SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (2587)2/3/2002 9:56:20 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15516
 
Powell tells aides not to dilute Bush's words
about `axis of evil,' official says


GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, January 31, 2002
WASHINGTON (AP) --

Concerned about dilution of President
Bush's warnings to North Korea and
other nations, Secretary of State Colin
Powell told aides Thursday to stick by
Bush's words when discussing the
issue with reporters, a senior official
said.

The official, who asked not to be
identified, said Powell was troubled
that news accounts of Bush's State of
the Union comments suggested he
didn't mean to be as belligerent as he
sounded. The official said unidentified
administration sources were
responsible for the backtracking.

Meanwhile, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, reinforcing Bush's
State of the Union comments, called
North Korea "the world's No. 1
merchant for ballistic missiles."

She said the United States has offered
"a road map" to North Korea in its
efforts to halt that practice, but "we've
had no serious response from
Pyongyang."

Bush, citing North Korea's efforts to
develop missiles and weapons of mass
destruction, said Pyongyang was part of
an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq.

He said the three threaten the peace of
the world and warned that they could
transfer their arms to terrorists.

Despite Bush's tough rhetoric, the
senior official said the United States
was unlikely to use force against North
Korea any time soon.

Apparently to guard against leaks,
nobody in the State Department, with
the possible exception of Powell, was
informed in advance of Bush's harsh
new tone, the senior official said.
People normally apprised of such
developments ahead of time were
caught flatfooted, he said.

Balbina Hwang, an East Asia analyst at
the Heritage Foundation, agreed with
the senior official that war is not
imminent. Bush's goal, she said, is "to
get North Korea's attention" in hopes
that the country will reconsider its
policy of sending arms and
weapons-related materials to countries
in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Powell's spokesman, Richard Boucher,
reaffirmed that the administration is
prepared to talk with North Korea "any
time, any place" about security issues.
Bush invited the North Koreans to
engage in such discussions six months
ago.

Boucher added that the United States
also is prepared to talk with Iran if that
country is ready to "deal seriously" with
Bush's ideas. Boucher did not suggest
that the administration is prepared to
talk with Iraq.

An unidentified North Korean
spokesman said Bush's comments were
"little short of declaring a war" against
that country.

"We are sharply watching moves of the
United States that have pushed the
situation to the brink of war after
throwing away even the mask of
dialogue and negotiations," the official
said in comments to the official KCNA
news agency.

Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst
with the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, said in a newly
updated report based on a Pentagon
assessment that North Korea's sale of
missile technology to Iran "has created
an immediate, serious and growing
capability to target U.S. forces and
allies in the Middle East."

He said such sales to both Iran and
Pakistan "have had an impact on the
strategic balance in the Middle East
and South Asia."

Cordesman wrote that North Korea's
nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons programs, coupled with its
missile program, probably are "key
components of its overall security
strategy."


sfgate.com · Printer-friendly version
· Email this article to a friend



To: Mephisto who wrote (2587)2/19/2002 4:49:15 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 15516
 
Bush Is Dogged by 'Axis of Evil' in Visit to Japan
Asia: Protesters, media criticize remarks and express concern over Washington's plans.


February 19, 2002
E-mail story
Los Angeles Times

By ROBIN WRIGHT and MARK MAGNIER, Times Staff Writers

TOKYO -- President Bush may be on a swing
through Asia, but the issue that is increasingly
shaping his visit, in public anyway, is the "axis of
evil."

Editorials are warning about the dangerous
implications for the world of the president's
characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Demonstrators are protesting the possibility of a
new U.S. military campaign. And both Bush and his
senior staff are increasingly on the defensive as they
are deluged with questions about the
administration's plans for dealing with the three
countries.

"We want to resolve all issues peacefully, whether it
be Iraq, Iran or North Korea," the president said
Monday when pressed about his intentions by a
Japanese reporter at a joint news conference with
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

Afterward, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
hastened to tell reporters traveling with the
president that America's allies should not fear "a
state of war tomorrow." He added, "Let's not
swoon."

The president's six-day tour was designed to boost relations with the three
countries most critical to long-term U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region:
Japan, South Korea and China. Yet in an editorial, the Japanese daily Asahi
Shimbun charged that Bush's comments have increased regional tensions and
displayed a complete disregard for local sensitivities, while the Okinawa Times
said the U.S. is following a misguided law-of-the-jungle approach.

"America's aggressive threats, instead of reducing North Korea's isolation,
threaten to further isolate that country and spur instability," the Okinawa paper
said. "If America takes the military steps it's threatened, there's no logical basis
to its war on terror."


Student, labor and civic group protesters voiced their own disapproval of the
Bush comments Monday in a series of modest demonstrations in Tokyo,
Hiroshima and Osaka.

In one display, a band from the civic group Peace Boat danced in Tokyo's
crowded Shinjuku district sporting banners that read, "Who's the Real Axis of
Evil?" beside a cartoon of the president.

"Bush is evil axis No. 1," said Peace Boat spokeswoman Hanna Jongepier.

And Japan is likely to be the most receptive of the three nations Bush will visit.

Despite his attempt Monday to reassure America's allies, Bush continued to
hammer away at the theme of the United States' intent to deal with the "axis"
countries.

"There should be no mistake about it. We will defend our interests," he said at
the news conference.

When pressed on whether the U.S. would go it alone if coalition partners
balked, Bush replied, "We cannot allow nations that aren't transparent, nations
with a terrible history, nations that are so dictatorial they're willing to starve
their people, to mate up with terrorist organizations."

World leaders he's talked to "fully understand, exactly, what needs to happen,"
the president added.

Koizumi expressed strong support for the U.S.-led fight against terrorism. But
there are growing signs that the public in Japan, the closest U.S. ally in Asia, is
wary of what looks to be the next phase of the campaign--which could in turn
influence the government's position.

For many Japanese, Bush's good-versus-evil language is unsettling on less
concrete grounds, as the product of a world view that sees black and white but
doesn't always seem to appreciate the area in between where most people live.

"It underscores the rather childish U.S. diplomacy," said Kazuto Suzuki, a
professor at the University of Tsukuba. "He's thrown up a stereotype, but
there's no hard evidence behind his charges."

Military issues also remain controversial in a nation with a constitution that bans
the use of force in settling disputes. In addition, Japanese are concerned about
the costs at a time when their debt-laden nation faces both mounting budget
problems and the threat of a banking meltdown.

"Japan wants to know how much it will need to contribute to future
international efforts," said Tetsuo Maeda, a defense expert at Tokyo
International University. "We're already at the limit of what we can do
financially and politically."

Many Japanese also fear the repercussions of any campaign against Iran or
Iraq--countries from which Japan buys oil--or North Korea. In the Mideast,
the fallout could be substantial for an energy-dependent nation.

"Other Middle Eastern nations would react negatively to any attack, so any
move by Japan in support of a U.S. campaign could spell trouble for Japanese
energy security," said Isamu Nakashima, a researcher at the Middle East
Institute of Japan.

Japan is home to about 1.7 million residents of Korean descent. North Asians,
in addition, prefer accommodation over confrontation.

"If the U.S. pushes too hard, it could backfire," said Ken Takada, a
representative of the Coalition Against Constitutional Reform, a Tokyo-based
civic group.

Bush's comments have already angered many second- and third-generation
Koreans living in Japan's second-largest city, said Tokuo Baba, a
representative of the Osaka Municipal Labor Union.

"They completely undermine efforts to work toward peace on the Korean
peninsula," he said.

Koizumi and Bush tried to make light of the "evil axis" questions.

"This is the arrow to beat the evil and bring you everlasting peace," Koizumi
said before presenting Bush with a print of a samurai rider--whose face
resembled the president's--shooting a bow and arrow.

latimes.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (2587)5/9/2002 2:47:11 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15516
 
War on terror may extend to Cuba

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 7, 2002
The Guardian

The US threatened to extend its war on terror to Cuba
yesterday, accusing Fidel Castro's regime of developing
biological weapons and sharing its expertise with Washington's
enemies.

In a speech called Beyond the Axis of Evil, the undersecretary
of state John Bolton presented no evidence for his claims,
pointing only to Cuba's advanced biomedical industry and Mr
Castro's visits last year to three "rogue states" accused by the
the US state department of sponsoring terrorism: Iraq, Syria and
Libya.


"States that renounce terror and abandon WMD [weapons of
mass destruction] can become part of our effort," Mr Bolton
said. "But those that do not can expect to become our targets."

Critics of the Bush administration's policies in Latin America
described the accusation as an attempt to exploit popular
support for the war on terror to pursue a rightwing political
agenda.


The administration has also accused Farc rebels in Colombia of
supporting anti-US terrorism, while calling for increased military
aid to Bogota.

Larry Birns, head of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
thinktank in Washington, said yesterday: "What is dangerous
now is that the anti-terrorist war has no standards and no
criteria. It is whatever the Bush administration says it is at any
given moment."

Mr Bolton, a rightwinger appointed against the wishes of the
moderate secretary of state, Colin Powell, told the conservative
Heritage Foundation: "For four decades Cuba has maintained a
well-developed and sophisticated biomedical industry, supported
until 1990 by the Soviet Union.

"This industry is one of the most advanced in Latin America, and
leads in the production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines that are
sold worldwide. Analysts and Cuban defectors have long cast
suspicion on the activities conducted in these biomedical
facilities."

A 1998 US government re port concluded that Cuba represented
no significant threat to the US, but Mr Bolton said its menace
had been underestimated by the Clinton administration, because
of to the malign influence of Cuban agents.

He pointed to the example of Ana Belen Montes, a senior Cuba
analyst at the defence intelligence agency who was discovered
to be a Cuban spy. She pleaded guilty to espionage in March.

"Montes not only had a hand in drafting the 1998 Cuba report
but also passed some of our most sensitive information about
Cuba back to Havana," he said.

· Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, provided a bleak
assessment yesterday of the country's chances of averting war
with America. He was speaking the day after Colin Powell
indicated that the US might take action even if Baghdad allowed
UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.

In a rare interview, Mr Aziz questioned whether the US was
simply looking for a pretext to attack his country.

guardian.co.uk



To: Mephisto who wrote (2587)5/9/2002 2:52:07 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 15516
 
Bush should give peace a chance

seattlepi.nwsource.com

Wednesday, May 8, 2002

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- To hear American officials starting with
President Bush tell it, you would think a U.S.-led invasion
of Iraq is inevitable.

Why would we want to do that? How many lives of
Americans and Iraqis are we prepared to sacrifice to topple
one man, Saddam Hussein? What right do we have to
overthrow the Iraqi regime anyway?

Yes, it violated U.N. resolutions in 1998 by ousting
international weapons inspectors who were trying to make
sure that it was not secretly producing chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons.

But other nations, including Israel, have violated U.N.
resolutions, and we have not tried to oust their leaders.


Since he came to power, Bush has been obsessed with
bringing about what he calls "a change of regime" in the
Iraqi dictatorship. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
says the effort would be accomplished by "whatever means"
it takes.

One explanation for Bush's fixation on ousting Saddam
Hussein is that he wants to avenge his father, who was
victorious against Iraq in the Persian Gulf war in 1991 but
failed to unseat its ruler. Conservatives have long accused
the elder Bush of not finishing the job in Baghdad.

However, considering the human cost, surely personal
vengeance is not a valid reason to start a Middle East
conflagration. Such a drastic move would anger even more
the already alienated Arab world against America.

Another of the administration's arguments for an attack is
that Iraq is a brutal dictatorship. It is, absolutely. But so are
other nations -- Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Burma, Libya,
for example. And Bush isn't trying to take them down.

Iraq may be making doomsday chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons. But wouldn't the United States make a
more persuasive case if it would publicly lay out whatever
evidence it has, such as satellite photos?

Assuming that Iraq has those weapons, it is not alone.
There are many nations, including the United States, that
have nuclear arsenals.

It would be better to keep international pressure on the
Iraqi regime for unrestrained U.N.-conducted weapons
inspections that might lead to a peaceful solution. A second
round of negotiations on the subject resumed at the United
Nations last week with Iraq hoping to extract some
concessions -- lifting economic sanctions against the
country and eliminating the no-fly zones overhead -- in
exchange for its permitting the return of the inspectors.

For all Bush's war-drum-beating, the president is still
trying to find a reason to attack Baghdad that would be
acceptable to the world. Heaven knows, administration
officials tried to find an Iraqi link to the Sept. 11 terrorist
acts against the United States. But they could not find one.

If Iraq continues to stiff the United Nations on weapons
inspections, it will be up to the member states to impose
penalties, not the United States acting unilaterally.

Ironically, the United States itself has refused to accept
weapons inspectors from countries it considers hostile.
Furthermore, this nation chooses the sites that inspectors
who are allowed in the country may inspect. Under special
legislation, the president can block unannounced
inspections and ban inspectors from removing samples of
its chemical stockpiles.

But, hey, who said we had to be fair?


The New York Times reported April 28 that the United
States is planning an air and ground invasion of Iraq early
next year that could involve the use of 70,000 to 250,000
troops.

Apparently, Bush's timetable for an all-out military drive
against Iraq this year was set back by the recent violent
confrontation between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The Times quoted anonymous military officers as saying the
operation would require pre-emptive strikes against
suspected chemical and biological weapons sites.
Administration officials fear that Saddam Hussein, who has
used chemical weapons in the past against Iran and against
Iraqi Kurds in his own country, would try them against
American troops.

It's doubtful that the United States can count on much
help from major Arab nations if it invades Iraq. NATO allies,
except for Britain, which genuflects to Bush in matters of
war and peace, may also balk.

In a telephone interview, Mohammed Aldoury, the Iraqi
ambassador to the United Nations, told me: "We challenge
anybody, Americans or others, to present one shred of
evidence" that his nation possesses weapons of mass
destruction. "They have not and they cannot."

Meantime, the United States used its clout last month to
oust Jose Bustani, the director-general of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which conducts
inspections of weapons labs and oversees destruction of
illegal stockpiles.

During his tenure, Bustani oversaw the destruction of 2
million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's
chemical weapon facilities. He also raised the number of
signers to the weapons convention from 87 to 145 in the
past five years.

But the Bush administration accused him of
mismanagement and "ill-considered initiatives" such as
threatening inspections in five unspecified nations.

The real reason, according to news reports, was that he
wanted to get Iraq to sign the anti-weapons convention and
become a member of the organization, a move the United
States strongly opposed.

Thus, his real sin was trying to provide an alternative to the
war with Iraq that the administration wants.


President Bush should give peace a chance. Let's not get
caught up in an arrogance of military power.

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.
E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2002 Hearst
Newspapers.

seattlepi.nwsource.com