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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (5650)8/22/2003 12:02:40 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793563
 
It would also be nice to convince Californians that their combined desire to keep taxes low and preserve everybody's little piece of government spending is a bit irrational,

The taxes aren't the problem, it's the spending. Tennessee is running a surplus with no state income tax, and their kids do better in school than the California kids. One problem with taxation in California is that they depend so much on the Income Tax. When things go sour, it really drops. Much better off with sales tax.

The real problem has been the out of control handouts to the Public Unions. Really unbelievable. The Business downturn is triggered by the Workmans Comp mess. It is the worst in the Country. Every business that can leave is running. You really can't make a profit manufacturing there now. Not if you have to be competitive.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (5650)8/22/2003 1:40:07 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793563
 
Whatever he does, he will look good doing it. And the media is now moving on to other movies for headlines.

Lord Of The Rings
In the Jewelry Race, It's Arnold -- Hands Down

By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2003; Page C01

The actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, long before he launched his campaign for governor of California, had fashioned himself into the model of a heavy-hitting wheeler-dealer. With his well-known affection for a pricey cigar, the biker-boy rings that adorn his fingers and his saucer-size Panerai watches, he is the essence of Tony Soprano meets Gordon Gekko in Vegas.

Wearing a suit jacket, open-collar shirt and silver skull ring on a recent cover of Newsweek, Schwarzenegger had the look of a man who takes meetings, who grabs them in his meaty hands and bends them to his will. His is not the costuming of a fellow who would demurely sit in a boardroom and sip Evian.

Schwarzenegger has an image that runs contrary to that of the typical politician. Most candidates spend their days emphasizing the ways in which they are just like the electorate, implying that they dropped off the kids at soccer practice on the way to the stump speech. Schwarzenegger has etched out a public image, through accouterments, that says: I am bigger than you. I am richer than you. I am stronger, luckier, lustier, ballsier.

Even with the publication of an unflattering beach photo of his softening torso, he remains a man who can kick sand in your face. In each encounter with the public, it is as though Schwarzenegger rears back and revels in the knowledge that he is an international star with a stunning amount of money.

In most every way, the actor's attire is unremarkable. It is a Hollywood stereotype that now is being reworked into political cliche. The personality is in his jewelry. Indeed, the mere fact that he wears jewelry is, for a candidate, highly unorthodox. It suggests a manly confidence in his own ability to do precisely what others say he cannot.

Schwarzenegger rarely wears a tie, which is common on the Hollywood business circuit. It is, perhaps, best for a man with a neck of such substantial size to avoid ties altogether, or else he runs the risk of looking as though he is being choked by his own silk furnishing.

But as a candidate, Schwarzenegger has taken to wearing a four-in-hand, channeling his inner politician and selecting some of the most banal and unattractive specimens ever to be knotted around a man's neck. On a recent cover of Time, he wore the Washington standard -- the red, white and blue rep tie that looks as though it has been wrenched from the neck of the debate team captain on his way to the state finals.

The big man favors short-sleeve sport shirts and flat-front trousers, which often seem to be chinos. Schwarzenegger does not dress for sex appeal. He does not dress in leather to declare his machismo; his movies do that just fine. He does not participate in the disheveled stylishness favored by Hollywood's young heartthrobs, who are inclined to turn up for interviews unshaven and with a ski cap pulled low over the famous face that makes the ladies swoon.

Schwarzenegger has always worn the clothes of a company man dressed for casual Friday. The bold jewelry, however, suggests that he owns the company.

The gubernatorial candidate does not wear a pinkie ring -- that alone would suggest that he would be better suited for the craps table than the legislature. But he is a man comfortable adorning himself with lapis and sapphire.

Schwarzenegger doesn't wear a traditional wedding band; instead he wears a yellow gold and sapphire ring that was given to him by wife Maria Shriver on their wedding day. One might refer to its carat size as "significant" and its style as MGM Grand.

Complementing the sapphire is a large lapis lazuli ring, particularly prominent when Schwarzenegger is jabbing the air for emphasis the way that politicians do. According to his publicist, Jill Eisenstadt, it was given to him by a Navajo tribal member about a dozen years ago when Schwarzenegger was traveling on behalf of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports.

The silver skull ring was custom-designed for him as a gift from an unidentified friend. One likes to imagine that perhaps it was given to him by his buddy, former president George H.W. Bush -- a member of the Yale secret society Skull and Bones. Could Schwarzenegger be an honorary member?

Finally, Eisenstadt says there is one other substantial ring in Schwarzenegger's jewelry box. It is a limited-edition boxing championship ring from Muhammad Ali. Its various inscriptions read "three time world champion" and "the greatest." When one considers the elephantine size of a boxing championship belt, one can only assume that a ring would have the proportions of a minor moon.

The fact that Schwarzenegger continues to wear his chunky rings, now that he has gone from star to candidate, emphasizes his positioning as the nonpolitician. But doing all of the required campaign handshaking with bejeweled fingers can leave a man with blisters and bruises. One wonders if Schwarzenegger is prepared for the aches and pains.

washingtonpost.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (5650)8/23/2003 4:30:14 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793563
 
Using the Military to Promote Democracy
By Robert Garcia Tagorda 08/21/2003 - Tech Central Station

The late July mutiny of over 300 Philippine military officers illustrated a major problem in the global war on terror: some countries, though supportive of American counterterrorism initiatives, lack the institutional stability to serve as effective partners.



The Philippines has stood firm with its Western allies. As President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assured President George W. Bush in May, Filipinos "are with you in your leadership against terrorism, wherever it may be found.... We believe that the U.S. leadership and engagement with the U.S. makes the world a safer place for all of us to live in." Arroyo has organized Southeast Asian leaders to improve regional cooperation. In turn, Bush has designated the Philippines a Major Non-NATO Ally and provided military equipment, research, and other resources. Philippine and American troops have also participated in joint counterterrorism training exercises.



Similar agreements have taken place between the Philippines and Australia. In March, the two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding to foster cooperation between security, intelligence, law enforcement, and defense officials. Four months later, the Australian Federal Police vowed to train its Philippine counterpart in forensics, crime scene investigation, document fraud investigation, port security, and border control. Hence the Philippines has committed to regional counterterrorism efforts, and allies have facilitated its participation in them.



But the Philippines faces serious obstacles. Most notably, the agencies responsible for counterterrorism -- the Philippine National Police, which captures and detains terrorists, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which fights Muslim insurrection in Mindanao -- have struggled with incompetence and corruption. For instance, as Arroyo and Australian Prime Minister John Howard negotiated a three-year A$5 million counterterrorism agreement, Jemaah Islamiyah bomber Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi and two other terrorists escaped from the PNP Intelligence Group detention facility. An investigation found that they simply opened their cells and walked out without the guards' notice. These guards, along with one superintendent, later failed lie-detector tests, prompting Philippine Senator Rodolfo Biazon to suspect collusion.



The escape was nothing new. Last year, Faisal Marohombsar of the Pentagon Gang, a Terrorist Exclusion List designee, walked out of the National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force's maximum security detention cell. In 1995, Khaddafi Janjalani, leader of the Abu Sayyaf group that held two American missionaries hostage, fled with similar ease. Arroyo acknowledged that corruption may have played a role in all of these cases. Even if its role was limited, the fact remains that the PNP has failed to contain some of the most dangerous enemies in the war on terror.



The military has seen its share of problems. According to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, defense contractors set aside bribes to ensure that procurement officials review their proposals. In the Army, such "grease money" goes as high as 35% to 50% of the contract's original value, while Navy payoffs often reach 100% and the Air Force up to 200%. Taxpayers ultimately suffer, but so do troops: high costs mean limited access to outdated weapons, aircrafts, and other supplies for combating well-armed terrorists.



Rebel leader Antonio Trillanes raised similar concerns. In two masters-program term papers at the University of the Philippines, Trillanes not only confirmed the corruption of Navy procurement, but also detailed the bribery of Navy patrols, which allowed bandits, pirates, and terrorists to smuggle arms, drugs, and other contraband. These activities subsequently helped the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and Abu Sayyaf fight government forces. To be sure, Trillanes's political agenda likely influenced his studies, but Sheila Coronel, executive director of PCIJ, added that his methodologies were "sound." AFP Chief Narciso Abaya said in a post-mutiny interview: "This graft and corruption is not only at the highest levels (of the military). I admit there is graft and corruption at all levels even down to the company commander level." In her State of the Nation Address, Arroyo, who met Trillanes a couple of weeks before the mutiny to discuss his grievances, conceded that the military has an "underlying problem."



This problem goes beyond the armed forces, as journalist Glenda Gloria argues in "Out of the Barracks." Since the "People Power" Revolution of 1986, writes Gloria, numerous military officers have received appointments to the largest revenue-generating public agencies, including the Department of Transportation and Communications, the Bureau of Customs, special economic zones, and government-owned and controlled corporations. These officers have become embedded in the patronage system, blurring the line between civil and military institutions. To some extent, politicians have sought such loyalties for their own survival. Arroyo, for example, rose to the presidency after the military withdrew support for her predecessor, Joseph Estrada. In two-and-a-half years, she has had six chiefs of staff, prompting Marites Danguilan Vitug, editor-in-chief of Newsbreak magazine, to accuse her of "us[ing] the position as a thank-you card to please the generals."



One should note that all of these corruption charges are inevitably hard to verify. Nevertheless, they reflect the instability of the military, particularly when one considers coups. As Alfred McCoy observes in Closer Than Brothers: Manhood at the Philippine Military Academy , after Ferdinand Marcos turned the armed forces into the fist of his dictatorship, members of the PMA Class of 1971 launched six coup attempts in the late 1980s. One member, Senator Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan, has been suspected of ties with the mutiny. McCoy argues that the Class of 1971 sees the armed forces as "an instrument of social transformation," and because this view seems to remain, Article II of the Philippine Constitution may face threats: "Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military."



Therefore, although the Philippines has shown willingness to contribute to the war on terror, its vehicles for meaningful contributions have, at the very least, brought disappointment. A quandary also exists: American and Australian assistance provides essential resources, but the Philippine government is so internally crippled that it cannot do much with them. Its own institutional problems hamper regional initiatives.



How should the United States address this issue? The Washington Times suggests that the Bush administration should apply diplomatic pressure by postponing an October visit to the Philippines: "The message needs to be clear that Mrs. Arroyo must get a grip on the chaos." Indeed, reform must come from within, but as Karl Jackson, Director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, says, "self-help without resources always fails." Both the PNP and the AFP need to be professionalized. In the Southern Philippines, frontline troops receive combat pay of only 250 pesos a month and meal allowance of only 60 pesos a day. If Arroyo limits corruption, she can increase funding for basic military and law enforcement needs. Because the Philippines plays a strategic role in the war on terror, the United States should perhaps give additional funds.



But given other American commitments around the world, such a plan might encounter political opposition at home. Thus, as a short-term alternative, the Bush administration should revise its May proposal to include professional as well as combat training. The proposal calls for a comprehensive security review that details "how the United States can best support Philippine military modernization and reform." In addition to discussing UH-1H helicopters and other equipment, this review should devise ways in which the assistance program can be used to strengthen military adherence to civilian authority. Education will hardly serve as a panacea. But it will at least begin to put the spotlight on stabilizing and strengthening institutions that have important counterterrorism responsibilities.



In "Supremacy by Stealth," Robert Kaplan states that the fourth rule for managing an unruly world is to "use the military to promote democracy." The Philippines already shares democratic ideals with Western allies. Still, if the United States wants to advance the war on terror, it must find a creative way to apply this rule in the Pacific.



Mr. Tagorda, a Truman Scholar, will be attending the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University next fall. He writes regularly at boomshock.blogspot.com.

techcentralstation.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (5650)8/26/2003 6:00:44 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793563
 
Top U.S. Expert on North Korea Steps Down
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS - [The New York Times]
August 26, 2003

WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 - A top State Department expert on North Korea who advocated a policy of incentives as well as penalties to persuade the nation to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons has resigned, officials said today.

Jack Pritchard, the special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, is departing at a critical moment, days before six-nation talks begin in China to pressure North Korea to drop its efforts to reprocess spent fuel rods for weapons. He was criticized last week by a senator for being out of sync with the administration's policy.

Mr. Pritchard's departure on Friday points to a division in the administration over how best to handle the isolated, unpredictable and highly militarized government of Kim Jong Il nearly eight months after the North expelled foreign inspectors, the experts said.

Mr. Pritchard, who has had long experience in talks with the North, including a stint on President Clinton's National Security Council, is identified with a more conciliatory stance toward the North. He long advocated a carrot-and-stick approach, with incentives to North Korea for good behavior.

But a more confrontational position, favored at the White House and expressed by John R. Bolton, the under secretary for arms control at the State Department, gained ground in recent weeks, and at least one Republican senator complained to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell about Mr. Pritchard's approach.

Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who is chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, sent a letter to Mr. Powell last week complaining about "mixed messages" coming from the administration regarding a fierce July 31 speech by Mr. Bolton.

In a speech titled "A Dictatorship at the Crossroads," Mr. Bolton denounced the North Korean leader, saying, "To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him and, perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants around the world."

North Korea denounced the speech, called Mr. Bolton "scum" and said he would be barred from the talks. Meanwhile, some State Department officials complained that the speech had complicated their efforts to revive negotiations.

According to Senator Kyl's letter, Mr. Pritchard recently told a top North Korean envoy at the United Nations that Mr. Bolton's remarks were only "personal" views.

Mr. Pritchard said this evening that he had submitted his letter of resignation on April 18, but had stayed on in the job at the request of superiors. The Bolton speech, he said, had nothing to do with his departure; he said the North Koreans had raised the speech in a recent meeting, but he denied saying it reflected Mr. Bolton's personal view.

"The North Koreans brought up with me Mr. Bolton's comments, and I didn't say anything," he said. "The N.K.'s for their own purposes made the allegation that I characterized these as Bolton's private views."

Mr. Pritchard, however, has long been involved in an ongoing argument with more hawkish officials in the Pentagon and the White House over how to deal with the North. Tonight he did not say why he had resigned, saying it would "be inappropriate for me to speak at a moment when talks are just beginning."

Senator Kyl sent copies of his letter, which asked Mr. Powell to take "corrective action" against Mr. Pritchard, to Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Mr. Bolton.

Philip T. Reeker, the State Department's deputy spokesman, denied today that Mr. Pritchard had been forced out and praised him for his years of service.

"He has played a significant and valued role in the administration's efforts to deal with the challenges posed by North Korea and its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Mr. Reeker said. "My understanding was the decision to depart at this time was a personal one, one that he had been making for several months, and made the effective date on Friday."

But North Korea experts said Mr. Pritchard was known to be uncomfortable with the evolving American policy. A 28-year veteran of the Army, Mr. Pritchard was a driving force behind President Clinton's trip to Vietnam in 2000, and he accompanied Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright to North Korea for meetings with Kim Jong Il that year.

North Korea recently agreed to the six-party talks, which are scheduled to begin on Wednesday.

nytimes.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (5650)8/26/2003 6:49:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793563
 
A Deal With North Korea? Dream On

By Nicholas Eberstadt

Tuesday, August 26, 2003; Page A13

The notion that North Korea might agree to conclude its nuclear confrontation through peaceful international negotiations is being revisited once again. At "six-party talks" this week in Beijing, the United States and North Korea's neighbors (China, Russia, Japan and South Korea) will try once again to persuade Pyongyang's leadership to accept some diplomatic deal for dismantling of its nuclear weapons program.

Curiously enough, hopes seem to be running high for the talks. Even President Bush, no fan of the Kim Jong Il regime, has expressed "optimism" that the crisis can be resolved by diplomatic means, a sentiment that seems to be widely shared. Unfortunately, it amounts to little more than diplomatic wishful thinking.

North Korea is entirely unlikely to be talked out of its nuclear weapons program. This happens to be one of those sorry international disputes in which the most desirable outcome is also the least likely. Indeed, the practical obstacles to securing an irreversible and verifiable end to Pyongyang's nuclear program through diplomatic negotiations alone are not just formidable, they are overwhelming.

Consider first the nuclear objectives of the Pyongyang regime. Diplomatic sophisticates -- especially those favoring a possible "grand bargain" with North Korea involving nukes, aid and security -- have argued that the six-party talks will be an opportune venue in which to probe North Korea's "nuclear intentions." But the probing of these intentions is not exactly uncharted diplomatic terrain, as even the briefest review of the record should remind us.

A little over a decade ago, South Korea's president at the time, Roh Tae Woo, after two years of intensive diplomacy, managed to hammer out the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Soon afterward it became clear the North was cheating on the agreement. At that point the United States set about doing its own probe of North Korea's nuclear intentions through a diplomatic foray that was capped by the 1994 Washington-Pyongyang Agreed Framework. When that framework first began to wobble back in 1998 -- under suspicion of renewed North Korean nuclear cheating -- the Clinton administration resolved to look into North Korea's nuclear intentions once again, this time through a process designed by William J. Perry, the former secretary of defense. Then, for five straight years, from early 1998 to early 2003, South Korea's President Kim Dae Jung probed North Korea's nuclear intentions through his diplomacy-intensive "Sunshine Policy." During Nobel Peace laureate Kim's final months in office, Pyongyang was caught once again cheating on its nuclear deals. Instead of scrapping the offending program, North Korea admitted the violation, declared the Agreed Framework dead and pushed its nuclear weapons program into overdrive.

Are we to believe that a deep mystery about North Korea's true nuclear intentions lies buried within this story line, yet to be unearthed through further diplomatic exploration? The record suggests otherwise. Pyongyang has made it clear it will push its nuclear weapons project overtly when it can -- and covertly when it must. With the right enticements, Pyongyang can be persuaded to promise to give up its nuke program. It just can't be persuaded to actually keep the promise.

Even if one is willing to ignore the inconvenient issue of Pyongyang's nuclear intentions, a potential diplomatic deal for the regime's scrapping its nuclear weapons project would founder on a second bank of shoals: the global precedent such a bargain would establish. The United States may be the world's sole superpower, but North Korea is not the only would-be proliferator. In Tehran -- to mention just one capital -- the North Korean nuclear crisis is being carefully studied for lessons.

Thus far North Korea has violated international nonproliferation strictures more flagrantly and more provocatively than any contemporary government. Thus far, apart from a suspension of free U.S oil shipments, North Korea has suffered absolutely no penalties. And just 12 days ago, South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun pledged massive economic help to North Korea once the nuclear crisis is resolved.

If Pyongyang should secure a negotiated settlement in which it avoids punishment for its past violations -- or earns new rewards for promising to redress them -- exactly how will we convince hostile mullahs or sheiks that they, too, should not be racing for the nuclear finish line?

There is a third and hardly incidental complication in "getting to yes" with North Korea: Just whom are we supposed to shake hands with? There are simply no credible bargaining partners in the current regime.

Last October in Pyongyang, one Kang Sok Ju of the Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials that his country had been conducting a secret nuclear program despite the Agreed Framework with Washington. This was the very same Kang who had negotiated and signed the Agreed Framework for the North Korean side in the first place. Obviously his word cannot be trusted in any future nuclear negotiations -- but whom can we trust from the North Korean side in his stead? Perhaps his boss, Kim Jong Il, the "Dear Leader," who as chairman of his country's National Defense Commission runs its nuclear weapons program, and who must have approved and funded these recurring nuclear violations and deceptions?

Without a trustworthy negotiating partner from Pyongyang, a new nuclear deal with North Korea is worthless -- unless, of course, it can be ensured through reliable independent means of verification. But for North Korea as it exists today a foolproof independent verification regimen would be barely distinguishable from outside military occupation.

It's entirely possible that Western negotiators will return from Beijing next week talking about "signs of progress." Diplomatic atmospherics are among the many scarce goods that Pyongyang presumes to regulate and ration. But any genuine progress toward a diplomatic resolution of the nuclear impasse cannot be expected without fundamental -- even revolutionary -- changes in outlook and policy on the part of North Korea's leadership. None of the options Washington and its allies face in North Korea is pleasant -- but the time has come to face them squarely, without diplomatic illusion.

The writer holds the Henry Wendt chair in political economy at the American Enterprise Institute.

washingtonpost.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (5650)8/26/2003 3:25:18 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793563
 
Fear of US Attack Forced NK to Come to Negotiating Table

By Oh Young-jin
Staff Reporter - Korea Times

A Chinese scholar who is also a key Communist Party member in Shanghai, has said Chinese President Hu Jintao through his top envoy informed North Korean leader Kim Jong-il of a possible United States invasion.

Shen Dingli, professor at Hudan University in Shanghai and who was visiting Korea for an international seminar, was quoted by sources as saying that Hu?s message was very clear about the possibility of U.S. military action against the communist country that is defying international calls to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

Attending a workshop held on the sideline of the 12th Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations last week, the Chinese expert on international relations said, ``Hu told Kim, `If you make a problem, the U.S. will attack you. Don?t expect any help from us.???

He said that words of advice by the leader of Pyongyang?s only ally apparently scared the North Korean leader into accommodating Beijing?s suggestion that Pyongyang should engage in talks with the U.S. under whatever format.

During Pyongyang?s June 25, 1950, invasion of the South and the ensuing three-year war, China sent tens of thousands of soldiers to help the North avoid being overwhelmed by United Nations forces.

Kim is widely known to be afraid of U.S. military might and an attack on his impoverished country, which, according to some experts, has pushed it to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.

However, Shen didn?t specify who carried the message but said it was delivered by a senior Chinese official about a month ago.

At least three senior Chinese officials have recently visited Pyongyang. They are Army Chief Political Commissar Xu Caihou, and Vice Foreign Ministers Dai Bingguo and Wang Yi.

Hu?s message came at a time when the North apparently underwent a change of heart and became more accommodating to multilateral dialogue involving not only the U.S. and China, but also South Korea, Japan and Russia. In April, Pyongyang and Washington held the first and only round of three-way talks, with Beijing playing host, after the North?s admission of having a nuclear weapons program.

The negotiations, however, failed to progress as the North demanded that it would conduct direct discussions with the U.S. for a non-aggression pact, while Washington refused.

In connection, the U.S. cable channel CNN reported in an online report that Hu delivered an ultimatum to the North Korean leader, calling on him to adopt a Chinese-style open-door policy, halt its development of weapons of mass destruction and improve relations with neighbors.

Willy Wo-Lap Lam, a CNN analyst, said in the article that Hu?s message forced Kim to send a delegation to the first-round of six-way talks that begin in Beijing today.

oh@koreatimes.co.kr

times.hankooki.com