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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23919)1/11/2004 4:36:09 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794282
 
coverage of the rally in the New York Times

I think it is the Media "pack" mentality in Israel. The Times reporter covers what the Euros cover. They run with that crowd, and assume the same attitude. We see the same thing in Iraq. The big exception now is John Burns. He had a "on the road to Bagdad" experience with the media under Saddam, and it changed his outlook.

The story I posted about the Helicopter trip with General Sanchez was by Burns. Just outstanding.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23919)1/11/2004 6:41:18 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 794282
 
PM: Syria, Iran lead terrorism against Israel
By HERB KEINON

Israel would be "very glad to negotiate" with Syria when Damascus stops its support for Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorist organizations, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Sunday night.

Speaking to foreign journalists in Jerusalem, Sharon said that Syria, even as it declares a willingness to negotiate with Israel, continues to aid and support Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon.

Syria, Sharon said, "together with the Iranians, is leading terrorism against Israel."

Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating from Lebanon "could not have done what they are doing" without Syrian help, he said.

The Syrian issue also dominated Sunday's cabinet meeting, with Sharon fending off requests by various ministers that he extend a hand to President Bashar Assad.

Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said that Israel is creating for itself the image of a nation that refuses to make peace.

"Once again we are in danger of losing the battle for world public opinion, because the impression is created that we are trying to avoid negotiating with the Syrians," he said. "The government should announce unequivocally that it is in favor of peace negotiations, and afterward say it is conditional on Syria ending its support for terrorism."

Sharon replied that Israel does not need to run into Assad's arms before looking into what is behind the initiative – namely, massive American pressure.

"Just as we demand that the Palestinians dismantle terrorism before beginning diplomatic negotiations, that is also the situation with Syria," he said. "Notwithstanding our strong desire for peace, this is an interest we will defend."

Sharon said that while it is clear that Israel is interested in peace with Syria, "as the head of military intelligence answered me last week, we need to remember that Syria still supports terrorism against Israel."

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said the Bush administration is not opposed to Israel testing the Syrian overtures, but wants Syria to be judged on whether it fulfills commitments made to Secretary of State Colin Powell last year – closing the terrorist headquarters operating in Damascus, ending support for Hizbullah, and closing its border with Iraq.

He said that even if the Syrian overture were motivated by an attempt to curry favor with the US, it is still worth following up, even as Jerusalem watches to see whether Assad is following up his words with action.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said, "It needs to be clear to Syrian President Bashar Assad that peace and terrorism don't go together. The domino effect of the American war in Iraq is pressuring Assad and pushing him to establish a dialogue in order to extricate him from his troubles."

He said that it is very possible Saddam Hussein, under interrogation by the US, will implicate Assad. US National Security Council Adviser Condoleezza Rice said recently the US is following up on leads that Iraq may have stashed some of its alleged weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

Sharon told the cabinet he has instructed Shalom to hold diplomatic contacts with Arab countries on the condition that they are willing to fight terrorism.

Shalom said that Israel held secret contacts with Syria several months ago, but the talks broke down after word of the meetings leaked out. He said that back channel talks with other unidentified Arab countries are continuing.

Shalom said the secret contacts took place seven or eight months ago with people "very close" to Assad.

"Unfortunately, after two meetings that the Israeli partners had with their Syrian colleagues, it leaked out. And while it was exposed, of course the Syrians didn't continue to negotiate through this track," he said.

"Negotiating with Syria," Shalom told reporters, "presents us as seekers of peace, puts Assad to the test, and pressures the Palestinians by letting them know we have other options."

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky called on Sharon at the cabinet meeting to extend a hand to Assad.

"Thirty years ago, a leader named [Menachem] Begin said to Anwar Sadat, who said he was interested in peace, to come to Israel and conduct negotiations," he said. "I suggest to the prime minister act in a similar fashion and come out with a declaration that if Assad wants to conduct negotiations, you are willing to talk to him anywhere – without giving up on the principle that Syria end its support for terrorism."

Words such as these cannot hurt, he said, and indeed can only help Israel's image as a country that wants regional peace.

On the other hand, Health Minister Dan Naveh said the US is exerting a great deal of pressure on the Syrians, and Israel should not do anything to help Syria extract itself from this situation without changing its actions.

Everyone wants peace with Syria, Naveh said, but the way to test the sincerity of Assad is not through public declarations, but through "quiet" back channels.

Education Minister Limor Livnat said that Israel should not fall into the Syrian "trap." "I believe that the moves made by Syria are a manipulation," she said. "We should wait to see if there is anything real behind their words and statements."

In Damascus, a European Union envoy on Sunday discussed with Syrian officials ways to resume Syrian-Israeli peace talks, saying Europe is read to help "in any way possible."

Following an hour-long meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara, Marc Otte said the minister reiterated Syria's readiness to resume talks with Israel from the point they had stopped in January 2000.

"We are of course ready to help in any way possible for these talks to resume. ... But you need two to dance tango. I mean the other side has to accept too. We don't want to negotiate in the place of the parties," Otte said. "I am going to play the role of presenting our good offices to the two parties. The only way to reach peace is to negotiate."

AP contributed to this report.

jpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23919)1/12/2004 1:11:17 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794282
 
REVIEW & OUTLOOK - Wall Street Journal

The Triumph of Nafta
Ten years later, a stronger continent-wide economy.

Monday, January 12, 2004 12:01 a.m.

When President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox sit down together today at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, they might begin with a toast to the North American Free Trade Agreement. The treaty turns 10 this month and, despite protectionist bellyaching, a decade of closer commercial ties across our shared 2,000-mile border has been a boon to both nations.
Nafta includes Canada, of course. But the treaty was historic in 1994 because no advanced country since Britain in the 1800s had dared to institutionalize open trade with such an underdeveloped neighbor. The U.S. already had a free-trade deal with Canada. Bringing Mexico into the mix was the revolutionary gamble.

Nafta visionaries in the U.S. went out on that limb for good reason. Mexico's authoritarian political system, repressed economy and resulting poverty were creating problems that could not be contained at the border in perpetuity. Mexican instability would eventually spill over the Rio Grande. The choice was easy: Either help Mexico develop as part of an integrated North America, or watch the economic gap widen and the risks for the U.S. balloon.
By this measure alone Nafta has been a success. In less than a decade the openness of free trade helped promote monumental changes in Mexican politics, and in its economy and financial system. Greater transparency in almost all facets of governance means that Mexico is far more stable today than it was 10 years ago. It has also made for exponentially better U.S.-Mexico relations, and for a more promising North American future.

Mexican liberalization had begun before Nafta, under the presidency of Carlos Salinas. But by making markets open to American and Canadian goods by law, in the year Mr. Salinas left office, Nafta ensured that the trend toward liberalization would continue under a new administration. Without Nafta, Mexico's destructive 1994 devaluation might well have pulled the country back into another decade of isolationist nationalism, of the sort we have seen in Argentina. As it turned out, Nafta helped the Mexican economy stabilize more quickly amid the post-devaluation chaos.

The economic shock of trade competition has in turn helped open Mexican politics. In July 2000, what Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa had famously called the "perfect dictatorship" finally came to an end. Mexicans elected their first president from outside the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in 70 years. Mexican elections at the national and state level are now considered free, fair and highly competitive.

Political accountability provoked yet another advance. When Mr. Fox took office in December 2000, there was no mega-devaluation of the peso as there had been in the presidential years 1976, 1982, 1988 and 1994. The drivers of this historic non-event were unmistakably related to Nafta. That is, pressure to attract foreign investment had forced Mexico to open its books, and at Mr. Fox's inauguration there were no monetary or fiscal surprises.

Under Nafta, Mexican businesses--notably the Monterrey elite--had new incentives as well. They became importers of components and machinery for production as well as exporters. Their transactions were now in dollars. Open markets changed the dynamics of a currency play that once had Mexican producers lobbying the government for a weaker peso.

Free trade efficiencies have also boosted North American economic growth. According to Dan Griswold at the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies, "since 1993, the value of two-way U.S. trade with Mexico has almost tripled from $81 billion to $232 billion, growing as fast as U.S. trade with the rest of the world."

The point of free trade isn't to create jobs per se but to allow resources to find their most efficient use and redeploy workers to better-paying jobs. Manufacturing networks incorporating the comparative advantages of all three Nafta members have made North America an attractive investment for global capital.

"The small outflow of direct manufacturing investment to Mexico has been overwhelmed by the net inflow of such investment from the rest of the world," writes Mr. Griswold. From 1994 to 2001, U.S. manufacturing companies invested an average of $2.2 billion a year in Mexican factories, in addition to the $200 billion invested annually in the U.S.

The U.S.-Mexico relationship still faces challenges--from water rights to crime and immigration. But the future is infinitely more promising now that we share a greater number of economic interests and political values. On those counts alone, Nafta has been a spectacular success.

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.