LUND, Sweden - After the Kosovo war, all citizens of Macedonia go through very difficult times; presidential elections take place on October 31. If there is one lesson from Kosovo, it is this: the earlier we deal with the problems, the more options there are, and the easier it is to solve conflicts without resorting to violence.
It is a safe prediction that, unless various types of violence preventive measures are taken and taken in time, Macedonia is likely to slide into chaos. If citizens around the world apply their experience from violence-prevention and peace building and their creativity, we could produce a series of proposals for early action. You can participate even if you do not have detailed knowledge about Macedonia. Lots of generally violence-preventive steps can be taken to prevent violence and solidify peace anywhere. Below we provide some ideas - just a beginning. Readers, their friends and colleagues, are invited to brainstorm and send us more and better proposals which we would be happy to publish in future PressInfos. And we would very much like to receive proposals FROM our readers and subscribers in Macedonia!
Watch the Kosovo-Macedonia connection. It is important that the international community does not make any final decision now about the future status of Kosovo. At this juncture, any final settlement will impact negatively on the fears, hopes and political strategies of both Macedonians and Albanians in Macedonia.
Respect Macedonia's sovereignty. The international community must respect that, however weak and small, Macedonia is a recognised, sovereign state having a right to expect that others respect its independent decisions and territorial integrity. It is ruthless and dangerous to keep on doing to Macedonia whatever NATO pleases and expect it to obey just because it wants membership of NATO and the EU.
Compensate the country economically. The country has suffered a lot economically - since 1991 because of the sanctions against their largest trade partner, Serbia; and recently because of NATOs presence, use of facilities, damage to the environment. The inflow of refugees diverted energy and already scarce resources away from the country itself. The costs of the Kosovo War to Macedonia is estimated at over US $ 1.5 billion, a huge sum for a country like Macedonia.
Reestablish the UN as a civil mission and expand the OSCE mission.The successful preventive UN mission (UNPREDEP) mission was sacrificed inan international diplomatic game that opened the country to NATO - which was not a success for Macedonia. A new UN mission, with predominantly civil affairs people, monitors and civil police and with a new type of unit for conflict-resolution and reconciliation training would suit the Macedonian reality well. The same applies to an expanded OSCE mission in Skopje. If the international community can do so much for the Kosovo province it would be foolish to ignore Macedonia's needs for An international presence to help it through the crisis.
Bring peace and reconciliation education to citizens, with special focus on youth. Competent NGOs from Christian and non-Christian countries should be invited by the government and local NGOs to help develop curricula and other educational activity in full cooperation with relevant ministries and local civil society organisations - building peace and tolerance into spheres of culture, education from primary to university level, into the media and - last but not least - into the economy.
Invest in Macedonia. Risk-willing investments are needed now. It is now regional and global business can contribute to peace. Big companies making small investments would mean a huge difference here. Given the costs the international has incurred on the region, the international Stability Pact is far too slow and limited in scope. There should be many sources - it is not a safe strategy to let one country more or less buy up the country, as is
Move from ethnic balancing to a state of democratic citizens. Macedonia must be helped to move from the risky ethnic tightrope-walk it has practised since independence and toward an integrated democratic welfare state for all. It is not a matter of giving the Albanians a larger say in society's various spheres: what needs to be done is to rise above that division and create a future in which that division has much less relevance, where people will talk politics, values and visions and not quarrel about whether the Macedonians or the Albanians shall have this or that advantage, position, or proportional representation. Creating multiethnic parties and reduce the present influence of exclusively Albanian and Macedonian parties is essential.
Fight corruption. Not only the economic one, but also that of the political system. The present government makes deals constantly about which a party's people shall run which institutions, agencies and companies. This leads to overall moral decay and closes doors to democracy. Honest and morally principled people should not feel handicapped in the Macedonian society, as is the case today. Also, the mafia boom in Kosovo must not be allowed to spill-over (further) into Macedonia.
Liberalise the media. The de facto government control of media and its distribution system is only marginally smaller than that in Croatia and Serbia. Nationalistic or explicitly hate- or prejudice-based reporting and debates should be arrested now. Media have contributed greatly before to wars in the Balkans. One creative idea would be for European media to "adopt" Macedonian sisters and let Macedonian journalists and editors work abroad for periods while European journalists work in Macedonian media.
Give Macedonia a stake in the international initiatives. People in Macedonia must be constantly consulted. We have seen enough of top-down approaches in Croatia, Bosnia and now Kosovo. They don't work. The international community must learn the lesson that violence revention and peace building cannot be imposed. Democracy can only be "sold" by practising it, not by giving someone courses in it or by promising them money if they learn to say the right things. In addition, no country should remain a dependent client.
Alternative defense and security. Macedonia could be helped in developing a security and defense policy that is adapted to what the region and the country needs and fits its culture and economic abilities, NOT what NATO or the US think it needs. Modern high-tech defense is extremely expensive. If the country itself shall pay for that, it means a tremendous set-back for civil socioeconomic development for decades. It means loss of de facto sovereignty. Macedonia may need a military - but a defensive, dense, decentralised one suited to its environment. Solving the problems we list here is far more relevant for the country's long term security and stability than acquiring a fancy high-tech defense.
A good civil defense and a people trained in non-violent resistance could work miracles, will cost a fraction and preserve real independence in contrast to militarisation and clientilisation. If it joins NATO, let Macedonia be the Iceland of the Balkans - having no military but being useful in other ways to its region and to the international community: something more like Switzerland.
Establish innovative institutions there. Macedonia could host a regional Centre for the Study and Practice of Reconciliation and Forgiveness, for example (see PressInfo 76). It could be offered the opportunity to host important European educational facilities related to, say, human rights and intercultural learning in various fields. What a learning experience it would be for privileged EU students if they could achieve not only professional competence but also learn what the Balkans is about while studying in, say, Bitola, Tetova or Skopje!
Break the sanctions and co-operate with Yugoslavia. It would be highly understandable if Macedonia openly broke the sanctions and started co-operating with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia again. It would be a tremendous boost to the Macedonian economy and welfare and, given the sad human situation in Serbia and Montenegro, it would be a truly humanitarian act, too. Furthermore, it would contribute a little to prevent a breakdown in FRY and improve strained relations between the two countries.
Start an OSCE-like process for all of the Balkans! It is sad to see the international community deal with one issue at a time over 8 years (Croatia, Bosnia and now Kosovo) without recognising the interrelatedness of the problems as well as the solutions. It's time to start a multi-year process with all participants: international and regional governments and civil society organisations.
The country has survived a series of challenges that observers like myself predicted would be fatal. One must not conclude that Macedonia is therefore resistant to every event and pressure. Macedonia is neither Kosovo nor Bosnia; its level of tolerance is higher, still. But take care! President Gligorov has been singularly effective in providing leadership, tolerance and stability; the candidates seeking to succeed him don't naturally match these qualities. Secondly, Macedonia was seriously destabilised by NATO's militant conversion of it into a combined military base and refugee camp.
I think we have a duty to make good for that - in Macedonia, in Yugoslavia and in Albania - and not put all the eggs now in the basket called Kosovo. Remember, whatever NATO, OSCE and the UN try to do in Kosovo will be meaningless if its neighbours fall apart, one after the other. So please send YOUR ideas, and we will send them on to the thousands who receive TFF PressInfos. When it comes to learning how to avoid violence, even the smallest idea and initiative must be tried.
[Editor's Note: Dr. Jan Oberg is Director of the TFF Conflict-Mitigation team to the Balkans and Georgia in Lund, Sweden. His Email is - email@example.com Read an interview with Macedonian President Kirov Gligorov and the analysis by TFF's Macedonian adviser Dr. Biljana Vankovska.]
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congresssional auditors say the government should take additional steps to ensure that the year 2000 computer bug will not cause dangerous malfunctions at any of the nation's nuclear plants.
``To further reduce risks, NRC and the nuclear power industry can still take specific action to ensure Y2K-related plant safety,'' the General Accounting Office said in testimony prepared for a hearing Tuesday before the House Science technology subcommittee .
GAO officials said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should - require independent verification of plants' claims of Y2K readiness - determine whether plants' most recent emergency exercises have included Y2K-specific scenarios in addition to general disaster preparedness - ensure each plant has a checklist of things that must be done before and after New Year's Eve midnight.
GAO officials also said the NRC should follow up to ensure that other types of nuclear facilities have made good on Y2K readiness promises.The commission's deputy director for reactor programs, Frank Miraglia, sought to reassure lawmakers.
``We will closely monitor the progress of plants that still have some systems left to remediate, but we fully expect that all commercial nuclear power plants will operate safely, as planned and without interruption, through the Y2K transition,'' Miraglia said.
The United States has in operation 103 nuclear power plants at 66 sites, mostly in the East. Another 19 plants are no longer working, but 14 still have stored highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Ten more U.S. plants produce nuclear fuel.
The NRC has reported that all the operating power plants are Y2K ready except Philadelphia Electric Co.'s Peach Bottom 3 in Pennsylvania and Southern Nuclear Operating Co.'s Farley 2 in Alabama.
The two remaining plants have completed work on their safety systems but must finish repairing operating equipment, the NRC says. The Pennsylvania plant is to be ready by the end of October. Work at the Alabama plant is to be finished by mid-December.
The NRC also has reported that all decommissioned plants and fuel-making facilities were on track to be Y2K ready, although the agency's latest information does not confirm that readiness has been achieved at all sites.
What is truly amazing was how the Conservative Republicans were able to defeat the Soviets with liberals chewing on their pant leg the whole time, and then fail to capitalize on their success. Bush certainly didn't help when in his disastrous State of the Union message of January 1992, when he referred to the Persian Gulf War as a victory of the Cold War. In that same speech he credited only "the American Taxpayer" as the true heroes of the Cold War.
The strong resistance that Carter faced when he dropped the $6 per barrel cap on domestic crude while we were importing oil from OPEC at 30 dollars and more is just one issue that demonstrates how absolutely bonkers the liberal establishment had become. In my own state Massachusetts, the Republican delegation gave their votes to John Anderson. Reagan proceeded to carry the state twice.
A new orthodoxy came about thanks to Reagan's occupation and use of his bully pulpit. Where are all those liberals who wanted to nationalize the oil companies, and who defended our UN Ambassador Andrew Young when in response to a question about Soviet oppression said: "Well America has political prisoners too."
Reagan picked the moderate Bush for vice president to broaden his base. I was at that convention and it was all the conservatives could do to stifle their disappointment. Bush in turn appointed a conservative as his VP. Quayle. Bush is the first president since Hoover who's outgoing VP was not a party nominee. Quayle is a decent fellow, but surely Bush could have picked someone who had demonstrated the ability to gracefully withstand the pressures of national office.
The failure of the conservative Republicans to consolidate their triumphs falls squarely on George Bush who never did master the lyrics of conservatism never mind the melody.
[Editor's Note: Read The Republican's archived copy of Mr. Bush's 1992 State of the Union speech.]
CLAREMONT, Calif. - Unlike the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month or V-E Day or V-J Day, the end of the Cold War has no date. Even with all its witnesses, no one is sure exactly when it ended. For that matter, no one could say for certain the exact date it began. So the Cold War ended in the same fuzzy way in which it started.
Maybe it was July 6, 1990, when NATO announced that the Soviet Union was no longer an adversary. Maybe it was one of those days in late August 1990, when one republic of the U.S.S.R. after another declared independence. Maybe it was March 31, 1991, when the Warsaw Pact military alliance disbanded. Maybe it was Dec. 18, 1991, when the Commonwealth of Independent States was inaugurated. Maybe it was Dec. 26, 1991, when the U.S.S.R. was formally dissolved.
However, because of the drama in the destruction of the symbol of the Soviet empire, the date that has become recognized is Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall crumbled.
Since that event 10 years ago, there has been an absence of public dialogue regarding the role of U.S. liberals and conservatives during the post-Khrushchev period. That absence of dialogue has left young people with the mistaken belief that the United States was united in its quest to end the expansion of the Soviet system.
It's a lie.
It was the conservatives who wanted to build U.S. military forces to a position so strong that the Soviet Union would go broke trying to keep up. Opposing those efforts were Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri V. Andropov, Konstantin U. Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals in the U.S.
It was the conservatives in the U.S. who opposed a nuclear moratorium that would have guaranteed superiority of nuclear forces by the Soviet Union. Endorsing a nuclear moratorium were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
It was the conservatives who wanted the neutron warhead deployed in Western Europe to deter a potential invasion by Soviet tanks. Opposing were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
It was the conservatives who supported the liberation of Grenada that brought about free elections in that island-nation. Opposing the liberation were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
It was the conservatives who advocated the deployment of Pershing missiles for the protection of Western Europe. Endorsing a nuclear freeze that would have prevented that were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
It was the conservatives who backed a Strategic Defense Initiative to make an enemy's intercontinental ballistic missiles worthless. Opposing such a defensive system for the United States were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
It was the conservatives who accused the Soviet Union of violating arms treaties. Denying the violations were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
It was the conservatives who wanted to bring down the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Embracing Daniel Ortega and opposing the Nicaraguan resistance were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
And it was a conservative president, Ronald Reagan, who accurately described the Soviet Union and its satellite states as an "evil empire." Ridiculing Reagan were Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and the leadership of the liberals.
Important chapters of the history of the Cold War have been quickly eliminated, misinforming the new generation.
Such misinformation is a common quest after battles have been won. Traveling through Europe shortly after World War II, it was difficult to find anyone who did not claim that they spent the war years as members of the underground. Some of them were telling the truth.
Many of them were lying.
During the first decade after the Berlin Wall fell, it has become common for older Americans to tell the new generation that they supported those who fought against Soviet communism. Some of them are telling the truth.
Many are lying. The only difference in the years after the end of World War II and the years after the destruction of the Berlin Wall is that the delete key on computers has replaced the old red erasers.
[Editor's Note: Bruce Herschensohn is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for The Study of Statesmanship & Political Theory].
NEW YORK - Pakistan's coup last week was merely the latest feedback from a long line of US foreign policy blunders. Our backing of the Shah's regime helped spark an Islamic revolution in Iran that continues to plague US foreign policy, serving as a parable of how our support of repressive governments eventually returns to haunt us.
American policymakers made the same mistake when arming Iraq as a ballast against Iran -- it was not long before Saddam Hussein turned the weapons we had lavished upon him against American soldiers and allies.
After a decade of appeasement and billions in US support, a nuclear and militant Pakistan is now backing Taliban extremists in Afghanistan and fanning the flames of Islamic fundamentalism.
Pakistan's metamorphosis from the intimate ally America knew in the 1980's to a potential adversary is a lesson to be considered when looking at our relationship with another Islamic nation firmly entrenched in authoritarian tradition.
Turkey has among the worst human rights records on earth, and over the past 25 years Turkish troops have violated the sovereignty of Greece, Cyprus, Iraq and Iran, a list that includes two European democracies and, among them, a NATO ally. Turkey still occupies 40% of Cyprus after its 1974 invasion and has unilaterally occupied a "security zone" in Iraqi territory.
US policymakers are now looking the other way as Turkey quietly pursues a nuclear weapons program, seeking to purchase the same technology from Canada that sparked Pakistan and India's nuclear arms race.
[Editor's Note: P. D. Spyropoulos, Esq. is the Executive Director of American Hellenic Media Project in New York City. It is a non-profit organization which encourages independent, ethical and responsible journalism. The e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org, Tel. & Fax: (212) 249-3863.]
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia said Friday ongoing talks on strategic arms cuts would be pointless if changes were made to the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty -- a move Washington has been pressing for.
The Foreign Ministry statement came on the second day of closed talks between U.S. and Russian officials and after Moscow reiterated its concern over the 1972 ABM treaty, which outlaws defense systems designed to shoot down enemy warheads.
``The further reduction of strategic nuclear weapons is only possible with the proviso that the ABM treaty remains intact. ABM has a pivotal importance for all processes of disarmament and if this treaty is violated, all negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons will lose their point,'' the statement said.
Washington is trying to amend the treaty to permit it to build a limited defense against any attack on the United States or on U.S. troops stationed abroad by what it regards as ``rogue states'' such as North Korea or Iran.
Earlier, commenting on the talks underway in Moscow, a senior U.S. official said: ``We're saying that we need to be prepared to ensure that the ABM treaty does not preclude our ability as a nation to take the steps we see as absolutely essential for our defense.''
President Clinton is due to decide in June whether to build a national missile defense which would breach ABM. The senior U.S. official said Clinton wanted to come to a decision that allowed ABM to remain a ``core element'' in the Russian-U.S. strategic relationship.
Copyright 1999 Reuters. All rights reserved.
WASHINGTON - The Clinton White House Daily Briefing conducted on Tuesday October 5, 1999 included White House press secretary Joe Lockhart's reaction to press questions about President Clinton's interest in stalling ratification by the Senate of the "Conventional Test Ban Treaty." Unfortunately for Mr. Lockheart, there is no treaty pending by that name. The reporters present did not call Lockheart on the embarassing gaf, but continued on with tough questions on White House political strategy for advancing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for the past two years and now trying to pull it back. On the following Tuesday the treaty was rejected by a plurality in the Senate. Following is a portion of the White House transcript of the press briefing held at 1:03 P.M. EDT in the White House:
LOCKHART: Good afternoon, everyone.
Q: Joe, is the administration committed now to a vote on this treaty, or are you prepared to pull it if it looks like it's going down?
LOCKHART: Well, Senator Lott is the person who runs the Senate Floor. He's, for reasons that I articulated yesterday, thrown this on in a rather peculiar way, but the vote's next Tuesday and we're going to work as hard as we can between now and next Tuesday.
Q: Senator Lott is saying that you've been calling for this for two years, and now that he's called it to the Floor, you say, well, wait a minute here.
LOCKHART: Listen, I think anyone who is an objective observer here will agree with us, that after two years of pushing for this, to be told you have now nine days to make your case on something that is as important as this, is rather peculiar. I'll leave it -- he can explain his reasons. They are not convincing.
Q: He's explained his reasons as being a response to the White House making this a political issue, given Senator Biden to try to attach it as an amendment to a bill, planning on making it a campaign issue next year and said, fine, you want to play the game that way, we'll bring it to the Floor.
LOCKHART: Listen, I'd love to see his evidence. I know the Democrats on the Hill rightfully have made the case to him that after two years of inaction, it was time to move on this. Now, I think Senator Lott, it's incumbent on him to explain to the American public why his management of this issue is different from previous Republican leaders and previous Democratic leaders of the Senate, who allowed for full hearings and a full and open debate on the floor. It's -- we would be very interested in hearing that explanation.
Q: Joe, why have you failed to get anybody on board? Any -- you know, the Chairman of the Armed Services, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Majority Leader. What's wrong here that they're not buying your message?
LOCKHART: Well, I think -- you know, you all just sat through a very detailed briefing that made a very strong argument. So I would suggest that the Majority Leader can articulate for himself what his reasons are. We're working with Senators. We'll have some of the people you talked about down here at the White House for dinner tonight. We will make the case to them. We will make the case in the coming week that the vast majority of scientists believe this; the vast majority of military experts in this country agree with this.
All we can do is make a very simple case that we don't test because we don't need to. We should try to constrain the rest of the world, the people who do need to if they want to produce a modern nuclear force. This is a basic question about the nuclear future and our safety. And we think we have a very strong case, and we're going to continue making it.
I think -- I think -- let me turn the question around a little bit, though. If the Majority Leader's case was so strong, then why does he have to do a hit-and-run process? Why does he have to say, well, we have to do this within the next nine days, and there really aren't time for hearings? I'd suggest it exposes the weakness in their case, and if there are politics here, I think the politics are on the other side.
Q: But their point is that until you can verify -- until you can guarantee that you can monitor every low-yield nuclear explosion around the world, now is not the time. It --
LOCKHART: John, let me take --
Q: -- to give up our deterrence, or to give up the potential for future development.
LOCKHART: -- let me take the point directly: their point makes no sense. If we don't have a CTBT, we don't have the ability to do on-site inspections. We don't have the sensors around the world. We don't have the deterrence of breaking a treaty.
So what we have now is, we've got some people arguing that --- let's go ahead and keep this moratorium, because -- agreeing that we don't need to test, because of our technological superiority, but let's let everybody else test. We shouldn't do anything that keeps nations like China, Russia, India, Pakistan, from testing.
It's hard to refute an argument that has no logical underpinning. I am at a loss for words, because it's hard to argue with this. It doesn't make any sense.
Q: But are you confident that the 321 monitoring stations and the on-site inspections will allow for verification?
LOCKHART: Listen, we -- the CTB has strong verifications. This is not about trust. This is about trusting and verifying. There -- it is difficult today -- it is not like, if we don't put this treaty through, we have a magic solution to all low-level testing. It is difficult today -- we should recognize that problem, and we should move to strengthen our ability to do it. I mean, there's part of this argument that is circular, that -- it's very difficult to refute, because it doesn't make any sense.
Q: But, again, it comes back to the point that if you can't guarantee verification -- even with this treaty -- is this the prudent time to ratify the treaty?
LOCKHART: Listen --
Q: Or should the United States wait until the technology is more sophisticated?
LOCKHART: Well, listen, I don't know of any technology that gives you 100 percent capability. What I do know is the argument that they're making now is that they are basically accepting the fact that we don't need to test because we have a stockpile stewardship program that allows us to keep our superiority, to keep our deterrent without testing, but we shouldn't do anything to restrain China. We shouldn't do anything to restrain Russia. We shouldn't do anything to restrain India. We shouldn't do anything to restrain Pakistan.
And from the same group of people, the very same group of people who stood up on the Hill and lectured people endlessly about the Chinese nuclear threat and what they got and what they didn't get, to make the argument now that we shouldn't take a very positive, forward step to constrain their testing makes no sense.
Q: Are any of the President's guests tonight opponents of the treaty? Can you tell us who he's having in?
LOCKHART: I think Senator Warner has said things that indicate that he would have trouble supporting the treaty. We hope to be able to convince him and change his mind. He will be at the dinner and there will be some others.
Q: Joe, the President kidded yesterday that you were offered a choice of whether to take this vote now or not have a vote and that you chose to take it. Why did you do that? Why not wait maybe until earlier next year or when you might have some more time?
LOCKHART: We had no indication that the Senate would ever bring this up. Again, this goes to the basic tenants of the Senate taking on their constitutional responsibility. It had been sitting in the Senate for two years. There had never been a single hearing. We had had the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying over my dead body will I have a hearing on CTBT. Here's an issue that the vast majority of the American public supports. There is nobody out there in Lafayette Park today holding a demonstration, saying, let's have more testing. There's nobody there. There's a reason.
The reason is that the vast majority of the American public, the vast majority of the experts, the vast majority of the scientists say that we don't need to test, that it will make it a safer world if CTBT is ratified. Now, Senator Lott has his own reasons which he can articulate for why this is being done in a way that no other Senate Majority Leader has ever handled a major arms control treaty. He can articulate them.
But we need to make the best effort we can to try to convince senators of the value of this treaty and the importance of this treaty.
Q: There are polls that indicate that the American people want to stop testing?
LOCKHART: There was something in the paper this morning from a group that said 82 percent of the American public support the ratification of the Conventional Test Ban Treaty.
Q: Why isn't nine days -- if nine days isn't enough, then how many days would be enough?
LOCKHART: I think if you look at arms control treaties in the past, they've been on the Floor anything between five, 15, 20 days. There have been dozens of hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other committee hearings. And I think to try to do it within a week says something about the case that opponents have against the treaty.
Q: What's your head count? How many votes do you think you have?
LOCKHART: I don't have a head count. The President will meet with some senators tonight. He'll continue talking to senators. He'll continue making the public case. And we'll see where we are by next week.
Q: You were about 15 shy yesterday.
MR. LEAVY: We'll fill this out.
LOCKHART: Yes, I'll have a list as soon as it's ready. There are some people who are -- you know, adding, and I don't want to put out an incomplete list.
Q: Can you tick off what the President's going to do in the next two or three days, what this full-court press is going to consist of?
LOCKHART: Well, I think the dinner tonight is important. It's not just the President. We have all levels of the government, from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense, will be appearing in public, meeting in private, testifying on the Hill. You saw a group of distinguished experts talk to you within the last half-hour. Sandy Berger, as I said to you this morning, will be meeting with arms control groups who are supportive and will want to generate public support.
I think you'll see the President will be here tomorrow, surrounded by perhaps the most distinguished group of experts on this subject ever assembled, and others, making the case for why it's in our interest. He will continue talking about this, and we will continue making the case.
Q: Joe, can you put this in some sort of historical context? There are those -- and maybe it's a grand overstatement to say so, but given the import of nuclear weapons, there are those who compare this vote to the vote at the end of Woodrow Wilson's term on the League of Nations. If this treaty goes down, it is comparable -- just as important as, maybe even more important than, that defeat.
LOCKHART: It's hard for me to find the perfect historical comparison. But I think -- let me do it this way. There is no more important vote, as far as our future, and our safety. Moving ahead will provide for a safer and more secure world. Voting this treaty down will create new and very real threats to the American public; will allow states without modern nuclear programs to test, move their programs forward, and be a greater threat to our security and our lives.
Q: What's the event tomorrow?
LOCKHART: He's got some people coming in. I'll give you some more on that later today.
Q: Joe, has he been talking to any foreign leaders about his struggle over this domestically?
LOCKHART: Not --
Q: Is there anything that they --
LOCKHART: -- not in particular. I mean, I imagine later in the week, when he meets with Prime Minister Chretien, that the subject will come up. But as far as I know, he's not engaged other leaders.
Q: Do you know where former Presidents stand on this treaty?
LOCKHART: Well, I know that Mr. Bell gave you some sense of the origin of the test ban.
Q: I'm talking about living Presidents.
LOCKHART: I think President Carter has spoken in support of it. I don't know where President Ford is.
Q: And President Bush?
LOCKHART: Oh, he supported the moratorium, so it would stand --
Q: A nine-month moratorium.
Q: It was a temporary --
LOCKHART: Yes, well, it would stand to reason if he thought we didn't need to test, that it would be a good idea for others to constrain their testing. But I'll leave it to the former President to articulate his own view.
Q: Yes, one of the arguments is that -- and Senator Kyl made the argument this morning -- that you can't really rely on computer simulations until you've had several more years of tests in order to make sure that the computer simulations are accurate.
LOCKHART: Well, I think Senator Kyl should avail himself to the experts of the Department of Energy, at the National Laboratories, at the Pentagon, at the Joint Chiefs, within the scientific community, and within the arms control community. I think upon reviewing all of the information available, his view might be somewhat different.
Q: Joe, you mentioned Sandy Berger meeting with some of the outside groups? Is there going to be any effort to sort of get the public involved in any type of media campaign or some way to --
LOCKHART: Not that I know of...
Q: Is the President considering an Oval Office address?
LOCKHART: I think the President is considering getting this message out in any way that's possible. We'll look at all different ways, but I haven't heard any discussion of that or any decision that he'll be doing that. But I'm not ruling anything out at this point.
Q: Joe, how optimistic are you guys that he can win on this, or are you resigned to not getting it?
LOCKHART: We're certainly not resigned to anything here. We believe we have a very strong case. We are now in the second day of this effort. I think -- when you look at the newspaper, there are strong editorial support, there's strong support in all areas except in some places in the Senate. We will continue to work with senators and groups and on a one-on-one basis. We think that this argument is so strong and so compelling that -- and we know that we can change minds and we can convince senators to support it.
Q: Do you have any sense that there are votes out there which will be negative only because it's Bill Clinton that's the President and they're just so anti-Clinton and --
LOCKHART: Let me just address that because I've seen that suggested. I think if there is a single senator out there who thinks their own partisan differences with the President's and their own feelings about the President is more important than the future of this country, it's time for them to go get another job...
Q: Thank you.
[Editor's Note: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 49 percent of those surveyed said they were at all aware of the Oct. 13 Senate vote. Only 21 percent said they had "heard a lot'' about the treaty vote. But when asked how important it was for presidential candidates to take positions on various issues, 56 percent said it was "very important'' for candidates to take a stand on whether the United States "should participate in a treaty to ban all underground nuclear tests.'' Overall, the poll shows that "a lot of people don't know about the vote. The survey was conducted Oct. 15-19, 1999.]
Copyright 1999 The Daily Republican Newspaper. All rights reserved.
WASHINGTON - Last week President Clinton referred to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as "President Eisnehower's treaty". However, recently declassified U.S. government documents disclose facts that are inconsistent with what Mr. Clinon said about President Eisenhower. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was challenged on national television this week about Mr. Clinton's reference to an Eisenhower test ban treaty, she hedged with, "Well, President Eisenhower wanted a test ban..." But, just released National Security Agency files show a considerably different version of the facts and one of the Cold War's deepest secrets.
During the most dangerous phases of the U.S.-Soviet confrontation during the early 1960s when Mr. Clinton is suggesting President Eisenhower authored the CTBT, Eisenhower, was instead, moving to grant top military commanders highest presidential authority to launch nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union on their own.
For example, the secret documents reveal that President Eisenhower approved "predelegation" instructions in late 1959 so that top commanders would have the authority to make a rapid nuclear response if a Soviet attack on Washington killed the president. The instructions remained in place in "basically the same" form through the 1960s, although information on the later period and the current situation has not yet been declassified.
Historians and political scientists have known for some years that Eisenhower made decisions to predelegate nuclear weapons authority and that after he left office predelegation arrangements continued on into the Clinton administration. Until now, however, virtually no documentation about this situation or how his successors treated the instructions has been made available to the U.S. public.
This year, however, the National Archives and the Eisenhower and the Johnson presidential libraries released these documents on Eisenhower's predelegation decisions, including May 1957 guidelines, and drafts of the Joint Chiefs' instructions to commanders in the field.
The drafts of guidelines on predelegation approved by Eisenhower suggest that policymakers considered authorizing nuclear weapons use in at least two situations: 1) when attacks by sea or by air on U.S. territory and possessions provided no time for consultation with the President on defensive measures, or 2) when "enemy attacks" prevented a Presidential decision and it was necessary to protect U.S. forces abroad, including those in international waters, or to launch SAC to retaliate to nuclear attack on the continental United States. Whatever the circumstances, Eisenhower would later insist that it be "very clear that an authorizing commander knew in fact that the nuclear attack had occurred on the continental United States."
The 1959 Joint Chiefs' instructions to CINCSAC (less heavily excised than those to CINCEUR or CINCLANT) begin with a general statement of purpose: to authorize commanders "to expend nuclear weapons in defense of the United States, its Territories, possessions and forces when the urgency of time and circumstances does not permit a specific decision by the President or other person empowered to act in his stead." CINCSAC could approve nuclear release only in "circumstances of grave necessity."
The documents contain a stunning chronology of presidential decisions to use nuclear weapons during the timew period Mr. Clinton says thast President Eisenhower was authoring the CTBT. For example, in March 1956, Eisenhower requested the State and Defense Departments to prepare a policy statement on advance authorization of nuclear weapons use that would serve as the basis for specific instructions to senior commanders.
In late 1956, Eisenhower approved instructions enabling air defense forces to use nuclear weapons to repel a bomber attack on U.S. territory.
In May 1957, Eisenhower approved a more comprehensive set of highly-secret guidelines as the basis for further planning by the State Department and the Pentagon.
In December 1958, the agencies presented Eisenhower with a comprehensive set of instructions. The next step was to prepare specific instructions to designated commanders.
In late 1959, Eisenhower approved predelegation instructions from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs to the Commanders-in-Chief of the Atlantic Command [CINCLANT], European Command [CINCEUR], and the Strategic Air Command [CINCSAC], commanders with major responsibility for nuclear weapons.
John F. Kennedy did propose and sign a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in 1963. But he let Eisenhower's instructions stand, despite admonitions in January 1961 by White House aide McGeorge Bundy about the danger of "decisions-in-advance" that might allow a "subordinate commander faced with a substantial Russian military action to start the thermonuclear holocaust on his own initiative if he could not reach you."
March 1964, President Johnson approved "updated Instructions for Expenditure of Nuclear Weapons in Emergency Conditions" that were "basically the same" as Eisenhower's.
Kennedy's decision to let Eisenhower's instructions stand meant that they remained in effect during one of the most difficult and potentially dangerous periods of the Cold War, the 1961-1962 Berlin Crisis and the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. It may have been the experience of the Cuban crisis, when tensions were at a fever pitch and the Air Force blundered by test-firing an ICBM.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that predelegation was "not in the US interest." In January 1963, McNamara told other U.S. officials that he worried that a designated commander might confuse an accidental nuclear launch or explosion with an all-out attack. This problem convinced him only the President should "decide to launch in response to an apparent nuclear attack." Even with his concerns about the risk, however, in March 1964, McNamara recommended that the President approve updated instructions on emergency release of nuclear weapons.
In a National Security Agency meeting memo on January 16, 1956, Mr. Eisenhower wrote, "[T]he United States is piling up armaments which it well knows will never provide for its ultimate safety. We are piling up these armaments because we do not know what else to do to provide for our security."
[Editor's Note: For significant studies with discussion of predelegation and related issues, see Bruce G. Blair The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War (Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution,1993); Peter Feaver, the Guardians: Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons in the United States (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1992); David A. Rosenberg, "The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960," in Steven E. Miller, ed., Strategy and Nuclear Deterrence (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984); and Scott Sagan, Moving Targets, Nuclear Strategy and National Security (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1989). ]
WASHINGTON - President Clinton's irrresponsible accusations of Senate recklessness and blatant partisanship in the rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty are a clumsy attempt to shift blame from his own failed foreign policies. While Mr. Clinton has been seen and heard admitting his monitoring system may not even work, Joe Forgy writes The Republican over the weekend with the partisan rant "...the Republicans in the Senate committed treason against the United States and the world."
Further evidence of the Clinton camp despair is the pretentious claim that "...this treaty was first proposed by President Eisenhower in 1958." However, the record is clear that it was President John F. Kennedy, who in 1963, first signed and submitted for Senate approval, a limited test ban treaty barring all but underground nuclear tests by the United States and the Soviet Union.
The treaty Mr. Clinton proposed and then signed in 1996 is a far cry from the Kennedy Plan which has neither a workable monitoring nor a fool-proof enforcement protocol. As such, the Clinton test ban is a danger to U.S. security. For this reason the Senate rejected the Clinton test ban treaty ban on Wednesday by a plurality of 51 to 48. Mr. Clinton knew he did not have the required two-thirds majority of 67 votes for ratification when he moved the treaty to the Senate for action.
Mr. Clinton's political reasons for pushing the treaty at this time are obvious even to the casual observer. Immediately following defeat of the treaty he signed in 1996, he went on national television and radio to announce, "This was a political deal and I hope it will get the treatment from the American people it richly deserves. Never before has a serious treaty involving nuclear weapons been handled in such a reckless and ultimately partisan way."
Vice President Al Gore paid for his first campaign television commercial the same day containing the following paid political appeal to voters for their support in his campaign, and "...for a mandate to send the treaty back to the Senate in 2001....I believe in my heart this vote does not speak for the American people. So why don't we do something about it?"
Gov. George W. Bush told voters, if elected president he "...would continue the voluntary moratorium on U.S. testing that has been in effect since 1992."
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott(R) said he doubts Gore can make a winning campaign issue of the treaty because Americans now know it is flawed. Public opinion polls do not show very much support for the flawed treaty. But in foreign policy opinion surveys only about 5 percent of potential voters identify the Clinton test ban treaty as a top priority, and the issue of nuclear weapons ranks even lower.
[Editor's Note: Click here to read the terms & conditions of the CTBT.]
NEW YORK - Wall Street stooks dropped sharply Friday after an inflation report showed prices rising at an unexpectedly rapid rate, the shapest fall off sine President Clinton took office in November 1993.
Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve warned investors late Thursday investing in stocks. The comments late Thursday added to inflation worries of investors may have been the trigger that sent stock reeling in earlky trading on Friday.
Wall Street has seen unusual ups/downs in recent weeks, on expectations the Fed might continue to raise short-term interest rates. The market has seen rising long-term interest rates, as well. The yield on long bonds, slipped to 6.32 down to 6.26 percent Friday as increased bond activity replace shorts in stock transaction throught the day Friday.
All this has come against the backdrop of a booming economy, which has produced strong corporate profits. "Earnings have been good, but interest rates have surprised people by rising," said Byron Wien, an equity strategist at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. "Inflation is not dead, and that has been the undoing of the market."
The Government reported Friday that the Producer Price Index rose 1.1 percent in September, the largest monthly climb in nine years. [Page B1.] While most of that could be explained by rising prices of tobacco, cars, food and energy, the figure was much larger than expected, and that contributed to the weakness in the stock market.
The Fed has been expected to raise short-term interest rates by a quarter-percentage point when it meets on Nov. 16.
The Nasdaq composite index hit a record high on Monday. But it fell 2.67 percent, or 75 points, Friday, to 2,731.83, and is now down 6.7 percent since the Monday high, as leading technology stocks have slipped. Friday, Microsoft, Cisco and Intel all lost at least $2 a share. Still, the Nasdaq composite is up 24.6 percent in 1999.
The stock market on Friday appears to be more unpredictable than at any time since President Bill Clinton took the oath of office. The Dow has lost more than 200 points on seven days this year, four of them since Sept. 21, 1999.
WASHINGTON - On September 24, 1996, President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) at the United Nations Headquarters. Over the next five months, 141 nations, including the four other nuclear weapons states, added their signatures to this total ban on nuclear explosions. Here's why the CTBT has not been and won't be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
By the Law of Treaties the United States was bound to abide by the provisions of the CTBT prior to its ratification, before the ink was dry on Mr. Clinton's signature line. Normally, the treaty would have entered into force 180 days after ratification had been deposited by the 44 States which then had nuclear power reactors and were listed in the CTBT.
To help achieve wide spead public support for verification of compliance with its provisions, Mr. Clinton mislead the American people and the other nations signing on to the CTBT that there was a tested and reliable international monitoring technology in place using seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasonic, and radionuclide sensors.
That technology was supposed to provide monitoring data to each nation which signs and ratifies the treaty for use in its national treaty verification efforts. So far, however, the only technology to emerge has been a scale-model prototype that is supposed to be the critical variable in the monitoring and identifiction of nuclear energy releases.
What we have learned from the prototype is that CTBT monitoring has a long way to go before it is relaible. To sustain and advance what Mr. Clinton depicts as CTBT monitoring capability, there is a need for a strong basic research effort to support improved analysis of data being gathered by nuclear explosion monitoring stations.
The U.S, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Phillips Laboratory, and the Nuclear Treaty Program Office of the Secretary of Defense had only set up a panel on seismology to identify the broad range of basic research issues that would strengthen national capabilities to monitor a global ban on nuclear explosions.
Specific basic research activities in the fields of seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, and radionuclide monitoring are required to make the proposed monitoring prototype fully functional. Research in the monitoring technologies is needed but has not been done to create the U.S. monitoring system (when fully deployed) and therefore the CTBT is a work in progress and incomplete. One that will not, at present, enable the U.S. or any of the CTBT signatories to even shape a systematic research effort to support nuclear monitoring, or to deploy strategies to increase their effectiveness and stability.
Monitoring CTBT compliance is a great deal more challenging than prior nuclear testing treaties because the CTBT requires high confidence identification of any nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater, underground or in space amidst a significant background of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms, meteor impacts, and conventional explosions such as mining blasts.
In spite of the competitive disadvantages inherent in the scheme and the aging nuclear stockpile, President Clinton committed the United States to an absolute ban of physical nuclear testing. He flatly admitted he had no scientif justification to support his signature on the CTBT when he said, "I recognize that our present monitoring systems will not detect with high confidence very low yield tests. Therefore I am committed to pursuing a comprehensive research and development program to improve our treaty monitoring capabilities and operations."
At best, nuclear scientists tell us monitoring data must be able to instantaneously identify the source excitations, accounting for signal propagation or advection through the Earth, automated recording and telemetry by instrumentation, and analysis of the signals for event detection, location, and identification.
Basic research has not been done and is needed to meet the technical challenges of monitoring a comprehensive ban on nuclear explosions, especially because there has been limited experience using synergistic monitoring strategies and in-country (regional) data.
The monitoring requiremnt of the CTBT requires a global system to detect the distinctive seismic and acoustic waves, radioactive materials, and radiation emanating from nuclear explosions. Through the analysis of signals that have passed through the complex Earth system, scientific and technical expertise is critical in the identification and separation of nuclear events from among the significant background noise of weather phenomena, earthquakes, and conventional explosions.
In summary, Mr. Clinton set initiated organizational changes at Department of Defense while the CTBT was under negotiation in Geneva. Here's the reason Mr. Clinton changed the organizational structure of the nation's defense.
To ensure compliance with the CTBT's ban on nuclear explosions, a global seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasonic, and radionuclide data collection system is necessary to be deployed as part of an international monitoring system. The United States has indicated that it would monitor international treaty compliance using these unclassified IMS data. The newly created Nuclear Treaty Program Office within DoD adds billions of tax dollars to an as
On Wednesday, the Senate rejected the treaty 48 to 51. Fpr ratificsation of the treaty, approval of two-thirds of the Senate is required. Opponents of the treaty openly expressed concern that giving up testing rights would place the United States at a disadvantage.
It was clearly the worst foreign policy defeat of Mr. Clinton's presidency.
[Editor's Note: Article 1.1, of the CTBT which Mr. Clinton signed in 1996 includes the following condition: "Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control." Click here to read the terms & conditions of the CTBT.]
WASHINGTON - In a stinging defeat for President Clinton, the Senate on Wednesday rejected the global nuclear test ban treaty after a bitter Democrat offensive fight to postpone a vote they couldn't win. The defeat stunned U.S. allies and other nations who may assume they are free to restart their stalled nuclear engines and rejoin the Thermonuclear rat race.
The Clinton White House is crying wolf after the Senate's rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty. The Democrat Party mantra has become overnight that the Senate's rejection of the unverifiable Clinton test ban treaty will cause a political hailstorm of reaction across the globe.
The idea that President Clinton would submit such a flawed piece of work is casting into doubt the reliability of President Clinton's leadership in the international leadership and foreign policy community. Worse still, the Foreign Press reaction to Mr. Clinton's so-called Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on Wednesday as the Senate readied for hearings, Mr. Clinton hesitated, and began an appeal to the Senate not to vote on the CTBT but, instead to delay.
The London Independent news the night before led with, "There is a disturbing autism...in Washington.[T]hey are making the world... unimaginably dangerous."
In France, Le Figaro responded to the Senate vote on Wednesday, "The CTBT has become the most surprising topic of confrontation between the White House and Congress.... Bill Clinton's triple defeat - tactical, political and diplomatic - is indicative of the erosion of his power. His signature carries little effect..."
That was followed with a La Nazione comment, "Bill Clinton is going to face a humiliating defeat in the Senate over the treaty that bans nuclear testing.... The CTBT, signed in 1996, was not President Clinton's priority....However, the Republicans know that should they reject the treaty, it would allow the Democrats to portray them as the enemy of disarmament."
A reasoned voice from the Netherland's NRC Handelsblad by its correspondent Juurd Eijsvogel points to Mr. Clinton's failure with, "Clinton is in a painful situation which is caused ... by the president's own leadership or the lack thereof. After the president signed the treaty in 1996 and sent it to the Senate a year later, he did not do much lobbying with the senators. He did not explain the importance of the treaty in his addresses to the nation. "
Islamabad's Pakistan Observer saw it coming on Monday and wrote, "The move for postponement of a ratification vote...highlights the double standard and inherent contradictions of the U.S. policies.... Ironically, the Clinton administration is trying to impose on others what the American lawmakers don't deem appropriate for the United States. It certainly has no moral basis to woo other nations on this issue."
Making matters worse, Reuters is breaking a story that the Senate's vote against ratifying the international nuclear test ban treaty, a top foreign policy goal for President Clinton, was seen by its supporters as a devastating blow to American prestige. "Our authority to set the norms in the international system has been seriously compromised," said Laurence Korb, now with the Council on Foreign Relations and once an assistant secretary of state in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan.
NATO's new secretary-general Lord Robertson told reporters Thursday he was worried by the U.S. Senate's rejection of a nuclear test ban treaty, but said it had a lot to do with politics and he hoped Americans would reconsider. "Well, it's a very worrying vote...and the sort of febrile atmosphere that comes with a presidential election on the horizon." Robertson told BBC Radio listeners overnight.
SINGAPORE - Pakistan's state television has announced that the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been dismissed, and that the army chief will address the nation. The announcement (late Tuesday night) came just hours after troops moved into Islamabad to take control of all government buildings. Scott Anger of Voice of America first covered the coup from the Pakistani capital in a Tuesday afternoon shortwave broadcast beamed around the world.
Scott told listeners the army had staged a coup against Pakistan's democratically-elected government. The move has led to the dismissal of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Outside the seized television building in Islamabad, more than 400 people danced, waved flags and shouted, ``Long live the army.''
Regular transmission resumed on Pakistan's state television late Tuesday night, with the announcement of Mr. Sharif's dismissal.
The army action follows hours of confusion across the country as to who was in control of the government.
Army troops surrounded Prime Minister Sharif's residence in Islamabad shortly after he dismissed Pakistan's powerful army chief of staff, General Pervez Musharraf.
Less than an hour after the general's dismissal order was announced, army troops moved into Islamabad to take control of government buildings.
Tension has been growing between Prime Minister Sharif and General Musharraf since the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Indian Kashmir, under pressure by the Clinton administration.
Pakistan's military was widely seen in the West as being behind the fighting in Kashmir, which triggered the worst confrontation between Pakistan and India in 30 years.
The army took the prime Minister's decision to withdraw from Kashmir as a betrayal. After dismissing General Musharraf, the prime minister named Lieutenant-General Ziauddin, head of Pakistan's Inner Services Intelligence agency, to replace Mr. Musharraf. The I-S-I is Pakistan's equivalent of the U-S Central Intelligence Agency.
General Musharraf was promoted to chief of staff of the army last October, after Mr. Sharif forced his predecessor to step down, for criticizing Mr. Sharif's government.
Pakistan's powerful military has a history of coups against civilian governments.
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, speaking with BBC World TV in London, said she doesn't support coups. But ``ultimately I blame Mr. Nawaz Sharif for ruthlessly trampling on the rule of law and attempting to divide the army politically.'' She said the army should set a firm date for elections and ``go back to the barracks.''
The coup may have jeopardized billions of dollars in international loans to impoverished Pakistan.
AGANA, Guam - The federal government has taken me into custody in the Guam detention facility. I am a political prisoner whose civil rights have been violated by the same legal system founded on a Constitution which quarantees the protection of our freedom U.S. Marshals did not read me my rights. They imposed severe restrictions upon my confinement and I was not allowed to use the phone. I was denied visitors. I observed that Chinese illegal aliens detained here are given more freedoms.
It was at that very moment I began to realize how powerful the federal government can be when punishing those who question the authority of its bureaucrats over civilians.
I was taken into an office and asked by a clerk to sign a legal document requiring my hearing at the U.S. District Court on November 20, 1999.
I was to be released on my own "recognizance" if I would comply with certain conditions in exchange for my release from custody. I disagreed with setting conditions on my freedom and refused to sign the agreement.
Then the federal judge remanded me to the Guam Detention Facility where I was placed in a holding cell. I was later escorted to the Pacific Daily News Building where I was turned over to Department of Correction guards and transported to a prison cell in the DOC where I remain as a political prisoner.
[Editor's Note: Senator Angel Santos, represented the people of Guam in the 23rd & 24th Guam Legislature. On Sunday, October 10, 1999 Mr. Santos penned a column in the Daily Republican Newspaper in which he wrote these words, "Why would the federal government not want to return our ancestral lands to the original landowners when it currently controls ... approximately 44,000 acres... 12,000 acres that are situated within their military installations, while only 6,000 acres of that is actively being used. The remaining 32,000 acres of so called federal properties have been sitting idle in remote jungle areas throughout our island. The federal government voluntarily registered Guam as a non self governing territory with the United Nations. Consequently, the Chamoru people received legal recognition as a colonized people whose human rights must be protected under International Law. Based on the passage of a U.N. Resolution on February 24, 1999, the United Nations has mandated the immediate return of our ancestral lands from the federal government without any strings attached or conditions imposed. The confiscation of our lands by the U.S. Naval government during the 1940s and 1950s was an illegal act. However, because of our loyalty to the United States, we were too afraid to challenge the federal government, especially after we had just been liberated from the Japanese forces. ..Our national debt to the federal government has been paid 'in full' when our men and women sacrificed their lives and spilled their blood fighting for it."]
WASHINGTON - Last week, President Clinton unexpectedly launched a full-court press for the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty raising widespred dismay that he would risk defeat and further alienation of his presidentcy. Mr. Clinton has made an unsupported claim that approval by the Senate would "...preserve U.S. nuclear superiority and prevent proliferation in other countries."
However, rejection of Mr. Clinton's claims is a far more likely course, as the Senate has shown no willingness to succomb to executive branch bullying on national defense and arms control matters this week.
Making matters worse for the White House, Mr. Clinton backed down after Republican demands that he request a delay of this week's scheduled Senate vote on ratification. But on Saturday, in his radio speech, Mr. Clinton continued pressure on the American people to push the Senate to ratify a flawed foreign policy strategy.
Mr. Clinton's theory holds that if only the nations with nuclear weapons will consent to leave their territory totally vulnerable to each othe's nuclear attack, all will be well.
That is the Clinton nuclear test ban dogma of consensual vulnerability and it assumes it is the best and the only way to prevent nuclear war indefinitely. Typical of those who use such arguments to shore up their faulty logic, Mr. Clinton often attempts to distort history.
On Saturday Mr. Clinton made an appeal in his radio broadcast supporting the Comprehensive test Ban Treaty as a Republican theory which he said was "...[M]ore needed now than when President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed it more than 40 years ago."
Unfortunately, history is not one of Mr. Clinton's strengths. In fact, the treaty Clinton was referring to was actually proposed in October of 1963 by then President John F. Kennedy(D).
Kennedy's concoction only covered nuclear weapons tests in outer space & under water. Signatories were to be the U.S., the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A month after the Kennedy Nuclear Test Ban proposal was enacted, he was assassinated in Dallas Texas.
The CIA recently reported that it is unable to monitor Russian nuclear tests so as to ensure compliance with the Mr. Clinton's treaty.
Three Clinton cabinet appointees appeared on Sunday talkathons."We are in a situation right now where we're about to send a signal to the rest of the world that we are not as serious about controlling the spread of nuclear weapons as we should be," Defense Secretary William Cohen told TV audiences on NBC's Meet the Press.
Then, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told ABC's This Week that she sees nuclear test bans as "...a tool that will prevent the other countries from testing...We don't need to test..."
Former Defense and Energy secretary James Schlesinger addressed the GOP conference and met with eight senators individually to discuss his concerns. He argued that the treaty would actually harm U.S. security.
AGANA, Guam - President Clinton announced yesterday in San Francisco $4.7 million has been allocated to Hawaii and to Guam for his "welfare-to-work" programs. Guam is getting about $545,000 of it to help pay for a second year of what Mr. Clinton calls his "welfare-to-work" training programs. He says the money will get Guam off public assistance and into the work force.
Many people here have come to realize, however, that no matter how much taxpayer money the Clinton administration dips into, he will never be able to get welfare state socialism to work on Guam.
Too much blood has been spilled by us in fighting for this land to sell out our birthright of freedom for a handful of food stamps. This land is our land but violations of our property rights by government officials has compromised the integrity of the economy and the will to work to improve one's economic conditions.
The people of Guam have been forced to prostitute themselves in order to obtain a welfare handout. With the passage of time this terrible wrong has compounded. Today, the people on Guam are torn between their moral belief in honest hard work and the coercive influence of the government handout for not working.
Consequently, after President Clinton's Air Force One recently lifted off our shores in an earth shaking preponderance, we watched in wonder and prayed the simple goodbye prayer in silence, Our father who art in D.C., Federal be your name. Your money says, 'IN GOD WE TRUST,' so deliver it to us, in abundance, and forgive us for the loss of our integrity! Amen.
As his plane disappeared into thin air, a sobering realization began to take hold of everyone as we realized President Clinton had snookered us one more time. We were being ignored again, just as we have been for the past 55 years. We once were land owners until Liberal welfare socialism living, had co-opted Guam from its former prosperous self-sufficient paradise into the present squalor of a third-world dependency. We the historic landowners of Guam had become the living dead of the Marianas Island chain. Our sense of independence and pride was stripped from us by the temptation of handouts and government jobs in which nothing is produced and our leaders who inspired us to accomplish good things for the community were driven out by subtle government pressure.
The spin-off from these injustices has produced a new sort of Guam that is plagued with disorder, heinous crime, and fear. A casual observer can see that all three branches of our government are broken. As things stand, we the living dead are witnesses to the inevitable downward spiral of the socialist state that is GovGuam today. Ironically, the Clinton White House version of a New Deal scam for Guam, includes giving us back our land in the form of a 99 year lease on a cinder block house.
As in "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absplutely," the Clinton administration controls our land. For now, he and his kind have the power to economically enslave the working class who struggle to make ends meet, to pay taxes and are denied the right to possess thir own land.
The unwritten, "Declaration Of Dependence" is echoed so eloquently by our former Delegate to Congress, Mr. Ben Blaz, when he said . . . "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us." Being forthright in his manner and speech cost him his bid for re-election.
Demosthenes, the ancient Greek Orator, said, "Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, that we readily believe." It's time we stand up for our fundamental Private Property Rights.
The Territory of Guam Department of Commerce reports today that the Food Stamp monthly handout is already running in excess of $24,811,848. Families already have received a record $30,827,514 in public assistance yet Land Claim registration is -66.7% according to most recent SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM COURTS AND TRIALS DIVISION - CASE FILINGS. Serious crimes are up 20% at 20,397 cases filed.
The people of the Territory of Guam are tired of being walked on. In the wake of this chaos, former Senator Angel Santos turned himself in to U.S. Marshals this week after a federal judge in Guam issued a bench warrrant for his arrest after a column he wrote appeared in the Daily Republican Newspaper criticizing the federal courts in Guam. He was quoted as complaining - "Why would the federal government not want to return our ancestral lands to the original landowners when it currently controls ... approximately 44,000 acres... 12,000 acres that are situated within their military installations, while only 6,000 acres of that is actively being used. The remaining 32,000 acres of so called federal properties have been sitting idle in remote jungle areas throughout our island." Santos wrote," The federal government voluntarily registered Guam as a non self governing territory with the United Nations. Consequently, the Chamoru people received legal recognition as a colonized people whose human rights must be protected under International Law. Based on the passage of a U.N. Resolution on February 24, 1999, the United Nations has mandated the immediate return of our ancestral lands from the federal government without any strings attached or conditions imposed."
"The confiscation of our lands by the U.S. Naval government during the 1940s and 1950s was an illegal act. However, because of our loyalty to the United States, we were too afraid to challenge the federal government, especially after we had just been liberated from the Japanese forces. ..Our national debt to the federal government has been paid 'in full' when our men and women sacrificed their lives and spilled their blood fighting for it," Santos concluded.
This is what it takes to wake the people of Guam from our sleep-walking. Now, we are wide-awake, at last. Thank you, Senator Santos!
SACRAMENTO - They say that a cornered animal fights with defensive desperation. If you want to see an uglier phenomenon, try taking an animal's food away while it's eating. Instead of trying to get away, it will aggressively and angrily attack.
The National Abortion Federation attacked a proposed bill by Rep. Joseph Pitts and Sen. Rick Santorum (R, Pennsylvania) that would provide funds for groups advocating alternatives to abortion. The reasoning of the Senator and Congressman was that if the federal government funds abortion rights groups, it should also provide for the alternatives. The goal was to set aside $85 million each year for such alternatives and not permit abortion groups to use any of those new funds.
The National Abortion Federation, smelling a new food dish that wouldn't be theirs, stated that such a bill would pose, "significant public health danger because it would support organizations that withhold information about safe, legal options to unintended pregnancy." What they mean is that they might not encourage women to go have an unborn child surgically slaughtered. Their argument is ridiculously flawed, given the organization's name.
Clearly, "The National Abortion Federation" has specific ideas on how unwanted pregnancy should be dealt with that don't necessarily include all the "safe, legal options."
Now remember, these are the same sorts of liberals who told us alternative lifestyles were socially desirable before the AIDS epidemic hit. These are the same sorts of liberals who said the traditional family unit should be discarded, but promptly changed their minds when 20 years of that sort of thinking began unraveling the fabric of our society. These are the people who have helped make our nation a place of delinquency led by a president who thinks nothing of lying to the public or unraveling the fabric of his own family.
So why does the National Abortion Federation object to new programs that could help provide for unintended pregnancies? They're living off the government cheese, so to speak, and do not wish to share it.
Consider all the planned pregnancy centers and abortion clinics that exist. All the staff and all the doctors are gaining a lot of income through the Federal government. What would happen to their funding if the idea of social responsibility took hold? What if teens, recognizing they weren't ready for children, practiced abstinence (the only 100% effective method of contraception and disease prevention)?
The result is unthinkable to them. The abortions would taper off. Abortion clinics wouldn't be necessary, and abortion doctors might have to turn to practicing medicine to earn a living. Old-fashioned common sense and responsibility might replace Planned Parenthood centers.
Who would benefit? The government would save millions of dollars a year, and society would suddenly be relieved of a major burden. The political debate around abortion would die, because recreational abortions would no longer be necessary. A great division in the American public would be replaced by a sense of success and accomplishment. And there would be no more teen mothers-to-be agonizing over what to do, nor emotionally distraught teens who weren't told there were psychological repercussions involved with abortion.
If society wins, it's okay with me if the National Abortion Federation goes bankrupt. They'll be obsolete.
WASHINGTON - In the face of rejection of the Republican leadership's health care proposals on Thursday, now Republicans are showing a heightened loss of interest in holding hearings into the 1993 Waco debacle as concern over another White House investigation wanes.
Rep. Mark Souder(R) accounted for the lack of interest Thursday by telling reportes, "There's Waco fatigue!" He said he would like to hold-off on the hearing until spring of the year 2000. "There's a feeling that the political risk may be higher than the political gain of pursuing this subject at this time," he said.
Rep. Dan Burton(R) chair of the House Government Reform Committee, has already served a subpoena for Waco documents from the Justice and Defense departments. However, there has been no response to the demand as of Friday.
The revelations that sparked the furor include the FBI's admission that its agents fired potentially flammable tear gas canisters at the compound April 19, 1993, which the agency long denied. The FBI says the canisters, launched hours before the start of the fire that consumed the compound, bounced harmlessly off the roof of a nearby bunker and did not contribute to that fire. About 80 Davidians died that day.
Orrin Hatch (R) chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee old reporters Thursday he wanted his panel to handle the hearings. However, Senator Lott announced in September that a task force headed by Sen. Arlen Specter(R), of the Judiciary Committee would be investigating the Waco debacle along with charges of Democrat Party campaign fund raising violations and alleged Chinese espionage activity at Las Almos, N.M. and Livermore, Ca. nuclear labs.
WHITE HOUSE - All mankind has been struggling to escape from the darkening prospect of mass destruction on earth.
The Nuclear Test Ban treaty initialed yesterday, is a limited treaty. It will not reduce nuclear stockpiles; it will not halt the production of nuclear weapons; it will not restrict their use in time of war.
This treaty is in part the product of Western patience and vigilance. We have made clear our deep resolve to protect our security and our freedom against any form of aggression.
This treaty is not the millennium. It will not resolve all conflicts, or eliminate the dangers of war. It will not reduce our need for arms or allies or programs of assistance to others. But it is an important first step--a step towards peace--a step towards reason--a step away from war.
No one can predict with certainty what further agreements, if any, can be built on the foundations of this one. They could include controls on preparations for surprise attack, or on numbers and type of armaments. There could be further limitations on the spread of nuclear weapons. The important point is that efforts to seek new agreements will go forward.
I do not say that a world without aggression or threats of war would be an easy world.
A war today or tomorrow, if it led to nuclear war, would not be like any war in history. A full-scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes, with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300 million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as well as untold numbers elsewhere. And the survivors would envy the dead.
For they would inherit a world so devastated by explosions and poison and fire that today we cannot even conceive of its horrors. So let us try to turn the world away from war. Let us make the most of this opportunity, and every opportunity, to reduce tension, to slow down the perilous nuclear arms race, and to check the world's slide toward final annihilation.
This treaty can be a step towards freeing the world from the fears and dangers of radioactive fallout. The number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in comparison with natural health hazards. But this is not a natural health hazard--and it is not a statistical issue.
The loss of even one human life, or the malformation of even one baby--who may be born long after we are gone--should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent.
This treaty can be a step toward preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to nations not now possessing them. During the next several years, in addition to the four current nuclear powers, a small but significant number of nations will have the intellectual, physical, and financial resources to produce both nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them.
In time, it is estimated, many other nations will have either this capacity or other ways of obtaining nuclear warheads, even as missiles can be commercially purchased today.
I ask you to stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands, in the hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, scattered throughout the world.
There would be no rest for anyone then, no stability, no real security, and no chance of effective disarmament. There would only be the increased chance of accidental war, and an increased necessity for the great powers to involve themselves in what otherwise would be local conflicts.
If only one thermonuclear bomb were to be dropped on any American, Russian, or any other city, whether it was launched by accident or design, by a madman or by an enemy, by a large nation or by a small, from any corner of the world, that one bomb could release more destructive power on the inhabitants of that one helpless city than all the bombs dropped in the Second World War.
In today's world, a nation's security does not always increase as its arms increase, when its adversary is doing the same, and unlimited competition in the testing and development of new types of destructive nuclear weapons will not make the world safer for either side.
Under this limited treaty, on the other hand, the testing of other nations could never be sufficient to offset the ability of our strategic forces to deter or survive a nuclear attack and to penetrate and destroy an aggressor's homeland.
For all these reasons, I am hopeful that this Nation will promptly approve the limited test ban treaty. There will, of course, be debate in the country and in the Senate. The Constitution wisely requires the advice and consent of the Senate to all treaties, and that consultation has already begun.
All this is as it should be. A document which may mark an historic and constructive opportunity for the world deserves an historic and constructive debate.
It is my hope that all of you will take part in that debate, for this treaty is for all of us. It is particularly for our children and our grandchildren, and they have no lobby here in Washington. This debate will involve military, scientific, and political experts, but it must not be left to them alone. The right and the responsibility are yours.
If we are to open new doorways to peace, if we are to seize this rare opportunity for progress, if we are to be as bold and farsighted in our control of weapons as we have been in their invention, then let us now show all the world on this side of the wall and the other that a strong America also stands for peace. There is no cause for complacency.
We have learned at times past that the spirit of one moment or place can be gone in the next. We have been disappointed more than once, and we have no illusions now that there are shortcuts on the road to peace. At many points around the globe the Communists are continuing their efforts to exploit weakness and poverty. Their concentration of nuclear and conventional arms must still be deterred.
Now, for the first time in many years, the path of peace may be open. No one can be certain what the future will bring. No one can say whether the time has come for an easing of the struggle. But history and our own conscience will judge us harsher if we do not now make every effort to test our hopes by action, and this is the place to begin. According to the ancient Chinese proverb, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."
[Editor's Note: The text of Mr. Kennedy's comments was taken from a portion of the transcript of his radio and television address of the same date on file at the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston, Massachusetts. On November 22, 1963 John F. Kennedy died from one or more gunshot wounds as he rode through the streets of Dallas Texas in an open vehicle.]
LUND, Sweden - I have just returned from Pristina, Skopje and Belgrade. I have learend that those who wrote the Report of the UN Secretary-General on the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)did not accurately report. Their reports are biased, embellished, slanted. They omit important aspects which point toward the fact that this mission ignores Security Council Resolution 1244 on which it is based and is a failure in-the-making on its own criteria.
The report (S/1999/987 of September 16) covers the period in which at least 150.000 legitimate non-Albanian (Serbs, Roma,etc) citizens were driven out of the province. Normally this would be called ethnic cleansing. It has happened under the very eyes of 45.000 NATO soldiers, 1.100 UN civilian police and thousands of other internationals, including the OSCE and EU. The report does NOT state that this is a fatal blow to both NATO and the UN. Res. 1244 states that the mission is to 'ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants of Kosovo' as well as, among many other things, maintain law and order, protect and promote human rights and ensure public safety. The report states that "KFOR deserves great credit for its efforts..."
I do not think it does. The international community condemned Yugoslavia for having, at the height of the war and bombing, about 40.000 soldiers and police in the province to maintain law and order and - as they saw it - to protect the Serb and other minorities. Now the total international presence is almost twice as big and IT has not been able to fulfil the centre-piece of the UN mandate: to preserve a multiethnic Kosovo in safety for everybody.
For all practical purposes, Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed by the KLA and other Albanians AFTER the international community arrived. This is neither regretted nor condemned in the report. Rather, the report states that "...[S]enior Kosovo Albanian personalities, including the leadership of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), have voiced increasingly forthright public positions on tolerance and security for minorities. Senior KLA figures have denied KLA involvement in attacks and called for non-Albanians to remain in Kosovo and repeatedly affirmed their commitment to human rights, tolerance and diversity."
The report, issued in the name of the UN Secretary-General, does NOT mention that KLA set up a self-appointed government, installed local leaders in virtually all municipalities and, thus, see themselves as the legitimate authority of Kosovo. In short, the report omits any mention of who is or must be made responsible for the recent ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
Could the reason be that the KLA and the political Kosovo Albanian leadership was NATO's ally during the war and the international community's partner now? That its prime minister, Hacim Thaci, is the favoured leader - for the time being at least - by the United States and other leading actors? In short, that the West's partner is doing what we accused Milosevic of doing?
The Yugoslav government was always pointed out as the culprit of ethnic cleansing of Albanians. Fantastic stories circulated without evidence about Serb plans to drive out all Albanians from the region during NATO's bombing campaign. With perhaps 90% of all non-Albanians now driven out, the Kosovo-Albanian leadership is responsible for the proportionately largest ethnic cleansing in the Balkans since the wars started in 1991.
But those who wrote the text of this report - presumably UNMIK staff and the office of UNMIK head, Dr. Bernhard Kouchner in Pristina - see no reason to condemn this! The formulation of the report is: 'In the period since mid-June 1999, non-Albanians, primarily Serbs and Roma, have been the target for harassment, intimidation and attacks. As a result, many have left Kosovo.' And then it mentions that the Yugoslav Red Cross estimates that 150,000 have gone to Serbia and Montenegro.
They have been the target - by whom? If Belgrade or Serb paramilitaries had ethnically cleansed 150,000 Albanians or more from their province, you may wonder how the international community - the UN, U.S. State Department, the media - would have formulated it. At no point does the report state who should be made responsible for this latest ethnic cleansing campaign, there is not a word about Albanian atrocities, war criminals or any hesitation on the part of the West to co-operate with individuals, groups and institutions who is likely to have caused this exodus. Neither does it regret that Albanians are intimidated by KLA and forced out of their temporary houses upon return, or punished for not wanting to join KLA.
The bias is put in perspective when the report immediately after states that: 'Hardening Serb attitudes towards Kosovo Albanians, driven in part by outside extremists, are helping to radicalise Albanians in Mitrovica.' The authors of the report has evidently never noticed any outside extremists on the Albanian side, now or earlier. Neither have they observed hardening Albanian attitudes. The formulation also makes the few remaining Serbs the causal factor and the Albanians innocent, non-guilty of their own radicalisation.
c character of Western policy and its UNMIK/KFOR mission had been genuinely humanitarian, this would have been dealt with in different terms. Human rights violations play a conspicuously modest role in this report!
Secondly, the report argues that demobilised KLA soldiers can be a source of instability in the future which may be true," says Jan Oberg. "However, the report enigmatically argues that there is not enough civil employment opportunities for these 10.000 fighters. One would otherwise believe there was enough to do in a war-torn society such as Kosovo! So KFOR and the UN Special Representative, Dr. Bernhard Kouchner, are thus 'developing a concept for demobilisation of the KLA, offering individual members an opportunity to participate in a disciplined, professional, multi-ethnic civilian emergency corps' of which KFOR will provide day-to-day direction. This is what a few days later was established formally as the Kosovo Protection Force, KPF.
The report conveniently omits reference to the fact that such a force is not even mentioned in SC Resolution 1244 which talks only about demilitarisation. We see here why the Rambouillet document stipulated neither a time table nor the modalities of demilitarisation of the Albanian side as it did for the Yugoslav side: 1244 says that KLA and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups shall 'comply with the requirements for demilitarisation as laid down' by the heads of KFOR and UNMIK.
The UN and NATO missions in Kosovo violate Security Council Resolution 1244 which clearly guarantees the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The Security Council has just reaffirmed that Kosovo is a part of FRY. 1244 also demands the full cooperation of FRY in implementing the missions tasks. All this is pure pretence, as any visitor to Kosovo will learn - and mission members will tell you privately.
The Report of the Secretary-General (S/1999/987 of September 16) does not even bother to mention whether KFOR/UNMIK cooperates with Belgrade! It seems pretty clear, rather, that the international community has fooled Belgrade and considers it so weak that it doesn't even have to be polite or give the world the impression that it respects the country's sovereignty. This coincides with credible press analyses that U.S. decision makers think Kosovo must become independent.
The international presence of UNMIK and NATO in Kosovo base itself on the bombing campaign the legality of which remains highly disputable. In its day-to-day operations, this presence amounts to a de facto occupation force that co-operates with Albania military and civilian leaders who have perpetrated gross human rights violations.
The missions have set up border points to Serbia but until recently not to Macedonia and Albania. Public and state property is 'taken over' by the UN and KFOR, no legal regulations done or rent or compensation paid to the Yugoslav state. Visa is not needed to enter Kosovo.
The German Mark is introduced and the Yugoslav dinar disappearing. Tax and customs are now collected to the benefit of Kosovo, with no proportion going to Serbia or Yugoslavia. A new army-like "Kosovo Protection/Defence Force" is established and has the old KLA commander at its head. Should we be surprised if the mineral resources and the Trpca mining industry complex in Mitrovica is soon 'taken over' by foreign capital? Dr. Kouchner serves at the moment as a one-man legislature: he can overrule any federal law and he promulgates legally binding "regulations" by the day.
Resolution 1244 stipulates that 'after the withdrawal an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serb military and police personnel will be permitted to return to Kosovo to perform functions' such as liaising with the international civil and military missions, marking and clearing mine fields, maintaining a presence at Serb patrimonial sites and maintain a presence at key border crossings (specified in Annex 2). Reference to all this is conveniently omitted in the UN Report - that serves to evaluate the UN mission and is written, we must assume, by the UN staff in Pristina itself.
So much for the United Nations manifest, gross violation of FRY's sovereignty and territorial integrity. One understands why all this goes unmentioned in the Report. I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me as a new sort of international lawlessness and might-makes-right," says Jan Oberg.
There are many other quite strange aspects of this Report. For instance, it conveniently avoids telling its readers that there are four government structures in Kosovo. KLA rapidly set up a government and local administration as well as other institutions before NATO got in.
Naturally, it runs the place and it is not willing to hand over to the UN, as it believes it has legitimacy because of the military struggle to liberate Kosova. All personalities are appointed, nobody elected and there is, thus, no element of democracy. The earlier, elected, government and parallel society of the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo under the leadership of its elected president Dr. Ibrahim Rugova, constitutes another government structure but it has been systematically undermined and marginalized by leading actors of the international community as well as by KLA.
The third government structure - had it not been driven out by the UN, KFOR and KLA - was that of Yugoslavia. Had the KFOR and the UN not been so keen on getting rid of them all, there would have been more competent administrators, doctors, nurses, public utility technicians, teachers etc available today. And finally, according to resolution 1244, the UN administration of Kosovo is to become the FOURTH government with all executive powers in this tiny territory - but with little chance of implementing its authority, because - the present situation is a farce. The total international presence encompass NATO/KFOR, the UN (UNMIK and all UN family organisation), OSCE, the European Union, over 300 NGOs, some media - perhaps as many as 70.000 foreigners! They all need interpreters, assistants, drivers, technicians and practical fixers.
So, any local with some command of foreign languages and an administrative talent now seeks employment with international (better paying) organisations rather than with the local administration. The UN desperately needs experienced internationals and thousands of local staff to take over the executive power and complete administration of Kosovo as is its mandate - but a) they are not available and b) if they were available, they are likely to have to fight their way into the town halls or be polite assistants to those sitting there already appointed by KLA! UN officials catapulted into the towns as local government officials have no experience from Kosovo - one, I heard, did not know who Dr. Rugova is!
Again, such minor problems is not mentioned in the UN Report. Absent is also any assessment of the wider stability of the region post KFOR/UNMIK. There is not a word about helping Serb refugees (about 1 million) in Serbia or the increasing destabilisation of Serbia that NATO bombings and KFOR's mode of operation have contributed greatly to." Oberg summarises:
This extremely coloured report can do nothing but disservice to the international community's decision makers. It tells us that UNMIK and KFOR make significant progress. This may be true on small issues but in vital areas for the future, the mission is already beyond repair. If the international community gets no better evaluations of the strong and the weak sides of its missions, one wonders whether it would not be wiser to have some impartial - non-NATO and non-UN - expert group to evaluate its missions.
The real situation is obviously filtered and censored up to the point when the honest and visionary Secretary-General - who has to rely in the information he gets from missions - puts his signature on what is basically a falsifying picture of reality.
This is also the moment when the media ought to keep an eye on the situation. But most left when there were no more dead bodies to film and we were told that 'peace' would come!
Without more honest reporting and evaluation of progress, UNMIK and KFOR will rapidly disintegrate beyond repair. And mind you, I am not saying that I think everything could or should have been done differently from some more or less idealistic peace perspective. I am saying that the mission threatens to be a disaster as judged on ITS OWN criteria, mandate and mode of operation. KFOR and UNMIK spell further disaster in the region.
Members of the missions who are skeptical and deeply concerned - should be encouraged to voice that concern publicly and be rewarded, not punished, for doing so. The UNMIK and OSCE, not KFOR - Europe, not the United States - will be blamed when this goes as wrong as I fear. That must be avoided now. The missions must be fundamentally reshaped and become both lawful, morally principled and accountable which they are not today.
[Editor's Note: Dr. Jan Oberg is Director of the TFF Conflict-Mitigation team to the Balkans and Georgia in Lund, Sweden. His Email is - email@example.com]
SACRAMENTO - Congratulations are due to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City for setting an historic precedent. That's what it feels like, in any case, in this time where taxpayer money is liberally (pun intended) misused and abused by Government officials.
For those who haven't heard, Mayor Giuliani is refusing to allow taxpayer dollars to support an art exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. Why? Because it is as he put it, "sick stuff."
It includes a portrait of the Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung, and other wildly untalented and idiotic displays. The public is showing a clear opinion, as expressed by the Orthodox Union: "Displaying a religious symbol splattered with dung is deeply offensive and can hardly be said to have redeeming social or artistic value."
Has the First Amendment been misunderstood? Does the First Amendment justify public funding for "Free Speech" terrorism? Should Congress also spend tax money to purchase American flags for extremists to burn?
If you refuse to be bullied into submission, you're on solid legal ground.
Capitol Hill politicians should realize that we don't appreciate the appropriation of tax dollars for immoral purposes. We don't particularly want to pay for extensive peanut research, over-funding of projects in Congressmen's home states or Mr. Clinton's "business" vacation bills. If there's surplus tax money in Washington, we'd prefer it be returned to the American taxpayers.