>Kieth: > >I read the news story by Ms. Tomchick. What about this paragraph? > >"By that time the Clinton administration was on its way out, unable to >make any firm promises. Clinton managed to extract a promise from >North Korea, however, to halt testing of long-range missiles, >although no one really believed that North Korea has completely >stopped work on its long-range missile program. After all, missiles >are one of North Korea's main exports. (Remember the ship bearing >North Korean missiles to Yemen that was stopped in the Persian Gulf a >few weeks ago?)" > >no one really believed that North Korea has completely stopped work on its >long-range missile program.
... after six years of waiting in vain for the US to keep its promises? I think your reading of the story is very weird. Before your quote it says: > North Korea held up its end of the deal, and so did Japan. But the > Clinton administration had a tougher time selling this deal to > Congress. Congress okayed the fuel oil, but refused to approve the > two commercial nuclear plants. Providing any kind of nuclear > materials to North Korea was verboten. Indeed, it's possible that > Clinton knew he didn't have the votes in Congress to approve the two > plants; he may have agreed to that part of the deal simply for > expediency's sake. (In other words, he struck a deal that made him > look tough and statesman-like while probably knowing that he couldn't > deliver on his end and thinking that he could stall long enough to > leave the problem to a future president.) > > In the meantime, North Korea got tired of waiting for construction to > begin on its two promised plants... Right? >Did not North Korea announced it had also all along had worked on it's >nuclear weapons program. It had two working nuclear weapons, plus producing >one new nuke per month? So what exactly did North Korea give up per the >original agreement. So what exactly did the US provide in terms of its promises? >I am confused why is the US the rogue nation? Well, if you really want to know, try William Blum: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum, author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 >I am not sure what the answer is, but how can North Korea be trusted on any >agreement. How can the US? http://www.infact.org/cowboyd.html COWBOY DIPLOMACY: How the US Undermines International Environmental, Human Rights, Disarmament and Health Agreements ... and the rest! >I don't think bribing North Korea, to be good, is working. That's not stopping the US trying to bribe just about everyone else at the moment, when it comes to "allies" and Security Council members especially, and spying on and wire-tapping the latter, and when bribes don't work it quickly turns to threats and bullying. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRUG.html Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/international/27WEB-TNAT.html?ex=104 7447483&ei=1&en=c49116966b23e15e U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation http://santafenewmexican.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7234803&BRD=2144&PAG =461&dept_id=367954&rfi=6 Santa Fe New Mexican Few Major U.S. Media Outlets Pick up U.K. Report of U.S. Plans to Spy on U.N. Members 03/02/2003 In a story not yet picked up by the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times and many other major U.S.-based news outlets, the U.K. newspaper The Observer published a leaked secret memo written by an official of the National Security Agency, instructing staff to tap the business and home phones and e-mail of key swing vote delegates to the U.N. Security Council. Here's the link to the full story on The Observer site. http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,905899,00.html Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0228-01.htm Published on Friday, February 28, 2003 by The Nation Buying a Coalition by William D. Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca And, why not... Check out Nicholas Kristof's column yesterday in the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRIS.html Losses, Before Bullets Fly By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF March 7, 2003 Last week a member of the Canadian Parliament for the ruling party, Carolyn Parrish, was caught on television declaring: "Damn Americans. I hate those bastards." Then the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper conducted a (hopelessly unscientific) poll on its Web site, asking Canadians whether they agreed that "Americans are behaving like `bastards.' " The returns aren't good: as of yesterday, 51 percent were saying yes. When even the Canadians, normally drearily polite, get colorfully steamed at us, we know the rest of the world is apopleptic. After all, the latest invective comes on top of the prime minister's spokesman calling George Bush a "moron" last fall. Canada's incivility is a reminder that the U.S. and its allies are slugging one another to death while Iraq watches from the sidelines. If, as Mr. Bush suggested in a press conference last night, the U.S. may lose a vote in the U.N. and then promptly go to war anyway, the internecine warfare within the West will grow far worse. The U.S. debate on the antipathy toward us has been misleading, I think, in its focus on France. (There's now an American bumper sticker: "Iraq Now, France Next.") It's not just the prickly Gauls who are taking potshots at us - it's even our buddies, like the Canadians and the Irish. In a survey, The Sunday Independent newspaper of Ireland polled Dublin residents about whom they feared most, Saddam Hussein or George Bush. The result: 39 percent picked Saddam; 60 percent, Mr. Bush. Even in Britain, a poll by The Sunday Times of London found that equal numbers called Saddam and Mr. Bush the "greatest threat to world peace." So let's take stock of how our invasion of Iraq is going. The Western alliance is ferociously strained, NATO is paralyzed, America is resented by millions, the United Nations is in crisis, U.S. pals like Tony Blair are being skewered at home, North Korea has exploited our distraction to crank up plutonium production, oil prices have surged, and the world financial markets have sagged. And the war hasn't even begun yet. Of course, one school of thought holds it doesn't much matter that the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya. If the Canadians don't like us, we can always exercise the military option and push our border up to 54-40. But global attitudes do matter. Before the first gulf war, Secretary of State James Baker made three visits to Turkey. This time around, Secretary of State Colin Powell hasn't visited once. So it's not surprising that Turkey refused to accept U.S. troops, impairing our plans for a northern offensive. President Bush is now making great progress in the war against Al Qaeda. And that's happening because Mr. Bush was willing to work with the Pakistani leaders; what made the difference was not just our military power, but also our diplomacy. Of course, the U.S. may have a solid plan, as Jay Leno said: "President Bush may be the smartest military president in history. First he gets Iraq to destroy all of their own weapons. Then he declares war." The worry is that we're already taking such losses, in terms of our alliances, that one wonders what will happen when the hard part begins - the day after Saddam has toppled, when we may see Shiites slaughtering Sunnis in southern Iraq; thousands of armed Iraqi exiles pouring in from Iran; Turks and Kurds fighting over the Kirkuk oil wells in northern Iraq; Iraqi military officers trying to peddle anthrax and VX gas; and radical Islamists trying to take control of nuclear-armed Pakistan. As one savvy official observed, occupying Baghdad comes at an "unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." Another expert put it this way: "We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." Those comments may overemphasize the risks, but they are from top-notch analysts whose judgments I respect. The first comment was made by Colin Powell in a Foreign Affairs essay in 1992; the second is in "A World Transformed," a 1998 book by the first President Bush. >So >why should North Korea be trusted again? Why should the US? Keith >Harley > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:02 AM > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [biofuel] Gifts to North Korea > > > Hi Harley > > >The US stopped the food and fuel shipments after North Korea announced >that > >they themselves had broken the agreements and had produced a few nukes. > >Weapons of Mass destruction that they; North Korea could shoot into the >US, > >with their long range missile systems. Recently the North Koreans test > >fired one of their missiles, that landed very close to Japan. This week >two > >North Korean jet fighters flew out 150 miles into international waters >and > >lock their weapons systems onto a US military C-130. Then turned off the > >systems and flew away. They are trying to be the big bully on the block > >with a weapon. It is called Blackmail. The US tried to culture a > >friendship, but you can see how that worked out. You can't pay someone >to > >be your friend. > > > >Harley > > Um, yes, well, that's one version of it, only it leaves out rather a > lot. I've posted that link a couple of times now. Oh well, here's the > whole thing - you won't like it, but history's not made to like: > > http://eatthestate.org/07-10/NorthKoreasWarlike.htm > > North Korea's Warlike Noises > by Maria Tomchick > January 15, 2003 > > North Korea has kicked UN officials out of its country, removed the > cameras in its Yongbyon nuclear complex, abrogated the nuclear > Non-Proliferation Treaty and torn up a 1999 agreement to stop testing > long-range missiles. It has said that any attempts by the UN Security > Council to impose sanctions on North Korea would be viewed as a > declaration of war. > > From this perspective--the portrayal of the current crisis in the US > media--North Korea appears to be a rogue nation ruled by a madman. > > The reality is somewhat different. A little history can help us > understand what North Korea is doing and why. > > After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, North Korea was left to > fend on its own economically. Formerly dependent on the USSR for fuel > oil to power its generators and food imports, North Korea had to > quickly develop its export market and a way to generate electricity, > or face collapse. This marked the beginning of the North Korean > nuclear program, initially an attempt to generate power. > > North Korea began to build a nuclear complex at Yongbyon, a huge cave > dug into the side of a mountain. It appeared, at least to the US and > North Korea's neighbors (particularly Japan), that the Koreans might > be hiding something, and the fear was that they might be attempting > to refine weapons-grade material to make a nuclear weapon. Bill > Clinton, with satellite photos in hand, confronted North Korea in > 1993. > > After a tense standoff, the two sides reached an agreement. North > Korea would allow UN inspectors and cameras into the Yongbyon complex > and would cease work on a nuclear plant that could make weapons-grade > nuclear material. In return, the US and Japan would provide North > Korea with food aid, fuel oil to run its power plants, and would help > it build two commercial-grade nuclear power plants, which would > generate electricity, but not be capable of producing weapons-grade > nuclear material. > > North Korea held up its end of the deal, and so did Japan. But the > Clinton administration had a tougher time selling this deal to > Congress. Congress okayed the fuel oil, but refused to approve the > two commercial nuclear plants. Providing any kind of nuclear > materials to North Korea was verboten. Indeed, it's possible that > Clinton knew he didn't have the votes in Congress to approve the two > plants; he may have agreed to that part of the deal simply for > expediency's sake. (In other words, he struck a deal that made him > look tough and statesman-like while probably knowing that he couldn't > deliver on his end and thinking that he could stall long enough to > leave the problem to a future president.) > > In the meantime, North Korea got tired of waiting for construction to > begin on its two promised plants. The fuel oil helped a lot, but they > decided to give the Clinton administration a little scare, just to > prod Bill Clinton's memory about his unfulfilled promise. In 1999, > they fired a prototype long-range missile over the north of Japan, > sparking another round of diplomatic talks. > > By that time the Clinton administration was on its way out, unable to > make any firm promises. Clinton managed to extract a promise from > North Korea, however, to halt testing of long-range missiles, > although no one really believed that North Korea has completely > stopped work on its long-range missile program. After all, missiles > are one of North Korea's main exports. (Remember the ship bearing > North Korean missiles to Yemen that was stopped in the Persian Gulf a > few weeks ago?) > > Then, in 2000, George W. Bush was elected president of the United > States. The first thing the Bush administration did was cut off all > negotiations and all contact with North Korea. Then September 11 > happened and the Bush administration declared a War on Terrorism. The > Taliban were supporters of terrorism, so Bush attacked and destroyed > the Taliban, leveling what was left of Afghanistan in the process. > Turning its sights to new targets, the Bush administration named > Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as members of an "Axis of Evil." > Immediately, Bush singled out Iraq because of its "Weapons of Mass > Destruction." > > Surely one can see why North Korea would be in a panic. The Bush > administration has isolated them, refused to talk (much less > negotiate), and is on a crusade against perceived enemies. To North > Korea, the US appears to be a rogue nation, governed by madmen. North > Korea might be next on the Bush agenda. So, like it or not, they > decided to develop a deterrent to US aggression: a nuclear weapon. > > US policy has always viewed nuclear weapons as a deterrent against > aggression, first in relation to the Soviet Union, and now in regards > to so-called "rogue" or "terrorist" nations. When Cold War > politicians like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney discuss this > deterrent philosophy, they always mention North Korea. Always. > > Likewise, Donald Rumsfeld has been pushing the development of the > "Son of Star Wars," an anti-missile program intended to intercept > incoming long-range missiles from hostile nations. When discussing > this program, Rumsfeld always mentions North Korea. Always. Rumsfeld > has been successful in gaining funding for the Son of Star Wars; in > the first stage of deployment, set for next year, 10 interceptor > missiles will be based at Fort Greely in Alaska. In 2005, 10 more > will be deployed in Alaska, the closest US territory to North Korea. > Meanwhile, testing of the interceptor missiles has been conducted in > the Pacific, as a sort of warning to the main target of this > billion-dollar, scary, destabilizing boondoggle: North Korea. > > Naturally, North Korea doesn't view these missiles as strictly for > defensive purposes. They view them as an offensive weapon aimed > directly at their heartland. They also take to heart Donald > Rumsfeld's assertion that the US can fight two wars at once: against > Iraq and North Korea, if necessary. > > In this context, North Korea's actions make sense. It's the Bush > administration that appears irrational, particularly in their refusal > to negotiate directly with North Korea. North Korea is right to > condemn US attempts to take this issue to the UN Security Council as > a stalling tactic to buy time so Bush can deal with Iraq first. > Notably, South Korea, China, and Japan all support negotiations; they > are particularly fearful of the prospect of sanctions against North > Korea, which could cause the downfall of Kim Jong Il's government and > the exodus of millions of refugees. South Korea, in particular, would > rather have a slow, economically easy reunification, instead of a > major economic collapse in North Korea. > > But the Bush administration is on a crusade. If only the US media > could figure that out and report the news with a little bit of > objectivity. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: k5farms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:56 AM > > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [biofuel] Gifts to North Korea > > > > > > As an US'er. I'm really ignorant of their customs or ways, but > > correct me if I might be wrong. The US has promised fuel and power in > > exchange for arms reductions. They stopped sending fuel and NK has a > > slight problem w/ that. > > So, what kind of statement would be made if the US went in and > > offered to build enough ethanol plants, small ones, containerized, to > > replace all the energy they had promised. And then to be able to do > > it for decades, a sustainable deal to promote sustainability through > > a friendship that could only grow. Also showing the gov't what > > empowering their own people can do to morale. > > > > In reality, it would only cost 1/20 of what would sending oil every > > year, would they "feel" shortchanged?? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Yahoo! Web Hosting makes it easy to build a professional web site. Sign up today and get free set-up, domain name, and more (up to a $100 value) http://us.click.yahoo.com/m3JvCD/wCpFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
