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

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8129)	9/15/2003 7:17:16 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793754

Verrrry interesting! China Sends Troops to Monitor North Korean Border By JOSEPH KAHN - NEW YORK TIMES BEIJING, Sept. 15 — Chinese armed forces have moved into new positions along the country's border with North Korea, charged with defending an 870-mile crossing that is often violated by hungry refugees from the isolated Communist state. Chinese foreign ministry officials confirmed in a statement issued this afternoon that troops from the People's Liberation Army had replaced police along the border, though they did not confirm Hong Kong news reports that the move involved as many as 150,000 soldiers. The move marks a subtle but significant change in relations between the two Communist states, which fought together against the United States in the Korean War and still have a mutual defense treaty. While Chinese officials described the new border arrangements as a routine adjustment, it comes at a time when Beijing has exerted fresh pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. China is the main sponsor of multilateral negotiations involving North Korea, the United States and three other countries aimed at reaching a negotiated settlement to the Korean arms standoff. The dispatch of army troops also suggests that China could be preparing for the possibility of conflict in the region, though analysts said they considered it highly unlikely that China intends to threaten Pyongyang militarily. "I think this shows that China is getting more concerned about the overall state of affairs in North Korea and the refugee problem in particular," said Ma Dingsheng, a Chinese military analyst in Hong Kong. "But we are not seeing the kind of deployment you would see if China were contemplating military action." He said the border troops were the type that guard China's boundaries in other sensitive areas, like the restive Western region of Xinjiang, and were not equipped with tanks or artillery. The Korean border has been a source of consternation for China in recent years, as North Korea refugees have slipped over in increasingly greater numbers to escape poverty, famine and political repression. Groups devoted to helping the refugees say as many as 300,000 North Koreans live in northeastern China, often in constant fear of being captured and repatriated by Chinese police. The flow of refugees reaches its peak in the winter months, when the Yalu River freezes and people can walk across the loosely patrolled region with little difficulty. The Bush administration has pressed China to allow more North Koreans to flee across the border as a way of pressuring the Pyongyang regime of Kim Jong Il or even causing it to collapse. But Beijing has resisted those entreaties, and the deployment of troops suggests that it does not plan to relax its stance soon. Though many North Koreans live and work in China unofficially, Beijing often rounds up refugees and sends them back to North Korea without following United Nations guidelines on assessing whether they fled for political or economic reasons. By many accounts Pyongyang authorities severely punish those people when they return. The foreign ministry statement said that border patrol duties had now been assigned to the army, replacing the police. Analysts said the troops would be taking over from the People's Armed Police, which is a quasi-military unit that performs border duties in some areas. The statement said a similar adjustment had been made on part of China's border with Myanmar. It did not give a reason for the change in either location. "It is a normal adjustment carried out after many years of preparation by the relevant parties," the statement said. Chinese troop movements near North Korea and Myanmar have attracted attention in recent weeks. Several Hong Kong newspapers have reported that as many as 150,000 troops have been assigned to tighten security along the Korean border, as many soldiers as the United States has stationed in Iraq, but the estimates are unconfirmed. nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8129)	9/15/2003 7:28:58 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793754

Weasel Watch "We are all aware of the gravity and the urgency of the moment," says France's Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. "We must act. It's the duty of the international community." Just a few months ago de Villepin was a staunch opponent of international action. Has he changed his mind? Not exactly. Then, he was encouraging international inaction to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Now, he is encouraging international action to keep Yasser Arafat in power. The French, it seems, will do whatever it takes to protect Arab thugs On this side of the Ocean, Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential campaign has registered the domain name AMiserableFailure.com. Right now there's only filler on the site, but keep an eye on it for news of Gephardt's forthcoming autobiography. All in the Family Miami Herald columnist Jim Defede has a nice overview of the Democratic presidential field: The nine Democratic contenders for president remind me of a big family. You have your four older siblings (Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean) who are always fighting with each other; their little sister (Carol Moseley Braun) whom they ignore; and their kid brother (John Edwards) who would do anything to get noticed. Next you have the angry uncle (the Rev. Al Sharpton) who could snap without warning and begin beating you with the sock full of nickels he keeps tucked away in his pocket; and the weird cousin (Dennis Kucinich) who used to eat paint chips as a child and now spends most of his time playing in the dirt under the back porch. Finally there is crazy old grandpa who shows up to Thanksgiving dinner every year without his pants and thinks it's cute to drop his dentures into the sweet potatoes when nobody is looking. That's our Bob Graham. Now everybody in the family may love grandpa, but nobody is going to give him the keys to the car--if you know what I mean. Those fickle Swedes "Swedes Vote on Euro, Outcome Open"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 14, 2:56 a.m. EDT "Sweden Votes to Adopt Euro"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 14, 11:44 a.m. EDT "Swedish Voters Narrowly Reject Euro"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 14, 2:10 p.m. EDT "Swedes Vote Resounding 'No' to Euro"--headline, Reuters, Sept. 14, 4:16 p.m. EDT opinionjournal.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8129)	9/15/2003 11:57:14 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793754

The North Koreans didn't like what Bolton had to say? Wait until the Syrians get an earful! And those who felt it should be even stronger leaked to the Times. Senior U.S. Official to Level Weapons Charges Against Syria By JUDITH MILLER - NEW YORK TIMES WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — The Bush administration says that despite pledges, Syria has not stopped militants from crossing into Iraq to kill American soldiers. In testimony prepared for a House hearing on Tuesday, John R. Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control, says the administration is also concerned about what it sees as Syria's continuing support for terrorist groups like Hamas, and he reiterated accusations that Syria has an ambitious program to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. But Mr. Bolton's testimony says there is "no information" that Syria has transferred any unconventional weapons it may have to the terrorist groups it is said to support. He also says the administration "has been unable to confirm" reports that Iraq covertly transferred unconventional weapons it may have had to Syria "in an attempt to hide them from United Nations inspectors and coalition forces." Syria has denied that it has unconventional weapons. Mr. Bolton's assertion about the transfer of weapons, along with other parts of his testimony, renewed a prolonged debate within the administration, according to officials. The testimony — some will be given in public, the rest in a closed briefing — pitted officials who wanted a much tougher critique of Syria against those who wished to encourage Syria to honor its pledges. Late last week, the testimony was cleared by the intelligence community and the White House. A copy of the public testimony, to the International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, was provided to The New York Times by individuals who feel that the accusations against Syria have received insufficient attention. Mr. Bolton's suggestion that Syria is partly responsible for the attacks on American troops and his allegations of unconventional-weapons programs and support for terrorists reflect the administration's growing frustration that Damascus has not responded to demands that it curb such activities. His testimony says Syria has taken "a series of hostile actions." Just before and during the war this spring, Syria "allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq," it says. "Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so," the prepared testimony says. The administration has previously accused Syria of permitting foreign fighters to pass into Iraq. But Mr. Bolton's sharp criticism reflects what other officials have said is a particular concern about the impact of the reported Syrian action. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters who traveled with him to Iraq last week that of more than 200 foreign fighters captured in Iraq, the largest groups were those from Syria and Lebanon. One intelligence official said 60 to 70 percent of those detained were believed to be Syrian, based on identity cards or interrogations. Many were carrying large sums of money, a Defense Department official said. A Pentagon official said that while Syria had done some things to limit militant cross-border traffic, "they have not done nearly enough." The administration, under political pressure as American soldiers continue to die in Iraq, is trying to do whatever possible to stop foreign militants from entering Iraq. But the cross-border traffic is only one irritant. "Although Damascus has increased its cooperation regarding Iraq since the fall of the Iraqi regime," Mr. Bolton's testimony says, "its behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria's W.M.D. capabilities." A former intelligence officer said, "We have to find some way of getting their attention," and referred specifically to a trip in May by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and a subsequent visit by an assistant secretary of state in which President Bashar al-Assad promised to curb activities of concern to Washington, but then apparently did not do so. Mr. Bolton declined to comment or elaborate on his planned testimony. The testimony does not endorse a Congressional proposal that would require President Bush to impose economic sanctions on Syria. But senior officials said the administration would consider imposing such sanctions if Syria did not stop allowing "jihadis" to enter Iraq and trying to develop unconventional weapons. In an interview, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the chairwoman of the subcommittee, said Syria's "porous borders and the hatred for Americans are very disturbing." "Syria can play an important role for regional stability, but it's doing just the opposite," she said. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen is a co-sponsor of a bill that would require that sanctions be imposed against Syria unless it ended its reported weapons activities, its support for terrorism and its presence in Lebanon, where it has a substantial military role. She said the bill "gives the administration great leverage" against President Assad. Mr. Bolton's description of Syria's weapons programs is consistent with earlier Central Intelligence Agency descriptions of Syria's efforts to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. But State Department officials said this is the first time the administration is presenting a somewhat detailed, public assessment of such activities. Tensions between Washington and Damascus have flared in recent months. As major combat operations in Iraq wound down, administration officials, including President Bush, suggested Syria was harboring Iraqi officials who had fled (an accusation Syria denied) and was allowing remnants of Saddam Hussein's government to hide major weapons in Syria. The United States Army wounded and took into custody five Syrian border guards in June when it attacked what American officials said was an Iraqi convoy near the border. The testimony also alleges that Syria has "a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin that can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missiles, and has engaged in the research and development of more toxic and persistent nerve agents such as VX." Syria is not a party to the international treaty banning chemical weapons. Syria, the statement asserts, "is continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability" and has not signed the treaty banning those weapons. The testimony also expresses concern about Syria's nuclear activities, noting that Russia and Syria "have approved a draft program on cooperation on civil nuclear power," expertise that could be applied to a weapons program. nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (8129)	9/16/2003 2:33:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793754

Another French Twist Is Paris playing Colin Powell for a fool again? WSJ.com Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. Secretary of State Colin Powell was mighty peeved when the French opposed a U.N. resolution to support war in Iraq after he'd told President Bush they would not. Now that President Bush is seeking a new U.N. resolution for post-Saddam Iraq, we're soon going to see if the French have fooled Mr. Powell again. The Secretary has assured Mr. Bush that this time he can get the U.N. resolution, and it is true that many nations now seem cooperative. That includes the Chinese and notably the Russians, as well as the U.N. Secretary General himself, Kofi Annan. The August truck-bombing of the U.N. mission in Baghdad seems to have jolted Mr. Annan into recognition that terrorism isn't merely an American problem. An August 28 internal Pentagon memo to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted that "State has proposed" U.N. Security Council resolution "language that would 'authorize' a stability force in Iraq--under our command--and call on member states to join it. We think this is good language and we seek your approval." The memo, written by Assistant Secretary Peter Rodman, added that "State thinks the language will work in New York. It echoes the UNSCR which the French obtained to endorse their intervention in the Ivory Coast in February!" Mr. Rumsfeld initialed his approval. Far from approving the State Department language at the U.N., however, the French have so far rejected Mr. Powell's draft. First they insisted that the Coalition Provisional Authority be turned over to the U.N., an idea the U.S. rejected. Then, during this weekend's talks, the French turned to insisting that decision-making power in Iraq be turned over within weeks to the Iraqi Governing Council. This sudden French insistence on Iraqi self-rule is touching given their opposition to toppling Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. And surely the French know that no one wants to turn authority over to Iraqis more than the U.S. does, as soon as they are ready. The ploy is so transparently cynical that it suggests the French goal is to find some excuse, any excuse, to draw out negotiations as long as possible, or to gain as many commercial concessions as possible for French companies. Mr. Powell put his best spin on the failed weekend talks, but the more important question is how long he will let the French play this game. How much time does anyone really need to work out these details? The U.S. will continue to bear the vast majority of the burden--human and financial--for rebuilding Iraq no matter what the U.N. does. If the goal here is really to confer some U.N. imprimatur on the postwar rebuilding of Iraq, then let's get on with it. The French don't have the troops to help much anyway, and we doubt they'll be contributing much cash. Mr. Bush wants the U.N. endorsement so the Turks, the Indians and perhaps other countries can use it as a fig leaf to justify their own troop contributions. We shouldn't have to indulge French mischief to get that permission. Mr. Powell--and the U.S.--ought simply to give the French a deadline to declare their support or opposition. Then present a resolution to the U.N. Security Council and dare the French to veto it. If they won't accept language for Iraq similar to what they received for their little incursion in Ivory Coast earlier this year, then the world will see French anti-Americanism for what it clearly is. opinionjournal.com