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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: FaultLine who wrote (30306)5/22/2002 4:18:45 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Cool It!

_________________________________________________
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The New York Times
May 22, 2002

Ah, excuse me, but could we all just calm down here?

What started as a story about how the Bush team handled unspecific warnings about possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. before 9/11 has now prompted the Bushies not only to defend themselves from charges of irresponsibility — which they are entitled to do — but to go on a Chicken Little warnings binge that another attack is imminent, inevitable and around the corner, but we can't tell you when, where or how.

Look, in the wake of 9/11, I would never rule out any kind of attack. That would be foolhardy. But I'm no more interested in indicting the Bush team for failing to respond to an unspecific warning about a possible terrorist attack before 9/11 than I'm interested in having the vice president and F.B.I. director warn us about the certainty of an unspecified attack sometime in the future.

What are we supposed to do with this information? Never go into another apartment building, because reports suggest an Al Qaeda cell may rent an apartment just to blow up the whole structure? Don't go outside? Don't go near national monuments? Pat the belly of every pregnant woman to check if she's a suicide bomber?

Who wants to live that way? Let's make a deal: We won't criticize the administration for not anticipating 9/11 if it won't terrorize the country by now predicting every possible nightmare scenario, but no specific ones, post-9/11. Not only are these "warnings" just unnerving the public when people were finally starting to calm down, but they are also obscuring something very important: We are winning this war.

No, it's not over. And yes, I too will say for the record that sometime, somewhere, there will be another attack. But in the meantime we've actually accomplished a lot. If Osama bin Laden is alive, a big if, his ability to direct acts of terrorism against U.S. targets has been disrupted. It is doubtful that he would dare even use a telephone.

That is important, because bin Laden and his top deputies were a unique and very smart, creative and daring group of terrorists, who do not come along every day. And whether they are all dead or deep in hiding, there is no indication they are in business right now. Yes, probably less professional cells still exist and can still wreak havoc. But when you decapitate an organization like Al Qaeda, and disrupt its money flow, you've done a lot. And when you oust the Taliban in Afghanistan and take away the one true safe harbor for bin Laden — for training and operations — you've also done a lot.

We have put in place reasonable precautions at airports; we have instituted better coordination between the F.B.I., C.I.A. and I.N.S.; we are tracking foreign students more closely; and we and our allies have detained thousands of suspects. The fact that there has been no other major incident since 9/11 is surely not because the terrorists have abandoned their intentions. It is because we have hampered their capabilities. That is a good thing.

But the very nature of this war against small groups and individuals bent on terrorism is that you can never win it definitively. It will be with us forever. But we can limit the number of attacks — and keep terrorist cells on the run and disrupted enough to reduce their capabilities — if our public officials responsible for this war are not spending all day looking in their rear-view mirrors or mindlessly terrorizing the public with unspecified, cover-your-behind warnings about future terrorism.

This is absolutely not an argument for a free pass for the Bush team. Given the stories about intelligence failures that have come out already, we clearly need a special commission, led by professionals, not politicians, that looks into the decadelong history of our handling of Al Qaeda and explores why we did not have better intelligence, why the dots were not connected and how to improve in the future.

But the other thing we need to do is grow up. If we're going to maintain an open society, all we can do is take all reasonable precautions and then suck it up and learn to live with a higher level of risk. That is our fate, so let's not drive ourselves crazy.

I don't know about you, but my Memorial Day weekend plans are set: golf Saturday, bike trip Sunday, barbecue Monday. If the F.B.I. director wants to interrupt my weekend with a specific warning, I'll be all ears; otherwise, pipe down and chill out. Remember it's supposed to be Al Qaeda that's running scared, not us.

nytimes.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (30306)5/22/2002 7:44:25 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
Since I broke down and bought a Taiwanise Moped, (It is a hopped up "Mosquito," I am now the terror of Pali Highway), I thought I would start following the China news. I found this columnist in the South China Morning Post.

Monday, May 13, 2002

FOCUS ON CHINA
Damage control cannot quell Sino-Japanese distrust

FRANK CHING

It is the stuff of drama. Chinese policemen grabbed two North Korean women and a toddler who were trying to seek asylum in the Japanese Consulate in Shenyang in northeastern China on Wednesday, but not before the two men with them had succeeded in entering the diplomatic compound.

To the surprise of the North Koreans and Japanese diplomats, the Chinese policemen, without permission, entered the consular premises and dragged away the two men.

The Chinese action is, on the face of it, a clear violation of international law, with the potential to precipitate a fresh crisis in Sino-Japanese relations - already strained by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's recent visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine.

Japan protested, citing the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which stipulates: "The premises of the [diplomatic] mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission."

China, however, cites the same convention, which provides that "the receiving state" has "a special duty . . . to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion". The North Koreans can arguably be considered intruders.

China can say its police were performing their duty in attempting to prevent the North Koreans entering the Japanese Consulate. However, after the two North Koreans entered, the Chinese police became intruders themselves when they followed them in.

The Shenyang incident aggravates a relationship already under considerable strain. The previous week, President Jiang Zemin had told visiting New Komeito Party leader Takenori Kanzaki that Mr Koizumi's April 21 visit to the Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 Class A war criminals are commemorated along with Japan's other war dead, was "totally unacceptable".

The shrine visit came as a surprise to China, which thought that Mr Koizumi, who had apologised last year for Japan's wartime aggression against China after making a similar visit to the shrine, would not repeat such visits. Last year, Li Peng, Chairman of the National People's Congress, postponed an official visit to Japan because of disputes over Japanese textbooks. After the April shrine visit, Beijing postponed scheduled defence talks.

Both countries are eager not to cause a rupture in their relationship, especially since they are celebrating the 30th anniversary of their establishment of diplomatic relations.

Indeed, the Shenyang events unfolded while a 5,000-member Chinese tourism delegation was in Japan to mark the event. A tourism delegation of 10,000 Japanese is scheduled to go to China in the autumn.

Both sides clearly want to maintain good relations and limit the damage. Thus, China allowed a visit to Japan by Zeng Qinghong, a senior official, to go ahead despite the Yasukuni visit. Japan is clearly eager not to allow the dispute over the North Koreans to get out of hand, with Mr Koizumi personally asking the Chinese Ambassador to make efforts to resolve the issue. But it does appear that crises often erupt to destabilise the relationship, which is important to both countries.

The frequency of new crises reflects the delicacy of the relationship. Aside from conflicts over history, reflected by disputes over textbooks and the Yasukuni visits, there are other issues confronting the Asian neighbours.

For one thing, many Japanese are apprehensive of China's emergence as a major power. The surging Chinese economy, which has caused Japanese companies to shift production facilities to the mainland to take advantage of cheaper land and labour, has precipitated fears of a hollowing out of Japanese industry. China, for its part, is worried about Japan's new military assertiveness.

Japan is conducting research with the United States on the feasibility of a missile defence system for East Asia, and Beijing fears such a system may be used to shield Taiwan from mainland missiles.

Japan is considering legislation on how to respond to attacks or perceived threats of attack, and a Japanese politician warned recently that the country could produce nuclear weapons in the event of Chinese expansionism.

What is perhaps more difficult to manage than the utterances of politicians is a feeling of distrust among ordinary people.

Many Chinese have neither forgiven nor forgotten Japan's former aggression, and a rise in nationalism has been accompanied by occasionally overt anti-Japanese sentiment. In Japan, too, there has been a rise in antipathy to China, spurred by a rise in crimes perpetrated by Chinese living in Japan.

The intrusion into the Japanese Consulate is merely the latest crisis, which no doubt will sooner or later be resolved or papered over. But a much harder task facing the two governments is how to cope with their own people and the risks posed by their rising antipathy.
columns.scmp.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (30306)8/29/2002 9:54:48 PM
From: SirRealist  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
That's a very enlightening article, Ken. One part that he, and many, seem to overlook is that part of Bin Laden's hostility towards Saudi Arabia is not based in religion at all, but is a personal grudge.

As to the overall picture the article presented, while it provides much understanding of the Islamists, I have difficulties with this passage:

My comments are interjected in bold.

>>Once al Qaeda has been annihilated without sparking anti-American revolutions in the Islamic world, (he makes this sound as simple as peeling an orange) the United States should adopt a set of policies that ensure that significant numbers of Muslims -- not Muslim regimes but Muslims -- identify their own interests with those of the United States, so that demagogues like bin Laden cannot aspire to speak in the name of the entire umma.(Such as?) In 1991, millions of Iraqis constituted just such a reservoir of potential supporters, yet America turned its back on them. Washington had its reasons, but they were not the kind that can be justified in terms of the American values that we trumpet to the world. (The reasons were simple; the Arab allies made it a precondition.)Today we are paying a price for that hypocrisy. <<

Thanks for going to the trouble of posting that.