Thursday, February 27, 2003

- Zƒlƒbƒg?V’…?î•ñ [24.Feb.2003]

-----------------------------
‚²‚ ‚¢‚³‚Â?F

‚à‚Ì‚·‚²‚¢•s’èŠú‚Å‚·‚ª?AƒT?[ƒo‚ðˆÚ“®‚µ‚½‚¤‚¦‚É?Aƒtƒ@ƒCƒ‹‚ð
‚½‚‚³‚ñ’Ç‰�?‚µ‚½‚Ì‚Å?A‘?‚¢‚¤‚¿‚É 005?†‚ð?o‚µ‚Ä‚¨‚«‚Ü‚·?B

?VƒT?[ƒo‚ÌƒAƒhƒŒƒX‚�??AZƒlƒbƒg‚ª http://rootless.org/z
ƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[ƒA?[ƒJƒCƒ�?‚ª http://rootless.org/chomsky
‚Æ‚È‚è‚Ü‚·?B?¡Œã‚Æ‚à‹X‚µ‚‚¨Šè‚¢‚µ‚Ü‚·?B

-----------------------------
?V’…?E?X?V?î•ñ?F

Zƒlƒbƒg?•ƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[?EƒA?[ƒJƒCƒ�?“ú–{Œê�?Å‚Ì?V’…?î•ñ

----
ƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[ [ƒCƒ‰ƒN‚Æƒgƒ‹ƒR]
http://rootless.org/chomsky/#kurd

ƒCƒ“ƒ^ƒrƒ…?[?FƒCƒ‰ƒN?UŒ‚‚É‚Â‚¢‚Ä, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 23.Feb.2003 NEW!
ƒAƒ?ƒŠƒJƒ“?EƒAƒJƒfƒ~ƒbƒN‚ª�?á�?»‚·‚é?A•Ä?‘‚ÌƒCƒ‰ƒN??ô, Ž›“‡—²‹g?{‹L?†Œ¤, 23.Feb.2001
“American Academic Criticizes US Policy on Iraq”, monkeyfist.com,14.Feb.2003

* ‚Ù‚Ú“¯Žž‚É“ñŽí—Þ‚Ì–|–ó‚ª“�?‚«‚Ü‚µ‚½?B‰v‰ª‚³‚ñ‚ªƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒg
‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚é‚æ‚¤‚É?A“ú–{?l‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‚�??A?u1933�?N2ŒŽ24“ú‚É?‘?Û˜A–¿
‚ð’E‘Þ‚µ?A?‘?Û˜A–¿‚Ì‹c?ê‚ð‚³‚é?¼‰ª‘SŒ ‘åŽg?v‚ðŽv‚¢?o‚µ‚Ü‚·?B

ƒCƒ‰ƒN?UŒ‚‚ð‚ß‚®‚é“¢˜_, Ž›“‡—²‹g?{‹L?†Œ¤, 21.Feb.2003 NEW!
“The Iraq Debate”, OxfordStudent, 13.Feb.2003

* •Ä?‘‚�??¢ŠE‚ð‚Ç‚±‚É“±‚‚©?A‰ä?X‚�??í‘ˆ‚�?‘jŽ~‚Å‚«‚é‚©

----
ƒCƒ‰ƒN?UŒ‚?FƒpƒEƒGƒ‹‚Ì?u?Ø‹’?v
http://rootless.org/z/#powell

?í‘ˆ‚Å‚�?‚È‚, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 18.Feb.2003 NEW!
“ Instead of War “, Justin Podur, 16.Feb.2003

* ?ÂŽR’åˆê‚³‚ñ‚É‚æ‚é?u?³“–?«‚È‚«•Ä?‘‚ÌƒCƒ‰ƒN?UŒ‚?v‚àŽQ?l‚É
http://www.01.246.ne.jp/~aoyama/newyearcolum1.html

--
?uƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒrƒA?vƒR?[ƒi?[?V?�?
http://rootless.org/z/#columbia

* ‰v‰ª‚³‚ñ‚Ì?uƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒrƒA“�??W?v‚©‚ç Zƒlƒbƒg‚Ì‹LŽ–‚ð?®—?‚µ‚Ü‚µ‚½?B
http://www.jca.apc.org/~kmasuoka/places/colombia.html

ƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒrƒA“ü–å‚p?•‚`, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 06.May.2002
“Colombia Primer” Q & A on the conflict and US Role, Doug Stokes, 16.Apr.2002

ƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒrƒA‚Ì?€ŒR‘g?D?FŒ˜ŒÅ‚Èƒeƒ??Eƒlƒbƒgƒ??[ƒN‚Ì?Ñ‘œ, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 12.May.2002
“ Colombia’s Paramilitary” Profile of an Entrenched Terror Network, Adam Weiss, 22.Apr.2002

ƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒrƒA‚ÉŠÖ‚·‚é•Ä?‘‚Ì�?FŽ¯‘€?ì‚Æ?u‘Îƒeƒ??í‘ˆ?v, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 12.Aug.2002
“ Perception Management and the US Terror War in Colombia “, Doug Stokes, 07.Jun.2002

ƒRƒ?ƒ“ƒrƒA‚ÌƒoƒCƒI?Eƒeƒ??FƒAƒ“ƒfƒX’nˆæ‚Ö‚ÌƒG?[ƒWƒFƒ“ƒg?EƒOƒŠ?[ƒ“, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 18.Jan.2003
“Drug War According to Mengele” Agent Green over the Andes, Jeffrey St.Clair, 31.Dec.2002

ƒpƒ„?F‚S–¼‚ªŽE‚³‚ê‚é, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 28.Jan.2003
“ Fear And Pain In Paya, Attack Leaves Four Dead” Indigenous Leaders Assasinated, Jose Otero, 23.Jan.2003

ƒ‚?[ƒjƒ“ƒO?EƒR?[ƒ‹, ‰v‰ªŒ«, 23.Feb.2003
“Wakeup Call”, Andy Higginbottom, 10.Feb.2003

-----------------------------
?‘?�?ˆÄ“à?F

--
ƒfƒCƒ�?ƒBƒbƒh?Eƒo?[ƒTƒ~ƒAƒ“ ƒCƒ“ƒ^ƒrƒ…?[, ‘å‹´—mˆê ‘¼–ó
?w’é?‘‚Æ‚Ì‘ÎŒˆ ƒCƒNƒo?[ƒ‹?EƒAƒtƒ}ƒh�?Œ¾?W?x(‘¾“c?o�?Å)
http://www.bk1.co.jp/cgi-bin/srch/srch_detail.cgi/?aid=p-akubi0034&bibid=02277438&volno=0000

* ƒCƒNƒo?[ƒ‹?EƒAƒtƒ}ƒh‚É‚Â‚¢‚Ä‚�??Aƒyƒ‹ƒ�?ƒFƒY?Eƒt?[ƒhƒ{?[ƒC‚É‚æ‚é
’Ç“‰•¶‚ª?Aƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[‚âƒTƒC?[ƒh‚ç‚Æ‚ÌŒð—FŠÖŒW‚ð’m‚é?ã‚Å‚½‚¢‚Ö‚ñ
ŽQ?l‚É‚È‚è‚Ü‚·?B“c?è?°–¾‚³‚ñ‚É‚æ‚é–|–ó‚ð?A‚Ç‚¤‚¼?F
http://www.gakushuin.ac.jp/~881791/hoodbhoy/index-j.html#Eqbal

--
ƒm?[ƒ€?Eƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[’˜ Šp“cŽj?K?E“c’†?l –ó
?w?V?¢‘ã‚�?ˆê?ü‚ð‰æ‚·?x(‚±‚Ô‚µ?‘–[)
http://www.kobushi-shobo.co.jp/foramu/foramu.htm#kf7
http://www.bk1.co.jp/cgi-bin/srch/srch_detail.cgi/?aid=p-akubi0034&bibid=02280765&volno=0000

* –|–ó‚ª‘±?X‚Æ?o�?Å‚³‚ê‚Ä‚¢‚é‚»‚¤‚Å‚·‚ª?A‚»‚Ì‚È‚©‚©‚ç‚±‚Ìˆê?û‚ð?B
ƒ†?[ƒS‹ó�?š‚Ì‚±‚Æ‚ðŽv‚¢?o‚µ‚Ü‚µ‚å‚¤?BƒuƒbƒVƒ…(•ƒ)‚ª“–ŽžŒ–“`‚µ‚½
?u?V?¢ŠE’??˜?v‚ª‚È‚ñ‚¾‚�?‚½‚Ì‚©‰ü‚ß‚Ä?l‚¦’¼‚µ‚Ä‚�?‚Ü‚µ‚å‚¤?B

[?‘?Û?î?¨] ‚É‚à?A“–Žž‚Ìƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[‚Ì?lŽ@‚ª‚ ‚è‚Ü‚·?B
http://rootless.org/chomsky/#foreign

Œ»‰º‚Ì�?šŒ‚ ƒŒƒgƒŠƒbƒN‚Ì�?wŒã‚É?ö‚Þ‚à‚Ì, Ž›“‡—²‹g
ƒ†?[ƒS‹ó�?š‚É‚Â‚¢‚Ä, ‹g?ì—Eˆê
“The Current Bombings: Behind the Rhetoric”, ZNet, --.Mar.1999

-----------------------------
‚ ‚Æ‚ª‚«?F

ƒ}ƒhƒ‰?o�?Å‚ÌŒŽŠ§Ž??w?L??�?á•]?x‚Å?u�?ñWAR?v‚Æ‘è‚µ‚½“�??W‚ª‘g‚Ü‚ê‚é
‚»‚¤‚Å‚·?Bƒ`ƒ‡ƒ€ƒXƒL?[‚Ì‚±‚Æ‚à?�?‰î‚·‚é‚Æ‚Ì‚±‚Æ?BŠy‚µ‚�?‚É‚Ç‚¤‚¼?B

Printable Version

-IndyMedia Links

IndyMedia

The Independent Media Center is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media’s distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity.

History
The Independent Media Center (http://www.indymedia.org), was established by various independent and alternative media organizations and activists in 1999 for the purpose of providing grassroots coverage of the World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle. The center acted as a clearinghouse of information for journalists, and provided up-to-the-minute reports, photos, audio and video footage through its website. Using the collected footage, the Seattle Independent Media Center (seattle.indymedia.org) produced a series of five documentaries, uplinked every day to satellite and distributed throughout the United States to public access stations.

The center also produced its own newspaper, distributed throughout Seattle and to other cities via the internet, as well as hundreds of audio segments, transmitted through the web and Studio X, a 24-hour micro and internet radio station based in Seattle. The site, which uses a democratic open-publishing system, logged more than 2 million hits, and was featured on America Online, Yahoo, CNN, BBC Online, and numerous other sites. Through a decentralized and autonomous network, hundreds of media activists setup independent media centers in London, Canada, Mexico City, Prague, Belgium, France, and Italy over the next year. IMCs have since been established on every continent, with more to come.

Japan is coming soon.

http://www.indymedia.org

Pacific
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
sydney

http://www.indymedia.org

Africa
ambazonia
nigeria
south africa

http://www.indymedia.org

Europe
athens
austria
barcelona
belgium
bristol
cyprus
euskal herria
finland
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
lille
madrid
netherlands
nice
norway
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

http://www.indymedia.org

Canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

http://www.indymedia.org

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
qollasuyu
rosario
tijuana
uruguay

http://www.indymedia.org

South Asia
india
mumbai

West Asia
israel
palestine

United States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
central florida
chicago
cleveland
danbury, ct
dc
eugene
hawaii
houston
idaho
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rocky mountain
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

http://www.indymedia.org

Japan is coming soon!

IndyMedia allies include:

http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcAllies

There is a new imc allies site in development. Hopefully this new site will allow much more extensive links to indymedia allies as we’ve grown a lot since this list was put together for the WTO protests in Seattle.

Free Speech TV (FSTV) delivers hard hitting, independent, and informative programming via cable tv to seven million homes every week. They have been broadcasting for the last 5 years and now, thanks to a recent FCC ruling, may soon be on air 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This would be the nation’s first full-time television network dedicated to progressive social change. FSTV also hosts the 1st and only audio/video webcasting site created entirely by its members. Free Speech TV reaches 200,000 visitors each day. FSTV has offered site hosting of the media center’s daily audio/video content, distribution through their cable network of a 1 hour video program produced at the Independent Media Center of the popular protest and to the WTO on their front page, reaching 6,000 to 8,000 viewers each day. They are also providing technical and organizational support for the center.
Contact: Eric Galatas
Phone: (303)442-8445
E-mail:

Protest.Net Global activist calendar site. Protest.net maintains the upcoming actions on the global indymedia site.

Contact: Rabble-Rouser
E-mail:

Paper Tiger TV is a half-hour public access tv show that has aired weekly since 1981 in Manhattan, San Francisco, and elsewhere. PTTV demystifies the information industry by investigating the corporate structures of media through critical analysis of their content. The project consists of over 100 producers, artists, and activists who work collaboratively. Paper Tiger has offered the media center help with distribution of video via the internet and cable tv, and technical and organizational advice and support. Several producers from PPTV plan to travel to Seattle to assist hands-on in the media center’s daily functioning.

Contact: Michael Eisenmenger
Phone: (212)420-9045
E-mail:

Deep Dish TV is a national satellite network that links cable access producers and programmers, independent video makers, activists, and people who support the idea and reality of a progressive television network. DDTV distributes creative programming that educates and activates, providing an alternative to the commercial networks’ presentation of a homogeneous and one-dimensional society. Deep Dish TV is programmed on more than 300 cable systems and selected public stations, and reaches more than 3 million home satellite owners in North America. Deep Dish has expressed great interest in satellite distribution of video content generated by the media center, as well as, video links to the center’s web site.

Contact: Tom Poole
Phone: (212)473-8933
E-mail:

Whispered Media Founded in 1995, Whispered Media is a San Francisco based group of video activists promoting the use of video to support campaigns of evironmental and social justice. They collaborated with the Indymedia efforts in Seattle and helped to produce “Showdown in Seattle: Five Days that Shook the WTO.” Their recent production, “Shut ‘Em Down,” is a 9 minute edit used to get people to DC for A16. They will collaborate with the other video producer groups to make, “Breaking the Bank,” the new satellite cast (on April 21) about the World Bank and the IMF.
Contact: (415) 789-8484
E-mail:

Changing America Changing America is based in New York and has affiliated video producers in San Francisco. They were very instrumental to the production of Showdown in Seattle - providing much needed behind the scenes technical support as well as producing many segments on the labor presence in Seattle. “Breaking the Bank” the new one-hour piece will largely be produced in their studios.
Contact: (212) 924-9046
Email: email for Changing America

Radio For Peace International (RFPI) is a shortwave radio station which began broadcasting its’ round-the-clock progressive, bilingual programming in September, 1987. The goal of Radio For Peace International is to address the world community in order to encourage and stimulate dialogue on issues related to peace, including peace education, environmental issues, the elimination of world hunger and the establishment of social justice. Using shortwave radio RFPI’s broadcasts are receivable worldwide in addition to their fully archived web-site featuring RealAudio? files. RFPI’s studios and transmitters are located on the campus of the University for Peace (created by the United Nations) in Costa Rica. RFPI is a joint project of Earth Communications with offices in Oregon, USA and the University for Peace. RFPI will feature audio content from the media center on their daily Progressive News Network, and also broadcast a daily audio journal produced in Seattle and streamed over the net.
Phone: +503-252-3639 or +506-249-1821
E-mail:

World Trade Watch Radio (WTW Radio), co-hosted by Norman Solomon and Julie Light, will air daily from Seattle during the upcoming WTO ministerial Nov 29-Dec 3, 1999. This one-hour program will analyze the official proceedings and air the voices of international organizers and activists who will converge on the WTO meetings in Seattle. The program will be uplinked to the National Public Radio satellite for radio broadcast, and will be offered free as a downloadable program on the web in MPEG format, and also on the internet in RealAudio? form. WTW Radio will incorporate content generated by Independent reporters working out of the IMC, and will work with our international distribution network to link their files directly to the web sites of media projects around the world. WTW Radio is co-produced by the National Radio Project, Corporate Watch, and The Institute for Public Accuracy.

Public Citizen Founded by Ralph Nader in 1971, Public Citizen is the consumer’s eyes and ears in Washington. With the support of more than 150,000 people they fight for safer drugs and medical devices, cleaner and safer energy sources, a cleaner environment, fair trade, and a more open and democratic government. We stand up for you against thousands of special interest lobbyists in Washington—well-heeled agents for drug companies, the automakers, big energy interests, and the like. Public Citizen is includes the groups Congress Watch, The Health Research Group, The Litigation Group, The Critical Mass Energy Project, Global Trade Watch and Buyers Up.
Phone: (202)588-1000
E-mail:

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) is the national media watch group that offers well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship. They seek to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press. They scrutinize media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. FAIR was established in 1986 to shake up the establishment-dominated media. As an anti-censorship organization, they expose important news stories that are neglected and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. Ultimately, FAIR believes that structural reform is needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting, and promote strong, non-profit alternative sources of information.
Contact: Jeff Cohen
Phone: (212)633-6700
E-mail:

Adbusters is a global network of artists, writers, and students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to launch the new social activist movement of the information age. Their goal is to galvanize resistance against those who would destroy the environment, pollute our minds and diminish our lives. To this end, the Adbusters Media Foundation publishes Adbusters magazine and website; and offers its creative services through PowerShift?, their advocacy advertising agency. Published out of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Adbusters is a not-for-profit, reader-supported, 40,000-circulation magazine concerned about the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces. Our work has been embraced by organizations like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, has been featured on MTV and PBS, in the Wall Street Journal and Wired, and in hundreds of other newspapers, magazines, and television and radio shows around the world.
Phone: (604)736-9401
E-mail:

The Ruckus Society. Since forming Ruckus in October of 1995, Ruckus has trained and assisted hundreds of activists in the use of non-violent civil disobedience. We either bring activists to us or we go to them. Our showcase venue is the Action Camp. Through these trainings, they help people learn the skills they need to practice civil disobedience safely and effectively. These trainings contain cerebral elements as well as physical, like classroom-style instruction for action planning, communicating with the media and non-violent philosophy and practice. Safety and non-violence are integral themes of each subject taught. Ruckus condemns and does not train activists in any technique that will destroy property or harm any being.
Phone: (510)848-9565

The Direct Action Media Network (DAMN) is a multi-media news service that covers direct actions that progressive organizations and individuals take to attain a peaceful, open and enlightened society. DAMN places its coverage of social justice actions into both historical and contemporary context so that any audience will find the events and issues covered accessible. DAMN produces the Worldwatch International news section for the progressive magazine Lip based out of Chicago and other alternative publications. News sources for Worldwatch include the DAMN news feed, New York Transfer News Service, A-Infos, and others. Lip magazine publishes DAMN’s Worldwatch section, and is a growing voice for independent media. DAMN has offered to host aspects of the media center’s website, provide relevant links to organizations in their network, and assist with daily coverage of actions in Seattle. DAMN accepts as an affiliate any media outlet, social justice organization, or individual reporter who agrees to provide or disburse news for the service. While DAMN provides a free space for the exchange of affiliates’ information, it also reserves the right to determine its own original content.”
Contact: Jay
Phone: (304)291-1507
E-mail:

The Direct Action Network (DAN) is a network of grassroots community and street theater groups across the western United States and Canada who are mobilizing to creatively resist the WTO and Corporate Globalization. We are organizing and coordinating mass non-violent direct action and large scale street theater-giant puppets, dance, drums, music, spoken word, and graffiti art at the WTO summit in Seattle, November 29-December 3.
Phone: (206)632-1656
E-mail:can@drizzle.com

Media Island International (MII) is a resource and networking center for individuals, organizations, and movements working on a regional, national, and international basis. MII is committed to collecting, processing, and distributing crucial information addressing the social justice, economic democracy, ecological sustainability and peace issues that we all collectively face. MII dedicates its attention to developing associations with alternative media and first-hand sources of information nationally and internationally. Since 1991 Media Island has been a fiscal sponsor helping stabilize various emerging social change groups. Media Island has offered the Independent Media Center its organizational support and advice, linking with their networks and databases, help with fundraising, and fiscal sponsorship to attract donors interested in tax-free donations.
Contact: Jimmy Mateson
Phone: (360)352-8526
E-mail:

More Supporters And Allies

http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcAllies

A-Infos News Service
A-Infos Radio Project
Asian Pacific Environmental Exchange (APEX)
Corporate Watch
Counter Media (Chicago)
Free Radio Berkeley
Grand Rapids TV
Homeless News Network
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
Institute for Public Accuracy
Inter Press Service
Jam For Justice
KO-OP Radio Austin, TX
LA Media Coalition
Labor Beat
National Radio Project
NY Free Media Alliance
One World
Pacific Center for Alternative Journalists
Paper Tiger West
Peoples Global Action (PGA)
Seattle Independent Media Coalition
South End Press
Tao Communications
Undercurrents (UK)
Videoazimut
Whispered Media (SF)
World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)
Znet

http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcAllies

MORE INDEPENDENT MEDIA HERE:
(many, many links)

http://medialens.org/

Printable Version

-ZNet In Many Languages

Portions of ZNet are available in many languages, made by volunteers.

These include: Norwegian / Bulgarian / Swedish / Spanish /
French / German / Italian / Turkish/Kurdish / Japanese / Czech/Slovak

All are here:

http://www.zmag.org/znetmultilang.htm

Printable Version

-ZNet Main Page Offerings

Areas

http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

Each a major source in itself…
Activism
Afghanistan
Africa
Alt. Media
Anarchy
Argentina
Asia
Balkans
Bolivia
Books
Brazil
Chiapas
Colombia
Disability Rts
Economy
Foreign Policy
Gender
Global Economy
Global
Info Tech
Iraq
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Labor
Latin America
Life After Capitalism
Media
Mideast
Mumia
Native Watch
Queer Watch
Race
Repression
South Asia
Strategy/Vision
Terror/War
Third Party
Venezuela
Youth

http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

Resources
9/11
AIDs
Animal Rights
Arms Trade
Alt Media
Biodiversity
Biotechnology
Children
Ecology
Enron
Feminism
Genetic Food
Human Rights
International
Intl Law
Kosovo
Government
Labor
Literature
Multiculturalism
Pacifica
ParEcon
Pol Econ
Poverty/Debt
Puerto Rico
Reading Lists
Science
Sexuality
Trade
Web Watch

http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

More ZNet Features
Interviews
Instructionals
News
Web Links
Audio
Learn
Reading Lists
Research
ZNN
ZNet Polls

Indy Media
IndyGlobal

http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

Printable Version

-Iraq on ZNet

Featured Articles
If you are trying to prepare yourself to deal with discussing and organizing about the war on Iraq, these pieces are particularly relevant, in our view.

Roy: Confronting Empire
Speech given at the World Social Forum
Chomsky: Confronting The Empire
Speech Given At World Social Forum.
MADRE: Talking With Friends And Family
A series of talking points on opposing War.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

Featured Resources
Here are some excellent flyers and posters you can download to handout to friends, family, strangers, whoever it takes.

None Of The Hi-jackers Was Iraqi
Excellent PDF dispelling myths of Iraqi involvement in 9/11
MERIP Backgrounder (PDF)
Extensive history of Iraq and the conflicts surrounding it.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

Most Recent

Burchill: Governments versus Peoples February 26
Coelho: It’s under Bush’s bed! February 26
Rai: Lunatic Timetable February 25
Fisk: Censored February 25
Navarro: Aznar: Bush’s Best Friend in Continental Europe February 25
Mackay : Iraq’s Arms February 25
Monbiot: Out Of The Wreckage February 25
Z: Anti War Speech February 25
Abunimah: War Makes No Sense February 25
Parrish: Shock And Yawn February 24
Rai: Uphill Struggle February 24
Pieterse : London Calling February 24
Pilger: A People Betrayed February 23
Olman: Why War With Iraq? Why Now? February 23
Tomchick: What If Turkey Agrees? February 23
Shalom: Warmongers’ Last Hope February 22
Bacon: Global Labor Rejects War February 21
Azulay: Mobilize For The Next Phase February 21
Street: Who is February 20
Mahdi: Iraqis will Not Be Pawns February 20
Oliveri : This Is Only The Beginning February 20
Scahill: UN Plans For Post Saddam Iraq February 20
Klare: Scheduling War February 19
Boyer : Duct (Tape) and Cover February 19
Starhawk: What Happened in New York February 19
Kagarlitsky : Russia and the War February 19
Fisk: Arab Response to War… February 19
Street : Anti-Empire February 19
Edwards: Blair’s Betrayal: Part 3 February 19
Herman: War-makers, Bribees, And Poodles Versus Democracy February 18

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

News & Analysis
Courtesy Of Electronic Iraq

A triple alliance puts case for delay
25 February 2003

Two plans presented to Security Council for next steps in disarming Iraq
24 February 2003

U.S. on Diplomatic Warpath: Rebuff on Iraq could reduce aid
24 February 2003

Allies hushed up weapons’ destruction
24 February 2003

The Coming War With Iraq: Deciphering the Bush Administration’s Motives
20 February 2003

Iraq Diaries
Courtesy Of Electornic Iraq

Photo Essay: War in the Classroom
25 February 2003

Living Against Disaster
24 February 2003

A Tight Squeeze
24 February 2003

Letter From Iraq: UN Secretly Plans for a Post-Saddam Iraq
19 February 2003

Until There is Peace
13 February 2003

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/IraqCrisis.htm

Printable Version

-Watching Mainstream Media

Some of the recent articles from ZNet on the media:

http://www.zmag.org/watching_mainstream_media.htm

Fisk: Censored February 25
Sargent: Press the Press February 24
Potter: Watchdogs, Lapdogs, And Sleeping Dogs February 24
Parrish: Shock And Yawn February 24
Sargent: Press The Press February 21
Street: Broadcast Priorities February 19
Edwards: Blair’s Betrayal: Part 3 February 19
Herman: War-makers, Bribees, And Poodles Versus Democracy February 18
Solomon: Playing The February 13
Edwards: Blair’s Betrayal: Part 2 February 11

Also at http://www.zmag.org/watching_mainstream_media.htm
are these:

Norman Solomon
Spinning Media Gears 9/26/02
Wag The Puppy 8/23/02
Fending Off The Threat Of Peace 8/8/02
“ A Lot Of What’s Wrong Isn’t Illegal” 8/03/02
War And Forgetfulness 8/01/02
Will This Be An “Official Scandal” Or Something More? July 24
Solomon: Nuclear Weapons and Media Fog July 23
Solomon: A Creeping Indifference June 24
Solomon: New Media Heights March 11
P.U Litzer Prizes 2001
War Public Relations
Media Spin
TV Coverage
Solomon: Media Scrutiny of White Bloc
Killing Civilians
Journalists Report
Masters of War
Vengeance?
The Pentagon Papers
Executing McVeigh
Media Beat
Media Big Six
Diverse Essays

Media Lens (Edwards/Cromwell)
Hide The Looking Glass 9/26
Power, Fear And Politics9/19/02
Media Strokes Fires Of War 9/18/02
Iraq And Nuclear Weapons 9/05/02
“Just One Of Those Things” 9/04/02
Conspiracy Free Conformity8/16/02
Mother Of All Ironies pt.1 / pt 2 6/24
Fool the World May 10
A Tale Of Two Massacres May 2
BBC, Iraq, and cancer April 13
Media Lens debate ContinuedMarch 26
Debate continued March 20
Cohen Reply March 15
Nick Cohen on Iraq March 13
Debate over Iraq March 11
Media Machinations
Cluster Bombs
Media Alert BBC News responds re Iraq
Climate Of Silence

Edward Herman
Hitchens And The Uses Of Demagoguery9/22/02
Herman: News Not Fit To Print 8/23/02
Propaganda System#1
Profiles in Cowardice
Key Words In The New World Order
The NATO- Media Lie Machine
How The NY Times protects Indonesian Terrorists in East Timor
The Illiberal Media
Transparency
All The Book Reviews Fit To Print
All The Book Reviews Fit To Print II
All The News Fit to Print
All The News Fit to Print II
Word Tricks And ropaganda
Pol Pot’s Death in the Propaganda System
Vietnam War and Myth of Liberal Media Part III

Noam Chomsky
What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream
Liberating the Mind
The Propaganda System

FAIR
Coverage At NY Times
Media Malevolence
NY Times should Tell Full Story
Victory?
Euphemisms for Israeli Settlements

All at:

http://www.zmag.org/watching_mainstream_media.htm

Printable Version

-Japan and Asia: Introducing JAPAN FOCUS

Japan Focus introduces writings about Japan and Japan in the world, primarily by Japanese authors. The emphasis is on issues of war/peace/terror, and on social conflicts and social movements.

They are found on this ZNet page:

http://www.zmag.org/asiawatch/asiawatch.htm

-The 2002 Defense Ministry White Paper: Full speed ahead to the national warfare state

by Hisao Maeda

Former Defense Ministry analyst Maeda Hisao warns of the emergence of a national warfare state and the further decimation of the provisions of Japan’s peace constitution. He targets for criticism two Koizumi administration documents: The Defense White Paper of summer 2002 and the War Contingency Bills currently tabled for debate in the legislature. Maeda critiques the transformation of Japan’s “self-defense” policy into one of aggressive “pre-emptive defense” as its defense perimeter is extended far beyond the Japanese islands. In contrast to the careful legislative analysis of Maeda Tetsuo (also available at Japan Focus), this manifesto by a former military establishment insider offers a blunt criticism of Japanese leaders. While warning of the consequences of an aggressive Japanese defense posture, the author, like a number of other SDF insiders, is equally critical of the consequences of the usurpation of the autonomy of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces, that is, its subordination to American global military designs. From Gunshuku (Disarmament) in November, 2002.

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

The second Defense White Paper (hereafter WP) of the Koizumi administration was announced at a cabinet meeting on 1 August. Originally scheduled for early July its appearance coincided with the end of the legislative term as the three bills known together as the “War Contingency Bills” were introduced; the debate has been postponed to a later session. This year’s WP is in five parts with a budget, bibliography, and glossary. The chapters are as follows: 1) The International Military Situation 2) Our Country’s Self-Defense Policy 3) National Sudden Response and Facilities of the US-Japan Alliance 4) Disaster Response and Contributions to a More Stable Environment and 5) The Populace and Self-Defense.

I. 9.11 and the War Against Terrorism

9.11 In Context This year’s WP begins with last year’s terrorist attack on the US. It describes the attack as an “unforgivable act of terrorism” and “a challenge to the democracy, peace, and freedom of the international community, including our country.” However, this statement is somewhat questionable since the attack clearly targeted the US, and the WP does not attempt to explain the rather vague concept of “international community” nor even question why the US might have been the target. The terminology simply mimics US policy statements, the logical conclusion being that any US military campaign is a “just war.”

A Makeover of the US Afghan Campaign The WP blindly gilds the attack on Afghanistan as “led by cutting-edge military technology.” The effectiveness of cruelly destructive weaponry such as “cluster bombs” and “daisy cutters” are highlighted in special descriptive columns, and the US military is further elevated for its “specially guided weapons that minimize civilian casualties,” although all told the civilian casualties may outnumber those who died in the 9.11 attacks. Furthermore the first paragraph of the WP proudly puffs that Japan’s own anti-terrorism legislation, applauded by Washington for allowing the dispatch of re-fueling ships [Translator’s note: and currently the Aegis radar ship] to the Indian Ocean “was supported by the majority of the citizenry as a fulfillment of international responsibility.” It is anathema to criticize the conflict as a US “dirty war.”

II. The Military in the Asia Pacific Region

Unclear and Unresolved 9.11 notwithstanding, analysis in the present WP of regional affairs shows little change from last year’s report, which is to say that the end of the Cold War has brought no change in security arrangements with large-scale military forces including nuclear armed contingents, remaining the order of the day. In addition, economic growth has led to increased defense expenditures and modernization of the military. Other countries in the region have given China special consideration as an economic and political super-power. The showdown between North and South Korea continues unabated despite the meeting between Secretary Kim Jong Il and President Kim Dae Jung, and closer to home Japan’s competing claims with Russia over the islands north of Hokkaidô, Takejima/Dok-do islands with South Korea, and the Spratly Islands with China remain unresolved. In short, the region is anything but stable and there is a pressing need for peaceful resolution. In the worst-case scenario, full-scale war on the Korean peninsula remains a possibility.

Given this situation, the WP asserts, “The allied and friendly relations between Japan and the US are the basis for US military presence in the region that provides safety and stability.” This statement is made without touching on the fact that since 9.11 the US has branded Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil” and maintains a posture that does not preclude pre-emptive strikes, opening the possibility for Japan to be drawn into a US-led conflict.

North Korea According to the WP, North Korea, in addition to developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction and guided missiles, maintains a 100,000-strong special-forces contingent active in all forms of activity from espionage and sabotage to guerilla warfare. Therefore, “DPRK action raises the level of military tension on the peninsula and is also the main agent of instability in the entire East Asian region.” “The DPRK continues R&D on long-range missiles,” the WP continues, and the Nodong, with a range of 1300 km capable of reaching Japanese territory, has already been perfected. There are also orders to deploy Taepodong #2 with a range of 3500-6000 km, greater than the 1500 km Taepodong #1 which over-flew northern Japan three years ago. A two-stage Taepodong #2 could reach Alaska and an improved three-stage version could also possibly reach the US mainland, the WP states ominously.

The Russian Far East “Since its peak period the number of Russian forces has been reduced substantially,” with a scaling back of funding, training exercises, and the number of ground troops “limited to a special-response unit”. The WP attributes these changes to the disarray and contraction of the Russian economy, a relaxation of military tension with the US, the reduced necessity of showing military strength in the Far East, and an easing of tensions with China. It concludes, “In the foreseeable future there is little possibility of the Russian Army returning to the posture of the Cold War Soviet era,” but all the while contends, “There is still reason for caution.” With ground troop deployments reduced from roughly 400,000 to 110,000, available naval detachments of 1,500,000 tons to 800,000 tons, and the air force reduced to one-third its former strength (2,000 to 680 aircraft), the WP sees the present Far Eastern Russian Army drastically reduced in strength compared with just ten years previous.

III. “The China Threat” Theory

Increased Defense Spending The WP suggests that Chinese defense spending has increased 10% a year in the 14 years since 1989 and this fiscal year shows a large 17.6% jump, but the budget figures made public by Beijing are only a small part of total expenditures for the armed forces. Additionally, the fiscal review reported in the National People’s Congress notes increased expenditures for “modern technology, especially to strengthen high-tech defense capability.”

Comparisons With Other Countries The WP provides statistics compiled by the UK International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled “Changes in Defense Spending”. China’s expenditure was $41.2 billion, in fact 8% less than Japan’s $44.4 billion. Japan ranked third behind the US ($294.7 billion) and Russia ($58.8 billion). China was fourth, ahead of France ($34.3 billion), the UK ($33.9 billion), and Germany ($28.2 billion).
Fear of the Modernization of the Chinese Military Concerning China’s nuclear capability, in addition to the estimated 20 ICBMs concerning which last year’s WP asserted “the whole of Asia including Japan falls within their range”, are the medium-range missiles. Last year’s figure of 100, disputed by China, has been updated to 130-150, plus an entry for the first time of 335 short-range missiles, suggesting a buildup in the Taiwan straits. The WP offers the following analysis concerning land, sea, and air power. Since 1985 with an eye on modernization there have been attempts to reduce manpower and to heighten the effectiveness of various systems, reorganize the infantry by uniting various units, and attempts to create quick-response special forces with great mobility. The navy has been transformed from a force to protect coastal areas to one that can protect coastal waters from long distance. In air power there has been concerted progress in the licensed production of Russian fighter planes, acquisition of in-flight re-fueling systems, an early-warning system, and guided missile system development.

Summarizing, the WP issues the following warning: Modernization of China’s armed forces extends beyond defense. It portends a wider scale of action and bears close watch in the future. To my mind, however, this conclusion alludes to the sort of military view of the world that Japan has supposedly foresworn with its disavowal of war as an instrument of foreign policy.

IV. The Imperial Army Mentality of the Current Defense Ministry

Fantasies of victimhood in the name of peace and security Thus the WP offers the following conclusion: “To self-reliantly maintain our country’s peace and independence in the present international milieu necessitates a defensive posture that assures response to all varieties of military action from nuclear devices to threats of invasion.” However, in addition to being economically unfeasible, building such an infrastructure is not an appropriate political stance for Japan. I would emphasize that such statements must include the following: “A posture is required that meets our legitimate defense needs, one that is functional in light of the bilateral relationship with the US which possesses a huge military force and with whom we have deep economic ties, one that maintains our concerns for peace and stability in the region, and is grounded in democratic values that respect human rights and freedoms.”

Viewing a world at war The WP, evoking images of “survival of the fittest,” asserts that, given the opportunity, “evil invaders” are “prepared to pounce at any time.” If this is the world view of the defense establishment, Japan would necessarily have to become a heavily armed and fortified country. “The last line of a country’s stability is its defensive capability, and nothing else can take over this function”; “defense capability” should be read as “military power.” One would think that the lesson learned from defeat in the last war is that a country that becomes lost in it’s own prioritization of military power can only bring harm to its citizenry.

Japan and the US as different countries To go on about how Japan and the US “have the same values” smacks of fantasy. While both spout similar phrases of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” they pursue these ideals in entirely different ways. What characterizes the US approach is the view that these ideals, under the auspices of American power, are fundamentally for the greater good and must be pressed upon other countries. Japan has, on the basis of its constitution, renounced war and armed conflict and the possession of a military force. The US on the other hand, to fulfill its ambitions, boasts the most powerful military force in the world and can use nuclear weapons at a whim. It is a country that still defends the justice of the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and proclaims the Vietnam War a “just war.” Can we say that it has “the same values” as Japan? Our country will surely encounter danger if we ally too closely.

V. Toward the “Warfare State”

The US-Japan Security Pact (AMPO) as the core of the problem. The WP declares that Japan and the US “both are committed to working together to maintain the peace and stability of the Far East.” It is talk that does not appear to be borne out in current circumstances. To that end, the US has employed arms to control the region, inspiring China, the DPRK, and Russia to defend their own interests, making a kind of military diplomacy the order of the day. Entering into an alliance with such a country will mean being embroiled in possible conflagration. Japan has come to be targeted by Chinese and DPRK missiles because this country provides a foothold for the US in the region and is the whipping boy for the support it provides.

The regional situation and collective self-defense Japan continues to draw itself deeper into US global military stratagems. The so-called “New Guidelines” for “US-Japan Defense Cooperation” in 1997 dictated “military cooperation to meet situations in the region”, a change from the old 1978 agreement mandating cooperation only if Japan itself were attacked. The New Guidelines establish the parameters of Japan’s cooperation were the US to launch an attack from Japan. They provide the basis for the three pieces of legislation known as the “Regional Security Preservation Law” passed in May 1999. But “regional” remains undefined. Neither is clarification offered for “situations that strongly influence the peace and stability of the territory of our country.” And yet it is taken as a given that the SDF will support foreign armies throughout the region whereas previously self-defense justified its existence. Therefore we don’t know to what extent the “support” concept will be appplied. Although support will ostensibly be limited to “non-combat zones”, under present wartime conditions there is little differentiation between “front lines” and “rear support.” Without a doubt the real meaning of “collective self-defense” is that Japan will support US troops throughout the region beyond Japan even when the country itself is not under attack.

In a statement following the 9.11 attack, Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro stated that the government “was singularly committed to and aware that fighting terrorism is the preservation of peace for our country,” and introduced an anti-terrorism bill in October 2001 that became law that month. A provision provided the condition that Self-Defense Forces “would not enter combat areas, nor was there any fear of doing so.” Following the US lead, however, material support has been dispatched to the Indian Ocean.

VI. The Unconstitutionality of the War Contingency Bills

In April 2002 the Administration submitted three pieces of legislation to the Diet - “Emergency Legislation to Deal With Military Attacks from Abroad”, “The Self-Defense Revision Law”, and “The Security Council Revision Law” - which taken together constitute the War Contingency Bills. These laws are destined to transform Japan into a country that participates in war. Since the Constitution lays down the three great basic laws, the renunciation of war, the refusal to take part in combat, and the refusal to bear arms, the three bills are unconstitutional.

“Emergency Legislation to Deal With Military Attacks from Abroad” If they became law, new conditions would be created allowing the SDF to be deployed in a military situation; that is, not only if Japan itself were attacked, but if there existed “the fear of attack”, and even “a situation in which the conditions for an attack are seen to be likely.” However, according to the government’s explanation, “an armed attack from abroad” is not only a direct attack on Japanese territory but also an attack on SDF stationed abroad. In short, this law and the “Special Anti-Terrorism Law” passed last year would free the SDF to engage in combat when stationed abroad.

SDF Revision Clause 103 of the Self-Defense Law passed in 1954 provides wide authority to the SDF to conscript and use people, materiel, and land during mobilization “in the course of effectively and smoothly fulfilling its mission”. In reality regulations for the procurement of civilian resources during wartime have until now been so vague as to practically render the law impractical. The revision, in addition to clarifying the wording, creates special measures that would force any government office or agency to meet the demands of the SDF (see below). If it became law the freedoms, rights, and products of citizens would be transgressed by the SDF.

Related legislation Passage of the above legislation would also result in the establishment of a system to broadcast warnings and issue evacuation instructions; “Citizen Protections Laws” designed to minimize the influences on the economy and livelihood of the citizenry; detentions; use of radio waves; and regulations of sea and air transport that would ease restrictions on movement for both the SDF and US forces.

The footsteps of war are nigh War could come to Japan at any time were this legislation to pass, and the possibility will not diminish as long as US forces are stationed in Japan.

Major Points of the War Contingency Bills

I. “Emergency Legislation to Deal With Military Attacks from Abroad”

An act of armed aggression is defined as an attack from any country, the fear that such an attack may occur, or a situation in which an attack is likely to occur

“The rights and freedoms of the citizenry guaranteed by the Constitution” can be limited as necessary

The Prime Minister can order regional authorities or public organs to take appropriate actions

The public organs subject to this authority are: Bank of Japan, Japan Red Cross, NHK, and all other public organizations including electricity, gas, transport, and broadcasting

After passage within two years the following bills would also be implemented: measures for evacuation and casualty management of citizens; SDF use of radio airwave communications; provisions easing movement restrictions of the US military in Japan

II. “The Security Council Revision Law”

The Prime Minister could convene a special panel to deal with any military situation

The above panel would allow for the special attendance of cabinet officials in addition to elected Diet members

A special committee of military affairs experts would be established

III. “The Self-Defense Revision Law”

The SDF can take possession of privately-held properties

Existing structures on the property can be re-located

In the event of construction of military facilities, to assure security the use of weapons will be permitted as necessary

Anyone found to be illegally storing fuel or provisions will be liable to prison sentences not to exceed six months and/or fines not to exceed 300,000 yen

Individuals employed in the medical profession, construction or land management industries, or transport can by prefectural authority be ordered to render service

During SDF mobilization to facilitate its mission the following special measures will be enacted: 1) Infrastructure and transport to aid the movement of troops, 2) Measures pertaining to forests, docks, and land use to secure property, 3) Construction and fire prevention for the building of facilities, 4) Medicine and narcotics for health and hygiene, 5) grave sites and funeral services for the handling of the war dead.

Translation by Adam Lebowitz

Printable Version

-Japan: 51st state? (Interview with rightwing party politician)

This brief interview with a ranking Japanese politician offers surprising insight into the U.S.-Japan relationship. In it, Kyuma Fumio, acting chairman of the governing Liberal Democratic Party’s Policy Research Council, admits that the Bush regime’s arguments for invading Iraq are unconvincing. But in the same breath, he insists that Japan must at least “show understanding” because of the extent of US-Japanese economic ties and the depth of Japanese dependence on the American military. To bolster his argument, he insists that the North Korea problem cannot be solved without American help and that “Japan is helpless” without the US. He adds that “after all, Japan is like an American state,” but his description rather resembles that of an American colony. Finally, we learn that Kyuma heads an association of Diet members who are seeking better relations with Iraq.

One couldn’t ask for a better statement of the cynicism of the ruling LDP. Recent opinion polls have shown that 70 to 80 percent of Japanese citizens, like their counterparts almost everywhere else, oppose the war. But the Koizumi administration has its UN ambassador tell the world that Japan supports the use of force while in Tokyo the Prime Minister - ordinarily a very articulate man - mumbles about working with the international community to disarm Iraq. For the old boys who run Japan, it’s clear that the only “international community” that matters is inside the White House and the Pentagon.

INTERVIEW/ Kyuma Fumio: Show understanding not support for the U.S.

The Asahi Shimbun February 19, 2002

As the United States continues to seek international backing for its plans to attack Iraq, Tokyo has no choice but to show understanding, rather than support, says Fumio Kyuma, acting chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party’s Policy Research Council. To win international support, the United States needs to show more clearly how Iraq poses a serious threat, Kyuma said in a recent interview with The Asahi Shimbun. Excerpts follow:

Q: How do you view the current situation?

A: I understand why the United States has adopted a tough stance. Unless it shows aggression, Iraq will not cooperate to abolish weapons of mass destruction. Be that as it may, I think there are other things the United States should do before resorting to military action. It is understandable for Washington to call Iraq a dangerous country, but it needs to present details of the Iraqi threat more clearly. I doubt the United States has sufficient data to convince other countries.

Q: Tokyo appears willing to cooperate with the United States. What do you think about that?

A: Considering Japan-U.S. relations up to now, the government cannot flatly refuse but at the same time, it is difficult to show strong support. I think the most Japan can do is show understanding. But the United States seems to interpret Japan’s understanding as support and says so. Japan does not bother to deny this, either. I think that is the situation.

Q: What is your personal view?

A: I would say it is not appropriate to use the word “support.’ The word “understanding’ is enough.

Q: The prevalent mood within the Foreign Ministry would seem to be summed up this way: “There is no other option than to support’ the United States. What is your view?

A: Japan cannot settle the problem with North Korea without the United States. Also in terms of economic relations, Japan is inseparable from the United States. Without the United States, Japan is helpless.

Q: What conditions are necessary to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq?

A: Because Iraq did not follow a U.N. resolution, it returned to the way it was when it invaded Kuwait (during the Persian Gulf crisis) and the war continues. Logically, such an argument may be possible. But it is preposterous to say the United States can attack Iraq on the grounds a war that actually ended is still continuing. The United States also thinks that argument is unreasonable. That is why it wants a new U.N. resolution.

Q: If there is no new U.N. resolution, will Japan still show “understanding’?

A: I think it has no choice. After all, Japan is like an American state.

Q: Do you think the Japanese government has offered a sufficient explanation?

A: What else can the government say as things stand in Japan? Even I would give the same explanation if I were the prime minister. No matter what, I would never say Japan would follow the United States blindly.

Q: Would it be difficult for Japan to support U.S. forces in the event of war?

A: I think it would be difficult if the United States goes to war without a U.N. resolution.

Q: What if there is a U.N. resolution?

A: I think voices calling for Japan to do the least expected of a U.N. member would become stronger. (The United States) would probably demand financial contributions. Perhaps Japan can transport supplies or provide other forms of logistic support.

Q: Do you think it is possible to support the United States with new legislation?

A: I do not think it would actually happen. The Diet would fall into turmoil if we tried to pass such legislation.

Printable Version

-Sunshine, Containment, War: Korean Options

by Gavan McCormack

1. “Sunshine”

The recent outpourings of analysis and comment on the “Korean problem” around the world are characterized by righteous indignation and denunciation. They tend to be shaped, consciously or unconsciously, by an “imperial” frame of reference, insisting that Pyongyang submit to the will of the “international community” when what is really meant is the will of Washington. To the extent that one adopts an alternative, Korean, frame of reference, and a Seoul-centered approach, the problem begins to look different. Nobody understands North Korea better, is in the present climate more positive and encouraging about dealing with it, and has more to lose from getting it wrong, than the government and people of South Korea.

Years of “Sunshine” and multiple layers of contact and negotiation have begun to thaw the long-frozen “Demilitarized” line that divides North and South. The challenge for Seoul now is to build a buffer of protection and a bridge of communication linking Pyongyang to the world, while guaranteeing that international obligations are met and ensuring that Pyongyang’s legitimate security concerns are fulfilled; the task ahead for the new Korean government is nothing less than internationalizing “sunshine.” In the world empire currently under construction, however, “sunshine” is not only not a priority but it smacks of appeasement, and its exponents are to be restrained.

2. The Nuclear Prerogatives of Empire

The imperial realism of the emerging global system is nicely expressed by Zbigniew Brzezinski’s formula, which was evidently taken to heart by the Bush court:

“The three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”

Throughout the developing Bush imperium, vassals ingratiate their way into imperial favor, tributaries nervously weigh options to retain some measure of autonomy, and barbarians sharpen their spears. Of its vassals the empire demands sycophantic dependence; of its tributaries; obedience; of its enemies, unconditional submission. In East Asia, the wishes of the imperial regime are echoed in Tokyo (the vassal), questioned in Seoul (the tributary), and contested in Pyongyang (the barbarian). The possibility of tributary Seoul and barbarian Pyongyang actually “coming together” is a nightmare scenario, for it would not only frustrate and weaken American imperial designs on the Korean peninsula. This empire, like all empires, stands or falls not on the military force it can project but on its ability to convince vassals, tributaries and barbarians alike of its invincibility.

President Bush’s statement to Congress in September 2002 referred to only two “rogue states,” meaning quintessentially barbarian states that brutalize their own people, ignore international law, strive to acquire weapons of mass destruction, sponsor terrorism, “reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.” Iraq and North Korea both constituted “a looming threat to all nations.” War with the first is now imminent; with the second, it seems to be approaching rapidly.

In October 2002, North Korea admitted to possession of uranium enrichment centrifuge technology; in December it disconnected the International Atomic Energy Agency’s monitor cameras and then sent home the inspectors from its mothballed graphite nuclear plant, and in January it withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Though it insisted that “at present” it was merely starting-up (for energy purposes) the reactors mothballed as part of the 1994 “Agreed Framework” deal with the United States, neighboring states were understandably nervous at the prospect of unregulated plutonium production, while the enrichment technology (of which it admitted only possession) has no known use other than for the production of Hiroshima-type weapons. An “outlaw” regime, it was reported, now defied the world and threatened regional and global order.

On February 13, the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the case of North Korea to the UN Security Council. Director-general Mohammad El Baradei declared that country to be “in chronic non-compliance with its safeguards agreement since 1993.” The question now is whether North Korea will persist in rejecting the nuclear non-proliferation regime, with the Security Council moving gradually from appeal to pressure to sanctions, or whether a satisfactory formula can be found to permit its return to compliance. Sanctions, Pyongyang has insisted, would be tantamount to “a declaration of war.”

In a fateful meeting in October 2002, presidential envoy James Kelly made a series of demands of the North Koreans: that Pyongyang abandon its WMD [read: nuclear] programs, cease the development and export of missiles, refrain from threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism, and desist from “the deplorable treatment of the North Korean people.” These were the kinds of demands that only regime change could satisfy. Washington then continued to insist that North Korea signal its unconditional acceptance of such demands, especially on the nuclear issue. In January 2003, when a bold “new proposal” was unveiled by the Bush administration, it still required Pyongyang to abandon all nuclear ambitions and accepted strict and intrusive inspections. Provided it did so, assistance could be given with thermal power generation and the provision of food aid, and a guarantee could be issued of some undefined sort against US attack.

However, the offer was predicated on a North Korean climb-down, made more unlikely by the increasingly hostile rhetoric that accompanied it. With an Iraq war looming, Donald Rumsfeld reiterated America’s readiness to fight, and win, wars on two fronts, and North Korea was accused again of being a “terrorist regime” with “one or two nuclear weapons already in possession and sufficient material to construct six to eight more, and missile capacity to reach the continental United States.” In his State of the Union address for 2003, President Bush also made a point of declaring his loathing for Pyongyang as “an oppressive regime [that] rules a people living in fear and starvation,” and whose “blackmail” would not be tolerated. Long-range bombers and an aircraft carrier were alerted for deployment to the peninsula. Pyongyang responded, not to the “new proposal” but to the threats, with its own threat of possible missile or weapon tests or even a preemptive counterstrike, involving “unlimited use of means [sic].”

The underlying thrust of US policy had not changed. The core sentiment remained one of fierce antipathy, what historian Bruce Cumings has described as an “exterminist hatred” rooted in the fact that North Korea fought the US to a standstill in the 1950s and has resisted its power ever since. The Bush administration’s hatred for Kim Jong Il matches that for Saddam Hussein, and it seems that nothing short of regime change, in Pyongyang as in Baghdad, is likely to assuage it. According to New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh, a participant in White House strategy meetings offered this assessment of the mood of the moment: “Bush and Cheney want that guy’s head on a platter. Don’t be distracted by all this talk about negotiations. There will be negotiations, but they have a plan, and they are going to get this guy after Iraq. He’s their version of Hitler.” The Nautilus Institute’s Peter Hayes says: “What they really mean is this: after we force Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, we’ll focus fully on North Korea to burn another hole in the map.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is reported to be drawing up plans for a preemptive strike and, ominously, Japanese Defense Agency head, Shigeru Ishiba, recently declared that Japan, although committed by its constitution to the non-use of force in the settlement of international disputes, would launch a preemptive attack on North Korea if it thought missiles were being readied for launch against it.

Given the extreme nature of North Korea’s “Confucian-fascist” regime, Americans are scarcely aware that there might be a North Korean viewpoint on all this, nor do they acknowledge the degree to which the global hegemon puts itself above the law, reserving to itself the right to employ violence, virtually without restriction, in pursuit of its global interests, while labeling “terroristic” those who oppose it. Even as Washington demands that North Korea (and other) countries meet their various obligations, disavow any nuclear plans and substantially disarm their conventional forces, the US itself has for three decades ignored its own obligations under Article 6 of the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty to “engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament” and is therefore itself in “material breach” of the treaty.

The US has also withdrawn from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Convention on Global Warming. It signals its intent to pursue nuclear hegemony including the domination of space; deploys as “conventional weapons” newly developed weapons of terror and mass destruction including cluster bombs, “daisy cutters,” and nuclear “bunker busters;” holds its enemies indefinitely without legal warrant, representation, or rights, not only in the “no-man’s-land” of Guantanamo but in the United States itself; proclaims its right to assassinate its enemies or launch preemptive war against them, and refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of any international court to try its actions or those of its citizens. This is not, however, “roguish” or “evil” because it is covered by imperial prerogative.

>From Pyongyang’s point of view, the US was in breach of the 1994 Agreed Framework almost from its inception. It had been promised two light-water nuclear reactors (capacity: 2,000 MW) by a target date of 2003, half a million tons of heavy oil per year in the interim for power generation, moves towards “towards full normalization of political and economic relations,” and a non-aggression pact. Pyongyang froze its nuclear development plans for a decade, hoping to hold the US to its word and secure its own removal from the American list of terror-supporting states. According to Colin Powell, addressing a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on February 5, 2002, the administration believed that Pyongyang was continuing to “comply with the [missile flight-test] moratorium they placed upon themselves and stay within the KEDO agreement [the Agreed Framework].” Whatever it then knew about the clandestine purchase of centrifuge technology, presumably from Pakistan, some time in the late 1990s, did not seem to affect this judgment, although much was to be made of it later.

After September 11, Pyongyang made every effort to associate itself with the mood of the international community by promptly signing the outstanding international conventions on terrorism and declaring its opposition to terrorism in the UN General Assembly. For all these gestures in the end it got nothing. The new Bush administration arrived in Washington convinced that the Agreed Framework should be a one-sided North Korean commitment to abandon its nuclear program. Even though the Department of State could find no North Korean connections to terror (other than the refuge it still offered to aging Japanese perpetrators of a 1970 hijacking), Bush nevertheless chose to describe it as part of the “axis of evil” and his government named it, along with other non-nuclear countries, a potential nuclear target in the Nuclear Posture Statement submitted to Congress in December 2001. The “2003” reactor pledge was never taken seriously. Delays were chronic and construction on the site, such as it was, only began in 2002, when a few large holes were dug and some foundations laid. Meanwhile, North Korea’s energy sector steadily deteriorated. In November 2002, the US stopped the scheduled oil supplies, and in January 2003 canceled the entire deal, saying there would be no nuclear plant of any kind, ever.

As few Americans understand, starting with the Korean War in the early 1950s, when the US went so far as to dispatch solitary B-29 bombers to Pyongyang on simulated nuclear bombing missions designed to cause terror, Pyongyang has always viewed its nuclear program as a response to a perceived US nuclear threat. The North Korean government still takes the view, not unreasonably, that the only defense Washington respects is nuclear weapons—a point made recently by the IAEA’s Mohammad El Baradei who commented that the US seems bent on teaching the world that “if you really want to defend yourself, develop nuclear weapons, because then you get negotiations, and not military action.” While Washington wrung its hands over, and vehemently denounced, Pyongyang’s outlaw behavior, Congress was being pushed to authorize the development of small nuclear warheads, known as “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator” weapons, or “bunker busters,” specially tailored to attack North Korea’s bunkers and underground complexes. Yet Pyongyang, the barbarian, not Washington is always the one accused of “intimidation.”

The path Pyongyang seems to be taking has the potential to lead to a nuclearization of the Korean peninsula and possibly the region. It is therefore a disastrous path to set out on, and it allows Washington to label the North Koreans a “rogue” regime pursuing incomprehensible policies that threaten innocent neighbors; yet there’s an alternative interpretation—quite obvious to most South Koreans, if not to Americans—that Pyongyang is seeking nothing so much as an end to the half-century of its own threatened nuclear annihilation. Its leaders have repeatedly stated that the country would submit to an international inspections regime provided only its security was guaranteed. However, it is not the fifty years of intimidation, but the call to end it, that is now treated as roguish.

The world is outraged at North Korean attempts to end the intimidation to which it has been subjected for a half-century, treating with something akin to derision what in a sane world would be seen as a just demand worthy of international support. The justice of the cause is ignored, while the shrillness with which it presents its case is cause for scorn. Pyongyang is recalcitrant, to say the least, but its recalcitrance, brutality, and incompetence at governing its people is matched by Washington’s arrogance, preemptive unilateralism, and refusal to be bound by international law, treaty, or multinational institutions.

In much of the debate over “nuclear proliferation,” the nuclear privilege of the acknowledged nuclear powers - US, Britain, France, Russia and China - passes without question. Yet it is increasingly clear that US attempts to combine nuclear privilege with deterrence and non-proliferation do not work. As Jonathan Schell writes, “Deterrence equals proliferation, for deterrence both causes proliferation and is the fruit of it.” The call for non-proliferation, or abstinence, falls on deaf ears when issued by the addicted who cling to their own privilege. Only a global movement to achieve universal prohibition can have moral, and in the end political, credibility.

3. The Tributary and the Barbarian

South Korea, after 55 years of tragic confrontation with its northern compatriots, has in the past decade staked its future on a “Sunshine Policy.” It has good reason to try to understand the complex crisis Pyongyang faces and is motivated by a desire to take whatever steps might be necessary to avert the North’s political and social collapse. The disruption caused already by the steady stream of refugees across the Tumen and Yalu rivers into China would be nothing compared to the chaos that would ensue if the regime were actually to collapse, sending millions of desperate people fleeing by boat across the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea as well as on foot into China. A vast humanitarian catastrophe, exacerbated by the difficulty of controlling nuclear and other materials in the confusion, would be dumped in the South’s lap. Its agenda is therefore fundamentally different from Washington’s. It has little sense of threat from the North, and instead sees the need to help Pyongyang deal with its economic, security and diplomatic problems, even by dint of providing a security “guarantee,” as incoming president Roh Moo-Hyun suggested during his campaign.

As a senior advisor to the South Korean president put it, the North Korean problem will only be resolved “when the country suspected of building nuclear weapons [North Korea] doesn’t feel any security threats and builds relationships of trust with other countries.” South Korea therefore aims to “create an environment in which North Korea will feel secure, without nuclear weapons. After all, that is the quickest way to have it give up nuclear development.”

Following Kim Dae Jung’s visit to Pyongyang in June 2000, South Korea engaged North Korea on a wide range of economic, cultural, sporting, and transport fronts. The Seoul-Pyongyang railway line, cleared of mines, now awaits only the completion of a narrow 300 meter strip of track to link North and South (and thereby create a through connection from South Korea to Russia, China and Europe). The service could be open in months, but is blocked by Washington’s objections. The pipeline is full of joint South-North projects, including one to open the North Korean city of Gaesong, less than 100 kilometers from Seoul, as a special economic zone; that too is now frozen. Although Seoul has been slowly accomplishing something once thought impossible - the restoration of a measure of trust between north and south, one Korea and the other - its “sunshine” policy is dismissed in Washington as vain and worthless, or worse, dangerous appeasement. Delegations are entertained and contracts signed and implemented, mutual trust is engendered, fear diminishes and confidence grows, but from Washington’s perspective Pyongyang is simply “evil” incarnate, a regime with which there can be no compromise.

The developing crisis not only pits Washington against Pyongyang but also potentially opens a rift between Washington and Seoul. The relationship with Seoul has been frosty since the advent of the Bush administration and its avowal of an explicitly imperial agenda. South Korea’s Nobel Prize-winning president, Kim Dae Jung, was insulted by Bush on the occasion of their first meeting and has been treated highhandedly, occasionally contemptuously, ever since. Seoul was skeptical of the Kelly mission to Pyongyang in October 2002, believing the Americans misunderstood what Pyongyang was saying to them, perhaps deliberately. In February 2003, the South Korean Prime Minister pointedly rejected the official US position that North Korea was in possession of nuclear weapons. A few days later, CIA Director George Tenet insisted on the US’s “very good judgment” that Pyongyang possessed one or two plutonium-based nuclear weapons, as well as the long-range missiles to deliver them. On this crucial issue, the world chooses to believe the CIA, not the South Korean Prime Minister.

As time goes on, the gap has only widened between the thinking of the global hyperpower, reliant on massive force projection capacity, and the small Asian country still struggling to achieve national unification, heal the wounds of civil war, and establish the modest goals of peace and development. A new president, Roh Moo-Hyun, takes over on February 25. Like Kim Dae Jung, Roh is a pragmatist, expected to continue the approach of his predecessor that, “love him or hate him, Kim Jong Il has been and will be in the foreseeable future the dictator with all the powers. You cannot exclude him or refuse dialogue with him.” While Washington urges Tokyo, Moscow, Beijing, even Canberra, to pressure Pyongyang into nuclear disarmament, it is careful to avoid offering any central role in the diplomatic process to Seoul; in fact, the collective effort is designed to contain Seoul and rein in its “sunshine” fantasies.

Not only do the old and new presidents distance themselves from Washington’s hard-line, but anti-American demonstrations now draw huge crowds and, in various recent opinion surveys, more than half of all South Koreans profess “dislike” for the US. Between 60% and 70% claim no longer to see North Korea as a threat, favor normalization, and oppose US attempts at “containment.” Only 31% support cooperation with the US. On March 1, Seoul is to host, for the first time, a joint South-North ceremony to commemorate the 84th anniversary of the Samil movement, a peaceful uprising for national independence brutally crushed by Japan in 1919. The strengthening sense of a shared past and a common identity opens up the possibility of sharing dreams for the future. To Washington, these are ominous trends. The South Korean conservative, anti-communist and pro-American right-wing, shaken by defeat in the December presidential election, is now reorganizing. Pro-American demonstrators are beginning to take to the streets, undoubtedly with encouragement from the US.

4. Imagining Non-Imperial Futures

For the present in South Korea, however, the passions of war and of the Cold War are a thing of the past. While security is not neglected, both government and non-governmental think-tanks are focusing ever more of their efforts on economic challenges. The state-funded Korea Development Institute has a blueprint for generating a 7 per cent annual growth rate in the North to raise per capita income from its present pathetic $91 to $1,000 by 2008, to feed the population, and to attract the foreign capital necessary to rebuild the economic infrastructure. Outside government circles, a key figure responsible for hauling South Korea out of abject poverty only four decades ago now has offered suggestions to Pyongyang on how it might do likewise. Having played a key role in Cold War confrontation, O Wonchol, right-hand man of dictator Park Chung Hee in the 1960s and 1970s and one of the principal architects of South Korea’s industrial transformation, now seeks ways to help Pyongyang ‘normalize’ and develop. Pragmatism and confidence that the North is not lunatic or beyond redemption characterize such an approach. None of these qualities are evident in current official US thinking on North Korea.

The challenge for North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, writes O in the January issue of the monthly Wolgan Chosun, is to become a North Korean Deng Xiaoping. If Kim would learn from the experiences of both South Korea and China, adopt an export-oriented economic system in place of the current “Juche” policies of economic autarchy, and launch an all-out development drive, the prospects could be quite bright. O recommends that Kim do what Park Chung Hee did in the 1960s: empower the country’s best technocratic brains to form a staff headquarters and lead an export revolution. The conditions for industrialization in North Korea, he points out, are favorable: all land is state-owned, labor cheap and of high quality, minerals abound, and educational levels are high.

A million engineers and technicians should be sent abroad (many to South Korea, as part of a necessary peninsula-wide division of labor and resources), thus generating immediate revenues and reducing the surplus agrarian population. Most existing industrial plant, already obsolete, should simply be scrapped. The Rajin-Sonbong area (a remote site near the borders of both Russia and China, developed under UN auspices in the 1980s but unsuccessful in attracting investment), should shift its focus from light to heavy and chemical-oriented industry, and a deep-water port dredged to service it. Plants in some sectors should simply be moved from South to North, one immediate candidate being the South’s surplus briquette plants, thereby solving the North’s heating problems and arresting its chronic deforestation. However, O recognizes that the preconditions for success must be a normalization of relations with South Korea as well as with the US and Japan, opening the path to low-interest international development funds from the Asia Development Bank and World Bank.

However odd North Korea looks, its uniqueness lies not in its goose-stepping soldiers, mass game mobilizations, or bizarre messages to the world but in its experience of having lived out the nuclear age under constant threat of nuclear attack. No other nation has experienced anything like it. Even before that, the North Korean state was founded on the memories of guerrilla bands that fought desperately against Japanese fascism in the 1930s, and those memories, still awaiting the “closure” of formal settlement with Japan, remain sharp and close to the surface. If a kind of collective neurosis, even insanity, has overtaken the North that is not altogether surprising. Facing complex crises and society-wide exhaustion from decades of mobilization, war, mass campaigns, fear, tension and failure, it now gives strong indications of a desire for change. These were evident not only in the extraordinary apology its leader offered Japan, its former occupier and enemy, or in the admissions of possession of forbidden nuclear technology offered the US late in 2002, but in the sweeping economic reform policies adopted since 2001.

Taken together, these suggest that the North Korean monolith is cracking, and that powerful elements in that state wish to set aside the guerrilla model of secrecy, mobilization, absolute loyalty to the commander, priority to the military, and instead pursue Perestroika (for which in 2001 the Korean word kaegon was coined). However, economic reform is impossible to implement under conditions of continuing confrontation. According to Chinese sources close to Pyongyang, Kim Jong Il has determined that without security guarantees and access to international institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF—to which the US holds the keys—further social chaos and possibly economic collapse loom. The nuclear imbroglio therefore cloaks a desperate cry for normalization.

After all the humiliating apologies and explanations that have borne only sour fruit, an even greater challenge faces Kim Jong Il: can he can bring himself to make a more important but far more difficult and potentially humiliating gesture to South Korea? Can he apologize, in however general terms, for the violent and tragic past, thank the South Korean government and people for having turned from containment to “sunshine,” rule out any repeat of fratricidal violence, and begin charting the only possible course for survival - détente leading towards reunification? The cold fact is that North Korea has no allies, few options, little time. Only South Korea today views it with any sign of understanding, even sympathy. Only South Korea, for that matter, does not seem to fear it.

Building on the trust that slowly accumulated during the Kim Dae Jung years, a recent Nautilus Institute paper by Alexandre Mansourov, a Russian-born Korea specialist now working in Honolulu, suggests:

“President-elect Roh Moo-hyun should use the current nuclear crisis as a unique historical opportunity to fundamentally reshape the inter-Korean relations and radically redefine the missions of the ROK-U.S. military security alliance in the future. President Roh needs to develop path-breaking strategic vision, which will guide the entire Korean nation in the South and North on the path toward national unification.”

In response, North Korea would “invite a goodwill expert delegation from the ROK to tour the Yangbyun nuclear complex to see that all 8,017 spent fuel rods are still kept in place at the storage site and that the reprocessing plant is still shut down.” Mansourov continues:

“Only the South has to take the North Korean demands seriously and, in turn, can guarantee the North’s security and assist in economic development. The only sacrifice the North will have to make is to accept some practical limitations on its sovereignty, including in such strategic areas as WMD development … After all, if Korea is indeed one, as Koreans like to stress, it is all one nation, one family business.”

He goes on to suggest a South Korean “protectorate” over the North in the realm of national security and foreign policy as a possible first step in a multi-stage process of peaceful transition to a unified Korean state. The very word “protectorate” has negative and ill-omened historical associations in the Korean context, but the general thrust of his argument - the need, on the “Korea problem,” to substitute a Seoul-Pyongyang framework of thinking for the present Washington-Pyongyang one - makes good sense. Koreans themselves, North, South and overseas, will have to come up with an alternative to “protectorate,” some more historically sensitive formula that reflects legitimate concerns over face, history, and ‘correct’ relationships, so that through a deepening of North-South conversation and cooperation “Korea” can find a voice with which to address the world.

5. “1+1” in Korean Mathematics

The situation today on the Korean peninsula bears an uncanny resemblance to the situation of one hundred years ago. Modern Korean nationalism, frustrated by foreign intervention for over a century, remains a powerful force, and beneath the state structures of north and south lies a shared Korean-ness. From the Korean standpoint, whether in Pyongyang or Seoul, the issue is one of sadae (reliance on powerful friends and neighbors) versus juche, self-reliance. One hundred years ago, and at successive moments since, many thought it wisest to look to great and powerful neighbors. That mindset made possible a century of national division and catastrophic, internecine bloodshed. Facing unprecedented crisis now, South and North Korea have to find some way to trust each other more than they trust any of the great powers that surround them. The stakes are even higher than they were a century ago, for this time the peninsula itself, and all of its people, are at risk.

As the IAEA refers the North Korean nuclear issue to the UN Security Council, and as politicians, editorial writers and experts crank up their denunciations of Kim Jong Il’s “evil empire,” it would be well to remember the lesson of history: a desperate, impoverished but proud people, back against the wall, oil supplies cut off and sanctions threatened, is not necessarily a good candidate for surrender. The best hope for a way out of the impasse is not likely to be pressure exerted through some combination of “5+2” (the Security Council Five permanent members plus Japan and South Korea) or “5+5” (the Security Council Five plus South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Australia and the European Union), but a deepening of the accommodation between Pyongyang and Seoul, based on a simple formula of “1+1=1.” However mathematically unorthodox, such a formula holds an essential truth that Koreans at least recognize. With such a connection, aversion to violence, fraternal trust, and the historical memory of the disastrous consequences caused by past decisions to rely on the intervention of powerful outsiders may still combine to point a path forward.

On February 25, Roh Moo-Hyun assumes the presidency in Seoul. The achievement of a non-violent solution to the growing crisis will depend on the initiatives he takes, the kind of consensus he can forge with Kim Jong Il’s regime, and the kind of leverage he can exercise on both Washington and Pyongyang. As the region stands poised before a potential spiral into nuclear rivalry and war, he will need firm nerves and above all a clear strategic vision. His insistence on peace, negotiation, cooperation, and “sunshine” contrasts sharply with the ultimatum diplomacy of Washington. If Roh can play his cards well, however, the prize could be huge. If the tributary Korea and the barbarian Korea evolve into a single entity—ultimately a united, peaceful, non-nuclear Korean state, located in the heartland of the world’s most dynamic region—it could become in time an economic powerhouse to rival Japan, a global center rather than the “hermit of Asia.” Without the “North Korean threat” the justification for US bases in Japan and South Korea disappears, the case for the construction of an anti-missile system in Japan collapses, and the moves towards militarization and even nuclearization of the region lose their momentum. The Bush version of empire could find itself confronting in East Asia the genesis of an alternative, non-imperial order.

Gavan McCormack is a research professor of East Asian history at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, co-author of Korea Since 1850 and author of The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence.

[This article first appeared on http://www.tomdispatch.com, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news and opinion from Tom Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing and author of The End of Victory Culture.]

Printable Version

-Plan could kill millions in 48 hours. Why don’t Americans Care?

by Geov Parrish

Exactly a month ago Pentagon planner Harlan Ullman, in a CBS-TV interview, publicly revealed for the first time the Pentagon’s “Shock and Awe” plan for its assault upon Iraq, should (or when) George W. Bush orders it.

Ullman’s information was subsequently confirmed by a number of sources; it’s for real. Here is what I wrote about it in my column of January 30:

“The plan includes simultaneous ground invasions from north and south… It also includes a sudden decimation of Baghdad by raining down on its people, in two days, over 800 cruise missiles—more than were used in the entire Gulf War. Ullman… characterized the Baghdad assault thusly: `You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons of Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes.’ It would be a firestorm, a Dresden or Tokyo with 60 years of new technology. It would be a war crime of quick and staggering proportions.

“Such a plan, of course, makes a mockery of Donald Rumsfeld’s ritual insistence that the Pentagon takes enormous care to avoid civilian casualties; the plan apparently is to kill a staggering percentage of Baghdad’s civilian population in the first day alone. ... The name refers to the demoralizing effect such an attack would have on Iraqis, an effect, presumably, similar to the instant (although already planned) surrender of Japan after the gratuitous bombing of Hiroshima (and even more gratuitous bombing of Nagasaki. But those were, both military and diplomatically, demonstration attacks—suggesting what could be done to the imperial rulers themselves and to Tokyo, a city far more valuable and populous than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

“In Iraq, Baghdad is the capitol.”

Now, those plans, and sentiments of horror similar to mine, have been echoing around the Internet for a month; they’ve been featured extensively in alternative publications that have come out during that time. Which is precisely the problem.

The United States is planning to suck all the oxygen out of the air with a fireball over the heads of the five million residents of Baghdad—so that, as another Pentagon interviewee said, “nobody in Baghdad will be safe,” whether above ground or below. This has been well-documented public knowledge for a month, widely reported in the rest of the world. But in America it has been roundly ignored, confined to the fringes of the media landscape and probably, by many Americans, dismissed as a result as conspiracist nonsense.

This raises two questions:

1) Are Americans—politicians, media executives, and ordinary citizens—so numb, or oblivious, or callous to the horrors of war that we cannot raise ourselves to be bothered by what would be, if it works as planned, one of the greatest massacres, one of the greatest war crimes, in the history of the world, committed in our name and with our money?

2) Forgetting for a moment those apparently irrelevant concerns about millions of innocent lives, war crime tribunals, and the like, do America’s war planners seriously think such an action would decrease the motivation or effectiveness of terrorists, who are presumably the target of the “War on Terror” and who will most certainly not be in Baghdad? (More, in fact, are likely to be huddled in any major American city. Perhaps we should preemptively bomb Philadelphia or Houston.)

To take the last question first, whether it is ever implemented or not, even the publicizing of this plan does incalculable damage to the already-abysmal reputation of the United States in the Islamic world and beyond. Any country that would even seriously consider such a monstrous act certainly isn’t going to be shown mercy when war is brought to its civilian population. That’s you and me.

According to captured Al-Qaeda documents, planners of the 9/11 massacre had originally considered flying jets into American nuclear facilities, but decided not do so to on “humanitarian” grounds. Does anyone think that, after our amphetamine-soaked pilots casually incinerate a major world city and its inhabitants, that they’ll show such restraint next time? You know the answer.

Muslims, who, like the rest of the world, seem to have a longer memory than we do, will also recall that a massive famine, killing up to six or seven million Afghans, was only narrowly averted in fall 2001, even though the U.S. bombing campaign cut off badly needed supplies almost until it was too late - - and would have continued to do so had the Taliban not retreated. Shock and Awe, then, is the second serious brush with genocidal civilian death from the Bush crew in only 15 months. And we genuinely wonder why anyone hates us? Who wouldn’t?

It is as if Bush and his sociopathic advisors want stronger terrorist groups—want further attacks on Americans—so as to justify their lust for global military dominance. Regardless, they’re certainly doing their best to provoke it.

And this brings us to the initial question: why don’t Americans seem to care? Again, setting aside niggling questions of morality, plans like this, whether executed—er, carried out—or not, put every single person living in this country in far greater danger. Forget duct tape; we need protecting from the Bush White House, and from the record levels of new and deepening anti- American sentiment it is generating daily.

Some would point to corporate control of media as the culprit in the lack of publicity given to Shock and Awe, but I suspect the more significant factor is more banal. Such images of mass suffering are so overwhelming in their scope that they mean nothing to most of us. If 9/11 seemed like a movie—as many Americans said at the time—Shock and Awe represents a horror so sweeping it has only rarely been depicted on film, and never by Hollywood. You simply can’t have an action hero take on a nuclear bomb in mid- detonation, or a barrage of cruise missiles (and munitions using un- depleted uranium) that have a similar, instantly lethal effect. What you would have is an action hero called The Shadow, because that’s what would be left of him, burned into the sidewalk along with a few million husbands, wives, moms, dads, and children.

Politically, this country’s leaders could not even conceivably propose turning America into a nation permanently at war, let alone one capable of such monstrosity. Unless, under the leadership of both major parties, we had not spent decades being inured to American militarism, and, in the last few years, to bombings, invasions, and civilian deaths in faraway lands. Granted, most of the least desirable aspects of American militarism have been carefully excised from U.S. media, but even so, what we do get to see and hear should horrify anybody. It doesn’t, and so, an apocalyptic vision like Shock and Awe becomes just another abstract headline, part of the arcana of military planning, completely divorced from the daily reality of our extremely comfortable lives. No wonder news editors don’t think we’d care.

But, of course, as February 15 literally demonstrated, many of us do care. And hopefully, many of us will keep caring long after Bush either backs down or incinerates the cradle of civilization. (Ashes to ashes, indeed...) The problem, ultimately, isn’t Saddam Hussein, or Iraq, or even George Bush. The problem is militarism, and a purported democracy in which its leaders think themselves above accountability for their actions. Or crimes.

Printable Version

-Resistance To Ireland’s Support For War

A Voice From The Anti-War Movement

Many Irish people are sick to the teeth of Ireland’s part in American armed robbery in the Middle East. On 15 February over 100,000 people marched through Dublin city centre against the war on Iraq, and US military flights refuelling in Shannon Airport. It was the largest ever demonstration in Ireland against war, and there had not been so many people on the streets since the tax protests 20 years ago.

Ongoing nonviolent direct actions and court actions have helped too, to expose and disrupt I