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: Dayuhan who wrote (107056)7/22/2003 1:12:32 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Bush policy risks terminal strain in NATO
William Pfaff IHT Monday, July 21, 2003
Europe and the United States

PARIS The trans-Atlantic alliance is under what may be terminal strain. George Robertson says NATO will provide no further help to the United States in Iraq - meaning that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's principal European members refuse to let the alliance do so.
.
NATO might survive the present crisis, but only as a structure providing U.S. bases in ex-Communist Europe. The United States is going in one direction, and NATO's European Union members in another, a rival direction.
.
This is a reluctant choice by the Europeans, but their perception of Washington has in the last two years changed dramatically. The United States is now seen in Europe as a threat to Europe's independence. The American side does not understand this.
.
During the last few weeks, I have been at a half dozen European conferences bringing together political specialists and policy analysts, as well as past or present officials from both sides of the Atlantic, to talk about current affairs and the future.
.
The declared subjects differed: Italian-American relations, European security, global financial and economic issues, questions of world order. In every case, wherever it started, discussion quickly turned into a debate about how to cope with the Bush administration's new America, seen as a disturber of world peace and a risk to the security even of its allies.
.
At these meetings, U.S. foreign policy found very few West European defenders. One or two half-hearted Brits. No Dutch, Germans, Italians or Scandinavians. Even the British said that Europe now has to have its own policy and its own security resources (although with Tony Blair's speech in Washington, the British government now seems unqualifiedly committed to American leadership). All said this without enthusiasm. No one likes the situation.
.
The Europeans simply no longer agree with the United States. They don't agree about the terrorist threat. They don't think Osama bin Laden is a global menace. They don't take Washington's view of rogue states. They don't agree about pre-emptive war, clash of civilizations, the demonization of Islam, or Pentagon domination of U.S. foreign policy.
.
Such views are interpreted in the United States as "anti-Americanism." The truth, as a leading (conservative) figure from ex-Communist "New Europe" said at one of these meetings, is that the Bush administration has turned America's friends into anti-Americans.
.
He said that throughout his political life he had been an admirer and defender of the United States against left-wing European critics, but now he has become what he calls a "new anti-American."
.
He defined new anti-Americans as "former anti-anti-Americans, now forced to become anti-American themselves." He said that in his own country, the U.S. ambassador behaves in the way the Soviet Union's ambassador did before 1989. This simply is unacceptable.
.
Washington and the U.S. policy community seem to have completely misunderstood what has happened. They blame the French, Germans and Belgians, and think they have explained the problem. They like to tell Europeans that Europe doesn't understand that 9/11 "changed everything" for the United States. They fail to realize that 9/11's aftermath has changed everything for Western Europe.
.
Neo-conservative officials from Washington who spoke at the conferences I attended celebrated American power and victory in Iraq, and demanded apologies from the Europeans for having failed to support the United States. They still were saying that if you didn't agree, you are "irrelevant."
.
Analysts from the universities and policy centers were too often implicitly condescending to their audiences, saying that Europe needed to "grow up" and face the terrorism threat (seemingly indifferent to or ignorant of the history of IRA, German and Italian Red Brigades, Basque ETA, PLO, and Algerian terrorist operations in Europe).
.
They talked about Venus and Mars – the Washington theory about passive, peace-obsessed Europeans, in need of realistic leadership from tough-minded Americans. The Europeans had heard it all before. This time they laughed, or walked out for a coffee.
.
However, they took the implications seriously. Every one of these discussions ended with the Europeans in a debate about what had to be done to put the so-called European common security and foreign policy on the road. Until now this has been a lackadaisical debate. Now, even the people from the most Atlanticist allied states, closest to the United States, shrug and say, "there's no choice."
.
Well meant appeals by American Atlanticists for U.S.-European reconciliation, such as the one issued a few weeks ago under the auspices of Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, are politely received, but are irrelevant. We are past that point. That statement advised Europeans on what they should do to recapture America's confidence, and "make the U.S. feel welcome in Europe." It's the other way around. It's the Americans that have lost the Europeans' confidence. Unless the United States can recapture it, the alliance is finished.

Tribune Media Services International

iht.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (107056)7/22/2003 1:28:52 AM
From: Sig  Respond to of 281500
 
<<No longer a question. We are pretty sure they have them, and even if they agree to destroy them we will never be sure that they did. From now on, we have to assume that N. Korea has a nuclear capacity. Not a pleasant thought, but that's the way it is . >>>
Decisions, decisions, it never rains but it pours. For a President. Who could want the job?
In the week before GWB made a decision to run, I whispered (from a distance) - dont do it, since I kind of liked the guy.
But I am now convinced that his advisors told him, its a one time opportunity and the rareist on earth, if you can win it the rewards will exceed anything previously experienced, despite all the H^&& and condemnation that will be laid on you by the opposition, and by having to contemplate problems to which there is no true or clear solution. Sig



To: Dayuhan who wrote (107056)7/22/2003 11:52:15 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Post doesn't think the Times has it right about the second reprocessing plant.

Proposals To N. Korea Weighed
U.S. Might Offer No-Attack Pledge

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 22, 2003; Page A01

Bush administration officials are considering granting North Korea formal guarantees it will not come under U.S. attack as part of a verifiable dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, in what would be part of a diplomatic gambit by the Bush administration aimed at resolving a standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

In extensive talks last week with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo, administration officials asked him to inform the North Koreans that the United States would agree to meet again with Chinese and North Korean officials in Beijing, provided the session was followed almost immediately by multilateral talks that include South Korea, Japan and possibly Russia, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Administration officials said that at this broader multilateral meeting, they would formally unveil a U.S. plan for ending the crisis, which has prompted intense discussion within senior levels of the administration about the form of the proposal and how it would be presented.

U.S. officials have indicated to Asian allies they would open with discussion of how the administration could reassure North Korea it does not face a U.S. invasion and then move toward what one official called a "whole gamut" of issues between North Korea and United States, such as providing energy and food aid if the North Korean government meets a series of tough conditions, including progress on human rights.

The diplomatic activity -- including a willingness to bend on the administration's previous insistence that its next meeting with North Korea must include South Korea and Japan -- suggests the administration is actively looking for ways to defuse the crisis.

A White House official, however, disputed any notion the administration had shifted in its public refusal to negotiate with North Korea. "As we have said many times, we will not submit to blackmail or grant inducements for the North to live up to its obligations," he said.

"We must continue to work with the neighborhood to convince [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il that his decision [to develop nuclear weapons] is an unwise decision, and we will do just that," President Bush said yesterday in Crawford, Tex.

Since North Korea admitted in October the existence of a secret program to create the fuel for nuclear weapons, the administration has insisted it would not reward the government in Pyongyang for nuclear blackmail. But some officials said they believe they have succeeded in diplomatically isolating North Korea enough -- including enlisting the support of China, North Korea's main patron -- that they can begin to delicately and formally dangle the incentives available to North Korea if it ends its nuclear programs.

North Korea has long demanded that the United States sign a nonaggression pact, but it is highly unlikely such a treaty would be approved by the Senate, so any U.S. proposal may fall short of North Korean desires. Bush has repeatedly said he does not want war with North Korea, but he also has labeled it part of the "axis of evil," including Iran and the former government of Iraq .

Other nations in the region, especially China, have urged the administration to formally assure North Korea it will not be attacked. North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency yesterday called on Washington to "legally commit itself to nonaggression."

U.S. officials have invested months of effort in convincing other nations in the region they must work together to thwart North Korea. Bush has also refused to agree to senior bilateral talks with North Korean officials, as demanded by Pyongyang.

At the only trilateral meeting -- in April, with the Chinese in attendance -- North Korean representatives said Pyongyang would give up its nuclear weapons and missiles only after the United States fulfilled a long list of conditions, including full diplomatic relations. Since then, the Bush administration and some of its allies, especially Japan, have signaled they will increase the pressure on North Korea by cracking down on the illegal smuggling and weapons trade that provides much of its foreign revenue.

Earlier this month, North Korea said it had successfully reprocessed 8,000 spent fuel rods to separate out the plutonium necessary to fashion several nuclear weapons, alarming other nations in the region. China, in particular, has embarked on an unusually aggressive diplomatic effort. Dai spent four days in Pyongyang before flying to Washington for consultations on Friday. He held a 21/2-hour meeting with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell after seeing Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice at the White House.

South Korean national security adviser Ra Jong-yil yesterday predicted another round of talks will be held soon, telling South Korean television that "we are in the final stage of fine-tuning the format of dialogue." He said that Pyongyang's security concerns need to be "addressed in some way."

Senior U.S. officials, meanwhile, yesterday cast doubt on a report over the weekend that the United States had evidence that North Korea might have a second, secret facility to reprocess spent fuel rods. U.S. officials have long speculated North Korea might have built a second facility underground, but they said no new evidence of such a project had emerged.

Two officials said the report, which was first published in the New York Times, appears to have started with information South Korea received from North Korean agents, and officials viewed it as part of a series of North Korean provocations. There are indications of activity having started at the Yongbyon reprocessing plant 55 miles north of the North Korean capital, but so far there is "no indication that anything of significance has emerged at the other end," according to a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence.

While the report suggested that krypton gas released by the reprocessing had come from a direction other than Yongbyon, supporting the theory of a second plant, officials and other experts said that was unlikely.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington research organization, recently completed a "worst case" study of the possibility that North Korea could have a secret reprocessing plant. In that study he determined that the amount of krypton released from reprocessing "would barely be above background level" -- the amount contained in normal air. Given the small amounts, Albright said, "there would be almost no chance to determine the direction from which it came."

washingtonpost.com