Honor Role

Bush Installs Pentagon Official Peter Flory

2005-08-02T17:44:00.000-07:00

Bush Installs Pentagon Official: "Bush Installs Pentagon Official

The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; 7:56 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush again invoked a constitutional provision enabling him to bypass the Senate and install directly a nominee who had been blocked in the Senate. This time, he named Peter Flory to be an assistant secretary of defense.

The move on Tuesday came a day after Bush used the same powers to install John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

President Bush gives a thumbs up as he departs the South Lawn of the White House Tuesday, August 2, 2005. He was heading to his ranch in Crawford, Texas where he will spend the month for his annual vacation. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) (Gerald Herbert - AP)
The Constitution gives the president the authority to put an official on the job without waiting for Senate confirmation when Congress is in recess. The official then can serve until the end of the current Congress, which in this case is January 2007.

Flory was first nominated to the post on June 1, 2004, but the nomination was blocked by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a dispute over release of intelligence-related documents that Levin sought from Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy.

Flory has been the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. His new assignment is as the assistant secretary of defense for international security policy.

He would replace J.D. Crouch, who left more than a year ago to take another position.

Flory was re-nominated by Bush in January 2005, at the start of the new Congress, but Levin continued to block it. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported the nomination to the full Senate last Thursday. A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said Levin blocked consideration of the nomination by the full Senate.

"The Senate has had ample time to consider his nomination and hold an up or down vote," Whitman said. "This is an individual that is well qualified for this position, it's an important policy position. We're a nation at war. We're fully engaged in that effort."
"

My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey

2005-07-21T19:59:00.000-07:00

My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey "My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey "Martin O'Malley Picks Glen Ivey:

My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey as rumors swirl around that he will run as Martin O'Malley's pick for Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. I have known Glenn for over 5 years. We met when I got a phone call from Glenn Ivey inviting my two boys (now the older two) to come down to play with Glenn's children. I knew him first as a neighborhood father and only later as a man in politics. He is a good and decent man. I notice that even with 5 young sons Glenn and Jolene Ivey get their children to Church. I notice that a baseball and soccer games I can expect to see one or both rooting their sons on. To do that with 5 children is something not to mention with the pressure that Glenn is under fighting crime in a county with too many murders and too few cops. I also notice that Glenn drives himself even though his predecessor had a full time police chauffeur. Glenn is about as straight and honest as they come. I am proud to have Glenn as a friend.
Barry O'Connell""

My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey

2005-07-21T19:52:00.000-07:00

My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey "Martin O'Malley Picks Glen Ivey:

My best wishes go out to Glenn Ivey as rumors swirl around that he will run as Martin O'Malley's pick for Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. I have known Glenn for over 5 years. We met when I got a phone call from Glenn Ivey inviting my two boys (now the older two) to come down to play with Glenn's children. I knew him first as a neighborhood father and only later as a man in politics. He is a good and decent man. I notice that even with 5 young sons Glenn and Jolene Ivey get their children to Church. I notice that a baseball and soccer games I can expect to see one or both rooting their sons on. To do that with 5 children is something not to mention with the pressure that Glenn is under fighting crime in a county with too many murders and too few cops. I also notice that Glenn drives himself even though his predecessor had a full time police chauffeur. Glenn is about as straight and honest as they come. I am proud to have Glenn as a friend.
Barry O'Connell"

Saudi officials and Peter CW Flory review issues of joint interest

2005-06-26T20:18:00.000-07:00

Saudi, US defence officials review issues of joint interest: "Media Monitor

Saudi, US defence officials review issues of joint interest
Jun 25, 2005, 12:35 GMT
Text of report in English by Saudi News Agency SPA
Riyadh, 25 June: Prince Khalid Bin-Sultan Bin-Abd-al-Aziz, the assistant minister of defence and aviation for military affairs, received here today Peter CW Flory Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs at the US Department of Defence and the accompanying delegation.
They reviewed issues of mutual interest.
Source: Saudi News Agency SPA, Riyadh, in English 1133 gmt 25 Jun 05
BBC Mon ME1 MEPol smb
Copyright 2005 BBC Monitoring Service "

Spin of the Week - Myron Ebell defended the editing as necessary for “consistency.”

2005-06-12T12:18:00.000-07:00

Spin of the Week: "Oil lobbyist becomes White House climate science editor
In a lengthy memo Rick S. Piltz, a former senior associate in the Climate Change Science Program, revealed that U.S. government climate research reports had been edited by a White House official, American Petroleum Institute, changed one 2002 document to “create an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about climate change and its implications.” In March this year Piltz resigned and subsequently contacted the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower protection organization. A white House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, told _The New York Times that Cooney would not be available to speak to reporters. “He’s not a cleared spokesman,” she said. Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a corporate-funded think tank, defended the editing as necessary for “consistency.”"

Bloomberg.com: ``Name calling only begets name calling, further loss of face, more stubborn posturing and less talking,'' said Wendy Sherman

2005-05-24T16:28:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg.com: Japan: " Japan

U.S. Is Urged by Former N. Korea Envoy to Accept Two-Way Talks
May 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government should hold direct talks with North Korea and avoid name calling to break an impasse in getting the communist nation to stop its development of nuclear weapons, a former American envoy involved in the issue said.

North Korea's government has asked for direct talks with the U.S. as a condition for returning to the wider discussions involving Russia, China, South Korea and Japan that it withdrew from earlier this year when it said it had built nuclear weapons. The U.S. has said the six-party talks are the only framework.

``The US ought to indicate that it's time for serious negotiations that include bilateral discussions within the context of six party talks as all other parties have done,'' Wendy Sherman, former North Korea Policy Coordinator under President Bill Clinton's administration, said in a speech in Seoul today.

The fractious North Korea, U.S. relationship has been punctuated with threats of reporting the communist country to the United Nations Security Council if it carries out a nuclear weapons test. President George W. Bush has referred to North Korea as part of an ``Axis of Evil'' and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called it a ``terrible regime.'' The North has resorted to personal insults directed at American leaders.

``Name calling only begets name calling, further loss of face, more stubborn posturing and less talking,'' said Sherman who accompanied then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to Pyongyang in 2000 where she met North Korea Leader Kim Jong Il. ``The US should remember that we are the big country and the North is the little country.''

Responding to Overtures

North Korea's government will respond to the U.S. stance toward the communist nation expressed at a meeting on May 13 in New York at ``an appropriate time,'' the official Korea Central News Agency said yesterday.

U.S. officials met North Korean representatives at the United Nations last week, the first such meeting in six months, as part of efforts to restart the talks on dismantling the country's nuclear weapons program.

``The DPRK will continue to closely follow the U.S. attitude and its stand will be officially conveyed to the U.S. side through the contact channel in New York when an appropriate time comes,'' the agency said.

The meeting was the first between North Korea and the U.S. in six months. North Korea is refusing to return to six-nation talks to end its nuclear arms program without promises of economic aid and an assurance the U.S. won't take military action against it.

Stephen Hadley, President George W. Bush's national security adviser, on May 15 said the U.S. has ``seen some evidence'' North Korea may be preparing to test its first nuclear weapon. Other countries involved in the talks are South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. The last round of talks took place in Beijing in June 2004.

Creating Confusion

North Korea said comments by other administration officials since the meeting in New York ``creates confusion in guessing the U.S. stand.''

KCNA cited Hadley talking about ``a punitive measure'' against North Korea. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments on May 16 that the U.S. would not allow North Korea to aggravate the present stand-off and her reference to the possibility of reporting North Korea to the United Nations Security Council were also cited by the agency.

``They let loose such an endless string of balderdash at a time when (North Korea) is seriously studying the U.S. stance, which it had learned through the contact in New York,'' the agency said.

The talks in New York were ``a way for us to clarify policy,'' U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said during a May 20 press briefing, according to transcripts on the State Department's Web site.

``They have not clarified their position on returning to the (six-nation) talks, even though everybody is telling them that's the best thing to do,'' Boucher said.

To contact the reporter for this story:
Heejin Koo in Seoul at hjkoo@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: May 24, 2005 03:09 EDT
"

George Kennan, Leading Cold War Diplomat, Dies

2005-03-18T09:48:00.000-08:00

Reuters News Article: "George Kennan, Leading Cold War Diplomat, Dies
Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - George Kennan, a prominent U.S. diplomat and historian who was an important architect of the containment policy designed to curb Moscow's influence after World War II, has died at age 101, according to media reports on Thursday.
Kennan died on Thursday night at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, The Washington Post and New York Times reported.

Kennan was key among U.S. diplomats in the wake of World War II in establishing the framework for policies toward Josef Stalin's Soviet Union.

While serving as counselor at the U.S. Embassy in February 1946 and sick from flu and a toothache, Kennan answered Washington's queries about Stalin by dictating a 5,542-word memo. Called by some authors the most influential cable in U.S. Foreign Service history, the "Long Telegram" outlined how the West could deal with the coming face-off with the Soviet Union.

Summoned to the State Department in Washington, Kennan wrote a highly influential article under the pseudonym "X" in Foreign Affairs quarterly in July 1947 setting out arguments for a policy of containing what he saw as Soviet expansionism.

Kennan argued the United States' former wartime ally was seeking to expand its influence at the West's expense -- to "fill every nook and cranny available to it in the basin of world power."

He urged the United States to pursue a "long-term, patient, but firm and vigilant containment" of the Soviet Union.

As the Cold War dragged on and containment became the justification for such undertakings as the Vietnam War, Kennan said his original proposal had been misunderstood.

He said he had not meant containment to entail the United States becoming a world policeman, and maintained the Soviet Union posed more of a political than a military challenge for the West.

Kennan, regarded as a foreign policy "dove" by the late 1960s, insisted Washington should vigorously pursue efforts at superpower detente and arms control.

In the 1980s, he frequently criticized the hard-line arms policy of the Reagan administration.

Kennan served in German and Baltic posts and was a member of the first U.S. diplomatic mission to Moscow in 1933. He also served in Berlin, Vienna and Prague, Czechoslovakia, in the late 1930s as Europe moved to world war.

Appointed ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1952, he served in the post only five months when he was declared persona non grata after comparing life in the U.S. Embassy to that in a Nazi internment camp.

A year later, he left the State Department to do research at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and to lecture on foreign policy.

Kennan served as adviser on foreign affairs to Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1949 and as ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1961 to 1963.

He wrote 17 books. Two of them, "Russia Leaves the War," published in 1957, and "Memoirs: 1925-1950," published in 1967, won Pulitzer prizes.

His last book, "Sketches From A Life," compiled from his diaries, was published to enthusiastic reviews in 1989."

"Please RSVP . . . we need to know how much Australian and American wine and beer to buy."

2005-02-17T07:28:00.000-08:00

John McCaslin: Shunning Hillary: "GRAPES OF WRATH

"Please RSVP . . . we need to know how much Australian and American wine and beer to buy."

- Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, inviting allies in the Bush administration, Congress, business, labor "and our Australian mates" to a reception this Wednesday to celebrate the United States' and Australia's not joining what's being called the "European" Kyoto Protocol, which goes into effect this week.
"

Ebell: the chairman of the IPCC Dr. Pachauri has abused his official position

2005-01-27T13:09:00.000-08:00

Head of global climate change panel asked to resign: "Head of global climate change panel asked to resign

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is being pressured by the Competitive Enterprise Institute to resign on the grounds that his “political activism fatally compromises his IPCC responsibilities.”

In a January 27 statement, Iain Murray, a senior fellow in international policy at CEI, remarked, “Dr. Pachauri’s actions are those of a policy advocate, not an objective official….The world can no longer rely on him for accurate and unbiased analysis.” The institute claims that Pachauri served as scientific adviser for a recent report, written by “a consortium of American, British, and Australian leftist advocacy groups,” titled “Meeting the Climate Challenge.” CEI, a non-profit public policy group that advocates for free enterprise and limited government, says the report “makes outlandish scientific claims that are not supported by the IPCC’s previous publications and recommends a number of ineffective and economically unsound policies.”

Under Pachauri’s leadership, Murray asserted, “the IPCC appears institutionally biased towards unscientific conclusions that support a particular political agenda.” Myron Ebell, CEI’s director of global warming, agreed. He declared, “Political activism is entirely inappropriate for the chairman of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri has abused his official position, which carries great responsibilities, and thereby forfeited the public’s trust.” The condemnation follows last week’s protest resignation by Chris Landsea, a hurricane scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea said his departure was in opposition to a senior IPCC scientist’s decision to “utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming.”"

Rubbish From the House of Commons: Motion to censure Myron Ebell

2004-12-15T13:29:00.000-08:00

House of Commons: Motion to censure Myron Ebell: "House of Commons: Motion to censure Myron Ebell

Competive Enterprise Institute (UK Parliament)
November 17, 2004

US GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Norman Baker
Mr Peter Ainsworth
Mr David Chaytor
Mr Simon Thomas
Sue Doughty
Alan Simpson
Mrs Helen Clark

That this House deplores in the strongest possible terms the unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientist, by Myron Ebell, an adviser to US President George W. Bush, on climate change; notes that Mr. Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, an organisation funded by, amongst others, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute; fervently hopes that Mr. Ebell's comments do not represent official US policy; congratulates Sir David King on the work he has done to raise the issue of global warming both at home and abroad; believes that the planet cannot afford another four years of inaction and denial from the US Administration; and calls on the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to do everything possible to get President Bush to accept the need to take climate change seriously and ensure the US plays its part internationally in reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

The New York Times > New Climate Thriller: Scary, but Is It Science?

2004-12-15T06:35:00.000-08:00

The New York Times > Science > Environment > New Climate Thriller: Scary, but Is It Science?: "New Climate Thriller: Scary, but Is It Science?
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Published: December 14, 2004

On the surface, Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," can be seen simply as a thriller in which environmentalists happen to be the villains. Mixed with the story, however, are lengthy, annotated attacks on the scientific consensus that the globe is warming, human activity is a cause, and accumulating emissions of greenhouse gases may dangerously disrupt the climate system.

While Mr. Crichton includes a note emphasizing that most of the book is a "product of the author's imagination," he adds that "references to real people, institutions and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real."

Just one week after the book's release, it has stirred intense reactions not only among scientists, but also from people at every corner of the debate over what to do, or not do, about climate change. Several climate scientists, whose work is attacked by Mr. Crichton's characters, read the book at the request of The New York Times and contended that it did exactly what Mr. Crichton blamed his villains for doing: ignoring or distorting findings that do not fit a thesis and hyping those that do.

Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that where Mr. Crichton's main character, Dr. John Kenner, says flatly that one of Dr. Hansen's climate predictions in 1988 "was wrong by 300 percent," it could not be further from the truth.

"Crichton has taken what is actually a triumph of climate science prediction and pretended that it is a failure," Dr. Hansen said.

He said that the 1988 study looked at potential climate impacts of three possible tracks for emissions of the heat-trapping gases: Possibility A, in which they grew at an exponential rate; Possibility C, in which they were severely curtailed; and a most realistic Possibility B in which emissions essentially stayed at the 1988 rate.

Mr. Crichton, through Dr. Kenner, mentions only the unlikely high-emissions possibility, Dr. Hansen said. In the intervening years, he added, "the real world is falling right on the projections for Scenario B."

Myron Ebell, who since the late 1990's has fought emissions restrictions for groups aligned with industry, most recently the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the novel was marginal literature but a great poke at environmentalists.

"As a novel it looks way too didactic, but as an anti-global-warming alarmism, anti-Malthusian diatribe it is going to drive the forces of darkness into a rage," Mr. Ebell said.

Indeed, David G. Hawkins, who runs the climate program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private Washington conservation group, called the book "a scurrilous smear." His group is clearly a model for Mr. Crichton's National Environmental Resource Fund, which sends agents in Prius hybrid cars to kill foes with bites from blue-ringed octopuses carried in sandwich bags.

Mr. Hawkins, like Dr. Hansen, said his biggest concern was that Mr. Crichton's "selective citation of isolated data" gave the book an undeserved aura of authority. "The irony," Mr. Hawkins wrote, "is that to make his case that enviros, 'establishment' scientists and the media are abusing the scientific method, he tramples it himself."

In an interview last week with The Times, Mr. Crichton said he presumed that there would be criticism from scientists. But he insisted that scientists trying to divine where conditions will be in coming decades face huge hurdles. "There's a lot of people in modern society who really think they can see the future; they don't think they're psychics, but they think they can see the future. And boy, they can't."

One undisputed fact seems to be that after many years in which books and movies dealing with climate largely failed, something has changed. Mr. Crichton's book was second on Amazon.com's best-seller list yesterday. And his publisher, HarperCollins, is part of News Corp., the media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch that also, through 20th Century Fox, this year produced "The Day After Tomorrow," in which the environmentalists are heroes."

Study Claiming Rapid Arctic Ice Melt Refuted by Ebell at Climate Summit -- 12/14/2004

2004-12-15T06:33:00.000-08:00

Study Claiming Rapid Arctic Ice Melt Refuted at Climate Summit -- 12/14/2004: "Study Claiming Rapid Arctic Ice Melt Refuted at Climate Summit
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 14, 2004

Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNSNews.com) - A researcher who predicts a rapid melt in the Arctic region presented his findings to participants at the United Nations climate change conference here on Monday, but many conference participants questioned the validity of the science used in the study.

Robert Corell, the chair of the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), summed up the findings of his group's report, saying, "We are now experiencing some very rapid and severe climate change in the Arctic."

The study, entitled "Impacts of a Warming Arctic," concludes that climate change will accelerate over the next 100 years, "contributing to major physical, ecological, social and economic changes," Corell said during his presentation to a packed conference room at the meeting.

Corell warned that the rise in sea levels from the projected melting of Greenland's ice shelf could have major impacts on coastal areas worldwide.

But Myron Ebell of the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) refuted Corell and his international commission's report on Arctic melting.

"The temperature graph [of the Arctic used in the ACIA study] does not agree with any of the known [temperature] data sets for the Arctic. In other words, who knows where they got this data from," Ebell told CNSNews.com.

Ebell, who is attending the U.N. climate change summit, is the director of international environmental policy for CEI. He believes that alarm over the projected melting of Greenland's ice shelf is misplaced.

"It was warmer in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and Greenland had much less ice cover back then," Ebell said.

But Correll presented his case for a quick and alarming Arctic melt with confidence. "It's happening there and it's happening rapid[ly]... Places that used to be frozen year round are now opening up," Corell said.

"The preponderance of evidence is that the observed warming on the planet and most definitely in the Arctic over the last 30 to 50 years is due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations," he added.

Rising sea levels, changes in animal habitats and possible changes in ocean currents are some of the potential problems the Earth faces, according to the ACIA report.

But Ebell questioned why rising Arctic temperatures are something to fear. "If global warming in the Arctic is such a problem, why do 80 percent of Canadians live within 50 miles of the U.S. border?" Ebell asked rhetorically.

"If Canada warmed up a bit they might be able to live in more of their own country," he added.

'Did anyone notice?'

Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book that debunks what he sees as flawed eco-science, also dismissed concerns about the catastrophic impacts of rising sea levels.

"We are probably gong to see sea levels rise about 50 centimeters over the coming century. Now that is a substantial amount, but what we don't remember is that in the last century they rose somewhere between 10 and 25 centimeters -- and did anyone notice? I mean it is something we dealt with," Lomborg told CNSNews.com.

Lomborg is in Buenos Aires trying to convince world governments to worry less about climate change and worry more about what he considers the pressing problems of AIDS in Africa, world poverty, and inadequate sanitation.

He said rising sea levels aren't going to be a big problem. "It's going to be a challenge and it's going to cost us money," Lomborg said, "but it's going to be something we will deal with."

Lomborg believes that focusing on the Kyoto Protocol to help ward off rising sea levels is unrealistic.

"They are going to rise, but the point is with Kyoto, we are going to postpone that rising for only about six years in 2100 -- that is it," he said.

Corell of the ACIA study did concede that there is not much the world can do to stop rising sea levels.

"What would happen if we did in fact reduce C02 emissions over the next 100 years -- in a very concerted effort -- what would happen to sea-level rise? It would take literally over a thousand years for the sea level to stop rising as a consequence of what we have done over the last 150 years," Corell said during his presentation.

Arctic report 'debunks itself'

Other analysts and scientists have debunked the notion that Arctic ice is melting as a result of human activity.

Steven Milloy, who hosts the website junkscience.com, wrote an essay in November refuting the ACIA report on Arctic melting.

"The report...pretty much debunks itself on page 23 in the graph labeled "Observed Arctic Temperature, 1900 to Present," Milloy wrote.

"The graph shows that Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles that are roughly 40 years long. The Arctic seems currently to be undergoing a warming phase - similar to the one experienced between 1920 and 1950 - which will likely be followed by a cooling phase - similar to the once experienced between 1950 and 1990," Milloy said.

Milloy also disputed the ACIA's claim that "global warming could cause polar bears to go extinct by the end of the century by eroding the sea ice that sustains them."

\ldblquote...the notion of a declining polar bear population doesn't square well with available information," Milloy wrote.

"A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that in three Arctic villages, polar bears 'are so abundant there's a public safety issue.' Inuit hunters wanted to be able to kill more bears because they are 'fearsome predators,'" he wrote.

Milloy said that if polar bears are getting skinnier, it probably does not have anything to do with climate change, but overpopulation as a larger bear population competes for the same level of resources.

Despite the numerous critiques of the ACIA's report on Arctic melting, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, held a Senate hearing in November to hear testimony from some of the report's authors.

Because the hearing did not feature any scientists who believed the Arctic study to be scientifically flawed, McCain was criticized for not holding balanced hearings on Arctic melting.

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, the author of a new book Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media, told CNSNews.com in November that McCain's hearing was probably "the most biased hearing" he had ever seen on Capitol Hill."

Ebell Exposes "National Commission on Energy Policy" as a Sham

2004-12-09T14:14:00.000-08:00

Panelists lay out energy proposals | ajc.com: "Panelists lay out energy proposals

By JEFF NESMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 12/08/04

WASHINGTON — A coherent national energy strategy should include greater subsidies for nuclear power, stricter government auto fuel efficiency standards and mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, a private commission said Wednesday.

The two-year, $5 million study by a group that comprised corporate executives, environmentalists, union officials and academics said the country must significantly reduce energy consumption while also developing new supplies.

The National Commission on Energy Policy said it had sought realistic policies that might break stalemates that have for years stymied development of clear national energy goals.

Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive energy policy bill for the past four years. Another sweeping bill is expected to receive attention early next year.

The panel's key proposals include increasing and diversifying world oil production, significantly raising federal fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, and implementing mandatory, economy-wide caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

The commision also proposed making it easier for the Bureau of Land Management to develop natural gas resources on government land and reducing barriers to pipelines and other "critical energy infrastructure."

"For a great many people, environmental issues are everything, and for a great many others, production issues are everything," said John W. Rowe, chairman and chief executive of Exelon Corp. and one of the commission's three co-chairmen. "What we think we have offered is a balanced package."

Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly, another co-chairman, said the report recommends policies that would bring about "a gradual but decisive shift toward greater energy security and reduced danger of climate change."

A preamble to the report said "it should not be assumed that every member is entirely satisfied with every formulation in the report," but that the members had reached consensus on the recommendations "as a package."

But to some people, the report had something to offend everyone, and it sparked quick criticism from opposing interests.

"The self-appointed, self-styled National Commission on Energy Policy is a lobby for special interests and big government masquerading as an official-sounding panel of unbiased experts," said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-business nonprofit group.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the commission's report "found agreement on some helpful solutions," but "also contains some truly terrible ideas."

The chairmen of the energy committees in the House and Senate, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), had no reaction to the report Wednesday."

The Talk Shows (washingtonpost.com)

2004-11-28T18:09:00.000-08:00

The Talk Shows (washingtonpost.com): "LATE EDITION (CNN), Noon: Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.); Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the United States; David Manning, British ambassador; Jean-David Levitte, French ambassador; Robert Gallucci, former U.N. weapons inspector; Wendy R. Sherman, former assistant secretary of state; and Richard N. Perle, former assistant secretary of defense. "

CNN.com - APEC issues mount for Washington - Nov 19, 2004 (Wendy Sherman)

2004-11-19T04:34:00.000-08:00

CNN.com - APEC issues mount for Washington - Nov 19, 2004: "APEC issues mount for Washington
From Senior White House Correspondent John King
Friday, November 19, 2004 Posted: 0503 GMT (1303 HKT)

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, left, and Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing meet at APEC on Thursday.

(CNN) -- U.S. President Bush's first post-election international trip -- to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Chile -- has highlighted the White House's desire to tackle the issue of North Korea's nuclear threat.

But Bush's partners in the talks -- China, Japan, South Korea and Russia -- all to varying degrees suggest North Korea isn't the only obstacle to progress, and that Bush could offer security and other incentives.

APEC is an economic club by name, known for its colorful class photos.

Security has dominated the agenda in recent years, especially after the September 11 attacks, but some leaders want to refocus on pocketbook issues, and put their stamp on Bush's second term agenda.

"We're going to see leaders turn to the American president and say 'what about your budget deficit, what about the weak dollar, what about rising oil prices in the world'?" said Wendy Sherman, a former assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration.

Russia's Vladimir Putin publicly endorsed a second Bush term, but Moscow's announcement of a new weapon has some thinking it is time for Bush to turn tougher with a leader critics say has turned too autocratic.

"The Bush administration is going to have to take the gloves off a little bit and be a little bit more head strong about where President Putin is leading his country," Sherman said.

China's economic transition and trade and immigration debates also present tough challenges for the White House.

Beijing's ongoing tensions with Taiwan, trade surplus with the U.S. and a growing appetite for oil are all potential subjects for discussion when Bush meets Asian leaders in Chile this weekend.

However, the United State's desire to rein in a nuclear-armed North Korea remains strong, particularly with fears that such weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.

Such uncertainties are shared by Seoul.

"We do not say we can fully trust North Korea and the way they have behaved in the international community has been raising concerns," South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said.

CNN Correspondent Stan Grant contributed to this report"

Rumor's as Phony as a $2 Bill (washingtonpost.com)

2004-11-15T15:10:00.000-08:00

Rumor's as Phony as a $2 Bill (washingtonpost.com): "Probably Anti-Housewarming, Too

It's not often that a Washington lobbyist gets to be the focus of a censure motion in the British House of Commons, but anti-global warming lobbyist Myron Ebell managed that trick earlier this month.

Seems Ebell, interviewed Nov. 3 on BBC Radio, said: "We have people who know nothing about climate science, like Sir David King, your chief scientific adviser, who are alarmist and continually promote this ridiculous claim. Sir David has no expertise in climate science."

One newspaper reported the shot and described Ebell, who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as "one of President George Bush's top climate change advisers."

Next thing you know there's a censure move in the House of Commons, saying it "deplores in the strongest possible terms the unfounded and insulting criticism of Sir David King, the Government's Chief Scientist, by Myron Ebell, an adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush, on climate change; notes that Mr. Ebell is Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, an organization funded by, amongst others, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute; fervently hopes that Mr. Ebell's comments do not represent official U.S. policy."

Well, not precisely."

New Statesman - Ebell Exposes Economic Attack on US

2004-11-11T19:15:00.000-08:00

New Statesman - Bush faces trade sanctions: "Bush faces trade sanctions
Observations
Andrew Simms
Monday 15th November 2004

Observations on global warming. By Andrew Simms
It wasn't long before something toxic merged with the dull haze of disappointment following George W Bush's re-election. Myron Ebell of the US-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, part funded by Exxon, and who is one of Bush's advisers on climate change, told Radio 4's Today programme on 4 November that global warming was a European plot to undermine US economic dominance.

Astonishing as Ebell's remarks may have seemed, they were just another example of the Republicans' speciality: the preventive strike. Now that Russia has ratified Kyoto and the European Union is on the verge of launching its emissions trading scheme, the US administration knows that it is only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets serious about American free-riding on climate-change action.

The US has argued consistently against doing anything because it would cost too much. By not playing climate ball, the administration thinks, it is saving domestic businesses money. In other words, the failure to act is subsidising US producers, especially those in fossil-fuel-intensive industries. But the rules of the World Trade Organisation forbid subsidies, which means that other countries can retaliate.

There have already been clear hints from Pascal Lamy, the outgoing EU trade commissioner, that Europe feels within its rights to use economic measures against the US. So the next big climate-change conference, due in Buenos Aires next month, could be the moment when international environmental rules grow up.

It has been a long time coming since the UN Convention on Climate Change was first signed in 1992 at the Earth Summit. The biggest problem with any international treaty or convention is enforcement. When countries break the rules of the WTO, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, they can face swift and effective sanctions. Multilateral environmental agreements, however, are often voluntary, in effect. That could be about to change as the economic effects of acting to slow climate change begin to bite, and anger grows at those who refuse to act. Developing countries would be exempt as, rightly, they are not required to do anything until the rich countries, which created the problem, take a lead. So the two countries that are free-riding on the Kyoto Protocol, the US and Australia, are the vulnerable ones.

The most likely economic weapons would be "counter-subsidy" measures or "border tax adjustments". Both are acceptable in international trade, where environmental agreements such as Kyoto have been negotiated in good faith.

There are interesting precedents. When the European Commission considered a climate-change tax in 1992, it cited the US "superfund", used to clean up toxic sites in the United States and paid for by taxes on the petrochemical industries, with importers paying higher rates. A direct trade measure is thus being used to pursue environmental objectives.

When the New Economics Foundation proposed trade measures as the stick needed to get the US to move on climate change, Lamy's response was a delicious example of the political art of "denial, non-denial". It was a "thought-provoking contribution", he said.

And he elaborated: "There is a clear case for being aware of any adverse effects on our industry and doing everything in our power to minimise these. In that sense, it is relevant also to keep under review the scope for action under WTO rules to 'level the playing field'." At the time, with the EU trying to seduce Russia into Kyoto, it would be "counter-productive" in Lamy's view, to contemplate trade action. That problem, however, is now out of the way.

And, to focus his mind, Bush might note that his home state has the third-highest level of exports to the EU of all US states - a mixture of Texan chemicals, consumer electronics and "transport equipment".

Andrew Simms is policy director of nef, the New Economics Foundation, and author of the nef briefing Free Riding on the Climate

This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the latest in current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New Statesman print edition."

The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic

2004-11-10T08:02:00.000-08:00

The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic: "The Pentagon Insider Who Spread Rumors that Sounded Anti-Semitic
By Edwin Black
Mr. Black is the New York Times bestselling and award-winning investigative reporter and author of IBM and the Holocaust. His forthcoming book, Banking on Baghdad (Wiley), which chronicles 7,000 years of Iraqi history, releases in October. He can be reached at www.edwinblack.com.

Since the run-up to the war in Iraq, Internet bloggers and discussion sites have been rife with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist rampages directed against Jewish neocons in the Pentagon. But their message lacked credibility until "Deep Throat" gave them the eyewitness testimony-direct from the Pentagon-they craved. The case of "Deep Throat" illustrates just how easy it is for anti-Israel blogging and chatting to escalate to serious media attention.

It all started in early 2002, when a series of anonymously written columns began appearing on the Soldiers for the Truth website at www.sftt.org, which is run by decorated veteran David Hackworth. The site mainly functions as an angry Pentagon watchdog. The columns, dubbed "Deep Throat Returns," and subheaded "Insider Notes from the Pentagon," were heavy with Zionist and Israel conspiracy-theory references. For example: "U.S. intentions in Iraq have been criticized for a lot of reasons... a Zionist political cult that has lassoed the E-Ring [the most senior offices of the Pentagon] and parts of Washington...using war to resolve years of piss-poor U.S. energy policies."

In October 2002, one such column castigated Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and also undersecretaries Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both Jews, accusing them of being in the palm of Israel and the Likud. "RW&F," she wrote, "know when Mr. Sharon visits with more requests for military and economic aid, in the double digit billions, in part to support all those new settlements in the West Bank, it is a good thing."

"Deep Throat Returns" was actually written by a genuine insider, Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, at the time a frustrated staffer in the Pentagon's Near East South Asia (NESA) bureau.

Kwiatkowski explained to this writer in a recent interview that her anonymous columns excoriating her bosses at the Pentagon arose as the result of "deep frustration over what I saw." Her column activity probably amounts to the first time a sensitive security-cleared Pentagon analyst regularly published such commentary to the world at large while still on active duty and openly allowed it to be attributed to an anonymous "Pentagon insider."

In March 2003, Kwiatkowski retired from the Air Force; she is now an activist in the Libertarian party. Kwiatkowski is a simple-speaking and amiable woman, living on a farm in Virginia's Shenandoah Mountains. In the interview, she gratuitously tossed around such charged references as a "Zionist political cult in the Pentagon" with clear naiveté and without understanding their impact. She fervently denies she is anti-Semitic and calls Israel a good friend and ally of the United States.

But, Kwiatkowski adds, she objects to what she calls "Likud's grip." For Kwiatkowski, Likud and Labor are the only two parties of Israel. She readily admits she does not understand Zionist history or politics, and visualizes conspiracies that even transcend generations. For example, she asked if I knew that No. 3 Pentagon official Douglas Feith's parents were followers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky during World War II, as if that "explained" his current actions. Ironically, Kwiatkowski asserted that she didn't want any of her anti-Zionist remarks to hurt Israel or America's Jewish community. "That is not my intent at all," she assured.

While at NESA, Kwiatkowski not only wrote anonymous columns for Internet distribution, she sometimes vented to those who communicated with her office in the Pentagon. On January 15, 2003, during the run-up to the second Iraq war, she typed an email from her Pentagon computer, declaring, "I didn't mean to get upset...When serious threats to one's country are present, war is a last resort to being taken over. But of course, we are nowhere near threatened like that from Iraq or even [from] Bin Laden. Israel is most paranoid about that possibility and many in Washington share Israel's security perspective."

After retiring in Spring 2003, Kwiatkowski began writing Internet columns openly under her own name. In these, she continued verbalizing her discontent with NESA and her former superiors in the military planning establishment. Her columns also continued attacking Jewish Pentagon policy hawks, such as Perle and Feith, linking them to a grand plan to serve Israel at America's expense.

On August 3, 2003, another Internet writer, Jim Lobe, interviewed Kwiatkowski. Writing in the electronic version of Asia Times, which succeeded the defunct Hong Kong-based newspaper, Lobe broadly quoted Kwiatkowski's insider testimony that a cabal of Jewish neocons -- actually Likud surrogates -- was developing America's military policy on Iran. Feith continued as a leading target. "Along with Feith," wrote Lobe, "all of the political appointees have in common a close identification with the views of the right-wing Likud Party in Israel. Feith, whose law partner is a spokesman for the settlement movement in Israel, has long been a fierce opponent of the Oslo peace process, while WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] has acted as the think tank for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which generally follows a Likud line."

Jeffrey Steinberg, an editor of the Leesburg, Virginia-based publication Executive Intelligence Review, published by Lyndon Larouche, took notice of Kwiatkowski's interview in Asia Times. In September 2003, Steinberg met for three hours with Kwiatkowski at her farm, where she aired her views on Jewish Zionist neocons, NESA and its now-disbanded Office of Special Plans, responsible for much of America's Iraq war planning.

In a long "Memorandum for the Files," written on September 11, 2003, and emailed to an undisclosed list of recipients, Steinberg summarized Kwiatkowski's gossip, complaints and observation into one stream-of-consciousness document. For example, the memorandum mentioned that Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Bill Luti, who headed the Office of Special Plans, obtained his PhD "from the Fletcher School at Tufts in Boston." Steinberg added, "This is a lead to pursue, given that Fletcher School was the roost of Uri Ra'anan, who was Jonathan Pollard's teacher."

Steinberg's September 11 Memorandum went on to detail Kwiatkowski's insights about a long list of staffers at NESA and the Office of Special Plans. For example: "Luti was heard boasting that Feith 'can't wipe his ass without me.'" Kwiatkowski's list included Michael Makovsky, who was cited as a Churchill-admirer, Abram Shulsky, Michael Rubin, Joe McMillan, translator Yousef Aboul-Enein and Iran desk officer Larry Franklin, now the subject of the AIPAC spying scandal. Franklin was described as "a white guy raised in the black slums of Baltimore."

The memo also described an incident in which several Israeli generals allegedly walked into Feith's office without signing the visitor's book, furthering the implication that Israeli officials ran the Pentagon.

The memo's last sentence reads: "K also mentioned that there were 'rumors' circulating around the office in the summer of 2002 that there was an ongoing investigation into the leaks to the Israelis."

Kwiatkowski explained to me the remarks about the FBI and Israelis she made to Steinberg: "A guy who had a friend in the FBI told me they were looking at" an individual "on the Israeli desk. But no one said it was Larry Franklin or Israelis."

Among those who received Steinberg's Memorandum for the Files was Patrick Lang, a former director of Middle East intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency. Lang, often interviewed by national media as a respected intelligence expert, regularly broadcasts mass emails of analysis and tidbits on the Middle East. He forwarded Steinberg's document to more than 100 high-profile recipients. The list included many of the nation's most influential Mideast experts, newspaper columnists, TV reporters and network producers, plus personalities in the Arab world.

It's impossible to know whether mainstream journalists took the memo seriously or just deleted it from their inboxes. But for those who missed the far-right provenance of the memo, it's possible that the presence of a Pentagon official as source and Lang's name in the "sender" line may have added a measure of credence to ideas normally ignored.

After Lang distributed Steinberg's memo, Kwiatkowski saw it and emailed Steinberg a long list of corrections. For example: "I did not hear Luti say that Powell should resign." Rather than correct the memo, Steinberg forwarded Kwiatkowski's many corrections to Lang who, in turn, forwarded those raw comments to the same diverse list.

Being so closely identified with the Larouche organization bothered Kwiatkowski. "I'm not really clear about what Larouche stands for. I only found about Larouche after I was called a Larouchi. I just know I don't agree or understand anything he advocates. That [Steinberg] memo has been no end of heartache because the original memo was not corrected and because there were things not true, or he interpreted them in a way I did not intend."

Lang explained that he forwarded the original Larouche materials and Kwiatkowski corrections without giving it much thought, but simply as part of his daily barrage of output to reporters.

Throughout 2004, as America's intelligence and military planning debacle in Iraq unfolded, the Internet and national policy publications continued seething with charges of warmongering against the Pentagon neocons, frequently making the Zionist connection. For some in the media who follow the policy debate and had long been pummeled by unending emails and web pushes, those anti-Zionist pundits now had an inside source: Karen Kwiatkowski.

The propriety of Kwiatkowski writing anti-Zionist insider columns while on active Pentagon duty is not easily answered. When asked about the Kwiatkowski case, a Pentagon official pointedly explained that the right to free speech, official restrictions on public commentary, and the nature of Internet posting and blogging "are constantly being weighed against the need for legitimate security concerns." He added, "one way we measure that is through directives" and specified that Kwiatkowski's columns would likely have to conform DOD Directive 5230.9, "Clearance of DOD Information for Public Release."

The official carefully explained that Directive 5230.9's fourth paragraph, mandates, "Any official DOD information intended for public release that pertains to military matters, national security issues, or subjects of significant concern to the Department of Defense shall be reviewed for clearance by appropriate security review and public affairs offices prior to release." He added that a subsection mandated that any such author "not use official DOD information generally not available to the public."

The DOD official indicated that no investigation or determination of such a case would probably be undertaken unless a member of the public or DOD personnel actually complained, for example, to the DOD Inspector General's Internet hotline."

New York City - Politics - Ney Banned From Bloomberg Luncheon

2004-11-07T17:13:00.000-08:00

New York City - Politics: "Bloomberg directed most of the blame on congressional leaders, whom he has accused of diverting city money to pork barrel projects in their own states.

His relationship with the House leadership reached a low in June, when he barred a powerful Ohio congressman, Bob Ney, from a luncheon at his East Side town house. Bloomberg blamed Ney and other Republicans for blocking an amendment that would have sent more than $400 million in extra homeland security aid to the city. Ney said Bloomberg wants 'to distance himself from Republicans, so he beats up on me.'

Last November, Bloomberg took aim at House Majority Leader Tom DeLay by blocking DeLay's plans to host a $3 million booze cruise around Manhattan during the RNC. The move infuriated DeLay, who was also irked by Bloomberg's criticism of the House leadership for failing to extend the assault weapons ban, a GOP official said.

Since then, Bloomberg has sought to smooth things over, shmoozing with the Texan about golf and suggesting an as-yet unscheduled date on the links at the suggestion of an intermediary.

He's also cultivated relationships with other leaders, including Speaker Dennis Hastert and Christopher Cox, the California Republican who chairs the homeland security committee, aides said. Bloomberg also speaks regularly with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who shares Bloomberg's interest in medicine and the sciences.

When asked about the impact of the presidential election yesterday, Bloomberg shifted the focus to Congress. 'I've said it many times, we are in many senses more dependent on Congress because we go for money,' he said at a Queens news conference. 'So, I will continue my efforts.'"

The Sentinel

2004-11-04T19:12:00.000-08:00

The Sentinel: "County Judge Signs Death Penalty Papers

By Faith Okpotor
Contributing Staff Writer
A Prince George's County Circuit Court Judge recently signed the death warrant for Heath William Burch, a man on death row since 1996, for the murder of an elderly Capital Heights couple. If executed the week of December 6 as slated, Burch will become the first man in 50 years to be executed in Prince George's County.

Judge Steven I. Platt on October 21 signed the death warrant at the request of the Prince George's County State's Attorney Glen Ivey. The Judge also gave Burch's defense team up until November 22 to file an appeal on behalf of their client.

Burch's case revisits the controversy concerning the disparity that exists between blacks and whites regarding the death row issue in the state of Maryland, according to a study by University of Maryland Criminology Professor, Raymond Paternoster. Paternoster was commissioned to carry out the study by former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening.

Patenoster, whose study was based on a review of all homicide cases between 1978 and 1999 in which the death penalty could have been sought, found that although the race of a defendant in itself does not determine the outcome of a case, the race of the victim does. Thus, a black defendant and a black victim is less likely to face the death penalty, while a black defendant and a white victim is more likely to face the death penalty than any other racial combinations. Burch is black and his defense team is expected to build their case for preventing his execution on this premise.

On March 19, 1995, Burch broke into the home of Robert and Cleo Davis, an elderly white couple who were his neighbors on Norfield Road in Capitol Heights. When Mr. Davis held up a gun to Burch, Burch stabbed him repeatedly and shot Mrs. Davis while she was trying to call the police. He made away with four guns, $105 and their pick-up truck. Although Burch claimed his actions were carried out under the influence of crack cocaine, he was sentenced to death by a jury in 1996.

Neither Burch's attorney William Kanwisher nor State Attorney Ivey were available for comment.

Ivey's communication director, Ramon Korionoff said, "Mr. Ivey has considered all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case." Because the conviction and sentencing were carried out before Ivey came into office, Korionoff said his boss is "enforcing the law as it stands here in the state of Maryland." He also said Ivey has advocated for a commission to study the death penalty and its application in the state.

Korionoff said Ivey understands why the defense will file an appeal because they have to pursue any measure that will best serve their client. However, to critics who say Ivey did not have to request a death warrant or was not under any pressure to do so, Korionoff said, "He (Ivey) has gone forward in this case as the jurors and the family [of the victims] have requested."

Peter Keith, a partner at Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, who specializes in civil litigation, said this issue is a complicated and controversial one that has attracted the attention of the State Legislature. From a legal standpoint however, Keith said in a Supreme Court case that was decided 5-4, the court determined that unless evidence of discrimination can be shown in a particular case, racial discrimination cannot be cited as reason for avoiding the death penalty where it should apply.

Keith, who taught Pretrial Civil Litigation at the University of Maryland School of Law, is glad the issue is being raised. "It's good it is being raised," he said. However he cannot predict what the outcome will be for Burch. "That decision is up to somebody other than me," he said."

Wendy Sherman - Foreign policy takes rare role at center stage - The Washington Times: World - November 01, 2004

2004-11-01T08:39:00.000-08:00

Foreign policy takes rare role at center stage - The Washington Times: World - November 01, 2004: "Foreign policy takes rare role at center stage

By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Foreign policy, typically an afterthought in U.S. election campaigns, will be foremost in many voters' minds tomorrow as they decide whether President Bush or Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry can best lead the country in a post-September 11 world.
In the first presidential election in more than a generation in which foreign policy and terrorism vie with the economy at the top of the list of voter concerns, the choice between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry may come down to style, not substance.

Despite bitter and often intensely personal attacks, the incumbent and the challenger broadly agree on a range of prickly international questions, from the need to stay the course in Iraq and support for Israel to a pre-emptive U.S. right to deal with terrorist threats and the danger posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
What is in sharp dispute, however, is which candidate is temperamentally better suited to protect American interests and head off threats above all in the global war on terrorism.
"The outcome of this election will set the direction of the war against terror," Mr. Bush told supporters in Pennsylvania last week. "And in this war, there is no place for confusion and no substitute for victory."
Mr. Kerry argues that Mr. Bush's diplomatic style — assertive, unapologetic about American interests and unashamed of American power — has alienated key allies, damaged America's image, and, in Iraq, led the country into a disastrous diversion from the real terror threat backed by a sham coalition of "the coerced and the bribed."
"The president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside," Mr. Kerry said during the second presidential debate.
"And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden."
Foreign-policy debates traditionally play only a minor role in U.S. presidential campaigns compared with the economy and other domestic issues. But the world-altering events of Mr. Bush's first term — September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq — have rewritten the equation.
A Time magazine poll early last month found that 42 percent of voters listed either the war on terror or Iraq as the most important issue in their presidential decision, compared with 26 percent for the economy and 12 percent for "moral issues" such as homosexual "marriage" and abortion.
Voter worries about security and the international scene have led both campaigns to talk tough.
Mr. Bush has mocked Mr. Kerry's often strained efforts to explain his position on the war in Iraq, while Kerry partisans insist the Democrat will fight a smarter — and tougher — battle against the terrorists.
"John Kerry has a comprehensive plan to wage a relentless, single-minded war to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movement and free the world from fear," said Wendy Sherman, a senior State Department aide under President Clinton and a leading foreign-policy adviser for Mr. Kerry.
"He will destroy the terrorist networks, take strong action to prevent nuclear terrorism, cut off terrorist financing, protect the homeland, deny terror safe havens and new recruits, support democracies in the Arab and Muslim world, and restore alliances to combat terrorists across the globe," she added.
But foreign-policy analysts still see a major divide between the two candidates flowing out of the September 11 attacks.
For Mr. Bush, who as a candidate in 2000 famously promised to make the country a "humble nation but strong," the al Qaeda strikes in New York and Washington required a complete overhaul of the rules of diplomacy and U.S. foreign policy.
"After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes back to hurt us," he said in the town hall debate with Mr. Kerry in Missouri last month .
"In the old days, we'd see a threat and we could deal with it if we felt like it or not. But 9/11 changed it all."
Mr. Kerry's supporters say the administration's "us-versus-them" diplomacy, its disdain for traditional alliances and its unwillingness to work through established institutions have left the United States isolated, feared and less safe than before.
"What hasn't changed is what constitutes legitimate action on the part of a nation-state that violates the sovereignty of another nation-state," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a longtime Senate colleague of Mr. Kerry.
"What hasn't changed is any consensus on what constitutes a humanitarian crisis, and under what circumstances an individual state, let alone a group of states, has the right to intervene," Mr. Biden told a recent Council on Foreign Relations forum.
There are some specific policy differences.
Mr. Kerry favors direct talks with North Korea's Stalinist leadership to resolve the nuclear standoff with Pyongyang. On this issue, it is Mr. Bush who is the multilateralist, arguing that Mr. Kerry's approach would undermine ongoing six-nation regional talks hosted by China.
On Iran, Mr. Kerry has said he is open to a deal with Tehran to supply nuclear fuel for the country's energy needs if Iran abandons efforts to develop its nuclear programs. Mr. Bush has let a trio of European powers take the lead in talks with Iran, but has struck a hard line against any deals on Iran's nuclear programs.
Mr. Kerry has promised a more aggressive — critics say protectionist — stance on trade and labor deals, unnerving a number of Asian countries that export heavily to the United States.
The Democrat also vows to scale back the Bush administration's ambitious plans for a missile-defense shield and a new generation of so-called "bunker-busting" nuclear bombs, saying they undermine U.S. credibility in pushing other states on weapons-proliferation questions.
Despite his unilateralist reputation, Mr. Bush can point to a number of foreign-policy successes, many employing the patient, multilateral diplomacy that his critics say he disdains.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice recently noted that U.S. relations with Cold War adversaries China and Russia are perhaps as warm and productive as they have ever been. Despite major differences on Iraq, Russian President Vladimir Putin has all but endorsed Mr. Bush for re-election, saying his defeat would be a victory for terrorists around the world.
Mr. Bush has also forged strong ties with two other major Asian powers, Japan and India, both of which privately express alarm at Mr. Kerry's economic policies.
The United States and Britain negotiated a deal with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to dismantle Tripoli's nuclear programs. Critics say Libya had been seeking a deal for years, but Mr. Gadhafi began negotiating in earnest only as the bombs were falling on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in March 2003.
U.S. pressure after September 11 brought a fundamental strategic realignment in Pakistan and across Central Asia, as regimes lined up to meet Mr. Bush's demands to cooperate in the war on terror.
Mr. Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative, begun in mid-2003 with 10 European and Asian allies, has brought new coordination to international efforts to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Bush proposed a massive increase in spending for AIDS treatment in Africa and has pushed a fundamental rewriting of U.S. foreign-aid programs to reward poor countries with sound economic policies and strong legal systems.
But the divisive debate leading up to the war in Iraq and the postwar violence and instability have provided an opening for Mr. Kerry and the Democrats. Mr. Kerry has aggressively challenged Mr. Bush on security and foreign policy — issues that traditionally have been Republican strengths.
Through its rhetoric and abrupt rejection of international treaties, the Bush administration has alienated allies in Europe, Latin America and across the Arab and Muslim world, the Kerry camp charges.
"At every turn, before the war, in its immediate aftermath and today, this administration has treated potential allies with disdain," Mr. Kerry said in a speech in Iowa last week. "As president, I will treat our allies with respect."
A senior European diplomat with long experience in Washington said Mr. Bush is broadly unpopular across both Western and Eastern Europe. The diplomat, speaking on background, said remarks such as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's "Old Europe/New Europe" distinction were seen by many as an effort to undermine the cohesiveness of the European Union.
"If Bush is elected with the same agenda as the past four years, I can see big problems," the diplomat said. "The Europeans, frankly, are scared."
Even some supporters of the war to oust Saddam say the administration's handling of diplomacy and the postwar period has undermined the goals of Mr. Bush and his foreign-policy team.
Marshall Wittmann, a former adviser to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and now a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, argued that "the manner in which this administration has conducted this war has been devastating to future efforts to employ force to defend American interests and values."
"The Bush administration has handed isolationists on the right and the left a major victory," he added.
The president insists he can work with Europe, but makes no apologies for rejecting favored European pacts such as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court.
"I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing," Mr. Bush said in the second debate with Mr. Kerry. "You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.""

The Bullying...Will Come to an End

2004-10-20T09:36:00.000-07:00

MSNBC - "The Bullying...Will Come to an End": "‘The Bullying...Will Come to an End’
John Kerry's senior foreign policy adviser explains how the Democratic presidential candidate plans to improve the country's security--and its reputation

Bebeto Matthews / AP
A New York City police officer looks at the site of the former World Trade Center, destroyed in the September 11 attacks; John Kerry has pledged to improve U.S. intelligence efforts to help prevent another attack
WEB EXCLUSIVE
Newsweek
Updated: 4:48 p.m. ET July 26, 2004July 26 - Last Thursday, the same day that the 9/11 Commission published its long-awaited report on events leading up to and following the 2001 terror attacks, John Kerry promised to fix American intelligence as part of his strategy to make America safer at home and more respected in the world. Former State Department spokesman James P. Rubin, now a senior foreign policy adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, sat down in Detroit with Richard Wolffe to explain what would be different about U.S. foreign policy in a Kerry administration. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Expectations are high that American foreign policy would change under a President Kerry, but it sounds like the goals-fighting terror, making America safer-are not that different. Is it a question of style or a question of execution?
Joe Marquette / AP
James P. Rubin

James P. Rubin: The difference, and this is the big and crucial difference, is that I think John Kerry, by virtue of his experience and his character and his wisdom, will be just as tough as George Bush in defeating Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist terrorists. But he will be a lot smarter in how he solicits the support of other countries to achieve that objective and goes directly at the problem. So, if elected, John Kerry will be sitting down with the leaders of our major friends and allies in the world and demanding action. But he will do that in a way that expresses understanding for other people’s points of view, that involves listening and leading rather than alienating, and that involves old-fashioned persuasion and an appreciation for other cultures and other values. And the bullying of the Bush administration will come to an end.

In the Clinton years there was a lot of pressure on Pakistan in particular to get to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. What makes you think that persuasion and understanding cultures will work now in a way that it didn’t before?

Well 9/11 did change things significantly. Countries like Pakistan that were reluctant to break relations with the Taliban and by extension crack down on Al Qaeda realized after the attacks of 9/11 that they were going to risk their future in the civilized world if they didn’t change course. So the world was united for the first time in history arguably; major powers-India, Pakistan, Europe, Asia, Russia, China, Japan-were united to defeat the Taliban and overthrow that government and put in place a government that wouldn’t support Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It was a great moment in the months and weeks after 9/11, and that has been lost. And John Kerry will try to recapture that solidarity and support that was lost.

One of the things the 9/11 commission has thrown up is the question of Iran. US-Iranian policy has been in the deep freeze for 25 years. How is that going to change with John Kerry?

I know John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. When it comes to that primary issue he has a multiple part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration’s. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control that will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators of that framework. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory a candidate has ever done, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world--particularly in the former Soviet Union, but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation--to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And say to them: ‘Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.’ Participating in that diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed than where you have this sort of U.S. half backing for the European initiative.

On Iraq, a lot of European diplomats say they want a foreign policy that is different, but Iraq is so toxic politically they aren’t prepared to send more troops. John Kerry has talked about changing the dynamic, but what if the dynamic doesn’t really want to change?

I don’t dispute those kind of comments. I’ve heard them as well. But the issue is that we will have a far better chance of getting the support of the rest of the world for success in Iraq-to prevent a failed state, a state where terrorism can roam free again in Iraq the way it roamed free in Afghanistan - if we have a president who is in a better position to persuade other countries of their own interest in this, a president who proposes specific policy tools to entice and enlist and encourage other countries to participate. So, for example, giving them a greater stake in reconstruction, being their partner in regional diplomatic initiatives to get countries around Iraq to prevent cross-border incursions and support for the insurgency, by making other major powers a partner in those efforts, by having an international high commissioner who can work with the Iraqi interim government and have a role in coordinating reconstruction assistance. All of those things give European and other powers a stake in success. That’s how you involve other countries--by giving them a role in decision making, not just coming to them saying: ‘We’ve already decided this, this is the way it’s going to be, will you help?’ So those are devices to entice and encourage and enlist support.

But the biggest difference will be that right now, it’s sad but true, cooperating with the United States imposes political costs on governments in the west and around the world. It wasn’t so long ago when a government in a moderate Muslim country or in a western power considered it a political plus at home to be seen as cooperating with the United States. Now there’s a political cost. That cost will change because Kerry will be sending a message of unity and determination against these dangers in Iraq and elsewhere that will change the political calculus of those leaders, and without the toxicity of the debate on Iraq during the Bush administration it will be easier. Is it a sure thing? Nothing is a sure thing, but we’ll have a far better chance.

Outside of terror and war, are you going to see a return to some of the principles and concerns we saw about trade, globalization, the soft parts of foreign policy?

Globalization is a phenomenon not a policy and one of the failings of the Bush administration is to not understand the extent to which sub-national actors and non-governmental phenomenon pose both risks and opportunities for the United States and the world. So for too long prior to 9/11, terrorism, international crime, drugs, disease, environment were seen as soft issues rather than the realities the world faces. I think in a Kerry administration you will see a president who is sophisticated enough and smart enough to deal not just with classic nation state interaction in foreign affairs, but the amalgam of activities that have come to be known as globalization, whether it’s communication or travel or the computer revolution. Yes, you will hear more about the realities rather than the old thinking that all things foreign policy are about governments and great powers.

� 2004 Newsweek, Inc."

Ney deserves another term in Congress - newarkadvocate.com

2004-10-19T06:05:00.000-07:00

Ney deserves another term in Congress - newarkadvocate.com: "Ney deserves another term in Congress

E D I T O R I A L

Bob Ney has the experience to make sure Licking County is accurately represented in Washington.

Republican Congressman Bob Ney continues to capably represent the eastern half of Licking County and the 12th Congressional District in eastern Ohio.

So we see no reason for voters to select his challenger, Democrat Brian R. Thomas, who has never held elected office.

Ney won his first term in the House during the Republican "Contract with America" takeover in 1994 and previously served as a state representative and senator.

In Washington, he now chairs the critical House Administration Committee which manages the House's operations, including its response to terrorism.

Ney's greatest strength is his advocacy for local projects in Washington, including work on Ohio 79 through Heath, a planned Thornwood connector at Ohio 79 and Beaver Run Road and many other projects.

He's also been an advocate for cracking down on predatory lending practices, the Help America Vote act and efforts to make FHA loans available to more people. And, most impressively, he voted against the Patriot Act, the overly broad anti-terrorism law which threatens many Americans' basic rights.

Ney's domestic priorities for a new term -- economic development, reforming health care, veterans issues, repairing the No Child Left Behind act and cutting the deficit -- are on target.

Unfortunately, Ney did not impress us with his plans for addressing America's health- care crisis. He blamed a bureaucratic arm of the government and frivolous lawsuits for driving up cost, which may be true, but could not offer any specific solutions.

We would urge Ney -- and every federal official -- to make meaningful health care reform their No. 1 priority outside of terrorism. Still, there's no doubt Ney is better suited for Congress."

Thomas challenges incumbent Ney for House seat - zanesvilletimesrecorder.com

2004-10-18T09:30:00.000-07:00

Thomas challenges incumbent Ney for House seat - zanesvilletimesrecorder.com: "Thomas challenges incumbent Ney for House seat

By LISA LOEFFLER
Special to the TR

Voters in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives' 18th District seat will chose between a longtime politician who feels he has more to give and a blue-collar worker who wants the chance to help.

Congressman Bob Ney started his political career in 1980, at the age of 26, when he joined the Ohio House of Representatives. He served in the Ohio Senate from 1984 to 1994 and became a congressman in 1995.

"I've always tried to represent people that are in need," the 50-year-old Republican said.

Among Ney's top priorities are further increasing homeland security, continuing tax relief so Americans can keep more of their own money, promoting a stronger economy and solving what he called a health-care crisis.

Brian Thomas said people in central Ohio should elect him because he knows what they are going through.

"I see life through their eyes," he said, noting his blue collar background and personal struggles with gas prices, insurance hikes and a tax burden that he said has shifted soundly to those making less than $75,000 a year. Thomas is a machine operator, and it's his first attempt at public office.

Thomas said he believes in and will staunchly defend the strict interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He does not support efforts such as NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades), which he says give other countries and leaders too much authority over the United States.

"I don't think we should allow any entity to tell us what to do in our borders," he said. "As a worldwide leader it's our job to lead."

Ney and his opponent are on the same side of the issue when it comes to fair trade. Ney said he also feels the country has been hit hard by unfair foreign trade and opposes NAFTA. The congressman cited his involvement in fighting illegally dumped foreign steel. He said he has been pleased with President Bush's administration and the tariffs placed on imports to help protect the American steel industry.

Thomas said he would immediately use his new position to look for better ways to fight terrorism. That would include reaching out to every government entity poised to take such action, including the CIA, FBI and NSA. Thomas said he thinks the career professionals in those agencies probably have some good ideas of how to keep the homeland secure but aren't able to get the word to the right people.

Thomas said he doesn't think the "career politicians" know what to do or they would have done it by now.

Ney agreed that there still is more work to do, but feels he is the right person to do it. He said he's had success in working with local leaders on projects such as highway funding and has ideas for some pressing national issues.

When it comes to health care, Ney said the biggest need is for private sector reform, on which he has been working.

"I don't want government-run (health care). That will hurt us," he said. Ney said the House of Representatives has twice passed medical malpractice reform but that the measure has not been acted upon by the Senate.

"These days it's easier to sue a doctor than to see a doctor," he said. Working to change that will be among his top priorities.

Ney also hopes more people get out and vote in this election. He has been active on voter initiatives, particularly those aimed at younger Americans.

Thomas advocates the use of homegrown fuels, such as corn-based ethanol and soy-based diesel fuel. He said widespread use of such measures would create a financial boon for local farmers but also would decrease the country's energy dependence on other parts of the world, specifically the Middle East."

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

2004-10-18T07:11:00.000-07:00

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia: "Central Asia Speaks: Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

‘Employee Owned’ Identity?
Dr. H.B. Paksoy

[This is the fourth of five lectures prepared by Dr. H B Paksoy for the Central European University, Budapest. The course is entitled: “Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia”]

The men I should be tempted to commemorate would be the originators of transforming thought. They often are half obscure, because what the world pays for is judgment, not the original mind.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
(1841-1935)

It is the privilege of anyone to engage in any intellectual pursuit; provided, laws appertaining are not violated.

If the above statement is read to mean, for example, “While engaged in the study of physics, if you violate the laws of nature in your deliberations, such a shortcoming will lead you to erroneous results,” it would be logical. But, it becomes ominous if the same statement is made as a “political warning to an individual not to transgress the dogmas of the institution or state” which employ that person. Yet, the statement fits both occasions effortlessly. In the latter case, if not an outright offense, it may even be seen as a violation an unspoken law. And, in some cases, unwritten (secret) laws have precedence over the published ones.

Creating a governance code, on the other hand, requires more; it is not a simple intellectual pursuit. The entire process has been through a longish period of evolution, the ‘governance strata’ and ‘individual will’ doing battle against each other throughout history. What is more, the ‘governance strata’ has tried a variety of ideologies in order to win over individualism and pluralism. These ranged from strength of arms to claims of divinity of a human; single dictatorship to institutional autocracy, and everything else in between.

Background

While there are probably a significant number of unknown natural laws in physics, perhaps nothing is left more to learn about human governance principles. In being creative, it is necessary to be the sun; not just son of sun. Nor will it suffice to be an astrophysicist writing on the solar disk. Discovery and originality does not fall into the same bin.

States, polities and principalities arise of necessity, desire and determination. This endeavor requires not only blood, but brains. And the emphasis is on creation. This does not mean that any and every creation will be beneficial to all. Most, as events have demonstrated, are not. Communism, for example, as a governance system, was, at least for a while, seen as the savior of humanity. Let us overlook, for the time being, the fact that the root idea of communism goes back to Plato’s Republic c.360 B.C.E. and then to Thomas More’s Utopia c.1515 C.E. Some of these failures have come about due to inconsistencies between the Designer of the system and the Applicators. Those who wished to apply the system either did not understand the principal tenets, or were corrupted. Another possibility is that the system was not a major shift from those already existing, too confusing or not necessarily sufficiently mature to be introduced to the world.

Even the above mentioned example of Thomas More (1478-1535) and his Utopia is full of irony. More and Erasmus (1466-1536) were very good friends, adoringly close. During a visit by Erasmus to More’s house in England during1509, Erasmus caught a cold, and while recuperating, Erasmus wrote Moriae Encomium (The Praise of Folly), with a word play and pun on More’s name. They were also contemporary with Henry VIII (1491-1547), and well acquainted with the monarch well before his ascent to the throne. In the same breath, let us also remember three more individuals before exploring Identity relationships and how they evolve. In chronological order: The English religious reformer John Wycliff (1324–1384); The Czechs religious reformer Jan Hus (1369-1415); The German religious reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546). We also need to recall that Wycliff was the first translator of the bible into English; and Luther has the honor of rendering the same holy book into German for the first time. It was the reformist writings of Wycliff that influenced Hus, whose life and writings caused Luther to turn religious reformer. These three never met.

On their part, More and Erasmus were religious reformers, too, even if, in the end, in different directions. Both remained Catholic all their lives, much like Wycliff and Hus. While Luther was protesting, and laying the foundations of a new path to a new approach, Erasmus was very sympathetic. They briefly met and discussed the issues. Erasmus was in favor of working gradually and from within Catholicism to reform it, while Luther was in a great hurry. Luther gradually became aware of his position that his noble ideas were hijacked by his protectors in Germany. And Luther needed German nobility’s protection from the Italian based Pope’s allies. The German nobility had finally discovered a reason not to pay a portion of their annual income to the Papacy. When Luther perceived Erasmus not to be in support of Protestantism in the open and full force, he turned against Erasmus.

On the other hand, More joined the administrative strata of England, even serving under Henry VIII, who founded the Church of England. This was another irony, because, earlier, Henry VIII personally wrote a pamphlet attacking the ‘heresy’ of Luther. More objected to the expropriation of the Catholic Church and its holdings by Henry VIII in favor of this English Protestantism. More was in opposition to Protestantism, and being one of the two undersheriffs of London, may have persecuted the ‘new men.’ By this time, Luther’s ideas were primarily transmitted into England through Geneva, by those around John Calvin (1509-1564). Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) was following a similar line of Lutheranism in Zurich. And the term ‘new men’ became a code word for Protestants.

Thus, the efforts to reform the financial and moral excesses of the Papacy led to a new religion, Protestantism---with many branches. As a side effect, the process of translating the Bible into ‘national’ languages only strengthened the formation of nations and states. But, the works by Erasmus and More took their place in this new world, within Protestantism, alongside the works and commentaries of all other protesters. The efforts to reform the religion also fueled the impetus to have a new governance system; one that is more ‘individualistic’ than the communitarian one prevailing under an authoritarian, religious Identity.

Development of Cooperation

No amount of regulation, by whatever means, will suffice to maintain civility. Only the willingness of the population to get along with each other can. So far, the population on this earth has not uniformly demonstrated that can be done. Ideologies have been used to wrest more of the resources into the hands of an ever smaller group. As the population grows, the pressures of resource access are transferred to other areas; or so they are presented.

The collaborative experiences of a society, in part, are responsible for the formation of its Identity. If those experiences are recorded in the form of belle letters and popular literature, than that corpus become the vertebrae of that polity. Most, if not all, Identity systems insist on a single or oligarchic leadership for a polity, from imperialism to mercantilism; regardless of its other functions. Even pluralism does not seem to result in broad based rule but tends to elect ‘representatives’ to undertake the task.

Every Identity system defines itself through sets of formal rules and adumbrated doctrines. These related words place more stress on goals then methods. Such inflexible rule-setting hampers coordination among diverse groups who need to collaborate for the success of all. This set of objectives must seek to accommodate more than the basic necessities for all concerned. The extent of the prize pie is generally known. If the distribution of the pie falls too short of expectations, there is likely to be an attempt at revising the rules, and the Identity.

The cooperative production unit, legally favored in the 19th and the early 20th centuries, heavily depended on a self governance model. This self governance model did not arise independently, but out of the ‘pie distribution’ necessity. The wealth created by the onset of industrialization had to be distributed a bit better across the labor force to prevent outbreaks of violent wage protests. Even though the parents of the cooperative movement were social activists, the midwife was a rather high ranking politician, intending to rein in galloping capitalism in its harshest form. The politician’s objective was to keep his polity together, to moderate deeply divisive issues and to create a counterbalance to unchecked moneymaking by the nascent industrialist. He wanted his polity to succeed in the world.

The employee owned corporations followed on as legal entities, as a result of a century long evolution of the cooperative production unit. By that time, the coop did not have to ‘produce,’ but could be a service organization. This began to form the Employee Owned Identity, over and above the hopes of the midwife European politician of the 19th century.

Observation

The employee-owned corporation is rarely formed and reared into successful operation by a collection of owner-employees. Rather, an entrepreneurial individual (or, small number of individuals, usually working in pairs) establishes a business. The founder(s) either sell it, or otherwise transfer the ownership of the enterprise to the employees. In a plurality of the cases, the business involved has either a local a regional base. Provided the owner-employees take a continuous interest in the heath and welfare of the enterprise, it will live and even flourish. This constant participation of all owner-employees, in a rational manner, is imperative. This rational manner here is defined as pulling on the assigned oar at least one hundred percent and not engaging in capricious tangents.

Is the Employee Owned Corporation representation, then, the ‘ideal’ model for a new Pluralistic Identity? Is it the most rational economic unit? Should there be a limit on the corporate charters much like patents, trademarks and copyrights? For example, should an entrepreneur be given a corporate charter to start a business, with the provision that after 30 or 50 years later the enterprise must be turned over to the employee ownership? Of course, the founder(s) or their legitimate heirs would be compensated at the prevailing market value. This, of course, can be foreseen in addition to the revenue derived from the operation of the enterprise throughout the specified charter period.

As a further inducement, for the purpose of encouraging the use of limited time charters (rather than making them compulsory), the corporate tax rate may be kept some percentage points lower than the regular corporate charters. Would this provide for smoother labor-management relations? Would this structure reduce the dreaded turnover, secure job continuity?

If the limited charter holders chose to revert to a regular charter, meaning, change their minds, might they be permitted to do so by paying additional taxes, and granting minority ownership in the corporation to the employees? Or would all that lead to abuses? Would all the foregoing remind us of the guild system of yore, where the entered apprentice toiled until he became a journeyman, and finally a master and owner of a craft shop (akin to the present day corporation, but, perhaps smaller in scale)? In other words, there are precedents to this type of thinking. However, at this point all we have are questions.

Identity Implications

The guild system was widely in use in Central Asia, and in Europe. Though not founded on the exact same principles, both varieties of guilds operated on the foundations of strict discipline. This was done in order to:

limit the number of craftsmen in a given specialty
regulating wage and price stability
assuring quality control favoring the consumers
leading to the formation of Identities in a given polity

All this is a necessity, if the polity is to be kept intact. In both Europe and in Asia, there was a secondary and generally unverbalized reason for supporting the guild system: Keeping the population stable and preventing the flight of taxable talent from a polity. This aspect especially required the formation and maintenance of an Identity. Nowadays, that is known, in the business-speak (and, beyond) as ‘brand recognition.’ When the polity is well regulated, including the legal system, individuals living in that society will take pride and will want to further better the conditions for selfish reasons. Those noticing those desirable qualities will want to move in, thereby swelling the population numbers, taxable businesses and disposable income. A highly respected ‘brand recognition’ of a city will ensure not only survival, but also future prosperity. Same goes for continents.

Therefore, it is a legitimate question to ask: Which came first, Identity or economics? So, what we started considering, a particular activity (interaction of Identity and economics) of a given polity, managed to force itself on the rest of life in that polity. Not only in the specified area, but in the largest sense; order in life and governance system of a polity. That we must observe, is not the only binary question that may be posed. As noted above, the idea of religion also played a prominent part in the formation of Identity; both for and against. Moreover, that struggle, to find and preserve the Identity of the self and the larger polity also influenced the nature and formation of the governance systems now in use. The process is inseparable.

About the author: H. B. PAKSOY has taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University.

Over the past two decades, some fifty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in ten countries, on the European, Asian, and North American continents. In addition to the present volume, Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) seven other books: THE BALD BOY AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (Lubbock: ATON, 2003) ESSAYS ON CENTRAL ASIA (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 1999); INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (Co-Editor)(Simon and Schuster Education Group, 1998); TURK TARIHI, TOPLUMLARIN MAYASI, UYGARLIK (Izmir: Mazhar Zorlu Holding, 1997); CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History; (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994); CENTRAL ASIAN MONUMENTS (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992); ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule (Hartford, Connecticut: AACAR, 1989).

H. B. PAKSOY earned his D. Phil. from Oxford University, England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship)"

Haaretz - Israel News - Iran to launch first spy satellite by spring

2004-10-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

Haaretz - Israel News - Iran to launch first spy satellite by spring: "Iran to launch first spy satellite by spring

By Amnon Barzilai
Iran will launch its first spy satellite in March or April 2005, Uzi Rubin, head of the Defense Ministry department responsible for ballistic missile defense, predicted over the weekend.

The launcher will be based on Russian ballistic missiles adapted by expatriate Russian experts, Rubin said. These experts have significantly advanced Iran's ballistic capabilities, he said, among other things, by significantly improving the accuracy of its Shihab-3 missile.

Iran is currently developing three satellites. Two are small, weighing 20 to 60 kg, and are expected to be launched mainly as a test. The third weighs 170 kg and will carry a telescopic camera for espionage purposes. That is the one that Rubin expects to be launched next spring.

Unlike its nuclear program, which is shrouded in secrecy, Iran has been very open about its missile and satellite programs, and Rubin said that Tehran views the satellite launch as a global show of strength. That, he added, ought to worry the West, and especially the United States.

Rubin, who has won two national security prizes for his role in developing the Ofek spy satellite and the Arrow anti-missile missile, bases his belief that Iran is being aided by expatriate Russian experts on photographs that Tehran disseminated of improvements in the Shihab-3. He said the new shape of the missile's cone - the part containing the warheads - is very similar to that found in old Soviet missiles, but different from that of the missiles Russia has produced since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

Israeli experts believe that the Shihab's new shape is meant to foil the Arrow. "We go crazy about Iranian progress in the nuclear field, and forget that the missiles Iran is developing can do us damage even with conventional capabilities," Rubin said."

"America's commitment to Israel is unshakable," said Wendy Sherman

2004-10-18T04:49:00.000-07:00

Official warns of Gaza upheaval - The Washington Times: World - October 18, 2004: "Official warns of Gaza upheaval

By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A top Palestinian official warned the United States yesterday that Israel's planned unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip would leave the door open for terrorists and lead to further conflict.
"We may have no more than another month to stop the situation from spreading into long-term conflict," said Hassan Abu Libdeh, chief of staff in the office of the Palestinian prime minister.
Mr. Libdeh told a weekend conference that the plan to leave Gaza unilaterally without a coordinated security plan between the two sides would be like throwing the key to the area into the air for terrorist groups to catch.

"We will see who grabs the key when you throw it," Mr. Libdeh told guests of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "But we are shorter, much shorter."
Despite strong settler resistance and their calls for a national referendum on the pullout, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said he will move ahead with the plan. The move, he insists, will boost Israel's security after four years of a violent Palestinian uprising or "intifada."
Israeli Housing Minister Tzipi Livni told the same gathering that the plan to unilaterally disengage from Gaza was intended "not to stop any kind of political process, but to make a window of opportunity while the Palestinians are doing nothing to reform."
Once the withdrawal is complete, she said, both sides again could pick up the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.
"We wanted to change the assumption and send a message to the Palestinians that terror does not pay and time is working against those who use force," Miss Livni said. "The United States is in total understanding."
Indeed, a senior foreign policy adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry said at the conference that a Kerry administration would stand unambiguously with the Israelis.
"America's commitment to Israel is unshakable," said Wendy Sherman. "We do take sides in this conflict, and we are not embarrassed to say so. ... No one should be under the illusion that they can drive a wedge between us."
Mr. Libdeh said he hoped the statement did not reflect the views of Mr. Kerry.
"This is very much a non-starter. America cannot be an honest broker without being neutral. Taking sides means they are no longer fit for the role of broker," he said.
Instead, Mr. Libdeh called for an "active, balanced and effective U.S. involvement" at all times.
"We need an external voice. We cannot do it on our own. The U.S. administration is very much qualified to play this role," he said.
Mr. Sharon has angered Israeli settlers, once his most ardent supporters, with his disengagement plan, although opinion polls show that a solid majority of Israelis support the scheme."

The New York Times > Washington > Townsend Hoopes, 82, Author Who Wrote About Vietnam, Dies

2004-10-10T17:20:00.000-07:00

The New York Times > Washington > Townsend Hoopes, 82, Author Who Wrote About Vietnam, Dies: "Townsend Hoopes, 82, Author Who Wrote About Vietnam, Dies
By WOLFGANG SAXON

Published: October 10, 2004

Associated Press
Townsend Hoopes in 1971.

ARTICLE TOOLS

E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions

TIMES NEWS TRACKER

Topics
Alerts

Deaths (Obituaries)

United States International Relations

History

Hoopes, Townsend

ownsend Hoopes, an author and onetime Washington insider who wrote of how President Lyndon Baines Johnson tried to de-escalate the Vietnam War in 1968, died on Sept. 20 in Baja California, Mexico. He was 82 and lived in Chestertown, Md.

The cause was complications of melanoma, his family said.

Mr. Hoopes, a former assistant secretary of defense, was Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara's principal deputy for international security affairs. In that post, he was among the few who influenced American policies and strategies in Indochina. Later, as under secretary of the Air Force, he saw the resulting shambles on the ground.

He startled Washingon - and the country - with his blunt 1969 account, "The Limits of Intervention," which focused on his impressions in light of the calamitous Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968.

Published by McKay, it was a text on war-making gone awry and a president's belated efforts to cut short demands for yet more troops and bombardment. Like several other of Mr. Hoopes's books, it remains in print, most recently from W. W. Norton.

Mr. Hoopes disclosed that even in the highest echelons of government, many officials had long concluded that the intervention in Vietnam was misconceived. The book put some pressure on the new president, Richard M. Nixon, to press the disengagement, but the conflict went on until the reunification of Vietnam in 1976.

Townsend Walter Hoopes II, known as Tim, was born in Duluth, Minn., a son of a Great Lakes steamship executive. He graduated in 1940 from Phillips Academy Andover, and with the war-delayed class of 1944 from Yale, where he was captain of the football team.

He was a Marine Corps lieutenant serving on Iwo Jima and in occupied Japan, then went to Washington, first as an assistant to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. In 1948 he was named an assistant to the secretary of defense, with time for studies at the National War College, and wrote an influential paper foretelling the president's need for what eventually became the National Security Council.

In 1953, Mr. Hoopes joined the international consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick & Paget, which has since merged into Towers Perrin. He returned to it later as a partner in New York (1958 to 1964), and a vice president and director of the Washington office (1969 to 1971).

He was the deputy assistant secretary of defense charged with security affairs in the Near East and South Asia in 1965-66, principal international security deputy overall in 1966-67, and President Johnson's secretary of the Air Force until his return to Cresap, McCormick in 1969.

After his government service, he was a frequent critic of Washington's approach to arms control in the confrontation with the Soviet Union.

He was also president of the Association of American Publishers from 1973 to 1986. He wrote authoritative books like "The Devil and John Foster Dulles: The Diplomacy of the Eisenhower Era" (Little, Brown, 1973) and "Driven Patriot: The Life and Times of James Forrestal" (Knopf, 1992), written with Douglas Brinkley.

"FDR and the Creation of the U.N." (Yale University Press, 1997) was also written with Mr. Brinkley. With his second wife, Ann Hoopes, he wrote "Eye Power" (Knopf, 1979), a personal guide to visual training, illustrated with eye exercises.

Most recently he published a novel, "A Textured Web" (2000).

Besides Ms. Hoopes, his wife of 40 years, Mr. Hoopes is survived by their daughter, Andrea H. DeGirolamo of Rockville, Md.; two sons by his first marriage, to Marion Schmidt Ducey of Ponte Vedra, Fla., Townsend W. III of Amelia Island, Fla., and Peter S. of Denver; two stepdaughters, Lise Jeantet of Berkeley, Calif., and Cecily H. Lyons of Washington; two stepsons, Briggs S. Cunningham IV of Washington and F. Thomas B. C. Hoopes of Ipswich, Mass; and 11 grandchildren."

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

2004-10-08T15:51:00.000-07:00

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia: "Central Asia Speaks: Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

Leavening of Culture, Identity, Civilization - Examples in Eurasian Traditions
Dr. H.B. Paksoy

[This is the third of five lectures prepared by Dr. H B Paksoy for the Central European University, Budapest. The course is entitled: “Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia”]

The story of a newly minted PhD is oft told, who, immediately after defending his dissertation, promptly ordered a shiny brass plate for his apartment entrance prominently displaying the initials "Dr." preceding his name. Shortly afterward, in the small hours of one morning, he was awakened by an urgent pounding on his door. A neighbor, half dressed, demanded of the Dr. that he get his bag and follow, for his wife was very ill. The young PhD made a futile attempt to explain that he was a doctor of philosophy.

His neighbor responded with angry allusions to the sexual ancestry of such claims, and a doctors' responsibility to humanity under some oath that he heard all doctors swore. Observing the noose imagery hanging in the air, the new PhD asked a few exploratory questions: what were the symptoms of the ailment, what hurt. Swiftly emptying the briefcase of unfinished manuscripts, the "doctor" refilled it with the contents of his bathroom medicine chest. Immediately upon his return from the patient's bedside, the PhD posthaste transferred the brass door-plate bearing his cherished title to the bathroom cabinet.

In some cases, there has been a similar confusion between thinking and thought, and identity and function. For example, once a student asserted that he could think that he needed a drink of water, and that constituted ‘thinking and thought process.’ Perhaps. Thinking and thought process imply transformation, and that change is inescapable. One who does not adapt to developments beyond one's control, is likely to pass from the scene. This holds true not only for individuals, but especially for the identities of polities and cultures. Each successful community, one that prospered within its environment, had devised its own method of coping with transformation. Each successful society also transmitted its cultural identity values to future generations. The study of the means of those transmission methods is a fruitful endeavor.

An example of such adaptation is the American transition from a fundamentally theologically inspired educational environment to a liberal arts college system. This transition in the U.S. was essentially designed by a handful of individuals. The change was primarily impelled by the hopes of giving the fledgling republic a sound intellectual future base, an independent life, because the liberal education was by then regarded a vanguard of an open mind towards a balanced world view. The U.S. founding fathers and their followers were well read, and knew the tribulations of previous cultures and civilizations.

The Founding Fathers of the American Republic sought to avoid the errors of the old Greeks and the Romans, but went a step further. By establishing liberal arts institutions of higher learning, the Founders pursued a policy of educating the American masses, thereby ensuring the continuance of what was established; the Republic. Thus, in 1753 Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) helped found [among others], the College of Philadelphia, later to become University of Pennsylvania. Thomas Jefferson (1743- 1826) led the establishment of University of Virginia in 1819. George Washington not only gave his name to at least one college, but also supported the creation of others. These initiatives were followed by the founding of Johns Hopkins University and the University of Chicago. These institutions were devoted to the development of Liberal Arts, as opposed to the training of clergy. Almost all colonial American colleges prior to 1776 were designed after the European model, including Harvard (1636), Yale (1701), Princeton (established in 1766 as College of New Jersey), and were first and foremost training institutions for preachers. The newly created Liberal Arts Colleges were to soon require the older universities and colleges to revise and reform their curricula, and adopt the liberal education approach. Most other institutions followed that lead.

Religion, or a given belief system, is also regarded as an essential ingredient of culture and civilization. Hence, approaches to religion of various cultures are important and the study of religion to the extent those societies have chosen to modify religion, to suit their own needs, is to be studied.

Thus we can summarize: We humans are influenced by events; whether we know their sources or not. If we are not cognizant of the sources of influences, it is too easy for us to be led astray. As a result, we may lose our humanity. There are many examples, not the least in the 20th century.

We are in search of that defining essence of humanity; what constitutes it. This is a long term search, one that may never be finalized. For good reason: The search itself is the infinitely dynamic voyage, and the results attained along the way are markers, if you will, of the evolving measures. If the humanity does not continually refine itself, than we run the risk of allowing the horrors and inhumanities experienced in the past to take over once again.

A free society cannot survive without the educated and active participation of its members. In order to participate as a responsible citizen, individuals must be prepared. Preparation includes the ability to comprehend and analyze information, which one learns through a liberal arts education. Familiarity with the society's goals and principles, as necessary as familiarity with ones' own, is attained through the study of societies in their entirety. A liberal arts education provides people with a broad foundation. Anything less than a whole education, that is Liberal Arts education, will eventually lead to a society which is not free. Without such a base, a democratic society will give way to the sway of an attractive rhetoric or personality, as has been demonstrated several times even in the 20th century.

Let us now consider how one culture flourishes and, a millennia later, influences another. In this case, none of the actors had any intention to do so. A booklet, issued by the U.S. Congress, contains the following information:

The 23 relief portraits in marble are of men noted in history for the part they played in the evolution of what has become American law. They were placed over the gallery doors of the House of Representatives Chamber when it was remodeled 1949-1950.

Created in bas relief of white Vermont marble by seven different sculptors, the plaques each measure 28" in diameter. One is full face, and 22 are profile. From the full face of Moses on the north wall, 11 profiles face left and 11 face right, ending at the Webster quotation on the south wall above the speaker's chair.

The subjects of the plaques were jointly chosen by a group from the University of Pennsylvania, and the Columbia Historical Society of Washington D.C. in consultation with authoritative staff members of the Library of Congress. The selection was approved by a special committee of five Members of the House of Representatives, the Architect of the Capitol and his associates.

The plaster models of these reliefs may be seen on the walls of the Rayburn House Office Building subway terminal. In chronological order the lawgivers are:

Hammurabi (c. 2067-2025 B.C.); Moses (c. 1571-1451 B.C.); Lycurgus (c. 900 B.C.); Solon (c. 595 B.C.); Gaius (c. 110-180 A.D.); Papinian (c. 200 A.D.); Justinian (c. 483-565); Tribonian (c. 500-547 A.D.); Maimonides (c. 1135-1204 A.D.); Gregory IX (c. 1147-1241 A.D.); Innocent III (1161-1216 A.D.); de Monfort (1200-1265 A.D.); St. Louis (1214-1270 A.D.); Alphonso X (1221-1284 A.D.); Edward I (1239-1307 A.D.); Suleiman (1494-1566 A.D.); Grotius (1583-1645 A.D.); Colbert (1619-1683 A.D.); Pothier (1699-1772 A.D.); Blackstone (1723-1780 A.D.); Mason (1726-1792 A.D.); Jefferson (1743-1826 A.D.); Napoleon (1769-1821 A.D.).

Thus we learn that Suleiman (1494-1566), the sixteenth on this list, whose epithet is Lawgiver (he recodified the laws of the Ottoman empire), is regarded as an individual whose actions and thoughts have influenced the formation of the U.S. law; therefore our actions. One can learn more about Suleiman's reign by reading works about him. However, a factor concerning Suleiman needs to be considered: What influenced his mind?

Suleiman's ancestors in the Ottoman dynasty (13-20th centuries) have established a palace school. The purpose of this institution was twofold: to educate the future rulers (their own off spring) and to simultaneously train the future high level bureaucracy. In this manner, the high level bureaucrats and the rulers would know each other, from their earliest ages. As can be expected, Suleiman was also a student.

The palace school instructors also had to train future teachers, to maintain successful continuity. Among other subjects, statecraft (what we may term Public Administration) was taught at the palace school. One of the earliest known manuals of statecraft anywhere is Balasagun'lu Yusuf's KUTADGU BILIG. It was completed in 1070/1 C.E. in the heart of Asia, four centuries prior to the voyage of Columbus, and dedicated to Tavgach Han, the ruler of the Karakhanids in Central Asia. An English translation by Robert Dankoff is available, under the title Wisdom of Royal Glory: KUTADGU BILIG (Chicago, 1983). KUTADGU BILIG has three known mss. One of them is referenced as the Herat copy. According to a note found on the Herat mss, the volume was brought to Istanbul in 1474 (still before the Columbus voyage) from Tokat in Asia minor by Fenerizade Kadi Ali, for the specific needs of Abdurrezzak Seyhzade Bahshi. The late Professor Resit Rahmeti Arat makes the following observation concerning this note:

In the Ottoman bureaucracy, there were chanceries managing the official correspondence with the Central Asian states. At their head, there was an educated individual with the title 'Bahshi' who knew the Central Asian conditions well; often they themselves were from those regions. Seyhzade Abddurrezzak Bahshi is such a person during the time of Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Mehmet II), working in Istanbul. Thus we understand why the said copy of KUTADGU BILIG is brought to Istanbul in 879/1474. However, it becomes difficult to trace the peregrinations of that work afterwards. On page 190, there is another note: "purchased from blacksmith Hamza; next to Molla Hayreddin's friday chapel; as witnessed by Hoca Haci Dellal. This Hoca Hayreddin mentioned is a teacher of Fatih Sultan Mehmet, and died in 880/1475.

Recalling that Fatih died in 1481, his son Bayazit II in 1512, and so his son Yavuz Selim in 1520; Selim's son, Suleiman, ruled 1520-1566, one might place KUTADGU BILIG into perspective, by briefly considering similar works from other cultures, contents and messages.

MAGNA CARTA (1215) is a well known document. It was forced on King John, by his noble subordinates. It does not address the concerns of the general British population; but regulates only the relations of barons with their king. The barons grew weary of the King confiscating their wealth, and the basis of the document reflects this aspect. By signing MAGNA CARTA, King John promised not to expropriate the lands and money of his nobles. By contrast, KUTADGU BILIG is primarily concerned with the happiness of the masses as the basis of the legitimacy of the ruler. In other words, according to KUTADGU BILIG, the ruler should rule by the consent of the ruled; and that the ruler ought to be impeachable, if she does not bring forth happiness for the masses. Consequently, the ruler must be just, predictable in principle and action and in constant touch with the populace.

It should be remembered that KUTADGU BILIG was completed some century and a half before MAGNA CARTA. It is also of interest to note that MAGNA CARTA has been held as a model "constitution" for many a successor document.

THE PRINCE (1513) is another well known work. Written almost five centuries after KUTADGU BILIG, The Prince sides with the Italian rulers (of the city states of the time); again, as opposed to the masses. We may consider that as a requisite of the time and the locality. There is no proposition in THE PRINCE, as the U.S. constitution states "...for pursuit of happiness..." for the individual citizen, or the society in general.

Naturally, this list may be extended by the mention of the works by Hobbes-Locke and Erasmus-Luther debates, and, of course, many others.

The aforementioned decision of the US House of Representatives in 1950, then, is a tribute not only to Suleiman, but by extension a celebration of the pluralism of KUTADGU BILIG. This can be considered an example of the educational "leavening" process in societies at large.

Accordingly, the founding fathers were acquainted with Plato (c. 4th B.C.E.), who in his book entitled Republic suggested that the true function of the state is to balance the social forces for the advancement of society. Revolutions and social upheavals may be started by seemingly simple reasons. In actuality, they are the result of accumulated injustices. In the end of sometimes protracted struggles, democracy may be achieved. The principle of democracy is the independence and self governance of the people. However, the masses must be educated in order to select their suitable governing representatives. If a population cannot choose wisely, democracy may decay into autocracy. Demagogues, through their superior orations, may gain leadership. It may even seem that those able to garner votes are capable of governing. The true democracy requires education.

It was the Greeks who first disregarded Plato's teachings, and their democracy was lost to empire end dictatorship. The Roman Republic shared the same fate in the hands of Julius Caesar (100-44 C. E). The Roman historian Tacitus (First Century C. E.), in his The Agricola and the Germania [H. Mattingly, Tr.] outlined the policy of the Roman empire in Britain:

[We] elevated King Cogidumnus to the throne, who served us loyally... in this manner, enslaved masses were governed for the Roman Empire. Britons were at first living in scattered settlements thus prone to rebellion. [The Roman Governor of Britain] Agricola privately encouraged Britons to build temples, baths and Roman style public buildings, in order to gather them into large settlements and to induce them to live in luxury and in pursuit of pleasure. In his official capacity, Agricola helped those Britons who undertook his wishes, and rewarded them. Those who were slow to accept Agricola's invitation were scorned and criticized. In this manner, Agricola sought to control the Britons not through state coercion, but by introducing private competition and sowing discord among them.

Moreover, Agricola sought to educate the children of the Britons in the Roman way, and in Latin. In a short span of time, Roman clothing and ways proliferated among the Britons. The Britons began to lose their indigenous customs, commenced attending baths and hosting magnificent parties.

Due to their inexperience, Britons thought of their new ways as civilization. In actuality, it was nothing but a requirement of their servitude.

On the other hand, in the same work, Tacitus also records the thoughts of some Britons, apparently obtained through informers, who were aware of the predicament their society was facing. These opponents of Roman policies resorted to physical fight in order to free themselves. This is akin to the Basmachi movement, or the Movement for the Liberation thereof, of Central Asia during 1916 1930s, as described by one of their leaders, Togan:

Basmachi is derived from "baskinji," meaning attacker, and was first applied to bands of brigands. During the tsarist times, these brigands existed when (Turkistan) independence was lost and Russian occupation began in Turkmenistan, Bashkurdistan and Crimea. Bashkurts (in Russian language sources: Bashkir) called the ayyar, by the Khorasan term. In Crimea (and, borrowed from there, in Ukraine) haydamak was used. Among Bashkurts such heroes as Buranbay; in Crimea, Halim; in Samarkand, Namaz became famous. These did not bother the local indigenous population but sacked the Russians and the Russian flour mills, distributing their booty to the population. In Ferghana, these elements were also active during the tsarist times.... After the proliferation of cotton planting in Ferghana [with the forced the tsarist policy of replacing grain production] the economic conditions deteriorated.

This increased the brigandage. Among earlier Basmachi, as was the case among the Western Turks, the spiritual leader of the Ozbek and Turkmen bands was Koroglu. Basmachi of Bukhara, Samarkand, Jizzakh and Turkmen gathered at nights to read Koroglu and other dastans. What has the external appearance of brigandage is actually a reflection and representation of the thoughts and spirit of a wide segment of the populace. Akchuraoglu Yusuf Bey reminds us that during the independence movements of the Serbians, the Hoduk; the Kleft and Palikarya of the Greeks comprised half nationalist revolutionaries and half brigands... The majority and the most influential of the Basmachi groups founded after 1918 did not follow the Koroglu tradition; they were composed of serious village leadership and sometimes the educated. Despite that, all were labelled Basmachi. Consequently, in Turkistan, these groups were regarded as 'partisans;' more especially representing the guerilla groups fighting against the colonial power.

Nowadays, in Ozbek and Kazakh press, one reads about Chinese, Algerian and Indian Basmachi. [See H. B. Paksoy, "The 'Basmachi' (Turkistan National Liberation Movement 1916 1930s") MODERN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIONS IN RUSSIA AND SOVIET UNION [MERRSU] (Academic International Press, 1991) Vol. IV. Pp. 5 20; idem, "The Basmachi Movement From Within: An Account of Zeki Velidi Togan" NATIONALITIES PAPERS Vol. 23, No 2. June 1995. Pp. 373 399, Reprinted in H. B. Paksoy, Ed. CENTRAL ASIA READER:

The Rediscovery of History (New York/London: M. E. Sharpe, 1994)

This, of course, is quite contrary to the views of the Bolsheviks. On the other hand, theirs is only one side of the event.

Now, how to transmit our findings to the students? How to interest the students in Erasmian and Lockean traditions as opposed to the Spencerianism that seems to pervade most settings in the current world? Why not ask them to enjoy the rose for what it is, versus their viewing the rose as the concept of social Darwinistic "How to Grow the Great American Beauty" approach? Even though they may not even have heard of these phenomenon? Or, is this shunning ‘reality’ and ‘truth?’

Perhaps the first step is to introduce them. Not all will at first accept, learn to enjoy the rose for its own magnificent source of fragrance and aesthetic existence. Possibly, some will remain skeptical. Not because they belong to that ancient school of thought, but perhaps because they have not had the opportunity to consider the alternatives. That constitutes a danger of losing humanity and the consequences of that loss. Such loss will inevitably lead to the well known horrors of Holocaust, totalitarianism, police state, slavery and intolerance and the resulting violence of all types.

Next comes the difficult task of encouraging the students to think for themselves. In an environment where the commentaries abound on every conceivable topic, the opinion seems to drown out the fact. In many a case, the rearrangement of facts to fit a pre-conceived solution or end pervades. The resultant opinion might masquerade as the received truth. Many a student arrived in my courses armed with the mental baggage of such commentaries deeply coloring their world-view. I never challenge their position, only state that they are free to think and believe in what they like. My job, I explain, is to present the extant and received corpus and point to future possibilities. By learning that there is a "perspective," a prior beginning to what they believe in, some begin to question the sources of their "learning." At this point, the paradoxical questions come to our aid. "How do we know what we know" is particularly useful. It functions as a bridge to more soul-searching approaches.

Aristotelian binary approach to questions lend themselves to a nice to contrast with the Siddhartan. If we can summarize, for the sake of a short demonstration, that Aristotle's position on a given topic is either one or zero. Put in other terms, "A or Not-A." A quill is either sharpened or not. But there are other possibilities when the humans are concerned. If I am to be pardoned to reducing the position of Buddha to a similar term, then it will be "A AND Not-A." The simplest demonstration can be, for example, England is all Anglican, vs, England is both Anglican and Catholic. U.S. is comprised of 73 Christian sects besides.

The human rights topics are always good for extended discussions. Invariably there will be students who will be unadulterated Spencerians---knowingly, or due to "received wisdom" of commentaries and popular commentators. They will forgive and defend all transgressions on UN Charter or even the US Constitution with the argument that labor is a free market commodity. That every laborer is free to decide whether to work for 5 cents an hour or not in a given country. At this point, the question "What makes humans think that they have rights" gives them pause. The pregnant silence inevitably following this invitation allows the teacher to explore the development of "freedoms" in near and far history.

What I strive to inculcate in students is not a memorization of minutiae, but the ability to compare and contrast. The ability to see the panorama as Burckhardt put it. They need to leave each and every session with more questions than they thought possible, with the understanding that they need to understand; and for the purpose, they need to acquire more "data" in the form of what the humanity thought and can teach us now.

If we do not engage in the humanistic tradition, then the Intolerant will do it their way. As they have done in the past.

NOTE:
Extracted and translated (with additions) by the author from a much longer paper he presented to a Toyo Bunko (Tokyo) audience. That original paper previously appeared in: Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies No. 7, 1992. Pp. 173-220. [Reprinted in Yeni Forum Vol. 13, No. 277, Haziran 1992.]

About the author: H. B. PAKSOY has taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University.

Over the past two decades, some fifty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in ten countries, on the European, Asian, and North American continents. In addition to the present volume, Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) seven other books: THE BALD BOY AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (Lubbock: ATON, 2003) ESSAYS ON CENTRAL ASIA (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 1999); INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (Co-Editor)(Simon and Schuster Education Group, 1998); TURK TARIHI, TOPLUMLARIN MAYASI, UYGARLIK (Izmir: Mazhar Zorlu Holding, 1997); CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History; (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994); CENTRAL ASIAN MONUMENTS (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992); ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule (Hartford, Connecticut: AACAR, 1989).

H. B. PAKSOY earned his D. Phil. from Oxford University, England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship) "

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Former U.S. Ambassadors from Republican and Democratic Administrations Endorse Kerry"

2004-10-04T11:31:00.000-07:00

U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Former U.S. Ambassadors from Republican and Democratic Administrations Endorse Kerry": "Former U.S. Ambassadors from Republican and Democratic Administrations Endorse Kerry

10/4/2004 11:41:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Mark Kitchens of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800; http://www.johnkerry.com

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a list of more than 180 former United States Ambassadors who have served under Republican and Democratic presidents who today endorsed John Kerry for president:

A-B

J. Brady Anderson, Ambassador to Tanzania (1994-97); David R. Andrews, Special Negotiator for US-Iran claims (2000-01); Christopher C. Ashby, Ambassador to Uruguay (1997-01); Harriet C. Babbitt, Ambassador to Organization of American States (1993-97); Jeffery A. Bader, Ambassador to Namibia (1999-01); Elizabeth F. Bagley, Ambassador to Portugal (1994-97); Harry G. Barnes Jr., Ambassador to Romania (1973-77), Foreign Service Director-General (1977-81), Ambassador to Chile (1985-88), Ambassador to India (1981-85); Robert L. Barry, Ambassador to Bulgaria (1981-84), Ambassador to Indonesia (1992-95); Josiah H. Beeman, Ambassador to New Zealand (1994-99); Gordon R. Beyer, Ambassador to Uganda (1980-83); James D. Bindenagel, Charge d'Affaires ad interim Germany (1996-97), Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues (1999-01); Jack R. Binns, Ambassador to Honduras (1980-81); James J. Blanchard, Ambassador to Canada (1993-96); Alan J. Blinken, Ambassador to Belgium (1993-98); Donald M. Blinken, Ambassador to Hungary (1994-97); Richard J. Bloomfield, Ambassador to Ecuador (1976-78), Ambassador to Portugal (1978-82); William Bodde Jr., Ambassador to Fiji, Tonga and Tuvalu (1980-81), Ambassador to Marsall Islands (1990-92); Richard W. Boehm, Ambassador to Oman (1984-87), Ambassador to Cyprus (1988-91); Amy L. Bondurant, Ambassador to OECD (1997-01); Stephen W. Bosworth, Ambassador to Tunisia (1979-81), Ambassador to Philippines (1984-87), Ambassador to Korea (1997-01); Peter S. Bridges, Ambassador to Somalia (1984-86); Sam Brown, Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (1994-98); George C. Bruno, Ambassador to Belize (1994-97); Edward P. Brynn, Ambassador to Mauritania (1982-83), Ambassador to Gambia (1984), Ambassador to Burkina Faso (1991-93), Ambassador to Ghana (1995-98); Peter Burleigh, Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism (1991-92), Ambassador to Sri Lanka & Maldives (1996-97), Representative to the United Nations 1997-99); Patricia M. Byrne, Ambassador to Mali (1976-79), Ambassador to Burma (1980-83)

C-E

Walter C. Carrington, Ambassador to Senegal (1980-81), Ambassador to Nigeria (1993-97); Paul Cejas, Ambassador to Belgium (1998-01); Richard F. Celeste, Ambassador to India (1997-01); James F. Collins, Ambassador to At-Large & Advisor to Secretary on NIS (1995-97), Ambassador to Russia (1998-01); Clay Constantinou, Ambassador to Luxembourg (1994-99); Carleton S. Coon Jr., Ambassador to Nepal (1981-84); Jane Coon, Ambassador to Bangladesh (1981-84); James F. Creagan, Ambassador to Honduras (1996-99); T. Frank Crigler, Ambassador to Rwanda (1976-79), Ambassador to Somalia (1987-90); William J. Crowe, Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1994-97); C. Edward Dillery, Ambassador to Tonga, Figi, Tuvalu and Kiribati (1984-87); Robert S. Dillon, Ambassador to Lebanon (1981-83); Thomas J. Dodd, Ambassador to Uruguay (1993-97), Ambassador to Costa Rica (1997-01); K. Terry Dornbush, Ambassador to Netherlands (1994-98); Robin Chandler Duke, Ambassador to Norway (2000-01); Charles F. Dunbar Jr., Charge d'Affaires Afghanistan (1982-83), Ambassador to Qatar (1983-85), Ambassador to Yemen (1988-91); David J. Dunford, Ambassador to Oman (1992-95); Ralph Earle II, Chief Negotiator, SALT II Treaty (1977-80); William B. Edmondson, Ambassador to South Africa (1978-81); John Eisenhower, Ambassador to Belgium (1969-71); Stuart E. Eizenstat, Ambassador to European Union (1993-96); Edward E. Elson, Ambassador to Denmark (1993-98); Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia (1998-00); Susan G. Esserman, Deputy US Trade Representative (2000-01); March Fong Eu, Ambassador to Micronesia (1994-96);

F-G

Robert W. Farrand, Ambassador to Papua New Guinea (1990-93); Robert C. Felder, Ambassador to Benin (1998-00); John Ferch, Ambassador to Honduras (1985-86); Glenn W. Ferguson, Ambassador to Kenya (1966-69); Thomas M. Foglietta, Ambassador to Italy (1997-00); Wyche Fowler, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (1996-01); Edward E. Gabriel, Ambassador to Morocco (1997-01); Peter W. Galbraith, Ambassador to Croatia (1993-98); John Kenneth Galbraith, Ambassador to India (1961-63); Richard N. Gardner, Ambassador to Italy (1977-81), Ambassador to Spain (1993-97); Paul F. Gardner, Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands (1984-86); Robert S. Gelbard, Ambassador to Indonesia (1999-01); D. Gordon Giffin, Ambassador to Canada (1997-01); Harry J. Gilmore, Ambassador to Armenia (1993-95); Marc C. Ginsberg, Ambassador to Morocco (1994-98); Raymond E. Gonzalez, Ambassador to Ecuador (1978-82); James Eugene Goodby, Ambassador to Finland (1980-81); A. Lincoln Gordon, Ambassador to Brazil (1961-66); Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, Ambassador to Chile (1994-98);

H-K

Anthony S. Harrington, Ambassador to Brazil (1999-01); Samuel F. Hart, Ambassador to Ecuador (1982-85); Ulric Haynes Jr., Ambassador to Algeria (1977-81); Gerald B. Helman, Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva (1979-81); Irving Hicks, Ambassador to Ethiopia (1994-96); Hugh Kenneth Hill, Ambassador to Bulgaria (1990-93); James C. Hormel, Ambassador to Luxembourg (1999-00); William J. Hughes, Ambassador to Panama (1995-98); Swanee Grace Hunt, Ambassador to Austria (1993-97); Robert E. Hunter, Ambassador to NATO (1993-98); Edward Hurwitz, Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan (1994); Karl F. Inderfurth, Deputy Permanent Representative on the UN (1993-97); Frederick Irving, Ambassador to Iceland (1972-76), Ambassador to Jamaica (1977-78); William H. Itoh, Ambassador to Thailand (1996-99); Mari-Luci Jaramillo, Ambassador to Honduras (1977-80); James R. Jones, Ambassador to Mexico (1993-97); George Jones, Ambassador to Guyana (1992-95); James A. Joseph, Ambassador to South Africa (1995-99); Philip Kaiser, Ambassador to Senegal and Mauritania (61-64), Ambassador to Hungary (1977-81), Ambassador to Austria (1980-81); Rodney Kennedy-Minott, Ambassador to Sweden (1977-80); Lowell Kilday, Ambassador to Dominican Republic (1985-88); Henry L. Kimelman, Ambassador to Haiti (1980-81); Dennis H. Kux, Ambassador to Ivory Coast (1986-89)

L-M

Philip Lader, Ambassador to United Kingdom (1997-01); Denis Lamb, Ambassador to OECD (1987); Lyle F. Lane, Ambassador to Uruguay (1979-80), Ambassador to Paraguay (1980-82); Luis J. Lauredo, Ambassador to Organization of American States (2000-01); Nelson Ledsky, Negotiator in Germany and Special coordinator for Cyprus (1989-92); Donald C. Leidel, Ambassador to Bahrain (1983-86); James F. Leonard, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations (1976-80); Delano Eugene Lewis, Ambassador to South Africa (1999-01); John A. Linehan, Ambassador to Sierra Leone (1977-80); James G. Lowenstein, Ambassador to Luxembourg (1977-81); Patrick J. Lucey, Ambassador to Mexico (1977-79); Raymond Edwin Mabus, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (1991-96); David L. Mack, Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (1986-89); Frank E. Maestrone, Ambassador to Kuwait (1976-79); Charles Taylor Manatt, Ambassador to Dominican Republic (1999-01); Richard C. Matheron, Ambassador to Swaziland (1979-82); John McDonald, Ambassador to UN World Conferences (1978-83); Tom McDonald, Ambassador to Zimbabwe (1997-01); Gerald S. McGowan, Ambassador to Portugal (1997-01); Stan McLelland, Ambassador to Jamaica (1997-01); William G. Miller, Ambassador to Ukraine (1993-96); David C. Miller Jr., Ambassador to Tanzania (1981-83), Ambassador to Zimbabwe (1984-87); Robert Miller, Ambassador to Malaysia (1977), Ambassador to Ivory Coast (1983-86); Jay P. Moffat, Ambassador to Chad (1983-85); Walter F. Mondale, Ambassador to Japan (1993-97); Richard L. Morningstar, Ambassador to NIS (1995-99), Ambassador to the European Union (1999-01); Carol Moseley-Braun, Ambassador to New Zealand (1999-01); Alfred H. Moses, Ambassador to Romania (1994-97);

N-R

Matthew Nimetz, Counselor to the Secretary of State (1977-80), Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology (1980); Donald R. Norland, Ambassador to Netherlands (1965-69), Ambassador to Botswana, Lesotho, and Swaziland (1976-79), Ambassador to Chad (1979-81); John O'Leary, Ambassador to Chile (1998-01); Lyndon L. Olson Jr., Ambassador to Sweden (1997-01); Ronald D. Palmer, Ambassador to Togo (1976-80), Ambassador to Malaysia (1981-85), Ambassador to and Mauritius (1986-88); Joseph R. Paolino, Ambassador to Malta (1994-96); Edward L. Peck, Ambassador to Iraq (1977-80), Ambassador to Mauritania (1983-85); Jack R. Perry, Ambassador to Bulgaria (1979-81); Pete Peterson, Ambassador to Vietnam (1997-01); Donald Petterson, Ambassador to Somalia (1978-82), Ambassador to Tanzania (1986-89), Ambassador to Sudan (1992-95); Donald J. Planty, Ambassador to Guatemala (1996-99); Sol Polansky, Ambassador to Bulgaria (1987-90); Joseph A. Presel, Ambassador to Uzbekistan (1997-00); Kathryn Proffitt Haycock, Ambassador to Malta (1997-01); Nicholas Andrew Rey, Ambassador to Poland (1993-97); Robert G. Rich Jr., Ambassador to Belize (1987-90); Bill Richardson, Ambassador to United Nations (1997-98); Felix Rohatyn, Ambassador to France (1997-01); Peter F. Romero, Ambasador to Ecuador (1993-96); Edward L. Romero, Ambassador to Spain and Andorra (1998-01); James C. Rosapepe, Ambassador to Romania (1998-01); Peter Rosenblatt, Ambassador to the Trust Territories of the Pacific (1977-81); Edward L. Rowell, Ambassador to Bolivia (1985-87), Ambassador to Portugal (1988-89), Ambassador to Luxembourg (1990-93);

S

Jim Sasser, Ambassador to China (1995-99); Howard B. Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh (1984-87); Teresita C. Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka (1992-95); Arthur L. Schechter, Ambassador to the Bahamas (1998-01); David J. Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes (1997-01); Cynthia P. Schneider, Ambassador to Netherlands (1998-01); Peter Sebastian, Ambassador to Tunisia (1984-87); Talcott W. Seelye, Ambassador to Tunisia (1972), Ambassador to Syria (1978-81) Ira S. Shapiro, Chief Negotiator for Japan and Canada (1995-97); John Shattuck, Ambassador to the Czech Republic (1998-00); Derek Shearer, Ambassador to Finland (1994-97); Wendy R. Sherman, Counselor to the Secretary; North Korea Policy Coordinator, Ambassador at Large (1997-01); David Shinn, Ambassador to Burkina Faso (1987-90), Ambassador to Ethiopia (1996-99); Edward E. Shumaker, Ambassador to Trinidad & Tobago (1997-01); M. Osman Siddique, Ambassador to Fiji, Tongo, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Nauru (1999-01); Thomas L. Siebert, Ambassador to Sweden (1994-98); Thomas W. Simons Jr., Ambassador to Poland (1990-93), Ambassador to Pakistan (1996-98); Richard Sklar, Ambassador to the United Nations (1997), Special Representative for Implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords (1996-97), Ambassador to and Special Representative to Promote Economic Reconstruction and the Development of Market Economies in Southeast Europe (1999-01); Robert P. Smith, Ambassador to Malta (1974-76), Ambassador to Ghana (1976-79), Ambassador to Liberia (1979-81); Keith C. Smith, Ambassador to Lithuania (1997-00); Nancy Soderberg, Ambassador to the United Nations (1997-01); E. Michael Southwick, Ambassador to Uganda (1994-97); Joan E. Spero, Ambassador to UN Economic and Social Council (1980-81); Daniel L. Spiegel, Ambassador to United Nations in Geneva (1993-97); Carl Spielvogel, Ambassador to Slovak Republic (2000-01); Andrew Steigman, Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe (1975-77); John Todd Stewart, Ambassador to Moldova (1995-98); Robert Strauss, Ambassador to the Russian Federation (1991-92); Michael J. Sullivan, Ambassador to Ireland (1998-01); Richard N. Swett, Ambassador to Denmark (1998-01);

T-Y

Richard W. Teare, Ambassador to Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (1993-96); Theresa Tull, Ambassador to Guyana (1987-90), Ambassador to Brunai (1993-96); Abelardo L. Valdez, Chief of Protocol (1979-81); William J. Vanden Heuvel, Permanent Representative to United Nations in Geneva (1977-79), Deputy Permanent Representative to United Nations (1979-81); George S. Vest, Ambassador to European Union (1981-84); Sandra Louise Vogelgesang, Ambassador to Nepal (1994-97); James D. Walsh, Ambassador to Argentina (2000-03); Keith Wauchope, Ambassador to Gabon (1989-92); A. Vernon Weaver, Ambassador to the European Union (1996-99); Thomas G. Weston, Special Coordinator for Cyprus (1999-04); Kenneth Yalowitz, Ambassador to Belarus (1994-97), Ambassador to Georgia (1998-01)

--

Paid for by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc."

Wendy Sherman on President Bush's mismanagement of Iraq

2004-10-01T20:47:00.000-07:00

KRT Wire | 09/25/2004 | As violence in Iraq continues, U.S. finds itself in a reconstruction Catch-22: "Wendy Sherman, former counselor of the State Department and a national security adviser to Kerry's campaign, puts the blame for the slow rebuilding squarely at the top. 'The level of mismanagement, lack of planning and poor judgment by the Bush administration is really staggering,' she said."

Department of State Washington File: Transcript: Albright to Visit North Korea, Clinton Visit Possible

2004-10-01T19:24:00.000-07:00

Department of State Washington File: Transcript: Albright to Visit North Korea, Clinton Visit Possible: "Transcript: Albright to Visit North Korea, Clinton Visit Possible
(Says President "hopes" to make Pyongyang trip) (5070)

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says she will visit North Korea.

In a special October 12 briefing where she discussed the attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Albright said that her visit to Pyongyang would probably take place by the end of October, and that if circumstances warranted, President Clinton could also travel to North Korea. She said Clinton "hopes" to be able to make the journey to Pyongyang.

Following the four-day visit of North Korea's Vice Marshal Jo Myong Rok to Washington, D.C., the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) issued a joint communique October 12 wherein they called for replacing the current armistice on the Korean Peninsula with permanent peace arrangements.

Jo, who serves as the first vice chairman of the DPRK's National Defense Commission, came to Washington, D.C. as the special envoy of North Korea's ruler, Kim Jong Il.

"The special envoy's visit to Washington has moved us closer to the improved relationship with North Korea that we have sought, contingent on concrete progress toward resolving the important problems that have separated us," Albright said.

Following is the State Department transcript of the briefing:

(begin transcript)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman

October 12, 2000

PRESS BRIEFING BY
SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
AND AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN

October 12, 2000

Washington, D.C.

MR. BOUCHER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Secretary of State will come in. She'll have a brief statement and be able to take a few of your questions. As you can imagine, she is extraordinarily busy this morning, and so she'll take some of your questions and then we'll turn it over to Ambassador Sherman to continue with the questions on Korea.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Thank you. Good morning. My plan was to discuss the Korea visit, which I will do in a minute, but first I want to express my deep sorrow at the explosion involving the US Naval vessel COLE in Yemen. My prayers are with the families of those killed and injured, and with all the brave men and women in uniform who serve our country every day around the world.

Rest assured that the United States will seek, with all our resources, to determine the facts surrounding this tragedy. We will continue taking every step we can to protect our troops, our diplomats, but we will not retreat from our responsibilities. If it turns out, as it appears, to have been a terrorist act, we will hold those who committed it accountable and take appropriate steps.

I also wanted to say how deeply distressed the United States is at the murder this morning of Israeli soldiers in Ramallah. I express my condolences to their families and to the loved ones of all, both Palestinian and Israeli, who have been victimized by the terrible violence that has occurred in recent days, and especially the children whose hopes for peace, so recently raised, have been dashed.

I call upon the entire international community to join the United States in urging Chairman Arafat to take the steps necessary to bring this senseless and destructive cycle of fighting to an end. No matter how justified they feel at the mob violence against their soldiers, we are calling on the Israelis to bring an immediate end to the current operations by the IDF. Now is the time for leadership. There needs to be a cease-fire by both sides. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians can gain from further killing. Both gain from the silencing of guns, a cooling of tempers, and a resumption of serious and constructive talks. The future of the Middle East must be decided at the negotiating table, not in the streets.

Finally, during the past two days, as you know, I have been pleased to host a delegation from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The delegation was headed by Chairman Kim Jong Il's Special Envoy Vice Marshal Jo Myong Rok, and First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju. Never before have our two governments met at this high a level. On Tuesday, the Special Envoy delivered a letter from Chairman Kim to President Clinton. On Wednesday, we had meetings here at the Department of State, and the Special Envoy met with Secretary of Defense Cohen at the Pentagon. And we also took turns hosting dinner.

Our expectations for this week were realistic. The differences that have existed between the United States and the DPRK are extensive, and of long standing. They will not be erased overnight. Our policy has been to explore, through our diplomacy, whether it is possible to remove, over time, the obstacles to a better and normal relationship. This is important to our own security and to that of friends throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and it supports the engagement policy of our ally in Seoul, including President Kim Dae Jung's bold vision of a Korea moving toward permanent reconciliation and peace.

Our discussions with the DPRK representatives reflected the serious approach that both sides brought to the table, and during these two days, we took a very substantial step away from the frozen and distant relations of the past. This progress is evidenced by the joint communiqué the United States and the DPRK are releasing today, and that communiqué outlines agreement on a number of key points.

These include the importance of the North-South dialogue, a mutual declaration of no hostile intent, an affirmation of the DPRK's moratorium on the testing of longer-range missiles will continue. And as the communiqué reflects, our two countries are moving in a positive direction, and we are on the right road but, as both sides recognize, we still have far to go.

Accordingly, the Government of North Korea has invited me to visit Pyongyang in the near future, and I have accepted. The purpose of my trip will be to explore opportunities for further progress on a range of regional and bilateral issues. I will also be making preparations for a possible visit to North Korea by President Clinton.

The steps cited in the communiqué issued today have been coordinated closely with our South Korean and Japanese allies. These measure represent a continuation of the policy developed with them and presented formally in the report issued by former Secretary of Defense William Perry a year ago.

In the days ahead, as in days past, we will be in close and regular consultation with our allies in Seoul and Tokyo, and our unity and coordination has been critical to the steps that have been taken toward a more stable Korean Peninsula. The Special Envoy's visit to Washington has moved us closer to the improved relationship with North Korea that we have sought contingent on concrete progress toward resolving the important problems that have separated us. The United States is committed to making further gains, and we will continue to work hard to that end.

Thank you. I now will take some of your questions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, please, on the ramming of the Navy ship, is there any knowledge, any information, on who may have done it? Has anybody claimed responsibility? And, in a larger sense, is the US under some sort of calculated attack because of its support for Israel? Is the US at large now being targeted, US citizens and such, because of the stand it has taken in the Middle East conflict?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, let me say that we are in the process of investigating the facts on what happened to the COLE. I had a conversation about an hour ago with the president of Yemen, and they are being very cooperative in the investigative process. The president of Yemen told me that he had been to the hospital to visit the casualties, and obviously he offered his condolences.

And we will continue to investigate this. And as far as I know, Barry, nobody has claimed anything. And as I said, if it appears to be an act of terrorism, we will pursue it and hold those accountable. But we have not heard anything more beyond the investigative aspect of this, and we are going to be sending some teams in and doing everything we can.

On the second part of the question, I think that clearly we have been concerned for some time about what is happening and threats of terrorism. We have talked about that for a long time. It is one of the priority issues of this Administration is to deal with that problem. We have taken a variety of steps to ensure that our diplomats are secure, and the Ambassadors on the ground are the ones that are going to be making that decision, I think, as to how to deal with their own diplomats and the Americans that are in each respective country.

I think we are in a very sad and difficult period. We have all spent a great deal of time on the peace process and have believed that it is an important endeavor, and we will continue to do everything we can. The President and I are deeply involved and will continue to pursue the peace process. But what has to happen is we have to get the violence to stop. There has to be a cease-fire and there has to be a road back to the negotiating table.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Madame Secretary, I was reading the description of Yemen in our latest terrorist report, and I am wondering why this country was ever taken off the terrorist list when there are groups like the Islamic Jihad; HAMAS has an office there, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All of these apparently still have a presence there. Usama bin Laden has a presence there.

Why was this country removed or not put back on the list of terrorist-sponsoring states, when a country like North Korea, which has no terrorists, as far as I know, is still on the list?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, as you know, we are very careful in determining how that list is put together. And there are a variety of considerations in it, and we obviously felt that there was a reason to. But I think that we first have to be very careful here to make an assessment of the facts, and I think it's very important that we know what happened and why it was caused. And we obviously will keep looking at the situation.

Q: Madame Secretary, I would like to pick up on Barry's question. Could you please share with us whether or not you have a heightened concern, greater concern, after this latest attack in Yemen, not just about anti-Israeli sentiment within the Arab world, but anti-American sentiment, and whether or not you think it's appropriate to renew that Embassy closing that you had initiated last week.

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I really caution you all not to jump to conclusions here. We have ourselves been talking about it all morning, and the investigation is going on. And I just think it's important -- you know, it's a great tragedy that four Americans died and that 30 are injured. I think there are two Yemeni nationals among those. And it is a great tragedy and we are obviously doing everything that we can. And as I said, if it does appear -- if it is a terrorist attack, we obviously will take appropriate steps. But I just urge a little bit of caution.

On the second point, I think, you know, the answer is yes. Obviously there are demonstrations going on in a variety of places. We are watching everything very carefully, and we are -- I believe -- taking the responsible action as far as our Embassies are concerned. Everybody -- we're all in contact and people are very watchful.

But let me just say this: The United States is not going to stop doing what we have to do. We have responsibilities. We have national interests. We are operating in a world that is filled with a variety of threats, but that doesn't mean that we can crawl into a ostrich-like mode. We are eagles, and I think that it is very important that the United States stay involved, that we understand the threats, and we will continue to do what we have to do.

Q: Thank you. I just want to clarify with you, Madame Secretary, you said presidential visit about a presidential visit to Pyongyang. You said visit by President Clinton. But this statement said possible visit by the President of the United States. So does this mean -- do you mean that President Clinton is supposed to visit Pyongyang at the earliest possible, by the end of year? And next question is, when do you expect you go to Pyongyang?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Believe me, I don't make commitments on behalf of the next President of the United States. (Laughter.) So, yes. And, you know, I will be going very soon, by the end of the month probably, and then President Clinton -- I think he hopes to go. We're going to work very hard to make it possible. And if we assess that we can make some serious progress on our key issues, this will proceed. But no date has been scheduled for him, and it's important that I go. I'm very pleased that the Vice Marshal proffered an invitation, and I will, as I said, try to go by the end of the month.

Thank you.

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: I'll be glad to try to answer any other questions that people might have on this. Anybody? You want to go right quickly about other things?

Q: Okay. So it's down to some positive discussions. What do you think were the best or the most interesting conclusions, as far as you're concerned, having been at this for a long time?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: I think that what has occurred over the last two days is the continuation of a process, as the Secretary said, that began with the Secretary and the President asking Bill Perry to undertake a review of our policy. We developed that policy. We laid out for everyone what our objectives were. We clearly are continuing to pursue those objectives and believe, based on the discussions that we've had over the last two and a half days, that there is enough evident to us that makes a trip by the Secretary of State appropriate, and to work to prepare for a possible trip by the President.

Q: Is there any more food aid planned, or was there any more food aid or humanitarian aid pledged? And was there any more progress made on opening offices in each other's capitals?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: We continue to do what Americans are known for, and that is being generous in our response to the World Food Program's appeals. We have always done so when people are hungry, and we will continue to do so with North Korea in the way that we have in the past. We will continue to do so.

And your second question was on the liaison offices?

Q: Right.

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: We had discussions about diplomatic representation. We felt we made some progress in those discussions, and I expect that they will continue.

Q: At this point, can you say exactly what the North Koreans would need to do to get off the terrorism list? And as a follow-up to that, could you say what being on the terrorism list prevents the US to do at this point in terms of its relationship with North Korea?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: The discussions that Ambassador Sheehan, our Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism, and Ambassador Kartman, our overall negotiator, had with North Korea have been very positive. They have resulted in the issuance of a statement about a week and a half ago, I guess -- or I've totally lost time, not quite a week ago, I guess now, last Friday -- where both sides agreed that it was important foreswear international terrorism and to undertake those responsibilities of member states of the United Nations. There are still some steps that North Korea must take for the President to begin the process of removing them from the terrorism list. They know what those steps are. They are in response to the law, which is quite clear, and we hope to continue to make progress in that regard.

And in terms of what they lose, I think that many of you have already reported that by being on the US terrorism list, there are several things, but one of the most key is that we cannot support them for membership if they meet eligibility requirements to international financial institutions, so the economic doors for multilateral support, at least with any US assistance, remain closed.

Q: Just to follow up, will there -- is the US still saying that the North Koreans need to hand over the, I guess, four remaining members of the Red Army?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: We have been very clear with them about what steps they need to take.

Q: Is that still a condition at this point?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: We have been very clear with them about what steps they need to take, sir.

Q: Madame Ambassador, joint communiqué is usually announced at the same time, but North Koreans announced at 4:00 a.m. today, and you announced it later. Was there an understanding between the two?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: What the understanding was is that we would each be free to release the communiqué as they left this morning. And, quite frankly, we didn't think to wake you all up at 4:00 a.m. this morning, and knew the Secretary was having a press conference this morning and that it would be delivered to you during normal business hours. But we're perfectly comfortable with how things have proceeded.

Q: The Secretary intends to go as early as by the end of the month. She wouldn't be going to a designated terrorist state. The North Koreans, I believe, must have made some kind of pledge as to when they would dispose of the Red Army terrorists, and how they would take care of the other steps they need to do?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: I would note for you that the Secretary of State, and for that matter, the President of the United States, have been to Syria, which remains on the US terrorism list, so it is not a bar to a visit.

Q: One of the things that the United States has been looking for is a demonstration of North Korea's sincerity about improving security in Northeast Asia, is a redeployment, a redisposition of its troops along the DMZ . I'm wondering if you have received any -- as part of this, as part of the non-hostilities declaration, that you are going to see, that we are going to see, some kind of redeployment of North Korean forces, including the thousands of artillery pieces that are within range of Seoul? Have they undertaken to make that kind of redeployment?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: I would make two comments in regard to your question. First, nothing in this communiqué changes our security alliance with the ROK, with Japan, with our other allies and security alliances in the region or in the world. Nothing will change.

Secondly, I believe there are ongoing discussions which started a few days ago between the North and the South, between their defense ministers, to look at military confidence-building measures and other things that might reduce tensions on the Peninsula. And we will do what we can to support that effort, as is appropriate to the security of our forces and the region.

Q: Is there any -- just a follow-up. One of the things that the North Koreans were looking for was assistance in locating and disposing of mines that are preventing the opening of a railway link between North and South Korea. Has the United States given -- as part of this, is the United States willing, or have you given any undertaking that we will in fact give that kind of assistance to North Korea, given what has happened over the last couple of days?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: There have been ongoing operational discussions with our commander in the ROK and his role as head of the UNC to talk about how in fact to clear mines within the context of the armistice for the project to reconnect the railroad. And those operational discussions are going, I think, quite well, and the US military will play its appropriate role in supporting this effort to reconnect the railroad.

Q: What is the current status of diplomatic normalization between the US and North Korea? Is it the full-scale normalization, or partial normalization?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: Well, I think we said in the Perry Report that we hope to accelerate the process of normalization of our relations as our concerns were met, and those concerns are well-known and well-listed in the Perry Report. And so, therefore, this is a step-by-step process. The Secretary of State visiting North Korea is certainly a step on that path, but we obviously need to continue to see more progress in the areas of deepest concern to the United States.

Q: I was wondering if you had any response to the comment by Vice Marshal Jo during his toast at dinner, and what he said that Kim Jong Il would proceed quickly with normalization of ties once he receives security guarantees about the territorial integrity of North Korea.

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: They have said to us privately what they said publicly last night, which is that they are looking for assurances about our recognizing their sovereignty and their right to exist, and to have a country that conducts affairs in the ways that other countries in the world do. And we will study further the conversations we have had. We have additional conversations to be had, including very significant ones that the Secretary of State will have, not only with the Vice Marshal, but with Chairman Kim Jong Il himself, when she visits North Korea. So we have much more work to do.

Q: And is the timing -- is the reason you haven't announced a date yet for the trip because of the Middle East? Is there an issue here of working out when she can go?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: No, no, no. We told the North Koreans that we would try to schedule this before the end of the month. That is our intention, and the only reason we don't have specific dates yet is because all of this just happened, and we have to sit down and we have to figure it out.

Q: I guess a follow-up to that, and then also I have a question about the missile -- the offer of the missile program. Is the reason that you're scheduling this for the end of the month that you got a lot of momentum out of this visit, and you want to continue that, or is it specifically so you have enough time for a presidential visit before the end of his term?

And then, also, how intensive were the discussions about Kim Jong Il's offer to President Putin of Russia about the missile program, and are there any concrete plans for US involvement in such a project?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: In terms of scheduling, there are many considerations to scheduling, including of course if you have momentum in a diplomatic process. But I think fundamentally we take the steps in a step-by-step process as we make progress on the issues of concern to us in consultation with our allies, and I am very appreciative of the strong support by the ROK and Japan this morning for the Secretary's visit and for the progress that we have made.

On the second point, on the Putin question, we believe, based on the discussions that we had, that there is validity to this idea. We expect to have further discussions.

Q: I'm wondering, based on the series of discussions with General Jo, if you got any clear vision or clear idea about what, like, Kim Jong Il's remark about the missile program during his conversation with Russian President Putin?

And also, could you -- if possible at this point, could you elaborate a little bit further on the content of the letter from Kim Jong Il to President Clinton?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: In terms of the Putin idea -- the Kim Jong Il idea presented to Putin, based on the discussions we had, we believe there is validity to this concept, and we expect to have further discussions. And I have no more detail to offer at this point, because we are in the midst of ongoing discussions.

On your second point -- sorry?

Q: The contents of the letter from Kim Jong Il to the President.

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: It is a diplomatic correspondence, so obviously I am not going to elaborate the details of the letter. But it was a letter that one would expect from one leader to another, that both introduces the Special Envoy that he is sending, and also tries to define the hopes and the vision that he has for an improved relationship between our two countries.

Q: I want to make sure, for double check about the timing of the possible visit of President Clinton. And how about, can we expect after the APEC meeting summit meeting?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: One of the things I absolutely will never presume to do is to schedule the President of the United States. We know that the Secretary will go by the end of the month. We would hope that if things continue to go positively that the President will visit soon thereafter, but you would have to turn to the White House in terms of specific scheduling matters.

Q: In the joint communiqué it says that both sides have agreed on the desirability of greater transparency in carrying out obligations under the Agreed Framework. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? And is this to say that, at this point, we don't necessarily have a full -- or we don't have full inspectors looking at the North Korean nuclear program?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: We have 24-hour inspectors at the site that came under an issue of the development of the Agreed Framework, so the IAEA remains 24 hours a day. What this refers to is that Ambassador Kartman's fine negotiations with North Korea resulted in access to Kumchang Ni. We have acknowledged in this communiqué that it creates a model for the kinds of transparency that we will continue to discuss with them and move toward in our relationship.

Q: I mean what -- just to follow up -- what do we know at this point, what do we not know in terms of our ability to check on North Korea's nuclear program? I mean, do we feel confident that we know of all their sites at this point?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: I think that you are getting into matters of what we know and how we know it, and I think that's probably not appropriate for a press conference. Let me suffice to say that I think that we have very direct and straightforward discussions with the North Koreans about concerns we have. Ambassador Kartman has discussions with the North on these matters on a regular basis, and we feel, based on the Kumchang Ni experience, and as reflected in this communiqué that we have a good model and a good frame for discussing any concerns that might come up in the future.

Q: Are there any specific conditions placed on North Korea regarding the possible visit of the President, given that the North Korean media and Kim Jong Il are likely to use this as an attempt to show that the regime is legitimized by the rest of the world -- you know, the leader of the free world coming to North Korea -- and obviously given the fact that most of the world considers that Kim Jong Il is responsible for at least severely repressing his population and condemning many of them to starvation?

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: I think the Secretary put it best when she said that if we continue believe, building on the discussions that we have had over the last two and a half days, and actually over the last many months, that we will make serious progress on some of the issues of particular concern to the United States, that taking the step-by-step process that would lead to a summit between the President of the United States and Chairman Kim Jong Il, we will go forward to such a summit. The President is hopeful that we will be able to do this, and so we are undertaking -- and have been undertaking -- all of the work that would make such a summit necessary for it to succeed.

Q: Is that, then, a tacit statement that of course the United States disagrees very much with North Korea's political situation and whatever, but the issues here are so important that, for a time at least, they may have to be put on one side just because it's such a --

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN: We don't put any issue on one side. During the time that this delegation was here, we covered the range of issues, not just the ones you would expect that are most serious security concern to us like missiles, but we also discussed human rights and religious freedom; we discussed transnational issues like counterfeiting and law enforcement activities. We discussed our concern for our missing from the Korean War and actually thanked the North Koreans and hoped for their continued cooperation to try to locate and recover all of the remains. We discussed an incredible range of issues, because they are all on our agenda and we are very concerned about that whole range of issues.

There is no question, however, that there are some priorities for immediate resolution, and those obviously would be ones of security interest to us.

(end transcript) "

USIS Washington File: TEXT: AMB. SHERMAN AT U.S.-JAPAN COMMON AGENDA PRESS BRIEFING

2004-10-01T19:19:00.000-07:00

USIS Washington File: TEXT: AMB. SHERMAN AT U.S.-JAPAN COMMON AGENDA PRESS BRIEFING: "AMB. SHERMAN AT U.S.-JAPAN COMMON AGENDA PRESS BRIEFING
(Expanded cooperation with NGOs most important result) (850)

Washington -- Perhaps the most important result to come out of the U.S.-Japan Common Agenda Open Forum was a pledge to expand cooperation with non-government organizations, foundations and the private sector, according to Ambassador Wendy Sherman, counselor to the Secretary of State.

In an opening statement to a press briefing at the U.S.-Japan Common Agenda Open Forum March 13, Sherman said: "We realize that if we include NGOs in the early stages of projects, we are more likely to develop programs which will be self-sustaining and which will win public support."

"As guardians of the public trust, we have an obligation to our taxpayers to address the world's most pressing needs in the most efficient way possible," she said. "The best way to do this is to work more closely with the non-profit and private sectors. Such a policy is not only good for society, it is smart economics as well."

The U.S.-Japan Common Agenda, she said, has accomplished a great deal over the past five years and, with the help of NGOs, foundations and the private sector, it will be able to accomplish much more in the years to come.

Following is the official text of Sherman's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

Statement by Ambassador Wendy Sherman,
Counselor to the U.S. Secretary of State,
at the U.S.-Japan Common Agenda Open Forum Press Briefing

Takanawa Prince Hotel
Tokyo, Japan
March 13, 1998

We have had an event-filled week on the Common Agenda. On Monday and Tuesday, we had productive working groups on health, population, food security, and environmental cooperation. On Wednesday, we had the government-to-government Common Agenda Plenary to map our course for the coming year, and for the past two days we have participated in the Common Agenda Open Forum, a dialogue among government, non-profit and private-sector actors.

At the plenary, our two sides agreed to expand our cooperation with Rotary International, the World Health Organization, and others to eradicate polio. We expanded our work to combat HIV/AIDS and to put a renewed emphasis on emerging and re-emerging disease programs and child health programs. We agreed to work together to preserve the Panama Canal watershed and the Caribbean basin, to expand our work to protect national parks, and to jointly support a marine center in Palau. In the spirit demonstrated last December in Kyoto, we agreed that American and Japanese policy experts, scientists, and engineers will work more closely together to face perhaps the greatest threat to our planet, global climate change.

We highlighted efforts to develop new strains of disease resistant and more nutritious potatoes, rice, corn and other crops which are key staples for the world's most vulnerable populations. We demonstrated that we are jointly developing computerized systems capable of mapping and monitoring world water supplies and we agreed to jointly study the effect of climatic events like El Nino on world food supply. This cooperation will allow us to better predict food and water shortages and to avert crises of resource scarcity.

We focused on our efforts to mitigate the damage caused by earthquakes, tsunamis and oil spills, and highlighted successful efforts to ensure the safety of international events such as the 18th Winter Olympic Games in Nagano.

But perhaps most important of all, we pledged ourselves to expand our cooperation with non-government organizations, foundations and the private sector. As government officials, we recognize our own limitations. Most of us are trained as policy specialists. We need greater access to the technical and managerial expertise which exists outside of government.

We realize that if we include NGOs in the early stages of projects, we are more likely to develop programs which will be self-sustaining and which will win public support.

As guardians of the public trust, we have an obligation to our taxpayers to address the world's most pressing needs in the most efficient way possible. The best way to do this is to work more closely with the non-profit and private sectors. Such a policy is not only good for society, it is smart economics as well.

Thanks to the gracious support of the Common Agenda Roundtable and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this Open Forum has allowed us to take an important step in the direction of working more closely with non-government actors. The report issued by participants in this meeting will serve as our road map for the year ahead. We will study it carefully and use its advice to expand our cooperation with foundations and the for-profit sector.

As I said earlier, we have accomplished a great deal over the past five years, with the help of NGOs, foundations and the private sector, we will be able to accomplish much more in the years to come."

Department of State Washington File: Text: State's Sherman to visit Moscow, Seoul to Discuss North Korea 2000

2004-10-01T19:13:00.000-07:00

Department of State Washington File: Text: State's Sherman to visit Moscow, Seoul to Discuss North Korea: "State's Sherman to visit Moscow, Seoul to Discuss North Korea
(August 24 Boucher statement) (240)

Following is the text of a State Department news release on Counselor of the Department Wendy Sherman's upcoming trip to Moscow and Seoul:

(begin text)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
For Immediate Release
August 24, 2000
#2000/923

STATEMENT BY RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN

AMBASSADOR SHERMAN'S TRAVEL TO MOSCOW AND SEOUL

Counselor of the Department Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman will lead a small delegation to Moscow August 28-29 for consultations with senior Russian officials on a range of North Korea issues.

Ambassador Sherman will then travel to Seoul to lead a U.S. delegation participating in trilateral consultations with the Republic of Korea and Japan on September 1. Delegations of the three countries will discuss a range of issues in our ongoing coordination of policy toward the DPRK. The Republic of Korea delegation will be led by Jang Jai-ryong, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Japanese delegation will be led by Yukio Takeuchi, Deputy Vice Minister for Foreign Policy.

The September trilateral meeting is part of a continuing process of close and cooperative consultations among the three countries, formalized in Hawaii in April, 1999, as the Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group."

Dr. William J. Perry - Review of United States Policy Toward North Korea

2004-10-01T19:03:00.000-07:00

Report on North Korea: "Review of United States Policy Toward North Korea: Findings and Recommendations
Unclassified Report by Dr. William J. Perry, U.S. North Korea Policy Coordinator and Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State
Washington, DC, October 12, 1999

A North Korea policy review team, led by Dr. William J. Perry and working with an interagency group headed by the Counselor of the Department of State Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman, was tasked in November 1998 by President Clinton and his national security advisors to conduct an extensive review of U.S. policy toward the DPRK. This review of U.S. policy lasted approximately eight months, and was supported by a number of senior officials from the U.S. government and by Dr. Ashton B. Carter of Harvard University. The policy review team was also very fortunate to have received regular and extensive guidance from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor and senior policy advisors.

Throughout the review the team consulted with experts, both in and out of the U.S. government. Dr. Perry made a special point to travel to the Capitol to give regular status reports to Members of Congress on the progress of this review, and he benefited from comments received from Members on concepts being developed by the North Korea policy review team. The team also exchanged views with officials from many countries with interests in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula, including our allies, the ROK and Japan. The team also met with prominent members of the humanitarian aid community and received a wealth of written material, solicited and unsolicited. Members of the policy review team met with many other individuals and organizations as well. In addition, the team traveled to North Korea this past May, led by Dr. Perry as President Clinton's Special Envoy, to obtain a first-hand understanding of the views of the DPRK Government.

The findings and recommendations of the North Korea Policy Review set forth below reflect the consensus that emerged from the team's countless hours of work and study.

The Need for a Fundamental Review of U.S. Policy

The policy review team determined that a fundamental review of U.S. policy was indeed needed, since much has changed in the security situation on the Korean Peninsula since the 1994 crisis.

Most important -- and the focus of this North Korea policy review -- are developments in the DPRK's nuclear and long-range missile activities.

The Agreed Framework of 1994 succeeded in verifiably freezing North Korean plutonium production at Yongbyon -- it stopped plutonium production at that facility so that North Korea currently has at most a small amount of fissile material it may have secreted away from operations prior to 1994; without the Agreed Framework, North Korea could have produced enough additional plutonium by now for a significant number of nuclear weapons. Yet, despite the critical achievement of a verified freeze on plutonium production at Yongbyon under the Agreed Framework, the policy review team has serious concerns about possible continuing nuclear weapons-related work in the DPRK. Some of these concerns have been addressed through our access and visit to Kumchang-ni.

The years since 1994 have also witnessed development, testing, deployment, and export by the DPRK of ballistic missiles of increasing range, including those potentially capable of reaching the territory of the United States.

There have been other significant changes as well. Since the negotiations over the Agreed Framework began in the summer of 1994, formal leadership of the DPRK has passed from President Kim Il Sung to his son, General Kim Jong Il, and General Kim has gradually assumed supreme authority in title as well as fact. North Korea is thus governed by a different leadership from that with which we embarked on the Agreed Framework. During this same period, the DPRK economy has deteriorated significantly, with industrial and food production sinking to a fraction of their 1994 levels. The result is a humanitarian tragedy which, while not the focus of the review, both compels the sympathy of the American people and doubtless affects some of the actions of the North Korean regime.

An unrelated change has come to the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) with the Presidency of Kim Dae Jung. President Kim has embarked upon a policy of engagement with the North. As a leader of great international authority, as our ally, and as the host to 37,000 American troops, the views and insights of President Kim are central to accomplishing U.S. security objectives on the Korean Peninsula. No U.S. policy can succeed unless it is coordinated with the ROK's policy. Today's ROK policy of engagement creates conditions and opportunities for U.S. policy very different from those in 1994.

Another close U.S. ally in the region, Japan, has become more concerned about North Korea in recent years. This concern was heightened by the launch, in August 1998, of a Taepo Dong missile over Japanese territory. Although the Diet has passed funding for the Light Water Reactor project being undertaken by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) pursuant to the Agreed Framework, and the government wants to preserve the Agreed Framework, a second missile launch is likely to have a serious impact on domestic political support for the Agreed Framework and have wider ramifications within Japan about its security policy.

Finally, while the U.S. relationship with China sometimes reflects different perspectives on security policy in the region, the policy review team learned through extensive dialogue between the U.S. and the PRC, including President Clinton's meetings with President Jiang Zemin, that China understands many of the U.S. concerns about the deleterious effects that North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile activities could have for regional and global security.

All these factors combine to create a profoundly different landscape than existed in 1994. The review team concurred strongly with President Clinton's judgment that these changed circumstances required a comprehensive review such as the one that the President and his team of national security advisors asked the team to conduct. The policy review team also recognized the concerns of Members of Congress that a clear path be charted for dealing with North Korea, and that there be closer cooperation between the executive and legislative branches on this issue of great importance to our security. The review team shared these concerns and has tried hard to be responsive to them.

Assessment of the Security Situation on the Korean Peninsula

In the course of the review, the policy team conferred with U.S. military leaders and allies, and concluded that, as in 1994, U.S. forces and alliances in the region are strong and ready. Indeed, since 1994, the U.S. has strengthened both its own forces and its plans and procedures for combining forces with allies. We are confident that allied forces could and would successfully defend ROK territory. We believe the DPRK's military leaders know this and thus are deterred from launching an attack.

However, in sharp contrast to the Desert Storm campaign in Kuwait and Iraq, war on the Korean Peninsula would take place in densely populated areas. Considering the million-man DPRK army arrayed near the DMZ, the intensity of combat in another war on the Peninsula would be unparalleled in U.S. experience since the Korean War of 1950-53. It is likely that hundreds of thousands of persons -- U.S., ROK, and DPRK -- military and civilian -- would perish, and millions of refugees would be created. While the U.S. and ROK of course have no intention of provoking war, there are those in the DPRK who believe the opposite is true. But even they must know that the prospect of such a destructive war is a powerful deterrent to precipitous U.S. or allied action.

Under present circumstances, therefore, deterrence of war on the Korean Peninsula is stable on both sides, in military terms. While always subject to miscalculation by the isolated North Korean government, there is no military calculus that would suggest to the North Koreans anything but catastrophe from armed conflict. This relative stability, if it is not disturbed, can provide the time and conditions for all sides to pursue a permanent peace on the Peninsula, ending at last the Korean War and perhaps ultimately leading to the peaceful reunification of the Korean people. This is the lasting goal of U.S. policy.

However, acquisition by the DPRK of nuclear weapons or long-range missiles, and especially the combination of the two (a nuclear weapons device mounted on a long-range missile), could undermine this relative stability. Such weapons in the hands of the DPRK military might weaken deterrence as well as increase the damage if deterrence failed. Their effect would, therefore, be to undermine the conditions for pursuing a relaxation of tensions, improved relations, and lasting peace. Acquisition of such weapons by North Korea could also spark an arms race in the region and would surely do grave damage to the global nonproliferation regimes covering nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. A continuation of the DPRK's pattern of selling its missiles for hard currency could also spread destabilizing effects to other regions, such as the Middle East.

The review team, therefore, concluded that the urgent focus of U.S. policy toward the DPRK must be to end its nuclear weapons and long-range missile-related activities. This focus does not signal a narrow preoccupation with nonproliferation over other dimensions of the problem of security on the Korean Peninsula, but rather reflects the fact that control of weapons of mass destruction is essential to the pursuit of a wider form of security so badly needed in that region.

As the United States faces the task of ending these weapons activities, any U.S. policy toward North Korea must be formulated within three constraining facts:

First, while logic would suggest that the DPRK's evident problems would ultimately lead its regime to change, there is no evidence that change is imminent. United States policy must, therefore, deal with the North Korean government as it is, not as we might wish it to be.

Second, the risk of a destructive war to the 37,000 American service personnel in Korea and the many more that would reinforce them, to the inhabitants of the Korean Peninsula both South and North, and to U.S. allies and friends in the region dictate that the United States pursue its objectives with prudence and patience.

Third, while the Agreed Framework has critics in the United States, the ROK, and Japan -- and indeed in the DPRK -- the framework has verifiably frozen plutonium production at Yongbyon. It also served as the basis for successful discussions we had with the North earlier this year on an underground site at Kumchang-ni -- one that the U.S. feared might have been designed as a substitute plutonium production facility. Unfreezing Yongbyon remains the North's quickest and surest path to nuclear weapons. U.S. security objectives may therefore require the U.S. to supplement the Agreed Framework, but we must not undermine or supplant it.

Perspectives of Countries in the Region

The policy review team consulted extensively with people outside of the Administration to better understand the perspectives of countries in the region. These perspectives are summarized below.

Republic of Korea. The ROK's interests are not identical to those of the U.S., but they overlap in significant ways. While the ROK is not a global power like the United States and, therefore, is less active in promoting nonproliferation worldwide, the ROK recognizes that nuclear weapons in the DPRK would destabilize deterrence on the Peninsula. And while South Koreans have long lived within range of North Korean SCUD ballistic missiles, they recognize that North Korea's new, longer-range ballistic missiles present a new type of threat to the United States and Japan. The ROK thus shares U.S. goals with respect to DPRK nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The South also has concerns, such as the reunion of families separated by the Korean War and implementation of the North-South Basic Agreement (including reactivation of North-South Joint Committees). The U.S. strongly supports these concerns.

President Kim Dae Jung's North Korea policy, known as the "engagement" policy, marked a fundamental shift toward the North. Under the Kim formulation, the ROK has forsworn any intent to undermine or absorb the North and has pursued increased official and unofficial North-South contact. The ROK supports the Agreed Framework and the ROK's role in KEDO, but the ROK National Assembly, like our Congress, is carefully scrutinizing DPRK behavior as it considers funding for KEDO.

Japan. Like the ROK, Japan's interests are not identical to those of the U.S., but they overlap strongly. The DPRK's August 1998 Taepo Dong missile launch over the Japanese islands abruptly increased the already high priority Japan attaches to the North Korea issue. The Japanese regard DPRK missile activities as a direct threat. In bilateral talks with Japan, the DPRK representatives exacerbate historic animosities by repeatedly referring to Japan's occupation of Korea earlier in this century. For these reasons, support for Japan's role in KEDO is at risk in the Diet. The government's ability to sustain the Agreed Framework in the face of further DPRK missile launches is not assured, even though a collapse of the Agreed Framework could lead to nuclear warheads on DPRK missiles, dramatically increasing the threat they pose. Japan also has deep-seated concerns, such as the fate of missing persons suspected of being abducted by the DPRK. The U.S. strongly supports these concerns.

China. China has a strong interest in peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and is aware of the implications of increased tension on the peninsula. China also realizes that DPRK ballistic missiles are an important impetus to U.S. national missile defense and theater missile defenses, neither of which is desired by China. Finally, China realizes that DPRK nuclear weapons could provoke an arms race in the region and undermine the nonproliferation regime which Beijing, as a nuclear power, has an interest in preserving. For all these reasons the PRC concerns with North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs are in many ways comparable to U.S. concerns. While China will not coordinate its policies with the U.S., ROK, and Japan, it is in China's interest to use its own channels of communication to discourage the DPRK from pursuing these programs.

The DPRK. Based on extensive consultation with the intelligence community and experts around the world, a review of recent DPRK conduct, and our discussions with North Korean leaders, the policy review team formed some views of this enigmatic country. But in many ways the unknowns continue to outweigh the knowns. Therefore, we want to emphasize here that no U.S. policy should be based solely on conjectures about the perceptions and future behavior of the DPRK.

Wrapped in an overriding sense of vulnerability, the DPRK regime has promoted an intense devotion to self-sufficiency, sovereignty, and self-defense as the touchstones for all rhetoric and policy. The DPRK views efforts by outsiders to promote democratic and market reforms in its country as an attempt to undermine the regime. It strongly controls foreign influence and contact, even when they offer relief from the regime's severe economic problems. The DPRK appears to value improved relations with US, especially including relief from the extensive economic sanctions the U.S. has long imposed.

Key Findings

The policy review team made the following key findings, which have formed the basis for our recommendations:

1. DPRK acquisition of nuclear weapons and continued development, testing, deployment, and export of long-range missiles would undermine the relative stability of deterrence on the Korean Peninsula, a precondition for ending the Cold War and pursuing a lasting peace in the longer run. These activities by the DPRK also have serious regional and global consequences adverse to vital U.S. interests. The United States must, therefore, have as its objective ending these activities.

2. The United States and its allies would swiftly and surely win a second war on the Korean Peninsula, but the destruction of life and property would far surpass anything in recent American experience. The U.S. must pursue its objectives with respect to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in the DPRK without taking actions that would weaken deterrence or increase the probability of DPRK miscalculation.

3. If stability can be preserved through the cooperative ending of DPRK nuclear weapons- and long-range missile-related activities, the U.S. should be prepared to establish more normal diplomatic relations with the DPRK and join in the ROK's policy of engagement and peaceful coexistence.

4. Unfreezing Yongbyon is North Korea's quickest and surest path to acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Agreed Framework, therefore, should be preserved and implemented by the United States and its allies. With the Agreed Framework, the DPRK's ability to produce plutonium at Yongbyon is verifiably frozen. Without the Agreed Framework, however, it is estimated that the North could reprocess enough plutonium to produce a significant number of nuclear weapons per year. The Agreed Framework's limitations, such as the fact that it does not verifiably freeze all nuclear weapons-related activities and does not cover ballistic missiles, are best addressed by supplementing rather than replacing the Agreed Framework.

5. No U.S. policy toward the DPRK will succeed if the ROK and Japan do not actively support it and cooperate in its implementation. Securing such trilateral coordination should be possible, since the interests of the three parties, while not identical, overlap in significant and definable ways.

6. Considering the risks inherent in the situation and the isolation, suspicion, and negotiating style of the DPRK, a successful U.S. policy will require steadiness and persistence even in the face of provocations. The approach adopted now must be sustained into the future, beyond the term of this Administration. It is, therefore, essential that the policy and its ongoing implementation have the broadest possible support and the continuing involvement of the Congress.

Alternative Policies Considered and Rejected

In the course of the review, the policy team received a great deal of valuable advice, including a variety of proposals for alternative strategies with respect to the security problems presented by the DPRK. The principal alternatives considered by the review team, and the team's reasons for rejecting them in favor of the recommended approach, are set forth below.

Status Quo. A number of policy experts outside the Administration counseled continuation of the approach the U.S. had taken to the DPRK over the past decade: strong deterrence through ready forces and solid alliances and limited engagement with the DPRK beyond existing negotiations on missiles, POW/MIA, and implementation of the nuclear-related provisions of the Agreed Framework. These experts counseled that with the Agreed Framework being verifiably implemented at Yongbyon, North Korea could be kept years away from obtaining additional fissile material for nuclear weapons. Without nuclear weapons, the DPRK's missile program could safely be addressed within the existing (albeit to date inconclusive) bilateral missile talks. Thus, as this argument ran, core U.S. security objectives were being pursued on a timetable appropriate to the development of the threat, and no change in U.S. policy was required.

While there are advantages to continuing the status quo -- since to this point it has served U.S. security interests -- the policy review team rejected the status quo. It was rejected not because it has been unacceptable from the point of view of U.S. security interests, but rather because the policy team feared it was not sustainable. Aside from a failure to address U.S. concerns directly, it is easy to imagine circumstances that would bring the status quo rapidly to a crisis. For example, a DPRK long-range missile launch, whether or not in the form of an attempt to place a satellite in orbit, would have an impact on political support for the Agreed Framework in the United States, Japan, and even in the ROK. In this circumstance, the DPRK could suspend its own compliance with the Agreed Framework, unfreezing Yongbyon and plunging the Peninsula into a nuclear crisis like that in 1994. Such a scenario illustrates the instability of the status quo. Thus, the U.S. may not be able to maintain the status quo, even if we wanted to.

Undermining the DPRK. Others recommend a policy of undermining the DPRK, seeking to hasten the demise of the regime of Kim Jong Il. The policy review team likewise studied this possibility carefully and, in the end, rejected it for several reasons. Given the strict controls on its society imposed by the North Korean regime and the apparent absence of any organized internal resistance to the regime, such a strategy would at best require a long time to realize, even assuming it could succeed. The timescale of this strategy is, therefore, inconsistent with the timescale on which the DPRK could proceed with nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. In addition, such a policy would risk destructive war and would not win the support of U.S. allies in the region upon whom success in deterring such a war would depend. Finally, a policy of pressure might harm the people of North Korea more than its government.

Reforming the DPRK. Many other analysts suggest that the United States should promote the accelerated political and economic reform of the DPRK along the lines of established international practice, hastening the advent of democracy and market reform that will better the lot of the North's people and provide the basis for the DPRK's integration into the international community in a peaceful fashion. However much we might wish such an outcome, success of the policy clearly would require DPRK cooperation. But, the policy team believed that the North Korean regime would strongly resist such reform, viewing it as indistinguishable from a policy of undermining. A policy of reforming, like a policy of undermining, would also take time -- more time than it would take the DPRK to proceed with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

"Buying" Our Objectives. In its current circumstance of industrial and agricultural decline, the DPRK has on occasion indicated a willingness to "trade" addressing U.S. concerns about its nuclear weapons activities and ballistic missile exports for hard currency. For example, the DPRK offered to cease its missile exports if the U.S. agreed to compensate it for the foregone earnings from missile exports. The policy review team firmly believed that such a policy of trading material compensation for security would only encourage the DPRK to further blackmail, and would encourage proliferators worldwide to engage in similar blackmail. Such a strategy would not, and should not, be supported by the Congress, which controls the U.S. government's purse strings.

A Comprehensive and Integrated Approach: A Two-Path Strategy

A better alternative, and the one the review has recommended, is a two-path strategy focused on our priority concerns over the DPRK's nuclear weapons- and missile-related activities. We have devised this strategy in close consultation with the governments of the ROK and Japan, and it has their full support. Indeed, it is a joint strategy in which all three of our countries play coordinated and mutually reinforcing roles in pursuit of the same objectives. Both paths aim to protect our key security interests; the first path is clearly preferable for the United States and its allies and, we firmly believe, for the DPRK.

The first path involves a new, comprehensive and integrated approach to our negotiations with the DPRK. We would seek complete and verifiable assurances that the DPRK does not have a nuclear weapons program. We would also seek the complete and verifiable cessation of testing, production and deployment of missiles exceeding the parameters of the Missile Technology Control Regime, and the complete cessation of export sales of such missiles and the equipment and technology associated with them. By negotiating the complete cessation of the DPRK's destabilizing nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs, this path would lead to a stable security situation on the Korean Peninsula, creating the conditions for a more durable and lasting peace in the long run and ending the Cold War in East Asia.

On this path the United States and its allies would, in a step-by-step and reciprocal fashion, move to reduce pressures on the DPRK that it perceives as threatening. The reduction of perceived threat would in turn give the DPRK regime the confidence that it could coexist peacefully with us and its neighbors and pursue its own economic and social development. If the DPRK moved to eliminate its nuclear and long-range missile threats, the United States would normalize relations with the DPRK, relax sanctions that have long constrained trade with the DPRK and take other positive steps that would provide opportunities for the DPRK.

If the DPRK were prepared to move down this path, the ROK and Japan have indicated that they would also be prepared, in coordinated but parallel tracks, to improve relations with the DPRK.

It is important that all sides make contributions to creating an environment conducive to success in such far-ranging talks. The most important step by the DPRK is to give assurances that it will refrain from further test firings of long-range missiles as we undertake negotiations on the first path. In the context of the DPRK suspending such tests, the review team recommended that the United States ease, in a reversible manner, Presidentially-mandated trade embargo measures against the DPRK. The ROK and Japan have also indicated a willingness to take positive steps in these circumstances.

When the review team, led by Dr. Perry as a Presidential Envoy, visited Pyongyang in May, the team had discussions with DPRK officials and listened to their views. We also discussed these initial steps that would create a favorable environment for conducting comprehensive and integrated negotiations. Based on talks between with Ambassador Charles Kartman and DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan in early September, the U.S. understood and expected that the DPRK would suspend long-range missile testing -- to include both No Dong and Taepo Dong missiles -- for as long as U.S.-DPRK discussions to improve relations continued. The DPRK subsequently announced a unilateral suspension of such tests while talks between the two countries continued. Accordingly, the Administration has taken steps to ease sanctions. This fall a senior DPRK official will likely visit Washington to reciprocate the Perry visit and continue discussions on improving relations. Both sides have taken a bold and meaningful step along the first path. While it is only an initial step, and both sides can easily reverse this first step, we are hopeful that it begins to take us down the long but important path to reducing threat on the Korean Peninsula.

While the first path devised by the review holds great promise for U.S. security and for stability in East Asia, and while the initial steps taken in recent weeks give us great hope, the first path depends on the willingness of the DPRK to traverse it with us. The review team is hopeful it will agree to do so, but on the basis of discussions to date we cannot be sure the DPRK will. Prudence therefore dictated that we devise a second path, once again in consultation with our allies and with their full support. On the second path, we would need to act to contain the threat that we have been unable to eliminate through negotiation. By incorporating two paths, the strategy devised in the review avoids any dependence on conjectures regarding DPRK intentions or behavior and neither seeks, nor depends upon for its success, a transformation of the DPRK's internal system.

If North Korea rejects the first path, it will not be possible for the United States to pursue a new relationship with the DPRK. In that case, the United States and its allies would have to take other steps to assure their security and contain the threat. The U.S. and allied steps should seek to keep the Agreed Framework intact and avoid, if possible, direct conflict. But they would also have to take firm but measured steps to persuade the DPRK that it should return to the first path and avoid destabilizing the security situation in the region.

Our recommended strategy does not immediately address a number of issues outside the scope of direct U.S.-DPRK negotiations, such as ROK family reunification, implementation of the North-South Basic Agreement (including reactivation of North-South Joint Committees) and Japanese kidnapping cases, as well as other key issues of concern, including drug trafficking. However, the policy review team believed that all of these issues should be, and would be, seriously addressed as relations between the DPRK and the U.S. improve.

Similarly, the review team believed the issue of chemical and biological weapons is best addressed multilaterally. Many recommendations have also been made with respect to Korean unification; but, ultimately, the question of unification is something for the Korean people to decide. Finally, the policy review team strongly believed that the U.S. must not withdraw any of its forces from Korea -- a withdrawal would not contribute to peace and stability, but rather undermine the strong deterrence currently in place.

Advantages of the Proposed Strategy

The proposed strategy has the following advantages:

1. Has the full support of our allies. No U.S. policy can be successful if it does not enjoy the support of our allies in the region. The overall approach builds upon the South's policy of engagement with North Korea, as the ROK leadership suggested to Dr. Perry directly and to the President. It also puts the U.S. effort to end the DPRK missile program on the same footing with U.S. efforts to end its nuclear weapons program, as the Government of Japan recommended.

2. Draws on U.S. negotiating strengths. Pursuant to the recommended approach, the United States will be offering the DPRK a comprehensive relaxation of political and economic pressures which the DPRK perceives as threatening to it and which are applied, in its view, principally by the United States. This approach complements the positive steps the ROK and Japan are prepared to take. On the other hand, the United States will not offer the DPRK tangible "rewards" for appropriate security behavior; doing so would both transgress principles that the United States values and open us up to further blackmail.

3. Leaves stable deterrence of war unchanged. No changes are recommended in our strong deterrent posture on the Korean Peninsula, and the U.S. should not put its force posture on the negotiating table. Deterrence is strong in both directions on the Korean Peninsula today. It is the North's nuclear weapons- and long-range missile-related activities that threaten stability. Likewise, the approach recommended by the review will not constrain U.S. Theater Missile Defense programs or the opportunities of the ROK and Japan to share in these programs; indeed, we explicitly recommended that no such linkage should be made.

4. Builds on the Agreed Framework. The approach recommended seeks more than the Agreed Framework provides. Specifically, under the recommended approach the U.S. will seek a total and verifiable end to all nuclear weapons-related activities in the DPRK, and the U.S. will be addressing the DPRK's long-range missile programs, which are not covered by the Agreed Framework. In addition, the U.S. will seek to traverse the broader path to peaceful relations foreseen by both the U.S. and the DPRK in the Agreed Framework, and incorporated in its text.

5. Aligns U.S. and allied near-term objectives with respect to the DPRK's nuclear and missile activities with our long-term objectives for lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. The recommended approach focuses on the near-term dangers to stability posed by the DPRK's nuclear weapons- and missile-related activities, but it aims to create the conditions for lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula in the longer run, as the U.S. seeks through the Four Party Talks. As noted above, the recommended approach also seeks to realize the long-term objectives of the Agreed Framework, which are to move beyond cooperation in the nuclear field to broader, more normal U.S.-DPRK relations.

6. Does not depend on specific North Korean behavior or intent. The proposed strategy is flexible and avoids any dependence on conjectures or assumptions regarding DPRK intentions or behavior -- benign or provocative. Again, it neither seeks, nor depends upon, either such intentions or a transformation of the DPRK's internal system for success. Appropriate contingencies are built into the recommended framework.

Key Policy Recommendations

In the context of the recommendations above, the review team offered the following five key policy recommendations:

1. Adopt a comprehensive and integrated approach to the DPRK's nuclear weapons- and ballistic missile-related programs, as recommended by the review team and supported by our allies in the region. Specifically, initiate negotiations with the DPRK based on the concept of mutually reducing threat; if the DPRK is not receptive, we will need to take appropriate measures to protect our security and those of our allies.

2. Create a strengthened mechanism within the U.S. Government for carrying out North Korea policy. Operating under the direction of the Principals Committee and Deputies Committee, a small, senior-level interagency North Korea working group should be maintained, chaired by a senior official of ambassadorial rank, located in the Department of State, to coordinate policy with respect to North Korea.

3. Continue the new mechanism established last March to ensure close coordination with the ROK and Japan. The Trilateral Coordination and Oversight Group (TCOG) -- established during this policy review and consisting of senior officials of the three governments -- is charged with managing policy toward the DPRK. This group should meet regularly to coordinate negotiating strategy and overall policy toward the DPRK and to prepare frequent consultations on this issue between the President and the ROK President and Japanese Prime Minister. The U.S. delegation should be headed by the senior official coordinating North Korea policy.

4. Take steps to create a sustainable, bipartisan, long-term outlook toward the problem of North Korea. The President should explore with the majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress ways for the Hill, on a bipartisan basis, to consult on this and future Administrations' policy toward the DPRK. Just as no policy toward the DPRK can succeed unless it is a combined strategy of the United States and its allies, the policy review team believes no strategy can be sustained over time without the input and support of Congress.

5. Approve a plan of action prepared for dealing with the contingency of DPRK provocations in the near term, including the launch of a long-range missile. The policy review team notes that its proposed responses to negative DPRK actions could have profound consequences for the Peninsula, the U.S. and our allies. These responses should make it clear to the DPRK that provocative actions carry a heavy penalty. Unless the DPRK's acts transgress provisions of the Agreed Framework, however, U.S. and allied actions should not themselves undermine the Agreed Framework. To do so would put the U.S. in the position of violating the Agreed Framework, opening the path for the DPRK to unfreeze Yongbyon and return us to the crisis of the summer of 1994.

Concluding Thoughts

The team's recommended approach is based on a realistic view of the DPRK, a hardheaded understanding of military realities and a firm determination to protect U.S. interests and those of our allies.

We should recognize that North Korea may send mixed signals concerning its response to our recommended proposal for a comprehensive framework and that many aspects of its behavior will remain reprehensible to us even if we embark on this negotiating process. We therefore should prepare for provocative contingencies but stay the policy course with measured actions pursuant to the overall framework recommended. The North needs to understand that there are certain forms of provocative behavior that represent a direct threat to the U.S. and its allies and that we will respond appropriately.

In this regard, it is with mixed feelings that we recognize certain provocative behavior of the DPRK may force the U.S. to reevaluate current aid levels.

Finally, and to close this review, we need to point out that a confluence of events this past year has opened what we strongly feel is a unique window of opportunity for the U.S. with respect to North Korea. There is a clear and common understanding among Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington on how to deal with Pyongyang. The PRC's strategic goals -- especially on the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons and related missile delivery systems -- overlap with those of the U.S. Pyongyang appears committed to the Agreed Framework and for the time being is convinced of the value of improving relations with the U.S. However, there are always pressures on these positive elements. Underlying tensions and suspicions have led to intermittent armed clashes and incidents and affect the political environment. Efforts to establish the diplomatic momentum necessary to withstand decades of hostility become increasingly difficult and eventually stall. Nevertheless, the year 1999 may represent, historically, one of our best opportunities to deal with key U.S. security concerns on the Korean Peninsula for some time to come.

"

The Honorable Wendy R. Sherman

2004-10-01T18:38:00.000-07:00

Untitled Document: "The Honorable Wendy R. Sherman
Principal, The Albright Group
Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman is a Principal of The Albright Group, an international advisory firm. Prior to forming the group, from July 1997 through January 2001, she was the Counselor of the Department of State (DOS), with rank of Ambassador, appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate. Ambassador Sherman served then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as a special advisor and consultant on major issues of foreign policy, provided guidance to the DOS and undertook special assignments. At the same time, she was the Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State, and the North Korea Policy Coordinator.

Ambassador Sherman has worked for over 25 years in both the public and private sectors; in national, state and local organizations; and in international arenas and neighborhoods. From April 1996 until July 1997, she was President and CEO of the Fannie Mae Foundation and a member of the operating committee of Fannie Mae. At the Foundation, she set in place the groundwork for the newly recreated foundation developed to promote home ownership.

From 1993 to 1996, Ambassador Sherman served Secretary of State Warren Christopher as Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, where she directed the legislative efforts of the DOS with Congress. Among other issues, she led the successful efforts to obtain the funding for Russia and the Newly Independent States after the break-up of the Soviet Union and support for the Dayton accords.

From 1991 to 1993, she specialized in strategic communications as a partner in the political and media consulting firm of Doak, Shrum, Harris and Sherman. Prior to that, she directed EMILY’s List, the largest financial and political resource for pro-choice Democratic women candidates. She is credited with the organization’s strategic development that led to groundbreaking numbers of candidates in 1992.

Ambassador Sherman directed Campaign ’88 for the Democratic National Committee, where she oversaw field and political operations, communications, congressional relations, constituency operations, issue development and coordination with all federal, state and local campaigns during the 1988 general election.

Prior to that, Ambassador Sherman worked in a variety of positions in both government and nonprofit organizations: chief of staff for three years for then Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski, campaign manager for Mikulski’s first successful Senate campaign; Special Secretary for Children and Youth in Maryland (a cabinet-level position); and Director of Maryland’s Office of Child Welfare, supervising protective services, foster care, adoptions and group homes.

Ambassador Sherman attended Smith College from 1967 to 1969, and completed her Bachelor of Arts cum laude from Boston University in 1971. In 1976, she earned a master’s degree in social work, Phi Kappa Phi, from the University of Maryland."

Insiders - 13/06/2004: US-Australia alliance will survive, AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN says

2004-10-01T18:30:00.000-07:00

Insiders - 13/06/2004: US-Australia alliance will survive, ambassador says: "US-Australia alliance will survive, ambassador says
US presidential candidate John Kerry's foreign affairs adviser, Wendy Sherman, says the US and Australia will have a very strong alliance regardless of who is president of the US and prime minister of Australia.

BARRIE CASSIDY: And through all this, no word yet from America's alternative president, John Kerry, about how he might deal with Mark Latham's policy on Iraq. No word, that is, until now. When you ask around here about who might drive foreign policy in a Kerry administration, all roads seem to lead to Ambassador Wendy Sherman. She once worked for Madeleine Albright when she was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton and now she is working within the Kerry campaign. I interviewed her this week and I began by asking her to explain the differences on Iraq between George Bush and John Kerry.

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN, FOREIGN ADVISER TO US DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOHN KERRY: What John Kerry did when he voted for the authorisation was not to give President Bush a blank cheque but basically to say that the President ought to work very multilaterally to try to get support of the international community to deal with Saddam Hussein. We all agreed that Saddam Hussein needed to go. The question was how, the question was when. And Senator Kerry has been very clear since that the President ought to go back to the United Nations, the President ought to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi people and ironically President Bush has now come to the position that John Kerry has held for over two years.

BARRIE CASSIDY: So that has happened now. But in retrospect, what do you think was the biggest single mistake then that George Bush made?

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: I think George Bush made a huge mistake by the time he chose to go into Iraq, I think he could have waited a while longer and gathered international support to do so. Having gone into Iraq, the military campaign, the initial military campaign was obviously quite successful but there was no plan for the day after the military campaign. And there is no question that America is the single remaining superpower militarily in the world, but it is not enough to have a good military, you have to know what you want to do the day after the campaign.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Now, given what you said at the outset, though, does that suggest there will be a bipartisan approach from now on?

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: I hope there would be a bipartisan approach from now on but there is a lot of water under a very, very rocky bridge. An enormous number of American lives have been lost, not to say anything of Alliance lives and most importantly the lives of the Iraqi people. Everyone wants Iraq to succeed as a sovereign country, to grow into a country that has some semblance of democratic rights but I think there is a very rocky road ahead. I think it is why in the US we need a change of leadership because there is a lot of ill-feeling around the world. Sometimes the only way to change that dynamic is to change the leadership.

BARRIE CASSIDY: In Australia, as you are aware, Mark Latham has come under a lot of criticism from the Bush Administration for pledging to have troops out by Christmas. They say that that would be disastrous for the Coalition. Do you think it would be or is that that an exaggeration?

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: I don't want to get into the middle of Australian politics any more than I would expect Australians to get into the middle of American politics. I think one thing is very clear - that the US and Australia will have a very strong alliance whomever is president of the US and whomever is prime minister of Australia, so I don't think there is anything to fear in terms of the relationship with the US if Mark Latham becomes prime minister. Similarly, I would hope that we will all work hard together as an alliance and we will proceed together on Iraq as best we can. I think my understanding is that the Labor Party, which is very engaged in Asia and security issues in Asia, also believes that the frigates that have been so important in Iraq would remain, that some of the capabilities that we share would remain. So I think that, on the whole, we are headed down a path together and it's important, very important, that we stay together.

BARRIE CASSIDY: How do you regard the persistent pressure, though, that the Administration is placing on Labor in Australia? There doesn't seem to be a precedent for it. It is certainly unusual.

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: It is quite unusual. I think that we all have differences of views on Iraq. I think that in the US there are many people who believe we ought to pull out of Iraq, we ought to pull our troops out of Iraq. So I think what we are hearing are the sentiments expressed by the people and by the populous, and leaders need to try to look ahead to what is best for the security of each country. But at the end of the day, I think we all want the same things - which are peace and security, jobs for our people and a bright future for our children.

BARRIE CASSIDY: So could you understand if there was some resentment in Australia, would that not surprise you, given that if you reversed the situation, I suppose, Americans wouldn't appreciate it so much?

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: Well, I wouldn't be too surprised. No, I don't think we would be very happy if prime ministers from other countries got in the middle of our internal politics, our domestic politics. At the same time we are in a political silly season, as we call it over here, and people say a lot of things that they come to regret or that they come to shift to when the election is over and people have to go about governing.

BARRIE CASSIDY: There was an interesting speech by the Iraqi interim president at the National Press Club during the week when he said that, though he would welcome European troops, he didn't want what he called a variety of small numbers of forces which would look like a carnival. Does that suggest that perhaps the presence of Australia is far more important to the Americans than it is to the Iraqis?

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: I think that Australia being part of this alliance is important. I think that both of your parties, both of your major parties in Australia, it's my understanding, support that alliance, support going forward together in Iraq. There may be some differences about which troops, which capabilities, but I think all-in-all we are on the same page and I think that is what is important. At the end of the day, we do have to listen to the Iraqi leadership, to the Iraqi people - that's what the UN resolution that was just passed unanimously was all about - which is let's hand sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Let's listen to what they have to say about the troops' presence in their country, and let's get on with what we have to do here - it's a lot of very hard work.

BARRIE CASSIDY: I get the impression from all of that that once the heat died down, the elections are held, that Mark Latham would be welcome in the White House no matter who was in charge.

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: I have no doubt that the prime minister of Australia, whomever he may be, or maybe whomever she may be some day, will be welcome in the White House with open arms. We have an alliance that goes back many, many years, we work on many issues around the world. America, and I believe a president Kerry, would lead a very strong alliance. It's an alliance that we care about a great deal.

BARRIE CASSIDY: I want to ask you too about the east Asian region, and there are some indications that the Administration would like to do more in that area and certainly they are talking about building up some US troops presence based in northern Australia. Do you think that is long overdue, that there should be a closer focus on the Asian region?

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: I think there is no doubt that the future of the world lies in Asia. I think that Australia and the United States are very keen to understand the relationship with China and its role in Asia, its role in the world. America has a very, very strong security alliance with Japan, we have strong security alliances with Korea and obviously first and foremost with Australia. So I think that we all are going to have to focus on the development of this region in the war against terrorism, which is a prime importance to Americans. There is no question that in Asia there is a huge radical Muslim influence. We do not want to have a war against Islam, it is a religion of great history, great culture, great beliefs, but radical elements that call for terrorism against the world is something that Australians and Americans are both quite concerned about and quite concerned about in Asia.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Thanks for your time, appreciate it.

AMBASSADOR WENDY SHERMAN: Thank you."

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

2004-10-01T15:07:00.001-07:00

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia
"Central Asia Speaks: Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

Governing with the wiggle of a Mustache
Dr. H.B. Paksoy

[This is the second of five lectures prepared by Dr. H B Paksoy for the Central European University, Budapest. The course is entitled: “Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia”]

I. Mustache

Truth is like the universe. Most individuals only know parts.

An ancestor is said to have ruled his royal domain with his eyebrows. If he raised one, he was displeased. The movement of the other indicated annoyance. Both, horror.

Not too long ago, the USSR was ruled by a mustache. However hefty or stylish, it still was a mustache. Those in his retinue learned, or thought they did, how to read that piece of facial hair. As a result, the members of this ‘inner circle’ carried out despicable acts and atrocities in the name of the face holding the mustache. And the mustache, in full knowledge of the misdeeds, did nothing to discourage the retinue.

The whisker mobility style of governance is always open to interpretation. That is, to the interpretation of the immediate inner circle of the mover of the whiskers; provided, of course, there is benefit to glean for the interpreters of the facial hair. That leads to excesses and communally undesirable consequences. For example, when the mustache asked for a simple and solitary doppi[1], the interpreters did not hesitate to deliver one sitting atop a freshly decapitated head. Some of the immediate circle members will benefit from such a system; only for a spell, before, they, too, fall. After all, the single mustache is the combined prosecutor, judge and jury. Often, he is also the executioner.

When there is no recourse to an independent judiciary, whose interests are also shared by the population, then no one person’s life is safe. By way of demonstration, one may point to various prominent individuals, including that of Beria, the Secret Police chief of the era.

Under the rule of ‘whisker governance’ many organizations are fostered by sycophants. All will be devoted to pleasing the mustache. In the process, they will hog all the resources of the polity. This will leave less, a lot less for the general populace, and, by necessity, create a bifurcation among the citizenry. This societal chasm will be amplified by the competing secret organizations established by different organizations fighting for the attention of the Whiskers. Indeed, these factions are competing for greater resources for themselves and using the Whiskers for the purpose. This increases the distance between the population and the tools of the Governance Strata. In fact, this development creates the ‘new’ Governance Strata.

The all out efforts by the control tools will leave no part of the societal fabric untouched. The primary objective will be to foster a pliant mindset. This can be accomplished with least cost only through the construction of a new Identity for the polity and individual members.

The purpose of the Identity is to hold a polity together; indeed to form a polity in the first place. Since Identity itself is a composite with many parts, the new one under construction will have to encompass all aspects of the societal life. Along the way, new symbols and rituals will have to be created in order to reinforce the new Identity---much like the Christian church grafted itself onto the pre-Christian ceremonies, special days, doctrines and beliefs, for the purpose of supplanting all. However, during this process, Christianity also soaked its ecumene and theology with what came before itself. The new Identity formation efforts will not be immune to this process. The Designer Community working on the project will be subject to the influences of what they encounter. This is inescapable. The Designer Community’s research into the past Identity will also renew a broader interest in the past Identity. The contest of wills thus gain another front, since the past owners of the extant Identity had already left their testament in what they enjoyed. Thus, the Governance Strata will now have to contend with a renewal of the past Identity and related actions, their consequences. Another front in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the population is opened.

II. Leavening

Leavening of Identity is a natural process, akin to fermentation. Nature utilizes fermentation to refine and transform substances, mostly for preservation purposes. Yeast is the best known fermentation agent. It is used by bakers, beverage makers, geneticists, dairy operators. The basic yeast occurs freely in nature. It is the humans that isolate specific yeasts, nurture it to perform targeted tasks, after refining them. It must not be forgotten that, while a strain of yeast might affect almost all living organisms and beings, it is the refined and targeted varieties that will yield the desired best results. Consequently, winemaking yeast added to milk is unlikely to produce a tasty yoghurt or pleasant wine. It must not be forgotten that not all cultures are naturally compatible when refined. However, all cultures need their basic elements to remain alive. Once a culture is dead, it may not be possible to revive it. At least, not in its original flavor.

What is referenced as human culture is essentially the result of refinement of what humans are born with. Arts are the leavening agent in this process.

The word and concept of Culture is derived from the Roman use. Hence, agriculture is cultivating the fields for the purpose of growing crops useful to humans. At that point, the question is raised: for the benefit of which humans? The immediate polity growing the crops, or some far-off entity that requires it?

Likewise, the concept of Civil is Roman invention, referring to laws and regulations applying to its non-military inhabitants; thus, the general Roman population. Civilization is derived from that root, certainly encompassing Culture.

Among humans, akin to natural yeasts, natural leavening agents exist. It is the duty of the polities, not only their Governing Strata, to refine those leavening agents to advance the society at the local level, as well as entire humanity. This is nothing less than a race, competition.

Doctrines of Belief Systems are outlined in user’s manuals specific to that system. The method is not unique to ‘religions.’ All Belief Systems have been abused and given over to serve the needs of the Designer Community and the Governance Strata . In the process, the verbiage contained in those doctrines are sprinkled with contemporary vocabulary borrowed from the Governance milieu. Even when the user manuals are translated into new languages, this attribute is prevalent. For example, the word ‘Lord’ is utilized to denote a deity of deities in English. Of course, the reference is to the title or designation of the immediate ruler of the realm and polity. This, is due to the Identity of the clergy in question: For example, the forced merging of identities during the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither) when the Emperor and the Pope entered into an uneasy pact to support each other, at least publicly, for their mutual benefit.

III. True Believer

A True Believer may be identified by how she handles a doctrine, unquestioningly. She has no qualms about whether it is rational or beneficial to all concerned.

Whereas a person with a curious thought process always must question herself whether a particular human path is superior to all others in terms of universal outcome, a True Believer rarely engages in a similar exercise. The thoughtful person may choose the saying “never in doubt, always in error” as a thinking method, while the zealot might counter with “I believe” in whatever second hand doctrine handed her.

Imagine an artery, a major road crossing a large city. In the middle, we unexpectedly discover a checkpoint, manned by a sniper. He is in civilian clothes. He has decided he has the authority to shoot and kill anyone he deems unfit, unhealthy or unphotogenic. And, he carries his self appropriated task with zest. Is this just? Is it acceptable to the populace, The Governing Strata?

What happens if this sniper is actually ‘given’ that task by a committee, deciding who should be shot and killed, instead of leaving that decision to the lone sniper? Does that change the questions we just asked, or the nature of our inquiry?

What gives the ‘right’ or authority to the sniper to carry out his deeds, killing people he does not agree with or does not like? How did this sniper decide on his course of action? Did he inherit his views and call to action from his family? A particular philosophy? Club? What was the motivation of the philosopher in designing the thought which influenced the sniper? How was that philosophical thought transmitted to the sniper, and became his own to act upon? Was it a direct line of transmission, meaning the sniper read the philosopher’s book and absorbed it? Or, were there intermediaries who might have modified the original thought of the philosopher for some reason or other? How do we know that we understand all that has been going on?

The point is: every action begins as a thought first. All our thoughts have their beginnings in interactions with humans, institutions. But, humans are capable of transcending as well as descending into the depths of baseness. Humans perform extraordinary feats at either extreme. What makes the difference? Religion/Belief System? Literae humaniores ?

If we opt to believe that religion makes the difference, we must also remember that all theology is manmade. This also includes political ecumene.

Burning books of knowledge, especially those opposing the current regime de jour, never extinguished the curiosity of the human mind. Moreover, draconian measures always failed to reach their purported objectives.

Are we, in this discussion, examining morality and ethics? That may comfort adherents of religions, people of the book. After all, ‘holy books’ exhort the readers, “thou shall not kill’ in various forms. The point here, however, is not the precepts of belief systems. Instead, we are concerned with profane and mundane matters such as reasoning arts and sciences. For example: what is the Identity of the sniper? Is he a monster? What about the Identity of the Committee that ‘tasked’ him? And, what is the Identity of the Governance system that fosters all this abomination?

Does the sniper lay claim to Natural Law? If she claims the right to kill accordingly, does she realize that the same right exists for others to kill him as well?

Single person Governance Systems, regardless of their designations such as kingdom, empire, democracy, etc, have inherent weaknesses. One person could not possibly be on duty 24/7. Of course, the autocrat realized that, and sought two solutions: spent resources on increasing amounts of security forces to keep himself alive, recruited a slate of obsequious lieutenants

Under such a system, as soon as duties are delegated to others, degradation of collective tasks begins. This is simply because the individuals delegated may or may not share the ambitions of the ‘ruler,’ hence, pursue different agendas. But, there is even a deeper structural flaw in this system: Educational differences. Education is not a simple matter of earning a diploma; the greater the difference between the governed and the governing strata, more difficult for both sides to communicate with each other, and hence failure of the system. It is only a matter of time before the Governed snap under the strain. This happens under many categories.

IV. Individuals or Groups over Polity

What is the common denominator for Spain, England, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway? They are all monarchies. They have also embraced the constitutional version (as opposed to the autocracy) and possess representative governments. A number of political parties regularly contest the elections.

The foregoing is in contrast to the examples of Democratic Republic of Germany, Poland, Democratic Republic of Vietnam at al of pre 1991. Even though these polities sported the term ‘democratic’ in their official appellations, they did not have representative governments.

That is not to say that all polities that purport to be democratic are pluralistic; neither were the origins of democracy. By way of comparison: about 10% of the former ‘socialist’ polity were members of the ruling communist party---as in the examples above---the proportion is perhaps similar in the case of the original democracy where 10% of the population were citizens with the right to vote, and the remaining 90% comprised of slaves without such privilege.

Why is it important for all members of a polity to participate in the governance of that polity? An autocrat (under any designation) may drag the polity into war and ruination by personal machinations. The all member participation in governance will inject sanity to the deliberations in case of a crisis.

In an authoritarian polity, the Governing Strata will use its resources to compel the population. This compulsion will take the form of all-out pressure that will ignore the bases of human dignity. For example, getting shot dead without a trial, for transgressions not even known is definitely against human rights. Any form of torture is absolutely within this domain.

All this is intimately tied to deciding how the wealth of the polity is going to be shared, allocated and spent. Will the resources be expended on guns or butter?

That, in turn, requires a definition of Identity. The question to elicit the answer is not “Who are you;” instead “What are you?”

There are quite a few answers to that query: offspring, parent, sibling, citizen, member of a profession, political party adherent, club member. There are obligations, benefits, costs and gains in each case. But those designations still do not answer the question “What are you?” Human psyche is quite dynamic and attributes will fluctuate from one moment to the next. Are these oscillations caused by emotion or reason or economic factors---the most powerful impellents?

Do these choices also apply to the polity as a whole, in addition to the solitary members? After all, the polity is comprised of individuals, each possessing their own Identities.

Moreover, the Governance Strata will also have their own Identity. This is already demonstrated in two well known manuals of statecraft: Balasagunlu Yusuf’s Kutadgu Bilig, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s Prince.

In Kutadgu Bilig stresses the necessity of having a happy and content population if the ruling dynasty is to survive and prosper.

In The Prince, Machiavelli’s concerns are focused on the happiness of the Prince (ruler) without regard to the prosperity of the population.

This contrast begins to point to the roots of Identity in each case. Keeping only 10% of the population happy and content and the rest unsatisfied is a good recipe of regime change under any political system.

Note: [1] Regular Ozbek skullcap.

About the author: H. B. PAKSOY has taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University.

Over the past two decades, some fifty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in ten countries, on the European, Asian, and North American continents. In addition to the present volume, Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) seven other books: THE BALD BOY AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (Lubbock: ATON, 2003) ESSAYS ON CENTRAL ASIA (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 1999); INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (Co-Editor)(Simon and Schuster Education Group, 1998); TURK TARIHI, TOPLUMLARIN MAYASI, UYGARLIK (Izmir: Mazhar Zorlu Holding, 1997); CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History; (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994); CENTRAL ASIAN MONUMENTS (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992); ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule (Hartford, Connecticut: AACAR, 1989).

H. B. PAKSOY earned his D. Phil. from Oxford University, England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship)"

NewsCentralAsia - Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia

2004-10-01T15:07:00.000-07:00

H. B. PaksoySUN IS ALSO FIRE

2004-09-30T20:08:00.000-07:00

SUN IS ALSO FIRE "SUN IS ALSO FIRE

H. B. Paksoy
The particular conditions of writing history in the Soviet Union have been partially documented, although far less often in the case of the Asian territories. Lowell Tillett, Wayne S. Vucinich and C. E. Black have shown that especially since World War II, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Soviet Academies of Sciences and their branches have mandated that the history of the non-Russians and their relations to the Russian state and to the ethnic Russians themselves is and has always been positive, "progressive" and beneficial to the non- Russians. With respect to Central Asia, Soviet officialdom has been and is eager to legitimize both its conquest and present position in the region as Central Asians constitute approximately one-fifth to one-fourth of the Soviet population and occupy a substantial portion of the Asian land-mass.

The Central Asian authors have responded to the restrictions on history writing by reporting accurate history and relaying messages of the past in the guise of literature. The field of literature has its own strictures. Thus, Central Asians have tried to ensure that their output is both the real history and sufficiently veiled (for example, under the "yarn" genre) to pass censorship. This is an effort to maintain the historical identity which Central Asians see is under attack by the Russian-dominated party, state and academic apparatus in the official "histories." One must observe the recent publishing activity of the Central Asians, in their dialects, especially since late 1970s. These efforts represent a renewal of activity since the interruption caused by the "liquidations" of the 1930s.

The efforts of the past decade constitute a renewal -- rather than initiation -- of activity because history, politics and literature have always been inseparable in Central Asia. This has been true regardless of the era or form of government. The tradition is continuing as ever, with "fiction" and "novel" genres now being used not only to bear a contemporary message, but to relay the lessons of real historical events and written monuments of Central Asian history to the indigenous populace. To recognize these messages -- both contemporary and historical -- of these new works of "fiction," serving as platforms for true history texts for the Central Asians, it is imperative that the Western reader be equipped with the historical knowledge being referenced by the Central Asian writer and recognized by his readers.

SUN IS ALSO FIRE (Kuyas ham Alov) is one such work of supposed fiction that contains accurate historical information, quotations from key historical monuments of Central Asia, and which bears several messages relevant to the contemporary population. SUN IS ALSO FIRE is a "short story" by Alisher Ibadin, printed in the periodical Gulistan (published in the Uzbek SSR), in its issue No. 9, 1980. Examination of current Soviet textbooks suggests that the works implicitly referenced (identified below) in this "short story" are not generally available or taught in Soviet schools. In this effort, Ibadin is presenting himself as a conduit, a bridge to the real past. In verbalizing the thoughts of the collective ancestry, he is taking a great personal risk -- perhaps, like the central figure of the "tale," pouring (symbolic) naphtha on himself. The main theme of SUN IS ALSO FIRE reflects the messages of both the sources and the historical events to which Ibadin alludes -- a struggle for independence against an invading alien, preservation of the culture of one's ancestors and the self sacrifice required for the task. Along the way, purification, by fire, is woven into the main flow, an important historical motif.

One of the most powerful messages of SUN IS ALSO FIRE is represented by the epigram with which Ibadin begins: "If the sky above did not collapse, and if the earth below did not give way, O Turkish people, who would be able to destroy your state and institutions?

These words come from the Orkhon-Yenisei tablets inscribed in the first third of the 8th century. The tablets are the earliest known surviving written monuments of the Turks in their own language. They recount the fall of a great Central Asian Turk empire in the 7th century and the leaders who rebuilt it. It is not only the story of national reconstruction after subjugation (in this case, by the Chinese) and thus a message of confidence, but contains the sobering lesson that the loss of the earlier empire was the fault of the Turks themselves because they forsook the ancestral values. It is from that passage that Ibadin took this admonition.

The use of the Orkhon-Yenisei inscriptions bears also an indirect message -- these tablets were inscribed more than 250 years before the conversion of the Rus and, therefore, some 300 years before an alphabet was invented for the Russians. In fact, the stelae predate -- by a wide margin -- the first mention of the Rus in any written chronicle (i.e. Annales Bertiniani of the 9th c.). Consequently, the tablets are a not so subtle reminder that the culture of the Turks is of greater antiquity than that of their present-day overlords. Since the tablets describe an empire even earlier than the time of the inscriptions, the reminder is redoubled -- the Turks' empire preceded the Kievan state as well as Russian literacy. This may be deemed a backlash against the contents of the current Soviet textbooks.

Additional historical references emerge in the first few lines of the narrative itself. The central figure of SUN IS ALSO FIRE is named Alp Tekin. An "alp" is a battle-tested young man, or woman, with a noble and distinguished character and "Tekin," or "Tigin" denotes a Turk prince. There are, however, several known historical Alp Tekins, each with a specific message to the audience. Bartold mentions four: of Bukhara, the Hajib (Chamberlain) of Khwarazm Shah, A. D. 1071; of Ghazna, in Samanid kingdom, d. A. D. 963, who founded a new state on the territories of Ghazna, having risen from the position of a military bondsman; the ambassador to Sultan Masud in A. D. 1036; and of Kara-Khitay in A. D. 1141, who restored the castle in the city of Bukhara. Certainly, the Alp Tekin who founded the Ghaznavids is the most likely one Ibadin wishes readers to focus on -- the Alp Tekin who established an independent state for his followers.

Ibadin continues his historical text: When Alp Tekin is awakened, he jumps up, prepared for battle and asks whether the enemy, the Arabs, are attacking. The reference, of course, is to the Arab conquests of Central Asia in the 8th century. There are several references (by name) to a "Talas battle." There were several battles at that location, and the most well known took place in A. D. 751 between the Arabs and the Chinese. Although the overt theme here is protection of the homeland from invasion, the emphasis throughout is not so much on the fear of physical occupation, but rather its result -- the threat to the native culture, particularly the religion and language of the ancestors. Because it is Islam (and Arabic) that these invaders represent, many a Western reader, imbued with the present thought that attributes everything in Central Asia to Islam, may see here a simple anti-Islamic message reflecting official CPSU policy. Perhaps Ibadin relied on such a presumption also entering the minds of Soviet authorities. But in view of tsarist and Soviet Russification policies and their emphasis on the use of the Russian language, one must also see a broader intent. It is the imposition of an alien language, whatever it may be, that is the threat to culture.

Furthermore, and although the depiction of Arabs as enemies and Islam as an alien faith may coincide with Russian policies, the examination of Islam and the degree to which it ought to be part of the Central Asian identity has deep historical roots. The Central Asian educated stratum debated this question (yet again) at the turn of the 20th century, inter alia, on the pages of the St. Petersburg newspaper Mir Islama. Throughout "SUN IS ALSO FIRE," the emphasis is not so much "anti-Islamic" as it is "pro" the ancestral religion and traditions.

As soon as Ibadin delineates his main reference points, he has Alp Tekin invoke the aid of more well known and historical Turks, those who gained fame even before the arrival of invading Arab armies, to solve the problems Alp Tekin is facing. The resulting effect is that a Turk is looking up to another, a more ancient Turk, to emulate as a role model. Among these role models, six are rather significant and recalled by name. Alp Er Tunga is the first. He is revered even by his medieval "biographers" and his name repeatedly appears in the Kultigin stela of the Orkhon group.

On the same man, Balasagunlu Yusuf, in Kutadgu Bilig comments: "If you observe well you will notice that the Turkish princes are the finest in the world. And among these Turkish princes the one of outstanding fame and glory was Tonga Alp Er. He was the choicest of men, distinguished by great wisdom and virtues manifold. What a choice and manly man he was, a clever man indeed--he devoured this world entire! The Iranians call him Afrasiyab, the same who seized and pillaged their realm.

Kashgarli Mahmut, in Diwan Lugat at-Turk also cites an elegy for Alp Er Tonga:

Has Alp Er Tonga died? / Does the wicked world remain empty of him? / Has time exacted its revenge upon him? / Now the heart bursts...

Kashgarli further identifies him: "Tunga (tiger)...King Afrasiyab, Chief of the Turks, meaning a man, a warrior, (as strong as) a tiger.

For Tonyukuk, another revered historical Turk alluded to in the narration, Ibadin provides a footnote: "FN 24. During the I. and II. Turk Kaganates, a very high ranking political personage.

From available sources, it is known that Tonyukuk was the chief advisor to rulers Ilteris and Bilga Kagan, the latter of whom was apparently responsible for all the Orkhon stelas, including one erected in Tonyukuk's honor ca. 720 A.D. Tonyukuk himself was alive in 716, at Bilga Kagan's accession and is believed to have died a few years later.

A third historical personage to whom Ibadin alludes is Sebuk Tegin (d. A. D. 997), the protege of Alp Tekin of Ghazna. After Alp Tekin's death in A. D. 963, as with at least two other commanders preceeding him, Sebuk Tegin was elected the commander of the army by its troops in A. D. 977. In 15 years time, he was the ruler of all Ghaznavid territories.

The case of the historical Bugra is not difficult either. Han Suleyman b. Yusuf (Bugra Tekin), lived c. A. D. 1040, at the time of the Dandenekan battle. The events of this period broadly involve struggles to control Transoxiana, with the Ghaznavids in the middle, Seljuks to the West and the Karakhanids to the East. There are also a number of other Bugra Han [Khan] of the same period. Moreover, Balasagunlu Yusuf dedicated the Kutadgu Bilig to Karakhanid Bugra Khan. What is inconsistent with his demonstrated knowledge of history, is the fact that Ibadin cast the Bugra of SUN IS ALSO FIRE in a rather dim light. One wonders if he did not have access to credible historical sources on the Seljuks, Karakhanids or Ghaznavids. Or, perhaps, he had some other, special purpose in mind, such as warning the members of his readership about complacency and unacceptable behavior in the manner of his Bugra Bek. Possibly, Ibadin points to Tabgach Bugra Khan, to which Kutadgu Bilig was dedicated, to suggest he did not follow the admonitions in that manual of statecraft, and thus caused the decline of the Karakhanids.

Ibadin introduces a fifth historical name, Tarhan. Though "Tarhan" is a title denoting a member of the ruling elite, it has also been used as a personal name. Bartold chronicles a "Tarkhun" being active c. A. D. 701-4, "the leader of the native princes, Tarkhun, the Ikhshid of Sogd." Togan details the use of the word, based on the writings of seven medieval historians, indicating "Tarhan" was a title given to some Turk rulers. Togan's description includes a Tarhan of Kashghar c. A. D. 775-785, Arslan Tarhan of Kashan near Fergana A. D. 739, and several others up to A. D. 893. This cross-referencing of Tarhan and Arslan somewhat complicates the picture. Bartold lists no fewer than twelve rulers carrying "Arslan" as part of their names. The majority of those Arslan lived 11-13th centuries A. D. (It must be remembered that many individuals in Central Asian history had their given names before assuming titles associated with acquired or inherited positions of authority). There is, however, one "Arslan Khan Ali, who, according to Jamal Karshi (a period historian), died a martyr's death in January 998: the nature of his death may be guessed from the epithet Hariq (`the burned') applied to him."

Ibadin has Alp Tekin make a reference to a sixth historical personage, Bumin Han, a Turk prince, referenced in Kul Tigin. He is one of the ancestors of Kul Tigin, "... who organized and ruled the state and institutions of the Turkish people."

There are also specific references to the land on which the depicted events are taking place. That aspect, too, is critical to the understanding of history, the bond between the people and the homeland and how it relates to the readership. The footnotes to the translated work provide the details of how those geographic locations are significant and to which historical sources they may be traced.

Next, Ibadin brings in concrete references to personal sacrifice for the homeland, manifesting itself as consumption by fire. Reverence for fire is most commonly associated with Zoroastrianism, but exists also in many belief systems. Most salient for the present case, Central Asian Shamanism is known to encompass reverence for fire. In his study of Shamanism, the late Mircea Eliade writes:

The idea that fire ensures a celestial destiny after death is also confirmed by the belief that those who are struck by lightning fly up to the sky. 'Fire,' of whatever kind, transforms man into 'spirit;' this is why shamans are held to be 'masters over fire' and become insensitive to the touch of hot coals. 'Mastery over fire' or being burned are in a manner equivalent to an initiation. A similar idea underlies the conception that heroes and who all die a violent death mount to the sky; their death is considered an initiation. On the contrary, death from disease can only lead the deceased to the underworld; for disease is provoked by the evil spirits of the dead.

Such beliefs and practice were still alive in Central Asia during the early part of the 20th century. The late Z. V. Togan relates a particular event, when he was involved in the Basmaci Movement of 1920s. At one point Togan was taken ill seriously. His companions carried him to a shaman. Togan narrates:

In an Uzbek [sic] tent, a large fire was lit. The bakhsi (shaman), had a jet-black beard, appearing to be forty years of age, with a robust body, but was otherwise a seemingly normal person... An iron shovel was placed in the fire. He lifted this spade, inserting a wooden handle. The wood handle caught fire. He {shaman} filled his mouth with water and sprayed the spade. The bouncing droplets of water {from this process} were striking my face, burning me... Finally, the shaman grasped this spade with his teeth. He encircled me several times with it, and threw it back into the fire... Despite the fact that he had held the burning spade in his mouth, his black mustache was not {even} singed.

Among the Central Asians, the motif of "burning in fire" in the course of an independence movement is not confined to one location. For example, in 1927, Jafar Jabarli, an Azarbaijan author wrote a novel with the title Od Gelini (Bride of Fire). The main theme of this novel being the heroic battle of the Azerbaijanis against Arab invaders. It was also translated into Russian, under the title Nevsta ognia and Ibadin's work appears to share sentiments with it.

More recently is the case of Musa Mamut, a Crimean Tatar activist, striving to facilitate the return to the Crimean homeland of all Crimean Tatars who had been forcibly exiled to Central Asia by Stalin. After much harassment from the authorities for his activities, Musa Mamut poured gasoline on himself and committed self-immolation in 1978, in the village of Beshterek {in Simferopol' district in Crimea}. He died from the burns he sustained. The close proximity of this incident to the time of Ibadin's writing should be noted.

It is necessary further to point to three groups of issues pertinent to the readers of SUN IS ALSO FIRE:" Sources, Motivation and Intentions.

Sources - As noted, Ibadin's sources are clearly discernible. He has thoroughly studied the primary Monuments of his patrimony: The Turk stelas erected in the 8th century along Orkhon-Yenisey; the 11th century Compendium of Kasgarli Mahmut; Kutadgu Bilig of Balasagunlu Yusuf, also of the 11th century A. D. Nor did he neglect the secondary sources. He is obviously quite comfortable with Bartold's Turkestan. He is unlikely to have confined himself to those, however, since there are other references in the work that reach beyond these volumes.

Motivation -- SUN IS ALSO FIRE has appeared during 1980, less than a year of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. One cannot help but wonder if Ibadin is using the Arab example of the 8th century because - at that point in time - he could not refer to the Russian occupation of Central Asia in the 19th century. Does he wish his readers to make the substitution? Or perhaps he is addressing the multinational population of Afghanistan, bringing the example of Central Asia to their attention, urging them on to carry on with their independence struggle. It should be noted that, soon afterwards, Afghan historical literature also began appearing in the Uzbek press.

The plot of SUN IS ALSO FIRE is set partly on soil which is now Afghanistan, the medieval Ghaznavid territories, and partly in the Talas region at the opposite (Eastern) end of Central Asia. The depicted events take place 900 to 1300 years ago. Given the fact that Ibadin demonstrates his historical knowledge and his facility with the sources, this ambiguity or blurring in time and territory seems to have been intentional and perhaps designed to emphasize the broad applications of the message.

Intentions - The workings of the censorship mechanism of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union are documented. Occasionally there appear to be some breakdowns in what strives to be a comprehensive system. One such incident is discernible immediately after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. A sweeping change took place among the editorial personnel of Uzbek newspapers and journals in September 1980. In this period, under new editors, Uzbek journals published quite a few intensely nationalistic "novelettes," and "short stories." In 1982, just as abruptly, the editorial personnel were once again changed. Although the exact nature of this period, or the underlying political implications is not yet fully understood, the effects were notable. SUN IS ALSO FIRE was published {September 1980} at the very beginning of the first change.

There are other concerns ever-present in the minds of Central Asian authors. Two are among the most prominent.

1. The Socialist Realism filter - From the outset (as in this resolution passed by the CPSU on 18 June 1925), the Soviet regime established that "...in a classless society there is and can be no neutral art." Thus, arts and literature are and must be a means for the dissemination of state and party propaganda. No writer living in the present Soviet domains is allowed to produce any work without adhering to the Socialist Realism formulated in the 1920s-30s and demanded by the state even now. Although the "intensity" of Socialist Realism may fluctuate with time and efforts at enforcement, it is essentially ever present.

Because the ideological function of the arts was first articulated by Lenin and later reiterated by his followers ad nauseam, no literary work can clear the censorship {at least theoretically} if it does not conform to the manuals prepared and distributed for the purpose of ideological screening. Hence, when an author decides to risk his career, his life and those of his family members, in order to "speak his mind," he is obliged to do it in "doublespeak." That fact, too, may have contributed to the mixing of the two periods noted above. The interrelationship of historical references displayed in the "fiction" may also indicate the political tendencies or positions apparently acceptable to the authorities charged with the censorship task at the time of writing.

2. Ostensible "Pan Turanism" - Ibadin continually hammers at the theme of "unity" among Turks, especially in their efforts to resist foreign invasion. Many Western and Russian authors have discerned such efforts to be a sign of "Pan Turanism," ostensibly a movement by Turks to establish hegemony over the world, or at least Eurasia. In fact, this "Pan" movement has no historical ideological precedent among Turks and has been documented to be a creation of the Westerners. Around the time of the occupation of Tashkent by Russian troops in 1865, the doctrine called "Pan-Turanism" or "Pan-Turkism" appeared in a work by Hungarian Orientalist Arminius Vambery. Vambery, it is now known, was in the pay of the British Government.

The doctrine was invented, propagated and attributed to the Turks by the Europeans as part of 19th century balance-of-power struggles, both in the matter of the weakened Ottoman Empire and against the Russian expansion in Central Asia. Dubbed the "Great Game in Asia," by its practitioners, the origins and means of this contest have been studied by E. Ingram.

Later, and even today, various Western entities have used this pseudo-movement as a "bogey-man" to reap financial benefits, to "fortify the West" against "yellow hordes" sweeping out of Asia and swamping "Christendom." For example, L. Cahun's Introduction a l'Histoire de l'Asie, Turcs, et Mongols, des Origines a 1405 was written to suggest that a racial superiority motivated the conquests of the Mongol Chingiz Khan. It is perhaps not coincidental that this book was published on the heels of the 1893-1894 Franco-Russian rapprochement, at a time when Russia justified its conquest of Central Asia as part of its own "civilizing mission."

In the Secret History of the Mongols, written c. 1240 A. D., after the death of Chingiz, there is, of course, no reference to the racial superiority of the Mongols. Instead, it quotes Chingiz: "Tangri (God) opened the gate and handed us the reins," indicating that Chingiz regarded only himself ruling by divine order. The "Great Khan" himself was and remained the focus of power, as opposed to the clans under his rule. In any event, the Mongol armies were distinctly multi-racial.

Another representative sample of this early phase of the "movement" is A Manual on the Turanians and Pan-Turanianism a work that was based on Vambery's Türkenvolk and that it was compiled by Sir Denison Ross, as Sir Denison later personally informed Togan. Even Alexander Kerensky, in Paris exile after the Bolshevik Revolution, was utilizing the same "Turanian" rhetoric, calling it "a menace threatening the world."

Despite its European origins and apart from its European goals, the idea took root among some Central Asian emigres, as it promised the removal of the Russian occupation and subsequent colonization in their homelands. Accusations of "Pan-Turkism" are still employed today, especially but not exclusively in the Soviet Union, against even cultural movements, scholarly works on the common origins and language of the Turks, even in conflict with and refuting another Soviet position that the dialects are separate and distinct "languages." The Soviet state has exerted much effort to introduce the "idea" of this "scientific finding," the existence of separate "Turkic languages" among Central Asians. It must be noted that in no Turk dialect or "language," is there any such distinction as "Turkic" and "Turkish." This distinction exists in some Western languages, as well as Russian, with the latter referring to the Ottoman or Turkish republican domains and the former, to other Turks. It is noteworthy that, before the arrival of the Russians, the Central Asians were able to communicate among themselves, apparently totally oblivious to the fact that they were speaking in "totally separate and distinct languages."

The search for the historical sources and beginnings of their history is by no means confined to the inhabitants of one Soviet Republic or efforts of a single author. Though no comprehensive study of this aspect is made, the manifestations are so numerous in the Central Asian press that it is difficult to evade or ignore them. Even the tracing of history back to the Orkhon monuments, is not isolated any longer; one crosses paths of other examples: Qulmat Umuraliev in Kazak Edebiyati No. 30 (1982); Ismail Ismailov, "Eski Yazili Abidelerde Hemcins Uzviler" in Azarbaijan Filologiyasi Meseleleri Vol. 2. (Baku: Elm, 1984); Suyerkul Turgunbaev "Bayirki Kultegin Esteligi: VI - VIII Kilimdardagi Turk Poeziyasinan" Ala Too No. 9, 1988.

The full-length translation presented below does not strive to "Westernize" the narration of Ibadin's work. All punctuation is as in the original, including the ellipses and changes in scenery. Sentence structure is also preserved to the extent possible. Ibadin provides 30 footnotes of his own throughout the text. Most are related to the explanations of words he has used, which do not appear in present-day dictionaries. Additional notes contain references that are supplied by the present writer, to place the work and its implications into perspective.

It must also be reiterated that the mixing of time periods and historical references arbitrarily, of the 8th and the 11th centuries A. D., and juxtaposition of real historical personages with events that may not have taken place appear to be intentional, so as to give the work an air of "fiction," thus avoiding Soviet censorship. Thus the "story" can be read as a "fiction" or a series of tightly packed and "indexed" real history to the readership.

SUN IS ALSO FIRE

If the sky above did not collapse, and if the earth below did not give way, O Turkish people, who would be able to destroy your state and institutions?

As written in the Tigin Funerary Tablets, VII Century."

As he opened his eyes, Alp Tekin swiftly grasped his sword from underneath the pillow.

- "Is it the enemy, the Arabs?" he demanded.

- "No, a letter is arriving from the orda... perhaps..." said the karabash, as he hesitated, embarrassed by the anguish his excitement caused his Bey.

Alp Tekin tied a silk scarf around his forehead, tucking his singly braided hair to his belt, walked outside.

Sorrowful autumn. Scarlet leaves were spread around, covering the ground, making it appear as if splashed with blood. At a distance, some as yet unidentified horsemen were seen approaching the fortified position.

- "If from the Orda... who?" thought Alp Tekin. Then, his handsome face clouded with some disturbing thought, his heart sank: "Jibilga!" A longing look briefly lingered in the squinting eyes of the traditional Alpagut.

"No, - the yigit sighed deeply, - what would Jibilga be doing in Kitkan?" Pacing to-and-fro under the stronghold gate, he recalled the events that brought him to Kitkan...

During the spring of 739 A. D., Arslan Tarhan, the Hakan of Ferghana, attacked with his troops the domains of Talas Hakan Tugasiyen, destroying the land and scattering the army of the latter. The fighting between these Turk tribes did not produce a winner. Unfortunately, the severe loss of the Turks, as a result of internecine fighting, were benefitting the Arabs who were amassing troops at the foothills of Usrushana. Moreover, the Turk State, keeping its existence by the force of sword against the Chinese troops in Davon was weakened.

The Arabs, owning half the earth, had occupied the roads leading to Ferghana and were waiting for an easy opportunity. Three or four months after the Talas battle, the Khaliph's governor in Khorasan, Nasr bin Sayyar had entered Sogdia with a large body of troops. From there, he sent letters to the rulers of Shash and Ferghana, inviting them to accept Islam and Arab rule.

Upon receiving the letter of Sayyar, threatening them from head-to-toe, Arslan Tarhan called a Kurultay in his orda located along Enchi Oghuz.

Arslan Tarhan's younger brother, scholarly Alp Tekin was also present at the kurultay, who possessed the Sogdian courtly eloquence, and familiarity with Arabic and Chinese.

At the time of the Kengesh, the Apatarhan Sebuk Tekinbek looking at the quietly sitting Beks, mockingly stated: "We know the Arabs! We must fight!" Then, giving a manly salute to Arslan Tarhan sitting on his leopard skin covered throne, continued:

- "My Hakan! Ugushlarim. We heard that both the Afshin of Usrushana and the bahadir Tudun of Shash, are accepting the terms of the Khaliph. We are now alone. That dog Tugasiyen killed many of our brave young man. We have heavily pained our enemies, despite the suffering of our yigits, untended horses, and scarcity of our arrows in the quivers." Casting a glance at Alp Tekin, he swallowed, and continued: "'If it is not possible to chew the stone, it is necessary to kiss it,' said the forefathers. Think about it!"

Sebuk Tekinbek, having amassed untold amount of goods in the Talas battle, was now weary, longing for the comforts of his home. Alp Tekin knew his companion quite well. Sebuk Tekinbek could behave like the father of a nasty boil! Keeping that in mind, Alp Tekin did not immediately join the discussion, but patiently listened to the other beys. The aged and not entirely truthful beys, who have added flocks of sheep to their possessions after the Talas battle, pessimistically pontificated at length on the number and power of the Arabs, the weariness of the Turk Bori, the difficulty of success against the prevailing odds.

Sebuk Tekinbek arose, spoke of the tax exemption privileges extended to those inhabitants of Bukhara and Samarkand who joined the community of Muhammad, and the fact that the dehkan were not at all opposed to the state.

"Deceitful posture" thought Alp Tekin, driving the topic out of his mind "the lustre of gold is burning his heart. The Arabs knowingly say 'the coquetry of gold causes the mejusi to accept religion, it also grants tongue to the mute.' Perhaps Aka is more concerned about his throne. He who is concerned about the throne is not concerned with the affairs of the people. In order for him to rule, he only needs healthy people. It does not matter to him if the people are fire-worshippers or Muslims... Alas, in this kurultay, I fear they sold their own Turk religion and language. I wonder?"

-- "Sebuk Tekinbek" said he, with fiery eyes. "Is it not true that the bezirgan regularly visiting Tuput actually stop at your place!"

Arslan Tarhan appeared to be pained. The attention of the beys turned to Alp Tekin. Alp Tekin, though eagerly awaited by the beys, did not wish to continue with this harsh line. But, since a light of treachery was thus cast on the indicated actions of Sebuk Tekinbek, he was compelled to resume: -- "Look at these swallows... Beys, perhaps with difficulty, they make their nests, they rear their young which they brought to life, teach them to fly; to these birds, without {the power of} reason, what is the benefit of this hardship?"

- "So that the family of swallows does not become annihilated in this land!" - responded Alp Er Tunga, while casting a raised eyebrow at the aged beys.

- "Live Long!" - gratefully acknowledged Alp Tekin - "Our ancestors, much like these swallows, have reared us with the same hopes; what do you think? Did they not devote their generation to ours, so that our lineage would be perpetuated, the Turks would not become extinct in this realm? Now, would we not be stepping on the faces of our ancestors, losing them eternally, by accepting the religion of a newcomer and forgetting our language; if one of us did this, for fear of losing his fame, another grief-stricken over lost gold; is that not true, beys? Is there a more ugly deed in this blessed world? If there is, speak up, beys?"

- "Brothers, to the enemy!" - Alp Er Tunga shouted with abandon, jumping to his feet, unsheathed his sword, looking toward to the West.

- "To the enemy, to the enemy!" - echoed the other beys immediately.

However, Arslan Tarhan and Sebuk Tekinbek glanced at each other, winking meaningfully.

Afterwards, Arslan Tarhan sent Alp Tekin to the Kitkan fortified post...

While Alp Tekin was recalling these events in his mind, he was keeping an eye on the approaching horsemen: two riders, two pack camels. He surmised the identity of one of the riders from the way he was trundling on the saddle: it must be Bugrabek. Alp Tekin recognized the second rider as it burst through a cloud of dust. His {Alp Tekin's} face turned red as if reflecting the flames of a fire: Jibilga! Mounting his purebred horse, to greet them, he galloped towards the nearing young riders. In a short time, the clouds of dust kicked up by both sides merged.

- "So, what is the word from the orda?"

Bugrabek took the opportunity of coupling his mouth to the drinking vessel, containing crystal clear water of Kitkan, capable of soothing away exhaustion, began chewing a mouthful of bread. Jibilga was going in and out along with the servant girls, rather than sitting at the side of Bugrabek, whose legs were saddle bruised, whiling away time at the courtyard of the korugan. This yigit, who had accompanied Jibilga from the orda, was Sebuk Tekinbek's adopted son, representative of his family. Bugrabek had a lazy nature, ordering around his father's countless servants, not leaving the enclosure of the white tent. He was a man who did not care what happened around him, even if horses... would be taken away, he could not think of going after them, but protecting the insects. Alp Tekin would say "if it is not for the benefit of the insects, what use is the stubble of the field?" whenever his eye encountered Bugrabek.

-- "Health in the orda" -- said Bugrabek with a wheeze.

-- "What answer did they give to Nasr?"

Bugrabek cleared his throat, scratched his neck. Alp Tekin became impatient.

-- "Do you have a tongue?" After some more minutes of wheezing, croaking and clearing his throat, words began to fall out of Bugrabek's mouth like the crumbs of a torn piece of bread:

- "By the grace of God... it was deemed appropriate to send a white letter in response to Nasr's missive..."

- "What are you saying?" - bellowed Alp Tekin - "You... Swine! Are you speaking the truth?"

He grabbed Bugrabek by the throat and shook him mightily. Bugrabek collapsed as if he were deflated. Alp Tekin, standing over the drained face of this adopted bey:

- "Speak" he said.

- "Beys held a kengesh... later... a messenger was sent to Nasr... Nasr's regent will be arriving in Ferghana tomorrow...

- "Satkinlar! Alp Er Tunga, Alp Turan? Did they not oppose?"

- "Alp Er Tunga and Alp Turan were beheaded..."

- "My God! What fate?"

In the wrathful eyes of Alp Tekin, Bugrabek appeared as the personification of scandalously corrupt Arslan Tarhan and Seb^?k Tekinbek. Preparing to separate body from head, he unsheathed his sword. Bugrabek, with bloodshot eyes betraying fear, placed his head on Alp Tekin's feet. Just as he aimed his sword at the hairy neck of the adopted bey, like a predatory bird:

- "Alp Tekin, don't!" - screamed Jibilga, as she ran in...

- "Offer a sacrifice to Umay, for the sake of Jibilga" - groused Alp Tekin, as he sheathed his sword.

Bugrabek did not brave standing up, he crawled away.

- "Alp Tekin..." - Jibilga's wavering voice and the hesitant look in her almond-shaped eyes became evident to Alp Tekin.

- "Alp Tekin, as you know, reportedly Nasr has amassed plenty of troops... 'I am going to annihilate the Turks,' he is said to have stated..."

- "Jibilga, what are you saying?"

- "It is said that Nasr is not going to collect kharaj or jizye from us, only if we were to accept his religion. Alp Tekin, I expect this condition will unite the Turks!"

- "For God's sake go away, go away Jibilga!"

Alp Tekin was compellingly drawn to the banks of Kitkan river, began splashing water onto his face. "Ey!" - he roared, towards the wide open spaces - "where are you now, the glorious batirs of the Turks, those of you who at one time held sway from Chochon to Rum; from Altay to Boipin, where are you?"

Shadows were settling in from the East. The night quietly embraced the Kitkan korugan with its helmeted guards visible at the turrets on high walls. When darkness became total, the scarlet tongues of flames leaping from the oven fireboxes remained visible. Eternally defiant of night, yet again rearing their heads, because light is born to the arms of darkness!..

- "If we were to learn Arabic, speaking in this beautiful language, will would be communicating with half of the world. It indeed is the language of Bagdad, Damascus, used by the alp poets of the world!"

- "You are forgetting the most powerful poetry in the world, lullabies recited by our mothers as they stood over our cradles, Jibilga!.."

The flames in the hearth were casting a pale light upon Alp Tekin and Jibilga, lying on the wooden platform, then causing a naked sword on the floor to glisten before dissipating into the dark corners of the house. Suddenly Jibilga reached over the bare sword and touched the wrist of Alp Tekin with her long fingers. Alp Tekin's flesh tingled, his body stiffened.

- "Alp Tekin, do you recall our talks at the apple orchard?"

- "Could those times be ever forgotten?"

... Ah, those sweet memories, recalling the delightful times of days past! Enjoying the exquisite melodies emanating from the chankavuy played by Jibilga which would accompany drinking kimiz, then, knowingly winking at each other, begin courting.

Alp Tekin would silently visit his Toga's apple orchard, sit and wait for Jibilga in the quiet corner. Their greeting the dawn together was ostensibly unknown by anybody in Seb^?k Tekinbek's household, accepting the gifts of Tuput origin from Alp Tekin and turning a blind eye to Jibilga's early morning outings, which supposedly went totally unnoticed.

When the moon reached overhead, as Alp Tekin's patience ebbed from waiting, Jibilga would appear from the direction of the water canal.

During those heady days the sounds of the Enchi Oghuz would be audible at the distance, until dawn... Ah, what would they not discuss! Their intense discussions would inevitably turn to the appreciation of the prominent Turks of the past, they would end the night without sleep. "The land of Turks were in a single religion at the time of Bumin Han and contemporaries, now some worship fire, others became Manichean or Buddhist. What calamity that it turned out so!" would say Jibilga. "What are you getting at?" "It is necessary for the Turks to belong in one religion for their future unity." "Did that thought originate from your father?" "What do you think? He is not called the Tonyukuk of Arslan Tarhan, by the Beys for nothing." "Which language of the Tengri are we speaking in Jibilga? Our ancestors did not leave us the pyramids of the Pharaohs, they only bequeathed us their language. If we were to forget this language, would they not be dried like a river absorbed into the sands? No, it is best to be seeking refuge in fire - worshipping the Tengri is the best path. Actually, the mother of this realm - is the sun and fire! Worshiping the sun!" "The sun! Ha-ha-ha!" Jibilga's hearty laughter reverberated in the orchard, causing {....} to come out in a hurry, her hair reflecting the moon's glow. "If I were the sun, I would not simply radiate, but I would have destroyed the enemies of the people and bestow upon them life sustaining warmth!"

At times, while Jibilga played the changavuy, the melodies seemingly melded with the silky light of the moon and draped like a soft mist over the apple blossoms...

- "Alp Tekin, did you fall asleep?"

Alp Tekin rubbed his eyes like a child about to fall into sweet slumber.

- "Alp Tekin, listen, I have a few words for you."

Alp Tekin quiveringly shook his head and looked.

- "Suppose I accept the new religion... What would happen?"

- "I do not have mercy upon those who betray their own religion!"

Jibilga suddenly grasped the sword from its blade and placed the hilt in Alp Tekin's hand:

- "In that case, strike!"

- "Jibilga!" - cried out Alp Tekin, jumping to his feet.

- "It has been three years since my father recited the creed, all of us, even Bugrabek..."

- "Jibilga!" - to Jibilga, the frightening scream emanating from the throat of the yigit resembled the moanings of a men who has been hit by a dirk in the chest.

Alp Tekin drew his knife and began slashing his own face... Jibilga's pearl-like tears were discernible in the reflecting light.

"Brothers!" - upon noticing the face of Alp Tekin, the troops looked at each other as if to ask "Is Arslan Tarhan dead?" - "Hear me! I rebelled against my own brother! You should know that he was once a worshipper of fire. Now he has made his religion, language, subservient to throne. Mind you, this is religion, language; living in the bosoms, the tongues of each of us, our homeland! The flowing Enchi Oghuz, plentiful apple orchards and pastures are our homeland, but when we consider it closely, there is another, altogether mighty homeland, inseparable from our selves; that is, our language. Can any man who ruthlessly discards this precious inheritance, homeland, still be a lord in his own home? Tell me, people!"

- "Certainly not! Certainly not!" roared the troops.

- "Correct! Tomorrow the regent of Nasr is arriving in Ferghana. Are there quarters for him in Ferghana? Tell me Turks!"

- "There is! But it is in the dark earth!" shouted the troops.

- "Good! Starting today, Orda of this homeland is Kitkan! The Hakan of the people is me; I am Alp Tekinbek! I issue a mobilization order to all Turks. We are going to defend the korugan with all our might. No mercy to those who sell or buy this homeland!"

Although Apatarhan Sebuk Tekinbek's troops were reinforced by the ghazis arriving from Samarkand, and together they had laid siege to Kitkan korugan for twenty days, they had been unable to conquer it. The Apatarhan was most unhappy. He was incessantly ordering new attacks, but an unknown number, according to some rumors one thousand, or said some informants, one hundred T^?rk troops defending the thick walls were keeping at bay a force of five thousand. Those in the fortification had stockpiled naphtha from the Chimyan mountain, which they were burning in bowls and pouring onto those who came close to the walls, thereby keeping them away.

The water-wells began to dry-up with the choking of Kitkan korugan by Sebuk Tekinbek. Food and drink was rationed and the women and children who came to the korugan from surrounding kishlaks began suffering. The use of naphta against the attacks had to be carefully husbanded. The days of Kitkan korugan appeared numbered when catapults from Usrushana and reinforcements from Arslan Tarhan's orda arrived to aid the attackers. All of the possessions of the korugan was defended by some one hundred troops, who were rendered weak from malnourishment and lack of water.

In deep thought, Alp Tekin approached the distant guard room of the korugan. Humidity greeted him upon opening the small, squeaking door. As the door opened Jibilga rose, looking at the entering figure, and faced away. At the corner, with beard and hair unkept like weeds, Bugrabek was eating noisily with full cheeks. Noticing Alp Tekin, he pressed his forehead to the ground and rose.

For a moment, both the yigit and the girl were silent. Alp Tekin lowered his head:

- "Jibilga," he started, "give up that path! Do not turn your face away from homeland!"

- "I am but a servant of God..."

- "Jibilga, but your father accepted that religion to preserve his own wealth...

- "You are speaking in vain! My father wishes to unite his subjects who are adherents of Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, Buddhism in one religion and language!

Alp Tekin shook his head, Jibilga looked at him a moment and noticed the bandaging on his arm:

- "What happened to your arm?" she asked.

- "An enemy sword touched it."

- "Alp Tekin!" Jibilga suddenly kneeled, put her head on yigit's foot, began crying. "They will kill you! The entire population is aware that your brother is afraid of you! If they were to kill you, your brother will have his day. Could not a knowledgeable yigit like you perceive that? If you were to go to them, they would look after you. And then..."

- "I would ascend to my brother's throne?" Alp Tekin's voice was weighty - "No, I shall not climb to the throne treading on the faces of my ancestors."

- "According to the defenders, korugan has a day remaining, it is not late. Come, I can teach you the creed..."

- "I do not wish to reach Tengri shame-faced, as one who has sold his religion and language!"

- "Ah my undesired path, my heart rends seeing the wound of your marrow. When you undertake the fight, it is your stubbornness that gnaws at me and not the rats of this damp dungeon. Still, you do not speak of the future of our love?"

- "My heart is heavy, because you are correct Jibilga! I am going to the orda of Tengri but is my woman coming as a detached stranger to that heavenly dwelling? My heart and bosom is torn saying this. This eternal separation will take place before we are united in this world, Jibilga."

Alp Tekin's voice strained, reached down to stroke Jibilga's hair:

- "Jibilga... Go, my love..."

- "Alp Tekin, recite the creed... Recite the creed..."

Alp Tekin pulled his legs from Jibilga's embrace, left.

After dark enemy catapults breached the korugan walls in one-two places. But the enemy could not gain inside access. Alp Tekin's troops were heaving bowls full of burning naphta to keep them away. It was clear that the remaining life of the korugan was not long.

- "Jibilga, I have half a day left in this life..."

- "There still is time to recite the Creed..."

Alp Tekin sent for the Diviner.

- "Diviner, you know my love towards my woman. I do not wish her to meet the Tengri with a blackened face."

The Diviner knew of the circumstances. He stated to Alp Tekin:

- "Fire is the most fresh, greatest cure for ailing souls, a sanctifying halo. Those who are bathed in fire will reach the abode of Tengri purified of the past deeds, possessing cleansed spirits..."

Alp Tekin was shaken.

- "How horrifying your words are, Diviner. You..."

- "Yes, fire, sacred fire will cleanse your woman from her past deeds by separating the body from purified soul and send it to Tengri. The fire, flames..."

- "Jibilga!" terrified, dreading, sorrowful voice of Alp Tekin, as if not his own, reverberated along the inner walls of the korugan. Jibilga motioned in the negative "No, no." Tears streaming from his eyes, Alp Tekin took refuge behind the water-well.

In the middle of the korugan, preparations began to build a fire. Dry logs were cut at the height of a human, placed upright in the middle of the wood pile.

The sun was setting behind the mountains.

Jibilga arrived at the pile fearlessly. Then Bugrabek was brought, by collar and trouser-cuff from the dungeon. He screamed, grappling at the ankles of the guards, as two-three guards dragged him towards the pile.

Bugrabek spotted Alp Tekin, in awe, crawled towards him.

- "My Bey, I am no longer a Muslim. I gave up that strange religion, I gave it up!" Crying, he grasped Alp Tekin's legs.

- "Take this away!" Said Alp Tekin, holding himself back.

Jibilga was placed onto the pile and tied.

- "Ey misled woman!" continued Diviner "For the last time I am asking: leave the strange religion, that exploiting essence lodged in your heart and mind; expel that God of Ahram from your tongue..."

Suddenly a deep silence fell on the korugan. Even the bitterly neighing horses quieted.

The setting sun cast an unprecedented scarlet hue on Jibilga, bathing her in heavenly beams. Standing as if chiseled out of red stone with ruby eyes, she resembled the standing statue of Umay.

- "Alp Tekin" suddenly the statue spoke "Recite the Creed, become the leader to this homeland..."

- "Ey Tengri!" screamed Alp Tekin "Why are you using my forebears' language, applauding your god in that tongue? Who can chase two preys at the same time, who was born from two mothers? Mother tongue, motherland is in this heart; could there be two hearts? Tell me Jibilga!"

Naphtha-soaked timbers roared with fire...

- "Brothers!" said Alp Tekin, addressing his loyal troops "The enemy is about to enter the korugan. We are one hundred, they, ten thousand. These raiders are aiming not at our possessions or our lives, but Tengri, and the language in our hearts and our homeland. We are about to engage in one last battle for our homeland. If we die, we shall do so showing the people that the homeland is dearer than one's own life! We are the children of the sun, we shall each die by becoming a sun!"

Alp Tekin ordered the naphtha to be brought forward. Mounting his horse, he had himself sturdily tied to the saddle. Unsheathing his sword:

- "Pour naphta on me!" he said.

Understanding Alp Tekin's intention, the troops froze for a moment,. Then, one, two, three... five... ten... one hundred of them joined him. Naphta was poured over one hundred fighters.

During the last attack of the enemy, the korugan gates were flung open, and from inside issued... bellowing riders aflame. Ah-hey; the mounts, the riders themselves and even the drawn swords, powerfully grasped, were... on fire! The horses were running with supernatural speed. The enemy was aghast. From the gates of the korugan, the riders aflame kept issuing until the one hundredth, all together charging the enemy. The horrified enemy army broke like a sheep herd facing danger, began deserting piecemeal.

At that time, Kitkan river burst through its poorly constructed temporary dam, reuniting with its previous channel, overwhelmed those ghazis who attempted to seek refuge from the riding flames in its bed.

As the tents came into contact with the riding flames, the headquarters of the enemy caught fire. Camels went mad, foaming at the mouth, without harnesses, began trampling the besieging troops who had also gone mad.

The ten thousand strong army of besieging adventurists began running away disgracefully. Gallant men who had sacrificed themselves to the sun so that the homeland could live on, kept giving chase, burned and rode, burned and rode, burned and rode...

AFTERWORD

To those familiar with history, the present Soviet "restructuring" and "openness" are perhaps reminiscent of earlier "thaws." Furthermore, it is unlikely that filling a few "blank pages," will suffice to elucidate the missing portions of the true Central Asian history. But, works such as SUN IS ALSO FIRE - if they are allowed to appear - may be deemed an appropriate precursor to true historical text writing."

Washington College: Lessons in Democracy By Townsend Hoopes, Senior

2004-09-25T17:07:00.000-07:00

Washington College | Magazine: "Lessons in Democracy
By Townsend Hoopes, Senior Fellow

In July the C. V. Starr Center for the American Experience hosted an ambitious summer school on American values that brought 21 young Muslim students to Washington College (see story on p.18). This was the first of three such programs sponsored by the State Department this year, in a belated effort after 9/11 to reinstate cultural exchanges meant to improve the world's understanding of America. On the interpersonal, or micro, level, this experiment was a clear triumph for Washington College and a boon for a group of bright young Muslims who are likely to be among the future leaders of their own countries. On the international, or macro, level, the impact will not be known for some time. We should be hopeful, but experience warns us to be cautious.

Whatever its contradictions and failings, America represents the triumph of modernity, meaning not only technological achievement, but also freedom of speech, political dissent, democratic elections and women's rights. Most of Islam is still gathered in traditional societies where control is exercised by religious authorities who resist or are ambivalent about modernity. Developing these vital elements of human progress has brought prosperity and world dominance to America and the West; it also has created a dynamic of accelerating change which is leaving much of Islam behind, mired in stagnation, excess population and mass poverty. This vast gap in living standards inevitably creates resentment, which is exploitable by fanatics and demagogues. Ironically, however, bin Laden and other core terrorists are not interested in economic uplift for their followers. Rather they are seeking to foment hatred of America among the masses on the grounds that our political, military and cultural intrusiveness is an invasion that corrupts the deepest values of Islam.

A vital point here is that the realities of modernity (technical, social, political) are inexorable. They cannot be wished away, which means that traditional societies are faced with a crucial choice: to adjust, to adapt or to risk steady decline and perhaps ultimate disappearance. Given this daunting paradigm, the genuine enthusiasm for America shown by our 21 Muslim guests was a heartening sign. They seemed impressed with the depth of our national commitment to human freedom and individual opportunity, and the stability of our institutions, both governmental and private. Several declared that exposure to America had reinforced their determination to work for social change in their own countries. Two Pakistani women, both law students, said they planned to devote their lives to fighting for broader women's rights at home. One young man said it was his ambition to become his country's prime minister.

As a group they were progressive moderates, categorically opposed to terrorism. At the same time, they were openly critical of current U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, believing it plays into the hands of Islamic extremists. The Bush doctrine seems to them overmilitarized, insensitive to historic realities and to genuine grievances in the region.

On reflection, one might conclude that the least tangible aspects of the program were the most fruitful: namely, the personal lessons learned about intercultural differences, and similarities. A few of the differences created tension until they were eased by the remarkably open, honest discussion that characterizes student dialogue today. The easy equality between men and women in American life confronted the patriarchal tradition in countries where men direct women but also protect them. For example, the prospect of an evening at Andy's made a strong young Indian man uneasy. Why? Because the local patrons would be consuming alcohol and this might result in behavior unacceptable to the Muslim women for whose dignity and safety he felt responsible. His upbringing had taught him to doubt the possibility of a genuinely equal friendship between a man and a woman. Later, he and several others came to acknowledge that gender relations in this country are more mature than they had supposed. For their part, the Americans came to a quiet respect for these "old-fashioned" values, especially for the depth of conviction in which they are held.

The female students displayed varying degrees of ambivalence on this subject. Several seemed to want only an intellectual experience. Most however were eager to embrace all aspects of their first American experience; some admitted their mothers had told them to enjoy it to the full, for after this brief fling their lives must return to traditional restrictions.

The gravest crisis in the world today turns on the question of how to prevent a destructive confrontation between the West and the whole of Islam. If there is an answer, it lies in persuading the great majority of Muslims (totaling some 2 billion people) to choose modernity and moderation, and to reject the blind alley offered by its nihilist minority. In this context, a $200,000 State Department program aimed at explaining the basic tenets and promises of American democracy to future leaders of South Asia looks more cost effective than a $400 billion defense budget.

Townsend Hoopes, Senior Fellow at Washington College, servedasanassistanttothree Defense Secretaries and was Under Secretary of the Air Force. He has written several prize-winning books on American foreign policy.
"

Townsend Hoopes Dies; Wrote About Vietnam (washingtonpost.com)

2004-09-25T17:04:00.000-07:00

Townsend Hoopes Dies; Wrote About Vietnam (washingtonpost.com): "Townsend Hoopes Dies; Wrote About Vietnam

By Yvonne Shinhoster Lamb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 25, 2004; Page B06

Townsend Walter Hoopes II, 82, a former undersecretary of the Air Force during the 1960s who wrote one of the first accounts of President Lyndon B. Johnson's decision to de-escalate the war in Vietnam, died Sept. 20 of complications of melanoma at the Santa Monica Health Institute in Baja California, Mexico. He lived in Chestertown, Md.

Mr. Hoopes had served as a senior adviser in the Defense Department before becoming Air Force undersecretary. As a civilian on the periphery of power, he became convinced of the impossibility of winning the war after the 1968 Tet Offensive by the North Vietnamese.

Former Air Force undersecretary Townsend Hoopes wrote a book detailing the decision- making process on the Vietnam War. (Jim Mcnamara -- The Washington Post)

_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____

• Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now

The Viet Cong's massive assault against the U.S. Embassy compound in Saigon and other allied targets in January 1968 shocked the American public, which witnessed a U.S. war on television for the first time.

Mr. Hoopes wrote in his 1969 book, "The Limits of Intervention": "This event destroyed most remaining illusions about what a campaign of firepower from the air and 'search and destroy' missions on the ground might accomplish."

His book offered an insider's view of the decision-making process of Secretary of Defense Clark M. Clifford and others after the Tet Offensive and the prevailing perspective that continued escalation was futile.

Mr. Hoopes described his book, which received both acclaim and criticism, as "first a memoir and then, perhaps, history."

"The events in question are still too recent and their consequences still too largely unknown to form a basis for anything resembling a definitive history," he said in response to his critics.

Years later in a Washington Post article, Hoopes wrote: "It is now widely acknowledged that the Tet Offensive was not the shattering military defeat for the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces it appeared to both Washington and the American people."

After his government service, Mr. Hoopes became a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for two years while he researched and wrote his second book, "The Devil and John Foster Dulles" (1973), which won a Bancroft Prize.

From 1973 to 1986, he was president of the Association of American Publishers during a time of dramatic change in the book-publishing industry. He was co-chairman of Americans for SALT, director of the American Committee on U.S.-Soviet Relations and a distinguished international executive at the University of Maryland. When he moved to Chestertown in 2002, he became a senior fellow of Washington College.

Mr. Hoopes, who was known as Tim, was born in Duluth, Minn. He graduated in 1944 from Yale University, where he was captain of the football team and a member of Skull and Bones. He served as a Marine officer in the Pacific during World War II.

After the service, he was assistant to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee from 1947 to 1948.

For the next 11 years, he worked in the private sector, including seven years at the international consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget, where he was a partner.

In 1964, he returned to government as deputy assistant secretary of defense for international affairs. From 1965 to 1967, he was principle deputy for international security affairs at the Pentagon.

Mr. Hoopes was a prolific writer of articles and books. His other works included "Eye Power" (1979), written with his wife, Ann; "Driven Patriot: The Life and Times of James Forrestal" (1992), written with Douglas Brinkley, which won the 1992 Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt Naval History Prize; "FDR and the Creation of the U.N." (1997), written with Brinkley; and a novel, "A Textured Web" (2002).

In the mid-1980s to 1995, Mr. Hoopes and his wife ran the Hoopes Troupe, an amateur singing group that performed in venues around the Washington area, including the Supreme Court. They donated the profits to charity.

His marriage to Marion Schmidt Hoopes ended in divorce.

Survivors include his wife of 40 years, Ann Merrifield Hoopes of Chestertown; a daughter from his second marriage, Andrea Hoopes DeGirolamo of Rockville; two sons from his first marriage, Townsend Walter Hoopes III of Amelia Island, Fla., and Peter Schmidt Hoopes of Denver; four stepchildren, Lise Jeantet of Berkeley, Calif., Cecily Hoopes Lyons of Washington, Briggs Swift Cunningham IV of Washington and F. Thomas B.C. Hoopes of Ipswich, Mass.; and 11 grandchildren."

General Zinni: "neo-conservatives pushed the war in Iraq for Israel's benefit"

2004-09-25T15:58:00.000-07:00

Mathaba.Net News: "It is now well-established that the main advocates for America's war in Iraq were Israel's friends in the United States -- the so-called neo-conservatives present in large numbers in the Pentagon and several other U.S. government agencies, in think tanks, war colleges and the press.

In the words of General Anthony Zinni, a former chief of the U.S. Central Command, 'the worst-kept secret in Washington' was that the neo-conservatives pushed the war in Iraq for Israel's benefit.

Zinni's remarks, made on the American network CBS, is part of a swelling backlash against the Washington neo-cons - especially against those often referred to as the 'civilian leadership of the Pentagon' -- which is causing considerable anxiety in their ranks and in Israel itself.
"

Paksoy, H.B., How Governed, Who Pays?

2004-09-22T17:50:00.000-07:00

Asociaci�n de Historia Actual. Article: "COMENTARIO DE LIBRO
Paksoy, H.B., How Governed, Who Pays?. Lawrence (KS), Carrie, 2001, 79 pp.
Dan Krejci

H.B. Paksoy spent 18 years of his life letting the creative juices flow in order to come up with a fascinating text that prompts us to ponder the political and historical aspects of identities. This is a manual -written in the classic axiomatic paragraph style of Confucius, Aristotle, and Marcus Aurelius- which provides a sense of direction for discourse and research not only in the field of political science, but also history, sociology, and anthropology.

Paksoy effectively uses 13 chapters to convey not only how our identities (we have several) are governed, but also how we pay for these identities. In addition, he successfully demonstrates how these identities affect 'the way' we are governed in a society and how we pay for this government. Paksoy is not attempting to provide a general theory of identities or government -even though on the surface it may appear as if he is driving us toward a general theory- rather he is attempting to provide us with subjects, variables, and hypotheses for use in our discourse and research.

According to Paksoy[1], "The objective here is to better understand the nature and uses of identity; be that identity [so conceived as having] natural roots or [rather] is a synthetic creation of Thought Employers." To better understand the concept of identities Paksoy[2] asks the question "is there a set of universal principles governing identity?". Asking this question makes it appear as if he is positing a general theory, yet what he mostly concentrates on is a collection of previous work that has left us with some good observations, yet these observations have left us with many questions that cry out for further discourse and research.

He presents the reader with 13 succinct chapters which present numerous short paragraphs, most of consisting of one sentence, in order to provide a starting point for discourse on the subject of identities. The various subjects of identities that he addresses are varied in their nature and include the following: Uses of Identities, Official Identity, Leavening of Identity, Identity of Governance, Commercial Identity, Interaction of Identities, Corporate Identity, Identity of Belief Systems, Mosaic Identity, Technological and Future Identities, Secret Identities, and Observations. The reader will quickly pick up on the works of Confucius (Paksoy's reference to the importance of rituals), Adam Smith (discussion of Mercantilism), Luther, Spinoza, Wyclif, and the list goes on. Even though this may appear as nothing more than regurgitation, Paksoy takes these various works and correlates them into a creative piece on identities. Arthur Koestler[3] noted that one of the most important aspects of creativity is the ability to transfer and transform ideas from various domains into something new. Koestler[4] referred to this as bisociation. Paksoy has done an excellent job of correlating various ideas in order to come up with some interesting concepts of how our various identities are governed and how these identities affect how we are governed. The payment for these identities is borne by individuals and society. In the end, Paksoy provides us with interesting fodder for discussion in both of these arenas. What follows is a brief discussion of those chapters.

Chapter 1 basically sets up the questions that the book addresses; yet, the text mysteriously leaves partially unanswered -which I sincerely believe is the author's intent. That is the genius of his work; he wants us to add, through discourse and research, what is missing. As a prime example, in Chapter 8 -Corporate Identity- he provides ample discussion of mercantilism and its effect on corporate identity but neglects any discussion of free-enterprise capitalism, socialism, or welfare-state capitalism. Chapter 2, Uses of Identity, Paksoy denotes the interesting point that identity can easily be equated to culture, yet this is only one aspect of identity. Chapter 3, Official Identity, is brought about through the use of myths, folklore (a type of myth) as well as belief systems and shared values (once again -culture), however not much emphasis is placed on why myths are so important. Chapter 4, Leavening of Identity, takes a look at the identities in general and notes that not only are myths important to official identities, but myths are important to identities in general. What is even more important is the role that education plays in the perpetuation of the origin myth. Chapters 5, 6, 8 (previously mentioned), 11, and 12 discuss specific types of identities.

Chapter 5 presents a discussion on the Identity of Governance. In this chapter's review of the identity of governance, Paksoy indicates the importance of language (shades of Wittgenstein) in establishing governance identities. He further notes that how we choose to govern our society is all part of creating an identity for that society. Chapter 6, Commercial Identity, discusses the ramifications of trade wars and that resources are at the heart of what countries do or fail to do. Resources, particularly the scarcity of resources, are at the heart of most wars. Chapter 11 deals with what affects our future identities -technology. I would note that technology affects identities in the present as well as future tense. In this chapter, he makes an interesting observation that the advent of the fireplace is a factor that weakened the relationship between a king and his nobles. Since fireplaces could be constructed in many different rooms, this allowed for separate sleeping arrangements, which, in turn, decreased the "intimate contact" between a king and his nobles[5]. This decrease in intimate contact led to a decrease in the noble's loyalty to the king. Chapter 12, Secret Identities, notes how and why we are persuaded to adopt secret identities. One reason that we adopt secret identities is because we want to escape the rules that govern our identities in the society in which we live. In addition, Paksoy notes that these secret identities do not remain secret for very long (we have a hard time keeping secrets). The remaining chapters deal with other factors that affect identities in society.

Chapter 7 discusses how identities react both to internal and external factors. The most interesting chapter from the viewpoint of this reviewer is Chapter 9, Identity of Belief Systems. In this chapter, Paksoy's notes that belief systems serve the purpose of instructing unfathomable subjects to the uninitiated, which would almost seem to be an impossible task. I note this simply because if something is unfathomable and the uninitiated are probably they way they are 'uninitiated' because they lack the education in order to comprehend; therefore, this seems to beg the question: how would they (the uninitiated) know that the belief system is fulfilling its purpose by providing correct information on the unfathomable. This, of course is probably what Paksoy wants us to discuss. Just because a belief system states that it is providing answers to the unfathomable does that mean we should take the word of those pontificating the belief system and act just like sheep being led to the proverbial slaughterhouse?

Chapter 10, Mosaic Identities, notes how societies may have a diversity of identities but this diversification will not be considered a mosaic identity until, according to Paksoy[6], "the collective population of the sub-groups within a dominant identity grows approximately equal to that of the main identity, a mosaic identity is invariably developed." Finally, in Chapter 13 Paksoy leaves us with his observations on identities and systems of governance. As with all works in academia, Paksoy has some strong and weak points.

The political scientist or historian who takes up this work in hope of finding a general theory or set of specifically addressed hypotheses will be somewhat disappointed. This, of course, was not the apparent intent of the author. What this book does well is provide us with topics of discourse and research questions, and there is the beauty of his work. I have found that the most important aspect of academic studies is not the answers we attempt to find; rather the beauty of academic work is developing the well-worded question. From Paksoy's work, we are able to do just that -develop the well-worded question.

Notes

[1] Paksoy, H.B., How Governed, Who Pays?. Lawrence (KS), Carrie, 2001, 4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Koestler, A., The Act of Creation. London, 1964.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Paksoy, H.B., How Governed..., op. cit., 68.

[6] Ibid, 54."

Notes on Peter Cyril Wyche Flory

2004-09-22T17:23:00.000-07:00

Notes on Peter Cyril Wyche Flory: "Notes on Peter Cyril Wyche Flory
Assessment: The PF model indicates that Flory is more of a realist then a Neocon. That his primary loyalty is to the United States. That he is brilliant, loyal and very hardworking. Flory should be encouraged as he appears to be the best of what we look for in a public servant. The odds of Flory being involved in the AIPAC/Franklin Spy ring is astronomically against his involvement.

As we study Peter Flory it becomes very obvious that he is an exceptional American. It is tempting to judge him by the characters he works with. His is dedicated, hard working and brilliant but more importantly he is a real American. Do not discount him because of his association with Doug Feith, Bill Luti, Peter Rodman, or Paul Wolfowitz"

Leviathan - Identity Interactions between Society and Technology by H.B. Paksoy

2004-09-18T13:36:00.000-07:00

"Leviathan*:

Identity Interactions between Society and Technology

H.B. Paksoy

Lectures prepared for the Course entitled

"Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia"

At the CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

Budapest, July 2004

I would like to present the following questions as a structural prelude:

a) How and for what purpose technology is created?

b) How does technology serve humanity?

c) What does humanity expect from technology?

d) How are those relations regulated and by whom?

This mode of approach to ‘searching for truth,’ fortunately, begets more inquiries than any other. The issue of Identity in each case will become self-evident at every turn. So, we ask and search:

1. How do human organizations, as designed by humans, govern polities?

Current web-site analyses indicate that the medical-sites register the heaviest use. Humans are concerned with their health in a variety of iterations. If you will, it is the choice of the marketplace. But, humans must tend to the business of life. The humans live in communities, which necessarily choose definitions for their polities. Polities cannot exist without explicitly appointed and generally known socio-legal laws. In defining those rules, societies decide how they are going to be organized and ruled---either consciously or by default---and how the common functions of the community are going to be financed. Either the members of the polity take the matter in their hands, and write a charter, or, allow---by not taking any action, such as not revolting against an invading force---the overlord (open, or secret) to write the rules for them.

There is no polity that can live without taxing itself. Communal functions need financing just as individuals in their private lives. The only question is how that taxation is going to be arranged. That is, the flavor of governance defines how the communal spending decisions will be made in the polity. This taxation may be in the form of forced labor, part of crops raised, or in cash.

Earliest codifications of communal rules, such as Hammurabi's laws, Asoka's columns, Roman twelve tables, Solon's laws, Ten Commandments do not always openly address the issues of taxation. All those codifications are meant to, in the first instance, to secure a society living in relative peace and order, regulating interpersonal relations. Even though there certainly was taxation in all of the named polities, the matter of relations between public finance and securing harmony in that society were not directly linked. The American idea of "no taxation without representation" is perhaps the first time the case of polity governance and public finance was brought to the same platform.

The Magna Carta of 1215, signed between the Barons of the English polity and the King was also an attempt to restore harmony at a higher level, among and within the governing strata rather than directed strictly at the public good. Napoleonic codes, to a certain extent---whether influenced by the American declarations or not--(not forgetting the Swedish example), followed the thought that it was necessary for the government to spend part of the tax income toward constructing state infrastructure such as roads, ports, and so on. This construction of the infrastructure was meant to stimulate the economy, so that more income would yield greater tax receipts, as well as organizing the polity for future wars. It was recognized, by experience, that the increasing cost of fighting wars, defensive or offensive, required maximum use of all available resources. And, the state---or the ruling strata--- could not accomplish that task alone; participation of the members of the polity was imperative, with or without their consent.

Thus, the nature of governance determines the nature of public finance. "No taxation without representation" model gives the taxpayer a say in the tax rates, and how and for what those receipts are to be spent. If the governance turns out to be authoritarian, then the state or the designated agencies thereof will dictate terms to the populace. In an authoritarian polity, a very small percentage of individuals who manage to appoint themselves as the guardians of public good will decide what is good or permissible. The remainder, the majority, will often have no choice but to obey, until they "rebel," because they do not posses any meaningful input into the process. And, it is undeniably their resources that are being spent.

2. Inherent conflicts between authoritarianism and pluralism

Authoritarianism and pluralism have always been polar opposites and formed the ‘outside boundaries’ of human governance modes from the earliest times. The primary motive for organizing a governance system within the polity was survival; either against the forces of nature, or as a defense against armed neighbors (immediate, meaning, next door; or long-distance, across the border). It is intended to make life easier for the polity. Likewise, in any sub-community, such as settlements, individuals usually seek means to make their lives easier for themselves. What is now known as technology is no more than methods and techniques developed by able individuals to perform a task with greater alacrity and efficiency. The tendency has been to replace human (or biological) effort---muscle power---with mechanical operation. We gather, initially it was the humans what pulled the plough to till the soil. Then, oxen or horses replaced the humans; later steam-powered tractors called locomobile, took over. All were supplanted, in time, with machinery powered with an internal combustion engine.

As far as the landowner was concerned, the mechanical replacement of human power was beneficial to the users; it reduced overall costs. But, this replacement began a new stratification in the society. Only those with the necessarily large land holdings could afford the mechanical contraptions, which, in turn, increased the crop yield and accrued greater disposable incomes. To combat the disparities in income between the small-holders and large farm owners, some polities instituted, at various times and localities, "state farms." These institutions ostensibly worked for the benefit of all members of their society. Yet, at the same time, the state or communal farms transferred the mode of production from private to public means. Now, some governments were controlling the food production directly. That led to the direct political control of the populations by the governing strata.

Transfer of resources from private hands to public also had additional repercussions. Rather than individuals creating new technology (means of labor saving), governmental bureaucracies obtained the funds from tax receipts to conduct research and development work. The matter is further compounded, when the government pouring public money into technology development happens to have an authoritarian flavor.

The production of technology in such an authoritarian society will also be within the monopoly of the state. Any and all access to knowledge---including education and developmental laboratories---will be tightly controlled according the perceptions and goals of a central administrative apparatus. And, the uses of technology will also be dictated by those high bureaucrats. Even though the process involved is the classical "guns-or-butter" issue, as defined by Paul Samuelson, in authoritarian polities it is not the general public but the bureaucracy decides the percentage.

When the polity decides that it will instead have a governance system we term as "pluralistic," then the decisions may be made accordingly. Pluralism will allow for much more individuality, provided decisions made by a single individual does not curtail the rights of others. Rather than governmental agencies or bureaucrats, persons with ideas and energy will begin the process of harnessing innovative technology. The aim of the creative individual here, of course, is to make and accumulate personal wealth---as opposed to increasing the direct power of the state. This, the creative individuals may choose to effect by means of Mercantilist Monopoly. In that case, all the applicable identity issues and approaches will be identical to that of the authoritarian state.

3. Role of technology in the human conflict between authoritarianism and pluralism

A short overview of authoritarianism and pluralism may be beneficial:

Authoritarian governance system comes in several flavors, and can be organized around a belief system (Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, et al); a social order (communism, socialism, mercantilism); military leadership (juntas of various degrees and social orientations); philosophical strain (utopianism, stoicism, realpolitik, opportunism); or, commercial interests (mercantilism, capitalism, ‘mixed’ economy). The ruling strata of an authoritarian society is usually very small, and seldom allows participation of any kind from the masses it controls. It is generally inflexible and doctrinaire, seeks to impose a particular set of rules on the society no matter what the cost.

Pluralism, on the other hand, has rarely achieved a wide-spread application in the practical sense. Republicanism and democracy came closest, but not entirely. True pluralism would allow for all the voices in a polity equal hearing. This aspect makes pluralism a highly contentious system, requiring moderation by a category of individuals we might term opinion leaders comprised of various specialties. Anyone may aspire to join the governing process, and make a contribution. It can also be noted that pluralism provides the most flexible approach to problem solving, but it is also the most expensive (and, some say, the noisiest) means of governance. It takes a long time to make policy and mobilize large resources for the good of all. However, the pluralistic governance best harnesses the energies of a society or polity.

The allergy or dislike some societies have for pluralism stems from the fact that it takes a long time to find and apply solutions to problems facing the polity; no one sub-group is allowed to dominate; the cost of decision-making is the largest; the end product rarely satisfies everyone. Essentially, every participant is required to compromise at some point. Yet, the process facilitates living together---provided compromises are spread among all participants according to their population proportions and the general living conditions.

Either authoritarianism or pluralism may emerge from any of the above enumerated belief, social or military, philosophical or commercial systems. That is an outcome of particular conditions in the life of the spawning polity in the given time-frame. Technology, amidst this tug-of-war, may serve to consolidate the rule of one system over the other. The outcome of this competition between two diametrically opposed systems depends on the ability of the polity to balance the ensuing partisanship. "Nationalism," often in extreme forms, under whatever guise or terminology, emerges under such conditions, to redress imbalances---either real or imagined.

4. Strains between the interests of the technologists and society

In considering the relations between society and technology, we must remind ourselves of the inherent natures of both. The governance methods (authoritarianism or pluralism--or anything in between those) are well-defined. There are only so many types of governance systems, all evolved to their present stages since humans appeared on earth. For all practical purposes, general governance methods are unchanging. Almost everything about them is known---at least for those who care to pursue that knowledge. Therefore, governance becomes personal, in that authoritarianism or pluralism may acquire and display the face of a single individual, symbol or token.

Technology, on the other hand, continually changes. What drives technology (of course, apart from a desire for personal advantage) is the discovery of the laws of nature by individuals. And the design of methods by which those laws can be applied to solve problems---be those problems fictive or natural. The laws of nature have always been there; but not necessarily known to humans. This is unlike laws of governance, which have always been available.

Technology, too, may thus present the face of an individual or institution to the world. For the purpose, there are even more "named awards" in the world of technology celebrating the accomplishments of individuals who manage to understand the laws of nature.

Here, we reach a paradox: It is a human that discovers a heretofore unknown law of nature, or designs a means of doing a task more efficiently. Some of those designers and discoverers become so attached to the results they have achieved, they begin to disregard the effect their product will have on their immediate polity, or the humanity at large.

At this juncture, the 1990s televised debate between three technologists and three humanists come to mind. All six were eminent in their fields; some even were household names. Over the course of an hour, the technologists insisted that, as they put it, "Technology is where it is at. It is the future." In return, the humanists shot back with the statement that "The technologists did not get it." Neither side could "see" the other's point of view. And none attempted to elaborate on their viewpoints. They parted without changing their own understanding in the least, let alone the public in general.

Upon reflection, one could observe that the technologists were referring to the way humans are living their daily lives, and the influence of technology on every activity of individuals in a given polity. But the humanists, mainly historians, were thinking slightly more broadly. They were envisioning that, an authoritarian government can easily monopolize all available technology. In doing so, that authoritarian government can restrict the rights and actions of its citizens. The examples abound. What is important is how humans govern themselves. If the governance system is not pluralistic, all technology becomes a hazard---not a benefit--- to the community. It is not the technologists who decide the fate of polities, or construct the methods of governance. The technologist only becomes a tool or designer for either side; depending on the awareness or lack of the same by the affected polity. In the end, it is not the technology all by itself that tips the balance between authoritarianism and pluralism; it is the use of technology in the hands of the partisans of either side.

5. Possible resolution to the tensions

One might take a popular spectacle, say a science fiction yarn, as an example, and there are many of those available to the general public. In those presentations, the "empire," or a "government" uses technology to destroy the individuality of the so-called "rebels" who may happen to be pluralists wishing to live their chosen lives. And the technology constitutes the main support of the emperor or the "leader" in his quest to stay as emperor, by destroying the home worlds and societies of those who wished to have another means of governing themselves.

Of course, the subject matter is a movie, or several movies, by definition, a fiction. Or, is it? By admission of the writers of those movie scripts, the events forming the backbone of the stories were taken from the experiences of past societies, from real life past and present. Only the technology depicted on the screen was new. In fact, so new, it did not even exist. In actual historical societies, the invention of the iron smelting was a tremendous technological innovation. That new weapon gave the advantage to their owners and users. So was the cross-bow. But the struggle was still the same: what kind of a society were they going to have; authoritarian or pluralistic? Who shall govern: an emperor, or the members of the polity, through their representatives or votes? That there are variations of both the authoritarian and the pluralistic modes of governance, for example, mercantilism and capitalism; democracy and socialism, does not materially alter this equation.

The same issue was contested once again when the firearms were introduced by technologists. The cycle was repeated yet again, with the invention of the nuclear weapons, not to mention numerous others in between those. In the future, the contest will continue, with whatever new technological ways are invented.

The interactions among the society and technology are not limited to the nature of governance, the eternal struggle between authoritarianism and pluralism. There are tensions---essentially--- between society and technology within a pluralistic society. Let us take the very recent case of genetically engineered foods and plants.

Genetically engineered plants provide higher yields, resist traditional (natural) maladies afflicting the non-modified varieties. As a result, the technology companies and the food-processors can earn higher returns on their products based on the genetically altered foodstuffs. But, what about the effects of those altered foods on the humans? What happens when the consumers decline to buy them? The European Union refused to allow US origin genetically engineered soybeans and fruits. That is their choice. Can the companies overcome the consumer resistance by insisting that there is no danger from genetically altered foods? Who decides, and how?

The stated objectives of those genetic engineering companies may be read in their stock prospectuses. Of course, all were established legally for pecuniary interest. Yet, the products they develop already had influence on the society, usually without the knowledge and consent of the polity. When those companies develop tastier, longer lasting and suitable for packaging tomatoes, most consumers (and farmers; individual or corporate) benefit. When the product begins to interfere with nature's cycles, then the results must be audited by those who will be affected. For example: What happens when the lawn-grass genetically altered not to grow more than a few centimeters an entire year produces pollen that interferes with food crops? When crops fail, because the altered pollen of one species stunts the growth, who will answer? Who will pay for the cost of feeding the populace? And who will pay when that leads to the extinction and extermination of various species---be it plant of animal that earned, up to that point, a livelihood for individual farmers?

Examples abound, and are scarcely limited to genetic engineering. One can cite the present court cases involving two technology companies charged with predatory and monopolistic practices? One revolves around a company that copied an operating system and made it a monolith, and the other became dominant among charge cards by threatening to raise service fees and driving out competition (to raise the fees in earnest later, without competition).

We already discussed the inherent struggle between the authoritarian and pluralistic modes of governance. The basis of pluralistic governance is the ability of individuals to make choices without interference. But, those decisions cannot interfere with the rights and benefits of other members of the polity either; or, other polities. If there is such interference, then, that will form the bases of another conflict; usually technology will be involved.

The governance system of the polity will include provisions to make that right of choice available. But, nothing can be permanent, if the members of the polity do not defend their rights, their rights to right of choice. We, humans have seen, many a time, the transformation of a pluralistic (more or less) governance system turning authoritarian. We have observed republics becoming empires, choices being restricted, or altogether being eliminated.

Technology, therefore, is called upon by societies to solve the problems facing humans; not to create new ones, or aid the repression of societies by new means. This issue is valid not only for authoritarian societies, but also to the pluralistic ones. For example, does a company, a private entity, has the right to curtail the right of choice in a given society? Does the fact that companies may insist that they are not restricting the right to choice change that? The right to pursue the development and exploitation of technology does not mean having the right to restrict or eliminate the right to choice by the society. The aforementioned anti-monopoly cases must be viewed from that point of view as well. Returning to the case of debating technologists and humanists, we can now begin to place events, and issues, into larger and proper perspective. There is no question that technology will progress, as it is part of the human nature to be inquisitive. On the other hand, technology will have to be in aid of humanity, and not the other way around. Humans cannot allow technology to dictate terms, precisely because the technologists are humans, and must live in polities and societies. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all members of a society to engage in a continuous dialogue, without doctrinaire or inflexible approaches.

Humans are capable of learning, provided they wish to acquire the knowledge that will lead them to a life affording more and responsible choices. That betterment requires an intake rich in variety if it is to yield more choices. Just as a human body biologically requires a wide range of foods to sustain its metabolism, the human mind is also in need of multiple sources of stimulus to maintain its humanity. A single-source diet leads to defects. And in the case of the mind, a single-track approach will yield low returns. The remedy lies in acquainting the mind with sources from the collective experiences of humanity, without forgetting the cost of that wisdom.

The "Borg" another TV series is the creation of human minds as well. That program, too, attempts to represent another facet of authoritarian governance system. Against which, humanists, the crew of a starship, even if they are technologically very advanced, are fighting to preserve the right to choose. The Starship crew also learned their humanity from the large body literature available to them---and, yes, through technology, on-line.

NOTE:

*As can be readily inferred, the reference is to:

Tracts of Mr. Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury
containing I. Behemoth, the history of the causes of the civil wars of England, from 1640 to 1660, printed from the author's own copy never printed (but with a thousand faults) before, II. An answer to Arch-bishop Bramhall's book called the catching of the Leviathan, never before printed, III. An historical narration of heresie and the punishment thereof, corrected by the true copy, IV. Philosophical problems dedicated to the King in 1662, but never printed before.

Thomas Hobbes, London, 1682 Printed for W. Crooke."

HB Paksoy: progression in medicine

2004-09-18T13:15:00.000-07:00

HB Paksoy"progression in medicine

B.C. 2000 'Eat this root..'
A.D. 1000 'That root is bad; recite this prayer...'
A.D.. 1850 'Prayer is a myth; drink this patent medicine...'
A.D.. 1940 'That patent medicine is snake oil; take this pill...'
A.D.. 1985 'That pill is ineffective; take this antibiotic...'
A.D.. 2000 'That antibiotic is no longer effective; eat this root...'"

HB Paksoy: Vocabulary - Texas Style

2004-09-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

Vocabulary - Texas Style

1. AS WELCOME AS A SKUNK AT A LAWN PARTY.
(Self-explanatory)

2. TIGHTER THAN BARK ON A TREE.
Not very generous

3. BIG HAT, NO CATTLE.
All talk and no action

4. WE'VE HOWDIED BUT WE AIN'T SHOOK YET.
We've made a brief acquaintance, but not been formally introduced.

5. HE THINKS THE SUN CAME UP JUST TO HEAR HIM CROW.
He has a pretty high opinion of himself.

6. IT'S SO DRY THE TREES ARE BRIBIN' THE DOGS.
We really could use a little rain around here.

7. JUST BECAUSE A CHICKEN HAS WINGS DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN FLY.
Appearances can be deceptive.

8. THIS AIN'T MY FIRST RODEO.
I've been around awhile.

9. HE LOOKS LIKE THE DOG'S BEEN KEEPIN' HIM UNDER THE PORCH.
Not the most handsome of men.

10. THEY ATE SUPPER BEFORE THEY SAID GRACE.
Living in sin.

11. TIME TO PAINT YOUR BUTT WHITE AND RUN WITH THE ANTELOPE.
Stop arguing and do as you're told.

12. AS FULL OF WIND AS A CORN-EATING HORSE.
Rather prone to boasting.

13. YOU CAN PUT YOUR BOOTS IN THE OVEN BUT THAT DOESN'T
MAKE THEM BISCUITS.
You can say whatever you want about something,
but doesn't change what it is.

14. WE'RE IN HIGH COTTON.
Things are going well.
>

‘The American West’ and the “Zeybeks in the Turk lands” H. B. Paksoy, D. Phil.

2004-09-18T13:09:00.000-07:00

‘The American West’ and the “Zeybeks in the Turk lands”

H. B. Paksoy, D. Phil.

West Texas Historical Association Annual Meeting

Lubbock, Texas 2003

We all, of course, know what ‘law’ is. And, the enforcement of it is usually handled by fearless men wearing stars in their eyes and on their waistcoats. Balasagunlu Yusuf (c.11th century)[1] and John Rawls (1921-2002)[2] equate law with justice, so does Marx (1818-1883); not Groucho (1895-1977), the other one, but in opposite directions. The debate is all about primacy: which comes first, the individual or the state? Which individual and what state? Whose rights, needs and prerogatives has the first call on law?

Now that we have agreed on the meaning of law, we can discuss the outlaw; the person who breaks it. “Why did you do it, Slim?” asks the sheriff. “Because I could” replies the outlaw. It has been a few decades since I heard that dialogue, so I cannot recall the name of the movie or the names of the actor. But, it admirably serves as a benchmark for what is to follow: the depiction of the outlaw, even the concept thereof.

Roy Rogers (1912-1998) of the Trigger[3] fame reminisced: Republic Pictures and some other studios have been making “Westerns for decades….. As one critic put it “there’s more Westerin’ in Hollywood today than there ever was on the Old Chisholm Trail.” ….The plot typically involves little more than the triumph of law and order, decency, clean living…we give villains more than an even break, even on the draw…Before the final sunset fade-out scene we always have a wild chase, with a lot of shooting. The chief villain tries to make a getaway…I naturally get the last poke on the screen. Actually, I’ve been knocked out cold in three of those tussles. Most of my young fans like to think I’m a hard bitten cowboy from way back, and occasionally my more extravagant promoters have encouraged the notion. I’ve read reports that I was reared on ranches in such places as Montana, Cody, Wyoming, Texas and Arizona. The fact is that I was raised on a farm in a hollow up back of Duck Run, Ohio---and my great ambition until I was in my teens was to be a dentist. My name was Leonard Slye.[4]

Of course, Roy Rogers was speaking as an actor, and not the raconteur. And, he scarcely paid attention to the archetypes he was creating. But, of course, he was right about the excesses, and the distortions. Çakýrcalý Mehmet Efe (1872-1911), on the other hand, was also a product of the social conditions in his birthplace, in the Western portion of Asia Minor. His motives were as complicated or simple as those of any and the best the West Texas ever produced. Çakýrcalý, too, had to have helpers and sympathizers among the general population, in order to evade law. At times, he may have been acting, for effect, but his actions directly involved his own life as well as those of his immediate circle. [5]

The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the common denominators of two different but similar sets of worlds in the same timeframe.

I. Causes: Why do individuals resort to actions considered to be beyond the bounds of law? Why become an outlaw? Briefly, we may contemplate the major causes:

1) When the law is stacked to favor only one segment of the society, to force an artificial stratification; as in creating a first class citizen category above the law, and the rest

2) When rules are made only by those who are in charge, to protect themselves and their possessions, in that society there is bound to be rebellion. Either in great or in small numbers. The Western outlaw may well be the individual example of this rebellion.

3) When the entire structure of a society has collapsed, as in the case of an invasion by a foreign army

4) Corruption; which is the attempt to subvert rules to obtain fast riches.

5) Ineffective or no law enforcement

6) Existence of an adventurer class, ready to test the limits, willing to risk their lives

In the case of Western Turk lands, the above conditions are very similar to those prevailing in the West..

II. Terrain: The terrain is certainly one of the most critical elements in our story. The “American West’ as we know it, is a desert. An unforgiving locality. But, it also can be friend to those who respect and honor it. The desert can hide the boot and hat clad outlaw, thereby saving him from his star toting pursuers intent on doing him serious hurt. On the Western portion of Asia Minor, especially where Çakýcý fearlessly tread, is mountaneous. And forested. In a unique way, both the high, cold, snow capped mountains and the hot flat boundlessly large desert have commonalities. Before the age of helicopters and space based satellite imagery, mountains, too, did hide outlaws. Çakýrcalý and his followers wore clothes unique to their environs and climate. They were pursued by law enforcement, local and national. These outlaws had their friends and supporters in the local and regional communities, and they even had international protectors. The last is a fact also not uncommon in the American West. One of the noteworthy outcomes is that, both sets of outlaws, when the time came, proved patriots.

III. Responses

Naturally, both the law enforcement and the law breakers will respond to each other, until either the equilibrium is restored or one side decisively defeats the other. Or, we may look at it as a dynamic and never ending process. For every law enforcement move, there is certainly an outlaw countermove.

We also need to remember the justice impulse so embedded in the two cultures presently under discussion. There is the “American Way” involving an understanding of even handed, common sense based justice. It may even be rough justice, sometimes meted out to law enforcement when they step outside the line to play both sides. The Turkish side also has a similar sense of justice, as displayed on numerous occasions over the past recorded millenium. The Zeybek practices were a continuation of that tradition of wrighting the wrongs.[6]

The Zeybeks wore distinctive clothing to make certain that they were easily identifiable.[7] That, too, was part of the code of conduct of the Zeybeks. It was necessary for the general population to know, with certainty, that the Zeybeks were involved in meting out justice. That, in turn, ensured that the Zeybeks received help from the same populace when needed.

The term, perhaps, is traceable to the 13th century. When a Turkish polity arrived in the western reaches of Asia Minor, they were referenced by the Byzantine sources in a fashion, as the lords of the seashore.[8] There were numerous ‘justice’ movements in the Eastern parts of the landmass, between the 13th and 19th centuries. It was not until the 19th century that the western reaches caught fire. There were a long list of reasons and culprits against to rail. And the Zeybeks did just that.

But while the movement and the groups, collectively were known as Zeybek, the head of a group of Zeybeks had a special name: Efe. His word could not be contradicted, as the Efe bore the responsibility in enforcing the Zeybek rules.

IV. Outcome
Ideology is a straight-jacket, a frozen piece of idea, a filter to keep out whatever the person holds them does not like or deems harmful to himself.[9] Ideologies may also be applied to larger scale communities, for the benefit of a small group, at the expense of masses. The masses may be asked (or, indeed, forced) to bear the burdens while the smaller group enjoys a lighter load. This may be accomplished under the assertion of first-come-first-served, or, ownership of resources to the extent of monopoly. Land settlements follow this general (and, simplified) model in the West. Then, there is the ideology of might makes right: The cattle baron regards the water and land of his much smaller neighbor as his for the taking. And, when John Wayne saves the small neighbor, we all applaud and go home with a lightened heart and belief that justice has been served. All of the foregoing has to do with who the actors are, whether on the screen or in real life, and their identities.[10] Hence the roots of the ideas and ideologies of law and outlaw immediately visible to the outside observer.

Of course, the successful outlaw had to have, among other attributes, charisma, and personal likeability. Let us take two examples:

An Associated Press dispatch, dated Langtry May 27, 1901, read: “Judge Roy Bean (?1825-1903), notorious throughout western Texas and many times the subject of magazine articles, also known as ‘The Law West of the Pecos’ again distinguished himself last night by going through a Pullman car while the westbound Southern Pacific train was stopping at Langtry and, with a .45 caliber Colt in his hand, collecting from an eastern tourist thirty-five cents due for a bottle of beer. The tourist had bought the beer at the Judge’s saloon but had rushed off without paying for it. Going through the car, Bean peered into each passenger’s face until he found his man when he said, ‘Thirty-five cents or I press the button.’ He was handed a dollar bill and returned the correct change. As the Judge left the car, he turned to the aisle and said to the frightened passengers, “If you don’t know what kind of hombre I am, I’ll tell you. I’m the law west of Pecos.” The passengers thought it was a holdup.” At the time of this incident, Roy Bean was over seventy years old.

Trains stopped long enough for thirsty customers to buy a bottle of beer at Bean’s bar. The Judge, who also acted as bartender, hated to give change and he would delay until the engine had given a warning toot and if the passenger was displeased by the high price, he didn’t linger to argue for fear he would miss the train. There was one exception---an Eastern dude who bought a bottle of beer and laid down a twenty-dollar gold piece. Bean slowly counted out $19 in change. ‘What!’ the customer shouted, ‘a dollar for a bottle of beer!’ and then he began to cuss. Bean yanked his six-shooter from under the counter and announced, ‘Court will come to order! I fine you $6.66 2/3 for public profanity; $6.66 2/3 for disturbin’ the peace; $6.66 2/3 for contempt of court.’ This, of course, accounted for the entire $20. Then, with a grand gesture, Bean concluded, “The beer’s on me.’[11]

Çakýrcalý Mehmet Efe did not consume alcohol, but was very fond of Turkish coffee. On one occasion, he was visiting a coffeehouse, and he was treated to a cup of the best. He took a sip, put the demitasse down, and bellowed to the owner: ‘You know that I am one of the deepest of the Yörüks[12]; we always drink it without sugar.’ His voice had the unmistakable ring of ‘how dare you?’ The word got around; he was never served sweetened coffee again.

Çakýrcalý and his entourage were visiting a good friend. They had sat down to a feast. At the end of their repast, the host challenged Çakýrcalý to a shooting contest. Çakýrcalý, who had a reputation of being a crack shot, smiled gently. A few minutes later, the host repeated the request. Next, without waiting further for a firm answer, the host ordered his butler to suspend a coffee demitasse from a far tree branch by a piece of string, through its small handle. When that was done, the host invited Çakýrcalý to go first. Çakýrcalý smiled again, and gave the first turn to his host with the words ‘let us see if you have improved.’ The host shouldered his gun, took aim, and pulled the trigger. The small demitasse shattered in the distance. Çakýrcalý seemed pleased and he urged his host to repeat the feat. The broken coffee cup was replaced at the same spot. The host straightened his barrel. A puff of smoke later, the second piece of china disappeared. By now Çakýrcalý was now laughing out loud. He said, ‘go ahead, make it three.’ Same procedure, same result. The host had shot the target three out of three. Çakýrcalý slowly lifted his rifle, and asked his host: ‘How about the string? Can you cut the string with your bullet? No response. Çakýrcalý briefly aimed. Before the casing was ejected, the freshly tied coffee cup fell from the branch intact, due to the string holding it to the tree having been cut by Çakýrcalý bullet.[13]

Çakýrcalý began his adult life early, having to earn a living. He did so by selling contraband tobacco. In those days, the tobacco sales were in the monopoly of Regie[14], a part of the debts administration.[15] So the farmer who grew the tobacco had to sell it to this monopoly at a low cost, only to buy it back at a more dear price. And then he had the right to roll it up. A group of individuals objected to the practice, and began selling it without the intermediary cut of the Regie. Çakýrcalý was one. When the enforcement division of the Regie began chasing him, he ‘went to the mountain;’ meaning, he formed his own close knit band. In the process, he was pardoned three times by the emperor, but was constantly harried by the local enforcement officials and returned to the mountains every time. He died during a shootout.

The life Çakýrcalý led was not that of a freebooter, but part of a tradition that had strict rules. Those who adhered, and honored the process could count on the help and aid of their kinsmen and even the population at large. Those who did not could not survive long, and would lose their lives.[16] These rules included not doing any act that could be regarded as unjust to the general population. It was, of course, expected that the Efe would come to the aid of his aiders in their time of need.[17] Indeed, they did. On one occasion, Çakýrcalý and his companions happened upon an elderly couple at camp on a mountain clearance. They were inconsolable. When Çakýrcalý Efe inquired of the reason, they were barely able speak. It finally transpired that a rival group (of a different ethnicity) had kidnapped their daughter and abducted their sheep herd to boot. In the process, they declared themselves to be the Çakýrcalý troop. Çakýrcalý Efe was incensed beyond belief, on several accounts. His good name and deeds were usurped. He gathered his men, and despite their exhaustion, marched them immediately. After an ardous and most urgent search, the impostors were spotted red handed, arguing about the distribution of spoils. In a manner that would have warmed the hearts of Randolph Scott[18] fans, Çakýrcalý Efe and his men staged an ambush and saved the daughter unharmed. The offenders were brought back to the camp of the elderly parents, along with their plundered goods. While they had a thankful reunion with their daughter, it is said that Çakýrcalý had a very large bonfire lit, and burnt every last one of the impostors. Similar deeds later were composed as songs by admirers.

Another Zeybek leader, Yörük Ali Efe, much later summarized the task and involvement of the major efe and zeybeks: “An individual, regardless of his courage and bravery, cannot claim he did a good deed for the population. He can only say that he had served his people.” [19] He was speaking of confident humility born of experience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Balasagunlu Yusuf, Kutadgu Bilig (Istanbul, 1947-1949), Derleyen: Reþit Rahmeti Arat. English translation: Robert Dankoff, “Kutadgu Bilig: Wisdom of Royal Glory (Chicago 1983).

[2] John Rawls, A theory of Justice (Harvard ,1971); idem, Justice As Fairness: A Restatement (Harvard, 2001 )

[3] The name of his equally famous and, According to Rogers, very intelligent horse.

[4] Roy Rogers “Don’t Shoot, Ma!” The American Magazine, Vol. CXLVIII (August, 1949) No. 2, Pp 131-132. cf. B. A. Botkin, Ed., A Treasury of Western Folklore (NY: Crown Publishers, 1951)

[5] Özkul Çobanoðlu, The relationships between oral forms of folklore and mediated performances in the cult of Çakýcý Mehmet Efe (Indiana University M.A. Thesis, 1992)

[6] That does not mean that in the process other wrongs may not have been committed.

[7] Akdes Nimet Kurat , 4. Ve 18. Yüzyýllarda Karadeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri , (Ankara 1972) P.325 about Peçenek.

[8] Salpakis > Sal Bey > Sahil Bey > Zeybek. Hikmet Aydýn , Aydýnoðullarý Tarihi Hakkýnda Bir Araþtýrma (1946); Paul Wittek, Menteþe Beyliði (Ankara,1944). Cf. Ozan Ruhsatioðlu www.turan.tc

[9] Michael Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory (Oxford, 1996)

[10] http://www.ku.edu/~ibetext/texts/paksoy-7/ H.B. Paksoy, Identities: How Governed, Who Pays? (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 2001)

[11] B. A. Botkin, Ed., A Treasury of Western Folklore.

[12] For the present purposes, a subdivisional unit of the Turkmen confederation. See also http://www.spongobongo.com/zy9952.htm H.B. Paksoy, Basmachi Movement and Z. V. Togan:
the Turkistan National Liberation Movement Cahiers d'Etudes sur la Mediterrane orientale et le monde turco-iranien No. 27, 1999. Pp. 301-312. http://www.ku.edu/~ibetext/texts/paksoy-6/cae12.html H.B. Paksoy, Essays on Central Asia (Carrie, 1999)

[13] Halil Dural, Bize Derler Çakýrca: 19 ve 20. Yüzyýlda Ege’de Efeler. Yayýma Hazýrlayan, Sabri Yetkin Istanbul, 1999). The genesis of the epithet Çakýrcalý is explained therein.

[14] Societe de la Regie cointerese des de I'empire ottoman-Memalik-i Þahane Duhanlarý müþterekü'l Menfaa Reji Þirketi.

[15] Stanford Shaw, Between Old and New,The Ottoman Empire Under Sultan Selim 1789-1807 (Cambridge,1971); idem, History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey (NY, 1976-1977) 2 Vols.

[16] M. Çaðatay Ulucay, 18 ve 19cu yüzyýllarda Saruhanda Eþkiyalýk ve Halk Hareketleri (Istanbul 1955 )

[17] Þeref Üsküp, Bozdað Efe Efsanesi (Izmir, 1994)

[18] An actor specializing in ‘good’ Sheriff roles; distinguished by his portrayal of humane, likeable and compassionate lawmen.

[19] Yörük Ali Efe. Orkun Dergisi sayý:51, 12 Ekim 1951

"

‘Employee Owned’ Identity? by H.B. Paksoy, D. Phil.

2004-09-18T08:41:00.000-07:00

‘Employee Owned’ Identity?

H.B. Paksoy, D. Phil.

Lectures prepared for the Course entitled

“Rewriting History: Emerging Identities and Nationalism in Central Asia”
At the CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

Budapest, July 2004

The men I should be tempted to commemorate would be the originators of transforming thought. They often are half obscure, because what the world pays for is judgment, not the original mind.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)

It is the privilege of anyone to engage in any intellectual pursuit; provided, laws appertaining are not violated.

If the above statement is read to mean, for example, “While engaged in the study of physics, if you violate the laws of nature in your deliberations, such a shortcoming will lead you to erroneous results,” it would be logical. But, it becomes ominous if the same statement is made as a “political warning to an individual not to transgress the dogmas of the institution or state” which employ that person. Yet, the statement fits both occasions effortlessly. In the latter case, if not an outright offense, it may even be seen as a violation an unspoken law. And, in some cases, unwritten (secret) laws have precedence over the published ones.

Creating a governance code, on the other hand, requires more; it is not a simple intellectual pursuit. The entire process has been through a longish period of evolution, the ‘governance strata’ and ‘individual will’ doing battle against each other throughout history. What is more, the ‘governance strata’ has tried a variety of ideologies in order to win over individualism and pluralism. These ranged from strength of arms to claims of divinity of a human; single dictatorship to institutional autocracy, and everything else in between.

Background

While there are probably a significant number of unknown natural laws in physics, perhaps nothing is left more to learn about human governance principles. In being creative, it is necessary to be the sun; not just son of sun. Nor will it suffice to be an astrophysicist writing on the solar disk. Discovery and originality does not fall into the same bin.

States, polities and principalities arise of necessity, desire and determination. This endeavor requires not only blood, but brains. And the emphasis is on creation. This does not mean that any and every creation will be beneficial to all. Most, as events have demonstrated, are not. Communism, for example, as a governance system, was, at least for a while, seen as the savior of humanity. Let us overlook, for the time being, the fact that the root idea of communism goes back to Plato’s Republic c.360 B.C.E. and then to Thomas More’s Utopia c.1515 C.E. Some of these failures have come about due to inconsistencies between the Designer of the system and the Applicators. Those who wished to apply the system either did not understand the principal tenets, or were corrupted. Another possibility is that the system was not a major shift from those already existing, too confusing or not necessarily sufficiently mature to be introduced to the world.

Even the above mentioned example of Thomas More (1478-1535) and his Utopia is full of irony. More and Erasmus (1466-1536) were very good friends, adoringly close. During a visit by Erasmus to More’s house in England during1509, Erasmus caught a cold, and while recuperating, Erasmus wrote Moriae Encomium (The Praise of Folly), with a word play and pun on More’s name. They were also contemporary with Henry VIII (1491-1547), and well acquainted with the monarch well before his ascent to the throne. In the same breath, let us also remember three more individuals before exploring Identity relationships and how they evolve. In chronological order: The English religious reformer John Wycliff (1324–1384); The Czechs religious reformer Jan Hus (1369-1415); The German religious reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546). We also need to recall that Wycliff was the first translator of the bible into English; and Luther has the honor of rendering the same holy book into German for the first time. It was the reformist writings of Wycliff that influenced Hus, whose life and writings caused Luther to turn religious reformer. These three never met.

On their part, More and Erasmus were religious reformers, too, even if, in the end, in different directions. Both remained Catholic all their lives, much like Wycliff and Hus. While Luther was protesting, and laying the foundations of a new path to a new approach, Erasmus was very sympathetic. They briefly met and discussed the issues. Erasmus was in favor of working gradually and from within Catholicism to reform it, while Luther was in a great hurry. Luther gradually became aware of his position that his noble ideas were hijacked by his protectors in Germany. And Luther needed German nobility’s protection from the Italian based Pope’s allies. The German nobility had finally discovered a reason not to pay a portion of their annual income to the Papacy. When Luther perceived Erasmus not to be in support of Protestantism in the open and full force, he turned against Erasmus.

On the other hand, More joined the administrative strata of England, even serving under Henry VIII, who founded the Church of England. This was another irony, because, earlier, Henry VIII personally wrote a pamphlet attacking the ‘heresy’ of Luther. More objected to the expropriation of the Catholic Church and its holdings by Henry VIII in favor of this English Protestantism. More was in opposition to Protestantism, and being one of the two undersheriffs of London, may have persecuted the ‘new men.’ By this time, Luther’s ideas were primarily transmitted into England through Geneva, by those around John Calvin (1509-1564). Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) was following a similar line of Lutheranism in Zurich. And the term ‘new men’ became a code word for Protestants.

Thus, the efforts to reform the financial and moral excesses of the Papacy led to a new religion, Protestantism---with many branches. As a side effect, the process of translating the Bible into ‘national’ languages only strengthened the formation of nations and states. But, the works by Erasmus and More took their place in this new world, within Protestantism, alongside the works and commentaries of all other protesters. The efforts to reform the religion also fueled the impetus to have a new governance system; one that is more ‘individualistic’ than the communitarian one prevailing under an authoritarian, religious Identity.

Development of Cooperation

No amount of regulation, by whatever means, will suffice to maintain civility. Only the willingness of the population to get along with each other can. So far, the population on this earth has not uniformly demonstrated that can be done. Ideologies have been used to wrest more of the resources into the hands of an ever smaller group. As the population grows, the pressures of resource access are transferred to other areas; or so they are presented.

The collaborative experiences of a society, in part, are responsible for the formation of its Identity. If those experiences are recorded in the form of belle letters and popular literature, than that corpus become the vertebrae of that polity. Most, if not all, Identity systems insist on a single or oligarchic leadership for a polity, from imperialism to mercantilism; regardless of its other functions. Even pluralism does not seem to result in broad based rule but tends to elect ‘representatives’ to undertake the task.

Every Identity system defines itself through sets of formal rules and adumbrated doctrines. These related words place more stress on goals then methods. Such inflexible rule-setting hampers coordination among diverse groups who need to collaborate for the success of all. This set of objectives must seek to accommodate more than the basic necessities for all concerned. The extent of the prize pie is generally known. If the distribution of the pie falls too short of expectations, there is likely to be an attempt at revising the rules, and the Identity.

The cooperative production unit, legally favored in the 19th and the early 20th centuries, heavily depended on a self governance model. This self governance model did not arise independently, but out of the ‘pie distribution’ necessity. The wealth created by the onset of industrialization had to be distributed a bit better across the labor force to prevent outbreaks of violent wage protests. Even though the parents of the cooperative movement were social activists, the midwife was a rather high ranking politician, intending to rein in galloping capitalism in its harshest form. The politician’s objective was to keep his polity together, to moderate deeply divisive issues and to create a counterbalance to unchecked moneymaking by the nascent industrialist. He wanted his polity to succeed in the world.

The employee owned corporations followed on as legal entities, as a result of a century long evolution of the cooperative production unit. By that time, the coop did not have to ‘produce,’ but could be a service organization. This began to form the Employee Owned Identity, over and above the hopes of the midwife European politician of the 19th century.

Observation

The employee-owned corporation is rarely formed and reared into successful operation by a collection of owner-employees. Rather, an entrepreneurial individual (or, small number of individuals, usually working in pairs) establishes a business. The founder(s) either sell it, or otherwise transfer the ownership of the enterprise to the employees. In a plurality of the cases, the business involved has either a local a regional base. Provided the owner-employees take a continuous interest in the heath and welfare of the enterprise, it will live and even flourish. This constant participation of all owner-employees, in a rational manner, is imperative. This rational manner here is defined as pulling on the assigned oar at least one hundred percent and not engaging in capricious tangents.

Is the Employee Owned Corporation representation, then, the ‘ideal’ model for a new Pluralistic Identity? Is it the most rational economic unit? Should there be a limit on the corporate charters much like patents, trademarks and copyrights? For example, should an entrepreneur be given a corporate charter to start a business, with the provision that after 30 or 50 years later the enterprise must be turned over to the employee ownership? Of course, the founder(s) or their legitimate heirs would be compensated at the prevailing market value. This, of course, can be foreseen in addition to the revenue derived from the operation of the enterprise throughout the specified charter period.

As a further inducement, for the purpose of encouraging the use of limited time charters (rather than making them compulsory), the corporate tax rate may be kept some percentage points lower than the regular corporate charters. Would this provide for smoother labor-management relations? Would this structure reduce the dreaded turnover, secure job continuity?

If the limited charter holders chose to revert to a regular charter, meaning, change their minds, might they be permitted to do so by paying additional taxes, and granting minority ownership in the corporation to the employees? Or would all that lead to abuses? Would all the foregoing remind us of the guild system of yore, where the entered apprentice toiled until he became a journeyman, and finally a master and owner of a craft shop (akin to the present day corporation, but, perhaps smaller in scale)? In other words, there are precedents to this type of thinking. However, at this point all we have are questions.

Identity Implications

The guild system was widely in use in Central Asia, and in Europe. Though not founded on the exact same principles, both varieties of guilds operated on the foundations of strict discipline. This was done in order to:

limit the number of craftsmen in a given specialty
regulating wage and price stability
assuring quality control favoring the consumers
leading to the formation of Identities in a given polity

All this is a necessity, if the polity is to be kept intact. In both Europe and in Asia, there was a secondary and generally unverbalized reason for supporting the guild system: Keeping the population stable and preventing the flight of taxable talent from a polity. This aspect especially required the formation and maintenance of an Identity. Nowadays, that is known, in the business-speak (and, beyond) as ‘brand recognition.’ When the polity is well regulated, including the legal system, individuals living in that society will take pride and will want to further better the conditions for selfish reasons. Those noticing those desirable qualities will want to move in, thereby swelling the population numbers, taxable businesses and disposable income. A highly respected ‘brand recognition’ of a city will ensure not only survival, but also future prosperity. Same goes for continents.

Therefore, it is a legitimate question to ask: Which came first, Identity or economics? So, what we started considering, a particular activity (interaction of Identity and economics) of a given polity, managed to force itself on the rest of life in that polity.. Not only in the specified area, but in the largest sense; order in life and governance system of a polity. That we must observe, is not the only binary question that may be posed. As noted above, the idea of religion also played a prominent part in the formation of Identity; both for and against. Moreover, that struggle, to find and preserve the Identity of the self and the larger polity also influenced the nature and formation of the governance systems now in use. The process is inseparable.

1490 WBEX - The Talk of Chillicothe

2004-09-17T03:14:00.000-07:00

1490 WBEX - The Talk of Chillicothe: "TOO MUCH MUD SLINGING?
Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 8:48pm

WASHINGTON (AP) - An Ohio congressman says there are too many attack ads on the air that are being paid for by groups that accept unlimited amounts of cash from wealthy donors.

Republican Congressman Bob Ney is chairman of the U-S House committee that has jurisdiction over campaign finance issues.

He says there is a groundswell of support in Congress to regulate these groups, such as Move-On-dot-org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

These groups operate under a campaign finance law loophole that allows them to collect unlimited amounts of cash from corporations, unions and other donors.

Ney is planning to hold congressional hearings on the issue as early as next week.

He hopes this year to get the groups banned or to limit donations they receive to about five thousand dollars a person.
"

Hassan Rowhani: Torch bearer for Iran's pragmatic conservatives

2004-09-11T12:33:00.000-07:00

Hassan Rowhani: Torch bearer for Iran's pragmatic conservatives: "Hassan Rowhani: Torch bearer for Iran's pragmatic conservatives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: iran-news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Hassan Rowhani: Torch bearer for Iran's pragmatic conservatives
From: Payman Arabshahi
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:20:02 -0800 (PST)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Financial Times (London, England)

January 21, 2004 Wednesday
SECTION: MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA; Pg. 9
LENGTH: 849 words
HEADLINE: Torch bearer for Iran's pragmatic conservatives: Credible in
the west, Hassan Rowhani has powerful allies and although not a
candidate could be the main winner
BYLINE: By GARETH SMYTH

BODY:

For the past week Iranian television has followedthe parliamentary
"sit-in" of reformist deputies after the Guardian Council excluded 80
of them from next month's parliamentary election.

In contrast to the sit-in, which has excited little public response,
the news also featured a visit by Hassan Rowhani, secretary of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), to Paris for discussions
with President Jacques Chirac over Iran's nuclear programme.

"Rowhani is doing real politics, whereas the parliament is just a
skirmish," says a former Iranian diplomat.

"Rowhani understands we've suffered too long from ideologies, and that
Iran should instead pursue its national interest."

At 55, Mr Rowhani is not well known in Iran, but he has solid
experience and powerful allies.

Within political circles, he is expected to carry the torch of
pragmatic conservatism in next year's presidential elections.

As secretary of the SNSC since 1988, he is trusted by Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. He is also close to Ali Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani, former president and influential head of the Expediency
Council, which arbitrates between arms of government, the judiciary,
state-owned television and the armed forces.

Mr Rowhani left parliament four years ago and is not a candidate in
next month's election. Yet he may be its main winner.

The self-styled "new conservatives" are confident of a parliamentary
majority that will give them a springboard to capture the presidency
next year and so end the reformist era that began with Mohammad
Khatami's victory in 1997.

They believe Mr Rowhani's growing public image as a man of action can
reverse the trend of two heavy conservative defeats in consecutive
presidential elections.

Even some outside the conservative camp agree.

"Khatami has been too nice - Rowhani will be more successful because
his goal is improved administration and managing the economy, not a
cultural revolution," says Saed Leylaz, vice-president of the
government-owned Khrodro Diesel vehicle manufacturers, who has known
Mr Rowhani for many years.

"We need a leader like Tony Blair, someone good at PR but who's
serious and firm."

Siamak Namazi, managing director of Tehran consultants Atieh Bahar,
says: "Rowhani is a credible person for the west and, crucially, is
trusted by the system here."

The rise of Mr Rowhani has been steady rather than spectacular. Born
in the central Iranian city of Semnan, he went to Qom aged 12 to study
Islamic jurisprudence, rising to the rank of hojjat al-islam, one
below ayatollah.

After a degree at Tehran university, he did a PhD in law at Glasgow
university in the late 1970s, interrupting his studies to join
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's entourage in Paris as the 1979 Islamic
Revolution loomed.

Mr Rowhani entered parliament in 1980, becoming head of its defence
and foreign affairs commissions and deputy speaker. This brought him
close to Mr Rafsanjani, then parliamentary speaker, who held executive
responsibility for the 1980-88 war with Iraq.

The relationship between the two men unnerves those who see Mr
Rafsanjani as a manipulator.

"Rowhani is not the decision-maker, the power is somewhere else," says
a leading reformer.

"Even if the conservatives win the parliamentary elections and Rowhani
becomes president, he won't be able to deliver in the face of
opposition from hardline conservatives who think he's betraying them."

Reformists argue that leading Iran towards rapprochement with the west
and domestic reform requires a vision that Rowhani lacks.

They say the "new conservatives" have simply stolen reformist ideas -
including more relaxed social codes.

The new conservatives shrug off the criticism. "The reformers didn't
have enough power to succeed. Any system resists change, and
conservatives want to improve, not change, the system," says Amir
Mohebian, political editor of the conservative daily newspaper
Resalat. "This means we no longer insist on the form of the hijab (the
veil), it doesn't have to be the chador (the head-to-toe garment
covering all bar the face)."

"The reformers used to be popular because they criticised social
restrictions," says Mr Leylaz. "But the moral police have largely gone
and people are free in their private lives - so they're less
interested in politics."

Iran's conservatives expect voter apathy to help them in coming
elections. Internationally, they believe the US is less concerned with
Iran's political system than with its nuclear programme, its influence
in Iraq and its holding of leading members of al-Qaeda.

As SNSC general-secretary, Mr Rowhani has handled all these issues.
While no one abroad sees him as a pushover - he insists strongly that
Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment is entirely voluntary - there
is also a sense that amid Iran's competing centres of power, he is a
reliable negotiator.

"Many in the west like Rowhani because they think he can get things
done, as indeed he has over the nuclear issue," says one diplomat.

"This means that in the short term at least, they may prefer an
Iranian leadership that can deliver, even if it's not very
representative.""

Zinni: Neoconservatives pushed the war in Iraq for Israel's benefit

2004-09-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

Forward Newspaper Online: "Retired general Anthony Zinni, a former chief of the U.S. Central Command and presidential Middle East envoy, told CBS in May that "the worst-kept secret in Washington" was that the neoconservatives pushed the war in Iraq for Israel's benefit. Similar criticism of Israel and Jewish groups appeared in the recent book "Imperial Hubris," by Anonymous, who was later identified as Michael Scheuer, a serving senior CIA official."

Republican Ney fires back after Edwards' speech - chillicothegazette.com

2004-09-08T18:07:00.000-07:00

Republican Ney fires back after Edwards' speech - chillicothegazette.com: "Republican Ney fires back after Edwards' speech

By The Gazette Staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ney

Bush

While John Edwards hammered the Bush administration's handling of nearly every aspect of their policy for the last four years, Republicans chose a local Congressman to handle their response.

Rep. Bob Ney, R-St. Clairsville, defended President George W. Bush, who was the focus of the Democratic vice presidential nominee's speech in Chillicothe Tuesday.

Ney drilled Democratic nominee John Kerry for his "constant waffling and indecision" and said residents of southern Ohio should see the Kerry-Edwards ticket for what it is.

"Their priorities are wrong for Ohio and are way outside the mainstream," he said.

Edwards hammered Bush on the economy, citing 230,000 jobs lost in the state during Bush's tenure as president.

Ney took a different take on the economic situation, saying the growth of small business is also important to Ohioans.

"I believe John Kerry and John Edwards will have an extremely difficult time trying to convince the people of Ross County and the rest of southern Ohio that their support for higher taxes on small businesses is the direction our country ought to be moving in," he said.

Ney also said Kerry and Edwards further hurt small business by refusing to support limits on lawsuits, instead choosing to help "their trial lawyer friends."

Ney, who represents most of Ross County, also said access to quality health care is important to Ohioans -- another issue Edwards took Bush to task on.

"Time and again, Kerry and John Edwards have opposed common-sense health care reforms designed to provide greater access for rural communities," Ney said.

Ney said the economy is improving throughout the country, particularly in Ohio.

"Ohio will continue to move in the right direction under President Bush's leadership because he has the values and priorities Ohioans expect from their president," he said.

Congressman defends Bush's policies

"Their priorities are wrong for Ohio and are way outside the mainstream."

Rep. Bob Ney, R-St. Clairsville"

US asks LTTE to stop killings and come for talks

2004-08-20T04:20:00.000-07:00

US asks LTTE to stop killings and come for talks
PK Balachanddran
Colombo, August 20

The United States has asked the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to stop killing its rivals and opponents, and positively respond to the Sri Lankan government's peace initiatives.

A statement issued by the State Department's Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli, said that the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, and the US Ambassador in Colombo, Jeffrey Lunstead, had reviewed the situation in Sri Lanka, including the recurring acts of violence such as assassinations and suicide bombings.

The two top officials felt that the assassinations and suicide bombings being carried out by the LTTE, were "unacceptable". They also said that recruitment of children by the LTTE "must cease".

"President Kumaratunga has shown a desire to move forward on the peace process launched with the February 2002 ceasefire. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam needs to respond positively and enter talks with the Sri Lankan government," they said.

"Real progress towards peace and an end to violence in word and deed can begin the process of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam's entering the political mainstream, and result in assistance for areas in the north and east most affected by the conflict," they said.