|
Northeast Asia Peace and Security Network DAILY REPORT For Thursday, January 15, 1998, from Berkeley, California, USA |
PLEASE NOTE: There will be no Daily Report issued on Friday January 16 or Monday, January 19. The Daily Report will resume on Tuesday, January 20.
1. US Treasury Official Visits ROK
Reuters ("SUMMERS BEGINS TALKS WITH SOUTH KOREAN FIN MIN," Seoul,
01/15/98) reported that US Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence
Summers arrived in the ROK on Thursday and began talks with ROK
Finance Minister Lim Chang-yuel on the ongoing financial crisis.
Summers will meet President Kim Young-sam and President-elect Kim
Dae-jung on Friday morning.
2. ROK Labor Talks
The Associated Press (Sang-Hun Choe, "SOUTH KOREANS DISCUSS
LAYOFFS," Seoul, 01/15/98) and the New York Times (Nicholas D.
Kristof, "UNIONS AGREE TO DISCUSS LAYOFFS IN SOUTH KOREA," Seoul,
01/15/98) reported that ROK President-elect Kim Dae-jung on
Thursday urged unions and corporations to compromise in finding
an acceptable formula for layoffs. Speaking to a consultative
group of top business, labor, and government leaders, Kim stated,
"When businesses are collapsing, does it matter whether the
management wins or the labor union wins?" As part of the attempt
at compromise, the incoming government is offering to expand an
unemployment insurance fund begun two years ago. Meanwhile the
National Assembly decided to delay deliberation of a layoff bill
pending the outcome of the consultative group's talks.
3. Effect of Financial Crisis on ROK Military Spending
The Associated Press (Sang-Hun Choe, "S. KOREA FORCED TO SLOW
PROJECTS," Seoul, 01/15/98) and the Los Angeles Times (Paul
Richter, "CRISIS THWARTS PENTAGON EFFORTS TO BEEF UP ASIA
MILITARY," Washington, 01/15/98) reported that Chang Jae-shik, an
aide to President-elect Kim Dae-jung, said that the ROK's
economic crisis could delay or cancel several government spending
projects. Chang stated, "We simply don't have the money." In
particular, the ROK Defense Ministry is likely to delay a US$3
billion plan to buy four AWACS surveillance radar jets from the
US and a US$1.2 billion project to build three 1,500-ton
submarines. East Asian military spending reached US$165 billion
last year, and Asian purchases from US companies accounted for
about 25 percent US weapons sales. US officials also worry that
the financial crisis may hurt their efforts to induce the ROK to
pay a larger share of defense costs.
1. Global Land Mine Ban
[Ed. note: The following article by Ramesh Thakur ("NO TO TIME-
RELEASE MASS MURDER WEAPON,") first appeared in the Japan Times
on Wednesday, December 17, 1997, pg. 19. Ramesh Thakur is Head of
the Peace Research Centre in Canberra, Australia. In April he
will take up his appointment as vice rector of the United Nations
University in Tokyo. NAPSNet presents the article in its
entirety, with the permission of the author. An earlier article
by Dr. Thakur on the land mine ban can be found on the Special Reports Page]
The Mine Ban Treaty, signed in Ottawa on Dec 3-4 by over 120
countries, bans the use, production, acquisition, stockpiling and
transfer of all anti-personnel landmines except for a minimum
number for training. Antitank mines are still permitted, so long
as they are vehicle- or command- but not victim-activated. The
United States, Russia and China should climb aboard the Ottawa
Express. They have been left feeling lonely, exposed and
decidedly uncomfortable, especially after the award of the Nobel
Peace Prize to the antimine campaign.
Land mines should be outlawed because of the horrific nature of
injuries; because they are victim-activated; because 80-90
percent of the victims are civilian; and because they continue to
cause death and injury for decades after being sown: the weapon
of mass murder in slow motion. They are a humanitarian tragedy,
a threat to peace and stability and an obstacle to reconstruction
and development.
Existing stockpiles must be destroyed within three years of the
Ottawa Treaty's entry into force and minefields cleared within
10, although extensions of up to 10 years is possible. The
treaty is not subject to reservations or time limit. A party may
withdraw with six months' notice, but, if it is engaged in armed
conflict at the end of the six months, its withdrawal will be
suspended until the end of hostilities.
Washington had demanded a package of four modifications; all were
rejected. While US endorsement would have added significantly to
the convention's political weight, accommodating US wishes would
have greatly diluted the treaty. Its integrity proved more
important than US inclusion.
The Americans squabbled over the deferral period, wanting the
treaty to come into force after nine years; they wanted a change
in the definition of land mines in order to permit the continued
deployment of their mixed antitank, antipersonnel mine systems;
they pressed for the Korean Peninsula to be exempted from the
treaty because of its unique security environment; and they
wanted an opt-out clause in the event of war.
Some belittle the Ottawa Treaty as a 'feel good' outcome. We can
do with feeling good. Besides, like old age, it is better than
the alternative: a 'feel bad' treaty, or a 'feel empty'
nontreaty.
The NAPSNet Daily Report aims to serve as a forum for dialogue
and exchange among peace and security specialists.
Conventions for readers and a list of acronyms and
abbreviations are available to all recipients.
For descriptions of the world wide web sites used to gather
information for this report, or for more information on web
sites with related information, see the collection of
other NAPSNet resources.
Produced by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development.
Wade L. Huntley: napsnet@nautilus.org
Timothy L. Savage: napsnet@nautilus.org
Shin Dong-bom: dongbom.shin@anu.edu.au
Choi Chung-moon: cily@star.elim.co.kr
Hiroyasu Akutsu: akutsu@glocomnet.or.jp
Peter Razvin: icipu@glas.apc.org
Chunsi Wu: dlshen@fudan.ac.cn
Dingli Shen: dlshen@fudan.ac.cn
Return to the Top of this Daily Report
[Next Item][Contents]
[Prev. Item][Next Item][Contents]
[Prev. Item][Next Item][Contents]
[Prev. Item][Contents][Credits]
We invite you to reply to today's report, and we welcome
commentary or papers for distribution to the network.
Berkeley, California, United States
Berkeley, California, United States
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Tokyo, Japan
Moscow, Russian Federation
Shanghai, People's Republic of China
Shanghai, People's Republic of China