4 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

More of the Same Old, Same old... [:o] I haven't even begun to address the "Mideast", or the Drug War, Or Sri Lanka, The Philippines, Colombia, Chiapas, Congo, and dozens of other scenarios. [":)]

I'll leave something for next week's news. It would be very helpful to start getting newsclippings and editorial comment from those of you around the world. I think it is helpful to not just focus on a Euro/American view for trying to undertand the subtlies of how these conflicts are percieved globally. [B)]

LL

North Korea Incurs U.S. Penalty for Missile Parts Sales to Yemen

http://www.nytimes.c...nal/23KORE.html
By MICHAEL R. GORDON


WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The Bush administration has imposed sanctions against North Korea after concluding that it sold Scud missile components to Yemen before President Bush took office, American officials said today.

The timing of the penalties is particularly sensitive given Washington's tenuous relations with North Korea and developments between North and South Korea. The decision to impose them, though largely symbolic, contrasts sharply with the more conciliatory approach recently adopted toward North Korea.

The missile components were sent by Changgwang Sinyong Corporation in North Korea, the marketing arm for Pyongyang's missile export program. The company has been a catalyst for earlier penalties, but in this case it is not their only target.

The sanctions, which bar licenses and contracts for high-tech items, also apply to the North Korean government, under an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, on nonmarket economies. They apply to the North Korea's work on missile technology electronics, space systems or equipment and military aircraft.

The United States has no trade with North Korea in these areas, but an administration official said they were important nonetheless.

"We are making a statement to the world that North Korea engages in dangerous and illicit activity," an administration official said. "We are making it clear that if you are a friend of the United States or civil society these are characters you do not want to be associated with."


The move follows more positive signals concerning Washington's relations with North Korea. Last month, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with the North Korean foreign minister, Paek Nam Sun, on the sidelines of an Asian regional meeting. It was the highest-level contact with North Korea since President Bush took office. After the session American officials began to consider whether to send a senior State Department official to North Korea.

On the Korean peninsula, North and South Korea held high-level meetings last week, putting Korean reconciliation back on track after a deadly naval skirmish in June.

A senior Japanese Foreign Ministry official is scheduled to begin talks with his North Korean counterpart this week in a move that may lead to a resumption of talks about the possible normalization of relations.

Administration officials said that after determining that the North Koreans had shipped the missile components to Yemen, they had had no choice but to impose the sanctions.

But critics assert that the decision reflects the influence of hard-liners within the Bush administration who do not favor a warming of relations and expanded dialogue with North Korea.

American officials say the shipment of Scud components to Yemen occurred during the Clinton administration. They also say the United States has raised its concerns with Yemen, which has indicated that it does not plan to buy any more missile technology from North Korea.

The sanctions are also stirring a broader debate about the administration's policy toward North Korea.

President Bill Clinton had sought to negotiate an end to North Korea's missile exports and production. In October 2000, North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, told Madeleine K. Albright, then the secretary of state, that his nation was prepared to end the export of missiles and missile technology for a price.

But as the clock wound down on the Clinton administration, the two countries did not finish the deal. Important details, including verification measures, were never resolved.

North Korea has maintained a moratorium on missile flight tests since 1999 but has continued to sell missiles and missile technology.

Bush administration officials have portrayed this as a sign of North Korea's bad intentions. Mr. Bush has described North Korea as part of an "axis of evil." But some officials from the Clinton administration assert that the Bush administration has missed an opportunity to negotiate a halt to the missile exports.
"While the Bush administration sits on its hands, the North Koreans have continued to export," said Elisa D. Harris, a specialist on nonproliferation at the University of Maryland who served on the staff of the National Security Council under Mr. Clinton. "The administration appears to be doing very little to bring an end to this activity."

The administration has insisted it is willing to talk with North Korean officials anytime and anywhere. But officials say the discussions must address not only a ban on missile exports and production but also American concerns about North Korea's nuclear program and its million-man army, much of which is deployed close to the border with South Korea.

Administration officials say that such an expanded agenda is necessary to enhance security on the Korean peninsula and produce a relaxation of tensions. But critics say that the toughened demands have made it harder to conclude a deal curtailing the sale and production of missiles, a major worry for the United States and North Korea's neighbors.

"The Bush administration keeps putting new impediments in the way of negotiating a missile deal with the North," said Leon V. Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council in New York. "Hard-liners seem to be running the show."

An American official acknowledged that the review of the shipment to Yemen had been under way for some time. He insisted that the delay in ordering the penalties did not reflect a policy debate within the administration and was not calculated to affect the broader policy toward North Korea.
"It simply reflected the difficulty in assembling the necessary intelligence and making a judgment about it," this official said.
But it is no secret that there have been deep divisions within the administration over policy toward North Korea. Secretary Powell has highlighted the United States' interest in engaging the North Koreans. Other officials, including John R. Bolton, an under secretary of state, have been deeply skeptical of North Korea's intentions. Mr. Bolton is scheduled to go to Japan and South Korea next week.

The North Koreans have recently been informed that the United States has decided on the penalities, American officials said. So far, they do not appear to have responded.
While the disclosure about Yemen is new, North Korea has stirred grave concern in recent years by selling missile technology to Iran and Pakistan. Several officials described the North Korean shipment to Yemen as a "one-time event." Yemeni officials could not be reached for comment.
Yemen has 18 Scud-B missiles, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif. A small number were used in Yemen's civil war in 1994.

©New York Times [cry]

[Lazarus Long]

The United States has troops in the Phillipines, troops moving back into theaters we thought we could leave, troops in places we never anticipated they would ever be. Well Sri Lanka is deteriorating and Indonesia never really got better, Chechnya is a siege war and Kashmir is under battle truce only for the moment.

Those of you that don't want the United Nations and the Europeans involved as a determining partner in keeping a World Peace then get ready to send American troops into EVERY THEATER OF OPERATION WORLD WIDE. We too will need to have a five million man army to do this and not all the super high tech weapons in the world will replace the Cop on the Beat in the Street World Wide.


Article & Links

7/3/2003
Annan Calls For Hold On UN Force Cutbacks In Timor-Leste

Citing "significant deterioration" in Timor-Leste's security environment, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called for a freeze in planned cutbacks of UN military and police forces that helped guide the territory to independence last year.

"The initial, successful progress that was achieved in Timor-Leste may have favoured the development of unrealistic expectations," Mr. Annan says in a special report to the Security Council on the UN Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET). "It is preferable that the international community should be reminded of the fragility of what has been achieved early in UNMISET's mandate, before downsizing has progressed beyond a point of no return."

Among factors cited by the report are riots in December the capital, Dili, which undermined business and donor confidence, showed the scale of civil disturbance that could erupt and the inability of Timorese security agencies to respond, as well as a resurgence of violence in outlying areas, including the militia-style killing in January of five pro-independence leaders and an attack on a bus last week which led to two deaths.

Under the planned downsizing the UN peacekeeping force would be cut back to 2,780 in June and to 1,750 in December, but Mr. Annan urges that it be maintained at its current level of 3,870 troops until the end of the year and be reconfigured to better deter and react to violence.

Likewise he urges that the composition and strength of UNMISET's police component and the schedule for its downsizing be adjusted to enhance its operational ability to address civic disturbances and to improve the capability of the Timorese police (PNTL).

The ceilings would be retained until December "to better reflect the current threats" in a situation that has change since the plans were drawn up, the report says, adding: "Any significant improvement or deterioration in the security environment will be reported to the Security Council with the appropriate recommendations for action."

Meanwhile, four suspects detained in connection with last week's attacks on a truck and bus appeared in court in Dili today. They were detained by the UN peacekeeping force (PKF) on Thursday and Friday. Another suspect was wounded and captured after an exchange of fire with a PKF search patrol. The surprise PKF assault led to the group fleeing and leaving behind considerable military equipment, which the PKF said showed that the armed groups operating in Timor-Leste are sophisticated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©EuropaWorld 2003

[DJS]

I want a modified UN, let's clarify that.

The Phillipines is going to fight along side 3,000 special forces troops. This is not a significant drain on our assets. Chechnya and Kashmir are not our problem, and we would be stepping on quite a few feet if we tried to involve ourselves militarily in these conflicts. The overall point that you are eluding to is that by engaging in military action against Iraq we will become the police man of the world. I have news for you-- we already are the police man of the world. Europe and the UN do not have militaries.

[DJS]

The Asian Front
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

France has promised to veto the U.S.-British-Spanish resolution to end Saddam Hussein's manipulation of the U.N. Two other veto-bearing members of the Security Council, Russia and China, are expected to join in protecting Iraq from being forced to disarm.

President Bush has made it clear he will call for the vote that will expose the council as unwilling to protect the world from blackmail by terrorist states with ultimate weapons.

This means that the U.N., as now constituted, may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella under which strong nations restrain aggression.

It has failed dismally before. Because Russia had the veto to protect Serbia's dictator, the U.S. had to turn to NATO to act in the U.N.'s stead against aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, interceding after tens of thousands of lives had been lost. A half-century before, only the temporary absence of the Soviet delegate enabled the U.S. to fly the U.N. flag in stopping North Korea's invasion of the South.

As the Security Council exhibits its irrelevance again, the U.S. and its many allies will step in to fill the void. These Allied Nations will assume the burden of replacing Saddam and removing his arsenal of terror.

But what of the threat of terror opening a second front in Asia? True to form, the U.N is frozen. Russia and China will do nothing to contain the nuclear threat from their neighbor, North Korea. France and Germany look away, urging the U.S. to buy off the extortionists unilaterally.

This is a further abdication of collective security. It may be that the U.S., even during the attention-consuming eviction of Saddam, will have to create another regional coalition of free nations to deal with the nuclear danger posed by North Korea.

The Communist regime in Pyongyang is revving up its reactors to produce plutonium and is ominously testing its medium-range missiles. With malice aforethought, it tried to force down our unarmed reconnaissance aircraft so as to take its crew hostage.

How to respond? With the U.N. paralyzed as usual, we see a complacent China, a mischievous Russia, an appeasing South Korea — as well as accommodationists in the U.S. — demanding that the U.S. submit to another round of blackmail.

A month ago, I characterized our 37,000 troops stationed near the border of North Korea as a "reverse deterrent." If we were forced to bomb the facilities producing nuclear weapons for sale to terrorists, one-third of these U.S. troops within range of 11,000 Communist artillery pieces would be the first casualties of a North Korean attack. With so many Americans as the North's human shields, Pyongyang's blackmailers are emboldened — the opposite of deterred.

South Korea's leaders have gained popularity by vilifying Americans stationed along the demilitarized zone and demanding the U.S. accede to the North's demands. Seoul's press and public have wanted to jail U.S. soldiers who get into traffic accidents.

Recently, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld expressed an interest in redeploying endangered Americans southward, or to other bases. At the same time, he ordered 20 long-range bombers to our base in Guam.

South Korea's new prime minister got the message. "The role of U.S. troops as a tripwire," the worried official told our ambassador, "must be maintained." Previously anti-American politicians are suddenly encouraging pro-American demonstrations.

Too late. America's strategic interest in this post-Security Council era is to let the strong South defend its territory while we make clear to weapons traders in the North that their illicit nuclear production is vulnerable to air attack from a nation soon to show its disarmament bona fides in Baghdad.

That readiness will bring about what diplomatists call "a fruitful, regional, multilateral negotiation." No war needed. No Security Council obfuscation necessary. Allies like Australia, Japan and the Philippines, neutrals like South Korea and Indonesia, and non-allies like China and Russia will find it in their national interest to enlist North Korea and the U.S. in talks to react to the starving and to starve the reactors.

Leagues of nations too ponderous to act need realignment into more agile, responsive coalitions. We can thank the Franco-German power grab for precipitating the diplomatic crisis that could usher in a post-Security Council era.

[Lazarus Long]

As even a cursory view of the Neo and "not so Neo" Conservative policy would suggest events have not gone as either predicted or promised and while I am reluctantly one in agreement that we cannot leave until our mission in Iraq is complete I also counter that we have no clear mission and every time the administration is forced to address the details of that they do a side step and try to change the subject.

Among the things I said in my lengthy debate with Kissinger during the lead up to the war in Iraq was that I for one would hold the Administration to the exact letter of their sanguine overly optimistic promises of not just trying but in fact actually creating a long term, stable & peaceful democracy in the region, one that would fulfill the promise of our intent.

This isn't clearly happening, though it is not clear it is impossible either. What is clear is that the situation is daily more unstable and this is running contrary to predictions and stated goals. What I suggest is that the public needs to take a more global perspective and to do this I am including excerpts from the following article.

http://pinr.com/repo...0&language_id=1
12 September, 2003
"Overlapping Flashpoints in Eurasia"

North Korea has become the fulcrum for Northeast Asian politics and potential regional power shifts as Kim Jong-il has created a genuine "crisis" -- a word U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to use for months -- over the state and extent of his country's nuclear weapons program through a well-timed plan of obfuscation and mystification. The geopolitical mood set by the "war on terrorism," one complemented by a preoccupation with "weapons of mass destruction," has served to aid Kim's agenda: fueling an inherently grave situation with a somewhat understandable dose of paranoia. Kim's hard work to gain attention -- and elicit diplomacy from those who loathe him -- finally paid off in grand fashion when there were six-way talks in Beijing last month amongst the United States, Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, and the North.

However, from Washington's perspective, North Korea only represents one flashpoint among many where the interests of the United States are vying with those of regional powers in a geopolitically critical sphere. The current conflict in Northeast Asia, along with the two other most critical flashpoints that hardly need mentioning -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- creates an arc of U.S. influence that sweeps in a southeasterly direction across the face of Asia. And as the war in Iraq distracted full U.S. attention from unfinished business in unstable Afghanistan, so will these two previous engagements greatly affect both Washington's willingness and capacity to properly deal with whatever the situation on the Korean Peninsula brings.

With this as a geopolitical model, the extreme complexity of the circumstances the United States finds itself in is readily evident: the U.S. is involved with an array of regional and global players in three separate conflicts who must all be continually juggled to produce the desired results. Some of these players -- such as China and Russia -- are present in more than one sphere, while a greater number, including the likes of Iran, Germany, and Japan are effectively only truly involved in one of these focal points. Additionally, the U.S. might receive a favorable reaction from one country in one situation but then an unfavorable reaction in a different conflict.

*********

In addition to China and Russia, the smaller -- though critical -- players in the region are Pakistan and India, with the former more pivotal at the moment than the latter because of its intimate relationship with Afghanistan. Uzbekistan seems to be the Central Asian state that Washington is the coziest with, but the regime of Islam Karimov has little influence when it comes to what happens to its neighbor in the south. Iran is obviously of great consequence but is virtually a non-player for the U.S. in terms of actual diplomacy, though Tehran continues to forge ties with local regimes while carrying out its agenda in the region.

The second and most easterly of these flashpoints is Iraq, where the United States went ahead with a war without United Nations Security Council authority and ostracized many countries because of this. Now the U.S. -- as it becomes clear that foreign troops will occupy Iraq for potentially years to come and the rebuilding process is in need of unprecedented sums of money -- is asking for funds and troops from many of the countries that originally opposed the invasion. This does not bode well for U.S. relations with key allies and other regional states that Washington needs in order to achieve its goals in other spheres.

Unlike Afghanistan, diplomatic contention over the conflict in Iraq is centered more in the U.N. Security Council than with bordering states simply because the U.S. is at odds with or lacks real diplomacy with many of them -- Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan -- and the fact that Iraq does not pose a direct threat to its neighbors as is the case with North Korea and even Afghanistan, where Pakistan and India are concerned about the increasingly destabilized regional state where their enemies may be being trained.

Coming full-circle to the Korean Peninsula, it is evident that the dynamic and unexpected events of the past two years are not without influence there and that negotiations involve much more than they appear to on the surface.

*********

North Korea is a provider of missile technology to Pakistan while Moscow has a burgeoning strategic relationship with India. If regime change were to occur in Pyongyang, Pakistan would suddenly find itself lacking one of its principal arms suppliers, yet the Russian-Indian relationship would most likely remain unchanged. This would further complicate the events in South Asia by potentially hinting at a power shift between Pakistan and India -- two nuclear-armed rivals with a combined population of over one billion people. And Washington stills needs a moderately stable and compliant Islamabad to help further its plans in Afghanistan.

So the so-called crisis on the Korean Peninsula is part of this larger, continental context because of the number of ongoing, unresolved conflicts and because of the many countries greatly affected thousands of miles away by what happens in a region where, almost sixty years later, Cold War calculations are still being made.

Report Drafted By:
Matthew Riemer


The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.