Irish: The Almighty says this must be a fashionable fight - it's drawn the finest people!
Lord: Where is thy salute?
William Wallace: For presenting yourselves on this battlefield, I give you thanks.
Lord: This is our army; to join it, you give homage.
William Wallace: I give homage to Scotland. And if this is your army, why does it go?
Soldier: We didn't come here to fight for them.
Soldier: Home! The English are too many.
William Wallace: Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace...
Soldier: William Wallace is seven feet tall.
William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse! I AM William Wallace, and I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?
Soldier: Against that? No, we will run, and we will live.
William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!
About Me
- Owen McCaffrey
- I am 32 years old. I work at Kyungnam University in South Korea and I have gained my MA in Linguistics from Waikato University.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Korean War (1950-1953)
August 8th, 1945: Dividing Korea
![]()
At the mid-point of a century that had already seen two appallingly destructive and costly global conflicts, a savage war broke out in a small country at the extremity of the Asian landmass.
1945 - 1950: Rumblings for War
During the second world war of 1939-45, the future of the Japanese empire was decided at Allied summit meetings. In the short term, pending the return of Korean independence, Korea, a Japanese colony since 1910, was to be occupied north of the 38th parallel by Soviet Russia and in the South by the USA. It was agreed by the US and the USSR, but not the Koreans, that Korea would govern itself independently after four years of international oversight. This process was sped up because the Koreans bitterly opposed another period of foreign control after suffering under Japanese colonization for 35 years.
![]()
Predictably, both the U.S. and the USSR approved Korean-led governments in their respective halves, each of which were favorable to the occupying power’s political ideology. In the south, the chaotic political situation resulted in an American-backed administration under the presidency of anti-communist U.S.-educated strongman Syngman Rhee, a Korean who had been imprisoned by the Japanese as a young man and later fled to the United States. As president, Rhee assumed dictatorial powers even before the Korean War broke out. He allowed the internal security force to detain and torture suspected Communists and North Korean agents.
![]()
Rhee's government oversaw several massacres, the most notable one being on Jeju island in the far south in response to an uprising by leftist factions. Some elements of the population responded with violent insurrections and protests in the South and those who supported Communism were driven into hiding in the hills, where they prepared for a guerrilla war against the American-supported government. Syngman Rhee, dangerously, also openly declared the imposition of national unity by force. As a result of this stance, his American-trained army was intentionally limited by the USA to just a light arms, lacking tanks, combat aircraft and all but a small amount of field artillery - Rhee was supposed to rely on the USA for military support in the case of an attack from the North
In the Soviet-dominated North, Kim Il-sung, an anti-Japanese fighter with political skills and connections with the Soviet Union, crushed any opposition to his rule, rising to become leader of a new North Korean government by the summer of 1947. The Soviets backed Kim's Kim Il-Sung's Stalinist regime and helped him to create the North Korean Peoples' Army, equipped with Russian tanks and artillery. Both the North and South Koreans wished to unify their country once more with their own form of government - North Korea wanted communism, while South Korea wanted an independent Western Democracy.
June 25th, 1950: War Breaks Out
After several years of increasingly bloody frontier incidents along the 38th parallel, on June 25th 1950 the North Korean Peoples' Army crossed the 38th parallel, the imaginary line dividing North Korea and South Korea. South Korea were not expecting the attack and were caught completely off-guard. Despite earlier indications, the Pentagon was also caught off-guard. Because the United States had not given South Korea enough weapons (for fear of Seunmin Rhee using them to start a war) North Korean armies were easily able to invade the South.
The South Koreans panicked as the North Koreans swept south, overwhelming all opposition, the US called on the Security Council to invoke the United Nations Charter and brand the North Koreans as aggressors. The United Nations Security Council was convened within a few hours passed the UNSC Resolution 82 condemning the North Korean aggression unanimously. North Korea attacked a number of key places including Kaesŏng, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu and Ongjin, and two days later, on June 27th, Seoul, the capital of South Korea, was captured with minimal resistance.
![]()
The United States along with the United Nations decided to take a stand - if communism was allowed to spread in Korea, the UN feared it would only spread more, to close countries such as Japan. President Truman made a statement on July 27th 1950 ordering the United States air and sea forces to give South Korea support. UN Member states were called on to send in military assistance. The option of using the Atom Bomb was discussed but not considered an option now because Russia had now developed their own atomic Bomb and any nuclear attacks could lead to a nuclear war.
July 5th, 1950: US Soldiers Begin Fighting
General Douglas MacArthur was given the position of leading the Allied defense against North Korea. He ordered the American troops on occupation duties in Japan to be hurredly sent to Pusan. On July 5, the US 24th Infantry Division fought for the first time at Osan and was immediately defeated with heavy losses. The victorious North Korean forces advanced southwards, rounding up and killing civil servants as they went. The half-strength 24th Division was forced to retreat to Taejeon, which also fell to the Northern forces. Major General William F. Dean, commander of the division, was taken prisoner .
August 30th, 1950: Siege in Pusan
The North Koreans continued to advance rapidly south, aiming to take the vital port city of Pusan. By August, the South Korean forces and the U.S. Eighth Army under General Walton Walker had been driven back into a small area in the southeast corner of the Korean peninsula around the city of Pusan where they rallied and held the Pusan bridgehead as reinforcements began to arrive. Pusan, in the lower right corner of South Korea, made defense even more difficult, as anyone trying to defend South Korea would be pushed right into the sea. The 8th army kept getting trapped behind enemy territory as the North Koreans moved south at an incredible pace, causing the battles to be even more difficult. The limited number of South Korean and American forces were fighting a losing battle against a more powerful Northern Army. Less than 2 months after hostilities began, South Korea had almost entirely been lost to Kim Il Sung, with North Korea having invaded all the way down to the Nakdong River, just outside of Pusan. Only about 10 percent of the Korean peninsula was still in coalition hands. The Allied defense became a desperate battle called the Battle of Pusan Perimeter by Americans.
Eventually, North Korea found a gap in the UN lines and crossed the Nakdong river. If the UN lost this barrier at the Nakdong river, the war would be lost. All the UN had to stop the attack was a great deal of firepower but far fewer men, so General Walton Walker then famously told his troops "If I ever see you back here again, it better be in a coffin." The American forces struck back hard for the next two weeks and pushed North Korea back to gain the river barrier once more. The North Koreans failed to capture Pusan. This was the first time North Korea had really been haulted during the Korean War.
As the Americans had held back North Korea at the Nakdong River, more troops had begun to arrive from 25 countries to help defend South Korea including: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Phillipines, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey and the United Kingdom. These new troops were young, getting into the action for the first time as they were too young to fight in World War II. They were ready to go. Black troops arrived as well because of the high need for troops, and for the first time there were mixed units.
September 1st, 1950
Soon American air power arrived in force. Over the next 2 weeks, throughout all parts of Korea, American bombers began to knock out the main supply dumps and eliminated oil refineries and seaports that handled imports. Roads, railways and 32 bridges were all destroyed within days. By late August, America had over 500 tanks in the Pusan perimeter. The North Korean forces found themselves undermanned and with weak logistical support. On September 1, 1950, just two and a half months after hostilities began, the North Korean Army launched another huge assault on the Nakdong River barrier but couldn't hold up the attack. General MacArthur saw this was the perfect opportunity to attack - and he knew the perfect place...Incheon.
September 15th, 1950: Incheon landing
The place he had decided on was Incheon on the other side of South Korea and deep within North Korean territory. Incheon was a major supply center and was very close to Seoul. The only problem was that the attack would be almost impossible to pull off because over near Inchon, the tide had the largest shift in the World. The waters were only deep enough for boats during high tide. This posed as another problem for the attack. The only way to win the attack was to do it perfectly. MacArthur created a special 10th core unit to carry out the attack. Five days before the attack was planned, marine jets began attacking the small coastal island of Wolmi-do. Ships joined in on the attack two days before the major attack. On September 15th, during the morning high tide, the 10th core moved in on Wolmi-do, successfully taking it with ease. North Korea had been caught off guard this time. No American troops were killed. Later during the high tide at night, the main attack began. Troops landed on two beach fronts, successfully.
![]()
September 21st, 1950: Advance into North Korea
The attack went perfect. Only 20 American troops were killed, and American troops had secured Incheon, though extensive shelling and bombing destroyed much of the city. With the success of the battle for Incheon American troops were now near Seoul, and were also near Kimpo Airfield. By September 18th, Kimpo Airfield had been secured as well. American troops could now launch air attacks near Seoul. UN Troops proceded to try and take Seoul back as well, but North Korea wouldn't budge. It came down to a last man standing battle. The 8th army pushed hard with their minds set on taking North Korea back to the 38th parallel, which they did on October 1st. On September 21, only 33 marines stood at the end to celebrate victory at Seoul, but they had it.
Their communications cut, and under heavy aerial bombardment, the North Koreans had broken and fled back north. South Korean troops moved on forward across the 38th parallel, leading the attack on North Korea, but American troops stayed behind.
This posed a big question: if America continued to follow in the attack, the Korean War would no longer be a defense against communism, but would turn into an attack on communism. Nobody knew if it was worth the risk. Also, UN troops predicted Chinese troops were in North Korea, ready for an attack. However, MacArthur decided to sieze this opportunity and along with the South Koreans, drove up the western side of Korea and advanced on P'yongyang, the North Korean capital which was eventually taken easily on October 19. The U.S. X Corps also made amphibious landings at Wonsan and Iwon. By the end of October, the North Korean Army was rapidly disintegrating, and the UN took 135,000 prisoners.
November 1, 1950: China Enters the War
By October, North Korea had almost entirely fallen to South Korea, a complete switch from the beginning of the war. In mid-October, as the victorious UN forces drew near to the Manchurian border, there were ominous signals from Peking that communist China would intervene to defend its territory. MacArthur met President Harry Truman on Wake Island in their first encounter to assure him that a massive UN offensive was about to conclude the war victoriously by Christmas. Before they could launch this attack however, the Chinese unleashed their armies. The Chinese made contact with American troops on November 1, 1950 when UN Troops were ambushed near the Yalu River and forced to retreat, thousands dying in the process. Morale dropped thousands bein killed within a few hours. General Walker decided to pull troops back rather than fight at this time figure out a new plan. The Chinese slowly disappeared just as they had appeared, waiting once more.
General MacArthur, on November 24th, again ordered the UN forces to advance, but again, this time one day later, everything suddenly changed again. Chinese troops had found a gap in the UN lines. Retreat was difficult. UN troops were now trapped from all sides and fighting for their lives. Facing complete defeat and surrender, 193 shiploads of American men and material were evacuated from Hungnam Harbor, and about 105,000 soldiers, 98,000 civilians, 17,500 vehicles, and 350,000 tons of supplies were shipped to Pusan
in orderly fashion. As they left, the American forces blew up large portions of the city to deny its use to the communists, depriving many Korean civilians of shelter during the winter,
![]()
UN troops continued retreating as North Koreans and Chinese soldiers attacked down towards the 38th parallel. They crossed the 38th parallel--again, and by January 4th, 1951, Seoul was lost to the communists again, along with Kimpo Airfield. Luckily, the communists supply lines were not strong and they could not sustain the attack long enough. They began to turn around almost mysteriously. General Ridgway (taking over from General Wilson who died in a car accident) took this opportunity to strike back. The first place recovered was Kimpo Airfield. In March, Seoul was regained for the second time. It was in utter ruins; its pre-war population of 1.5 million had dropped to 200,000, with severe food shortages. A further series of attacks slowly drove back the communist forces.
April 11th 1951: Peace Talks Begin
From here, MacArthur wanted to widen the attack – to include China aswell and even include nuclear arms but President Truman feared another Worl War and fired General McArthur for his resistance. General Ridgway took over MacArthur's job. On April 11th 1951 President Truman asked to contact North Korea to begin peace talks. The communists agreed to have the peace talks in Panmunjom. At the talks, nobody seemed to want to give in. The UN wanted a new border, while North Korea wanted it to stay at the 38th parallel. The communists wanted their prisoners back, yet they had killed nearly all of the ones they had taken, offering nothing in return. The talks kept failing, beginning a very long series of negotiations. For the next two years, talks went on with no progress. The Korean War continued. Battles were still taking place, but there were long periods of idle time on the field as well. This time was spent fortifying the ground already won. The UN needed to put more pressure on the communists.
![]()
July 25th, 1951: Stalemate
The UN turned to air attacks to put more pressure on North Korea. The US had air superiority, using new, faster, and deadlier planes. On June 23rd, fighter planes launched a large attack on hydroelectric plants. Heavy bombers razed the cities and industrial plants plants of North Korea. Continuous attacks on the transport system forced the Chinese to rely on the packhorse for much of their logistical support. Bombing also ended up knocking out 90% of North Korea's electrical power supply, yet North Korea still would not give in. A new phase of air war opened when American B-29 bombers and their fighter escorts were challenged by Russian-built Mig15 fighters flown by Chinese airmen. The Mig15's outflew first-generation American jet fighters until the introduction of the swept-wing F-86 Sabre tipped the balance. In the world's first supersonic air combats, the Americans prevailed.
The 1952 the peace talks had been going on for a long time with no success. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a popular general from World War II, ran for office. He said he would go to Korea himself if he won the election. He won in November, 1952, and gave threats of nuclear attack, which North Korea took seriously. Only a few months after the election, Chinese sent notice pleading for an end to the Korean War. It still took another 4 months to bring it to an end and sign all the papers. On July 27th, 1953, armistice papers were signed and the Korean War ended. A Demilitarised Zone or DMZ was established on the border. Both sides withdrew from their fighting positions, and a UN commission was set up to supervise the armistice. Casualties in the Korean war totaled more than 3 million.
At the mid-point of a century that had already seen two appallingly destructive and costly global conflicts, a savage war broke out in a small country at the extremity of the Asian landmass.
1945 - 1950: Rumblings for War
During the second world war of 1939-45, the future of the Japanese empire was decided at Allied summit meetings. In the short term, pending the return of Korean independence, Korea, a Japanese colony since 1910, was to be occupied north of the 38th parallel by Soviet Russia and in the South by the USA. It was agreed by the US and the USSR, but not the Koreans, that Korea would govern itself independently after four years of international oversight. This process was sped up because the Koreans bitterly opposed another period of foreign control after suffering under Japanese colonization for 35 years.
Predictably, both the U.S. and the USSR approved Korean-led governments in their respective halves, each of which were favorable to the occupying power’s political ideology. In the south, the chaotic political situation resulted in an American-backed administration under the presidency of anti-communist U.S.-educated strongman Syngman Rhee, a Korean who had been imprisoned by the Japanese as a young man and later fled to the United States. As president, Rhee assumed dictatorial powers even before the Korean War broke out. He allowed the internal security force to detain and torture suspected Communists and North Korean agents.
Rhee's government oversaw several massacres, the most notable one being on Jeju island in the far south in response to an uprising by leftist factions. Some elements of the population responded with violent insurrections and protests in the South and those who supported Communism were driven into hiding in the hills, where they prepared for a guerrilla war against the American-supported government. Syngman Rhee, dangerously, also openly declared the imposition of national unity by force. As a result of this stance, his American-trained army was intentionally limited by the USA to just a light arms, lacking tanks, combat aircraft and all but a small amount of field artillery - Rhee was supposed to rely on the USA for military support in the case of an attack from the North
In the Soviet-dominated North, Kim Il-sung, an anti-Japanese fighter with political skills and connections with the Soviet Union, crushed any opposition to his rule, rising to become leader of a new North Korean government by the summer of 1947. The Soviets backed Kim's Kim Il-Sung's Stalinist regime and helped him to create the North Korean Peoples' Army, equipped with Russian tanks and artillery. Both the North and South Koreans wished to unify their country once more with their own form of government - North Korea wanted communism, while South Korea wanted an independent Western Democracy.
June 25th, 1950: War Breaks Out
After several years of increasingly bloody frontier incidents along the 38th parallel, on June 25th 1950 the North Korean Peoples' Army crossed the 38th parallel, the imaginary line dividing North Korea and South Korea. South Korea were not expecting the attack and were caught completely off-guard. Despite earlier indications, the Pentagon was also caught off-guard. Because the United States had not given South Korea enough weapons (for fear of Seunmin Rhee using them to start a war) North Korean armies were easily able to invade the South.
The South Koreans panicked as the North Koreans swept south, overwhelming all opposition, the US called on the Security Council to invoke the United Nations Charter and brand the North Koreans as aggressors. The United Nations Security Council was convened within a few hours passed the UNSC Resolution 82 condemning the North Korean aggression unanimously. North Korea attacked a number of key places including Kaesŏng, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu and Ongjin, and two days later, on June 27th, Seoul, the capital of South Korea, was captured with minimal resistance.
The United States along with the United Nations decided to take a stand - if communism was allowed to spread in Korea, the UN feared it would only spread more, to close countries such as Japan. President Truman made a statement on July 27th 1950 ordering the United States air and sea forces to give South Korea support. UN Member states were called on to send in military assistance. The option of using the Atom Bomb was discussed but not considered an option now because Russia had now developed their own atomic Bomb and any nuclear attacks could lead to a nuclear war.
July 5th, 1950: US Soldiers Begin Fighting
General Douglas MacArthur was given the position of leading the Allied defense against North Korea. He ordered the American troops on occupation duties in Japan to be hurredly sent to Pusan. On July 5, the US 24th Infantry Division fought for the first time at Osan and was immediately defeated with heavy losses. The victorious North Korean forces advanced southwards, rounding up and killing civil servants as they went. The half-strength 24th Division was forced to retreat to Taejeon, which also fell to the Northern forces. Major General William F. Dean, commander of the division, was taken prisoner .
August 30th, 1950: Siege in Pusan
The North Koreans continued to advance rapidly south, aiming to take the vital port city of Pusan. By August, the South Korean forces and the U.S. Eighth Army under General Walton Walker had been driven back into a small area in the southeast corner of the Korean peninsula around the city of Pusan where they rallied and held the Pusan bridgehead as reinforcements began to arrive. Pusan, in the lower right corner of South Korea, made defense even more difficult, as anyone trying to defend South Korea would be pushed right into the sea. The 8th army kept getting trapped behind enemy territory as the North Koreans moved south at an incredible pace, causing the battles to be even more difficult. The limited number of South Korean and American forces were fighting a losing battle against a more powerful Northern Army. Less than 2 months after hostilities began, South Korea had almost entirely been lost to Kim Il Sung, with North Korea having invaded all the way down to the Nakdong River, just outside of Pusan. Only about 10 percent of the Korean peninsula was still in coalition hands. The Allied defense became a desperate battle called the Battle of Pusan Perimeter by Americans.
Eventually, North Korea found a gap in the UN lines and crossed the Nakdong river. If the UN lost this barrier at the Nakdong river, the war would be lost. All the UN had to stop the attack was a great deal of firepower but far fewer men, so General Walton Walker then famously told his troops "If I ever see you back here again, it better be in a coffin." The American forces struck back hard for the next two weeks and pushed North Korea back to gain the river barrier once more. The North Koreans failed to capture Pusan. This was the first time North Korea had really been haulted during the Korean War.
As the Americans had held back North Korea at the Nakdong River, more troops had begun to arrive from 25 countries to help defend South Korea including: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Phillipines, South Africa, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey and the United Kingdom. These new troops were young, getting into the action for the first time as they were too young to fight in World War II. They were ready to go. Black troops arrived as well because of the high need for troops, and for the first time there were mixed units.
September 1st, 1950
Soon American air power arrived in force. Over the next 2 weeks, throughout all parts of Korea, American bombers began to knock out the main supply dumps and eliminated oil refineries and seaports that handled imports. Roads, railways and 32 bridges were all destroyed within days. By late August, America had over 500 tanks in the Pusan perimeter. The North Korean forces found themselves undermanned and with weak logistical support. On September 1, 1950, just two and a half months after hostilities began, the North Korean Army launched another huge assault on the Nakdong River barrier but couldn't hold up the attack. General MacArthur saw this was the perfect opportunity to attack - and he knew the perfect place...Incheon.
September 15th, 1950: Incheon landing
The place he had decided on was Incheon on the other side of South Korea and deep within North Korean territory. Incheon was a major supply center and was very close to Seoul. The only problem was that the attack would be almost impossible to pull off because over near Inchon, the tide had the largest shift in the World. The waters were only deep enough for boats during high tide. This posed as another problem for the attack. The only way to win the attack was to do it perfectly. MacArthur created a special 10th core unit to carry out the attack. Five days before the attack was planned, marine jets began attacking the small coastal island of Wolmi-do. Ships joined in on the attack two days before the major attack. On September 15th, during the morning high tide, the 10th core moved in on Wolmi-do, successfully taking it with ease. North Korea had been caught off guard this time. No American troops were killed. Later during the high tide at night, the main attack began. Troops landed on two beach fronts, successfully.
September 21st, 1950: Advance into North Korea
The attack went perfect. Only 20 American troops were killed, and American troops had secured Incheon, though extensive shelling and bombing destroyed much of the city. With the success of the battle for Incheon American troops were now near Seoul, and were also near Kimpo Airfield. By September 18th, Kimpo Airfield had been secured as well. American troops could now launch air attacks near Seoul. UN Troops proceded to try and take Seoul back as well, but North Korea wouldn't budge. It came down to a last man standing battle. The 8th army pushed hard with their minds set on taking North Korea back to the 38th parallel, which they did on October 1st. On September 21, only 33 marines stood at the end to celebrate victory at Seoul, but they had it.
Their communications cut, and under heavy aerial bombardment, the North Koreans had broken and fled back north. South Korean troops moved on forward across the 38th parallel, leading the attack on North Korea, but American troops stayed behind.
This posed a big question: if America continued to follow in the attack, the Korean War would no longer be a defense against communism, but would turn into an attack on communism. Nobody knew if it was worth the risk. Also, UN troops predicted Chinese troops were in North Korea, ready for an attack. However, MacArthur decided to sieze this opportunity and along with the South Koreans, drove up the western side of Korea and advanced on P'yongyang, the North Korean capital which was eventually taken easily on October 19. The U.S. X Corps also made amphibious landings at Wonsan and Iwon. By the end of October, the North Korean Army was rapidly disintegrating, and the UN took 135,000 prisoners.
November 1, 1950: China Enters the War
By October, North Korea had almost entirely fallen to South Korea, a complete switch from the beginning of the war. In mid-October, as the victorious UN forces drew near to the Manchurian border, there were ominous signals from Peking that communist China would intervene to defend its territory. MacArthur met President Harry Truman on Wake Island in their first encounter to assure him that a massive UN offensive was about to conclude the war victoriously by Christmas. Before they could launch this attack however, the Chinese unleashed their armies. The Chinese made contact with American troops on November 1, 1950 when UN Troops were ambushed near the Yalu River and forced to retreat, thousands dying in the process. Morale dropped thousands bein killed within a few hours. General Walker decided to pull troops back rather than fight at this time figure out a new plan. The Chinese slowly disappeared just as they had appeared, waiting once more.
General MacArthur, on November 24th, again ordered the UN forces to advance, but again, this time one day later, everything suddenly changed again. Chinese troops had found a gap in the UN lines. Retreat was difficult. UN troops were now trapped from all sides and fighting for their lives. Facing complete defeat and surrender, 193 shiploads of American men and material were evacuated from Hungnam Harbor, and about 105,000 soldiers, 98,000 civilians, 17,500 vehicles, and 350,000 tons of supplies were shipped to Pusan
in orderly fashion. As they left, the American forces blew up large portions of the city to deny its use to the communists, depriving many Korean civilians of shelter during the winter,
UN troops continued retreating as North Koreans and Chinese soldiers attacked down towards the 38th parallel. They crossed the 38th parallel--again, and by January 4th, 1951, Seoul was lost to the communists again, along with Kimpo Airfield. Luckily, the communists supply lines were not strong and they could not sustain the attack long enough. They began to turn around almost mysteriously. General Ridgway (taking over from General Wilson who died in a car accident) took this opportunity to strike back. The first place recovered was Kimpo Airfield. In March, Seoul was regained for the second time. It was in utter ruins; its pre-war population of 1.5 million had dropped to 200,000, with severe food shortages. A further series of attacks slowly drove back the communist forces.
April 11th 1951: Peace Talks Begin
From here, MacArthur wanted to widen the attack – to include China aswell and even include nuclear arms but President Truman feared another Worl War and fired General McArthur for his resistance. General Ridgway took over MacArthur's job. On April 11th 1951 President Truman asked to contact North Korea to begin peace talks. The communists agreed to have the peace talks in Panmunjom. At the talks, nobody seemed to want to give in. The UN wanted a new border, while North Korea wanted it to stay at the 38th parallel. The communists wanted their prisoners back, yet they had killed nearly all of the ones they had taken, offering nothing in return. The talks kept failing, beginning a very long series of negotiations. For the next two years, talks went on with no progress. The Korean War continued. Battles were still taking place, but there were long periods of idle time on the field as well. This time was spent fortifying the ground already won. The UN needed to put more pressure on the communists.
July 25th, 1951: Stalemate
The UN turned to air attacks to put more pressure on North Korea. The US had air superiority, using new, faster, and deadlier planes. On June 23rd, fighter planes launched a large attack on hydroelectric plants. Heavy bombers razed the cities and industrial plants plants of North Korea. Continuous attacks on the transport system forced the Chinese to rely on the packhorse for much of their logistical support. Bombing also ended up knocking out 90% of North Korea's electrical power supply, yet North Korea still would not give in. A new phase of air war opened when American B-29 bombers and their fighter escorts were challenged by Russian-built Mig15 fighters flown by Chinese airmen. The Mig15's outflew first-generation American jet fighters until the introduction of the swept-wing F-86 Sabre tipped the balance. In the world's first supersonic air combats, the Americans prevailed.
The 1952 the peace talks had been going on for a long time with no success. Dwight D. Eisenhower, a popular general from World War II, ran for office. He said he would go to Korea himself if he won the election. He won in November, 1952, and gave threats of nuclear attack, which North Korea took seriously. Only a few months after the election, Chinese sent notice pleading for an end to the Korean War. It still took another 4 months to bring it to an end and sign all the papers. On July 27th, 1953, armistice papers were signed and the Korean War ended. A Demilitarised Zone or DMZ was established on the border. Both sides withdrew from their fighting positions, and a UN commission was set up to supervise the armistice. Casualties in the Korean war totaled more than 3 million.
Noam Chomsky - Politics in the USA
Democrats and Republicans aren't a category. The Republicans and Democrats differ, like on the rare occasions when I vote, and they're pretty rare, sometimes I vote for Democrats, sometimes for Republicans, sometimes for somebody else. It's not a sharp split - they're two factions of the same party. We have a One-Party-State with two somewhat different factions with alot of overlap - the 'business party' has a couple of factions. You find some differences between them, I wouldn't say there's no difference on the average.
So, what should you do in that case? Well, like everything it's your own choice. Do you want to live in a democratic society or do you want to live in the society we have? Which remember is not a democratic society and is not intended to be. If you take a course in political theory here, I'm sure they'll teach you that the United States is not a democracy. It's what's called in the technical literature a 'Poliarchy'. It's the term invented by the leading democratic theorist Yale Professor Robert Dahl. But the idea is old, very - it goes way back to James Madison and the foundation of the Constitution.
A poliarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the 'wealth of the Nation', the 'responsible class of men' and the rest of the population is fragmented, distracted, allowed to participate every couple of years they are allowed to come and say "yes, thank you...why don't you continue for another 4 years". And they have a little choice among the 'responsible men - the wealth of the nation'.
Now that's the way the country was founded. It was founded on the principle explained by Madison in the Constitutional Convention, that the primary goal of the government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. And then the Constitution was designed to ensure that, there's been alot of struggle about it over the years, alot of victories have been won by the public so it's not the same as it was two centuries ago...but that remains, it remains the elite ideal and it's a constant struggle, and most of the population is well aware of it.
So, for example, take the November 2000 Election. There was alot of - among intellecuals, educated people, you know university professors and people like that - there was a great deal of outrage about the 'Stolen Election' and article after article about the Supreme Court shenanigans and Florida this and that and so on. If you read through that literature, which was vast, you notice there was a constant refain - nobody could understand why the public didn't care. This is a game among intellectuals, the public just didn't care. "So ok, the election was stolen - who cares?". It was never an issue among the public.
Why wasn't it an issue? Well if you look at...this is very heavily...attitudes in the United States are very carefully monitored, business wants to know what people are thinking - and in fact there is for example at Harvard, at the Kennedy School of Government, a project called the 'Managing the Voter' project where they study closely the attitudes of people towards the government...It turns out on the eve of the election, so like, before the election, before Florida and the Supreme Court, about 75% of the pupulation didn't think there was an election going on at all. As far as they were concerned, their attitude towards the thing happening was that it's some kind of a business involving rich contributors, political leaders...and the public relations industry which is training candidates to say meaningless words that they don't understand, that they think will maybe pick up a few more votes. Well, that's only 75% of the public, so of course they didn't care very much if the Supreme Court happened to hand it over to one of them instead of the other.
In fact, most people voted against their wn interests, and consciously, because they knew it didn't matter much. They were supposed to vote on what are called 'qualities', not issues. Like, 'Do you like the guy?' 'Would you wanna meet with him?' Would you want to have a drink with him in a bar?'...or something like that. That was the issue in the Election - people didn't even know where the candidates stood on issues. And it's not because they're stupid, it was extremely hard to figure out where they stood on issues and they're trained to make it hard. And in fact most of the issues that the public cared about weren't even allowed to come up.
So the major issues, if you look at public added concerns, the major issues have to do with economic affairs, international economic affairs, what's misleadingly called 'globalisation' and the 'trade deficit' 'job security' and things like that...none of that stuff come up. You can't bring those issues up in the elections. The Free-Trade area of the Americas was coming up - there was going to be a summit of the Americas in a couple of months - issues on which the public has extremely strong opinions - but none of it could be brought up in the election and for a very simple reason.
If you look at attitudes, there's a very sharp split between elite opinion which is strongly in favour of all of this stuff, and, the public which is strongly opposed to them, and therefore it can't come up in the Election. And didn't. These issues are unmentioned. Virtually nobody knew that the free-trade area of the Americas was coming along.
So what do you do? Well, you have to decide whether you want to live in a democratic society or not. If you want to live in the kind of society say, that Madison envisioned, ok, that's a choice, but certainly not necessary. Over the last couple of hundre years there has been a very substantial extension of the right of the population, of the ability to participate and make a difference. It's not overwhelmng, and there's always a struggle to beat it back, but there's no reason why that can't continue. That's the alternative. It's not a matter of naming one party or another, but just changing the whole framework in which politics persists. Largely because of the extremely narrow concentration of economic power which removes from the public arena most decisions that belong there. There's a major effort underway right now to reduce it even further. But you don't have to acept this.
So, what should you do in that case? Well, like everything it's your own choice. Do you want to live in a democratic society or do you want to live in the society we have? Which remember is not a democratic society and is not intended to be. If you take a course in political theory here, I'm sure they'll teach you that the United States is not a democracy. It's what's called in the technical literature a 'Poliarchy'. It's the term invented by the leading democratic theorist Yale Professor Robert Dahl. But the idea is old, very - it goes way back to James Madison and the foundation of the Constitution.
A poliarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the 'wealth of the Nation', the 'responsible class of men' and the rest of the population is fragmented, distracted, allowed to participate every couple of years they are allowed to come and say "yes, thank you...why don't you continue for another 4 years". And they have a little choice among the 'responsible men - the wealth of the nation'.
Now that's the way the country was founded. It was founded on the principle explained by Madison in the Constitutional Convention, that the primary goal of the government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. And then the Constitution was designed to ensure that, there's been alot of struggle about it over the years, alot of victories have been won by the public so it's not the same as it was two centuries ago...but that remains, it remains the elite ideal and it's a constant struggle, and most of the population is well aware of it.
So, for example, take the November 2000 Election. There was alot of - among intellecuals, educated people, you know university professors and people like that - there was a great deal of outrage about the 'Stolen Election' and article after article about the Supreme Court shenanigans and Florida this and that and so on. If you read through that literature, which was vast, you notice there was a constant refain - nobody could understand why the public didn't care. This is a game among intellectuals, the public just didn't care. "So ok, the election was stolen - who cares?". It was never an issue among the public.
Why wasn't it an issue? Well if you look at...this is very heavily...attitudes in the United States are very carefully monitored, business wants to know what people are thinking - and in fact there is for example at Harvard, at the Kennedy School of Government, a project called the 'Managing the Voter' project where they study closely the attitudes of people towards the government...It turns out on the eve of the election, so like, before the election, before Florida and the Supreme Court, about 75% of the pupulation didn't think there was an election going on at all. As far as they were concerned, their attitude towards the thing happening was that it's some kind of a business involving rich contributors, political leaders...and the public relations industry which is training candidates to say meaningless words that they don't understand, that they think will maybe pick up a few more votes. Well, that's only 75% of the public, so of course they didn't care very much if the Supreme Court happened to hand it over to one of them instead of the other.
In fact, most people voted against their wn interests, and consciously, because they knew it didn't matter much. They were supposed to vote on what are called 'qualities', not issues. Like, 'Do you like the guy?' 'Would you wanna meet with him?' Would you want to have a drink with him in a bar?'...or something like that. That was the issue in the Election - people didn't even know where the candidates stood on issues. And it's not because they're stupid, it was extremely hard to figure out where they stood on issues and they're trained to make it hard. And in fact most of the issues that the public cared about weren't even allowed to come up.
So the major issues, if you look at public added concerns, the major issues have to do with economic affairs, international economic affairs, what's misleadingly called 'globalisation' and the 'trade deficit' 'job security' and things like that...none of that stuff come up. You can't bring those issues up in the elections. The Free-Trade area of the Americas was coming up - there was going to be a summit of the Americas in a couple of months - issues on which the public has extremely strong opinions - but none of it could be brought up in the election and for a very simple reason.
If you look at attitudes, there's a very sharp split between elite opinion which is strongly in favour of all of this stuff, and, the public which is strongly opposed to them, and therefore it can't come up in the Election. And didn't. These issues are unmentioned. Virtually nobody knew that the free-trade area of the Americas was coming along.
So what do you do? Well, you have to decide whether you want to live in a democratic society or not. If you want to live in the kind of society say, that Madison envisioned, ok, that's a choice, but certainly not necessary. Over the last couple of hundre years there has been a very substantial extension of the right of the population, of the ability to participate and make a difference. It's not overwhelmng, and there's always a struggle to beat it back, but there's no reason why that can't continue. That's the alternative. It's not a matter of naming one party or another, but just changing the whole framework in which politics persists. Largely because of the extremely narrow concentration of economic power which removes from the public arena most decisions that belong there. There's a major effort underway right now to reduce it even further. But you don't have to acept this.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker
BBC
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
![]()
The Sirius Star made its maiden voyage in March of this year
Somali pirates have seized a giant Saudi-owned oil tanker in the Indian Ocean and are steering it towards Somalia, the US Navy reports. The Sirius Star is the biggest ship ever to be hijacked, with a capacity of 2,000,000 barrels - more than one-quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output.
The vessel was captured on Saturday some 450 nautical miles (830km) off the Kenyan coast. Its international crew of 25, including two Britons, is said to be safe. US Navy officials said the hijacking was unprecedented and marks a fundamental shift in their capabilities.
'Holding hostages'
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the pirates were well trained. "They're very good at what they do," he told a Pentagon briefing in Washington. "Once they get to a point where they can board, it becomes very difficult to get them off, because, clearly, now they hold hostages."
The US Navy said the ship was "nearing an anchorage point" at Eyl, a port often used by pirates based in Somalia's Puntland region. War-torn Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991. News of the attack raised crude oil prices on global markets following an earlier slump, Reuters news agency reported.
The capture, south-east of Mombasa, is highly unusual both in terms of the size of the ship and the fact it was capture so far from the African coast, BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says. He says that such hijackings are usually resolved peacefully through negotiations but, given the high profile of this event and the value of the cargo, there is always the possibility of some kind of military response.
Attacks on shipping off the Horn of Africa and Kenya by mainly Somali pirates seeking ransoms prompted foreign navies to send warships to the area this year. A number of vessels and their crews have been held captive for months, including the Ukrainian freighter MV Faina, seized in September.
'Crew safe'
The supertanker was heading for the US via the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa, Reuters reports.
![]()
THE SIRIUS STAR
• Nearly the length of a US aircraft carrier
• Weighs more than three times as much as a carrier when loaded
• Can carry 2 million barrels of oil - more than 25% of Saudi Arabia's daily output
• Is the third tanker, and biggest vessel, to be hijacked in the region
The route around the Cape of Good Hope is a main thoroughfare for fully-laden supertankers from the Gulf. With a capacity of 318,000 dead weight tonnes, the ship is 330m (1,080ft) long and is classed as a Very Large Crude Carrier. It is about as long as a US aircraft carrier and, when loaded, weighs more than three times as much. "It's the largest ship that we've seen pirated," said Lt Christensen.
The South Korean-built Sirius Star, owned by the Saudi company Aramco, made its maiden voyage in March 2008. The ship's operator, Vela International, said that all of the crew were reported to be safe. "Vela response teams have been mobilised and are working to ensure the safe release of crew members and the vessel" it added.
Confirming that two Britons were aboard the tanker, the UK Foreign Office said it could not give any details of their role on the ship. "We are seeking more information on the incidents," a spokesman said. The other crew are said to be from Croatia, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia.
Captive vessels
Figures from the International Maritime Bureau show that attacks in the area - the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off the African coast - have made up one-third of all piracy incidents worldwide in 2008.
In the first nine months of the year 63 incidents were reported. As of 30 September, 12 vessels remained captive and under negotiation with more than 250 crew being held hostage. Pirates remain active and regularly strike in the region.
In the past week alone:
• A Russian warship in the Gulf of Aden drove off pirates who tried to capture the Saudi Arabian merchant ship Rabih
• Pirates hijacked a Japanese cargo ship off Somalia
• A Chinese fishing boat was seized off the Kenyan coast
• A Turkish ship transporting chemicals to India was hijacked off Yemen
• The UK's Royal Navy shot dead two suspected pirates attacking a Danish cargo-ship off the coast of Yemen
To read the original article click here.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
The Sirius Star made its maiden voyage in March of this year
Somali pirates have seized a giant Saudi-owned oil tanker in the Indian Ocean and are steering it towards Somalia, the US Navy reports. The Sirius Star is the biggest ship ever to be hijacked, with a capacity of 2,000,000 barrels - more than one-quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output.
The vessel was captured on Saturday some 450 nautical miles (830km) off the Kenyan coast. Its international crew of 25, including two Britons, is said to be safe. US Navy officials said the hijacking was unprecedented and marks a fundamental shift in their capabilities.
'Holding hostages'
Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the pirates were well trained. "They're very good at what they do," he told a Pentagon briefing in Washington. "Once they get to a point where they can board, it becomes very difficult to get them off, because, clearly, now they hold hostages."
The US Navy said the ship was "nearing an anchorage point" at Eyl, a port often used by pirates based in Somalia's Puntland region. War-torn Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991. News of the attack raised crude oil prices on global markets following an earlier slump, Reuters news agency reported.
The capture, south-east of Mombasa, is highly unusual both in terms of the size of the ship and the fact it was capture so far from the African coast, BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says. He says that such hijackings are usually resolved peacefully through negotiations but, given the high profile of this event and the value of the cargo, there is always the possibility of some kind of military response.
Attacks on shipping off the Horn of Africa and Kenya by mainly Somali pirates seeking ransoms prompted foreign navies to send warships to the area this year. A number of vessels and their crews have been held captive for months, including the Ukrainian freighter MV Faina, seized in September.
'Crew safe'
The supertanker was heading for the US via the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa, Reuters reports.
THE SIRIUS STAR
• Nearly the length of a US aircraft carrier
• Weighs more than three times as much as a carrier when loaded
• Can carry 2 million barrels of oil - more than 25% of Saudi Arabia's daily output
• Is the third tanker, and biggest vessel, to be hijacked in the region
The route around the Cape of Good Hope is a main thoroughfare for fully-laden supertankers from the Gulf. With a capacity of 318,000 dead weight tonnes, the ship is 330m (1,080ft) long and is classed as a Very Large Crude Carrier. It is about as long as a US aircraft carrier and, when loaded, weighs more than three times as much. "It's the largest ship that we've seen pirated," said Lt Christensen.
The South Korean-built Sirius Star, owned by the Saudi company Aramco, made its maiden voyage in March 2008. The ship's operator, Vela International, said that all of the crew were reported to be safe. "Vela response teams have been mobilised and are working to ensure the safe release of crew members and the vessel" it added.
Confirming that two Britons were aboard the tanker, the UK Foreign Office said it could not give any details of their role on the ship. "We are seeking more information on the incidents," a spokesman said. The other crew are said to be from Croatia, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia.
Captive vessels
Figures from the International Maritime Bureau show that attacks in the area - the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off the African coast - have made up one-third of all piracy incidents worldwide in 2008.
In the first nine months of the year 63 incidents were reported. As of 30 September, 12 vessels remained captive and under negotiation with more than 250 crew being held hostage. Pirates remain active and regularly strike in the region.
In the past week alone:
• A Russian warship in the Gulf of Aden drove off pirates who tried to capture the Saudi Arabian merchant ship Rabih
• Pirates hijacked a Japanese cargo ship off Somalia
• A Chinese fishing boat was seized off the Kenyan coast
• A Turkish ship transporting chemicals to India was hijacked off Yemen
• The UK's Royal Navy shot dead two suspected pirates attacking a Danish cargo-ship off the coast of Yemen
To read the original article click here.
C02 Emissions up in Developed Nations
Industrialised Nations’ emissions are up since 2000, despite promised cuts
Emissions of greenhouse gases by Industrialised Nations’ rose 2.3% from 2000 to 2006, according to new figures from the UN' climate change agency. The biggest increases were in the former Soviet bloc - and Canada.
A UN spokesman said countries had to work much faster to avoid the possibility of dangerous climate change. Next month the nations of the world meet in Poland for the annual negotiations on climate change.
The new figures do not offer a great deal of optimism. They show that in 2006 emissions did actually fall by 0.1%, but the UN's climate change secretariat said that this tiny dip was statistically insignificant.
The overall underlying trend since 2000 is up, even though the countries in question had promised to cut their emissions .
The worst culprit has been Canada. Its emissions since 1990 have shot up 21.3% - they should have fallen 6%.
Recently the biggest rise was recorded by the Eastern European bloc , with emissions up 7.4% since the turn of the century. The UK is one of the few countries on track with emissions targets.
But a recent report to the British government suggested that even UK emissions were heading in the wrong direction if pollution from shipping and aviation , and the carbon embedded in the imported goods coming into the country, were counted.
To read the original article click here.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Remembering the 'Great War'
David Michael Weber (crossfire)
2008-11-11
November 11th 2008 marks 90th anniversary of WWI's end...
Trench warfare - static and deadly - became the norm for most of World War I
"Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind."
Wilfred Owen - died 1918
Ninety years ago at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month the great guns fell silent and Europe experienced a silence it had not known in years. It was the end of the "Great War," the War to end all Wars. Today, we know that was a hopeful but futile sentiment as the War to end all Wars is now known as World War I.
Two bullets and a lost driver set off a powder keg whose explosion engulfed Europe. In the summer of 1914, a driver made a wrong turn and ended up in the path of a young assassin who had actually given up and was just finishing off a sandwich. The young assassin was a Serbian belonging to a radical group known as the Black Hand. Their target was the Arch-Duke Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who was touring Sarajevo. They had tried earlier that day to assassinate him but failed. Now Fate through the hands of a lost driver delivered the Arch-Duke into one of the assassin's hands who took full advantage of his good luck and fired his pistol killing Ferdinand.
The assasination caused the collapse of the house of cards that were the national alliances of the day. Austria-Hungary with German support declared war on Serbia. Russia was allied with Serbia so they entered the war. France was allied with Russia and so they entered the war. Germany (who hated France) in order to swiftly attack France violated Belgium's borders by crossing it with their troops. Britain had an alliance with Belgium and so they entered the war. Eventually other nations would enter the war as well including the USA.
World War I in many ways was the "War to end all Wars" in that it was every war past and future rolled up into one. There were Napoleonic charges, aerial bombardment, a few misguided cavalry charges with actual horses, tanks, machine guns, artillery barrages, air combat, poison gas attacks, flamethrowers, submarine warfare, and primitive hand-to-hand fighting that came down to knives, sharpened spades, and clubs.
Soldiers dehumanized by their gas masks
While fighting took place in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, Russia, and the borders of Italy and Austria, the bulk of the fighting took place in the area known as the Western Front. The Western Front was a long series of extensive trenches where most of the intensive fighting of the war took place. So many men died in such a concentrated place.
While WWII had a far higher casualty rate, this was widespread throughout the globe. The majority of WWI casualties, however, occurred along the several hundred kilometers of the Western Front from the North Sea to the Swiss border. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916, the British lost over 50,000 in dead and wounded in the space of a few kilometers.
Stretcher-bearers trudge through the mud with a wounded victim
The trenches were hell on earth - mud, water, snipers, artillery barrages, barbed wire , machine gun fire, and the rotting corpses of those who fell in No-Man's Land, the deadly area between the opposing armies' trenches. Plus there was rampant disease, lice, and rats grown fat from feeding off of corpses.
"In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again."
Siegfried Sassoon - 1918
The Second World War often gets more attention in the popular imagination. Countless movies, books, comic books, documentaries, TV shows, magazines and so on focus on the many aspects of the war. Battles, generals, strategies, policies, ideologies get constantly battered about from academic circles to office water coolers. It's a subject many have some knowledge of whereas World War I only brings to mind to some (particularly Americans) the Red Baron, the imaginary nemesis of the Peanut's comic strip character, Snoopy.
Manfred von Richthofen - the Red Baron - Germany's Flying Ace
And there's a good reason for that. With World War II there was a clear reason to fight. For the Allies, it was to defeat the conquering Nazis and Imperialist Japanese. For the Germans, it was to revenge their humiliation with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War. For the Japanese, it was believed they were saving Asia (though they didn't bother to ask the rest of Asia). It is easier for modern day audiences to understand the rationales and motivations of those who fought in that war.
The reasons for fighting the First World War, however, are rather vague. The motivations for the soldiers fighting are also vague. It's hard to understand the patriotic fever which led to so many men signing up to fight a war that appeared to have been fought for the sheer hell of it and no other reason. In modern academia, the "isms" of nationalism, militarism, imperialism are blamed for causing the war.
For war enthusiasts, World War I is a hard one to get enthusiastic about. Most of the literature and films on the subject have been anti-war save for a few on WWI pilots and Sergeant York released when America was entering WWII.
Then there's strategy. With WWII battles there was often a lot of planning and logistics that went into major battles on both sides. Armchair military historians can easily while away the hours discussing the many strategems of WWII generals.
The battles of WWI on the other hand appear to have been planned by generals who were either appallingly stupid or monstrously callous to causalities that their battles produced. At the Battle of the Somme, soldiers were ordered to advance at a walking pace. This was to keep the lines orderly and lower the chances of friendly fire - it also made the British soldiers perfect targets for German machine gunners.
Soldiers make their way on catwalks over flooded trenches
The whole war in retrospect seems a comic-tragedy of epic proportions. Men died in the thousands for a few yards of earth. The British comedy series Black Adder brilliantly showed the insanity of WWI strategy in its fourth season - "Black Adder Goes Forth." In one episode, a general is looking at a scale map of the last battle and asks his aide for the scale. His aide answers "one to one, sir!" and the general shows no surprise but is glad that 17 square feet of mud is no longer in German hands.
The Great War ended 90 years ago but the consequences still live with us to this day. The war changed the maps, changed class systems, changed the way wars are fought, and changed technology. Iraq is one of those changes having been created out of the territory of the old Ottoman Empire.
Ultimately, Nov. 11 is a bittersweet day to remember the end of a terrible war and all those who died in it. Nov. 11 is also a day to reflect on the futile hope of the time that there would be no other wars to follow.
To read the original article click here.
2008-11-11
November 11th 2008 marks 90th anniversary of WWI's end...
Trench warfare - static and deadly - became the norm for most of World War I
"Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind."
Wilfred Owen - died 1918
Ninety years ago at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month the great guns fell silent and Europe experienced a silence it had not known in years. It was the end of the "Great War," the War to end all Wars. Today, we know that was a hopeful but futile sentiment as the War to end all Wars is now known as World War I.
Two bullets and a lost driver set off a powder keg whose explosion engulfed Europe. In the summer of 1914, a driver made a wrong turn and ended up in the path of a young assassin who had actually given up and was just finishing off a sandwich. The young assassin was a Serbian belonging to a radical group known as the Black Hand. Their target was the Arch-Duke Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who was touring Sarajevo. They had tried earlier that day to assassinate him but failed. Now Fate through the hands of a lost driver delivered the Arch-Duke into one of the assassin's hands who took full advantage of his good luck and fired his pistol killing Ferdinand.
The assasination caused the collapse of the house of cards that were the national alliances of the day. Austria-Hungary with German support declared war on Serbia. Russia was allied with Serbia so they entered the war. France was allied with Russia and so they entered the war. Germany (who hated France) in order to swiftly attack France violated Belgium's borders by crossing it with their troops. Britain had an alliance with Belgium and so they entered the war. Eventually other nations would enter the war as well including the USA.
World War I in many ways was the "War to end all Wars" in that it was every war past and future rolled up into one. There were Napoleonic charges, aerial bombardment, a few misguided cavalry charges with actual horses, tanks, machine guns, artillery barrages, air combat, poison gas attacks, flamethrowers, submarine warfare, and primitive hand-to-hand fighting that came down to knives, sharpened spades, and clubs.
Soldiers dehumanized by their gas masks
While fighting took place in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, Russia, and the borders of Italy and Austria, the bulk of the fighting took place in the area known as the Western Front. The Western Front was a long series of extensive trenches where most of the intensive fighting of the war took place. So many men died in such a concentrated place.
While WWII had a far higher casualty rate, this was widespread throughout the globe. The majority of WWI casualties, however, occurred along the several hundred kilometers of the Western Front from the North Sea to the Swiss border. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916, the British lost over 50,000 in dead and wounded in the space of a few kilometers.
Stretcher-bearers trudge through the mud with a wounded victim
The trenches were hell on earth - mud, water, snipers, artillery barrages, barbed wire , machine gun fire, and the rotting corpses of those who fell in No-Man's Land, the deadly area between the opposing armies' trenches. Plus there was rampant disease, lice, and rats grown fat from feeding off of corpses.
"In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again."
Siegfried Sassoon - 1918
The Second World War often gets more attention in the popular imagination. Countless movies, books, comic books, documentaries, TV shows, magazines and so on focus on the many aspects of the war. Battles, generals, strategies, policies, ideologies get constantly battered about from academic circles to office water coolers. It's a subject many have some knowledge of whereas World War I only brings to mind to some (particularly Americans) the Red Baron, the imaginary nemesis of the Peanut's comic strip character, Snoopy.
Manfred von Richthofen - the Red Baron - Germany's Flying Ace
And there's a good reason for that. With World War II there was a clear reason to fight. For the Allies, it was to defeat the conquering Nazis and Imperialist Japanese. For the Germans, it was to revenge their humiliation with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the First World War. For the Japanese, it was believed they were saving Asia (though they didn't bother to ask the rest of Asia). It is easier for modern day audiences to understand the rationales and motivations of those who fought in that war.
The reasons for fighting the First World War, however, are rather vague. The motivations for the soldiers fighting are also vague. It's hard to understand the patriotic fever which led to so many men signing up to fight a war that appeared to have been fought for the sheer hell of it and no other reason. In modern academia, the "isms" of nationalism, militarism, imperialism are blamed for causing the war.
For war enthusiasts, World War I is a hard one to get enthusiastic about. Most of the literature and films on the subject have been anti-war save for a few on WWI pilots and Sergeant York released when America was entering WWII.
Then there's strategy. With WWII battles there was often a lot of planning and logistics that went into major battles on both sides. Armchair military historians can easily while away the hours discussing the many strategems of WWII generals.
The battles of WWI on the other hand appear to have been planned by generals who were either appallingly stupid or monstrously callous to causalities that their battles produced. At the Battle of the Somme, soldiers were ordered to advance at a walking pace. This was to keep the lines orderly and lower the chances of friendly fire - it also made the British soldiers perfect targets for German machine gunners.
Soldiers make their way on catwalks over flooded trenches
The whole war in retrospect seems a comic-tragedy of epic proportions. Men died in the thousands for a few yards of earth. The British comedy series Black Adder brilliantly showed the insanity of WWI strategy in its fourth season - "Black Adder Goes Forth." In one episode, a general is looking at a scale map of the last battle and asks his aide for the scale. His aide answers "one to one, sir!" and the general shows no surprise but is glad that 17 square feet of mud is no longer in German hands.
The Great War ended 90 years ago but the consequences still live with us to this day. The war changed the maps, changed class systems, changed the way wars are fought, and changed technology. Iraq is one of those changes having been created out of the territory of the old Ottoman Empire.
Ultimately, Nov. 11 is a bittersweet day to remember the end of a terrible war and all those who died in it. Nov. 11 is also a day to reflect on the futile hope of the time that there would be no other wars to follow.
To read the original article click here.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Continuing Contribution of Early Childhood Education to Young People’s Competency Levels
August 2007
Cathy Wylie & Edith Hodgen
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
Introduction to the Report
The Competent Children, Competent Learners Project is funded by the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. It is a longitudinal study which focuses on a group of about 500 young people from the greater Wellington region ( Wellington , Hutt, Kapiti, Wairarapa). It charts the development of their competence in numeracy, literacy, and logical problem-solving and their competence in social and attitudinal skills. It also explores the contributions of home and education experiences to find out which may account for differences in patterns of development and performance in these competencies. The project started in 1993, when the children were close to five years old and in early childhood education. Seven phases of the study have now been completed – the first when the children were near age 5, the next when they were at age 6, and at two yearly intervals since then (ages 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16).
Early Childhood Education and Long-Term Competency Levels
Earlier studies in the Competent Children, Competent Learners Project found children benefited from quality early childhood education in both the cognitive and the social/attitudinal competencies. In the age-14 study, the researchers found that aspects of students’ early childhood education still had associations with performance nine years later. The aspects that showed a lasting contribution were: high quality staff interactions with children; an environment providing lots of books and written material and where children could select from a variety of learning activities; the child’s starting age and the total length of early childhood education; and the socio-economic mix of the children attending the centre. Generally the associations applied regardless of maternal qualification or family income; that is, there were benefits for all children, regardless of their background.
Results at age 16
We found that these earlier patterns continued at age 16. Some aspects of ECE were still making a statistically visible contribution to young people’s competency levels, 11 years later, over and above the contribution it had made to their performance levels at age near-5. The associations at age 16, however, were weaker, on the whole, than they were at age 14.
We found that young people who had attended an ECE service which had high ratings for the quality of teacher-child interaction, and those whose ECE service had moderate or high ratings for providing lots of printed material to use or display on the walls of the centre had higher scores on average for literacy, numeracy, logical problem-solving, and their social skills. These aspects of quality in their ECE experience contributed about 4 percent of the variability in young people’s numeracy – about the same level as maternal qualification levels, which give an indication of the kinds of resources and learning experiences children are likely to have had at home. They also contributed about 4 percent of the variability in logical problem-solving scores at age 16, about half the level of the contribution from maternal qualification levels.
The ECE quality aspects (detailed below) and whether children had attended an ECE centre that served mainly middle-class families also contributed 4-7 percent to the variation in the young people’s social skills at age 16. This is half or more of the variation made by maternal qualification levels. We found that good quality ECE can provide some protection against getting into trouble at age 16, by reducing the likelihood of mixing with peers who get into trouble, of being influenced by peer pressure to do things out of character, and to stay away from bullying, or being bullied.
Defining what early childhood education quality that contributes to age-16 competency levels looks like
1. Staff responsiveness
Staff at top-scoring centres responded quickly and directly to children, adapting their responses to individual children. They provided support, focused attention, physical proximity, and verbal encouragement as appropriate, were alert to signs of stress in children’s behaviour, and guided children in expressing their emotions. A centre that had the lowest possible rating would have staff who ignored children’s requests, and were oblivious to their needs.
2. Staff guiding children in activities
Staff at top-scoring centres moved among the children to encourage involvement with materials and activities, and interacted with children by asking questions and offering suggestions. They offered active guidance and encouragement in activities that were appropriate for individual children. A centre that had a low score for this aspect of quality would have left children to choose all their own activities.
3. Staff asking children open-ended questions
Staff at top-scoring centres often asked children open-ended questions, giving them opportunities to come up with a range of different answers, to encourage thinking and creativity. Centres where many closed-ended questions were heard would receive a low rating.
4. Staff joining children in their play
At high rating centres, staff frequently joined in children’s activities, offered materials or information or encouragement to facilitate play and learning around a particular theme. A centre whose staff only monitored children’s play but did not join in it at all would receive a low rating.
5. Providing a print-saturated environment
High rating centres on this aspect of quality are very print focused. They would encourage in children’s activities, have a lot of printed material visible around the centre, at children’s eye-level or just above, and offer children a range of readily accessible books. A centre with no books, posters, or other forms of writing would receive a low rating.
Implications of the findings
Our findings are consistent with a growing body of international research showing benefits for children from ECE experience, and particularly the quality of staff-child interaction (2). What we have found shows that these benefits can extend 11 years later, into late adolescence. This body of research underlines the importance of providing children with high quality staff:child interaction in their ECE experience. It follows that a key rule of thumb for planning at both practice and policy levels might well be to consider whether a use of time/resources is likely to improve/sustain the quality of staff-child interaction? Other international research (summarised in Mitchell, Wylie, & Carr) has shown that quality staff-child interaction in ECE services is supported by:
- having staff whose training gives them understanding of how young children learn, and of their role in supporting and scaffolding that learning by building on children’s interests and deepening their thinking and language use;
- having staff:child ratios that allow staff to both know children as individuals, and to be able to work with them in ways that help children develop confidently; and by
- having staff stability.
It is also important that ECE centres do provide children with opportunities to see the printed word and letters as an everyday - and enjoyable – part of their life, so that children value literacy from an early age and gain confidence with their early exposure to the written word, and the worlds it can open.
Few of the ECE centres in the study scored very low on these ratings when we gathered the data in 1993-94. Now, with the current regulations for ECE, we would expect no centres to score low. We would also expect to see many of New Zealand’s ECE centres to score well for these vital quality aspects if we were to repeat the ECE phase of the Competent Children, Competent Learners Project, since there has been substantial government support for ensuring ECE staff have relevant qualifications and have professional development and assessment resources that help them focus on ensuring that their interaction with children is as rich as possible. But we need to ensure that services keep their qualified staff (turnover rates remain high in ECE services), and continue to enlarge the number who are qualified. We also need to ensure that staff:child ratios allow time for high quality interaction with children (not all of which has to be one-to-one), and for staff to work together to share their knowledge and keep improving their ECE centre quality.
Footnotes
1. Hodgen, E. (2007). Early childhood education and young adult competencies at age 16: Technical report 2
from the age-16 phase of the longitudinal Competent Children, Competent Learners study. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
2. Mitchell, L., Wylie, C., & Carr, M. (forthcoming). Outcomes of Early Childhood Education: A Literature Review.
To read the original article click here.
Cathy Wylie & Edith Hodgen
New Zealand Council for Educational Research
Introduction to the Report
The Competent Children, Competent Learners Project is funded by the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research. It is a longitudinal study which focuses on a group of about 500 young people from the greater Wellington region ( Wellington , Hutt, Kapiti, Wairarapa). It charts the development of their competence in numeracy, literacy, and logical problem-solving and their competence in social and attitudinal skills. It also explores the contributions of home and education experiences to find out which may account for differences in patterns of development and performance in these competencies. The project started in 1993, when the children were close to five years old and in early childhood education. Seven phases of the study have now been completed – the first when the children were near age 5, the next when they were at age 6, and at two yearly intervals since then (ages 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16).
Early Childhood Education and Long-Term Competency Levels
Earlier studies in the Competent Children, Competent Learners Project found children benefited from quality early childhood education in both the cognitive and the social/attitudinal competencies. In the age-14 study, the researchers found that aspects of students’ early childhood education still had associations with performance nine years later. The aspects that showed a lasting contribution were: high quality staff interactions with children; an environment providing lots of books and written material and where children could select from a variety of learning activities; the child’s starting age and the total length of early childhood education; and the socio-economic mix of the children attending the centre. Generally the associations applied regardless of maternal qualification or family income; that is, there were benefits for all children, regardless of their background.
Results at age 16
We found that these earlier patterns continued at age 16. Some aspects of ECE were still making a statistically visible contribution to young people’s competency levels, 11 years later, over and above the contribution it had made to their performance levels at age near-5. The associations at age 16, however, were weaker, on the whole, than they were at age 14.
We found that young people who had attended an ECE service which had high ratings for the quality of teacher-child interaction, and those whose ECE service had moderate or high ratings for providing lots of printed material to use or display on the walls of the centre had higher scores on average for literacy, numeracy, logical problem-solving, and their social skills. These aspects of quality in their ECE experience contributed about 4 percent of the variability in young people’s numeracy – about the same level as maternal qualification levels, which give an indication of the kinds of resources and learning experiences children are likely to have had at home. They also contributed about 4 percent of the variability in logical problem-solving scores at age 16, about half the level of the contribution from maternal qualification levels.
The ECE quality aspects (detailed below) and whether children had attended an ECE centre that served mainly middle-class families also contributed 4-7 percent to the variation in the young people’s social skills at age 16. This is half or more of the variation made by maternal qualification levels. We found that good quality ECE can provide some protection against getting into trouble at age 16, by reducing the likelihood of mixing with peers who get into trouble, of being influenced by peer pressure to do things out of character, and to stay away from bullying, or being bullied.
Defining what early childhood education quality that contributes to age-16 competency levels looks like
1. Staff responsiveness
Staff at top-scoring centres responded quickly and directly to children, adapting their responses to individual children. They provided support, focused attention, physical proximity, and verbal encouragement as appropriate, were alert to signs of stress in children’s behaviour, and guided children in expressing their emotions. A centre that had the lowest possible rating would have staff who ignored children’s requests, and were oblivious to their needs.
2. Staff guiding children in activities
Staff at top-scoring centres moved among the children to encourage involvement with materials and activities, and interacted with children by asking questions and offering suggestions. They offered active guidance and encouragement in activities that were appropriate for individual children. A centre that had a low score for this aspect of quality would have left children to choose all their own activities.
3. Staff asking children open-ended questions
Staff at top-scoring centres often asked children open-ended questions, giving them opportunities to come up with a range of different answers, to encourage thinking and creativity. Centres where many closed-ended questions were heard would receive a low rating.
4. Staff joining children in their play
At high rating centres, staff frequently joined in children’s activities, offered materials or information or encouragement to facilitate play and learning around a particular theme. A centre whose staff only monitored children’s play but did not join in it at all would receive a low rating.
5. Providing a print-saturated environment
High rating centres on this aspect of quality are very print focused. They would encourage in children’s activities, have a lot of printed material visible around the centre, at children’s eye-level or just above, and offer children a range of readily accessible books. A centre with no books, posters, or other forms of writing would receive a low rating.
Implications of the findings
Our findings are consistent with a growing body of international research showing benefits for children from ECE experience, and particularly the quality of staff-child interaction (2). What we have found shows that these benefits can extend 11 years later, into late adolescence. This body of research underlines the importance of providing children with high quality staff:child interaction in their ECE experience. It follows that a key rule of thumb for planning at both practice and policy levels might well be to consider whether a use of time/resources is likely to improve/sustain the quality of staff-child interaction? Other international research (summarised in Mitchell, Wylie, & Carr) has shown that quality staff-child interaction in ECE services is supported by:
- having staff whose training gives them understanding of how young children learn, and of their role in supporting and scaffolding that learning by building on children’s interests and deepening their thinking and language use;
- having staff:child ratios that allow staff to both know children as individuals, and to be able to work with them in ways that help children develop confidently; and by
- having staff stability.
It is also important that ECE centres do provide children with opportunities to see the printed word and letters as an everyday - and enjoyable – part of their life, so that children value literacy from an early age and gain confidence with their early exposure to the written word, and the worlds it can open.
Few of the ECE centres in the study scored very low on these ratings when we gathered the data in 1993-94. Now, with the current regulations for ECE, we would expect no centres to score low. We would also expect to see many of New Zealand’s ECE centres to score well for these vital quality aspects if we were to repeat the ECE phase of the Competent Children, Competent Learners Project, since there has been substantial government support for ensuring ECE staff have relevant qualifications and have professional development and assessment resources that help them focus on ensuring that their interaction with children is as rich as possible. But we need to ensure that services keep their qualified staff (turnover rates remain high in ECE services), and continue to enlarge the number who are qualified. We also need to ensure that staff:child ratios allow time for high quality interaction with children (not all of which has to be one-to-one), and for staff to work together to share their knowledge and keep improving their ECE centre quality.
Footnotes
1. Hodgen, E. (2007). Early childhood education and young adult competencies at age 16: Technical report 2
from the age-16 phase of the longitudinal Competent Children, Competent Learners study. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
2. Mitchell, L., Wylie, C., & Carr, M. (forthcoming). Outcomes of Early Childhood Education: A Literature Review.
To read the original article click here.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Faced with rising sea levels, the Maldives seek new homeland
By Eoin O'Carroll
11/11/2008
Christian Science Monitor
Many scientists believe that, given enough political will, humanity can still manage to avoid catastrophic climate change. But the president-elect of the Maldives isn’t taking any chances.
Mohamed Nasheed, who was sworn in Tuesday as the Maldives’ first democratically elected president, says that rising sea levels threaten to inundate the tiny Indian Ocean island nation. He has announced plans for a fund to buy land elsewhere in the region, where the country’s population, estimated to be about 386,000, could rebuild their lives.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr. Nasheed said that he is preparing for the worst:
“We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It’s an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome. . . We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades,” he said.
Nasheed said that he is looking at land in India and Sri Lanka, because they have climates, cultures, and cuisines similar to that of the Maldives. He is also considering Australia, which has land to spare.
To pay for it, Nasheed says his government will set up a sovereign wealth fund, with revenues coming from tourism, the country’s most lucrative industry. The Guardian notes that 467,154 people visited the country, which is famed for its placid beaches, in 2006.
According to the CIA World Factbook, some 80 percent of the 1,192 coral islets that make up the Maldives are one metre or less above sea level, making it the world’s lowest country. The UN climate panel predicts that, unless greenhouse emissions are curbed, sea levels could rise by 25 to 58 centimeters by the end of the century. More recent studies, such as this one published in the journal Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise, to as high as two meters.
If this happens, the Maldives would be uninhabitable. But Maldivians wouldn’t be the first population displaced by global warming.
That distinction probably belongs to the half million residents of Bangladesh’s Bhola Island whose homes were swallowed in 1995 by rising sea levels. In 2005, the 1,600 residents of Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands began evacuation, as the advancing sea contunued to destroy gardens, sink homes, and contaminate freshwater supplies. Also that year, 100 residents of Vanuatu’s island of Tegua had to be evacuated as their homes became permanently flooded.
Other low-lying Pacific islands that could disappear in this century include those in Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Fiji.
Were these countries to be evacuated, the legal status of the global warming diaspora would be unclear. The same goes for that of a submerged country’s sovereignty. No nation in recorded history has peacefully relocated its entire population and remained intact, and, as National Geographic pointed out in 2005, environmental refugees are not recognized by international law.
To read the original article click here.
11/11/2008
Christian Science Monitor
Many scientists believe that, given enough political will, humanity can still manage to avoid catastrophic climate change. But the president-elect of the Maldives isn’t taking any chances.
Mohamed Nasheed, who was sworn in Tuesday as the Maldives’ first democratically elected president, says that rising sea levels threaten to inundate the tiny Indian Ocean island nation. He has announced plans for a fund to buy land elsewhere in the region, where the country’s population, estimated to be about 386,000, could rebuild their lives.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr. Nasheed said that he is preparing for the worst:
“We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It’s an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome. . . We do not want to leave the Maldives, but we also do not want to be climate refugees living in tents for decades,” he said.
Nasheed said that he is looking at land in India and Sri Lanka, because they have climates, cultures, and cuisines similar to that of the Maldives. He is also considering Australia, which has land to spare.
To pay for it, Nasheed says his government will set up a sovereign wealth fund, with revenues coming from tourism, the country’s most lucrative industry. The Guardian notes that 467,154 people visited the country, which is famed for its placid beaches, in 2006.
According to the CIA World Factbook, some 80 percent of the 1,192 coral islets that make up the Maldives are one metre or less above sea level, making it the world’s lowest country. The UN climate panel predicts that, unless greenhouse emissions are curbed, sea levels could rise by 25 to 58 centimeters by the end of the century. More recent studies, such as this one published in the journal Science, sharply increase the projected sea level rise, to as high as two meters.
If this happens, the Maldives would be uninhabitable. But Maldivians wouldn’t be the first population displaced by global warming.
That distinction probably belongs to the half million residents of Bangladesh’s Bhola Island whose homes were swallowed in 1995 by rising sea levels. In 2005, the 1,600 residents of Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands began evacuation, as the advancing sea contunued to destroy gardens, sink homes, and contaminate freshwater supplies. Also that year, 100 residents of Vanuatu’s island of Tegua had to be evacuated as their homes became permanently flooded.
Other low-lying Pacific islands that could disappear in this century include those in Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Fiji.
Were these countries to be evacuated, the legal status of the global warming diaspora would be unclear. The same goes for that of a submerged country’s sovereignty. No nation in recorded history has peacefully relocated its entire population and remained intact, and, as National Geographic pointed out in 2005, environmental refugees are not recognized by international law.
To read the original article click here.
Osama Bin Laden's son asks: 'What's the weather like in NZ?'
1:15PM Tuesday Nov 11, 2008
By Edward Gay
New Zealand Herald
EXCLUSIVE - Osama bin Laden's son Omar, who hopes to seek political asylum in New Zealand, had one question today - about the weather. He was unable to speak at length to New Zealand Herald and asked only: "How is everything in New Zealand? Is it a cold country?" It was about 18 degrees in Auckland at the time and the answer brought the response: "Oh, that is cold."
The 28 year-old has been living with his wife Zaina Alsabah bin Laden in Egypt. She said the couple were not safe in the Middle East because of Mr bin Laden's pacifist views. She said they were now no longer in Egypt and she could not say where they were staying because that could put pressure on the local government. Mrs bin Laden said the couple wanted to seek asylum in New Zealand because it was known for its democratic values and was a fair country. "It's an amazing country with an amazing history. I believe they have a strong human rights stance and humanitarian stance," Mrs bin Laden told nzherald.co.nz.
She said Mr bin Laden had a very good business brain. She said he would also like to study English, politics and law. When asked if she could understand if some New Zealanders would feel uncomfortable having one of Osama bin Laden's 19 children in New Zealand, Mrs bin Laden said: "Omar is not his father". "People have more intelligence than to judge him by his father."
The English born Mrs bin Laden, who changed her name from Jane Felix-Browne, said her husband was in danger from fundamentalists and extremists who do not like what Omar was saying. Omar could be heard in the background saying his philosophy was peace through dialogue.
Mrs bin Laden said her husband left Afghanistan when he was 18. She said there had been reports that he trained in Afghanistan as a fighter but that was not true.
"He never lived in a training camp, he lived in his mother's house. The slip up came in an interview when he was asked if he trained and he thought that meant study," she said.
The couple have had an application for asylum in Spain rejected and are appealing a decision in Mrs bin Laden's native UK. She said the Spanish decision came after the UN issued a directive to say the couple were safe in Egypt. Mrs bin Laden said the couple had since not been able to get a new visa and had been deported.
Immigration law
The Herald reported this morning that according to New Zealand immigration law, the bin Ladens would not need a visa to travel to New Zealand, although security precautions would likely see them stopped before they got on a plane. Saudi Arabian nationals are eligible for a three-month visitors permit on arrival, while British passport-holders are eligible for six months.
Association for Migration and Investment director Simon Laurent yesterday said if Mr bin Laden made it as far as the border, he would only have to utter the words "political asylum" and authorities would be obliged to let him stay in New Zealand while his case was investigated. Whether he was held in custody or on bail would depend on the circumstances of his arrival.
Fewer than 300 foreign nationals apply for political asylum in New Zealand each year and those who do must meet strict entry criteria. Under United Nations law, asylum seekers must fear persecution for reasons of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" in their home country.
If allowed to remain in New Zealand, immigration law would allow Omar bin Laden to sponsor other family members to come to New Zealand.
But his fugitive father would not be welcome.
The law is not enforceable if the applicant has:
* Committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined internationally.
* Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge before his admission to that country as a refugee.
* Been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN.
To read the original article click here.
By Edward Gay
New Zealand Herald
EXCLUSIVE - Osama bin Laden's son Omar, who hopes to seek political asylum in New Zealand, had one question today - about the weather. He was unable to speak at length to New Zealand Herald and asked only: "How is everything in New Zealand? Is it a cold country?" It was about 18 degrees in Auckland at the time and the answer brought the response: "Oh, that is cold."
The 28 year-old has been living with his wife Zaina Alsabah bin Laden in Egypt. She said the couple were not safe in the Middle East because of Mr bin Laden's pacifist views. She said they were now no longer in Egypt and she could not say where they were staying because that could put pressure on the local government. Mrs bin Laden said the couple wanted to seek asylum in New Zealand because it was known for its democratic values and was a fair country. "It's an amazing country with an amazing history. I believe they have a strong human rights stance and humanitarian stance," Mrs bin Laden told nzherald.co.nz.
She said Mr bin Laden had a very good business brain. She said he would also like to study English, politics and law. When asked if she could understand if some New Zealanders would feel uncomfortable having one of Osama bin Laden's 19 children in New Zealand, Mrs bin Laden said: "Omar is not his father". "People have more intelligence than to judge him by his father."
The English born Mrs bin Laden, who changed her name from Jane Felix-Browne, said her husband was in danger from fundamentalists and extremists who do not like what Omar was saying. Omar could be heard in the background saying his philosophy was peace through dialogue.
Mrs bin Laden said her husband left Afghanistan when he was 18. She said there had been reports that he trained in Afghanistan as a fighter but that was not true.
"He never lived in a training camp, he lived in his mother's house. The slip up came in an interview when he was asked if he trained and he thought that meant study," she said.
The couple have had an application for asylum in Spain rejected and are appealing a decision in Mrs bin Laden's native UK. She said the Spanish decision came after the UN issued a directive to say the couple were safe in Egypt. Mrs bin Laden said the couple had since not been able to get a new visa and had been deported.
Immigration law
The Herald reported this morning that according to New Zealand immigration law, the bin Ladens would not need a visa to travel to New Zealand, although security precautions would likely see them stopped before they got on a plane. Saudi Arabian nationals are eligible for a three-month visitors permit on arrival, while British passport-holders are eligible for six months.
Association for Migration and Investment director Simon Laurent yesterday said if Mr bin Laden made it as far as the border, he would only have to utter the words "political asylum" and authorities would be obliged to let him stay in New Zealand while his case was investigated. Whether he was held in custody or on bail would depend on the circumstances of his arrival.
Fewer than 300 foreign nationals apply for political asylum in New Zealand each year and those who do must meet strict entry criteria. Under United Nations law, asylum seekers must fear persecution for reasons of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" in their home country.
If allowed to remain in New Zealand, immigration law would allow Omar bin Laden to sponsor other family members to come to New Zealand.
But his fugitive father would not be welcome.
The law is not enforceable if the applicant has:
* Committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined internationally.
* Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge before his admission to that country as a refugee.
* Been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN.
To read the original article click here.
Monday, November 10, 2008
China pours $1 trillion into economy
4:00AM Tuesday Nov 11, 2008
Sarah Arnott
INDEPENDENT Journalist
The Chinese Government has announced a US$586 billion ($NZ980 billion) economic stimulus package designed to boost the country's weakening economy and help to counter the looming global recession.
Beijing is to loosen credit conditions, cut taxes and undertake a giant infrastructure spending programme over the next two years that will amount to up to 7 percent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). The scheme is not as big as the US$700 billion government bailout in the US, but China's economy is only one quarter the size of North America's. Investments will go ahead in 10 areas including housing, rural infrastructure and re-building after disasters such as the devastating earthquake in May 2008.
Share prices on China's Shanghai Composite Index and Japan's Nikkei surged by more than 5 percent yesterday. Australasian markets also got a boost. New Zealand's NZX-50 rose 1.65 percent while Australia's ASX-200 climbed 1.39 percent. The New Zealand dollar rose to US59.67c from Friday's close of US58.68c and the Australian dollar rose 0.22 percent to US68.68c on signs the package could boost demand for commodities.
China's spending package "has given high-yielding, growth-sensitive currencies like the kiwi and the Aussie a boost," said Danica Hampton, a currencies strategist at BNZ. Oil leaped more than US$3 to over US$64 a barrel. In the next three months alone, some 400 billion yuan ($NZ98 billion) will be made available, including 100 billion yuan from current funds and another 20 billion yuan brought forward from next year's post-disaster re-construction budget, the Chinese Government said.
The package comes just as Chinese President Hu Jintao is about to travel to Washington, USA to participate in the global economic summit this weekend. China's central bank has already cut interest rates three times in the last two months in an attempt to warm up an economy cooled by falling exports, lower manufacturing output and dropping property prices. The Government is banking on expanded domestic demand, fast-tracked construction projects and improved living standards for the poor to fill the gap left by exports.
Since last year, monetary policy in China has been tight - leaning on banks to control lending, for example - as part of measures designed to take the edge off building inflation caused by an economy close to overheating. The State Council says the country is now to adopt "active" fiscal and "moderately active" monetary policies. The Government is abolishing commercial banks' credit ceilings, to channel lending to priority projects, and scrapping loan quotas, to help small businesses.
Fiscal measures also in the scheme include value-added tax reforms on the purchase of fixed assets such as machinery that Beijing says will cut industry costs by 120 billion yuan, and raised grain purchase prices, farmers' subsidies and allowances for low-income urban households. After five years of spectacular success - hitting a massive 11.7 percent growth in 2007 and accounting for 27 percent of all global expansion - the Chinese economy has shown signs of braking. GDP growth dropped to single digits for the first time this year, and the harshest predictions for the fourth quarter fall as low as 5.8 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has cut its forecast for the full-year to 9.7 percent, with predictions for 2009 at 9.3 percent.
PRIMING THE PUMP:
* China's $980 billion package aims to slow slide in growth now in single figures.
* New funding for housing, infrastructure and disaster rebuilding.
To read the original article click here.
Sarah Arnott
INDEPENDENT Journalist
The Chinese Government has announced a US$586 billion ($NZ980 billion) economic stimulus package designed to boost the country's weakening economy and help to counter the looming global recession.
Beijing is to loosen credit conditions, cut taxes and undertake a giant infrastructure spending programme over the next two years that will amount to up to 7 percent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). The scheme is not as big as the US$700 billion government bailout in the US, but China's economy is only one quarter the size of North America's. Investments will go ahead in 10 areas including housing, rural infrastructure and re-building after disasters such as the devastating earthquake in May 2008.
Share prices on China's Shanghai Composite Index and Japan's Nikkei surged by more than 5 percent yesterday. Australasian markets also got a boost. New Zealand's NZX-50 rose 1.65 percent while Australia's ASX-200 climbed 1.39 percent. The New Zealand dollar rose to US59.67c from Friday's close of US58.68c and the Australian dollar rose 0.22 percent to US68.68c on signs the package could boost demand for commodities.
China's spending package "has given high-yielding, growth-sensitive currencies like the kiwi and the Aussie a boost," said Danica Hampton, a currencies strategist at BNZ. Oil leaped more than US$3 to over US$64 a barrel. In the next three months alone, some 400 billion yuan ($NZ98 billion) will be made available, including 100 billion yuan from current funds and another 20 billion yuan brought forward from next year's post-disaster re-construction budget, the Chinese Government said.
The package comes just as Chinese President Hu Jintao is about to travel to Washington, USA to participate in the global economic summit this weekend. China's central bank has already cut interest rates three times in the last two months in an attempt to warm up an economy cooled by falling exports, lower manufacturing output and dropping property prices. The Government is banking on expanded domestic demand, fast-tracked construction projects and improved living standards for the poor to fill the gap left by exports.
Since last year, monetary policy in China has been tight - leaning on banks to control lending, for example - as part of measures designed to take the edge off building inflation caused by an economy close to overheating. The State Council says the country is now to adopt "active" fiscal and "moderately active" monetary policies. The Government is abolishing commercial banks' credit ceilings, to channel lending to priority projects, and scrapping loan quotas, to help small businesses.
Fiscal measures also in the scheme include value-added tax reforms on the purchase of fixed assets such as machinery that Beijing says will cut industry costs by 120 billion yuan, and raised grain purchase prices, farmers' subsidies and allowances for low-income urban households. After five years of spectacular success - hitting a massive 11.7 percent growth in 2007 and accounting for 27 percent of all global expansion - the Chinese economy has shown signs of braking. GDP growth dropped to single digits for the first time this year, and the harshest predictions for the fourth quarter fall as low as 5.8 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has cut its forecast for the full-year to 9.7 percent, with predictions for 2009 at 9.3 percent.
PRIMING THE PUMP:
* China's $980 billion package aims to slow slide in growth now in single figures.
* New funding for housing, infrastructure and disaster rebuilding.
To read the original article click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)