|
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
Actually, it's somewhat delusional.
America's convinced it will retain preeminence forever, when it's sun is aleady going down. The trade deficit is staggering, Dubya has ruined the American image in the global perspective, and she is already panicking over the incredible GDP growth rates of China and the rapidity with which it has shifted to a free market. There's a reason the USA is so heavily invested in China.
Also, a sort of socio-psychological study could be done about how the US media depicts the EU. It tries very amusingly (but in a most uninformed/tongue-in-cheek manner) to play-down the fact that the EU has already emerged as a rising economic counterbalance to the US as sole superpower (and no, the EU is not particularly interested in being a military superpower just yet, if ever).
The USA is already forced to observe the edicts of Brussels, and its CEOs have been stewing about it even since the EU Commission for Antitrust slapped e.g., Microsoft with a $600 million fine. Microsoft whined but complied, submitting its proposal for how it intends to comply with the EU verdict only the other day.
|
How has the media been downplaying the economic circumstances of the EU? It actually has numerous structural problems with three of the EU's largest economies facing significant economic problems. The worst of the wear is Italy which is plagued by recession in the past 2 quarters. Its unit/labor costs have risen by 20% since adopting the Euro making its exports uncompetitive, and its public debt is over 100% of GDP. Then there's Germany which has been stagnating for the past several years at under 2% growth with minimal domestic demand. Unfortunately its labor market woes are only going to get worse due to the absence of much needed social reform. The best off of the biggest 3 eurozone economies is France and even they are suffering from near double digit unemployment.
All of their problems are exacerbated by the ECB's inability to practice any kind of coherent and effective monetary policies. Just look at what it has to deal with:
Raise interest rates and Italy/Germany suffers. Lower interest rates and Ireland/Spain suffers. That's why the ECB has kept rates constant for the past 2 years ... they've adopted a middle ground policy that makes no one happy. So how are the Eurozone economies forced to deal with the lack of monetary policy? With fiscal policy of course. However, even fiscal policy has its limits of effectiveness. Portugal, Germany, Italy, and France have all breached the Maastricht criteria repeatedly without triggering sanctions. And despite the deficit spending, they are not stimulating economic growth. Therefore you have structural economic problems that fiscal policy is not helping and monetary policy that can't be used because the ECB can ONLY use monetary policy for one thing: price stability.
Already you have grumblings from many of the member states about the whole deal. The Germans are certainly pissed off. I've long said that the rise in the Euro would end up hurting the bigger economies because their domestic demand is weak ... they need a competitive currency to keep exports up. So what's beginning to happen? The Stern magazine did a poll which resulted in 56% of Germans saying they want to bring back the DM:
http://theage.com.au/text/articles/...l?oneclick=true
The Italians followed this up by grumbling from some of their ministers with discussions of backing out of the Euro.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=611492005
Now granted it is extremely unlikely that the Eurozone is going to be abandoned anytime soon, but it’s nowhere near an economic counterbalance to the US in the state that it is in. This is reflected in the financial markets with currency traders pushing the US’s current account deficit to the back of their mind and selling the Euro down to $1.22. The division of the Eurozone economies is also reflected in the bond markets with the difference between the spread on the yield of Italian and German 10 year t-notes rising to 17 points.
As for the Microsoft decision, what’s so special about that? European firms are forced to comply with the SEC and US anti-trust laws and vice-versa for the European counterparties. That has always been the case.
| quote: |
Oh, totally agreed. We have both commented on delivery systems being the primary obstacle. But you also probably know about the assistance the DRPK has been receiving from countries that do have advanced delivery systems...
Facts remains that the DPRK technology is advanced enough to elicit panic in the USA, a nuclear and military deterent in response, deception in the public media about the capabilities and degree of the DPRK nuclear program, and diplomacy to isolate and pressure the DPRK into giving up its program and halting any further development.
You can blithely dismiss the potential, but the thinktanks don't and neither does the White House. 
|
How is there deception in the public media about the capabilities of the DPRK nuke program and capabilities? I just quoted you an article where Tenet himself is telling the public that N. Korea has a missile capable of hitting the west coast. They’ve also been saying that N. Korea, has had nukes since early 2000. If the white house is trying to keep this secret so as to not “elicit panic” in the US than they’re doing a pretty piss poor job of it by telling it directly to the media! The white house has been propagating all along that N. Korea poses a legitimate threat because it’s in their best interest to DO so. My denigration of the threat claimed by the white house comes from various think tanks that downgrade the risk somewhat such as fas.org or missilethreat.
| quote: |
Both the IAEA and the NPT are a giant farse, as you well know. Exclusive "us only, denial for anyone else"-clubs have a long history of total failure.
Think after the DPRK, then Iran, that the US will move on to India-Pakistan?
|
Why yes because I’ve never heard of South Africa, Argentina, Iraq, or any of the ex-Soviet Union states. The only failure was India/Pakistan. And now Iran/N. Korea because there isn’t enough international pressure to force these states into abandoning their programs.
| quote: |
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The DPRK curbed its nuclear ambitions under the caveats that:
1. The USA provide, install, and oversee the technology for nuclear reactors for the exclusive purpose of generating electricity;
2. The USA provide monetary, food, and infrastructural aid to relieve the economy and the population.
The DPRK restarted its program and ejected the IAEA from its facilities when the USA summarily reneged on these commitments.
|
Ah yes, except delays in food shipments and the KEDO project were tied to N. Korean provocations and aggressive acts against S. Korea and Japan. One such example is when the S. Koreans called for a delay due to submarine and spy excursions across the DMZ or the N. Korean testing of missiles over Japan:
http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd10/10nkor.htm
Additiionally a large part of the delay was due to N. Korean non-cooperation and non-compliance with IAEA accords:
| quote: |
One senior KEDO official estimates that KEDO will have completed a "significant portion of the [light-water reactor] project" by the first half of 2005, and will then be ready to receive key nuclear components. Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea must come into compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement before those components are delivered.
The original schedule envisioned conducting the inspections in the late 1990s and finishing both reactors by 2003--and the completion date could slip again. KEDO still faces tough negotiations with North Korea over several issues, including liability and the possible need to refurbish North Korea's electrical grid, which is in extremely poor condition.
Although North Korea is expected to comply with its safeguards agreement, no one knows for sure whether it will do so. It has failed to cooperate with the IAEA on a range of verification issues, raising concerns that it may not be completely cooperative when the inspection process resumes. In addition to inspecting North Korea's known nuclear infrastructure, the IAEA will also have to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear sites or activities.
As recently as October 17, the IAEA said it had not made any significant progress in verifying that North Korea had come into compliance with its safeguards agreement or that North Korea had not produced more plutonium than it declared in the early 1990s. IAEA Director General Mohammed El Baradei said in an October 17 Reuters interview: "We are still where we had been a year ago. We continue to verify the freeze of the existing facilities but we haven't really made any progress with regard to verification of the past program."
In early November, however, North Korea said it would allow IAEA inspectors to visit the Isotope Production Laboratory at Yongbyon, a facility suspected of being involved in plutonium separation. Whether North Korea will allow the inspectors to investigate past activities at the facility remains unclear.
Because inspections are tied to construction milestones, as things stand the IAEA may not begin the verification process until about 2005. The IAEA's director general and senior staff estimate that it will take three to four years to conduct inspections, so the inspections might not be finished until 2008 or 2009. If pressed, though, the IAEA could act more quickly and still do the inspections adequately.
Such a delay could open the way for disruptions in the Agreed Framework's delicate balance, which could also impair the inter-Korean peace process. Mistrust of North Korea remains high in general, and from time to time the North is accused of having hidden nuclear weapons facilities (see "Under Mt. Chun-Ma," page 58).
And what if the verification process were to fail? The IAEA can only determine whether North Korea is in compliance with its safeguards agreement if it cooperates. North Korea is still deeply suspicious of the IAEA.
Given the timeline, it would be prudent for the Bush administration to try to help jump-start IAEA inspections. In his July 26, 2001 testimony before the House Committee on International Relations, Charles Pritchard, a senior State Department official, said: "Improved implementation of the Agreed Framework provisions related to North Korea's nuclear activities was one of the administration's top priorities. [North Korean] cooperation with the IAEA will become increasingly important. Although the date for delivering key nuclear components is still in the future, [North Korea] must begin active cooperation soon, to avoid serious delays in the KEDO project."
http://www.thebulletin.org/article....f02albright_039
|
The N. Koreans themselves provoked the delays with their continued aggression, non-compliance, and brinkmanship diplomacy. Furthermore, the US was correct in assuming that they had already violated the accords because they restarted their weapons programs in the late 90’s. Long before they officially broke from the agreement citing the delays in KEDO.
| quote: |
Hmm, and the Crimean and Boer Wars?
|
I’ve never heard any historian put forth the argument that the Crimean or Boer war had any significant impact whatsoever on Britain’s industrial revolution. If you have detailed analyses demonstrating such a cause and effect relationship, I would be very interested in reading it.
| quote: | Thanks for the link,
|
No problem.
___________________
Retro ...
|
