A Voice from an Israeli Student
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
By YONI MISHAL
From the August 10, 2006 issue | Posted in International
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
By YONI MISHAL
From the August 10, 2006 issue | Posted in International
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
By A.K. GUPTA
From the August 10, 2006 issue | Posted in Columns
Like the United States, South Africa and Australia, Israel is a classic settler state. Its foundational ideology is Zionism, which developed as both a secular political movement and ideology in the late 19th Century to create either a “national homeland” for Jews or a “Jewish state.”
Russian Jews began arriving in the 1870s, often in response to anti-Semitism and pogroms in their homeland. The first Zionist Congress was organized in 1897 by Theodor Herzl, considered the father of Zionism, in Basel, Switzerland.
From the beginning, Zionism both sought an imperial sponsor and defined Arabs as savages. Herzl wrote in The Jewish State, that the Zionist movement could serve the interests of the Ottoman Empire in Palestine and “form an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.”
Emigration remained limited for decades, however. There were perhaps 20,000-25,000 Jews in Palestine in 1890, growing to only 56,000 by 1917, a pivotal year in Middle East history. For years, many Zionists had been seeking favor from the British Empire, which obliged with the “Balfour Declaration” on Nov. 2, 1917. It put England on record to use its “best endeavors” to facilitate “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People.” British troops arrived shortly thereafter in Palestine, and England carved up the Middle East with France.
The interwar period saw a huge rise in Jewish emigration along with the development of the two major schools of Zionism: Labor and Revisionist. Both variants are exclusionist. According to Ralph Schoenman, author of The Hidden History of Zionism, one influential Labor Zionist “wanted every tree and every bush to be planted by Jewish ‘pioneers,’” and demanded that European plantation managers in Palestine “hire Jews and only Jews.” Boycotts were organized against “any Jewish enterprise which failed to employ Jews exclusively.” Labor Zionism saw itself as a socialist movement that would “redeem” the land through agricultural labor.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, criticized Labor Zionists for hiding the real agenda – a Jewish state – and for thinking that the Arabs loved their land less than the Jews. He recognized the fundamental humanity of the Palestinians, who “look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor the Aztecs looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie.”
But as a colonialist, he argued that Arab patriotism “can not be bought, it can only be curbed.” In a famous essay published in 1923, he called for an “Iron Wall” that will destroy even “a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us.”
During the interwar period, Jewish ownership of land grew dramatically. The land was owned by the Jewish National Fund, and reserved exclusively for the use of Jews. To this day, 93 percent of Israel’s lands is reserved for Jews through what one critic describes as “procedural and bureaucratic measures.”
The notion of “transfer” is central to Zionism. One, the transfer of Jews to Israel and two, the transfer of Palestinians out of their native lands. Even before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jewish forces had expelled at least 200,000 Palestinians. By the time the war was over, at least 700,000 Palestinians had been forced off their lands. Perhaps another 200,000 were cleansed during the 1967 war.
Israel is expansionist from its roots. Prior to the 1948 war, its leaders planned to seize most of the rest of Palestine not allotted to it by the United Nations, increasing its landmass from 53 percent to 78 percent. Of course since then, Israel has invaded and occupied for years all of Palestinian and parts of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Many modern Zionists still have ambitions of the biblical “Eretz Israel” that stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates River, meaning all of Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, most of Iraq and huge swaths of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Ultimately, Zionism is in the same family as manifest destiny and apartheid. It seeks to exterminate the native people’s history, culture and presence from the land. While Israel can’t use outright genocide as America did during the “Indian Wars,” it repressive methods rivals apartheid. And just like its cousins, Israel’s sense of self is fueled by endless wars in which it is the eternal victim seeking to only defend itself as it expands its empire.
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
Filed at 12:57 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- America's trade deficit improved slightly in June as record sales of U.S. farm products and other exports blunted the impact of soaring crude oil prices.
The deficit for June dipped 0.3 percent to $64.8 billion, which was still the fifth largest deficit on record. The imbalance in May was revised to $64.97 billion, $1.1 billion higher than the initial estimate a month ago as late data showed bigger shipments of oil and consumer goods than originally reported .
Through the first half of this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $768 billion, putting it on track to surpass last year's record of $716.7 billion. Democrats hope to use the worsening trade deficit to attack Bush administration trade policies and argue that a tougher approach is needed, particularly with countries such as China.
In other news, the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose by 7,000 last week to 319,000, a bigger gain than economists had been expecting.
The deterioration in the deficit this year is largely a result of soaring global oil prices, reflecting increased tensions in the Middle East and higher demand from developing countries such as China.
For June, the average price for a barrel of imported crude oil hit an all-time high of $62.04, pushing total crude oil imports to a record high of $20.5 billion. All petroleum imports, reflecting crude and refined products, totaled $27.3 billion, the second highest level on record after May's $28.3 billion.
America's foreign oil bill is expected to rise even more in coming months, reflecting the fact that crude oil has been trading above $75 per barrel in recent days as markets respond to the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the outbreak of fighting in Lebanon.
For June, the smaller deficit reflected the fact that U.S. exports rose a solid 2 percent to total a record $120.7 billion, a manifestation of record sales of American farm products and strong gains in other areas.
Imports also rose to a record of $185.5 billion, an increase of 1.2 percent, as shipments of consumer goods set a record and auto imports climbed to the second highest level on record.
The politically sensitive deficit with China increased by 11.9 percent in June to $19.7 billion as U.S. exports to China fell by 4.3 percent while imports of Chinese products into the United States rose by 8.1 percent. The import gains were led by big increases in clothing and computers.
So far this year, the deficit with China is running 13 percent above the pace set last year, when the imbalance hit $202 billion, the highest ever recorded with a single country.
That soaring deficit has raised complaints in Congress where key lawmakers are pushing a bill that would impose 27.5 percent tariffs on all Chinese products coming into the United States unless the country moves more quickly to allow its currency to rise in value against the dollar.
American manufacturers contend that the Chinese yuan is undervalued by as much as 40 percent, giving the country a trade advantage by making Chinese goods cheaper in comparison to U.S. products. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has pledged to keep pressing the Chinese to revalue their currency but so far Chinese officials contend that they must go slowly to avoid disrupting their economy.
U.S. exports with many parts of the word have been rising in recent months as American companies are benefiting from a pickup in global economic growth.
U.S. exports to the 25-nation European Union and to South America and Central America set all-time highs in June while exports to Japan climbed to the highest level since March 2001.
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
Free and open trade has contributed to the enormous prosperity that America enjoys today. This year, Congress has a unique and historic opportunity to unlock further the benefits of free trade for American consumers and producers. Bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with Oman and Peru, along with Vietnam’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), await congressional approval. FTAs with South Korea, Panama, Colombia, and Malaysia are being negotiated. At the same time, the Doha Round of WTO trade negotiations is becoming the biggest challenge and opportunity for the United States. With more than 90 percent of the world’s consumers living outside of the U.S., seizing these opportunities to expand free trade is vital.
America’s Free Trade Agenda
The U.S. has forged a strong leadership role within the WTO. With 149 members in the WTO, the United States benefits from the increased market access generated by multilateral trade agreements.
Along with multilateral trade liberalization in the WTO, regional and bilateral FTAs also figure as important U.S. trade policy tools.[1] The U.S. has been seeking comprehensive and high-quality trade agreements that are “tailored to reflect a world of high technology, complex new intellectual property standards, labor and environmental considerations, and the growth of the service sector.”[2]
While multilateral negotiations take time, FTAs allow the U.S. the option of obtaining agreements with countries that are willing to dismantle foreign trade barriers rapidly. FTAs formed with different countries or regions can also serve as building blocks for broader agreements and provide institutional competition that helps to keep multilateral talks on track.
Existing FTAs
As of May 2006, the U.S. has nine FTAs with 15 countries. (See Table 1.) Congress has approved the trade pacts with Israel, Canada and Mexico,[3] Jordan, Singapore, Chile, Australia, Bahrain, and Morocco. Most recently, it approved DR–CAFTA, the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement, which includes the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
These nine FTAs have been producing impressive results. They account for more than $900 billion in two-way trade, which is about 36 percent of total U.S. trade with the world. U.S. exports to FTA partner countries are growing twice as fast as U.S. exports to countries that do not have FTAs with the U.S.[4]
Trade promotion authority (TPA), formerly known as fast track authority, has helped the U.S. negotiate and conclude new free trade agreements in an efficient and timely manner. Under TPA, Congress can approve or reject an entire agreement, but it cannot alter specific provisions in the agreement. In return, the President must fulfill certain criteria in each FTA, as specified by Congress.
Because of the way that TPA is implemented, countries are assured that U.S. trade policy commitments in an FTA will not be amended by Congress after negotiations are concluded. Consequently, TPA enhances America’s ability to negotiate trade agreements by ensuring that U.S. commitments are made in good faith. This minimizes the cost and uncertainty associated with the negotiation process. The current TPA will expire on July 1, 2007.
The FTA Process
Although TPA legislation defines several objectives that affect the structure and content of an FTA, it does not limit the list of potential FTA partners by any criteria other than the degree to which a country has put into practice its existing WTO obligations.[5] Accordingly, there are three main stages of the FTA process.
Phase I: Consideration and Selection of an FTA Partner
Economic and political factors play a role in determining a country’s appeal as a U.S. FTA partner. A 2004 General Accounting Office study reported that the process of assessing potential FTA partners is based on six criteria:
A country’s readiness in terms of its trade capabilities, the maturity of its political and legal systems, and its will to implement economic reforms;
The economic benefit to the U.S.;
The country’s support of U.S. goals in liberalizing trade;
The country’s support of U.S. foreign and economic policy interests;
Congressional or private-sector support; and
Constraints on U.S. government resources.[6]
Phase II: Negotiations
Once the Administration decides to pursue a trade deal, it must notify Congress at least 90 days before launching official negotiations. Relevant congressional committees and the congressional oversight group must be consulted about the possible FTA before and after the notice. According to TPA guidelines, the Administration is then required to consult with Congress throughout the negotiating process. Negotiations are conducted by the U.S. Trade Representative.
Phase III: Congressional Approval and Implementation
After an agreement is concluded, the final language of the bill implementing the FTA is shaped by “mock” or “nonmark” markups in Congress.[7] House and Senate committees work informally on a draft bill that is then passed on to the President. The Administration uses this draft as a basis for its formal submission for congressional consideration, and Congress agrees to take a straight up-or-down vote on the proposed trade agreement.
Currently, the U.S. is in various stages of FTA negotiations or implementation with nine other countries and regions. (See Table 2.)
Status of U.S. FTAs
Currently, three FTAs are awaiting congressional approval and implementation, seven are in negotiation, and five more are in the first phase of selection. These are summarized in Table 2.
Phase I: Consideration and Selection of an FTA Partner
Enterprisefor ASEAN.[8] This initiative, introduced by President George W. Bush in October 2002, offers incentives for launching bilateral FTAs with individual countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The negotiation of a region-wide Trade and Investment Framework Agreement is viewed as the first step.
Middle EastFree Trade Agreement Initiative. The President announced this initiative in May 2003. The goal is to create a U.S.–Middle East Free Trade Agreement by 2013.
New Zealand. To support the launch of FTA negotiations with New Zealand, 54 members of the House created the Friends of New Zealand Congressional Caucus in February 2005.
Switzerland. The U.S. and Switzerland signed the Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum agreement on May 25, 2006.
Phase II: Negotiations
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).[9] The FTAA was promoted by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush through the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative. The trade pact was formally launched by President Bill Clinton in 1994. At the Third Summit of the Americas in Quebec in 2001, steps were made toward detailed, substantive, and concrete negotiations on the FTAA. At the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Argentina, the majority of hemispheric leaders reaffirmed their commitment to move forward on the FTAA.
Malaysia. Congress was notified in March 2006. The first round of negotiations started on June 11, 2006.
Panama. Congress was notified in November 2003. The first round of negotiations started in April 2004.
Southern African Customs Union (SACU).[10] Congress was notified in November 2002. Formal negotiations started in June 2003. In April 2006, the U.S. and SACU countries opted to pursue freer trade through a trade investment cooperation agreement (TICA) rather than through a comprehensive FTA. The TICA establishes a working group to address issues in customs, trade facilitation, intellectual property, and other areas typically included in an FTA. Once the largest concerns are rectified within the TICA, the potential for successfully concluding an FTA should be greater.
South Korea. Congress was notified in February 2006. The first round of negotiations started on June 5, 2006.
Thailand. Congress was notified in February 2004. Formal negotiations started in June 2004. Currently, negotiations are halted due to political turmoil in Thailand.
United Arab Emirates. Congress was notified in November 2004. The first round of negotiations started in March 2005.
Phase III: Congressional Approval and Implementation
Colombia.[11] The Administration initiated FTA negotiations in May 2004. An agreement was concluded in February 2006.
Oman. FTA negotiations were concluded in October 2005. The House Ways and Means Committee voted in favor of the trade pact on May 10, 2006. The Senate Finance Committee approved the agreement with Oman on June 28, 2006.
Peru. The Administration initiated FTA negotiations in May 2004. An agreement was concluded in December 2005. Following a change in governments, Peru has indicated that it may wish to renegotiate the FTA.
Some FTA negotiations fail and have to be restarted. It is hoped that all of the current FTAs in process will reach full implementation. It is worth noting that at least one recent proposed FTA has already been cancelled. Official FTA negotiations with Ecuador began in 2004, but the negotiations with Ecuador were cancelled due to Ecuador’s decision to cancel the oil operation contract of U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum Corporation.
Other Trade-Facilitating Agreements
For countries that are unable to pursue a comprehensive FTA with the U.S., the U.S. has more generalized policy tools to facilitate trade and resolve bilateral trade and investment issues. A trade and investment framework agreement aims to enhance trade and investment relations as well as to provide consultative mechanisms to discuss outstanding issues. The U.S. has pursued TIFAs with countries that have worked to open their markets and move toward market liberalization.[12] Similarly, a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) aims to protect U.S. investment interests in foreign countries and promotes more market-oriented polices.[13]
These two types of agreements often play important roles in building up the necessary economic and political institutions and infrastructure in a partner country, promoting the viability of an FTA with the U.S. in the future. The appendices summarize the TIFAs and BITs that the U.S. has signed.
In addition to these two trade and investment policy tools, the U.S. offers partner countries bilateral market access agreements. As part of the WTO accession process, countries interested in joining the WTO are required to have bilateral trade talks with any interested WTO member country. These bilateral trade and investment talks typically cover tariff rates, specific market access commitments, and other policies in goods and services.
The U.S. has recently concluded and signed a bilateral market access agreement with Vietnam. The agreement is an important step forward in normalizing bilateral relations and is required for Vietnam’s accession to the WTO. For the agreement to take effect, Congress must approve permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status for Vietnam, authorizing trade advantages that the United States grants to most countries. To authorize PNTR, Congress must exempt Vietnam from application of the Jackson–Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974.[14]
Remembering the Positive Experience of Free Trade
Free and open trade has contributed to the enormous prosperity that America enjoys today, and the U.S. has historically been a bastion of free trade rules. Lower trade barriers allow America’s households and businesses to spend less on a wider variety of goods and make U.S. exports more competitive in world markets.
For over five decades, the U.S. has benefited from reducing its trade barriers even further, paving the way for substantial economic expansion and increased living standards globally. As shown in Chart 1:
The average U.S. tariff rate on all goods has fallen from over 19 percent in 1933 to 1.8 percent in 2004.
As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the importance of trade in the economy has climbed from single digits in the 1930s to nearly one-quarter of GDP in 2004.
While trade has become freer, real per capita GDP in the U.S. has climbed from a low of $5,061 in 1933 to about $36,000 in 2004 (in constant 2000 dollars).
Continued American leadership depends not only on U.S. trade negotiators’ intensive efforts, but also on congressional support for free trade. Domestic priorities—such as fostering U.S. economic growth and job creation, opening foreign markets to American farmers and manufacturers, and increasing living standards—fully mesh with negotiators’ efforts to promote trade liberalization.
The American economy depends on international trade. The successful conclusion of negotiations and swift congressional implementation of beneficial free trade agreements will enable America to build an even brighter future.
Anthony Kim is Research Data Specialist and Daniella Markheim is Jay Van Andel Senior Trade Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Based on the strategy of “competitive liberalization,” the Bush Administration has been pushing forward free and open trade simultaneously on all fronts: bilateral, regional, and multilateral. [7]For more information, see Vladimir N. Pregelj, “Trade Agreements: Procedure for Congressional Approval and Implementation,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated March 16, 2005, p. 2, at www.opencrs.com/rpts/ RL32011_20050316.pdf (June 29, 2006).
[8]ASEAN is composed of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
[9]FTAA members are Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Christ.–Nevis–Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
[10]SACU consists of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland. FTA negotiations are on hold until broader trade issues can be resolved within a trade and investment cooperation agreement.
[11]The Administration initiated FTA negotiations in May 2004, and an agreement was concluded in February 2006. However, some details in areas such as agriculture still need to be finalized before the negotiations are completed.
[12]For more information, see U.S. Department of State, “Trade and Investment Framework Agreements,” at www.state.gov/e/eb/ tpp/c10333.htm (June 29, 2006).
[13]For more information, see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, “U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaty Program,” updated January 10, 2006, at www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/2006/22422.htm (June 29, 2006).
[14]The Jackson–Vanik provision denies normal trade relations to certain countries that have non-market economies or that restrict emigration rights.
|
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
Global Trade Talks Are Halted as
By TOM WRIGHT and STEVEN R. WEISMAN
After two days of discussions, the director general of the World Trade Organization, Pascal Lamy, formally suspended the talks. American trade officials said there appeared to be little prospect of resuming the talks any time soon, probably dooming the chances of a trade accord during President Bush’s remaining time in office.
Negotiators had earlier said that if the outlines of an agreement were not secured by late this month, it would be nearly impossible to negotiate a trade-expanding agreement in time for the United States Congress to vote on it by the middle of next year. President Bush’s authority to negotiate a trade deal and have it put to an up-or-down vote without amendment in Congress expires then.
The failure of the talks was particularly embarrassing because, just last month at a summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, President Bush and other world leaders all called for a redoubled effort to make concessions and break the impasse that has paralyzed trade talks for years.
The two top American negotiators in Geneva — Susan C. Schwab, the United States Trade Representative, and Mike Johanns, the Agriculture Secretary — said they were deeply disappointed by the suspension of the talks, but they recognized that Mr. Lamy had no choice, because there had been no convergence among the parties.
“Unless we figure out how to move forward from here, we will have missed a unique opportunity to help developing countries and to spur economic growth,” Ms. Schwab said. “There was no package on the table that we could have recommended to the President or to the United States Congress.”
Ms. Schwab and Mr. Johanns said that they came to
Ms. Schwab said in a telephone conference call with reporters that when American officials added up the latest European market-access proposals for farm products, “it became quite clear that there was no there there.”
Mr. Johanns added: “There are no negotiations planned in the future. This round has been suspended.”
But European negotiators declared that it was the
“Unfortunately the Americans were not able or willing to do their part,” said Peter Mandelson, the chief European Union negotiator. “They preferred to stand still.”
The latest round of global trade negotiations has been sputtering almost since it was begun in 2001 in the city of
The talks became known as the “Doha Development Round” because of their focus on alleviating poverty in countries with goods to sell to Europe, the
In theory, the wealthy countries were hoping to gain greater access to poorer countries for their manufactured goods and some services, like insurance, in exchange for allowing the poorer countries to export more easily to them.
But the talks foundered over barriers to agricultural trade, not only in Europe and the
Most of the tension was between Europe and the
Trade deals have a history of rough going in Congress, and the Bush administration concluded that it could not get approval for a trade deal unless American farmers could be certain that they could win much greater access for their products in Europe and in
The
President Jacques Chirac of
After the Group of 8 summit in
The Bush administration was stymied, American officials acknowledged, because the farm bloc in the United States had become so distrustful of other nations’ protectionist practices that they told American officials they could not support a trade deal that did not win them much greater market access.
In June, 57 senators from both parties wrote to President Bush, demanding that the
“An unbalanced proposal that asks
Farm organizations sent the president a similar letter.
Trade officials said these letters reflected the political reality in the
Ms. Schwab said today that despite those political constraints, she and Mr. Johanns came to
Though only Mr. Lamy knew all the details of what the
“When we talked to Lamy yesterday, as things started getting pretty rocky, he acknowledged that it would not be useful for the
Steven R. Weisman reported from
Useful websites for
current economic and social issues,
Issues in international finance and capital flows
Issues related to the effect of foreign direct investment and portfolio investment on developing countries
news on various activities, conferences,
Country profiles and statistical data
International Developoment Economics Association
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 6, 2006
News Analysis : Few Good Choices in North Korean Standoff
By DAVID E. SANGER
The Bush administration has tried to ignore North Korea, then, reluctantly, to engage it, and then to squeeze its bankers in a manner intended to make the country's leader, Kim Jong Il, personally feel the pinch.
Yet none of these steps in the past six years has worked. So now, after a barrage of missile launchings by North Korea, President Bush and his national security advisers found themselves on Wednesday facing what one close aide described as an array of "familiar bad choices."
The choices have less to do with North Korea's newest missile — which, as Mr. Bush pointed out on Wednesday, "didn't stay up very long and tumbled into the sea" — than with the bigger question of whether the president is prepared to leave office in 2009 without constraining an unpredictable dictator who boasts about having a nuclear arsenal.
"We're at the moment when the president has to decide whether he wants an unconstrained, nuclear North Korea to be part of his legacy," said Jonathan D. Pollack, a professor of Asian and Pacific studies at the United States Naval War College who has spent much of his career studying North Korea and its improbable strategies for survival.
"Until now, the attitude has been, 'If the North Koreans want to stew in their own juices, let them,' " Mr. Pollack said. "But it's becoming clear that Mr. Bush may leave office with the North Korean problem much worse."
Dealing with North Korea has frustrated every president since Truman. But it has proved particularly vexing for Mr. Bush because his administration has engaged in a six-year internal argument about whether to negotiate with the country or try to plot its collapse — it has sought to do both, simultaneously — and because America's partners in dealing with North Korea each have differing interests in North Korea's future.
On Wednesday, rejecting pressure from the Bush administration, China and Russia said they would not get behind an American drive to bring sanctions against North Korea, saying they favored less punitive actions.
It was the latest disappointment in a string of attempts to enlist China to help moderate the North. Still, answering questions on Wednesday, Mr. Bush expressed no interest in dropping his objections to one-on-one talks with the North, a government he once said he "detests."
Another alternative for Mr. Bush would be take a hard line that might risk an escalation of the half-century-old confrontation between the United States and North Korea. But such a tack is now complicated by the widespread assumption that even if the North does not have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon, it now probably possesses enough extra nuclear fuel that it may be tempted to sell some to a terrorist group or another state.
That is Mr. Bush's biggest concern, and late last year the National Security Council ordered a study of the likelihood that Mr. Kim, in his effort to seek attention or gain negotiating leverage, would threaten to do it. The results, according to a senior administration official who would not speak for attribution about intelligence matters, were inconclusive.
But so far the North has only dared to offer reminders, like the test firings while Americans were celebrating the Fourth of July, that it possesses weapons that could destroy Seoul or threaten Japan, including American forces based there. The launchings were only the second time that North Korea had tested an intercontinental-range missile that, depending on whose numbers one believes, could eventually hit the United States. (The last such test launching was in 1998, and as Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies put it Wednesday, "both failed dismally.")
To many experts, the missile tests fit into a pattern: whenever Mr. Kim has concluded that he was not getting attention to his demands, he has staged a crisis. His father, Kim Il Sung, did so in 1994, and won an agreement from the Clinton administration that later fell apart. Kim Jong Il did so in 2003, as American troops were flowing toward Iraq, when North Korea threw out international inspectors and reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into what the Central Intelligence Agency says is enough bomb-grade material for six or more weapons.
At that time, top Pentagon officials briefed Mr. Bush on his military options, including bombing the North's nuclear facilities. "It didn't take very long," one official deeply involved in that briefing said, "because it was pretty clear there wasn't an acceptable military option — or at least, a risk anyone was willing to take."
But Mr. Bush came to office appearing to have already determined that he would not negotiate, either. He often said that he distrusted North Korea's government and detested how Mr. Kim treated the North Korea people. In the first months of his presidency, he refused to endorse South Korea's "sunshine policy" of luring North Korea out of its shell with economic incentives. Yet the isolation strategy ultimately failed: North Korea kept producing plutonium.
Mr. Bush then reversed course, reluctantly agreeing to engage with the North Koreans at a distance, through six-nation talks convened by China and joined by Japan, South Korea and Russia. An agreement in principle was reached in September, calling for disarmament for security guarantees and eventual aid, but with no timetable. Even before the ink was dry, the North Koreans were interpreting it differently than the other signatories were.
Mr. Bush has most recently bet that China would eventually tire of the North Korean antics and enforce some discipline. Mr. Bush repeated that he and Jiang Zemin, China's former leader, had agreed that a nuclear North Korea was "unacceptable." But the reality, administration officials acknowledge, is that China fears a collapsed and chaotic North Korea more than it fears a nuclear-armed North Korea.
That could change now. The Chinese warned the North Koreans not to fire the missiles; the fact that Mr. Kim dismissed that warning is bound to anger China's leaders.
But so far, Mr. Bush has not been able to harness his partners into coordinated pressure on the North. If that changes soon, at the United Nations Security Council and around the world, it could be that the president will finally have a way forward.
Current Economic and Social Issues View Comments
SEOUL, South Korea, July 6 — North Korea declared today that it will continue to test-fire missiles, and vowed to resist with force if other nations tried to stop it, even as it acknowledged for the first time that it had launched seven missiles the day before.
Responding to international condemnation with characteristic defiance and vagueness, North Korea said that the launchings of the seven missiles, including the new intercontinental Taepodong 2, had been "routine military exercises" designed to raise the nation's "capacity for self-defense."
In a statement attributed to the North Korean foreign ministry and released on its official KCNA news agency, the North stated that it "will have no option but to take stronger physical actions of other forms, should any other country dare take issue with the exercises and put pressure upon it."
The North issued its warning as the American and Japanese diplomats tried with mixed success to gather international support for a United Nations Security Council resolution drafted by Japan, threatening sanctions if the North does not dismantle its nuclear program.
President Bush called the leaders of China and Russia today, seeking a unified response against the test firings. But China and Russia, each a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with a veto over its actions, said they opposed taking punitive measures against North Korea.
At a White House appearance with Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Mr. Bush played down American differences with Moscow and Beijing.
"You know, diplomacy takes a while, particularly when you're dealing with a variety of partners, and so we're spending time diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified," the president said. "Let's send a common message: You won't be rewarded for ignoring the rest of the world."
Still, China and Russia gave little sign today that they were willing to consider sanctions. "We think the Security Council should make a necessary response, but the response should be helpful to maintain peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and should help diplomatic efforts," Jiang Yu, the spokeswoman for the Chinese foreign ministry, said in a news conference in Beijing.
Asked whether China — the North's biggest trading partner and aid donor — was considering cutting aid as a result of the tests, Ms. Jiang said, "At present we are not taking this aspect into consideration."
In Moscow, President Vladimir V. Putin said he was disappointed by the test firings, but added that North Korea was correct to say it had the legal right to conduct them.
North Korea said it was no longer bound by past moratoriums on the test firing of missiles because the United States and Japan had broken previous agreements.
In its statement, the North said Wednesday's missile launchings were successful. Experts said, however, that the Taepodong 2 failed just 42 seconds after takeoff.
North Korea's continued defiance appears intended to press the United States into direct talks with North Korea, analysts and politicians said. The country has demanded that Washington stop cracking down on banks that do business with North Korea, and has twice invited Christopher R. Hill, the assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the main negotiator with North Korea, to visit Pyongyang.For its part, Washington wants the stalled six-nation talks over the North's nuclear program, which include Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, to be revived instead, and it has refused to meet bilaterally with North Korea on the issue.
"These actions by North Korea are an act of defiance meant to remind the U.S. that to ignore it comes at a price," said Peter Beck, director of Northeast Asia at the International Crisis Group in Seoul.
"The tests may also have been intended to rally the North Korean people, to justify the hardships that they are undergoing," Mr. Beck said, adding that one of the biggest anti-American rallies in years was held in Pyongyang last week.
At a National Assembly hearing here, South Korea's Defense Minister, Yoon Kwang Ung, said that North Korea may fire additional missiles. Mr. Yoon said he was basing his assessment on "the traffic of equipment and personnel in and out of launch sites."
The South Korean media reported Wednesday that North Korea has three or four more mid-range missiles sitting on launch pads. According to experts, North Korea is believed to have about 200 mid-range and 600 short-range missiles in all.
The missile launchings have drawn contrasting responses from South Korea and Japan, America's two allies in the region.
Caught between its alliance with the United States and its policy of engaging the North, South Korea condemned the tests but appeared unlikely to impose more than a few very limited penalties against the North.
In the long term, few people here expect South Korea, which is the North's second largest trading partner and aid donor after China, to significantly alter its policy of engagement of the North. What both China and South Korea fear almost as much as military confrontation, experts say, is the sudden collapse of the North Korean regime and a subsequent flood of millions of refugees. At a National Assembly hearing, Lee Jong Seok, the Minister of Unification, said that cabinet-level meetings between the North and South will go ahead as scheduled next week, and that economic joint ventures will proceed. Military talks between the two Koreas are also scheduled for later this month.
By contrast, Japan has taken a very tough stance. Fukushiro Nukaga, the head of Japan's Defense Agency, told a parliamentary committee today that Japan will step up its efforts to establish a missile defense shield with the United States.
"We would like to cooperate with the United States and put our joint missile interception into shape as quickly as possible," Mr. Nukaga said.
Recent Comments