts, including Okinawa. BACKGROUND: Prior to 1998, Japan backed a "vital" defense system in the east Asian region but has stopped short of expressing support for U.S. plans to set up a new missile defense shield. Then the North fired a Taepodong-1 missile across Japanese airspace claiming it was a satellite launch. N. Korea flight-tested its Taepodong 1 missile, which could presumably haul a 1,000-kilogram nuclear bomb about 2,500 kilometers. The same missile might carry a lighter biological or chemical warhead 4,100 kilometers — just shy of the two closest parts of the US: the tip of Alaska's Aleutian Islands and the western end of the Hawaiian Islands. This caused the Japanese to view the North in a completely different light -- coupled with the nuclear threats the North had made against Japan.(NOTE: In Mar 2005, the ROK government's "left-leaning" NIS director stated to the National Assembly it was a satellite launch -- though how he came to that conclusion without any external intelligence sources is unknown.)

In December 2003, Japan decided to introduce a missile defense shield to deal chiefly with the possibility of ballistic missile attacks from North Korea. The government asked for 100 billion yen in the budget for fiscal 2004 to cover the costs of implementing the system up until 2007, with 15 billion slated for use in fiscal 2004. The envisaged shield combined the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) to be launched from Aegis-equipped destroyers to intercept ballistic missiles at midcourse in space and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles to shoot down any remaining missiles from the ground. (The two new destroyers in 2005 fulfill this portion of the Missile Defense Shield.) According to the Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, Dec. 19, 2003, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda added that existing defensive steps were not fast enough to adequately cope with the threat of ballistic missile attacks, which can be completed within minutes. However, others pointed out that becoming involved in the missile defense shield would violated the government's interpretation of the Constitution, which it claimed forbids Japan from being involved in a collective defense agreement. But Fukuda stressed that Japan's role in the system was entirely for its own self-defense. China's successful launching of a manned space capsule in 2003 and the increasingly frequent movement of Chinese naval vessels near Japan's territorial waters have also unnerved the Japanese. Japan has stressed the North Korean threat, trying to persuade a skeptical China that the shield would be purely defensive.

China has warned that Japan's adoption of an antimissile system would disrupt the global strategic balance and set off an arms race. An effective shield would challenge China's military power by curbing the effectiveness of its missiles, which can now strike Taiwan or American forces stationed in Okinawa and elsewhere. Russia said in February 2004 that it was developing a so-called hypersonic missile technology capable of piercing the United States' system.

Japan would spend $10 billion in this decade to develop a two-layer shield. In the 10 minutes or so that it would take a ballistic missile fired from North Korea to reach Japan, one of Japan's advanced destroyers with the Aegis weapons system would try to intercept it by firing ship-to-air missiles. If that failed, Patriot missiles based around key cities would have a second chance to knock down the enemy missile.

To build the shield, Japan plans to modify its four Aegis destroyers by adding the interceptor, the Standard Missile-3, and by purchasing 16 new versions of the Patriot missiles. To track incoming missiles, Japan would rely on intelligence from United States satellites, but it also plans to construct a land-based radar network and a command and control system.

In the last two years, the United States has conducted five tests of its Aegis-based Standard Missile-3, completing four successfully. The United States and Japan are expected shortly to conduct joint tests of an upgraded version of the missile that would incorporate four components developed together: an infrared seeker, kinetic warhead, rocket motor and nose cone. The first joint test is to take place in late 2005, followed by another in early 2006, said Lt. Cmdr. Alvin Plexico of the Navy, a spokesman for the Defense Department.

Now that Japan is an ally of the US, Washington regrets that its US sponsored constitution contains a pacifist clause and is using pressure to have it modified. It has urged Japan to forge closer ties on missile defense and said US-made missile defense systems would be useful for Japan to shield against possible attacks. Visiting US missile defense chief Lieutenant-General Ronald Kadish told Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba that Washington wanted to secure closer cooperation from Japan on its planned missile defense shield. Kadish told Ishiba that the US combination of an Aegis ship-based interception system and Patriot ground-to-air system would be useful for Japan. Ishiba told Kadish that Japan would need more discussions on the missile defense system before making any concrete decision. Japan has been considering introducing the two US-developed missile defense systems to cope with possible attacks by a third country, notably North Korea. Ship-based missile defense (SMD) using Aegis-equipped destroyers is designed to intercept short- and mid-range ballistic missiles at mid-course. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) ground-to-air system is designed to shoot down missiles that the ship-based system fails to intercept. In August 1998, North Korea alarmed the world by launching a Taepodong-1 missile that passed over Japan, demonstrating that areas with large populations including Tokyo were within the weapon's estimated 1'000-km range. The surprise test-firing of the North Korean missile prompted Japan to start studying with Washington a theater missile defense system, a variant of the US national missile defense system, aimed at shielding US troops and allies in Asia. (Reuters, 6/16/03).

According to Voice of America on 17 Dec 2004, Japan and the US signed an agreement to encourage cooperation on developing a missile defense system. Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ono signed a memorandum of understanding Friday in Tokyo with U.S. Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker. Under the agreement, Japan and the United States will exchange information on research, deployment and operations of a missile shield. The agreement comes one week after Japan adopted new defense policy guidelines that would allow the joint development of a missile defense system with the United States.

In December 2004, the Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily, said the US and Japan signed a contingency plan in 2002 to respond to a possible crisis on the Korean Peninsula. The Asahi Shimbun said that the plan, code-named "Operation 5055," calls for Japan's self defense forces to assist American troops in combat if war breaks out on the peninsula. The scenario also envisages Japan guarding against possible invasion by hundreds of North Korean agents. Under the plan, Japan's military would join search and rescue operations for U.S. troops missing in action and also guard 135 possible military targets such as U.S. bases and nuclear power plants along its northwestern coast. The paper also said Japanese maritime forces with minesweepers would keep open shipping lanes between the Korean Peninsula and the northern coast of Japan's main island of Kyushu. The report comes comes days after Japan unveiled a new defence policy that calls for a shift from the purely defensive posture in place since its defeat in World War Two

The five-year defense outline allows the sale of missile defense components to the United States for production of a missile shield. Japan says other arms export cases will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The change in the production of these MDS components — and the likelihood that they will eventually be sold to other nations joining the network — forced Japan to abandon one of the cherished tenets of its postwar pacifism: a ban on arms exports. Although Japan has long had one of the world's largest military budgets, its arms industry has been barred from exporting since 1967. Currently the Patriot Missile components are manufactured and assembled in Japan under license for domestic use only.

Another necessary change might be a redefinition of Japan's concept of collective self-defense. Japan has maintained that it has that right, but chooses not to exercise it because it is not allowed under its Constitution, which was imposed by the United States during the postwar occupation. The government has argued that intercepting a missile aimed at Japan amounts to a pure act of self-defense and emphasizes that the shield will be a Japanese one. But others point out that Japan will be part of a system linking the continental United States and other friendly nations. This leads up to the current situation where the Japanese are being lobbied to change Article 9 of the Peace Constitution to allow the expanded role for Japan's self-defense -- including the right to preemptive strikes if necessary to protect itself.

In Feb 2005. Japan's cabinet voted on a bill to revise its Self-Defense Force Law. The revision is designed to permit a field commander to launch anti-ballistic missiles at his own discretion. Currently, Japan much first receive approval from the U.N. Security Council, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister before it could launch such a missile. The problem is that there is NOT enough time to obtain this permission before missile impact with a missile launched from North Korea.

The four-step process had been designed to prevent such an important decision from being made independently by the military, experts said. The bill, was expected to be delivered to parliament for review, stipulates that the ballistic missile interception procedure is an administrative order rather than a legislation, therefore dispensing with recognition from parliament. Japan enacted a series of laws over the past two years, considerably enhancing the administrative bodies' power in national defense. The legislation has raised severe concerns that the war-renouncing constitution is increasingly ignored and Japan's self-defense-oriented force is gravitating towards that of an offensive capacity.

The question the ROK really needs to start asking itself is IF the US pulls back its Patriots if Roh escalates the tensions again between the US-ROK military question, what protection does it have against its "friends" in the North? It has delayed its procurement of even used PAC-2 Patriots to defend against SCUD attacks, it has no ATCMS missile launchers (though on order but unfunded). It has recently developed a home-grown cruise missile, but it is primarily for sea-launch and has not been fielded as of this date. In essence, the ROK has NO missile defense or counter-attack capability of its own. However, its NGO groups -- led by the anti-War faction -- have staged violent protests against the adoption of the MDS system in Korea.

The concern is that the MDS will create a network that will eventually require the sharing of critical information and coordination among its members, which could split Asian nations into two camps: those inside and those outside the system. Those inside the system say the shield will be a defense against the missile buildup by nations like China and North Korea; those outside say it will destabilize the region and start an arms race. Australia has signed on to the MDS and negotiations were on-going with India. Taiwan will receive missile tracking equipment to identify inbound missiles from China. China, already displeased with Japan's decision, said that the radar sale to Taiwan sent the "wrong message," and it reiterated its opposition to America's selling "advanced weapons" there. The United States has vowed to protect Taiwan against an attack by China, which has 500 missiles pointed at the island.

But the ROK is not the only nation opting out of the MDS. Canada in Feb 2005 publicly stated it would not support the "weaponization of space." Though the Prime Minister Paul Martin initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race. The Bush administration has tried to make a public show of understanding that Martin heads up a minority government that could fall over such a contentious debate, but it is a great blow to the US when its neighbor would not stand with it on this pivotal issue. In Europe, Britain has signed on, but interest there has been generally tepid compared with the reception in Asia, where the missile buildup in China and North Korea, and the proliferation of nuclear technology from Pakistan, are driving the rise in the region's military spending.

---

Seoul to Finish S-N Railroad by Dec. South Korea plans to finish connecting an inter-Korean railroad on the east coast by the end of the year to support a Mt. Kumgang tourism project in North Korea, Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young said on 24 Feb. The government would negotiate with the North to guarantee travelers' safety on their way to the scenic resort area through the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The east coast road, linking the South's Kangwon Province to Mt. Kumgang, has been open to the public since September 2003. Currently, travelers are only allowed to use shuttle buses.

Up until January this year, 872,332 tourists have visited the special tourism zone in the North. The tourism program, designed by Hyundai Asan, began in November 1998. An excursion ship has been used to transport tourists.

---

ROK "Admits" to North Korean Satellite Launch Yonhap News reported on 25 Feb 2005 that the National Intelligence Service admitted that the DPRK launched a satellite in 1998, overturning a previous assessment that the communist country fired a long-range missile. In a parliamentary report, Ko Young-koo, head of the NIS, said that a "Daepodong-1" missile was used in launching the satellite in August 1998.

The significance of this is that this supports the North Korean claim -- which in turn slaps the U.S. and Japan in the face as they claim the missile was a test of the long-range Taepodong-1 ICBM which overshot the Japanese territory and landed in the sea in 1998. The Japanese public reacted in an uproar to this missile incident and public sentiment shifted dramatically. The long-range missiles would be capable of carrying warheads to Japan. As a result the Japanese have joined the controversial Missile Defense Sheild Initiative (MDS) promoted by the US. PAC-3 Patriot missiles and new Aegis destroyers of the SDF -- along with added US Aegis destroyers add to this shield to protect Japan.

Taepodong 1 missile (From DPRK TV)

The latest worry is that the North with its admitting to having nuclear weapons can install the weapons on a long range missile aimed at Japan. Commonsense dictates that the North cannot use the nuclear weapon on the peninsula without destroying itself -- so the only country that the North would target would be Japan (or China its ally).

As a sidenote, Ko Young-koo, head of the NIS, was appointed to the NIS by President Roh over the objections of the National Assembly who called him "left-leaning" individual. Roh appointed him anyway to "reform" the NIS in 2003. The National Assembly voiced strong opposition as his nominee was considered as having no experience for the top intelligence job. Roh did not need the National Assembly approval and Roh angrily appointed him despite the opposition. What made matters worse was that the National Assembly stated that the proposed appointee to the NIS policy and planning seat was a "North Korean supporter." Roh appointed him anyway as well. The aim was to gut the National Security Law which Roh continues to push for.

This revelation from the NIS seems to verify that the ROK intelligence has now been "reformed" and now openly supports the North Korean views. The point is that the ROK has NO external intelligence capability in the form of spy satellites or other means. Therefore, its intelligence is based on US-provided intelligence. How it came about this conclusion that the North launched a satellite is therefore based solely on ROK-inspired interpretation.

---

Japanese Start to Work on Constitutional Reform The Yomiuri Shimbun on 25 Feb 2005 reported that the Liberal Democratic Party's committee on constitutional reform is involved in heated debates over whether the party should maintain its conservative stance or work with other parties to devise constitutional amendments that are feasible. Arguments have erupted in the committee, chaired by former Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori, in debates aiming to complete a draft of amendments by April. The points of dispute include Article 9 and the status of the emperor.

The emperor portion is to allow a women to inherit the title of Empress. However, the important issue for the ROK is the Article 9 of the Peace Constitution. The US is lobbying heavily for a change to Article 9 which would allow it to remove its troops from Okinawa/Korea/US and relocate them to the Japanese mainland. It would allow Japan to become a true nation with its own defense and give it the right to protect itself against aggression -- including first-strike capabilities. To be truthful, the Japanese have most of the armament in place and the SDF is currently realigning itself to ensure that it has this war-fighting capability. The focus of course is North Korea as the tensions between the two countries continue to escalate.

The following is an editorial by Park Cheol-hee in the Joongang Ilbo on 25 Feb 2005:

Spurning the U.S. alliance foolish

The United States and Japan have been building a bilateral alliance for the 21st century. If the U.S.-Japan alliance during the Cold War focused on the defense of Japan, it has attempted to form a regional one after the Cold War.

Since the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Japan has pursued the globalization of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi suggested making the bilateral alliance "the U.S.-Japan alliance in the world" as soon as U.S. President George W. Bush was re-elected.

The revised strategy of the U.S.-Japan alliance was laid out concretely in a joint statement issued after the two-plus-two talks between foreign and defense ministers of the United States and Japan on Feb. 19. The two countries set, in the joint statement, the "common strategic goals" for stability in the Asia-Pacific region and the international community.

What is remarkable first of all is "the globalization of the alliance." The two countries emphasized partnership to improve the international security environment, including the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the prevention and eradication of international terrorism. The countries confirmed their view that stability in the international community is directly connected to Japan's peace and prosperity. They agreed to jointly contribute to peace-keeping activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and international disasters, including the recent tsunami disaster. They also confirmed their support for a democratic community through a joint pursuit of basic values, including democracy and human rights.

This means that the joint statement stressed strategic cooperation between the two countries that goes far beyond the framework of the existing U.S.-Japan alliance.

"Sharing a common regional strategy" is also particularly noteworthy. The United States and Japan urged China to resolve the Taiwan problem peacefully, and on the other hand asked the country to enhance transparency in its military and play a responsible and constructive role in the stability of the region and the world.

As common strategic goals, the two countries clearly stated latent threats from China and suggested the possibility of joint intervention in the Taiwan problem. They pressed North Korea for the peaceful resolution of specific current issues, including nuclear weapons, missiles and Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea. This is an extension of Japan's new "Outline of Defense Plan" announced last year in which Japan named North Korea and China as possible threats.

The United States and Japan also agreed to review the joint use of military bases as part of defense cooperation following the relocation of U.S. military forces. This means that they began to introduce integrated operating roles, duties and capabilities while strengthening the ability of mutual cooperation between the Self-Defense Forces and U.S. military forces in Japan.

They have sought stable stationing of U.S. military forces in Japan through a proposal of cooperative realignment of military forces, including reducing burdens on military base areas, improvement of relations with the regional community and consideration of environment.

As such, Japan aims to transform its alliance with the United States facing up to the trends of the new international order that has developed since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and reinforcing and deepening the bilateral alliance.

As far as the maintenance of alliance is concerned, Japan is a level ahead of us. Japan is worried over if it might be abandoned by the United States. But Japan is not a mere tool of the United States. Japan acts knowing that it can have more space for international activities and raise its voice within the framework of the bilateral alliance. Japan praises the United States in front of others and delivers its requests quietly if it has any. For this reason, trust is accumulated between the two countries. When Japan, whose national strength is 10 times larger than our country, acts this way, South Korea has no reason to abandon its alliance with the United States. If it discards the alliance with the United States, South Korea will hardly be able to avoid being treated coldly by China, North Korea and Japan. The argument for abolishing the alliance is not realistic.

While being cautious of China, Japan chose the United States. Will South Korea opt for China as an alternative? No, it won't. When China does not contend that the country is an alternative to the United States, South Korea does not need to choose China first. Even if South Korea relies on China, there is no guarantee that its security will become solid.

Therefore, we should pursue cooperation with China from many aspects, but China is not an alternative for our security strategy. Standing alone in the international community is even more difficult. Neutrality or self-reliance is a term that sounds good, but its creation and maintenance alike are not easy. Taking a lesson from the example of Japan, South Korea should find a shortcut to maintaining a mature and balanced relationship with the United States. Raising our voice unconditionally and arguing for the difference in opinions will not strengthen South Korea's stance. South Korea, still divided with North Korea, has no reason to distance China either.

South Korea had better deepen social, economic and diplomatic cooperation with China while remaining with the United States for military cooperation.

It will be beneficial to national interests to strengthen the U.S.-South Korea alliance until a framework of stable peace is formed by multilateral security in Northeast Asia.

* The writer is a professor of political science at the Graduate School of International Studies at Seoul National University. Translation by the JoongAng Daily staff.

by Park Cheol-hee

The main point is that in 2005, the US aims to lobby for the change of Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution. If this is done, the headquarters for the USFK's UN function, the CFC could be moved out of Korea and into Camp Zama in Japan with I Corps returning to fulfill the overhead "administrative" role. Right-leaning Japanese politicians and military planners in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), led by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, want Japan to assume a more assertive (they would say rightful, while critics would say aggressive) role on the world stage and change its low profile in international politics by shedding its strong pacifism enshrined in the post-World War II US-imposed constitution in the future. Washington has urged Tokyo to amend Article 9 and to authorize the right to collective self-defense. (Japan's current official stance is that it has this right, but cannot invoke it under the current constitution.) US military planners clearly want Tokyo to expand the SDF's activities to support US-led operations in Asia and elsewhere in the future.

Japan still cannot fully be involved in US military operations. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution prohibits the use of force as a means of settling international disputes, and the SDF is authorized to fight only if Japan itself is invaded, and then only on Japanese territory or in the surrounding sea and air. For this reason, Japanese troops were deployed to Samawah, a southern Iraqi city, which the Japanese government claims as non-combat zone, strictly on a "humanitarian" mission. The 2003 Special Measures Law stipulates that the SDF can only be sent to areas where hostilities are not under way. To send troops into a combat zone would violate this law.

Article 9 of the constitution, the "war-renouncing" provision, states:

• 1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
• 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of aggression of the state will not be recognized. (NOTE: For years the Japanese have played the "rename game" of redesignating their destroyers and cruisers with names that indicate coastal defense. In truth, Japan has a full-blown blue water navy that is only missing a carrier to make a carrier battle group.)

(Ref: The Asia Times, Japan to become 'Britain of the Far East' on 24 Feb 2005)

Forces could be relocated to Camp Fuji and the Japanese SDF and USFJ would become the "defense line" against North Korea. The MDS for Japan (Aegis destroyer with Patriot 3) is anticipated to be in place by 2006. The 5th AF that moved to Guam with the 13th AF could return to Yokota to assume the new air component headquarters for the region. According to The Asia Times, Japan to become 'Britain of the Far East' on 24 Feb 2005, "For ordinary Japanese, the issue of the consolidation and reduction of US military bases in Japan, especially in Okinawa, is more important than anything else. The two nations agreed to accelerate consultations based on the objectives of realigning US military forces in Japan, committing themselves to reduce the burden on local communities hosting US forces while maintaining effective deterrence. Still, the relocation of US military units such as those in Okinawa to other local cities and towns could trigger strong opposition from concerned local governments and communities in the coming months." The two countries agreed to look into handing over to Japan US-held base management and air-traffic-control rights in order to expand the joint use of the facilities, including Yokota Air Base in Tokyo. If this new arrangement is realized, the SDF would manage the bases and use them in conjunction with the US military. By reducing the current footprints of US bases, Washington appears to seek those bases being made permanent but less offensive, despite strong anti-base movements such those as in Okinawa. (Ref: The Asia Times, China seethes at US-Japan 'meddling' (24 Feb 2005))

At the same time, the threat of the Chinese invasion could be increased. In Feb 2005, China pushed through anti-cessation law pointed at the Taiwan independence movement. Japan has openly come out to state that the Taiwan Straits are in its strategic interests in backing the US position. Currently the 7th Fleet operating out of Yokosuka are a major deterent to Chinese aggression against Taiwan dating back over 50 years. China looks to the new US-Japan alliance as a threat. First, Beijing considers the revitalized US-Japan military alliance as part of Washington's containment strategy against China. Second, the new defense guidelines extend the alliance's defense perimeter to include the Taiwan Strait. Third, the revitalized alliance allows the Japanese Self-Defense Force to take on additional responsibilities. Beijing is increasingly worried that a more assertive Japan actively involved in the region's security affairs and seeking to be a "normal" power will emerge as a result of the US-Japan accord. (Ref: The Asia Times, China seethes at US-Japan 'meddling' (24 Feb 2005))

The new Japanese defense guidelines and the recent defense white paper in effect give Japan the green light to go beyond the original mandate exclusively of self-defense to a broader collective defense function, therefore providing justification for Japan to intervene in regional security affairs. Japan already has one of the largest defense budgets in the world and has a reasonably sized (given its Peace Constitution) but best-equipped military in the region. In addition, Japan's industrial and technological wherewithal will provide it with ready resources should it decide to become a great military power at short notice, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. (Ref: The Asia Times,China seethes at US-Japan 'meddling' (24 Feb 2005))

Given Korea's phobia that Japan will again once again become a military power in the region, the US move closer to Japan starts to create problems. The US secretaries of state and defense met with their Japanese counterparts in Washington, DC, at the Security Consultative Committee (more commonly known as the "2+2 meeting") in Feb 2005. The joint statement released after the session on February 19 applauds the cooperation between the two countries, reaffirms the significance of the US-Japan security relationship to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region and beyond, and articulates a set of common strategic goals for the alliance. The joint declaration also notes Japan's efforts to take a more active role in international security affairs. That was it in a nutshell, but it also meant that the US-Japan were "locking-in" the progress made in the US-Japan solidarity as Prime Minister Koizumi's tenure is drawing to a close. The joint statement laid the foundation upon which Koizumi's successor will have to operate - preventing a potential regression of Japanese security policy following Koizumi's departure. The 2 plus 2 meeting joint statement was to first and foremost, show that the US-Japan alliance continues to evolve towards a global strategic alliance. Second, the joint statement was an effort by both governments to "lock in" the progress that has been made within the alliance to date. Third, the joint statement signaled that Tokyo is consolidating its national-security policy priorities around the US-Japan alliance. (Ref: The Asia Times, Devil in the details of US-Japan pact on 12 Mar 2005)

Meanwhile, Japan's media has saturated the public with the "getting tough" rhetoric, fashioned by its right-wingers and endorsed even by socialists and communists: rhetoric to impose economic sanctions against North Korea (not so easy); to end Japan's official development assistance (ODA) to China; to launch preemptive strikes against North Korea; to identify "enemies" and "threats" (China and North Korea) in its most recent "Defense Outline"; to rearm Japan even with nuclear weapons (see Ayako Doi, "Unforeseen Consequences: Japan's Emerging Nuclear Debate," PacNet Newsletter, #12, March 13, 2003, www.csis.org/pacfor/pac0312.htm); and to blame Asian nations for their displeasure with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, where the class-A war criminals are enshrined. (Ref: The Asia Times, The fault lines that could shake Asia on 13 Mar 2005)

---

North Signals "CONDITIONAL" return to Nuclear Talks Kim Jong-il signaled to Chinese envoy Wang Jiarui that Pyongyang was ready to return conditionally to the six-party talks on 23 Feb, appearing to back away slightly from the North's stunning Feb. 10 declaration that it possessed nuclear weapons and would indefinitely boycott the discussions. Kim Jong Il has effectively presented four conditions for returning to the six-way talks on its nuclear programs, including a demand for a security guarantee from the US. Kim also told a senior PRC official on Feb. 21 that he wants the US to give its reasons for describing the DPRK as one of the world's "outposts of tyranny," provide an assurance that it will negotiate with the DPRK on an equal basis and show by actions that it can be trusted.

On 26 Feb, South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon and his new six-party talks counterpart, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill, will be joined by Kenichiro Sasae, chief of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asia-Oceania bureau who arrived in Seoul on 25 Feb for the strategy session. The three men are expected to discuss the results of Wang's meeting with the North's leader, following individual briefings from China.

Though the meeting signals the onset of a tri-party agreement on the North's nuclear stance, there are serious issues pending on how to handle the North. The ROK continues with signals for reapproachment, aid and increased "carrots" for the North. The Japanese are ready to levy sanctions over the abductee issue -- that Kim Jong-il called the DNA tests that proved the returned remains of one of the abductees as not the persons fabrications by the Japanese. The first of the sanctions takes place in March as all ships entering Japanese ports must show proof of insurance to cover oil spills, etc. Only 2.5 percent of the North Korean ships that visited Japanese ports in 2004 possessed such insurance. The US has announced its position to control tyrannies worldwide -- an oblique reference to North Korea -- thus supporting regime change. These are all disparate positions and need to be resolved. In our opinion, the US and Japan are in-sync as the sanctions support the US idea of regime change if the fragile economy of the DPRK collapses. Perhaps wishful thinking, but nevertheless it has been the course the US has chosen for the past four years.

PRC asked Japan to help convince the US to soften its stance over the DPRK in order to bring Pyongyang back to the six-way talks, a move that could put Tokyo in an awkward position. Beijing made the request to Japan following a visit to Pyongyang by Wang Jiarui, head of the PRC Communist Party's International Department, in late Feb. The US ambassador and negotiator Christopher Hill stated "We have a full intention to meet North Korean representatives separately and discuss if it is within the framework of the six-party talks." (NOTE: This a different stance as the US up to this point has been "moderate" -- even in making contact between the DPRK and the US within the framework of six-party talks. "What we mean by a wide-ranging forum of discussions is that it would include the format that North Korea wants," ROK negotiator Song said on KBS radio.)

In the first meeting, the US and Japan stated that North Korea should return to the negotiating table WITHOUT CONDITIONS. The ROK didn't comment. Instead, the ROK announcement was that the three countries agreed that the delivery of fertilizer as humanitarian aid to the North was a ROK perogative, though the ROK stated that it would not do so without a new inter-Korea agreement on the subject. If you read between the lines, there is a big difference between "the ROK said" and "the three countries said." In other words, the ROK simply stated its view and the others did not comment. The ROK has continued with its intent to open the Kaesong industrial area with KEPCO (Korean Electric Power Company) supplying the electricity for the South Korean companies starting operations there in March 2005. The railroad connections between the North and South are to be completed by Dec 2005.

On 15 March, KEPCO will start transferring power after it succeeded in testing the supply of electricity to the complex. The corporation set up 220 power poles in the 25 kilometers between South Korea's Munsan substation and the complex for the electricity supply. Currently, three small and medium sized South Korean companies which have established operations in the complex use electricity from their own generators. KEPCO is to supply 15,000 kilowatts of electricity but plans to increase the power to 100,000 kilowatts by 2007 when 300 more companies are expected to be operating production facilities in the complex. The supply will pave the way for running production lines in the industrial park on a stable basis.

The Kaesong complex, which aims to combine the South's capital and entrepreneurial expertise with the North's cheap labor, is considered the crowning achievement of the June 2000 summit between then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Companies in the 28,000-pyeong (92,400-square-meter) pilot complex that began operations late last year are currently running at about 30-percent capacity, largely because of electricity shortages. The state-run Korea Land Corp., which is in charge of the distribution of the complex, is set to distribute 50,000 pyeong and bring more small- and mid-sized firms into the complex within this year. The size of the complex in the first stage of development amounts to 1 million pyeong, with the total size expected to reach 20 million pyeong. South Korean officials hope the Kaesong project will help prod North Korea into opening up to the outside world and lead to an easing of tension over the North's nuclear arms program.

In actuality, the ROK is about to blow its foot off with its continued support of the North. IF the Article 9 constitutional amendment passes in Japan, there will be a immediate move to relocate the CFC functions to Camp Zama with a relocation of the I Corps from Washington state to oversee the combined forces. The UNC functions will remain in Korea as a contingency unit -- and much smaller. Mobility forces can be relocated to Camp Fuji -- and the Marines can relocate out of Okinawa. The combined 5th/13th AF can be reestablished in Japan again. Things would change in a hurry and Korea will see its comfortable economic climate disappear. Investment in Korea will no longer be "safe." Everything will be rearranged...including the power structures.

Currently the ROK must rely almost solely on the US for intelligence. However, Japan has successfully launched a weather satellite that put its spy satellite program back on track. The New York Times ("AFTER FAILURES, SPACE EFFORT IN JAPAN GETS A LIFT", 2005-03-01) reported that a 16-story-high rocket blasted into the tropical night on Saturday, firmly placing Japan back in Asia's space race. The successful launch and deployment of a weather satellite over the Pacific from this remote island 650 miles southwest of Tokyo restored morale to a rocketry program battered by its rival in the PRC. Japan's rocket program is seen increasingly to have military applications. Japan launched its first military spy satellite from here in March 2003. The November 2003 launch that failed was an effort to orbit two more. These spy satellites are intended to give Japan "shutter control," the independent ability to photograph its neighbors, notably the PRC and DPRK, at will and in secret. At one time the ROK had lofty dreams of a space program as well with a launch base in the Cholla provinces in 2003, but that was shelved simply because the realities of budget concerns came to the forefront. In 2005, it was talking of placing a satellite in space with the aid of Russia.

On 28 Feb the conservative Sankei Shimbun reported that the DPRK had told officials in the ROK it was willing to take part in six-party talks on its nuclear arms program in June and offer to suspend the program in hopes of aid and a US pledge not to invade. Pyongyang also said in its message, which was conveyed to the ROK by unofficial routes and then to Japan by Seoul, that it was willing to sign a treaty with the US by October. A Japanese Foreign Ministry official denied the report.

---

IS THERE REALLY A NUKE??? US Military Action against North Limited This is a rehash of what we have said all along and the world knows -- but deserves being retold again. Wall Street Journal ("OPTIONS WITH IRAN, NORTH KOREA ARE LIMITED; U.S. MILITARY'S AVAILABLE CHOICES TO CURB SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS CARRY HAZARDS", 2005-02-28) reported that an American strike on the DPRK or Iranian nuclear facilities seems far from likely. In both countries, Mr. Bush lacks good military options to eliminate or significantly degrade nuclear ambitions. If the DPRK isn't bluffing, the nuclear weapons and the weapons-grade plutonium could be hidden almost anywhere in the country, making it harder for the US to destroy them. The US also believes that the DPRK has developed a separate, uranium-based effort, but officials say they have no idea where those facilities may be hidden. The US does seem better equipped today than before to respond to a DPRK conventional military attack thanks to precision-guided munitions and better intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, said Thomas Mahnken, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. Still, he said, the damage to Seoul with conventional artillery cannons would likely be vast if the DPRK attacked, so initiating hostilities "is not an attractive option in the least."

Map of North Korea Missile and Nuclear facilities

Jane’s Digest ("IS NORTH KOREA BLUFFING AGAIN?", 2005-02-28) reported that given the almost complete absence of reliable intelligence and the virtual impossibility of access to the DPRK, any assessment of the 'Hermit Kingdom's' nuclear program is necessarily based on incomplete and unverifiable information. However, there are some points of agreement among Western and ROPK intelligence analysts. The most important fact is that, to date, no nuclear test has been carried out by Pyongyang. As a result, ROK and other international officials stressed that it is still too early to declare that the DPRK is now a nuclear power. They add that the alleged weapons have neither been tested, nor have their existence been confirmed beyond doubt.

However, it was reported in Asahi Shimbun on 27 Feb 2005 that the PRC had dropped its initial doubts and now agrees with the US that the DPRK has a uranium-based nuclear program. The PRC had long questioned the US accusation, saying Washington had not shown conclusive evidence that a uranium program existed. But Beijing in recent months has edged toward the US position. However, soon after the announcement, there were indications that the PRC was vacillating as an official stated that he did NOT believe the DPRK had nuclear weapons.

The ROK continues its skepticism. Agence France-Presse ("‘N. KOREA HAS NO WORKING FACILITY FOR ENRICHED URANIUM?, 2005-02-28) reported that the ROK National Intelligence Service (NIS) told the National Assembly that the DPRK has some components of an atomic program but is unlikely to be able to produce nuclear weapons. The NIS said Pyongyang probably purchased materials in 2000 to produce the prototypes for centrifuges needed for an enriched uranium program that would be the first step towards building a nuclear arsenal. But tight international surveillance had prevented the DPRK from obtaining other key equipment. This stance places it on the opposite side of the table from the US with the PRC skeptics.

Gary Milhollin, the director of the U.S.-based Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, said the statement may simply be a way for North Korea to attract attention. "This statement by North Korea that it has nuclear weapons, and it doesn't want to talk to us anymore, what I think you could say about this is that they are trying to get our attention," he says. "They would like to get money from us, and if they don't, then we have to worry about what they might do next -- and that could include selling nuclear weapons to people we don't like, such as terrorists. That's the concern that we should have at this time."

---

MARCH 2005

AWSJ Accuses Seoul of Propping Up Kim Jong-il and Others Join In The Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) said on 11 Mar 2005 that the gap between the U.S. and South Korea over how to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat was growing wider. The AWSJ article, "North Korea Finds Unlikely Ally: Seoul," the conservative paper said that while the U.S. was trying to increase economic pressure on Pyongyang, block nuclear proliferation and reduce the North Korean military threat, South Korea was busy keeping its former enemy afloat with aid and economic cooperation. Currently civic groups have started sending food and other donations to the DPRK. But this is the small time aid, the items needed are tons of fertilizer and food/rice which the South pays for out of a special fund claiming it is for "humanitarian" needs. However, at the same time, the ROK does NOT monitor the distribution of these goods so they may end up for military purposes for all that is known.

While the UN Food Program is scaling back its food distribution because the North will not allow it to monitor the distribution in certain areas, the South continues its humanitarian aid WITHOUT monitors. In fact, the North asked the UN to close its Humanitarian Aid office in Pyongyang -- with no reason given. On 29 Mar 2005, Itar-Tass reported that the DPRK had tightened restrictions on the traveling inside the country for staffers of international humanitarian organizations, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in Beijing. The government has cut the number of visits that Red Cross officials are allowed to make to North Korean hospitals by 30 percent-50 percent in recent months without any explanation to authorities, said John Sparrow, a Beijing-based spokesman for the agency. Since late 2004, a third to half of the federation's requests for random visits to 2,300 Red Cross-equipped hospitals, routine trips to 120 communities with Red Cross-backed water sanitation projects and checks of disaster preparedness sites have been turned down. Representatives of international organizations have no opportunity now to control how humanitarian aid arriving in the DPRK from abroad is used, which may make donor countries reduce the financing of humanitarian aid or refuse aid altogether. The comments echo reports by other aid groups that they face new restrictions. Donors have warned the Red Cross that if agencies are not given access to monitor how aid is used, "it could have serious consequences to the effect that certain programs will no longer be funded."

The video tape of the summary executions in the North was taken by hidden camera on 1 and 2 March and smuggled out of the DPRK by underground human rights groups. (See Christian Science Monitor on 29 March 2005 for article.) The Christian Science Monitor reported that at the time its release, refugee groups in Seoul were ecstatic. It looked like a human rights slam-dunk: yet in a twist not anticipated by underground groups that carried off the filming, ROK TV authorities have not let the video be broadcast. The only public airing of the tape in Korea came March 25 in a basement room of the Seoul National Assembly Library. However, the video tapes have NOT been released for broadcast by ROK TV authorities though still shots have been seen. Korean execution tapes, purportedly of "middlemen" who help refugees escape to China, are not yet available for viewing by Koreans in the South. The indirect censure adds to frustration among those documenting the gulags and torture in the North.

It also raises anew questions about a five-year policy in Seoul of studiously avoiding acts that might upset Pyongyang, for fear of harming fragile North-South relations. South Korea's ambivalence about a get-tough policy with North Korea may also factor into the mechanics of the six-party talks over the North's recently declared nuclear program. "We have told of many public executions [in the North]. But officials in Seoul always ask us for material evidence," says Pak Sang Huk, an escapee from the North. "Now that we have evidence, they don't want to see it.... The people who brought this tape through China were speechless when they visited KBS [Korean Broadcast Service] studios, and were shunned." Mr. Pak claims those who filmed the executions risked their lives to do so.

Of late, the South has stopped raising the North's abuses in international bodies. In 2003, South Korea withdrew from a UN Geneva process when it required a vote on North Korea's human rights record. In 2004, Seoul abstained from voting. On 7 Apr 2005, the Chosun Ilbo reported that the Seoul government had decided again to abstain from voting on a UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) resolution condemning violations of human rights in the DPRK. The resolution expresses concern about human rights abuses in the DPRK such as concentration camps for political prisoners. It calls on Pyongyang to ratify the Convention Against Torture and guarantee that the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the DPRK is allowed to operate freely.

Humanitarian and Unification groups in the ROK take the position that the fastest way to resolve the worsening tension between South and North Korea amid the North Korean nuclear crisis is through increased exchanges and humanitarian aid.

The Tongil News on 10 Mar showed photos of the trucks loaded with vinyl for "farmers" receiving a sendoff by well-wishers. The ROK NGO activists provided DPRK farmers with vinyl used for rice seedbeds to coincide with the spring planting season. Twelve NGOs, including "the South-North Sharing Campaign," donated about 48.4 million square meters of vinyl for seedbeds to grow rice seedlings in the impoverished DPRK. Another photo showed ministers at the port blessing the humanitarian goods headed north.

Yonhap news on 22 Mar 2005 reported that the ROK's two umbrella labor groups will deliver 200 tons of free fertilizer to the DPRK on Wednesday, officials said Tuesday. The aid will be shipped in eight 25-ton trucks to the DPRK's Mount Geumgang resort. A 16-member delegation from the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) will accompany them, officials said.

Later on 25 Mar it was reported that a Christian student group sent 120 sheep and hay via ship to North Korea as aid. On 29 Mar 2005, Yonhap news reported that four opposition legislators left for the DPRK to support an aid project by a ROK civic group. Representatives Lee Jae-oh, Kim Moon-soo, Bae Il-do and Kim Ae-sil of main opposition Grand National Party are on a three-day visit to the DPRK to support the project that will provide DPRK homes with some 50,000 heaters before the end of next year.

The ROK stated on 14 Mar that they were going to import 40 tons of North Korean chicken after the sites passed South Korean health standards. The chicken was to be tested and released, but the shipments were halted on 16 Mar after a North Korean defector stated that there had been outbreaks of Avian Flu in the North. South Korea was first hit by bird flu in December 2003, suffering serious damage to its poultry industry. Late last year, it saw another, less deadly bout at a duck farm in Gwangju before taking swift emergency measures. On 28 Mar 2005, the Wall Street Journal reported that the DPRK acknowledged for the first time an outbreak of bird flu at poultry farms near its capital, in a sign that the deadly avian virus endemic in Southeast Asia could be greatly expanding its geographic reach. Pyongyang's official news agency reported Sunday that hundreds of thousands of chickens had been destroyed in an effort to curb the spread of the disease, which had killed birds at "a few chicken farms." The Korea Central News Agency report also said that no people were known to have been infected with the virus. On 28 Mar 2005, the BBC News reported that the ROK has said it is ready to help the DPRK combat bird flu, after the DPRK publicly admitted on Sunday that it was fighting the virus. Pyongyang has not asked Seoul for assistance, but a ROK official said the official announcement appeared to indicate the DPRK would accept aid. "North Korea, plagued by food shortages, has struggled to modernise and build facilities for the breeding and processing of chicken, a main source of animal protein," Kwon Tae-jin, an expert on DPRK agriculture based in Seoul, told the ROK Munhwa Ilbo newspaper. On 29 Mar the Donga Ilbo reported that the DPRK had slaughtered around 10 million chickens nurtured in the Pyongyang region after the outbreak of bird flu in the area's chicken farms. About 18.73 million chickens are raised all across the country. The Joongang Ilbo on 29 Mar reported that ROK intelligence sources said yesterday that the DPRK was apparently afraid of the spread of bird flu to top officials when it canceled an annual meeting of its highest legislative body scheduled to take place on March 9. Japan and Hong Kong have stopped the import of live birds from the DPRK until the outbreak is contained.

The AWSJ said Seoul was providing aid to the North because it believed that if the economically destitute and heavily armed North Korean regime were to collapse, the economic and political costs for South Korea would be enormous. It said most South Korean officials were opposed to measures that could destabilize Kim Jong-il's regime. This is true as in the 1990s, the Koreans were accusing the Americans of stalling the process, but when they found out that it could become a reality, they started to propose a ten-year "phase-in" period for unification. The South fears the collapse of the North will release a flood of North Koreans over the border into the South. Much like the American border with Mexico, only a thousand times worse.

The paper said in a situation where military action was unrealistic, South Korea's policy of reconciliation tied Washington's hands. It said Pyongyang's two patrons, Seoul and Beijing, were hesitant to even consider economic sanctions out of fear of a North Korean collapse. In fairness, it should be said that Bejing has used its oil as a leverage to coerce the North into attending the talks -- and has moved troops to the border to attempt to stem the massive flow of North Koreans across the border.

The ASWJ said friction between Seoul and Washington was particularly intense over the joint North-South Kaesong Industrial Project. In the first stage of the project alone, 300 Korean companies were scheduled to employ 75,000 North Korean laborers and invest US$9.6 billion over nine years. The first of the companies has started operations in 2005. Along with international aid and trade, this would greatly ease North Korea's economic difficulties. The paper quoted Institute for International Economics senior fellow Marcus Noland as saying US$1-2 billion in funds a year was sufficient to keep the North Korean regime afloat.

What is frightening is that the ROK has opened its "copyright" of "Made in Korea" to be applicable to North Korean goods manufactured in Kaesong -- or the use of "Made in Korea (Gaesong)." This will allow the North to gain a foothold in receiving much needed foreign capital infusions. The US is also very concerned of the transfer of "dual-use" technology to the North and held heated talks with the South over this issue. Though there was an agreement, the impression was that it was not one that was in full agreement -- and rather one the US is taking a wait-and-see attitude for the first sign that the South violates its treaty responsibilities. The South is footing the bill for providing electricity to the Kaesong area through KEPCO -- and the railroad to the Kaesong area is expected to be in full operation by December 2005. (NOTE: Yonhap ("SOUTH KOREA TO EASE RESTRICTIONS ON CROSS-BORDER TRAFFIC", 2005-03-23) reported that the ROK will ease regulations on inter-Korean trade and cross-border traffic as the two Koreas move towards greater economic cooperation, the Unification Ministry said Wednesday (23 March). Under the new regulations, which are expected to go into effect next week, the ROK will abolish military inspections for its vehicles crossing over to the DPRK border town of Kaesong. In addition, ROK citizens will be allowed to visit the Kaesong industrial park simply by undergoing inspections at immigration and the quarantine offices. The ROK also plans to simplify the procedures for bringing goods produced in the DPRK's industrial park across the border, the officials said.)

On 13 March, the ROK stated that it would ease regulations on organizations that provide humanitarian assistance in North Korea. The Unification Ministry said would remove a guideline mandating at least one year of consistent dealings or contact with North Korea before an aid body can apply for a government-issued license. The license that designates an organization as a "North Korea support group" entitles the holder to receive assistance from a government fund set aside to facilitate South-North cooperation. Another rule demanding verification of the source of the funding to conduct humanitarian programs in North Korea will also be abolished. (NOTE: In other words, if you wanted to aid North Korea as the US and Japan tighten the noose on transactions with the North, the ROK won't check as is mandated by the National Security Law -- but that just got bypassed.) "The scrapping of the 'one-year' clause should allow more groups to take part in helping North Korea," said a government policy maker. He added that the Unification Ministry will move to ease further restrictions hindering humanitarian assistance from moving across the border. Seoul will work to ensure the aid reaches those most in need, and that humanitarian efforts provide a steady and consistent flow of relief, according to government authorities. (NOTE: We wonder how since there is no mechanism and the ROK government refuses to push the matter.)

Then on 29 Mar 2005, Asia Pulse/Yonhap News reported that the ROK and DPRK are working to set up another joint industrial complex, this time in Pyongyang and for small- and medium-sized companies, a business association in Seoul said. "We have forged an agreement with representatives from the North to push for the construction of an industrial complex in Pyongyang," said Kim Young-il, who heads an inter-Korean business investment association. "The North will provide the site, labor, and raw materials, while the South will supply capital, technology and other facilities." This is the same proposal that the ROK had made when it first started the idea of industrial free economic zones. At that time the DPRK offered an area to the north that was totally unsuitable because of inaccessibility, lack of infrastructure, and other problems. The ROK business conglomerates proposed a site near Pyongyang instead. The DPRK refused and instead launched its own version of a free autonomous economic zone on the border with China and appointed a flamboyant Chinese (of Dutch nationality) entrepenuer as the head. However, the zone idea soon turned into a fiasco where the entrepenuer was imprisoned by China for embezzlement and fraud. Nothing has mentioned of this zone since. This may be simply a pipe dream as the DPRK still remains fearful of the "contamination" of foreign elements -- especially so near to its center of power.

---

Congressman slap at Korea; Korea slap at Congressman Chosun Ilbo ran a story on the "U.S. Congress Catches South Korea Chill." In it the story stated that "The chairman of the U.S. House International Relations Committee said Thursday South Korea must make up its mind who the enemy is before it can expect U.S. help in an emergency. Rep. Henry Hyde, during a House hearing on the North Korean nuclear issue, was referring to the omission of the term "main enemy" for North Korea in the 2004 Korean Ministry of Defense white paper despite the fact that continued hostility from the North was a major basis of the Korea-U.S. alliance. Hyde said the white paper nonetheless counted on some 690,000 U.S. soldiers being deployed to Korea in the event of a conflict.

But the remark has been read in a much broader context as indicating "Washington's discontent over Seoul's handling of the North Korea issue has made its way into the U.S. Congress." Hyde said it was only appropriate to ask for a clear definition of who South Koreas enemy is if it wants U.S. help. The new chillier atmosphere was palpable when both houses of the U.S. Congress unanimously passed the North Korea Human Rights Act late last year despite opposition in South Korea. It has been admitted that Korea and the U.S. were experiencing difficulty over the disappearance of the "main enemy" concept.

The article stated, "Hyde's statement reflects what many within the U.S. Congress have been silently thinking. Both Washington and Seoul have been stressing the solid nature of the alliance through summits and discussions between foreign ministers, but congressional conservatives - and especially Korea experts with civilian think tanks - say fundamental disagreements lie just below the surface."

The article stated, "Even though the U.S. Congress, like the National Assembly, is divided into hawks and doves, conservatives and progressives, it is no exaggeration that the entire U.S. legislature has fallen in with the hard line when it comes to North Korea's nuclear program. Hydes comments are emblematic of the dissatisfaction with Seoul spreading in Washington as a sense of crisis over North Korea deepens."

In other words, the US Congress conservatives are not happy that the ROK wants to pursue reapproachment with the North while at the same time retaining the US troops in the ROK. However, at the same time the ROK wants these troops to NOT be used as part of a regional force. He said Seoul was sending mixed signals in security matters and thereby making the North Korea issue more difficult.

Visiting politicians have stated that the mood of the U.S. Congress had gotten very hardline after Pyongyang's Feb. 10 declaration that it has nuclear arms. Despite the political correct statements of praise for the Iraq support and kudos on the US-ROK alliance, in a roundabout way, U.S. lawmakers and government officials have been complaining about Seoul's policy of engagement with Pyongyang. There is concern about South Korean fertilizer aid to the North and intra-Korean economic cooperation continuing regardless of the nuclear crisis.

In response to Rep. Hyde's statements of the ROK needing to designate its "main enemy," Unification Minister Chung Dong-young on on 14 Mar 2005 dismissed as "inappropriate" a taunt from a U.S. lawmaker that Korea should make up its mind who the enemy is before it can rely on U.S. help. According to the Chosun Ilbo Chung said Northeast Asia was trying to move from hostile confrontation to coexistence, reconciliation and cooperation and Hyde's confrontational thinking was not helpful in resolving problems. The statements was made in Chung's capacity as chairman of the National Security Council and was likely to cause tremors in the Korea-U.S. relationship. In effect, Chung slapped Hyde across the mouth in his contemptuous remark.

As Unification Minister, Chung said Seoul would "consider several situations and independently decide how to proceed with aid" to the North. In other words, the Seoul government would proceed with reapproachment -- a signal that there may be discord ahead in the "unified stance" of the US/Korea/Japan in dealing with North Korea. In effect, Chung said that Korea will do whatever Korea thinks best -- and the US opinion is not needed.

Unfortunately the game is not over and President Roh has increased the ante. The relationship between the US and Korea is at the crossroads -- and Roh and his Unification Minister (who views himself as a potential Presidential candidate and thus must make the appropriate Presidential-like posturing). Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Ban is running around like crazy trying to mend fences.

According to the article, "Chung retorted that to call for Korea to first designate an enemy before it receives U.S. help is a misunderstanding of the object and spirit of the alliance. He said no nation in the world, the U.S. included, designates enemies in its defense ministry white papers. He added there was no change in Seoul's position that the U.S. is an ally and North Korea an ethnic brother." This should cause some Americans in power to start to reevaluate their support of the ROK -- because Chung was simply playing two sides against the middle. (NOTE: We beg to differ with the concept that no nation has designated a specific nation as its main enemy as Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union, "The Evil Empire." "Glasnost" and Gorbechov changed that image of Russia as the MAIN enemy. The Cold War was based on two designated enemies, the Russians facing Europe and NATO -- while China had been flagged as a target ever since it became a nuclear power with the aid of the Russians. Only after Nixon did tensions ease.)

---

US-Korea relations at Crossroads Richard Halloran is a writer we respect highly. He was one of the few who flagged the anti-American campaign in Korea in 2002 while the respect of the world's journalists chose to look the other way. Richard Halloran also was the first to "pop the cork" on the potential reorganization of the USFK and PACAF. At the time, the USFK denied his article