0
   

THE EU, the US, IRAN, and the ARMS EMBARGO on CHINA

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:09 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The concept of the EU goes back to l948? I'm really impressed. (My knowledge of European history post WWII is not something to brag about).


Well... I doubt anybody was thinking about a EU as we know it nowadays in 1948. But....

in 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed integrating the coal and steel industries of Western Europe. A a result, in 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was set up, with six members: Belgium, West Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands.

The ECSC was such a success that, within a few years, these same six countries decided to go further and integrate other sectors of their economies. In 1957 they signed the Treaties of Rome, creating the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the European Economic Community (EEC). The member states set about removing trade barriers between them and forming a "common market".

In 1967 the institutions of the three European communities were merged. From this point on, there was a single Commission and a single Council of Ministers as well as the European Parliament.

Originally, the members of the European Parliament were chosen by the national parliaments but in 1979 the first direct elections were held, allowing the citizens of the member states to vote for the candidate of their choice. Since then, direct elections have been held every five years.

The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) introduced new forms of co-operation between the member state governments - for example on defence, and in the area of "justice and home affairs". By adding this inter-governmental co-operation to the existing "Community" system, the Maastricht Treaty created the European Union (EU).
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:11 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:13 pm
My parents ran the commissary on a POW base between Dexter and Roswell NM during WWII. All of the prisoners held at this base were German and Austrian and some became friends. My mom wrote to two of those men for many years after they returned to Germany but the letters stopped just about the time the Berlin wall went up. We always wondered what happened to them.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:26 pm
Very interesting, Fox!! Do you have any idea where they came from or where they went??

I was living on the western side of the "iron curtain", but considering how difficult it was to write letters even to your relatives in the Eastern part - they frequently didn't arrive or had obviously been opened - I doubt they stood a chance to write a letter or even a postcard to somebody in NM.... IF they were living in the GDR, that is...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:33 pm
One was in Berlin but I cannot begin to remember the address. The other was from Elbe but was working in Berlin at one point. I cannot remember either name.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 04:35 pm
And thanks for the condensed mini-history of the EU. I'm learning something today.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:44 pm
Francis wrote:
JW- Have you read the whole constitution of the United States?

Just curious.


Oh, yes. The original document would take an average reader less than 30 minutes and even after more than 200 years, there have only been 27 amendments, so it's not nearly as long as the EU's.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:49 pm
old europe wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Old...you can't vote on it? How many member states can, do you know?

Seems like I read nine or so. I have been known to be wrong on numbers lately, though. LOL.


10, JW. Can you vote on amendments to the constitution?


Indirectly. The will of the voters is expressed by the state legislators we elect, and a majority (three-fourths, I think) of states is needed for ratification. Getting an amendment through ain't easy.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 05:52 pm
<<Thanks OE for all the history, too. I was planning to read up on the treaties (Nice, Rome, Maastricht, etc.) as well, but now I may just pester you for answers LOL.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Feb, 2005 06:27 pm
JustWonders wrote:
old europe wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Old...you can't vote on it? How many member states can, do you know?

Seems like I read nine or so. I have been known to be wrong on numbers lately, though. LOL.


10, JW. Can you vote on amendments to the constitution?


Indirectly. The will of the voters is expressed by the state legislators we elect, and a majority (three-fourths, I think) of states is needed for ratification. Getting an amendment through ain't easy.


Same here. Two chambers have to pass the new Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The federal government must present all legislative initiatives first to the Bundesrat; only thereafter can a proposal be passed to the Bundestag.

The Bundesrat is composed of delegates from the sixteen German states; the delegates are picked by each state government and are usually ministers within the same.

The Bundestag functions as our parliament. Direct elections are held every four years.

The two together form the legislative branch of our political system. Constitutional changes require a majority of 2/3 of all votes in both chambers.

Getting an amendment through ain't easy.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 01:46 am
old europe wrote:
The Bundestag functions as our parliament.


... as one part of it: as you already noted: the German Federal Parliament consists of the Bundesrat/ "Federal Council" and Bundestag/ "Federal Assembly" :wink:
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 10:57 am
Mark Steyn usually includes a lot of humor in his columns. This is the darkest I've ever seen him. Goodbye NATO.....'tis just a matter of time. (And, if nothing else, be sure to read the last sentence). Food for thought.

Atlanticist small talk is all that's left
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 22/02/2005)

"The change for the moment is more in tone than substance," wrote Alec Russell, reporting on President Bush's European outreach in yesterday's Telegraph. You don't say.

My colleague is almost right. In Brussels yesterday, the President's "charm offensive" consisted of saying the same things he always says - on Iraq, Iran, Palestine, the illusion of stability, the benefits of freedom, the need for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to get with the programme, etc. But, tone-wise, the Bush charm offensive did its best to keep the offensiveness reasonably charming - though his references to anti-Semitism and the murder of Theo van Gogh by a Dutch Islamist were a little more pointed than his hosts would have cared for.

But, in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six - make that 10 - months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.

World leaders are always most expansive when there's least at stake: the Queen's Christmas message to the Commonwealth is the ne plus ultra of this basic rule. In Her Majesty's beloved Commonwealth family, talking about enduring ties became a substitute for having them.

That's the salient feature of transatlantic dialogue since 9/11: it's become Commonwealth-esque - all airy assertions about common values, ties of history, all meaningless. Even Donald Rumsfeld is doing it. At the Munich Conference on Collective Security the other day, he gave a note-perfect rendition of empty Atlanticist Euro-goo: "Our collective security depends on our co-operation and mutual respect and understanding," he declared, with a straight face.

Rummy's appearance in Munich was unscheduled. A German federal prosecutor was investigating a war crimes complaint against the US Defence Secretary and, although it seems unlikely even the silliest showboating Europoseurs would have been foolish enough to pull a Pinochet on him, Rumsfeld made a point of not setting foot on German soil until Berlin put an end to that nonsense. That tells you more about transatlantic relations than anything in the speech.

But, just for the record, the "collective security" blather is completely bogus. In the column I wrote on September 11, 2001, I mentioned en passant that among the day's consequences would be the end of Nato - "a military alliance for countries that no longer in any recognisable sense have militaries". I can't remember why I mentioned Europe and Nato in that 9/11 column. It seems an odd thing to be thinking about as the towers were falling.

But it was clear, even then, that the day's events would test the Atlantic relationship and equally clear that it would fail that test. Later that week, for the first time in its history, Nato invoked its famous Article Five - the one about how an attack on one member is an attack on all. But, even as the press release was rolling off the photocopier, most of the "allies" in this post-modern alliance were insisting that the declaration didn't mean anything. "We are not at war," said Belgium. Norway and Germany announced that there would be no deployment of their forces.

Remember last year's much trumpeted Nato summit in Turkey? This was the one at which everyone was excited at how the "alliance" had agreed to expand its role in Afghanistan beyond Kabul to the country's somewhat overly autonomous "autonomous regions".

What this turned out to mean on closer examination was that, after the secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, put the squeeze on Nato's 26 members, they reluctantly put up an extra 600 troops and three helicopters for Afghanistan. That averages out at 23.08 troops per country, plus almost a ninth of a helicopter apiece. As it transpired, the three Black Hawks all came from one country - Turkey - and they've already gone back. And Afghanistan is supposed to be the good war, the one Continental officials all claim to have supported, if mostly retrospectively and for the purposes of justifying their "principled moral opposition" to Iraq.

A few months before 9/11, I happened to find myself sitting next to an eminent older statesman. "What is Nato for?" he wondered. "Well, you should know," I said. "You were secretary-general. You went into the office every day." With hindsight, he was asking the right question. On the other hand, if Nato is useless to America, it looks like being a goldmine for the Chinese, to whom the Europeans are bent on selling their military technology. Jacques Chirac is pitching this outreach to the politburo in lofty terms, modifying Harold Macmillan and casting Europe as Athens to China's Rome. I can't see it working, but the very attempt presumes that the transatlantic relationship is now bereft of meaning.

Nato will not be around circa 2015 - which is why the Americans are talking it up right now. An organisation that represents the fading residual military will of mostly post-military nations is marginally less harmful than the EU, which is the embodiment of their pacifist delusions. But, either way, there's not a lot to talk about. Try to imagine significant numbers of French, German or Belgian troops fighting alongside American forces anywhere the Yanks are likely to find themselves in the next decade or so: it's not going to happen.

America and Europe both face security threats. But the difference is America's are external, and require hard choices in tough neighbourhoods around the world, while the EU's are internal and, as they see it, unlikely to be lessened by the sight of European soldiers joining the Great Satan in liberating, say, Syria. That's not exactly going to help keep the lid on the noisier Continental mosques.

So what would you do in Bush's shoes? Slap 'em around a bit? What for? Where would it get you? Or would you do exactly what he's doing? Climb into the old soup-and-fish, make small talk with Mme Chirac and raise a glass of champagne to the enduring friendship of our peoples: what else is left? This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/02/22/do2202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/02/22/ixop.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 09:52 am
Did I dream it or did I hear this week that Taiwan had left the door cracked a bit re possible reunification with China? I can't remember what newscast I was watching or listening to at the time--maybe it was Paul Harvey.

This is a provocative paragraph from the following article.

Quote:
Soft power can't do everything. Sometimes you need the ability to pose a plausible threat. By the same token, hard power eventually breaks down unless there's positive incentive for peaceful cooperation. Neglecting your allies is no way to keep them happy, as Washington is finding out. "I'm quite curious why U.S. scholars and officials didn't notice that the Chinese are establishing their own empire in East Asia," says Chen Po-chih, chairman of a Taiwan think tank. The Americans have been busy, of course. But so has China. Ensuring a peaceful future will take a special kind of power: brainpower.


The entire article follows.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/050307_Issue/050226_China_xtrawide.hlarge.jpg

Soft Power, Hard Choices
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 01:21 pm
Quote:
U.S. Lawmakers Warn Europe on Arms Sales to China
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: March 2, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 1 - Senior members of Congress from both parties emerged from a meeting with President Bush on Tuesday warning Europe that if it lifts its ban on arms sales to China, the United States may retaliate with severe restrictions on technology sales to European companies.

The warning came after Mr. Bush, on his trip to Europe last week, twice cautioned the Europeans not to lift the restrictions, in place for 15 years. His insistence was based, at least in part, on a new American intelligence assessment that Beijing is rapidly becoming better equipped to carry out a sophisticated invasion of Taiwan and to counter any effort by the United States to react to such an attack, administration officials and intelligence analysts say.

After the White House meeting on Tuesday, Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that if the ban is lifted - as European leaders have said they plan to do in coming months - Congress could react with "a prohibition on a great number of technical skills and materials, or products, being available to Europeans." The ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, called a lifting of the ban "a nonstarter with Congress."

Their statements reinforce warnings that Mr. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made in meetings with Europeans over the past several weeks that the weapons sales would amount to a transfer of even more sophisticated military technology to China. But European officials say that the concerns are overstated, and that they are considering a compromise proposal that would keep advanced technologies from being exported.

Although Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice have spoken publicly about the sale of heavy weapons, Pentagon officials say the biggest concern is the technology that goes with it, including radar and battlefield communication systems that could take China's rapid military buildup to a new level. And to make their case, the officials have begun to discuss how such technology would give China an increased ability to intimidate Taiwan with the threat of invasion if it moves too aggressively toward independence.

The motivations for the officials to discuss this intelligence in interviews over the past two weeks are varied, and certainly include concerns about how the Chinese buildup could affect American security interests. But the discussion also comes as Congress takes up Mr. Bush's new spending proposals, which devote a majority of supplemental funding to land forces and the war in Iraq, while missions related to perceived threats from China fall mainly to the Navy and the Air Force.

In addition, some administration hawks are concerned about China's rapid growth as a military power in the Pacific at a time that American attention is focused on the Middle East.

The new intelligence reports indicate that since Mr. Bush came to office, China has raced ahead with one of the most ambitious military buildups in the world - including building 23 new amphibious assault ships that could ferry tanks, armored vehicles and troops across the 100 miles to Taiwan, and 13 new attack submarines.

"Their amphibious assault shipbuilding alone equals the entire U.S. Navy shipbuilding since 2002," one intelligence official said.

The official said Chinese military purchases abroad and domestic production of ships and warplanes "definitely represents a significant increase in overall capacity." At the same time, any advances in radar and communications ability would improve how rapidly and effectively those ships and planes could support an invasion or counter American moves in the region.

Military experts in European capitals and in Washington say they do not dispute the American intelligence reports on the growth in quality and quantity of Chinese arms. But European political leaders argue that the sanctions were placed to punish China because of its killing of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square 16 years ago, not because of its military power.

Now that a new generation of leaders has taken over in Beijing, they say, the specific cause of the sanctions is removed.

In contrast, Japan has sided with the United States in asserting a growing Chinese threat to Taiwan, publicly inserting those concerns for the first time into a joint security statement issued in recent days.

The latest intelligence reports give the fullest sense to date of what China has actually fielded in the past several years, and how, as the new director of central intelligence, Porter J. Goss, recently told Congress, the weaponry could "tilt the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait."

The United States has deliberately left vague whether or how it would defend Taiwan in the event of invasion. The last time a crisis erupted in the region, President Clinton put a carrier near the Taiwan Strait - but not inside it - as a caution to Beijing.

That event prompted a rethinking of military strategy in Beijing, China experts say. One intelligence official noted that China's military expansion has tried to fill gaps that have been identified in a range of Pentagon reports and public American intelligence estimates.

The intelligence official said: "What the Chinese have systematically done is look at what other people have said about them, and said, 'Fine. I don't have a credible amphibious capability. Well, I'm going to build one. I don't have a credible surface force that can provide adequate air cover and surface-to-surface strike capability against incoming fleets. Fine, I'll build that. Submarines worry you? Fine, I'll buy them or I'll build them.' "

"It's a modernization across the force," the official added.

China's growing submarine fleet, which includes new nuclear- and conventional-powered vessels, helps China patch a major vulnerability: an inability until now to control the Taiwan Strait. This larger submarine fleet, even if less effective than its American counterpart, would vastly complicate any effort by Washington to intervene. Past calculations of how quickly the American aircraft carrier fleet could safely move into the area are even now being rewritten to include new estimates of the patrolling range of the new Chinese submarine fleet.

In a written statement on "Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States" submitted to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence earlier this month, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, discussed an even broader nature of the Pentagon's concern.

"In addition to key Taiwanese military and civilian facilities," Admiral Jacoby said, "Chinese missiles will be capable of targeting U.S. and allied military installations in the region to either deter outside intervention in a Taiwan crisis or attack those installations if deterrent efforts fail."

Admiral Jacoby, in unclassified testimony, predicted that by 2015, the number of Chinese nuclear warheads "capable of targeting the continental United States will increase severalfold."

For now, though, China's capabilities are not considered a threat to the United States mainland; China still lacks an oceangoing navy that could rival America's presence in the Pacific, while America has no lack of nuclear missiles that can strike China from land or from submarines.

Experts also say it is clear that China will be able to proceed with its modernization plans with or without European weapons, though its progress may be slower. China has purchased destroyers, as well as many other weapons, from Russia, its main supplier. At the same time, it is modernizing its fleet of warships, built at a rapidly growing chain of domestic shipyards that is financing its own expansion by taking an increasing share of commercial shipbuilding contracts in Asia, according to United States government assessments.

Source
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 04:16 pm
I can't decide Walter. Do you think the article I posted and the one you posted compliment each other? Or contradict each other?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 04:30 pm
Different topics, I think.
0 Replies
 
bayinghound
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 10:41 am
Not sure if this was reported much on in the papers, but I recently noticed that Japan appears to have signalled its renewed support for America's defense of Taiwan and that the US has endorsed and pledged to support Japan's effort to be admitted to the UN Security Council. "Common regional strategicl objectives" include "Discourage[ing] destabilizing sales and transfers of arms and military technology." "Common Global Strategic objectives" include "Maintain[ing] and enhance[ing] the stability of the global energy supply".

Quote:
Joint Statement
Richard Boucher, Spokesman
Washington, DC
February 19, 2005

Joint Statement of the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee

1. United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld hosted Japan's Minister for Foreign Affairs Nobutaka Machimura and Minister of State for Defense and Director-General of the Defense Agency Yoshinori Ohno in a meeting of the Security Consultative Committee (SCC) in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2005. They addressed security and alliance issues facing the United States and Japan, as well as other aspects of the relationship.

Working Together on Challenges Facing the World Today

2. The Ministers noted the excellent state of cooperative relations between the United States and Japan on a broad array of security, political, and economic issues. They looked to expand that cooperation, recognizing that the U.S.-Japan Alliance, with the U.S.-Japan security arrangements at its core, continues to play a vital role in ensuring the security and prosperity of both the United States and Japan, as well as in enhancing regional and global peace and stability.

3. The Ministers underscored the importance of U.S. and Japanese leadership in providing international assistance to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader Middle East -- efforts that are already producing results. The Ministers lauded the successful cooperation between the United States and Japan with other countries in extending wide-ranging assistance to those who suffered from the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean.

4. The Ministers recognized that cooperation and consultation between the United States and Japan have been pivotal in promoting nonproliferation, particularly through the Proliferation Security Initiative. They welcomed the success of multinational interdiction exercises hosted by the United States and Japan and by others.

5. The Ministers expressed their confidence that ballistic missile defense (BMD) enhances our ability to defend against and deter ballistic missile attacks and dissuade other parties from investing in ballistic missiles. Taking note of achievements in missile defense cooperation, such as Japan's decision to introduce ballistic missile defense systems and its recent announcement on its Three Principles on Arms Export, the Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to close cooperation on policy and operational matters and to advancing U.S.-Japan cooperative research in BMD systems, with a view to possible cooperative development.

Common Strategic Objectives

6. The Ministers discussed the new security environment in which new and emerging threats, such as international terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery, have surfaced as common challenges. They recognized that deepening interdependence among nations in a global community means that such threats can affect the security of nations worldwide, including the United States and Japan.

7. While noting that these threats are also emerging in the Asia-Pacific region, the Ministers also emphasized that persistent challenges continue to create unpredictability and uncertainty. Moreover, they noted that modernization of military capabilities in the region also requires attention.

8. The Ministers strongly urged North Korea to return to the Six-Party Talks expeditiously and without preconditions, and to commit itself to complete dismantlement of all its nuclear programs in a transparent manner subject to verification.

9. Based on this understanding of the international security environment, the Ministers concurred that both Governments need to work closely together to pursue common strategic objectives through their respective efforts, implementation of the U.S.-Japan security arrangements, and other joint efforts based on the alliance. Both sides decided to hold regular consultations to coordinate policies in accordance with these common strategic objectives and to update these objectives as the security environment requires.

10. In the region, common strategic objectives include:

* Ensure the security of Japan, strengthen peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region, and maintain the capability to address contingencies affecting the United States and Japan.
* Support peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula.
* Seek peaceful resolution of issues related to North Korea, including its nuclear programs, ballistic missile activities, illicit activities, and humanitarian issues such as the abduction of Japanese nationals by North Korea.
* Develop a cooperative relationship with China, welcoming the country to play a responsible and constructive role regionally as well as globally.
* Encourage the peaceful resolution of issues concerning the Taiwan Strait through dialogue.
* Encourage China to improve transparency of its military affairs.
* Encourage Russia's constructive engagement in the Asia-Pacific region.
* Fully normalize Japan-Russia relations through the resolution of the Northern Territories issue.
* Promote a peaceful, stable, and vibrant Southeast Asia.
* Welcome the development of various forms of regional cooperation, while stressing the importance of open, inclusive, and transparent regional mechanisms.
* Discourage destabilizing sales and transfers of arms and military technology.
* Maintain the security of maritime traffic.

11. Global common strategic objectives include:

* Promote fundamental values such as basic human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in the international community.
* Further consolidate U.S.-Japan partnership in international peace cooperation activities and development assistance to promote peace, stability, and prosperity worldwide.
* Promote the reduction and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery, including through improved reliability and effectiveness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other regimes, and initiatives such as the Proliferation Security Initiative.
* Prevent and eradicate terrorism.
* Coordinate efforts to improve the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council by making the best use of the current momentum to realize Japan's aspiration to become a permanent member.
* Maintain and enhance the stability of the global energy supply.

Strengthening of U.S.-Japan Security and Defense Cooperation

12. The Ministers expressed their support and appreciation for each other's efforts to develop their respective security and defense policies. Japan's new National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) emphasize Japan's capability to respond effectively to new threats and diverse contingencies, Japan's active engagement to improve the international security environment, and the importance of the Japan-U.S. Alliance. As a central component of its broad defense transformation effort, the United States is reorienting and strengthening its global defense posture to provide it with appropriate, strategy-driven capabilities in an uncertain security environment. The Ministers confirmed that these efforts will ensure and strengthen effective security and defense cooperation as both countries pursue common strategic objectives.

13. In this context, the Ministers underscored the need to continue examining the roles, missions, and capabilities of Japan's Self Defense Forces and the U.S. Armed Forces required to respond effectively to diverse challenges in a well-coordinated manner. This examination will take into account recent achievements and developments such as Japan's NDPG and new legislation to deal with contingencies, as well as the expanded agreement on mutual logistical support and progress in BMD cooperation. The Ministers also emphasized the importance of enhancing interoperability between U.S. and Japanese forces.


14. The Ministers concurred that this examination should contribute to these consultations on realignment of U.S. force structure in Japan. They decided to intensify these consultations in a comprehensive effort to strengthen the alliance as the bedrock of Japan's security and the anchor of regional stability. In this context, both sides confirmed their commitment to maintaining deterrence and capabilities of U.S. forces in Japan while reducing the burden on local communities, including those in Okinawa. The Ministers directed their staffs to report expeditiously on the results of these consultations.

15. The Ministers also stressed the importance of continued efforts to enhance positive relations between local communities and U.S. forces. They emphasized that improved implementation of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), including due attention to the environment, and steady implementation of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Final Report are important to the stable presence of U.S. forces in Japan.

16. The Ministers, noting that the current Special Measures Agreement (SMA) will expire in March 2006, decided to start consultations on future arrangements to provide appropriate levels of host nation support, bearing in mind the significant role of the SMA in supporting the presence of U.S. forces in Japan.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2005 08:40 am
Well since Iran is included in the title of this thread, I thought we probably should have something here about Iran. I'm not sure what I think about the following. Is the writer tongue-in-cheek? Or did he just miss Bill Clinton's brand of subtle humor. I don't think for a minute that Clinton really admires Iran.

Who Should Apologize to Whom?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 06:48 pm
Monster trucking in China? If that comes to pass, can capitalism and democracy be far behind? Given the dubious reputation of Clear Channel in some quarters here on A2K, does it seem ironic that it is going to China in a big way? Admittedly it is only for sportscasts now, but it's a foot in the door.

Clear Channel, China Strike 50-Year Deal


LOS ANGELES (AP) - Live entertainment producer Clear Channel Entertainment said Monday it entered into a joint venture with the Chinese government designed to bring concerts and sporting events from the West to China.

The new company, dubbed Gehua Clear Channel Entertainment & Sports Co. Ltd., will have a 50-year right of first refusal on arranging and promoting live shows and managing everything from artists and ticketing to tour merchandising, the company said.

Clear Channel and the state-owned Beijing Gehua Cultural Development Group, which controls some of China's largest venues and organizes cultural and sporting events, did not disclose how much cash each invested in the new venture.

Each partner will own 50 percent of the venture and will split profits equally, Ed Cunningham, CEO of Clear Channel Entertainment China, said following a news conference in New York.


The deal comes after three years of negotiations between Clear Channel and Chinese political and cultural leaders, the company said.


The partnership should help cut costs and simplify the logistics for mounting tours in several locations in China, Cunningham said.


``It's very expensive to go there for one event,'' Cunningham said. ``But if you can do multiple cities ... that was really our goal.''


What sort of shows and sporting events get booked in the Chinese venues will ultimately be up to Chinese officials, who have the best insight on what type of entertainment will work best in their market, Cunningham said.


One staple of U.S. entertainment that Chinese officials have expressed interest in importing: monster trucking.


``It's done well in Europe. It's obviously been a success in the United States,'' Cunningham said. ``It's never been in China, but there's a lot of excitement.''


The joint venture will be headquartered in Beijing, with offices in New York and London.


Clear Channel Entertainment is a subsidiary of San Antonio-based radio and advertising powerhouse Clear Channel Communications Inc.


The company's shares rose 47 cents to close at $33.86 Monday on the New York Stock Exchange.


© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005030718010001601137&dt=20050307180100&w=APO&coview=
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2005 06:54 pm
That's an amazing load of ad nauseum crap, Fox.

Amazing that in your copy-and-paste screed against Clinton (gotta blame Clinton again, I guess...) that nothing is mentioned regarding a liberal progressive movement amongst the PEOPLE of Iran, NOT the government. It is the GOVERNMENT that must deal with an evergrowing resentment against the Mullahs, and there are signs that Iran is cracking at the ideological seams.

Christ, Fox, read up more on the true nature of what is happening internally in Iran before copying-and-pasting such garbage. Your black and white world is getting really quite pathetic...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 05:01:11