Keep the ban on arms for China
Roger Cliff and Evan S. Medeiros IHT
Monday, March 22, 2004

Europe's embargo

WASHINGTON When the European Council meets at the end of March, European leaders may decide to lift the European Union's 15-year-old embargo on weapons transfers to China, which U.S. and European policy makers imposed in 1989 after the Chinese military's violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing.
Lifting the embargo now, however, would send mixed signals to China on human rights and on the Taiwan issue, assist China's rapidly accelerating military modernization program, undermine stability across the Taiwan Strait, and further exacerbate tensions in trans-Atlantic relations.
Momentum for this policy change has been growing over the last year. Beijing has pressed European policy makers to make this change, arguing it is needed for China and the EU to develop fully their newly minted "strategic partnership."
As a result, prominent European leaders have publicly stated a desire to eliminate the ban. During the visit to France by President Hu Jintao of China in late January, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said "the embargo is out of date."
But there are many important reasons for continuing the arms embargo.
European policy makers argue that China's poor human rights situation - the original motivation for the ban - has improved significantly since 1989, and thus the embargo is no longer justified. Yet while living standards have undoubtedly improved in the last decade, China's human rights situation still has a long way to go.
China remains a dictatorship that harshly suppresses any perceived political opposition. Examples abound. The government still hasn't lived up to President Jiang Zemin's 1997 pledge to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Chinese prisons. President Hu's crackdown late last year on high-profile investigative newspapers and magazines is equally worrisome. These and other actions were listed in the European Commission's 2003 report on EU-Chinese relations.
The focus on China's human rights situation, however, misses the real issue at stake - the rapid modernization of China's military and the implications for stability, including the possibility of an outbreak of armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait. Lifting the EU embargo would provide significant and long-lasting assistance to Chinese military modernization at a time when cross-strait stability is fading fast.
Since the early 1990s, the Chinese military has been engaged in a sustained drive to improve its capabilities. For much of the last decade, this has involved buying advanced off-the-shelf weapons systems from Russia. This approach has significantly raised the level of China's warfighting abilities in a relatively short time.
As a result, the People's Liberation Army has rapidly crossed critical modernization thresholds to the extent that it can now leverage new weapons technology imports in ways more militarily significant than in past years.
Access to European weapon technologies, which are nearly as advanced as U.S. capabilities in some areas, would also enable China's defense industries to accelerate their modernization by filling critical technology gaps. European technology transfers before 1989, for example, played a key role in enabling China to develop modern surface-to-air and air-to-air missile systems in the 1980s and 1990s.
These developments would have a direct impact on stability across the Taiwan Strait and on trans-Atlantic relations. China's military modernization is largely aimed at preparing for a potential conflict over Taiwan. One of the central elements of China's effort is to acquire weapons capabilities to prevent and, ultimately, to counter U.S. military intervention in a Taiwan conflict. If the EU ban was lifted and conflict erupted, U.S. forces could conceivably find themselves under attack by Chinese weapons produced with the help of America's NATO allies.
Some observers maintain that lifting the embargo is not so consequential because a EU code of conduct governing military exports would limit arms trade with China. This argument is far from reassuring.
After abandonment of the embargo, the norm against EU arms sales to China would be significantly diminished, sending a strong signal to defense enterprises throughout Europe. The same arguments used to scrap the embargo could be leveraged to overcome the political restraints of the code of conduct.
Furthermore, the code - unlike the embargo - is not legally binding, and some defense companies might be willing to pay the costs of violating its "politically binding" provisions.
Indeed, it is not clear that violations would even matter. Major EU members have already violated, with relative impunity, key provisions of the Maastricht Treaty relating to fiscal responsibility. Even when the European Union expands to the east in May, there are few assurances that the new members would uniformly support continuing the arms embargo. A company in the Czech Republic recently sold an advanced military radar to China.
Regardless of the understandable political motives of EU leaders who want to improve relations with China, abandoning the arms embargo would jeopardize stability in one of the most volatile parts of Asia. Selling arms to China could not only put a NATO ally at risk, it could undermine the integrity of a fraying alliance itself.

Roger Cliff and Evan S. Medeiros are political scientists at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization.

Copyright ? 2002 The International Herald Tribune
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney to promote nuke reactors to China

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Vice President Dick Cheney, center, shakes hands with Anchorage, Alaska mayor Mark Begich at Elmendorf Air Force Base in

Alaska, Friday, April 9, 2004. Cheney is en route to Asia. (AP Photo/Michael Dinneen)
WASHINGTON -- On a trip to China next week to talk about high-stakes issues like terrorism and North Korea, Vice President

Dick Cheney will have another task - making a pitch for Westinghouse's U.S. nuclear power technology.
At stake could be billions of dollars in business in coming years and thousands of American jobs. The initial installment of

four reactors, costing $1.5 billion apiece, would also help narrow the huge U.S. trade deficit with China.
China's latest economic plan anticipates more than doubling its electricity output by 2020 and the Chinese government, facing

enormous air pollution problems, is looking to shift some of that away from coal-burning plants. Its plan calls for building

as many as 32 large 1,000-megawatt reactors over the next 16 years.
No one has ordered a new nuclear power reactor in the United States in three decades and the next one, if it comes, is still

years away. So, China is being viewed by the U.S. industry as a potential bonanza.
Cheney's three-day visit to Beijing and Shanghai next week is part of a weeklong trip to Asia that will also include a stop

in Tokyo. He departed Washington on Friday.
A senior administration official, briefing reporters about the trip, said Cheney will not "pitch individual commercial

transactions." But he intends to make clear "we support the efforts of our American companies" and general access to China's

markets, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Some critics are concerned about such technology transfers.
"This pitch could not be more poorly timed," Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education

Center, told a hearing of the House International Relations Committee recently.
Citing recent Chinese plans to help Pakistan build two large reactors that are capable of producing plutonium, he said it is

not the time for China to be rewarded with new reactor technology. U.S. officials said the Chinese have given adequate

assurances that such sales will not pose a proliferation risk.
Bid solicitations for four new reactors are expected to be issued by the Chinese within months.
The leading competitors are U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co. and a French rival, Areva, which is peddling its next-

generation reactor built by its Framatome subsidiary.
Westinghouse is putting its hopes on its 1,100 megawatt AP1000 reactor, an advanced design that is still waiting approval

from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before it can be built in the United States. Westinghouse, owned by the British

nuclear firm BNFL, is the only U.S.-based manufacturer of a pressurized water reactor, the type of design China has said it

wants to pursue.
"Clearly the China market is very important to the industry and a supplier like Westinghouse," said Vaughn Gilbert, a

spokesman for the Pittsburgh-based reactor vendor. "The Chinese market is one that we're pursuing."
Each of the AP1000 reactors are expected to cost about $1.5 billion. "We would assume there would be more than one order,"

Gilbert said, since China has indicated it wants a standardized design across its reactor program. A successful bid could

mean 5,000 American jobs, Gilbert said in an interview.
For the nuclear industry, the potential windfall goes beyond building the power plants.
"The opportunity is not just in selling the Chinese a number of reactors, but engaging them for a longer term in a strategic

partnership," says Ron Simard, who deals with future plant development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade

group. That could mean future construction contracts as well as plant service business.
The reactor business has been nonexistent in the United States since the 1970s. No American utility has ordered a new reactor

since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident.
So, vendors like Westinghouse are relying on business elsewhere, especially Asia.
China currently has nine operating reactors, including French, Canadian, Russian, and Japanese designs as well as their own

model, producing 6,450 megawatts of power, or about 1.4 percent total capacity. Chinese officials have estimated that by 2020

the country will need an additional 32,000 megawatts from its nuclear industry, or about 32 additional reactors.
Even with the surge in reactor construction, nuclear power will only account for 8 percent of China's future electricity

needs. Chinese officials said at an energy conference in Washington last year their country must more than double its coal-

fired generation and build more dams, erect windmills and tap natural gas to meet future electricity demands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheney Confers With Chinese Leaders on Iraq, Other Issues

By Tom Raum Associated Press Writer
Published: Apr 14, 2004
BEIJING (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney conferred Wednesday with China's top leaders and pronounced the U.S.-Chinese relationship to be "in good shape." He brought praises for China's efforts to prod North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions.
But U.S. officials cautioned against expecting breakthroughs on the stalled North Korea nuclear talks. Tensions also remained over Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Cheney met in separate sessions with Chinese President Hu Jintao, his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, and Premier Wen Jiabao.
Cheney conveyed President Bush's greetings to Hu and said that Bush "looks forward to seeing you again in the near future."
Jiang, who still wields power as military committee chairman, told Cheney he had fond recollections of visiting Bush on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Of U.S.-Chinese ties, Cheney said, "We believe the relationship is in good shape." He had "many issues to discuss" on his trip, the vice president said at a picture-taking session with Jiang.
Earlier, in an unusually blunt appeal, China's vice president asked Cheney during a one-on-one meeting for Washington to stop selling defensive weapons to Taiwan, Chinese state media reported.
Zeng Qinghong's appeal reflected the intensity of China's frustration with U.S. support for self-ruled Taiwan, which the communist mainland claims as part of its territory.
"There is only one China and Taiwan is part of China," an announcer, citing Zeng, said on the state television evening news. "We hope the United States can carry out its commitment and not sell weapons to Taiwan and not send wrong signals to Taiwan independence forces."
The official Xinhua News Agency said Cheney affirmed U.S. policy, which doesn't support formal independence for Taiwan.
Beijing's anxiety over U.S. ties with Taiwan is expected to be a key issue during Cheney's three-day visit.
It is almost unheard of for a senior Chinese leader to deliver such a direct, potentially confrontational message to a visiting foreign leader. The fact that Zeng, a member of the Communist Party's nine member Standing Committee, the center of Chinese power, did so in Cheney's first meeting in Beijing showed China's emphasis on the issue.
Iraq was also high on the agenda in China, as it was in Japan - Cheney's first stop on his weeklong trip to Asia. Before arriving here from Tokyo, Cheney promised Japanese leaders unspecified U.S. help in trying to return to safety three Japanese citizens taken hostage in Iraq.
He praised Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for not bowing to demands from Iraqi militants that he withdraw Japanese forces from Iraq.
"It's important that our governments not be intimidated by threat of violence, that we not allow terrorists to change or influence the policies of our governments," Cheney told a foreign-policy forum in Tokyo before flying to Beijing.
At a dinner in Cheney's honor at Beijing's Great Hall of the People, Zeng noted that the vice president had last visited China in 1995, when he headed the oil services Halliburton Co.
"Many changes have taken place in this country" since then, Zeng told Cheney. "We place great importance to your visit."
Cheney told Zeng: "We believe we can do good work together."
All three nations on Cheney's itinerary have had civilians taken as hostages in Iraq, although those from South Korea and China have been released. Relations between the United States and China have improved as the two nations worked together to resolve the North Korean nuclear impasse.
However, differences remain over Taiwan, Hong Kong and human rights.
The Bush administration has been increasingly critical of China for trying to restrict moves toward democracy by Hong Kong, a former British colony now considered a special administrative region of China.
Ahead of Cheney's arrival, China urged the United States to stop adhering to a law that encourages Washington to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan. By doing so, the United States is sending the "wrong message to Taiwan independence forces" and meddling in China's internal affairs, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told the official Xinhua News Agency.
Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States is pledged to defend the island off southeastern China if it is attacked from the mainland.
U.S. officials have expressed misgivings, however, about apparent moves on an independence-minded agenda by Taiwan's freshly re-elected president, Chen Shui-bian.
Cheney ended his Japan stay with a visit to Emperor Akihito and other members of the imperial family and with a speech on the 150th anniversary of a U.S.-Japanese peace agreement, a document honored except for the large exception of World War II.
"The unity of America, Japan and like-minded nations saw us through the dark days of the Cold War, and with the same unity we will overcome the trials of today," he told the forum.
Japan has refused to bow to demands that it withdraw its roughly 530 ground troops doing humanitarian missions in Iraq as part of an eventual deployment of 1,100 noncombatant troops.
Cheney said that some headway had been made on the contentious issue of Japan's five-month-old ban on U.S. beef imports that followed the discovery of a holstein in Washington State with mad cow disease.
"I'm pleased to announce the Japanese government has invited U.S. experts for consultations next week," Cheney said. "We hope these consultations will lead to reopening the (Japanese) market to U.S. beef in the near future."
Thus far, Japan has insisted on 100 percent inspections of carcasses, a level the United States has said is excessive.
AP-ES-04-14-04 0131EDT


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

Pakistan says it's sharing info on nukes

By MATTHEW PENNINGTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan said it was sharing with other countries information divulged by disgraced top scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, but refused comment on a report he had visited a secret underground plant in communist North Korea and seen nuclear devices.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, told interrogators he inspected the weapons briefly during a trip to North Korea five years ago. If true, it would be the first time that any foreigner has reported inspecting an actual North Korean nuclear weapon, the newspaper said.
The report cited unnamed Asian and American officials who have been briefed by the Pakistanis.
Khan, long regarded as a national hero for helping Pakistan obtain a nuclear deterrent against rival India, confessed in February to transferring sensitive technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
He received a pardon from Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally, but remains under house arrest in Islamabad as investigators continue a probe into his illicit nuclear deals.
Jon Wolfsthal, who served as a U.S. government monitor at North Korea's main plutonium site in the 1990s, said Washington has believed for more than a decade that North Korea had enough material for one or two bombs.
Khan is not a credible source, however, Wolfsthal said.
"A.Q. Khan is a liar, and he's doing whatever he feels necessary to protect his own interests and protect the government that has pardoned him," said Wolfsthal, now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
"One way of doing that is saying, 'It doesn't matter what we sold to North Korea because they had weapons already,'" he said.
Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed said Tuesday that Pakistan had shared information arising from its investigations of Khan to other countries, but he did not elaborate.
"We have investigated scientists. We are in touch with the world," he told a press conference in Islamabad.
Pakistani officials have previously said they have offered information on the investigation to China, Japan, South Korea, as well as the United States and the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Times said that Pakistan has begun to provide classified briefings to nations within reach of North Korea's missiles.
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday that South Korea's basic assessment that the rival North has only enough plutonium for one or two atomic bombs.
The CIA believes that North Korea already has one or two nuclear bombs, although some U.S. intelligence analysts believe it may have more.
A high-level South Korean official confirmed Tuesday its government had received information linked to the Times report from Pakistan and "related countries."
"But we are trying to further confirm it as there are many unclear points about its contents and circumstances," the official said on condition of anonymity in Seoul.
A Japanese Foreign Ministry official, who also did not want to be named, said the government was aware of the report and was cooperating with other countries to gather information about North Korea's nuclear activities. He declined further comment.
The Times reported that Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on Khan's assertions before he left on a trip to Asia over the weekend.
It said Cheney was expected to cite the intelligence to China's leaders on Tuesday to press the point that six-country talks that have been held in Beijing over disarming North Korea are going too slowly and that the Bush administration may seek stronger action against Pyongyang, including sanctions.
The report said Khan told Pakistani officials that he began dealing with North Korea on the sale of equipment for a uranium-based nuclear weapons program as early as the late 1980s but did not begin major shipments to North Korea until the late 1990s agreed with the United States to a moratorium on its plutonium-based program. North Korea has since renounced that agreement.
Pakistan denies any official involvement in nuclear proliferation, although doubts remain over how top military and government officials remained in the dark for years over Khan's activities.
Pakistani officials said Saturday they've released three men questioned about the nuclear black market led by Khan. Four others - two scientists and two administrators who worked at the same laboratory - are still being held for questioning.

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

S.Korea nuke assessment of North unchanged

By SANG-HUN CHOE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korea said Wednesday that it was not changing its assessment of North Korea's nuclear capabilities despite a report that a Pakistani scientist had visited a secret underground plant in the communist country and seen nuclear devices.
The United States, Japan and South Korea discussed the information that Pakistan gleaned from investigations of its disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, and agreed that it was too early to draw a conclusion about what Khan saw in North Korea, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said.
"South Korea, the United States and Japan share the understanding that it is desirable for them to take a more cautious position on this matter," Ban said during a regular briefing.
He said there was no change in South Korea's basic assessment that the rival North has only enough plutonium for one or two atomic bombs. South Korea has stuck to that evaluation for years, citing a lack of new concrete evidence on the North's secretive nuclear weapons programs.
The CIA takes that assessment a step further saying it assumes North Korea has one or two bombs already built.
South Korea has sent questions to the Pakistani government asking for more information about what Khan saw in North Korea, Ban said. But the government in Seoul has not yet heard back.
Pakistan said Tuesday it was sharing with other countries information divulged by Khan, but refused comment on a report that he had seen North Korean nuclear devices.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, told interrogators he inspected the weapons briefly during a trip to North Korea five years ago. If true, it would be the first time that any foreigner has reported inspecting an actual North Korean nuclear weapon, the newspaper said.
Ban said Pakistan shared Khan's information with South Korea "recently."
"It contained many unclear things, and there is ambiguity about the circumstances. Thus we are trying to make additional confirmation," Ban said.
North Korea is currently locked in a regional dispute over its nuclear programs. Since last August, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas have held two rounds of talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear ambitions, but those meetings ended without major breakthroughs.
Ban said North Korea should allow nuclear inspections and freeze all its nuclear facilities as a first step toward what the United States and its allies call a "complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling" of its nuclear programs. Only then, he said, will the allies provide economic aid to the impoverished country.
North Korea says it needs a nuclear "deterrent" against the United States. It demands economic aid and security guarantees in return for giving up its nuclear weapons.
The six nations plan to hold a third round of talks before July aiming to defuse tensions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeachment politics may reshape S. Korea

By HANS GREIMEL
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SEOUL, South Korea -- Impeachment politics are fueling a tight parliamentary election race that could shift power toward a small, upstart liberal party, divide South Korea along generational lines and reshape relations with the United States over policies toward Iraq and North Korea.
The hotly contested election Thursday is crucial for President Roh Moo-hyun, who became South Korea's first impeached president in an opposition-backed March 12 National Assembly vote. His executive powers have been frozen pending a final ruling by the Constitutional Court.
Roh, who has preached reconciliation with communist North Korea and greater independence from Washington, has pledged to resign if the pro-government Uri Party fairs poorly. But if Uri wins a majority, it would strengthen Roh's hand and create the first liberal-dominated assembly in decades.
Roh is not a Uri Party member, but has said he plans to join.
Young people in particular are supporting the Uri Party. It's also been drawing broader support from across the nation than its rivals, which traditionally tap regional strongholds.
Analysts say the shift symbolizes a growing national divide between progressives and conservatives, the young and the old. It also could spur new debate about South Korea's commitment to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, and relations with rival North Korea.
"Most UP (Uri Party) members are considerably more sympathetic and tolerant of North Korea than they appear to be toward Washington," said Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum think tank in Honolulu.
"Without the checks and balances provided by a more conservative National Assembly, it is difficult to predict in which direction Roh will choose to take either relationship."
A backlash against Roh's impeachment - which drew tens of thousands to the streets in protest - initially boosted Uri. Its leader, Chung Dong-young, even predicted Uri would take half the 299 seats up for grabs.
Surveys suggested about seven in 10 South Koreans opposed Roh's impeachment, even though they might not support Roh.
But Uri leader Chung fumbled his lead when he told older South Koreans to "stay home and rest" and let younger voters decide the future. The remarks shocked a deeply Confucian nation that reveres seniority, and prompted Chung to resign as his party's campaign manager and drop out of the race for a seat in Parliament.
After sponsoring the impeachment, the opposition Grand National and Millennium Democratic parties saw their backing plummet. In an attempt to siphon some of Uri's younger support, both reinvented their platforms.
The staunchly anti-communist Grand National Party said it would start pursuing "more flexible and future-oriented North Korean policies" in an apparent riposte the Uri Party's practice of engagement.
GNP leader Park Geun-hye - whose mother was assassinated in 1974 by a North Korean agent unsuccessfully targeting her father, then President Park Chung-hee - pledged to visit the North to foster ties.
The Millennium Democratic Party, meanwhile, has come out against the planned dispatch of 3,600 South Korean troops to Iraq and said it wants to re-examine the plans from scratch in the new assembly.
The National Assembly had approved the mission earlier this year with broad support from all major parties, including the MDP. But flaring violence in Iraq has made the plan unpopular, especially among the young.
Thursday's election had 1,175 candidates vying for 243 district seats. Voters choose both the candidate and the party. An additional 56 seats are distributed to the parties according to their ballot shares.
Uri was projected to have a solid hold on 90 to 100 of the 243 district seats, and the GNP between 80 and 90. That would mark a big improvement for Uri over the 49 seats the party had in the outgoing parliament.


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



U.S.-S. Korea relations become touchier

By GEORGE GEDDA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- It was South Korea's biggest fear not long ago: Faced with a cross-border attack from North Korea, the United States would lack the will to come to the South's defense.
Nowadays, growing numbers of South Koreans worry that any crisis on the peninsula will result from an American provocation rather than aggression by their nuclear-armed neighbor.
The trend in sentiment is clear, and analysts see little chance for a reversal in South Korea's National Assembly elections Thursday.
Indeed, the major party most wary about Bush administration policies toward North Korea is expected to increase its strength in the assembly.
The changing South Korean mind-set was underscored last month in a report by the Rand Corp., a Santa Monica, Calif., think tank.
South Korean uncertainty about the future, the report said, "is heightened by a growing belief that tough U.S. policies toward Pyongyang constitute a threat that rivals the one from the North."
South Koreans, it said, are deeply ambivalent about the 37,000 U.S. forces stationed in South Korea.
"On the one hand, most South Koreans have said that U.S. forces are important to their security," the report said. "But on the other, they believe that the presence of U.S. forces may impede the pace of reunification or adversely affect other goals."
The study was based on South Korean public opinion data and on Rand's participation in two September 2003 opinion polls with the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper of Seoul and the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The study showed that older South Koreans are more pro-U.S. than the younger set, which has no memories of the American sacrifices of the Korean War.
Says Don Oberdorfer, an international studies specialist at Johns Hopkins University who wrote "The Two Koreas," about the peninsula's late 20th century history: "The younger generation has little, if any, fear of North Korea. The main fear is that a dangerous situation will develop not because of North Korea but because of the U.S."
The 1950-53 Korean War, in which more than 36,500 Americans died, began when North Korean troops poured across the 38th parallel dividing the two states. The truce stopped the fighting, but meetings at the truce line to reach a permanent peace continue.
South Koreans demonstrated their leeriness about the United States with the election of the dovish Kim Dae-jung as president in 1998. This drift was accelerated in December of 2002 when voters chose as president Roh Moo Hyun, who vowed not to kowtow to the United States.
The opposition-led National Assembly impeached and suspended Roh in March, which proved to be widely unpopular among voters. The impeachment is now in the courts, and Roh has said he will step down if his Uri Party fares poorly Thursday. Polls indicate that outcome is unlikely.
The United States and South Korea agree that North Korea should eliminate its nuclear weapons, but tactical differences exist on how to deal with the North. Vice President Dick Cheney will raise these issues during a visit Friday to Seoul.
Henry Sokolski, of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said North Korean propaganda has been influencing South Korean public opinion.
"The North Koreans have been talking about Americans being a source of war and instability on the peninsula," Sokolski said. "A lot of young people read this and believe it."
South Korea pleased the United States by offering to send 3,600 troops to Iraq to do reconstruction work. Officials there say the commitment would be re-evaluated if the troops come under threat. The deployment has become part of the campaign debate.
The reluctant South Korean embrace of the United States these days contrasts with the situation a generation ago. Was the United States so traumatized by the Vietnam War that it would never go to war in Asia again? Seoul was worried.
Oberdorfer says the Washington-Seoul defense alliance has not been the same since a groundbreaking summit meeting in Pyongyang two years ago between the leaders of North and South Korea. Ever since, Seoul has been reaching out to the North's Stalinist leadership, causing dread among many in Washington.
"South Korea is now trying to restrain the U.S. and to find ways to make compromises with the North," Oberdorfer said.


EDITOR'S NOTE - George Gedda has covered foreign affairs for The Associated Press since 1968.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revolt and Iran: New nukes and old issues
By Ritt Goldstein

With the Iraq revolt finding increasing allies internally, elements within the administration of United States President George W Bush have again attempted to place blame externally, particularly singling out Iran and Hezbollah (an Iranian-backed Lebanese group). Inside "information" was provided to the media, editorials were written, a blame campaign was done. But while Iran's denials were questioned, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld described direct Iranian involvement as "not to my knowledge". And that raises a question as to what the Iranian accusations are really about, with part of the answer appearing nuclear.
On Tuesday, the conservative US media outlet NewsMax headlined that the Wall Street Journal had editorialized on alleged Iranian involvement in the Iraq revolt, urging that: "As for Tehran, we would hope the [Muqtada al-]Sadr uprising puts to rest the illusion that the mullahs [Iranian religious leaders] can be appeased ... If warnings to Tehran from Washington don't impress them, perhaps some cruise missiles aimed at the Busheir nuclear site will." And behind that sentiment, the past few weeks have seen rising concerns that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
While on Wednesday Singapore announced the signing of a free trade agreement with Iran, and on Thursday, Chinese Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan met with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Setarifar to pursue furthering trade, the US and Europe have had Iranian nuclear issues on their agenda. And with Iran pressed between two states which are occupied by the US - Iraq and Afghanistan - the fact of the Islamic Republic's inclusion on Bush's "Axis of Evil" does provide incentive for pursuing a nuclear deterrent.
The fate of Iraq vs North Korea has not gone unnoticed by many; though Iran claims it is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. For well over a year, the US has believed that what Iran is pursuing is a game of nuclear cat-and-mouse, surreptitious progress on the road to a nuclear device ongoing. And within the past two weeks, "Western diplomats" have been quoted in numerous media articles expressing their concern. But while there seems to be a lot of smoke, no one has yet claimed to have seen any fire - no conclusive evidence has been found.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' mechanism for judging compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been pursuing allegations of an Iranian weapons program since 2002. And in late March, the Los Angeles Times revealed an intelligence report detailing that an Iranian committee had been established to conceal the country's nuclear program from the IAEA. Notably, Iran has failed to make mandatory reports on the creation and use of uranium enrichment facilities, as well as the pursuit of other activities that are considered nuclear-weapons related.
The IAEA passed a resolution early last month "deploring" Iran's failure to report efforts regarding special centrifuges for obtaining weapons-grade uranium. And the IAEA had previously found traces of weapons-grade uranium during its investigations. Precipitating those investigations was a tip from an Iranian exile group, a group now listed on Washington's so-called "terror-list".
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) did provide accurate information on the previously unknown uranium enrichment facilities. Last month, the former spokesman for NCRI told Reuters of a secret Iranian program to develop a nuclear weapon by 2005, pursuing the necessary uranium enrichment at a large number of small locations. And according to a number of media sources, "Western intelligence" had found evidence suggesting such a possible decentralization of Iran's enrichment program as early as November.
The US and Israel are both particularly concerned as to the potential ramifications of an Iranian nuclear weapon, and the United Kingdom, France and Germany began to show their concern earlier this month. Europe's so-called "big three" reacted to an Iranian announcement that it was initiating the start-up of a uranium conversion operation, the first step before the enrichment process. Since then, Tehran announced a June start for the creation of a reactor generating plutonium, the same material North Korea uses in its nuclear weapons. And it's against this background that the charges of Iranian aid to the Iraq revolt come.
According to the April 8 New York Times, "some intelligence officials believe that the Pentagon has been eager to link Hezbollah to the violence in Iraq in order to link the Iranian regimes more closely to anti-American terrorism." A basis for US action is being sought.
Notably, the same article "contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration", and highlights that US intelligence officials believe that the Shi'ite insurgency isn't limited to Muqtada, but is rather a "broad-based Shi'ite uprising ... hatred of the US occupation has spread". Also noted is that Sunni insurgents go "far beyond former Ba'athist regime members."
Paradoxically, the Iraqi group to which Iran does have significant and long ties is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The SCIRI's leader, Abdel Azziz Hakim, is a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, and the SCIRI's substantive militia, the Badr Group, has been reported as refraining from fighting. But Iraqi Shi'ite leader Grand Ayotollah Ali al-Sistani has reportedly endorsed Muqtada's confrontation, as have others, supposedly including Sunni tribal chiefs.
As a further measure of popular sympathies, there have been numerous reports of Iraqi police and security forces failing to "confront" insurgents. On Thursday, Iraqi civil administrator L Paul Bremer requested the Shi'ite interior minister's resignation, and received it.
At Thursday's Coalition Provisional Authority briefing, the commander of coalition ground forces, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, attempted to dismiss those resisting the occupation as "a small group of criminals and thugs". But at the same briefing, Sanchez was repeatedly questioned regarding US acts alleged to be in violation of the Geneva Convention regarding the conduct of war.
In a telling moment, Sanchez described a US attack on a Fallujah mosque as probably causing "some minor damage to the physical infrastructure". But the Associated Press reported a count of 40 civilian deaths, including "whole families".
The insurgency gives every indication of being a popular uprising, with links between Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents in the process of evolving.
By further contrast, in a March 7 Pentagon press conference, both Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs chairman General Richard Myers again repeatedly emphasized the "limited" nature of those in revolt. Particularly notable, Rumsfeld mentioned Jordanian-Palestinian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi four times in his opening remarks, but spoke of Muqtada only once, highlighting a continuing administration effort to blame foreign influences instead of American shortcomings.
In a particularly astonishing revelation, Myers acknowledged that the revolt was purposefully provoked by US forces, saying that it was known that coalition actions taken would provoke a response - "it was not unanticipated or unexpected", Myers said.
But every indication points to the fact that the extent of resistance ignited was far from anticipated, or expected. Unlike Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military action appears ill-planned, even hasty, as if driven by events other than military circumstance. An alternative trigger for the operation is suggested.
The day after The Journal's editorial, the Washington Times ran two articles dealing with Iran and Hezbollah. While Shi'ite Hezbollah is a legitimate and powerful Lebanese political party, it's also among the most skilled and deadly of terror groups on the planet. One Washington Times story reported that "military sources" had revealed that Muqtada was "being aided directly by Iran's Revolutionary Guard", and Hezbollah. But that very afternoon, Rumsfeld denied any knowledge of direct aid between Iran and Muqtada. However, the other story was entitled "Tehran's Proxy", reporting Iran's alleged funding of anti-Israeli terror groups through Hezbollah, representing another aspect of the equation.
While recent headlines have run with an assertion that the US "really" invaded Iraq to protect Israel, security analysts view Iran's aid to regional terror groups, coupled with its nuclear ambitions and desires for regional hegemony, as Israel's true Middle East threat. Adding to the issues, and beyond questions of protecting the present watchdog for US area interests, both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Rumsfeld have unpleasant histories with Hezbollah.
It's alleged Hezbollah was involved in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 US servicepeople, and the early 1980s bombings against US personnel in Lebanon, including the blast which killed 273 US marines. Hezbollah is an organization with many facets and capabilities, and it's believed that they are in Iraq; though, according to the New York Times, Central Intelligence Agency sources claim not in a terrorist or military capacity.
Regardless of Hezbollah actions in Iraq, for reasons of perceived Israeli security, Sharon has recently warned Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah of his potential assassination by Israeli forces. Speculation exists that what is presently transpiring in the Middle East is an attempt to undertake a broad, US-initiated effort to address a number of regional concerns within a limited time-frame, domestic US political circumstance (ie, September 11 political fallout) likely to have influenced the timing of events, such as the initiation of the provocations Myers acknowledged.

Ritt Goldstein is an American investigative political journalist based in Stockholm. His work has appeared in broadsheets such as Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, Spain's El Mundo and Denmark's Politiken, as well as with the Inter Press Service (IPS), a global news agency.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG100/MG100.pdf

RAND EXAMINES WHAT U.S. CAN LEARN ABOUT DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION FROM UK, FRANCE, CANADA AND AUSTRALIA

The experiences of domestic intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia can help guide counterterrorism initiatives in the United States, according to a RAND Corporation report issued today.
The domestic intelligence agencies of the four U.S. allies are solely focused on collecting, analyzing and communicating intelligence about terrorism and other criminal activities. Unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States, the domestic intelligence agencies in the four nations studied have no prosecutorial or law enforcement authority.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the FBI was criticized for failing to prevent the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result, subsequent discussions have focused on creating a separate domestic intelligence agency that could concentrate on gathering information, without the added duties of law enforcement and prosecution.
"A key difference between the United States and the four countries we studied is that these countries share a culture of prevention," said Peter Chalk, lead author of the study. "This mindset in a way helps to drive a lot of resources -- financial and otherwise -- to focused intelligence efforts."
The RAND researchers analyzed the similarities and differences between the United States and the four other countries studied to determine what lessons can be learned to develop an American domestic intelligence bureau.
The report, titled "Confronting the Enemy Within: Security Intelligence, the Police, and Counterterrorism in Four Democracies," was produced by RAND Public Safety and Justice. It identifies several strengths shared by the four countries:
Separate domestic intelligence agencies that are independent from law enforcement and solely concerned with collecting, analyzing and disseminating terrorism intelligence.
Institutional structures that coordinate among various levels of government and between law enforcement and intelligence.
Active recruitment of terrorist insiders to act as informants to provide invaluable human intelligence.
Rigorous systems of checks and balances that provide oversight and accountability.
Regular terrorist threat assessments that include both tactical and strategic dimensions.
The availability of recruitment channels that are independent of the domestic policing environment.
In the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia, a close coordination between local police and intelligence officials increases the depth and breadth of national surveillance efforts, making security information more open so that citizens can better understand it.
In addition, ongoing checks and balances have created an environment that allows for independent scrutiny of intelligence activities, which has heightened public trust that these activities are being carried out in as effective, efficient and legitimate a manner as possible, the RAND report finds.
The active recruitment of terrorist insiders to act as informants underscores the importance of human intelligence in infiltrating and disrupting terrorist cells, the study says. This accurate, real-time information can better steer strategy, resource allocation and security measures.
Another important aspect of the security agencies outside the United States that were studied is their emphasis on developing regular tactical and strategic terrorist threat assessments that inform government and private industry counterterrorism strategies, the RAND study says. According to the researchers, these analyses are vital to guiding national planning and using scarce financial, technical and human resources.
Finally, freedom from the parameters of the domestic policing environment allows the four countries studied to recruit personnel from a wider and more diverse pool that would normally be drawn to a law enforcement career.
While the study reveals important strengths shared by the British, French, Canadian and Australian models, it also recognizes several shortfalls that can be used to inform the American experience.
The RAND study says domestic intelligence agencies in he United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia share these three problems:
Occasionally overstepping democratic boundaries and individual rights in pursuit of surveillance and national security efforts.
Frequently failing to disseminate -- and sometimes refusing to share -- terrorism threat information with police, customs, immigration, Coast Guard, transportation, and other law enforcement bureaus and officials that have a role in counterterrorism.
Sometimes ignoring operational jurisdictions when conducting joint counterterrorist missions with the police.
The report notes that while significant cultural, political and historical differences exist between the United States and the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia, all of these countries share important defining characteristics: liberal democratic traditions; a common desire to stem threats to national security and stability; and a recognition that counter-terrorism efforts should be balanced with the protection of civil rights.
RAND carried out the study with independent research and development funds provided by the Department of Defense.
A printed copy of " Confronting "the Enemy Within": Security Intelligence, the Police, and Counterterrorism in Four Democracies" (ISBN: 0-8330-3513-4) can be ordered from RAND's Distribution Services (order@rand.org or call toll-free in the United States 1-877-584-8642).
##
About the RAND Corporation
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.