Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (2839)	2/15/2002 1:01:00 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 15516

Bush's Hard Line With North Korea Thu Feb 14, 9:01 AM ET By MICHAEL R. GORDON The New York Times WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — President Bush's tough stance toward North Korea has yet to stem its sales of ballistic missiles to nations like Iran, Syria or Libya. But his description of North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" has already distressed a long-time ally: South Korea. In recent days, State Department officials say, they have worked hard to ensure that Mr. Bush's visit to Asia next week will be perceived as a success, drafting a diplomatic script to ease South Korea's concerns. Mr. Bush will reaffirm his willingness — first voiced last summer — to negotiate with North Korea anytime and anywhere. In return, South Korea will endorse the president's fight against terrorism, American and Korean officials say. But those declarations will merely paper over a fundamental debate about the best way to deal with North Korea, one of the most isolated and militarized nations, and stanch the flow of its missile technology to other countries. Former American officials who have negotiated with North Korea have said that the administration's strategy is a virtual prescription for deadlock and that the North Koreans, while difficult negotiating partners, have kept to previous commitments. "I think the Bush administration has a visceral as well as an intellectual problem with negotiating with countries that are reprehensible in their domestic and international behavior," said Robert L. Gallucci, who negotiated the accord to freeze North Korea's nuclear program in 1994. "The administration says it is willing to meet anytime and anywhere with the North Koreans. But what they mean is that they are prepared to meet to accept North Korea's surrender on the points at issue." That sort of criticism draws a tart response from the administration, which insists that only its firm set of demands offers the hope of a genuine relaxation of tensions on the Korean peninsula. "There is great utility in entering into a broad-based dialogue with North Korea aimed at transforming the relationship and reducing the North Korean threat across the board," a senior official said. "If we begin these discussions, there is flexibility built in. The problem is that North Korea is unwilling to talk to us." The rhetoric from Washington seems unlikely to change the North Koreans' mind. Last week, the government in Pyongyang abruptly canceled a visit by American experts and academics that had been planned for after Mr. Bush's trip to Asia and was seen as a way for North Korea to maintain dialogue with the Americans, if not with the administration. In branding North Korea an evil and dangerous regime, the administration has repeatedly complained that North Korea is the world's principal missile exporter. Missile sales are an important source of hard currency for North Korea. Iran is developing a medium- range missile, the Shahab-3, which is derived from the North Korean Nodong missile. The Iranian system will have the range to strike Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and American officials worry that Iran will eventually develop a longer-range system, capable of striking American territory, by using technology for North Korea's Taepodong missiles. Syria, Libya and Egypt have been upgrading their missile force with North Korean assistance, according to American intelligence. Pakistan has also acquired Nodong missiles, although Pakistan is now in such good graces in Washington after its assistance in the war on Afghanistan that Mr. Bush did not raise the missile sales with President Pervez Musharraf, who was in Washington today. Despite food shortages and a desperately bad economy, North Korea devotes as estimated 25 percent of its gross domestic product to its one- million-strong military and has concentrated much of its firepower near the border with South Korea. But it also true that North Korea has kept its pledge not to test its missiles in flight, a step it would need to take to deploy a missile that could hit American territory with a nuclear-size payload. The Central Intelligence Agency recently reported that North Korea has also continued to abide by a freeze in its nuclear reactor program, as required under the accord negotiated by the Clinton administration. American officials also say North Korea no longer appears to be actively supporting terrorism. While the Bush administration is considering military action against Iraq, a pre-emptive American military campaign against North Korea is almost unthinkable. North Korean artillery is deployed so close to the border with the south that a war on the peninsula would virtually invite the destruction of the South Korea capital. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell stressed that no American offensive was being planned against the north. Before the Bush team took power, the Clinton administration conducted serious talks with North Korea on banning the export of all its missiles and missile technology. Clinton officials also sought to negotiate an end to the production, testing and deployment of North Korea's missiles that were capable of carrying a 1,000- pound payload more than 180 miles. Clinton officials believed they were within striking distance of an accord. They were trying to seal the deal with hundreds of millions of dollars a year in relief aid, free satellite launching services and a visit to Pyongyang by President Bill Clinton. But the Bush administration was never happy with this approach. After a review, it developed an approach that melded the State Department's interest in talks with the position of hard-liners in the government who believe Washington should wait for North Korea's collapse. The Bush administration stiffened the terms of the Clinton missile proposals by demanding stringent verification. It also broadened Washington's negotiating position by asking North Korea to accelerate inspections under the earlier accord that froze Pyongyang's nuclear program, and by insisting that North Korea reduce the threat posed by its conventional forces. At the same time, the administration has been vague about what financial rewards, if any, it might give. "The issue of conventional forces is extremely important," a senior Bush administration official said. "North Korea's conventional forces are very destabilizing and potentially as dangerous as its missile exports." North Korea reacted sharply to the tougher position and the two sides have yet to engage in serious dialogue. Some former officials say there is merit in the administration's effort to seek broad concessions. But they said Washington should be prepared to seek a separate deal banning missile exports if progress on a broader front cannot be made. "I think there is a good possibility of concluding a deal that bans the export of missiles and missile-related technology," said Robert J. Einhorn, who led talks with North Korea during the Clinton administration. So the immediate concern for the Bush administration is to assuage the concerns of South Korea. According to a recent poll by Hankyoreh, a South Korean newspaper, 54 percent of those surveyed believed Washington and Pyongyang were each to blame for the downturn in relations. Another 28 percent felt Washington was primarily to blame, while only 17 percent believed North Korea was more at fault. The poll, of 700 adults, had an error margin of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. "The Bush administration's strategy in Seoul will be to embrace South Korea and hold North Korea at arm's distance," said Kurt Campbell, a senior Pentagon official during the Clinton administration. "The political climate in Seoul will make that most challenging."

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (2839)	4/11/2002 8:12:58 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

The way things really are: Thoughts On Our War Against Terrorism Congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney t r u t h o u t \| Statement 03.28.02 Authorities tell us that the world changed on September 11. As a result, university professors must watch what they say in class or be turned in to the "speech" police. Elected officials must censor themselves or be censured by the media. Citizens now report behavior of suspicious-looking people to the police. Laws now exist that erode our civil liberties. Americans now accept these infringements as necessary to win America's New War. America, the world's only superpower, is stifled in its ability to defend human rights and democracy abroad because it has failed the fundamental test at home. Our combination of money and military might, and our willingness to use them, did not make us a superpower. We are the most powerful nation on the face of the planet because we have combined raw power with American ideals such as dignity, freedom, justice, and peace. These ideas and ideals are admired around the world and are more important, in my view, to our position of global strength than our ability to shoot a missile down a chimney. We might be feared because of our military, but we are loved because of our ideals. Sadly, we have put American goodwill at risk around the world because of an imbalance in our foreign policy that is palpable to even the most disinterested observer. In 1994, after an act of terrorism killed two sitting presidents, the Clinton Administration purposely failed to prevent the genocide of one million Rwandans in order to install favorable regimes in the region. In 1999 Madeleine Albright OK'd a Sierra Leone peace plan that positioned Foday Sankoh as Chairman of the Commission for the Management of Strategic Resources, a position that placed him answerable only to the President despite the fact that his terrorist organization raped little girls and chopped off their hands as it financed its way to power with illegal diamond sales. Jonas Savimbi, recently killed on the battlefield, helped the US protect the minority rule of racists in South Africa and his organization continues to rampage across southern Africa in Angola, Namibia, parts of Congo-Kinshasha, and Rwanda without restriction, financed by illegal diamond sales. The continued plunder of Africa's rich resources without penalty and sadly with the knowledge and support of powerful people in the US, serves as the foundation of the particular terrorism that victimizes Africans. And now, as Africans grapple with the fundamental right to control their own resources and despite United Nations reports making no such links, Bush Administration experts seem prepared to link African diamonds with anti-US terrorism, "necessitating" tightened US control over Africa's resources. And so, with no concern at all for the effects on others of US-supported terrorism, the US, with its bombs and military, embarks on a worldwide crusade against terrorism that Bush says likely will last as many as twenty years. The list of target countries is long with Afghanistan, Somalia, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, the Philippines, and Iraq offering the starters. But what of the fact that Henry Kissinger and the current new US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, both once lobbied Washington, DC on behalf of a US oil company, Unocal, and a softer policy toward the Taliban? Whose war is this really? In November 2000, Republicans stole from America our most precious right of all: the right to free and fair elections. In an organized manner, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State Katherine Harris, created a list of convicted felons--57,700 to be exact--to "scrub" from the state's voter rolls. The names were created from Florida records and from lists provided by 11 other states, the largest list coming from Texas. We now know that most of the people on that list were innocent of crimes. The list was a phony. And worse, the majority of these rightful voters were people of color and likely Democratic voters. Of the thousands who ultimately lost their vote through this scrub of voters, 80% are African-American. Had they voted, the course of history would have changed: Harris declared Bush the victor by only 537 votes. President Carter has said that the Carter Center would not certify the US 2000 Presidential elections had they had been asked to do so. Consequently, an Administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power to fight America's new war against terrorism. Before September 11, two million Americans found themselves behind bars: 80% of them people of color. Millions of Americans are sleeping on the streets of American cities. All over America, unarmed black men are targeted by rogue police officers, who shoot first and ask questions later. While 52% of all black men feel they have been victims of racial profiling, the Supreme Court declines to hear an important case on racial profiling. The Bush Administration "disses" the World Conference Against Racism and the people around the world who care about eliminating racism. In February 2001, The United States Commission on National Security, including Newt Gingrich, recommended that the National Homeland Security Agency be established with a hefty price tag. Most people chuckled at the suggestion. After September 11, we have OK'd the targeting and profiling of certain groups of people in America while not arresting in any way the racial profiling and discrimination that existed prior to September 11. Mass arrests, detention without charge, military tribunals, and infringements on due process rights are now realities in America. Even more alarming are the calls in some circles to allow the use of torture and other brutal methods in pursuit of "justice." Sadly, US administration of justice will be conducted by an Administration incapable of it. Interestingly, prominent officials explain to us that September 11 happened because we are free. And "they" hate us because we are free. Moreover, persons close to this Administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war. Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks. The stock sale cashed in on increased congressional support for hefty defense spending, including one of United Defense's cornerstone weapon programs. Now is the time for our elected officials to be held accountable. Now is the time for the media to be held accountable. Why aren't the hard questions being asked? We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, delivered one such warning. Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? September 11 erased the line between "over there" and "over here." The American people can longer afford to be detached from the world, as our actions abroad will have a direct impact on our lives at home. In Washington, DC, decisions affecting home and abroad are made and too many of us leave the responsibility of protecting our freedoms to other people whose interests are not our own. From Durban to Kabul to Atlanta to Washington, what our government does in our name is important. It is now also clear that our future, our security, and our rights depend on our vigilance.