Worldwide protests over China’s crackdown in Tibet are spreading, putting pressure on Beijing’s Communist leaders just months ahead of their showpiece Olympic Games in August.Tibet’s exiled leaders say about 100 people have been killed in a crackdown on anti-Chinese protests and have called for an international investigation. China has denied wrongdoing and blamed Tibetans for the unrest. Growing numbers of people are taking to the streets worldwide to protest against the crackdown, and rights groups have urged foreign governments to respond by keeping their officials away from the Beijing Olympics.European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering said Tuesday political leaders would reconsider attending the opening ceremony if the “repression” continued.”It will cause political leaders who plan to attend the opening of the Olympic Games, as I plan to, to consider whether such a trip is a responsible move,” he said. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner suggested the European Union may consider a boycott of the opening ceremony and in Rome, the Italian government called on the European Union to send a mission to Beijing immediately to discuss the crisis. But China’s ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, said there was little support for an EU boycott of the August 8 ceremony. “What he (Kouchner) said is not shared by most people in the world,” the Chinese envoy said. Chinese authorities have responded to the unrest with a virtually total lockdown of Tibet and other areas of China with large Tibetan populations. Activist groups said Wednesday hundreds of people have been arrested across Tibet following the deadly riots in the region. Further protests against Beijing’s handling of the crisis were planned Wednesday, including one outside the Chinese embassy in Bangkok, after a series of demonstrations were held worldwide on Tuesday.Hundreds of demonstrators, many holding banners and Tibetan flags, gathered at the seat of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the Swiss city of Lausanne for a procession led by monks in traditional robes.Belgian police used pepper spray to disperse a crowd of Tibetan protesters who hurled projectiles at the Chinese mission to the European Union and in London, two protesters hung a sign that read “Stop killing Tibetans” around the necks of the terracotta warriors on loan from China to the British Museum.Meanwhile, demonstrators in Australia burned Chinese flags and chanted “Free Tibet” as they protested outside Beijing’s consulate in Sydney.Also Tuesday, White House hopeful Senator John McCain called on China to allow international access to Tibet and open talks with the Himalayan territory’s exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. He said reports of Beijing shutting down the popular video website YouTube and confiscating mobile phone SIM cards were “disturbing,” adding, “reports of multiple deaths are far more so, especially in a year when China is preparing to host the Olympic Games.” China refuses to hold negotiations with the Dalai Lama, who said Tuesday he would resign as Tibet’s spiritual leader if the unrest in his homeland worsened.

Pro-Tibet activists said Wednesday they have been bombarded with abusive phone calls and virus emails as they try to contact witnesses in Tibet and nearby amid a clampdown following anti-Chinese riots. Matt Whitticase, from the Free Tibet Campaign, said he had received calls every two minutes from 4:00 am to 7:00 am Tuesday in London to his mobile number and also at his work number. “The content was crude, abusive and highly anti-Tibetan in nature. The calls also contained the sort of patriotic Chinese music you used to hear on Chinese trains and in public places. “It seemed that the intention was to stop me from working and from making calls,” he said. Lhadon Tethong, director of Students for a Free Tibet, told AFP that their New York office had also received abusive calls from people speaking Chinese, and added that they had received viruses via email. “We are getting virus attacks that are just shameless... claiming to be desperate people inside Tibet. The emails are well-written and emotional pleading for us to open the images,” she told AFP. One other group, which did not want to be identified, told AFP its computers had been compromised by virus attacks over the last few days. China blanketed restive Tibetan areas Thursday with a huge buildup of troops, turning small towns across a wide swath of western China into armed encampments. Beijing acknowledged that last week’s anti-government protests had spread far beyond Tibet’s borders and that police opened fire on protesters. It warned foreign tourists and journalists to stay away from a huge expanse of territory across four provinces. In an overture of peace, the Dalai Lama offered to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao and other leaders, reiterating that he was not asking for Tibetan independence. China has repeatedly ignored calls for dialogue, accusing the exiled Tibetan leader and his supporters of organizing violence in hopes of sabotaging the upcoming Beijing Olympics and promoting Tibetan independence. Hundreds of paramilitary troops aboard at least 80 trucks were seen traveling along the main road winding through the mountains into southeastern Tibet. Others set up camp and patrolled streets in riot gear, helmets and rifles in the town of Tiger Leaping Gorge, a tourist attraction in Yunnan province bordering Tibet. Farther north, the largely Tibetan town of Zhongdian, renamed Shangri-la a decade ago, was swarmed by 400 armed police. Many carried rifles and what appeared to be tear gas launchers. Residents walked freely among the military, and there was no sign of a daytime curfew. The troop mobilization was helping authorities reassert control after the broadest, most sustained protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule in decades. Demonstrations had flared across Tibetan areas of Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces in support of protests that started in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa. Led by Buddhist monks, protests had begun peacefully in Lhasa early last week but erupted into rioting on March 14, drawing a harsh response from Chinese authorities.

The crackdown drew worldwide attention to China’s human rights record, threatening to overshadow Beijing’s attempts to project an image of unity and prosperity in the lead-up to the Aug. 8-24 Olympics. On Thursday, a group of 26 Nobel laureates said they “deplore and condemn the Chinese government’s violent crackdown on Tibetan protesters,” calling for Beijing to exercise restraint.

“We protest the unwarranted campaign waged by the Chinese government against our fellow Nobel Laureate, his holiness the Dalai Lama,” the group said in a statement released by the Elie Wiesel Foundation. Tibetan exile groups have said 80 people were killed in the protest and its aftermath, while Beijing maintains that 16 died and more than 300 were injured. Tibetan television in Lhasa showed video Thursday of black-clad police arresting 24 men. Handcuffed against a wall, the men — some young, some old — were charged with “endangering national security, beating, smashing, looting and burning.” The two remaining foreign journalists in Tibet — Georg Blume of Germany and Kristin Kupfer of Austria — were forced to leave Lhasa on Thursday, according to Reporters Without Borders. Earlier this week, Economist correspondent James Miles and a group of 15 Hong Kong reporters were forced out. Speaking from the seat of his government-in-exile in Dharmsala, India, the Dalai Lama offered to meet with Hu and other Chinese leaders but said he would not travel to Beijing unless there was a “real concrete development.” “The whole world knows the Dalai Lama is not seeking independence, one hundred times, thousand times I have repeated this. It is my mantra — we are not seeking independence,” the 72-year-old Dalai Lama told reporters. “The Tibet problem must be solved between Tibetan people and Chinese people,” he said. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, expressed “grave concern” over a planned meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Dalai Lama, telling Brown not to offer support to the Tibetans’ exiled spiritual leader. China says the riots and protests were organized from abroad by the Dalai Lama and his supporters.

Reinforcing that claim, state broadcaster China Central Television aired a 15-minute program Thursday night, showing how Tibetan rioters rampaged through Lhasa last week but none of the ensuing police crackdown. Video from security cameras showed burned shops, wounded Chinese and a knife-wielding Tibetan standing atop a police car. Buddhist monks were shown throwing sticks and other debris at riot police in a scuffle on March 10, in an attempt to portray the protests as having been started by monks. But authorities have moved to clamp down on unrest in Tibet and surrounding provinces, where more than half of China’s 5.4 million Tibetans live. Moving from town to town, police have set up blockades and checkpoints to keep Tibetans in and reporters out. Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said China is “suggesting” foreigners stay out of Gansu and Sichuan provinces for safety reasons. But tour operators in the provinces said foreigners were barred from traveling in those areas and tour groups were banned from Tibet, isolating a region about four times the size of France. An employee at the Nine Lakes Travel Agency in Lanzhou, Gansu province, said she had heard about recent protests and unrest in many counties around the province. “Tourists are not allowed to enter the seven counties affected because it considered dangerous at the moment. It is not safe to travel here at this time,” she said, refusing to give her name for fear of reprisal. Despite the massive security, protests have continued to crop up in towns in Qinghai, Sichuan and Gansu provinces.

The official Xinhua News Agency said police shot and wounded four rioters “in self-defense” during violent protests Sunday in Aba County in Sichuan. It is the first time the government has acknowledged shooting any protesters during the unrest. A Tibetan resident in Aba County said Thursday she had heard of numerous arrests of protesters. “There are many, many troops outside. I’m afraid to leave the house,” said the woman, who refused to give her name for fear of retaliation by authorities. Police could be heard shouting from loudspeakers for protesters to turn themselves in. Troops blocked roads in nearby Sertar, also in Sichuan, confining residents to their homes, said a woman reached there by phone. The London-based Free Tibet Campaign reported that troops had been sent to the county after residents blew up a bridge near the village of Gudu. A hotel worker in central Luqu County, in neighboring Gansu province, said she had not left the hotel in four days because she was afraid. “On the 16th, hundreds of Tibetan protesters marched in the streets, throwing rocks and breaking windows. The streets are now filled with police officers,” she said, refusing to give her name for fear of reprisal. “Our hotel is booked out with tourists, but no one feels safe enough to set foot outside.” Champa Phuntsok, the taciturn chairman of Tibet’s government, left no doubt Monday morning on whose shoulders the Communist Party places blame for the violent Tibetan protests that have become a domestic political crisis and an Olympic-year public relations nightmare: the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, and “splittist” forces colluding to splinter China. Speaking at a hurriedly organized news conference, Phuntsok described the violence that erupted Friday in Lhasa and is still spreading to other Tibetan regions as if it were a meticulously orchestrated surprise attack. But to many Tibetans and their sympathizers, the unleashed fury is sad and shocking yet not a complete surprise. Tibetan anger has simmered over Chinese policies on the environment, tightening religious restrictions and a harder political line from Beijing. Ethnic tensions and economic anxiety have also sharpened as Chinese migrants have poured into Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. “Why did the unrest take off?” asked Liu Junning, a liberal political scientist in Beijing. “I think it has something to do with the long-term policy failure of the central authorities. They failed to earn the respect of the people there.” For now, Beijing’s hard line on Tibet is only likely to get harder. Military police officers are pouring into Tibetan regions to stifle new protests.

Nor are the demonstrations winning sympathy in a nation that is 94 percent Han Chinese. State media have tightly controlled coverage to focus on Tibetans burning Chinese businesses or attacking and killing Chinese merchants. No mention is made of Tibetan grievances or reports that 80 or more Tibetans have died. Chinese leader accuses Dalai Lama of being behind Tibet protestsTibetan exiles in India join in protestsChina takes steps to thwart reporting on Tibet protests Today in Asia - Pacific China’s tough line in Tibet is seen to have brought only resentmentChina takes steps to thwart reporting on Tibet protestsPakistani Parliament opens with a power shift With less than five months before the opening of the Olympics, Beijing is acutely worried about an international backlash and is arguing that its response to the protests has been reasonable. No one mentions the bloody 1989 crackdown against pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, but its shadow is obvious. Phuntsok said the military police and other officers were not carrying lethal weapons and had not fired a single shot - despite many witnesses reporting gunshots. “What democratic country in the world could tolerate this violent behavior?” Phuntsok asked Monday, framing the crisis as a law-and-order issue.

Eventually, the protests will be extinguished and China’s leaders will be left with a shattered Tibet. One foreigner who witnessed the violence in Lhasa said Tibetans were covering the streets in white toilet paper. Traditionally, Tibetans offer white silk scarves to welcome guests. But the toilet paper was intended to symbolize that the Chinese were no longer welcome - even though there is no possibility they will leave. In recent years, China tried to soften its image on Tibet by holding back-channel reconciliation talks with emissaries of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama, in turn, has explicitly stated that he is interested only in greater autonomy for Tibet within China, not independence. But some analysts believe China’s true goal was simply to keep talking and wait for the Dalai Lama, 72, to die. The talks broke down last summer, and Beijing infuriated many Tibetans by inserting itself into the metaphysics of Buddhism: It announced that the Communist Party held the authority to approve incarnations - the divine process by which a “living Buddha” is chosen in boyhood. Beijing had already selected a boy as its own Panchen Lama, the second-ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism, and reportedly jailed a boy chosen by the Dalai Lama. Last November, the Dalai Lama countered with his own surprise. He proposed altering the ancient practice of choosing his own reincarnation. Usually, this would happen after his death; senior religious figures would search out his incarnation following proscribed guidelines. But the Dalai Lama has raised the possibility that he can choose his own reincarnation - a possibility that has enraged Beijing. Meanwhile, Beijing has steadily been taking a tougher line on religious practices and cultural expressions of Tibetan pride. In November 2005, Zhang Qingli was appointed Communist Party secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Zhang came from the Communist Youth League organization that forms the political base of President Hu Jintao, and has made no attempt to disguise his paternal attitude toward his charges. “The Communist Party is like the parent to the Tibetan people, and it is always considerate about what the children need,” Zhang said last year. He later added: “The Central Party Committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans.” Robert Barnett, a Tibet specialist at Columbia University in New York, said Zhang had overseen a tough crackdown on many facets of Tibetan life.

Tibetan government employees faced requirements to write denunciations of the Dalai Lama. Zhang reintroduced a policy that forbade Tibetan students and government workers to visit monasteries or participate in religious ceremonies. By 2006, Zhang had revived an “anti-Dalai” campaign and intensified “patriotic education” at Buddhist monasteries. Monks are now required to attend long sessions listening to recitations of China’s interpretation of Tibetan history and to denounce the Dalai Lama. “The party must surely know these monks are not going to change their minds” about the Dalai Lama, said Tsering Wangdu Shakya, a Tibet specialist at the University of British Columbia. “So the whole point of the meetings is to intimidate the monks.” Last Monday, the anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule, an estimated 400 monks left the Drepung Monastery and marched toward Lhasa to protest the religious restrictions. The police arrested 40 or 50 monks while the rest of the group held the equivalent of a sit-down strike. Hours later, the episode ended, but it helped spark other protests that ultimately led to the violence Friday. Shakya said Beijing must be stunned by the Lhasa riots because Tibet, under Zhang’s firm hand, was thought to be pacified. In 2006, China opened the world’s highest railroad, which cost $4.1 billion and traverses the Tibetan plateau to connect isolated Lhasa with the rest of the country. Beijing described the railroad as a vital tool in developing the Tibetan economy, the poorest in China. But many Tibetans regard the railroad as a threat. China has poured money into Tibet in hopes that economic development would dilute Tibet’s religious fervor and win over a younger generation. For many Tibetan families, life has improved; trade and tourism are also rising. But Beijing has also encouraged huge numbers of Chinese migrants and traders whose presence has diluted the Tibetan majority. “That is one of the biggest sources of resentment,” Shakya said of the Chinese migration.

He said Tibetans believe Chinese are given more opportunities for jobs and Tibetan unemployment is high. Beijing surely noticed that the younger generation it hoped to entice with its economic policies was rampaging on the streets of Lhasa. Economic development has also raised fears of environmental exploitation. The railroad is regarded as a critical spur for China to extract rich deposits of copper, iron, lead and other minerals in Tibet. Faced with limited natural resources, China has hailed Tibet’s minerals as critical to national development. Environmental pressures are already being felt in other Tibetan regions. Last year, Tibetans in Ganzi in Sichuan Province held angry protests to stop a mining company that was shearing off a mountain considered sacred by Buddhists. That tension never dissipated. Eleven days ago, before the Lhasa riots, about 100 monks and other Tibetans attacked Chinese cars and shops and clashed with the police - an incident censored in the Chinese press. Today, the obvious question is what sort of policy Beijing will pursue next. Demands from overseas pro-Tibet groups for independence do not even get consideration. Several analysts say Beijing cannot win the hearts of Tibetans if it continues to demonize the Dalai Lama - but Beijing’s rhetoric about a sinister “Dalai clique” is only hardening. Shakya said restricting the flow of Chinese migrants would be a major concession. But few analysts believe Beijing is in any mood to make concessions. Chu Shulong, a political scientist at Tsinghua University, said the leadership truly believes that a “Dalai clique” or other overseas groups are coordinating to overthrow its authority. He said Beijing regards the timing of the pro-Tibet independence marches in India - only days before the Lhasa uprising - as proof. “The government’s interpretation is that this is organized activity from inside India,” Chu said, referring to the India headquarters of the Tibetan government-in-exile. He added that Beijing’s leaders were probably also mystified at any suggestion that their policies have been unfair.

“They think they are doing something right, something good, because they give a lot of financial aid to the Tibetan region,” he said. The crackdown, while the Dalai Lama decried what he called the “cultural genocide” taking place in his homeland. Demonstrations widened to Tibetan communities in Sichuan, Qinghai and Gansu provinces, forcing authorities to mobilize security forces across a broad expanse of western China. In Qinghai province, riot police sent to prevent protests set off tensions when they took up positions outside a monastery in Tongren. Dozens of monks, defying a directive not to gather in groups, marched to a hill where they set off fireworks and burned incense in what one monk said was a protest, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene. In a sign that authorities were preparing for trouble, AP and other foreign journalists were ordered out of the Tibetan parts of Gansu and Qinghai provinces by police who told them it was for their “safety.” Meanwhile, police in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, searched buildings as a Monday deadline loomed for people who took part in a violent anti- Chinese uprising last week to surrender or face severe punishment. Tibet’s governor Champa Phuntsok said Monday that 16 people died and dozens were wounded in the violence, which broke out in Lhasa on Friday. He described 13 as “innocent civilians,” and said another three people died jumping out of buildings to avoid arrest. China’s state media said earlier that 10 civilians were killed. He also said security forces did not carry or use weapons.

Speaking from India, the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetans, called for an international investigation into China’s crackdown on demonstrators in Lhasa, which his exiled government claims left 80 people dead. “Whether intentionally or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place,” the Dalai Lama said, referring to an influx of Chinese migration into Tibetan areas and restrictions on Buddhist practices—policies that have generated deep resentment among Tibetans. Tensions also boiled over outside the county seat of Aba in Sichuan province when armed police tried to stop Tibetan monks from protesting, according to a witness who refused to give his name. The witness said a policeman had been killed and three or four police vans had been set on fire. Eight bodies were brought to a nearby monastery while others reported that up to 30 protesters had been shot, according to activist groups the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy and the London-based Free Tibet Campaign. The claims could not be confirmed. Sunday’s demonstrations follow nearly a week of protests in Lhasa that escalated into violence Friday, with Tibetans attacking Chinese and torching their shops, in the longest and fiercest challenge to Chinese rule in nearly two decades. Complicating Beijing’s task, the spreading protests fall two weeks before China’s celebrations for the Beijing Olympics kick off with the start of the torch relay, which will pass through Tibet. Though many were small in scale, the widening Tibetan protests are forcing Beijing to pursue suppression while on the run, from town to town and province to province across its vast western region. Sunday’s lockdown in Tongren required police imported from other towns, the locals said. The Chinese government attempted to control what the public saw and heard about protests that erupted Friday.

Access to YouTube.com, usually readily available in China, was blocked after videos appeared on the site Saturday showing foreign news reports about the Lhasa demonstrations, montages of photos, and scenes from Tibet-related protests abroad. Television news reports by CNN and the BBC were periodically cut during the day, and the screens went black during a live speech by the Dalai Lama carried on the networks. China’s communist government had hoped Beijing’s hosting of the Aug. 8-24 Olympics would boost its popularity at home as well as its image abroad. Instead the event already has attracted the scrutiny of China’s human rights record. Thubten Samphel, a spokesman for the Dalai Lama’s government, said multiple people inside Tibet had counted at least 80 corpses since the violence broke out Friday. He did not know how many of the bodies were protesters. The figures could not be independently verified because China restricts foreign media access to Tibet. In Lhasa, hundreds of armed police and soldiers patrolled the streets on Sunday. Hong Kong Cable TV reported some 200 military vehicles, carrying 40 to 60 armed soldiers each, drove into the city center. Footage showed the streets were mostly empty other than the security forces. Messages on loudspeakers warned residents to “discern between enemies and friends, maintain order” and “have a clear stand to oppose violence, maintain stability.” James Miles, a BBC correspondent in Lhasa, said troops carrying automatic rifles were “letting off the occasional shot.”

He said people were scared to come out of their homes for fear of being hit by a bullet. Westerners who were told to leave Lhasa and arrived by plane in the city of Chengdu said they heard gunshots and explosions throughout Saturday and overnight. “The worst day was yesterday. It was completely chaotic. There was running and screaming in the street,” said Gerald Scott Flint, director of the medical aid group Volunteer Medics Worldwide, who had been in Lhasa four days. Flint said he could see fires burning six or more blocks away. Tashi Wangdi, president of the Office of Tibet that represents the Dalai Lama in New York, called the departure of tourists worrisome. “I think there will be total blackout of information to the outside world,” he said. “Our worry is they will be more brutal and will use more force now.” The unrest in Tibet began March 10 on the anniversary of a 1959 uprising against Chinese rule of the region. Tibet was effectively independent for decades before communist troops entered in 1950. The Tibetan communities living far outside what China calls modern Tibet are parts of former provinces of past Tibetan kingdoms, and many inhabitants still revere the Dalai Lama. “We want freedom. We want the Dalai Lama to come back to this land,” said a monk from Rongwo in Tongren. The monks display his pictures, though they have been ordered to remove them. Inspired by the protests in Lhasa, monks and Tibetans in the town of Xiahe in Gansu province staged two days of protests, one peaceful in which they raised Tibetan national flags, the other in which government offices were smashed and police tear-gassed the crowd of more than 1,000. Authorities clamped a curfew on Xiahe overnight. Patrols of riot police, in black uniforms, helmets and flak jackets, and armed police in green uniforms carrying batons marched through the town Sunday in groups of 10 and 20. Smaller protests were reported in two other nearby towns, witnesses said, in both cases drawing truckloads of armed police. span>

BURMA 2007 ANTI-COMMUNIST RIOTS BY MONKS AND OPPRESSED BURMA MINORITY INDIGENOUS HILLTRIBE PEOPLES

On a day AMERICAS BEST PRESIDENT EVER-President Bush announced new U.S. sanctions against the junta, truckloads of soldiers converged on Yangon after the monks, cheered on by supporters, marched out for an eighth day of peaceful protest from Yangon’s soaring Shwedagon Pagoda, while some 700 others staged a similar show of defiance in the country’s second largest city of Mandalay.The protest is not merely for the well being of people but also for monks struggling for democracy and for people to have an opportunity to determine their own future one monk told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity fearing reprisals from officials.People do not tolerate the military government any longer.President Bush accused the military dictatorship of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, of imposing a 19-year reign of fear that denies basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people’s desire for freedom is unmistakable. The 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew and the meeting ban were announced late Tuesday through loudspeakers mounted on vehicles cruising through the streets of Yangon and Mandalay, said witnesses. The announcement said the measures would be in effect for 60 days. The measures, after a week of relative inaction by the government, throws down a challenge to its opponents. Should the protesters defy the new regulation, the junta will have no choice but to use force or back down.Using force, especially against monks, who are revered in predominantly Buddhist Myanmar, might intimidate some people, but could also stir anger against the regime at home and abroad. So far, the government had been handling the monks gingerly But backing down would also carry the risk of emboldening protesters even more

The junta sent 10 truckloads of troops Tuesday evening to Yangon’s Sule Pagoda, a focal point of the protests. Troops had been discreetly stationed in the city for the past few days, diplomats said. According to an ethnic guerrilla commander, among the army divisions dispatched was the 22nd, which joined the suppression of the 1988 uprising when the military fired on peaceful crowds and killed thousands, terrorizing the country. The demonstrations in Yangon reached 100,000 Monday, becoming the biggest since a pro-democracy uprising 19 years ago. Authorities did not stop them, even as they built to a scale and fervor that rivaled 1988 Joining the monks Tuesday were members of detained Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition National League for Democracy party or NLD, as well as university students. They marched more than a mile to the Sule Pagoda under the scorching sun.

As the protests escalated, ordinary people in Mandalay began joining the monks or following on foot, motorcycles, bicycles and trishaws. But many still appeared afraid to show open support.I support the monks. However, if I join them, the government will arrest me, said a man selling belts at a Mandalay market. He declined to give his name, fearing reprisals.On Monday, the head of Myanmar’s official Buddhist organization ordered monks to stick to learning and propagating their faith, saying young monks were being compelled by a group of destructive elements within and without to break the law,” the state-run New Light of Myanmar newspaper reported These agitators included NLD members, remnants of the defunct Burmese Communist Party and some foreign radio stations, Religious Affairs Minister Brig. Gen. Thura Myint Maung was quoted as saying in the same report

The current protests began Aug. 19 after the government sharply raised fuel prices in one of Asia’s poorest countries. But they are based in deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the repressive military rule that has gripped the country since 1962. The protests over economic conditions were faltering when the monks took the lead last week, assuming a role they played in previous battles against British colonialism and military dictators. At first the monks simply chanted and prayed. But as the public joined, demonstrators demanded dialogue between the government and opposition parties, freedom for political prisoners, and adequate food, shelter and clothing. Some monks could be seen trying to keep the crowds from shouting overtly political slogans.

The fleeting appearance Saturday of Suu Kyi at the gate of the Yangon residence where she is under house arrest squarely identified the protests with her NLD’s longtime peaceful struggle. She has been detained for 12 of the past 18 years. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Tuesday that Suu Kyi should lead the country. I for one thought it was brilliant to see Aung San Suu Kyi alive and well outside her house last week.I think it will be a hundred times better when she takes her rightful place as the elected leader of a free and democratic Burma. Laura Bush continued to use her moral authority today in a Wall Street Journal editorial and called for new leadership and an end to the terror in Burma.

The military Junta in Burma has been leading an inhuman campaign against Buddhist monks and nuns as well as civilians calling for reform. The situation intensified last month when 10,000-20,000 monks began leading prayer vigils for peaceful reforms in the streets. The numbers soured to 100,000 people walking the streets calling for reform when civilians were inspired to action. The illegal military regime began firing at the peaceful monks then began a day and night raids on Buddhist monasteries as the first Lady describes in her Wall Street Journal editorial, “It is 2 a.m. in Rangoon, Burma. In the middle of the tropical night, army troops pour into the neighborhood surrounding a peaceful Buddhist monastery. The soldiers occupy nearby homes, so that residents will not peek through their windows or go outside to witness the raid. Troops then storm the monastery, brutalizing, terrorizing and arresting the monks inside.” The First Lady continues to describe the mistreatment of the monks. “Eventually the monks are imprisoned inside Rangoon’s former Government Technical Institute. According to one eyewitness, hundreds are crammed into each room. They have no access to toilets or sanitary facilities. Many of the monks refuse food from their military jailers.” She called for new leadership in Burma “They should step aside to make way for a unified Burma [Myanmar] governed by legitimate leaders. The rest of the armed forces should not fear this transition — there is room for a professional military in a democratic Burma,” Laura Bush rcognized the military’s ‘advantage of violent force’ but warned that the opposition has ‘moral authority’. “The regime’s position grows weaker by the day. The generals’ choice is clear: The time for a free Burma is now.” There have been reports of mass cremations in Burma to cover up the dead and even reports of the wounded being burned alive. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Mrs. Bush yesterday to thank her for her “unwavering support” for the people of Burma.

The massive actions and sacrifice by the Buddhist monks and nuns starring down guns with prayers may have been the most unified and organized act of higher consciousness reform since Ghandi organized 200 million people to reject British colonial rule. The military regime has appointed a senior official to begin a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of Burma’s popularly elected National League for Democracy party. Mrs. Bush believes that the regime’s appointment of Deputy Labor Minister Aung Kyi will be seen as a genuine effort toward national reconciliation when they release Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.”All of that really shows the sacrifice that she is making for the people of Burma and the hopes that she has and the dreams that she has, to have free and democratic Burma that can join the rest of the world, and can flourish with all the resources Burma has,” Mrs. Bush said. She said Aung San Suu Kyi shows the power of women to make a difference in the world. She said that, as countries emerge from oppression, women can help lead the way. She said she saw it first when she traveled to Afghanistan following the ouster of the Taleban in 2001. “All of the things we saw in Afghanistan made me then move on to look at other countries around the world, and, particularly, at the way women are treated in some of these countries,” she said. “And, these countries can’t succeed, unless everyone - both men and women - has a chance to contribute to their society.” She said, in Afghanistan and in Burma, despite enormous problems, there is hope. She said she sees it in the faces of the Burmese who are taking to the streets to push their demand for freedom.

“There is hope - absolutely, there is hope for Burma,” Mrs. Bush said. “And, I think that is one of the feelings we all get as we look at these images - this very cautious hope that, this time, the people have turned a page.” Mrs. Bush said the Burmese have told the world they can no longer tolerate oppression, and the nation must move on.First lady Laura Bush is challenging Myanmar’s military government, telling the country’s dictators to help the nation move toward democracy or else “get out of the way” while pro-democracy activists put an end to the 19-year military junta. Bush, writing an op-ed in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, says the eyes of the world are now focused on the atrocities committed by the repressive rulers in the former nation of Burma, whose stranglehold on the country led to the arrests of hundreds of Buddhist monks and other peaceful protesters over the past few weeks.”The generals’ reign of fear has subdued the protests — for now. But while the streets of Burma may be eerily quiet, the hearts of the Burmese people are not: 2007 is not 1988, when the regime’s last major anti-democracy crackdown killed 3,000 and left the junta intact,” Bush wrote. “Today, people everywhere know about the regime’s atrocities. They are disgusted by the junta’s abuses of human rights. This swelling outrage presents the generals with an urgent choice: Be part of Burma’s peaceful transition to democracy, or get out of the way for a government of the Burmese people’s choosing,” the first lady continued.

Laura Bush, who rarely speaks about U.S. policy outside her pet causes of literacy and children’s education, has taken an active role in speaking in support of Myanmar’s democracy activists, saying she wants protesters to know the American people are with them. White House officials say U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called Mrs. Bush on Tuesday to underscore the need for continued international attention and to thank her for her unwavering support for the people of Myanmar. Asked out his wife’s newspaper commentary after delivering remarks on a terrorist surveillance bill being debated in the House, President Bush gave a thumbs up sign to reporters. In the op-ed, Laura Bush says the U.S. government has frozen the assets of 14 members of the military government and banned entry to more than 200 people related to top junta officials. President Bush is preparing further U.S. sanctions against the dictatorship, Laura Bush wrote, while the British, Japanese and other nations try to squeeze Myanmar with financial and moral imperatives.

She also is quoted in USA Today, saying that the Bush administration is prepared to slap additional sanctions on Myanmar’s military government if it doesn’t start moving toward democracy “within the next couple days.” The first lady wrote in her op-ed that pressure is being felt by Myanmar’s leaders, who have agreed to send a representative to meet with jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. In her call for change, Bush appeared to assuage those who may be concerned about an overthrow of the military regime, saying that a bloodless coup would not result in the same kind of chaos that occurred in Iraq following Saddam Hussein’s fall from power. Myanmar’s top leader, Gen. Than Shwe, and his deputies “are a friendless regime. They should step aside to make way for a unified Burma governed by legitimate leaders. The rest of the armed forces should not fear this transition — there is room for a professional military in a democratic Burma,” she said. “The regime’s position grows weaker by the day. The generals’ choice is clear: The time for a free Burma is now,” she wrote.

Laura Bush, who rarely speaks about U.S. policy outside her pet causes of literacy and children’s education, has taken an active role in speaking in support of Myanmar’s democracy activists, saying she wants protesters to know the American people are with them. White House officials say U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called Mrs. Bush on Tuesday to underscore the need for continued international attention and to thank her for her unwavering support for the people of Myanmar. Asked out his wife’s newspaper commentary after delivering remarks on a terrorist surveillance bill being debated in the House, President Bush gave a thumbs up sign to reporters. In the op-ed, Laura Bush says the U.S. government has frozen the assets of 14 members of the military government and banned entry to more than 200 people related to top junta officials. President Bush is preparing further U.S. sanctions against the dictatorship, Laura Bush wrote, while the British, Japanese and other nations try to squeeze Myanmar with financial and moral imperatives. She also is quoted in USA Today, saying that the Bush administration is prepared to slap additional sanctions on Myanmar’s military government if it doesn’t start moving toward democracy “within the next couple days.” The first lady wrote in her op-ed that pressure is being felt by Myanmar’s leaders, who have agreed to send a representative to meet with jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. In her call for change, Bush appeared to assuage those who may be concerned about an overthrow of the military regime, saying that a bloodless coup would not result in the same kind of chaos that occurred in Iraq following Saddam Hussein’s fall from power. Myanmar’s top leader, Gen. Than Shwe, and his deputies “are a friendless regime. They should step aside to make way for a unified Burma governed by legitimate leaders. The rest of the armed forces should not fear this transition — there is room for a professional military in a democratic Burma,” she said. “The regime’s position grows weaker by the day. The generals’ choice is clear: The time for a free Burma is now,” she wrote.

NEW AXIS OF EVIL-2 COMMUNIST NATIONS WAITING SECRETLY WITH HAND ON ENERGY AND FINANCIAL FAUCET TO SHUT DOWN THE WEST AT RIGHT TIME-RUSSIA NOW CONTROLS EU ENERGY SUPPLYS AND CHINA NOW CONTROLS WORLDS ECONOMIES-SO LEARN TO EAT YOUR CAVIAR WITH CHOPSTICKS

This is another reason why the US government shouldn’t be spending borrowed money to finance extra-constitutional spending. The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation. Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies. Described as China’s “nuclear option” in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds. When the federal government is asked to do things the Constitution doesn’t tell it to do, and when more and more money flows through it, and with that more and more power, it’s hard to stop spending. And with that comes borrowing. And with that comes slavery. The same thing could happen even if spending were kept in the context of the Constitution, but once you escape its limits, there is then no limit. The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. - Proverbs 22:7 (NIV)

China’s oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a US$70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China’s biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer. Under a memorandum of understanding signed Thursday, Sinopec Group will buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years from Iran and develop the giant Yadavaran field. Iran is also committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years at market prices after commissioning of the field. Iran’s oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh, who is on a two-day visit to Beijing pursuing closer ties, said Iran is China’s biggest oil supplier and wants to be its long-term business partner. Official figures show that China imported 226 million tons of oil in2003, about 13 percent of which coming from Iran. Beijing expects to secure foreign energy supplies by the deals for its economy, which has turned China into a major oil importer but suffers severe power shortages.A former KGB officer said to be close to President Vladimir Putin was selected at a shareholders meeting Monday to head Transneft, the state-owned monopoly pipeline operator. Nikolai Tokarev had run state-owned oil exporting firm Zarubezhneft since 2000, the year Putin became president. He previously had served a brief stint at Transneft as vice president. Tokarev will replace Semyon Vainshtok, who was picked to head the state-run corporation overseeing construction of sports facilities and infrastructure in Sochi for the 2012 Winter Games.

The choice of a former KGB officer to run Transneft, which is 75 percent state owned, comes ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia and fits a Kremlin pattern of putting trusted people in key government and corporate positions. “This is part of the configuration around the presidential succession,” said Vladimir Pribylovsky, a political analyst.Bulgaria and Russia signed a deal Friday to build a natural gas pipeline that would undercut a rival project backed by the U.S. and European Union and strengthen the Kremlin’s dominance over EU energy supplies.The agreement came after visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin pushed hard to secure Bulgaria’s crucial participation in the projected South Stream pipeline, which would cross from Russia under the Black Sea to Bulgaria and then branch off for delivery deeper in Europe. Putin brushed off concerns about Russia’s increasing influence, saying after the signing ceremony that the pipeline agreement and other deals would “seriously increase the energy security of the Balkans, Europe as a whole and, of course, Bulgaria.” The deal required last-minute negotiations, amid tough bargaining by Bulgaria and wariness about Russia’s clout. The Bulgarian Cabinet approved the agreement at an extraordinary meeting only a few hours before it was signed.Bulgaria’s interests are fully protected, because the company which will be set up to construct and run the pipeline on Bulgarian soil will be with 50 percent Bulgarian and 50 percent Russian ownership,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev said. Russia’s state-controlled gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom, had previously been offering a minority stake in the part of the pipeline that would run through Bulgaria.

“Until yesterday, the Russian side insisted on holding a 51-percent stake,” Stanishev said. He said Putin himself deserved most of the credit for the progress in the late-night negotiations. But despite the concession, the imminent deal was a victory for Putin and Russia, which is already Europe’s dominant gas and oil supplier and is seeking to increase its control over westward routes for its energy supplies from the former Soviet Union. “It’s very important that the parties have shown their ability to compromise, and the draft that has been was prepared reflects a balance of interests,” Gazprom chairman Dmitry Medvedev, who is likely to succeed Putin after the March 2 presidential election, said after meeting with Stanishev. He said agreements on South Stream “will work for decades and make it possible to ensure stable conditions for future energy deliveries for Bulgaria, Russia and EU nations.”

Gazprom has set up a parity joint venture with Italy’s ENI SpA to develop a feasibility study for the 900-kilometer (550-mile), $10 billion pipeline. The project is a direct rival to the Nabucco pipeline, sponsored by the United States and the European Union, which would also come through Bulgaria. Taking advantage of the clashing pipeline offers, Bulgaria has bargained with the Kremlin. On Thursday, Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov underlined his nation’s support for the EU’s efforts to diversify energy supply routes — and for Nabucco — in a speech at a ceremony marking the opening of a Russian cultural festival in Bulgaria. After Parvanov had spoken, a clearly annoyed Putin, standing next to him, said Bulgaria was free to chose its direction but warned it to make sure it “works to its benefit.” ENI CEO Paolo Scaroni played down the rivalry between South Stream and Nabucco following meetings with Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller, saying both would be needed because of growing demand. But South Stream would undercut Nabucco and dash the European Union’s hopes of reducing its growing reliance on Russia, which now supplies up to 40 percent of Europe’s gas and up to a third of the oil imports of some European countries. South Stream would have an estimated annual capacity of 30 billion cubic meters (1.15 trillion cubic feet), roughly equivalent to 60 percent of the natural gas consumed annually in The Netherlands. The Kremlin’s plans have upset opposition parties and non-governmental organizations in Bulgaria, who fear the former Soviet satellite’s increasing dependence on Russian energy supplies and criticize Moscow’s human rights record. With Putin and Parvanov looking on, officials also signed a $5.9 billion contract to build Bulgaria’s second nuclear plant near the northern town of Belene.

Also signed was an agreement for a joint company, also including Greece, to build the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline, which will channel Russian oil from the Black Sea to the Aegean, bypassing Turkey’s busy Bosporus. As part of its energy blitz, Russia has promised to extend South Stream into Serbia and build a huge gas storage facility there — moves that would turn the Balkan nation into a major hub for Russian energy supplies to Europe. Miller said Gazprom and Serbian officials were close to a final agreement on a deal that would envisage a South Stream branch reaching Serbia, and would also foresee Gazprom taking a controlling stake Serbia’s state oil company NIS. Belgrade has turned increasingly away from the West and toward Russia, which has supported Serbia in the debate over independence for Serbia’s Kosovo province.

With the official launch of the Chinese Investment Corp, China’s new financial juggernaut will be both a formidable opportunity and challenge for the west. The Chinese Investment Corp. (CIC) has been officially launched, and with an initial endowment of US$200 billion the new state-controlled company is tasked to invest abroad China’s huge foreign reserves. In the shopping bag there will be natural resources from developing countries as well as foreign technologies, research and development (R&D) establishments and brand names from developed economies. For the west, China’s new financial juggernaut will be a formidable opportunity, and a formidable challenge. After various announcements, on 27 September, the Chinese authorities officially unveiled the CIC. Under the direct supervision of the State Council, the nation’s cabinet, the CIC is mandated to invest abroad the huge reserves accumulated by Beijing over the last years. China’s forex topped US$1.33 trillion at the end of June and are expected to reach US$1.5 trillion by the end of the year, the largest in the world. Lou Jiwei, a deputy-secretary general of the State Council and former finance minister, will be the director of the new company.

China’s investment corporation has been under preparation for some time. At the conclusion of the annual session of the National People’s Congress in March, the Chinese government announced that it would set up a State Foreign Exchange Investment Company (SFEIC) aimed at improving the yield of the country’s foreign exchange reserves and generating the largest returns possible. In May, the new company, while still in preparation, invested US$3 billion of its reserves in non-voting shares of the Blackstone Group, the New York-based private equity firm that recently went public. With the establishment of the CIC at the end of September, the contours of China’s investment strategy have become clearer. The CIC strategy
The CIC is modeled on the Singapore investment company, Temasek Holdings. Temasek is an investment firm incorporated in 1974 and headquartered in Singapore. Its portfolio spans various industries including telecommunications and media, financial services, real estate, transportation and logistics, energy and resources, infrastructure, engineering and technology as well as bioscience and healthcare. The Chinese sovereign wealth fund will also be a private equity vehicle, operating on a flexible investment horizon with the option of taking concentrated risks. Lou Jiwey, the CIC’s director, declared that the new company would “invest, manage and add value to the Chinese portfolio” as an owner of its assets and investments. Beijing currently holds its reserves in US treasury bonds and other safe but low-yielding, instruments. According to Chinese sources, the CIC will likely be “equity-heavy.” Analysts at Morgan Stanley also expect the Chinese company to hold a substantial share of its assets in equities, not sovereign bonds. “The company’s principal purpose is to make profits,” Li Yang, director of the finance research institute at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), told ISN Security Watch. The CIC has an initial capital of US$ 200 billion, but presumably the amount will be increased according to the investments that the company will support. In practice, the CIC will issue RMB-denominated bonds and sell these bonds on the market to buy foreign exchange funds from the central bank. It will then use the foreign exchange funds for investment. In June, China’s legislature approved a special issuance of RMB 1.55 trillion (US$200 million) in treasury bonds for the new investment company. The CIC will operate in both the domestic and global markets. Internally, the investment channels of the new vehicle will include another Chinese state-owned company founded in 2003, the Central Huijin Investment Corp., which has been merged into the CIC as a wholly owned subsidiary company. Central Huijin holds shares in China’s four leading commercial banks and in 2005 injected US$60 billion into three of them. While Central Huijin will be one of the financial vehicles adopted as the central bank’s investment arm to improve the balance sheets of Chinese state-owned banks, the CIC will be more of a strategic investment fund focused on industry and private equity. Internationally, the CIC will be Beijing’s investment arm in a range of sectors and countries. Its initial endowment and future prospects make it one of the biggest in the world.

According to a report by Chatham House published in September, the CIC soon will be the number two in the world, behind the Adia, the sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, but ahead of both the Gic, the Singaporean fund, and the Norwegian Government Pension Fund. The central question is therefore where and in which sectors the CIC will invest its capital. According to sources, China’s international investment strategy will take two directions. One the one hand, it will invest in natural resources in developing countries. On the other hand, it will concentrate on the acquisition of foreign technologies, R&D establishments and brand names in advanced economies. According to Li Rongrong, director of the China State Asset Management Commission (the agency that oversees government assets), the CIC may also help major state-owned companies expand overseas.

Taking the world by investment
Since the mid-1990s, the search for natural resources has continued to gain momentum as a result of China’s high economic growth, with increasing emphasis on oil and industrial raw materials. In its 2006 World Investment Report, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) indicated that China’s outward foreign direct investment had more than quintupled in the first half of this decade, to reach US$11.3 billion in 2005. South-East Asia, Latin America and Africa have become the prime targets. For instance, in 2002, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation became the largest foreign oil producer in Indonesia after its takeover (for US$585 million) of Repsol Indonesia. In Africa, China’s investment strategy has been directed mainly at sourcing natural resources, including oil. Moreover, increasing numbers of Chinese companies have recently established production bases to supply local markets with cheap products highly compatible with local demand and purchasing power. As a result, total trade between China and Africa nearly quadrupled in six years, from US$10.8 billion in 2000 to nearly US$40 billion in 2006. China is today Africa’s biggest trading partner and the second most important investor. China’s new investment company will further boost these trends. At the same time, China will invest more and more in developed countries, where its presence is often welcomed for the jobs, cash and infrastructure that it brings. In Australia, for example, China has become the biggest foreign investor in the mining sector. The CIC will place more emphasis on the acqui¬sition of advanced technologies, R&D establishments, managerial know-how, distribution networks and brand names. China’s investment strategy will likely take the form of profitable participation in private equity funds as well as strategic participation in foreign investment companies running businesses considered of importance for China. While normally in the first case, the CIC would hold a minority stake or give up voting rights for the entitlement of a higher return (as in the Blackstone investment fund), in the event of acquisitions of strategic assets, China’s investment company would presumably detain the majority of shares or in any case full control of the company. It is in this scenario that questions of corporate governance, transparency and strategic considerations will be unavoidable.

Eye on Europe: challenge and opportunity
While in the US protectionist tendencies may create difficulties for China investing in key strategic sectors, Europe is emerging as the most attractive place for China’s technology-seeking shopping spree. China is eyeing Europe’s IT, aerospace and defense sectors as investment opportunities, both in terms of profitable returns on its foreign reserves and in terms of acquisition of advanced technologies needed for China’s industrial (and military) modernization. Chinese investments in European companies would be helped by the fact that EU-China relations are characterized by the conspicuous absence of issues that could provoke a confrontation between the two sides - such as the Taiwan question. Unlike the US and Japan, Europeans look at China almost exclusively in terms of business opportunities and not as a possible military competitor. Some EU policy makers - such as the Italian minister for the economy, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa - have openly invited the CIC to invest in Europe. At the same time, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have called for a European “golden share” to protect industrial strategic assets from unwanted takeovers from sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). EU Economy Commissioner Joaquin Almunia added that “the EU might restrict investments by government funds unless they disclose more about what they invest in and why.” The CIC will thus be, on the one hand, a great opportunity for some industrial sectors, as it will offer fresh money into tight markets after the sub-prime mortgage crisis. On the other hand, the Chinese investment vehicle could well succeed in gaining control of western assets and advanced technology that could be turned into military might in a situation where there could be future tensions in US-China relations, especially over Taiwan. In sum, for the west, the new Chinese investment corporation will be a great economic opportunity, but also a formidable strategic challenge to watch.

RED COMMUNIST CANADA IS SELLING OIL TO RED COMMUNIST CHINA THEIR COMMUNIST COMRADS-INSTEAD OF HELPING NEXT DOOR HATED NEIGHBORS THE USA WHO PROTECTS THEIR BORDERS-THIS IS PROOF CANADIANS ARE THE DEVILS CHILDREN-RED COMUNIST RATS AND COWARDS. COMMUNIST CHINA PROMOTES ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST REVOLUTION IN VENEZEULA AND DRILLS NEAR CUBA IN GULF OF MEXICO? GENERAL POWELL SAID IT BEST”CHINA IS NOT OUR FRIEND BUT ITS OUR COMPETITION” WISE WORLDS INDEED. WAKE UP CALL.

Extracting oil from sand is still a laborious, time-consuming task although improved technology has significantly lowered costs. From his perch behind the wheel of a heavy-hauler truck in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Lucas Crisby peers out over a seemingly limitless moonscape of black, sticky sand. Oil has been good to Crisby. With his US$62,000 (HK$483,600) annual salary, he has bought a US$338,000, four-bedroom house a few doors from where he grew up. That’s a significant achievement for a 20-year-old without a college degree and only a few years of work experience.Now, with Chinese companies pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the vast northern Alberta oil sand deposits, Crisby and others at Fort McMurray - a former Hudson Bay trading post - believe the good days have just begun.

Crisby says he doesn’t care who harvests the oil sands, as long as the paychecks keep rolling in.’’It’s a free market,’’ said Crisby, who rocks out to country tunes while hauling 400-tonne truckloads of unprocessed sand for Syncrude, a giant Canadian oil producer.To power its factories and fleets of new cars, China has intensified its search for oil in Asia and Africa. But Beijing’s expansion into the United States’ back yard demonstrates the risks the Asian economic giant is taking to secure energy supplies.China’s venture into Canada has triggered unease in Washington, where some fear it could threaten US energy security and set the stage for clashes.Under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada ensured its role as the dominant supplier for the United States by guaranteeing it would send a portion of its energy south of the border.

Today, Canada provides 17 percent of US oil imports, 16 percent of its natural gas and nearly all its imported hydroelectric power.Karen Harbert, assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the US Energy Department, said Washington didn’t believe it should tell other countries where - or with whom - they could do business.``Is China’s investment into Canada’s energy sector good for the North American energy market? Ultimately, it will be up to the Canadians to figure out which way they want to go and what’s in their best interest economically and security-wise,’’ she said.In the past two months, China’s three largest oil firms have struck major deals in Canada, including a 40 percent stake in a US$3.6 billion pipeline project.The promise of a big new player in Alberta’s oil sands has intensified a boom in the province. Since 2002, Fort McMurray’s population has expanded by 20 percent to 56,000, mostly young Canadian men seeking their fortunes.

Oil companies are beginning to import labor from as far away as Venezuela and China, which has sparked job-loss concerns among labor unions and indigenous leaders. But many Canadians, including Crisby, simply view China as another major player in an industry that has long been a global game.Although the Canadian government owns the vast majority of the country’s energy resources, more than half of Alberta’s oil deposits are being developed by US companies, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy. The French, Dutch and Japanese have also invested in the oil sands.Thanks in part to aggressive marketing by its political leaders, Canada has also been a big beneficiary of China’s economic growth.

COMMUNIST China is now Canada’s second-largest trading partner, and Chinese is the third-most widely spoken language in Canada, after English and French. More than a million people of Chinese descent have immigrated to Canada in the last century.The latest influx of Chinese funds into energy and mining has prompted the Canadian government to look more closely at the national-security effects of foreign investment.COMMUNIST Canada is closely watching the debate in Washington over competing bids for Unocal by Chevron and China’s CNOOC, a majority of whose stock is held by government-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp. US critics say a Chinese buyout of the California company would put scarce energy resources in the hands of a potentially hostile government.

Wenran Jiang, a China expert at the University of Alberta, said a US rejection of the CNOOC bid would make Canadians more cautious about striking energy deals with the Chinese.Energy analysts say Canada must balance its desire for investments from China with the need to satisfy its best customer, the United States, which buys 80 percent of Canada’s total exports. When Alberta Energy Minister Greg Melchin visited Capitol Hill recently, he was questioned repeatedly about China’s new role in Canada.Melchin said he reassured US officials and others that Canada’s oil sands were a ``sunrise industry’’ with lots of room for development, and that the United States would remain his province’s ``best customer, friend and neighbor.’’But many Canadians also view the issue as a way of reminding their powerful neighbor not to take them for granted.

``Our message is it would be in the best interest of the US to pay attention to your largest and best opportunity for long-term energy supply,’’ Melchin said. ``You shouldn’t take for granted that it will automatically happen.’’Oil-industry executives and analysts differ on what China’s entry into the Canadian market will mean for the United States. Some say it will have little effect on the price Americans pay for Canadian energy because oil supplies can be acquired elsewhere.But Wilfred Gobert, vice president of Peters & Co, a Calgary investment firm, thinks greater competition for Canada’s oil could push up prices, especially if the Chinese are willing to pay more to secure a stable supply.Analysts say an infusion of Chinese funds would speed up development of Canada’s oil sands, allowing the extraction of more oil for the United States, as well as China.Although improved technology has significantly lowered costs, extracting the oil from sand is still a laborious, time-consuming task, requiring two tonnes of sand to produce a barrel of oil.

Critics say the process is one of the most environmentally destructive ways to squeeze oil from the earth, in part because it emits large amounts of greenhouse gases.To reach the oil, giant pits as deep as 250 feet are being carved out of the northern Alberta forests. The sticky sands are fed through a series of machines that crush and separate out bitumen, which is processed into crude oil.If Canada’s output more than doubles by 2010, as projected, the oil sand producers will need new pipelines to get the crude to their customers. That’s why China is a key factor in the competition between Calgary-based Enbridge and another Calgary firm, Terasen Pipelines, to develop a pipeline from northern Alberta to the coast of British Columbia in the west.Whichever company secures a Chinese commitment for long-term contracts will have the edge in financing its pipeline, said Steven Paget, a research analyst for FirstEnergy Capital, a Calgary-based investment bank.

But getting there won’t be easy, said Richard Bird, group vice president of Enbridge. He said China’s big energy firms aren’t ``willing to buy long-term supply without more direct investment into the oil sands,’’ meaning they want to help produce oil and share in profits.Canadian executives said Chinese firms were more willing than Western companies to invest ``patient capital’’ in projects that might not reap immediate profits, to gain a foothold in promising markets.With the surge in oil prices, the biggest Canadian oil sand producers are being courted heavily and can afford to be choosy about their partners.Thomas d’Aquino, chief executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, a group of Canada’s leading firms, said he opposed any efforts to restrict China’s participation in the North American energy market, as long as its acquisitions are legal and transparent.But he said Washington and Ottawa should think about what they would do if there was a global energy shortage and Beijing controlled a large share of Canada’s oil.``What would it mean if China owns those resources and said, `No, we need them for us, we can’t send them to you’?’’

COMMUNIST CHINA AND INDIA RACE FOR ENERGY WORLDWIDE HAVING HALF THE WORLDS POPULATION. CHINA CONTROLS THE WORLDS ECONOMY AND IS A GROWING MILITARY THREAT.
China says nine countries have offered it financial incentives to invest in oil and gas projects as it continues its global hunt for energy resources. Government officials said Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Libya, Niger, Norway, Ecuador and Bolivia would offer China tax breaks and other sweeteners. China already has a similar arrangement with 20 other countries. China is increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas as it tries to sustain its rapid economic growth.

Beijing has agreed a host of energy deals with other countries in the past year, including Venezuela and Malaysia, and is currently negotiating with Iran over gas imports. China has been particular active in Africa, prompting criticism that it is exploiting the continent’s resources for its own benefit and setting aside concerns about poverty reduction and human rights abuses. Chinese oil companies already have interests in Niger, while Libya is looking for external partners as it opens up its energy sector to foreign investment. China imported 47% of its oil supplies last year as its domestic supplies dwindled. New supplies are regarded as vital if the country is to continue its swift economic expansion. Separately, a government official said China would continue to rely on domestic coal production for most of its energy needs but was also looking to step up investment in renewable industries. Zhao Xiaoping, head of the National Development and Reform Commission’s energy bureau, told Money China magazine its goal was to source 10% of energy from renewable sources by 2010. Beijing is under pressure to embrace more environmentally-friendly energy supplies to reduce pollution levels across the country and set a lead in the global fight against climate change.

USA DOD HACKED BY CHICOM PLA SPIES WORLDWIDE

They operate from a bare apartment on a Chinese island. They are intelligent 20-somethings who seem harmless. But they are hard-core hackers who claim to have gained access to the world’s most sensitive sites, including the Pentagon. In fact, they say they are sometimes paid secretly by the Chinese government — a claim the Beijing government denies.”No Web site is one hundred percent safe. There are Web sites with high-level security, but there is always a weakness,” says Xiao Chen, the leader of this group.”Xiao Chen” is his online name. Along with his two colleagues, he does not want to reveal his true identity. The three belong to what some Western experts say is a civilian cyber militia in China, launching attacks on government and private Web sites around the world.If there is a profile of a CHICOM HACKERS, these three are straight from central casting — young and thin, with skin pale from spending too many long nights in front of a computer.
One hacker says he is a former computer operator in the PLA another is a marketing graduate; and Xiao Chen says he is a self-taught programmer.”First, you must know about the Web site you want to attack. You must know what program it is written with,” says Xiao Chen. “There is a saying, ‘Know about both yourself and the enemy, and you will be invincible.’”WE decided to withhold the address of these hackers’ Web site, but Xiao Chen says it has been operating for more than three years, with 10,000 registered users. The site offers tools, articles, news and flash tutorials about hacking.Private computer experts in the United States from iDefense Security Intelligence, which provides cybersecurity advice to governments and Fortune 500 companies, say the group’s site “appears to be an important site in the broader Chinese hacking community.”Arranging a meeting with the hackers took weeks of on-again, off-again e-mail exchanges. When they finally agreed, SOMEONE was told to meet them on the island of Zhoushan, just south of Shanghai and a major port for China’s navy.The apartment has cement floors and almost no furniture. What they do have are three of the latest computers. They are cautious when it comes to naming the Web sites they have hacked.

But eventually Xiao Chen claims two of his colleagues — not the ones with him in the room — have hacked into the Pentagon and downloaded information, although he wouldn’t specify what was gleaned. “They would not publicize this,” he says of someone who hacks the U.S. Defense Department. “It is very sensitive.”This week, the Pentagon said ULTRA TOP SECRET PENTIGON COMPUTERS in the United States, Germany, Britain and France were hit last year by what they call “multiple intrusions,” many of them originating from China.At a congressional hearing in Washington last week, administration officials testified that the government’s cyber initiative has fallen far short of what is required. Most alarming, the officials said, there has never been a full damage assessment of federal agency networks.”We are here today because we must do more,” said Robert Jamison, a top official in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Defending the federal system in its current configuration is a significant challenge.”U.S. officials have been cautious not to directly accuse the Chinese military or its government of hacking into its network.

But David Sedney, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, says, “The way these intrusions are conducted are certainly consistent with what you would need if you were going to actually carry out cyber warfare.”Beijing hit back at that, denying such an allegation and calling on the United States to provide proof. “If they have any evidence, I hope they would provide it. Then, we can cooperate on this issue,” Qin Gang, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said during a regular press briefing this week.But Xiao Chen says after the alleged Pentagon attack, his colleagues were paid by the Chinese government. Again, CNN has no way to independently confirm if that is true.His allegations brought strenuous denials from Beijing. “I am telling you honestly, the Chinese government does not do such a thing,” Qin said.But if Xiao Chen is telling the truth, it appears his colleagues launched a freelance attack — not initiated by Beijing, but paid for after the fact. “These hacker groups in my opinion are not agents of the Chinese state,” says James Mulvenon from the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, which works with the U.S. intelligence community.”They are sort of useful idiots for the Beijing regime.”

He adds, “These young hackers are tolerated by the regime provided that they do not conduct attacks inside of China.”One of the biggest problems experts say is trying to prove where a cyber attack originates from, and that they say allows hackers like Xiao Chen to operate in a virtual world of deniability.And across China, there could be thousands just like him, all trying to prove themselves against some of the most secure Web sites in the world.

CHINA MILITARY BUILDUP IS A WORLD THREAT
Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian warned in a national address Wednesday that China’s military build-up was threatening world peace, and urged it to halt military exercising targeting the island. In a National Day speech ahead of a parade aimed at underscoring Taiwan’s defence capabilities, he also called on China to withdraw ballistic missiles that are aimed at the island. “With China’s rapid rise and relentless military build-up, the ‘China threat’ is no longer confined to confrontation across the Taiwan Strait. In fact, it has already seriously impacted world peace,” he said. Chen called on urged the international community to “strongly demand that China immediately withdraw missiles deployed along its southeastern coast targeted at Taiwan, stop military exercises simulating attacks on Taiwan.”
The independence-leaning Chen accused Beijing of ignoring peace overtures and using “ever more belligerent rhetoric and military intimidation.” He said the tactics were “aimed at denigrating our nation, marginalizing it in the world, cultivating the perception that Taiwan is a local region of China, delegitimizing its government, and undermining its sovereignty.” “Only the people of Taiwan have the right to decide their nation’s future,” he added. “Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China are two sovereign, independent nations, and neither exercises jurisdiction over the other. This is a historical fact. This is the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.” Taiwan and China split in 1949 after the end of a civil war, but Beijing still regards Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary.A MESSAGE FROM THE AMERICAN COMMANDER IN CHIEF-LADIES AND GENTELMAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-THE BEST PRESIDENT AMERICA EVER HAD DEALING WITH EVIL. President Bush Attends Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Discusses War on Terror Kansas City Convention and Entertainment Center Kansas City, Missouri THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. It's good to be with you again. I understand you haven't had much of a problem attracting speakers. (Laughter.) I thank you for inviting me. I can understand why people want to come here. See, it's an honor to stand with the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. (Applause.) The VFW is one of this nation's finest organizations. You belong to an elite group of Americans. (Applause.) You belong to a group of people who have defended America overseas. You have fought in places from Normandy to Iwo Jima, to Pusan, to Khe Sahn, to Kuwait, to Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. You brought security to the American people; you brought hope to millions across the world. As members of this proud organization, you are advocates for the rights of our military veterans, a model of community service, and a strong and important voice for a strong national defense. I thank you for your service. I thank you for what you've done for the United States of America. (Applause.) I stand before you as a wartime President. I wish I didn't have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, declared war on the United States of America. And war is what we're engaged in. The struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it's a struggle for civilization. We fight for a free way of life against a new barbarism -- an ideology whose followers have killed thousands on American soil, and seek to kill again on even a greater scale. We fight for the possibility that decent men and women across the broader Middle East can realize their destiny -- and raise up societies based on freedom and justice and personal dignity. And as long as I'm Commander-in-Chief we will fight to win. (Applause.) I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known -- the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.) For those of you who wear the uniform, nothing makes me more proud to say that I am your Commander-in-Chief. Thank you for volunteering in the service of the United States of America. (Applause.) Now, I know some people doubt the universal appeal of liberty, or worry that the Middle East isn't ready for it. Others believe that America's presence is destabilizing, and that if the United States would just leave a place like Iraq those who kill our troops or target civilians would no longer threaten us. Today I'm going to address these arguments. I'm going to describe why helping the young democracies of the Middle East stand up to violent Islamic extremists is the only realistic path to a safer world for the American people. I'm going to try to provide some historical perspective to show there is a precedent for the hard and necessary work we're doing, and why I have such confidence in the fact we'll be successful. Before I do so I want to thank the national Commander-in-Chief of the VFW and his wife, Nancy. It's been a joy to work with Gary and the staff. Gary said, we don't necessarily agree a hundred percent of the time. I remember the old lieutenant governor of Texas -- a Democrat, and I was a Republican governor. He said, "Governor, if we agreed 100 percent of the time, one of us wouldn't be necessary." (Laughter.) But here's what we do agree on: We agree our veterans deserve the full support of the United States government. (Applause.) That's why in this budget I submitted there's $87 billion for the veterans; it's the highest level of support ever for the veterans in American history. (Applause.) We agree that health care for our veterans is a top priority, and that's why we've increased health care spending for our veterans by 83 percent since I was sworn in as your President. (Applause.) We agree that a troop coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan deserves the best health care not only as an active duty citizen, but as a military guy, but also as a veteran -- and you're going to get the best health care we can possibly provide. (Applause.) We agree our homeless vets ought to have shelter, and that's what we're providing. In other words, we agree the veterans deserve the full support of our government and that's what you're going to get as George W. Bush as your President. (Applause.) I want to thank Bob Wallace, the Executive Director. He spends a lot of time in the Oval Office -- I'm always checking the silverware drawer. (Laughter.) He's going to be bringing in George Lisicki here soon. He's going to be the national commander-in-chief for my next year in office. And I'm looking forward to working with George, and I'm looking forward to working with Wallace, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. They're going to find an open-minded President, dedicated to doing what's right. (Applause.) I appreciate Linda Meader, the National President of the Ladies Auxiliary. She brought old Dave with her. (Applause.) Virginia Carman, the incoming President. I want to thank Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield for joining us today. I appreciate the United States Senator from the state of Missouri, strong supporter of the military and strong supporter of the veterans, Kit Bond. (Applause.) Two members of the Congress have kindly showed up today -- I'm proud they're both here: Congressman Emanuel Cleaver -- no finer man, no more decent a fellow than Emanuel Cleaver -- is with us. And a great Congressman from right around the corner here, Congressman Sam Graves. Thank you all for coming. (Applause.) Lieutenant General Jack Stultz, Commanding General, U.S. Army Reserve Command, is with us today. General, thanks for coming. Lieutenant General Bill Caldwell, Commanding General, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is with us today, as well. General Caldwell, thank you for your service. (Applause.) Thank you all for letting me come by. I want to open today's speech with a story that begins on a sunny morning, when thousands of Americans were murdered in a surprise attack -- and our nation was propelled into a conflict that would take us to every corner of the globe. The enemy who attacked us despises freedom, and harbors resentment at the slights he believes America and Western nations have inflicted on his people. He fights to establish his rule over an entire region. And over time, he turns to a strategy of suicide attacks destined to create so much carnage that the American people will tire of the violence and give up the fight. If this story sounds familiar, it is -- except for one thing. The enemy I have just described is not al Qaeda, and the attack is not 9/11, and the empire is not the radical caliphate envisioned by Osama bin Laden. Instead, what I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia. Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II, and we have fought two more land wars in Asia. And many in this hall were veterans of those campaigns. Yet even the most optimistic among you probably would not have foreseen that the Japanese would transform themselves into one of America's strongest and most steadfast allies, or that the South Koreans would recover from enemy invasion to raise up one of the world's most powerful economies, or that Asia would pull itself out of poverty and hopelessness as it embraced markets and freedom. The lesson from Asia's development is that the heart's desire for liberty will not be denied. Once people even get a small taste of liberty, they're not going to rest until they're free. Today's dynamic and hopeful Asia -- a region that brings us countless benefits -- would not have been possible without America's presence and perseverance. It would not have been possible without the veterans in this hall today. And I thank you for your service. (Applause.) There are many differences between the wars we fought in the Far East and the war on terror we're fighting today. But one important similarity is at their core they're ideological struggles. The militarists of Japan and the communists in Korea and Vietnam were driven by a merciless vision for the proper ordering of humanity. They killed Americans because we stood in the way of their attempt to force their ideology on others. Today, the names and places have changed, but the fundamental character of the struggle has not changed. Like our enemies in the past, the terrorists who wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places seek to spread a political vision of their own -- a harsh plan for life that crushes freedom, tolerance, and dissent. Like our enemies in the past, they kill Americans because we stand in their way of imposing this ideology across a vital region of the world. This enemy is dangerous; this enemy is determined; and this enemy will be defeated. (Applause.) We're still in the early hours of the current ideological struggle, but we do know how the others ended -- and that knowledge helps guide our efforts today. The ideals and interests that led America to help the Japanese turn defeat into democracy are the same that lead us to remain engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The defense strategy that refused to hand the South Koreans over to a totalitarian neighbor helped raise up a Asian Tiger that is the model for developing countries across the world, including the Middle East. The result of American sacrifice and perseverance in Asia is a freer, more prosperous and stable continent whose people want to live in peace with America, not attack America. At the outset of World War II there were only two democracies in the Far East -- Australia and New Zealand. Today most of the nations in Asia are free, and its democracies reflect the diversity of the region. Some of these nations have constitutional monarchies, some have parliaments, and some have presidents. Some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Hindu, and some are Buddhist. Yet for all the differences, the free nations of Asia all share one thing in common: Their governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed, and they desire to live in peace with their neighbors. Along the way to this freer and more hopeful Asia, there were a lot of doubters. Many times in the decades that followed World War II, American policy in Asia was dismissed as hopeless and naive. And when we listen to criticism of the difficult work our generation is undertaking in the Middle East today, we can hear the echoes of the same arguments made about the Far East years ago. In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom. Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work. Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics." It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote; 39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman, and just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's Upper House. Other critics argued that democracy -- (applause.) There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic." Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system. And the result of all these steps was that every Japanese citizen gained freedom of religion, and the Emperor remained on his throne and Japanese democracy grew stronger because it embraced a cherished part of Japanese culture. And today, in defiance of the critics and the doubters and the skeptics, Japan retains its religions and cultural traditions, and stands as one of the world's great free societies. (Applause.) You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage." Instead, I think it's important to look at what happened. A democratic Japan has brought peace and prosperity to its people. Its foreign trade and investment have helped jump-start the economies of others in the region. The alliance between our two nations is the lynchpin for freedom and stability throughout the Pacific. And I want you to listen carefully to this final point: Japan has transformed from America's enemy in the ideological struggle of the 20th century to one of America's strongest allies in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.) Critics also complained when America intervened to save South Korea from communist invasion. Then as now, the critics argued that the war was futile, that we should never have sent our troops in, or they argued that America's intervention was divisive here at home. After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South -- and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated. Initially, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate endorsed Harry Truman's action, saying, "I welcome the indication of a more definite policy" -- he went on to say, "I strongly hope that having adopted it, the President may maintain it intact," then later said "it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war." Throughout the war, the Republicans really never had a clear position. They never could decide whether they wanted the United States to withdraw from the war in Korea, or expand the war to the Chinese mainland. Others complained that our troops weren't getting the support from the government. One Republican senator said, the effort was just "bluff and bluster." He rejected calls to come together in a time of war, on the grounds that "we will not allow the cloak of national unity to be wrapped around horrible blunders." Many in the press agreed. One columnist in The Washington Post said, "The fact is that the conduct of the Korean War has been shot through with errors great and small." A colleague wrote that "Korea is an open wound. It's bleeding and there's no cure for it in sight." He said that the American people could not understand "why Americans are doing about 95 percent of the fighting in Korea." Many of these criticisms were offered as reasons for abandoning our commitments in Korea. And while it's true the Korean War had its share of challenges, the United States never broke its word. Today, we see the result of a sacrifice of people in this room in the stark contrast of life on the Korean Peninsula. Without Americans' intervention during the war and our willingness to stick with the South Koreans after the war, millions of South Koreans would now be living under a brutal and repressive regime. The Soviets and Chinese communists would have learned the lesson that aggression pays. The world would be facing a more dangerous situation. The world would be less peaceful. Instead, South Korea is a strong, democratic ally of the United States of America. South Korean troops are serving side-by-side with American forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And America can count on the free people of South Korea to be lasting partners in the ideological struggle we're facing in the beginning of the 21st century. (Applause.) For those of you who served in Korea, thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your service. (Applause.) Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end. The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused." After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people. In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life." The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea. Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields." There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today." His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents." Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently. We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.) If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.) Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous. Here's what they said: "Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right. In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one. So we pursue the extremists wherever we find them and we stand with the Iraqis at this difficult hour -- because the shadow of terror will never be lifted from our world and the American people will never be safe until the people of the Middle East know the freedom that our Creator meant for all. (Applause.) I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations. The American military graveyards across Europe attest to the terrible human cost in the fight against Nazism. They also attest to the triumph of a continent that today is whole, free, and at peace. The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we've seen in Asia and elsewhere -- if we show the same perseverance and the same sense of purpose. In a world where the terrorists are willing to act on their twisted beliefs with sickening acts of barbarism, we must put faith in the timeless truths about human nature that have made us free. Across the Middle East, millions of ordinary citizens are tired of war, they're tired of dictatorship and corruption, they're tired of despair. They want societies where they're treated with dignity and respect, where their children have the hope for a better life. They want nations where their faiths are honored and they can worship in freedom. And that is why millions of Iraqis and Afghans turned out to the polls -- millions turned out to the polls. And that's why their leaders have stepped forward at the risk of assassination. And that's why tens of thousands are joining the security forces of their nations. These men and women are taking great risks to build a free and peaceful Middle East -- and for the sake of our own security, we must not abandon them. There is one group of people who understand the stakes, understand as well as any expert, anybody in America -- those are the men and women in uniform. Through nearly six years of war, they have performed magnificently. (Applause.) Day after day, hour after hour, they keep the pressure on the enemy that would do our citizens harm. They've overthrown two of the most brutal tyrannies of the world, and liberated more than 50 million citizens. (Applause.) In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against al Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm. They're clearing out the terrorists out of population centers, they're giving families in liberated Iraqi cities a look at a decent and hopeful life. Our troops are seeing this progress that is being made on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq? Here's my answer is clear: We'll support our troops, we'll support our commanders, and we will give them everything they need to succeed. (Applause.) Despite the mistakes that have been made, despite the problems we have encountered, seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy is critical to keeping the American people safe from the terrorists who want to attack us. It is critical work to lay the foundation for peace that veterans have done before you all. A free Iraq is not going to be perfect. A free Iraq will not make decisions as quickly as the country did under the dictatorship. Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this. As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces despite not having an oil revenue law on its books, that the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation. Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. (Applause.) A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.) Prevailing in this struggle is essential to our future as a nation. And the question now that comes before us is this: Will today's generation of Americans resist the allure of retreat, and will we do in the Middle East what the veterans in this room did in Asia? The journey is not going to be easy, as the veterans fully understand. At the outset of the war in the Pacific, there were those who argued that freedom had seen its day and that the future belonged to the hard men in Tokyo. A year and a half before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan's Foreign Minister gave a hint of things to come during an interview with a New York newspaper. He said, "In the battle between democracy and totalitarianism the latter adversary will without question win and will control the world. The era of democracy is finished, the democratic system bankrupt." In fact, the war machines of Imperial Japan would be brought down -- brought down by good folks who only months before had been students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands. Some are in the room today. Others here have been inspired by their fathers and grandfathers and uncles and cousins. That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson: There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children. (Applause.) And when America's work on the battlefield was done, the victorious children of democracy would help our defeated enemies rebuild, and bring the taste of freedom to millions. We can do the same for the Middle East. Today the violent Islamic extremists who fight us in Iraq are as certain of their cause as the Nazis, or the Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet communists were of theirs. They are destined for the same fate. (Applause.) The greatest weapon in the arsenal of democracy is the desire for liberty written into the human heart by our Creator. So long as we remain true to our ideals, we will defeat the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will help those countries' peoples stand up functioning democracies in the heart of the broader Middle East. And when that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer. Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)