U.S. Accused of Escalating Military Tension in Korea

8 October 2008

Pyongyang, North Korea-On September 23 the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a "bill on closer U.S.-south Korea defense cooperation" the keynote of which is to raise south Korea's status in purchasing U.S.-made weapons and military equipment to that of NATO. In its wake the U.S. Senate passed the similar bill.

Rodong Sinmun Wednesday in a signed commentary carried in this regard observes:

U.S. Congress's adoption of the above-said bill betrays a sinister intention to round off the preparations for the second Korean war and reinforce the "military alliance" between the U.S. and south Korea.

This is a criminal act of escalating the tension and military stand-off on the Korean Peninsula and seriously jeopardizing peace.

It is the intention of the U.S. to effectively use the south Korean puppets in a war anytime, keeping them as a faithful "military ally" in carrying out its anti-DPRK strategy and servants for aggression.

The U.S. seeks to retain an unchallenged military and strategic edge in Asia as it attaches key importance to establishing unchallenged domination over it in a bid to put its strategy for global domination into practice. It is the strategic scenario of the U.S. to set up a new "security mechanism" of NATO type in Asia and contain the DPRK and put the rest of Asia under its military control using it as a lever.

Now is the time for the DPRK and the U.S. to promote a climate of bilateral confidence and detente. This notwithstanding, the U.S. is busy coiling up the military tension and increasing the danger of war on the peninsula as evidenced by the legal action taken by it to "boost the defense cooperation" with south Korea in an effort to stifle the DPRK. This is an action against peace as it is quite contrary to the trend of the times.

The U.S. would be well advised to give up its reckless military scenario, cogitating about the ensuing consequences.

Asian markets mixed after Australia's big rate cut

A trader works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, on 6 October 2008.

7 October 2008
By KELLY OLSEN

SEOUL-South Korea -European stocks posted modest gains Tuesday ahead of Wall Street's opening on hopes the world's leading central banks will cut interest rates soon, possibly in a coordinated manner to deal with the world financial crisis.

Those hopes, which were fueled by the Reserve Bank of Australia's overnight move to cut borrowing costs by a massive 1 percentage point to 6 percent, helped diminish the impact of another bad day for bank stocks.

Britain's Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC shed around 40 percent of its value at one stage amid ongoing liquidity and solvency concerns and reports that the government might seek a stake in British banks as a way to boost their balance sheets.

"There's some optimism in the markets in the hope of a global coordinated rate cut, and if it's going to be coordinated there's little reason to wait til Thursday," said Richard Hunter, head of UK equities at Hargreaves Lansdowne.

By afternoon in London, the FTSE 100 index of leading British shares was up 56.23 points, or 1.2 percent, at 4,645.42.

Higher oil prices helped BP PLC and Shell, two of the FTSE's biggest companies, post solid gains, which helped the overall index to recover ground. Oil prices rebounded more than $3 to near $91 in Europe after plunging to an 8-month low Monday on concerns a significant slowdown in global economic growth will undermine demand for crude.

But RBS topped the list of declining issues with a 25.6 percent drop. The bank's shares were down 20 percent on Monday.

In Germany, the DAX index was 2.37 points higher, while the CAC-40 in France, which lost nearly 10 percent of its overall value Monday, was up 1.5 percent.

The Australian central bank's cut was its biggest since 1992 and the scale of it was unexpected. Analysts were predicting a half-point cut, especially after the Australian dollar slumped by nearly 10 percent Monday.

RBA Gov. Glenn Stevens said the Australian central bank had judged that a large cut in the cash rate was needed after studying the outlook for global growth and its likely effect on Australia.

The move sent Sydney's S&P/ASX-200 index, which had opened 3.7 percent lower, up 1.7 percent and helped the Australian dollar push back up above 71.70 U.S. cents. Other markets, including the main indexes in South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, rebounded after the bold move and market observers said the same could happen if other central banks follow suit.

"The move highlights how central banks' priorities are moving rapidly away from controlling inflation towards supporting growth and averting a deeper economic and financial crisis," said Alvin Pontoh, an analyst at London-based Capital Economics.

A trader takes a break as trading was halted on the main floor of the BM and F Bovespa stock exchange market in Sao Paulo, Brazil; on 6 October 2008.

"Central banks in the US and Europe — where the growth outlook is markedly worse than in Australia — will be left with little choice but to follow the RBA's lead in the days and weeks ahead," Pontoh said.

The Bank of England is now seen as almost certain to cut interest rates on Thursday, with the questions now being asked are whether it will reduce borrowing costs by half a point to 4.50 percent for the first time in seven years. There has been speculation the Bank of England might join the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank in a simultaneous cut.

RBS was not the only British banking stock in trouble amid news reports that the chief executives of Britain's largest banks met up with British Treasury chief Alistair Darling and Bank of England governor Mervyn King Monday night to discuss the possibility of the government providing funding, thought to be around 50 billion pounds in exchange for stakes in the banks.

Lloyds TSB PLC, which is in the process of taking over HBOS PLC, was down 7.8 percent, while Barclays PLC, which has denied it is asking for government funding, was 4.5 percent lower.

Confidence has also drained away in Iceland, which, according to the Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde is facing the prospect of bankruptcy after its banks went on the acquisition trail across the continent, accumulating massive debts in the process.

The government's latest response was to nationalize its second-largest bank Landsbanki under day-old legislation and fixed its currency exchange rate.

The moves came a day after trading in shares of major banks was suspended, the Icelandic krona lost a quarter of its value against the euro, and the government rushed through emergency legislation giving it new powers to deal with the financial meltdown.

Earlier, unlike its Australian counterpart, the Bank of Japan kept its interest rates unchanged at 0.5 percent, as expected.

Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 index erased some of its early losses to close down 3 percent at 10,155.90 — still its lowest level in almost five years.

Russia's stock markets made early gains after trading opened several hours late Tuesday, a day after suffering steep plunges. The RTS exchange resumed normal trading at 1 p.m. (0900GMT) and was up 2.6 percent to 889.1 points as of 2 p.m (1000GMT). The MICEX, where most trading takes place, rose by 3 percent to 774.5 points. It opened at 1:15 p.m.

The euro was trading at US$1.3574 from US$1.3516 late Monday.

Bush South Korean Visit Marred by Riots

Riot police fire water canon to protesters during a rally against U.S. President George W. Bush's visit on August 5, 2008, in Seoul, South Korea.

Bush is on an Asian tour visiting South Korea and Thailand before attending the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games Opening Ceremony.

It is becoming more apparent that U.S. President George W. Bush is not just very disliked in his home country, but globally; for his numerous debouches on all fronts, some of the negative remarks said towards this particular U.S. president, I do not think has ever been heard in any facet of the U.S. presidency in any part of there history.

What is even worse, excluding the orchestrated photo ops or propagandized style speeches, Bush and his administration even in the short period of time they have left in the White House, as far as many in the global community is concerned; the U.S. is turning themselves more into a desert island, then an oasis.

What makes it even harder to understand, it is not just what harm Bush has done towards the global community; but his overwhelming lack of disregard, towards the American people.
Riot police block the street to protect the protesters' march during a rally against U.S. President George W. Bush's visit.

Protesters clash with police during a rally against U.S. President George W. Bush's visit.
Protesters clashing with police, during a rally against U.S. President George W. Bush's visit.

Protesters clashing with police, during a rally against U.S. President George W. Bush's visit.

Protesters clash with police during a rally against U.S. President George W. Bush's visit.

Bush in South Korea Giving Asia Insults

South Korean protesters with defaced portraits of U.S. President George W. Bush, right, and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak stage a rally against Bush's visit in Seoul, South Korea, on 5 August 2008.

5 August 2008

SEOUL, South Korea - Police fired water cannons at thousands of protesters Tuesday as President Bush got a volatile reception in South Korea at the start of his three-nation Asian trip.

Some 18,300 police were on high alert with riot gear and bomb-sniffing dogs to maintain order during Bush's brief visit, the National Police Agency said.

As evening approached, an estimated 20,000 anti-Bush protesters gathered nearby. Police turned water cannons on them as they tried to move onto the main central downtown boulevard, telling the crowd that the liquid contained markers to tag them so they could be identified later.

"I don't have anti-U.S. sentiment. I'm just anti-Bush and anti-Lee Myung-bak," said Uhm Ki-woong, 36, a businessman who was wearing a mask and hat like other demonstrators in an apparent attempt to conceal his identity.

The anti-Bush crowd dwindled later in the evening to several thousand people, with the hard-core remnants turning aggressive. Protesters shattered the windows of a police bus and authorities responded by again firing water cannons.

About 70 demonstrators were arrested, police said, in addition to another 12 near the military airport where Bush landed.

Bush held off on visiting Seoul earlier this year when protesters staged nightly candlelight vigils and repeatedly clashed with riot police over imports of American beef, saying Lee ignored public health concerns over the possibility of mad cow disease and failed to consult with citizens. Lee has promised to patch up relations with Washington that became strained under Seoul's previous decade of liberal governments.

Bush calls Lee a friend, which is interesting considering the raft of sensitive topics they will tackle before the American president heads to Thailand, then to the Beijing Olympics.

At the top of Bush's list, is getting North Korea to live up to its commitment to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

Bush's Asia trip also includes stops in Thailand and China. In an interview aboard Air Force One with The Washington Post, Bush said it was "really hard to tell" whether human rights in China had improved over the past eight years.

Bush said he speaks candidly with Chinese President Hu Jintao about human rights, but he skirted a question about a pre-Olympics security drive by Chinese authorities.

Commentary

I do not know how Bush can visit countries and insult his hosts as much as he is doing, while I do not know the South Korean government, one thing I could not do is be insulting in the manner which is apparent on Bush’s part.

As for the protest’s, this is only a guess to what the reality is.

Bush Visit with Mad Cow Fears

South Korean protesters shout a slogan during a rally against a visit by the U.S. President George W. Bush at a Chogye temple in Seoul, South Korea, on 4 August 2008.

Bush will meet with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, whose attempts to foster goodwill with Washington by allowing resumed imports of U.S. beef sparked weeks of raucous anti-government protests over mad cow fears.

There are other questions, if South Korea is being forced to accept the import of American beef.

Bush will arrive in South Korea Tuesday, for two days visiting.

The letters on the cards read ' President Lee Myung-bak Out and oppose government's policy.'

U.S. accused of hundreds of massacres

KOREAN WAR: Pilots couldn't tell civilians from enemy

4 August 2008

BY CHARLES J. HANLEY AND JAE-SOON CHANG

SEOUL, South Korea -- South Korean investigators, matching once-secret documents to eyewitness accounts, are concluding that the U.S. military indiscriminately killed large groups of refugees and other civilians early in the Korean War.

A half-century later, the Seoul government's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has more than 200 such alleged wartime cases on its docket, based on hundreds of citizens' petitions recounting bombing and strafing runs on South Korean refugee gatherings and unsuspecting villages in 1950-51.

Concluding its first investigations, the 2 1/2-year-old commission is urging the government to seek U.S. compensation for victims.

''Of course the U.S. government should pay compensation. It's the U.S. military's fault,'' said survivor Cho Kook-won, 78, who says he lost four family members among hundreds of refugees suffocated, burned and shot to death in a U.S. Air Force napalm attack on their cave.

Commission researchers have unearthed evidence of indiscriminate killings in the declassified U.S. archive, including a report by U.S. inspectors-general that pilots couldn't distinguish their South Korean civilian allies from North Korean enemy soldiers.

South Korean legislators have asked a U.S. Senate committee to join them in investigating another long-classified document, one saying American ground commanders, fearing enemy infiltrators, had adopted a policy of shooting approaching refugees.

Excavations have uncovered chilling evidence.

The Associated Press has found that wartime pilots and declassified documents at the U.S. National Archives both confirm that refugees were deliberately targeted by U.S. forces.

The U.S. government has been largely silent on the commission's work. The U.S. Embassy here says it has not yet been approached by the Seoul government about compensation.

The commission's president, historian Ahn Byung-ook, said the U.S. Army helped defend South Korea in the 1950-53 war, but also ''victimized'' South Korean civilians.

''We feel detailed investigation should be done by the U.S. government itself,'' he said.

The citizen petitions have accumulated since 1999, when the Associated Press confirmed the 1950 refugee killings at No Gun Ri, where survivors estimate 400 died at American hands.

President Bush Discusses World Trade Week

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 23, 2008

Video
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming; please be seated. Welcome to the White House, the South Lawn. It's a joy to welcome entrepreneurs and business leaders and folks who understand the importance of this country being competent enough to work to open up markets for our goods and products and services. Obviously some of the exporters are pretty good salesmen and women -- after all, they let you drive a tractor here on the South Lawn. (Laughter.) Imagine what the Secret Service was saying.

I'm really pleased to welcome members of the Congress: Congressmen Petri and Herger are here. Thanks for coming. Petri is here because he believes the Harley Davidson is a product that people around the world ought to be able to drive by making it more affordable -- I suspect that's why you're here -- as well as some other trucks made in your state.

I want to thank the members of the Cabinet. Thank you all for being such strong advocates of free and fair trade. We've got the Secretary of Agriculture here, Secretary Schafer. His being here sends a message that the American farmer and rancher expects us to work hard to open up markets for the products they grow. So if you're a farmer out there in the heartland, seems like you'd want somebody working on your behalf here in Washington, to be able -- make it easier for you to sell your crops. And that's exactly what we're doing in this administration. Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming.

Carlos Gutierrez is the Secretary of Commerce. Trade means commerce. Elaine Chao is here from the Department of Labor. Madam Secretary, thank you. Your presence here is clear recognition that the more products we sell overseas the more likely it is somebody is going to work.

Today I'm going to spend some time so our fellow citizens understand the importance of trade by connecting trade with products with jobs. Good jobs policy is a good trade policy. I appreciate very much Sue Schwab here; she's the U.S. Trade Representative. Her job is to open up markets. I'm going to talk about free trade agreements that she's worked to put in place that open up markets for U.S. goods and services. I really appreciate John Veroneau joining us as well. He's the Deputy, his job is to also work with the Ambassador to open up markets.

I want to thank Federico Humbert, the Ambassador de Panama. I want to thank Lee Tae-sik, Ambassador from South Korea. I want to thank Mariana Pacheco, who is the Deputy Chief of Mission for the Embassy of Colombia. These are three nations I'm going to be talking about. I want to thank you all for coming. I really appreciate you giving me a chance to talk about your countries in your presence -- because I want your leaders to understand the Bush administration and a lot of members of Congress believe it's in our national interest that we have free and fair trade with your nations.

I thank the representatives of the companies whose products are here. I want to thank the members of the business community. And thanks for your caring about your country.

First of all, the -- you know, it's rough economic times. Small business owners know what I'm talking about; large business owners know what I'm talking about. It's a period of uncertainty. And one way to deal with uncertainty in the economy is to work from your strengths. One strength, of course, is to trust the American people -- and the best way to trust them is to keep your taxes low. We really don't need to be sending -- (applause.) If there's uncertain times, there's no worse signal to send than, you know, we may be raising your taxes. That creates even more uncertainty. There's got to be consistency in the tax code so people can plan; so individuals can plan and small business can plan and large businesses can plan. Congress needs to make the tax relief we passed permanent in order to deal with the uncertainty in the economy.

Of course, they got a huge appetite for spending your money, so it shouldn't surprise you that some up there really do want to raise your taxes. And we'll do everything we can -- we're not going to let them raise your taxes, but the best signal that Congress could send for the sake of economic growth and vitality is that we're going to keep your taxes low by making the tax cuts permanent.

Another thing Congress can do is pass trade agreements that open up markets. You know, 40 percent of our growth last year -- during a time of economic uncertainty, 40 percent of the growth came as a result of exports. So when I say "play to our strengths," one of the strengths during this period of time is to continue to export products. If the growth that we had during some quarters, recent quarters was as a result of exports, it seems like we ought to be working to create more exports, to be able to sell our goods and services into more markets.

And we have an opportunity to do that by opening up markets with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. You know, we trust you to create jobs. The government ought to trust you by opening up more markets, by making sure the playing field is level for our producers. That's all we want: We just want to be treated fairly in the world.

For some in Washington, trade is a political issue. In other words, people think it makes good politics to say we're not going to let you trade. But what they've got to understand, those voices of pessimism and voices of protectionism must understand that oftentimes opening up markets means the difference between giving employees a pay raise or a pay cut. The politicians in Washington who use trade as an issue to frighten voters must understand that opening up markets can mean the difference between expanding the number of workers, as opposed to shrinking the number of workers.

And our fellow citizens I understand, you know, have got concerns about trade, and the reason why we've asked you to bring some of your products here is to remind people that that motorcycle is made by American workers, and that if we're able to more likely sell those motorcycles into Colombia, for example, or Panama or South Korea, that the worker who made that is more likely to get a pay raise or have somebody else join him or her on the floor. That's the practicality of trade.

The interesting thing about trade as an issue, if you really study the issue of free and fair trade, leaders from both parties have been strong advocates for opening up markets. They really have been. I mean, generally this has been a -- not nearly as bitter an issue in the past as it is today. You know, I remember reading about John F. Kennedy's stand on trade. He was a strong believer in free and fair trade. My predecessor, President Clinton, worked hard to open up markets. It's interesting that a lot of the people that worked with the President have been here to the White House to, I guess, first test my temperature to determine whether I really was willing to strongly advocate opening up markets, and then when they realized that they had a steady ally, were willing to go out and declare publicly that they believed that we ought to open up markets.

And yet today there's just a different attitude, evidently. But I want to thank you for helping to try to change that attitude by bringing a practical -- some practical thoughts to this debate, kind of fight through all the rhetoric and remind our fellow citizens that -- of some of the facts. One, our economy grows better when we export; two, there are jobs. When we talk about trade, we're talking about helping people keep work. And it turns out, if you're working for a company that exports goods and services, you make better money. Isn't that an interesting fact? If you're working for a company that sells goods and services overseas, you're going to make more money than your neighbor in a comparable industry.

If you're a farmer, we got some products here, grown right here in the United States of America. If you're a farmer, it seems like you want people to work hard to make it easier for you to sell that orange somewhere else. Increased demand means it's more likely you'll be able to sell your crop.

Trade is in the interests of the working people here in America, pure and simple. Trade is in the interests of small business owners and farmers and ranchers, pure and simple. And that's why I'm a strong believer that the United States Congress needs to pass trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Now, let me give you some of the practical lessons of why. Take dairy products. There's a 20 percent tariff on dairy products from the United States into Colombia; 36 percent into Korea. That means that the cost of that dairy product, chunk of cheese -- you know something about cheese, Petri, in Wisconsin -- a chunk of cheese is going to be 20 percent more expensive, which makes it harder to sell that product.

When you say "level the playing field," what I'm talking about is reducing tariffs on goods and services, which makes it easier to sell -- in other words, it's less expensive. The quality is the same; we're really good at what we make and what we grow. The quality is the same, but the price is less, which makes it more likely something is going to be purchased.

Fruits, oranges -- these oranges right here are taxed at 15 percent going into Colombia -- 15 percent more expensive, 30 percent more in South Korea and 15 percent more in Panama. Broccoli -- they got a really high tariff on broccoli at my father's house. (Laughter.) But there also happens to be one -- 15 percent in Colombia, 27 percent in South Korea and 15 percent in Panama. So those are percentages, but you need to think about the percentage in terms of, it's that much more expensive to buy. And sometimes if you're shopping for an orange, that 15 percent differential means you're not going to buy it. Motorcycle -- that motorcycle right there -- 20 percent more expensive in Colombia, 8 percent more in Korea, and 15 percent more in Panama.

And so the purpose of a trade agreement is to reduce those tariffs; is to make the products less expensive. So if we get the deal done with Colombia, that motorcycle will be $4,000 less expensive. The great quality of Harley will be the same. There will be no diminution of how cool one is when they drive a Harley. (Laughter.) But it's going to be easier for somebody to buy it.

This Case tractor -- by the way, manufactured in Fargo, North Dakota -- called a Case IH, will be $15,500 cheaper in Colombia. That could be a significant difference when it comes to somebody buying that tractor, and I hope the Case workers hear me loud and clear. The cheaper that is for somebody to buy in Colombia, the more work you're going to have.

The reason I brought these products here is it means somebody is making them today and is going to be able to make them tomorrow if we'd level that playing field. Let me tell you why I talk about leveling the playing field. The first vote coming up is Colombia. I say the first vote coming up is Colombia -- you might remember the vote has never been allowed to come up. The Speaker of the House pulled a parliamentary maneuver that sent a bad signal, so it hasn't come up yet.

Our job is to say, let the people vote, let the members of Congress vote. I like our chances if they let the members of Congress vote. Congress has a way of sorting through all the noise and all the pessimism and oftentimes reaches the right conclusion.

Most of the goods coming from Colombia enter America duty-free -- isn't that interesting? -- as a result of actions of Congress in the past. Most goods that Colombia makes come to our country without any tax. And I've just described to you the goods and services we send to Colombia are taxed. And that, frankly, doesn't seem very fair to me. It didn't seem fair to the Colombian government, either. They agree with me: Let's just treat each other fairly.

Their goods are not taxed; our goods are. It seems unfair to me. And people of Congress should understand how unfair it is to the workers in their districts, or the farmers in their districts, or the people working hard for a living in their districts, that count upon selling goods overseas.

So the agreement we reached basically says that those oranges will go in duty-free. Some of the products will go in duty-free immediately, some of them will be phased in over time, but nevertheless, the playing field will be level. So here you hear, free and fair trade -- that's the definition of free and fair trade. Colombia treats us just like we treat them. That's fair.

Secondly, the Colombia free trade vote, like these other free trade votes, have got national security implications. Colombia has got a very bold leader named President Uribe, who is a reformist. Panama has got a strong leader, who, by the way, went to Texas A&M University. He's a reformist. I had the honor of meeting the South Korean President at Camp David -- first South Korean President to have come to Camp David -- and I did so for a reason, because I wanted to send a strong signal about our friendship with the people of South Korea. He's a strong, strong leader. All these leaders have got a clear vision about enhanced prosperity in their country. They care deeply about their people.

President Uribe has got a unique challenge in Colombia. He's facing a group of narco-traffickers who are violent, who use force to achieve political objectives, who are supported by some of the countries in the neighborhood. They're a threat to peace inside Colombia, and they provide a threat to the United States, in the sense that they -- to the extent that they facilitate drug trafficking, it makes it here. And yet the President has stood strong in dealing with these folks. He is a clear example of a leader who has set an agenda that is bold, and he's following through with that agenda.

If we were to turn our back on Colombia by rejecting the free trade agreement, it would send a terrible signal to leaders willing to be courageous. It would send a bad signal to our friends, and in the case of Colombia it would send a bad signal to the voices of false populism in South America. It's in our economic interest that we pass trade agreements. Oh, I know there's great debate about that, and I hope that people listen to the facts and understand the practical consequences of opening up markets for the products made here in the United States -- then they'll understand why all of us are so passionate about making sure we're treated fairly.

There's also a significant national security concern when it comes to America turning its back on friends. The region needs democracy, the region needs rule of law, the region needs stability, and the region needs strong leaders like President Uribe. And a rejection of the free trade agreement with Colombia will undermine that which the leader -- the region needs.

It's interesting, I've been -- you know, I constantly talk to fellow leaders on the telephone, and as you know, I've been traveling as well. And I've been asked quite frequently: Why is it that your Congress won't pass a free trade agreement with Colombia, for starters? And they ask that question first with amazement. They can't believe the great United States of America is not confident enough or wise enough to level the playing field when it comes to U.S. goods and services.

And once the tone of amazement passes, then there's this serious tone of concern -- concerned about the United States becoming protectionist, concern about the United States losing its confidence when it comes to the entrepreneurial spirit that has made us great, concerned that we really don't seem to care about the plight of others, because trade helps lift people out of poverty. Trade is a powerful engine for change.

And all I can tell them is, is that politics is too strong right now. But I also tell I haven't given up hope. I haven't given up hope that that Colombia free trade agreement is going to make it to the floor of the Congress, and with your help, I hope you get it there. (Applause.) I haven't given up hope that the people will recognize that obstructionism is not leadership; that obstructing an important piece of legislation, not even allowing it to come to the floor for a vote, is not what the people expect.

And so my call on the leadership in the House is to let this trade agreement get to the floor; let the representatives of the people decide; let there be an open and honest debate about the merits of this piece of legislation -- the merits from an economic perspective and the merits from a national security perspective. And then when you pass a Colombia free trade bill, we go to South Korea and Panama and get those bills passed. And then we can go to the people who are making these products here and say we did the job you expected us to do.

Thank you all for coming. May God bless you. (Applause.)

END

Bush sends Congress Colombia trade pact

President George W. Bush looks toward President Vladimir Putin Sunday, April 6, 2008, while making remarks during a joint press availability at the State Resident of the President of Russia in Sochi. (White House photo by Chris Greenberg)

7 April 2008

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

President Bush will announce that he is sending a controversial free trade agreement with Colombia to Congress, an administration official said Monday. The move will force a congressional vote within 90 days.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Bush will make the announcement in the White House Rose Garden.

Bush's action will force Congress to take up the proposal under a fast-track process that will require votes within 90 days. Officials said Bush is acting now in order to force a vote before Congress leaves in the fall for the campaign season.

The agreement would tear down trade barriers between the two nations but is heavily opposed by Democrats in Congress who contend that Colombia has not done enough to halt violence, protect labor activists and demobolize paramilitary organizations.

Bush, who has staked out free trade as one of his top legacies, is also hoping to win congressional approval before he leaves office on pending free trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.

Bush's action was coming one day after Mark Penn quit as Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist after it was reported that he had met with Colombia's ambassador to the United States to discuss proposion of the free trade agreement which Clinton opposes.

The administration a year ago struck an agreement with Democratic leaders who wanted future free trade agreements to include protections regarding workers' rights and the environment. The deal was intended to smooth passage of future trade agreements through a Congress now in the hands of Democrats.

However, the pact with Colombia had drawn heavy opposition because of such issues as violence against union organizers. Moreover, Democratic leaders balked at forcing the matter to a vote.

"We've tried to work with members of Congress very diligently over the past 16 months or so since we concluded the Colombia agreement," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said Monday. "We have had literally hundreds of meetings and contacts with members of Congress. A lot of members of Congress have traveled to Colombia on trips that we've sponsored."

In economic terms, the deal would largely open up the Colombian markets for American goods without many of the duties that now exist. Colombia is already able to send most products to the United States duty-free, but the deal would strengthen that preferential access, a boon to the country and to its investors.

Bush has acknowledged that the slumping U.S. economy has eroded support for trade. Many blue-collar workers blame it for costing them their jobs. The president has said the answer is trade assistance and education, not isolation.

The president also has said that failing to approve a free-trade deal with Colombia would have the effect of encouraging Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez's anti-American regime and casting the United States as untrustworthy and impotent across South America.

President Bush Meets with South Korean President Roh

President George W. Bush welcomes President Roh Moo-hyun of the Republic of Korea, to a meeting Friday, Sept. 7, 2007, at the InterContinental hotel in Sydney.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 7, 2007

InterContinental Sydney

Sydney, Australia
Video
Audio

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. President, thank you for your time. As usual, we had a very friendly and frank discussion about important matters. We discussed our bilateral relations, which are very strong. And we thank you for your contributions to helping young democracies, such as Iraq.

But we spent a lot of time talking about the six-party talks and the progress that is being made in the six-party talks. I understand you're having a summit with the leader of North Korea, and I appreciate the fact that you will urge the North Korean leader to continue to adhere to the agreement that he made with us.

And in our discussions I reaffirmed our government's position that when the North Korean leader fully discloses and gets rid of his nuclear weapons programs, that we can achieve a new security arrangement in the Korean Peninsula, that we can have the peace that we all long for. You and I discussed the Northeast Peace and Security agreement -- arrangement, which we support.

And so I'm optimistic. There's still more work to be done. But nevertheless, Mr. President, when we have worked together we have shown that it's possible to achieve the peace on the Korean Peninsula that the people long for.

So thank you, sir.

PRESIDENT ROH: (As translated.) As President Bush has stated, we had a very constructive discussion on six-party talks and the North Korean nuclear issue, as well as other bilateral issues between our two countries.

Before we discussed these issues I reaffirmed my support for President Bush and his policies and efforts in Iraq to bring peace. I also thanked the President for his efforts in the visa waiver program -- for his constructive position on this issue.

We both agreed on the positive outlook for the six-party talks. We believe that this progress is very meaningful. And I also thanked President Bush for his resolve to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asian region, for making a strategic decision to bring peace to the region through dialogue.

As is outlined in the 2005 September 19th joint statement, we have a plan for the peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, and President Bush also reaffirmed in November of last year in Vietnam of his willingness and his resolve to end the Korean War officially, once and for all. Today we revisited this issue. President Bush reaffirmed his determination to replace the current status in the Korean Peninsula with a permanent peace regime, and he stressed that he would be proceeding with this move after the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved.

We also share the view that should there be more progress in the six-party process, this will be followed by talks to initiate a Northeast Asian regional security mechanism. I also reassured President Bush that the inter-Korean summit will underpin the progress at the six-party talks, that relations -- the inter-Korean relations and the six-party talks should be a mutually reenforcing relationship.

I think I might be wrong -- I think I did not hear President Bush mention the -- a declaration to end the Korean War just now. Did you say so, President Bush?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I said it's up to Kim Jong-il as to whether or not we're able to sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War. He's got to get rid of his weapons in a verifiable fashion. And we're making progress toward that goal. It's up to him.

PRESIDENT ROH: I believe that they are the same thing, Mr. President. If you could be a little bit clearer in your message, I think --

PRESIDENT BUSH: I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will end -- will happen when Kim Jong-il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons.

Thank you, sir.

END

Report: Two Koreas to hold summit

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, left, and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung shake hands as Kim Dae-jung arrives at Sunan International Airport in Pyongyang in this June 13, 2000 file photo. The leaders of North and South Korea will hold their second-ever summit later this month in Pyongyang, Yonhap news agency reported Wednesday, Aug. 8, 2007, reprising the historic 2000 meeting that launched unprecedented reconciliation between the two longtime foes. In June 2000, Kim Jong Il met then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, also in Pyongyang. (AP Photo/Yonhap, POOL, File)

7 August 2007

SEOUL, South Korea - The leaders of North and South Korea will hold their second-ever summit later this month, Yonhap news agency reported Wednesday, reprising the historic 2000 meeting that launched unprecedented reconciliation between the two longtime foes.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun will meet in Pyongyang, North Korea's capital, on Aug. 28-30, Yonhap said without citing a source. Yonhap is the South's main national news agency.

In June 2000, Kim met then-South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, also in Pyongyang.

The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, but the 2000 meeting led them to embark on economic cooperation projects and reunions of families split by their shared border — the world's most heavily fortified.

Kim Dae-jung won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to engage the North through the so-called sunshine policy.

At the first summit, Kim Jong Il warmly greeted his South Korean counterpart on the tarmac immediately upon landing, showing a human side of the reclusive North Korean leader known for his trademark jumpsuit and sunglasses.

Kim Jong Il had promised at that time to make a return visit to the South for a summit, but it appeared security concerns made that impossible for this month's meeting. Kim only rarely travels abroad, and leaves the country solely via train.