 |
Albright Talks, Russia Walks
By Olga Dubeshko, Eastern Europe Correspondent
Members of the Belarusian social democratic parties
say,
that Belarus is in deep constitutional crisis.
MINSK, Belarus - Members of the Belarusian social-democratic parties here say, that Belarus is in deep constitutional crisis. One way out of it is calling the Constitutional Assembly. Opposition argues, that today`s National Assembly will never be recognized by the West.
About 3,000 people marched in the Belorusian capital Friday to protest the government's plan for closer integration with neighbor Russia, chanting, ``No to the Russian occupation!''
Protesters said that the union would mean that violence and regional conflicts would spill over into Belarus. ``No less than two-thirds of our citizens are against integrating Belarus into a Eurasian mafioso empire,'' said Lyavon Borshchevsky, acting chief of the Belausian Popular Front, the country's main opposition group, which organized in Friday's rally.
The union between Russia and Belarus, two former Soviet republics, was signed in 1996 and calls for closer political, economic and military ties, but stops short of creating a single state.
Belarus' authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko, an open admirer of the Soviet Union who is widely believed to have his eyes set on the presidency of Russia, has since been pushing for much closer ties between the two countries.
Another opposition leader, Oleg Trusov, said, ``We are not fighting against the Russian worker, not against the Russian peasant, but against the Russian-Asiatic mafia that needs a transit corridor through Belarus.''
Belarus, between Russia and Poland, has become a major transportation link for legal and illegal goods from Russia to the rest of Europe. The transit has been further encouraged since the union agreement removed customs barriers.
Protesters marched through central Minsk and then rallied in a central park. No arrests or beatings by police - a frequent occurrence at opposition rallies in Belarus - were reported.
Both sides proclaimed the talks showed determination to cooperate wherever possible. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Albright's visit "has allowed us to synchronize our watches." Albright said that while "lots of people are looking for confrontation," she was "very satisfied that we are on a good road."
But the visit exposed more areas of difference than agreement and dramatized the gap that has opened since last summer between a prosperous, self-confident United States and an impoverished Russia gripped by political paralysis and chafing under perceived American tutelage.
In the words of Russian legislator Alexei Arbatov, "Besides domestic instability and decline, Russia feels vulnerable in the south, threatened in the west, potentially endangered in the east and progressively inferior at the global strategic level..."
The meeting between Ms.Albright and Mr. Ivanov was a sort of beginning but it was clearly not a dialogue among equals. Now, after years of social unrest in the Kremlin and steady decline in the Russian economy, senior U.S. officials were depicting the meeting as political "damage control" until Russia's presidential election next year, which could bring the country's back to their feet. Meanwhile, disagreement is mounting and doubts are growing, say sources in Balarus.
Sources with the Albright mission, were saying on Sunday, the messages Ms. Albright delivered can be summed-up in these following excerpts from her comments, "Your budget is unrealistic, and your revenue projections are phony. Until you get real, it will be hard for us and for the International Monetary Fund to help you....The positions you have taken in negotiations on revising the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, a keystone of future relations between Russia and NATO, are unacceptable....Unless you stop selling missile technology to Iran, we will cut off your authority to launch high-orbit U.S. commercial satellites on your rockets - a lucrative business that you need to keep...We don't like the recent outburst of antisemitic statements from prominent politicians in your country, or some of the trumped-up criminal cases that undercut personal freedom. We know times are hard in Russia, but blaming imaginary villains is not the answer....We know you don't like our plan to develop and possibly deploy a defense against strategic missiles, because it seems to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of a treaty between us. But it's not directed at you - and anyway it's partly your fault, because you are the ones selling Iran the missile technology we're worried about."
Ms. Albright's team said they offered these criticisms in a spirit of goodwill, friend to friend."America wants to see Russia succeed and to work with Russia's government and people to build a strong partnership," Albright said at a news conference with Ivanov.
However, at yet another gathering, this time with Russian intellectuals and religious freedom advocates, Ms. Albright said, "We want a Russia that is confident and that will fulfill its potential as a global force for peace and justice and against crime and terror."
When asked by a reporter if she felt the time has come to return to a policy of "containment" of Russia, she replies with, "I consider that ridiculous. The whole point here is to engage Russia.... Certainly the last thing I'm going to do is dump on Russia."
During Albright's visit, there was no public comment from Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who is standing in for Mr. Yeltsin as he recovers fron an ulcer flare-up recently.
[Note: Contributing to this story were Olga Detiuk in Minsk, Tatsudo Akyama in Japan, and Nike Rathco in Washington, D.C.]
|
Boasts and Roasts By JoAnn Cummins, Contributor
Intense mental activity is an unknown
experience for most Senate Democrats.
It has occurred to me that when this all started Senate Democrats said that the President will never be impeached by the House. Well, he is impeached.
Then they said that it would not get as far as the Senate. Well, it is in the Senate. The vote yesterday made it clear that there was to be no dismissal of the charges.
Now Senators are saying that it is over. That he will not be thrown out of office.
So, we question that thinking for good reason. If the Democrats said it would not get this far and it has, it is still possible, even for Senate Democrats, to show enough loyalty to their oaths to listen to three witnesses, with an open mind.
We expect Senate Democrats to weigh the evidence impartially and follow the Constitution, meticulously.
We would really appreciate it if our Democrat Senators would stop the boasting and roasting. It obviously interferes with the thought processes necessary for achieving the exercise of common sense. A worthy end, but an altogether unknown ideal in the United States Senate.
|
The Millennium Event By Douglas Green, Contributor
The foundation of Western morality, and the
source of all real future progress.
WASHINGTON - Perhaps the most important idea contributed to human thinking was the sovereign importance of the individual soul, that we exist as individuals and ought to be free, and that our beliefs determine our actions, which rules our own destiny. On such notions rest the foundations of Western morality, which is the source of all real progress.
The church suppressed science, until the Puritans came to believe in something called "spiritual progress" which was consistent with "material progress." I think that's a rather one-sided way to view the issue. The Church was conservative and dogmatic, but not without reason.
Christianity is concerned with truth and perfection, not progress. It considers the quality of faith more important than the quantity of either knowledge or worldly goods.
As an analogy in current scientific thought, just look at the field of bioethics, where some people believe that the ability to clone animals and ultimately humans should not be undertaken rashly.
Instead, we should check our ambition with a greater sense of propriety until humankind is morally ready to understand the implications of such a discovery.
This ethical stance should not be accused of hindering science, but instead viewed as an example of sober-minded thinking. In a similar way, I don't think Christianity should be accused of being anti-science just because it believes some things are fundamentally more important, and that there are limits of human thought which should be respected.
The march of scientific progress in the past Millennium should not be viewed as something contrary to the Christian faith. Instead, the values we have obtained from that faith have guided us safely into greater spiritual peace and material comfort than we would have otherwise achieved.
As we approach the dawn of this new millennium with uncertainty as to our direction, we might choose to recall the words of Jesus himself: "What does it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his soul?" On such ideas does our progress depend.
|
Witness Preparation
By Mike Rathco, Washington Correspondent
As Trial Proceeds at a petty pace.
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats are promising not to drop the motion to dismiss the case the Republican majority would guarantee that witnesses will not be called to testify. "If enough Republicans would declare themselves against witnesses, I believe we could completely avoid the vote on dismissal," senator John Kerry(D) on a telvised CNN interview late Sunday.
Meanwhile, House managers continued with a two hour interview of Monica S. Lewinsky Sunday. Sources informed the Daily Republican Newspaper that members of the House said Ms. Lewinsky would be an impressive witness who would help the Senate "... determine the truth," in conflicting statements given by President Clinton.
House prosecutors have been subjected to abrasive criticism from Democrats in the Senate for proceeding with the interview, in view of Democrat's opposition to calling Lewinsky to testify at the Senate trial.
The New York Times reported Monday that an associate of Ms. Lewinsky's said the prosecutors once again asked about the chain of events surrounding her decision to return gifts from the president to his secretary, Betty Currie, have cited as an element of the obstruction of justice charge against Clinton. The managers also asked her about assistance by Vernon Jordan, a friend of the President, in searching for a job in New York. The managers did not ask for details of her sexual relationship with Mr. Clinton.
The trial resumes today, after lunch. The Senate plans to then move to a Motion to Dismiss the case against Mr. Clinton. Failing to garner the required 51 votes to carry such a motion, it is anticipated that the Senate will then the move on to the House prosecutors' request for witness depositions.
Making matters worse, the White House has made it known that if witness testimony is to be permitted, Mr. Clinton will want to aggressively start interviewing a large group of possible defense witnesses.
"Our job here is to get to the truth. Our job here is to do impartial justice," Sen. Orrin Hatch(R), said in a CBS Interview, Sunday. "How do you do it without reconciling these facts that are in dispute? And the only way you can do that is with live witnesses."
|
Lewinsky Set To Meet Prosecutors
Senate Democrats Erupt In Chaos
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House of Representatives prosecutors were set to interview Monica Lewinsky Sunday as congeniality in President Clinton's Senate impeachment trial faded amid testy exchanges over the surprise move. Rep. Lindsey Graham, one of 13 House "managers" or prosecutors, said he expected Lewinsky to be debriefed, under orders from a federal judge, sometime in the afternoon.
Former White House intern Monica Lewinsky returned to Washington under court order Saturday to face more questions, possibly a prelude to testifying in the Senate about her affair with President Clinton. Lewinsky arrived by plane from Los Angeles and went to a downtown hotel a few hours after U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled she must "allow herself to be debriefed" by the House of Representatives impeachment prosecution team or lose her immunity from prosecution.
Partisan bickering Saturday displaced the more stately tones of the Senate's impeachment trial of President Clinton, as Republicans and Democrats accused each other of trying to short-circuit the process. "We are in store for a phase that might be more partisan," a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott told reporters after members of both parties lobbed accusations during breaks in the ninth day of the trial.
Ms. Lewinsky flew into Washington Saturday and decorum in President Clinton's Senate impeachment trial began to fly out the window. News travels fast, faster than Lewinsky's flight from Los Angeles. It was deja vu as hordes of reporters and photographers geared again to follow her every movement.Copyright 1999 Reuters Limited. All Rights Reserved
|
An End To Free Enterprise.
By Mike Rathco, Washington Correspondent
Clinton plan recommends nationalization of American
industry. The first step toward National Socialism?
WASHINGTON - President Clinton's plan to save Social Security amounts to nationalization of American industry and the end of the free enterprise system, as we know it. Worse yet, the president's proposal appears to have set the stage for government ownership of $4.4 trillion in corporation stock. If carried through, the plan will be the government takeover and ownership of the nations' corporations, its manufacturers, and its banking system.
That could easily become a scene where corporations are organs of the state with government intervention in decisions about economic production. With the political interests of the state involved, private initiative declines. The Weimar Republic went down that same road in 1933 as corporate leaders lost their freedom of decision making to government overseers. Production schedules were then determined by the government. Only with slave labor could state production requirements be met. It couldn't happen here.
However, following Mr. Clinton's speech, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said that Mr. Clinton's proposal to have the Government invest a portion of Social Security reserves in the stock market would endanger the national economy.
Republicans in Congress were agreeing with Greenspan's estimation today as he testified before the House Ways and Means Committee about the economic impact of Mr. Clinton's idea to invest nearly 70% of Federal budget surpluses over the next 15 years into corporate stock purchases he is calling the "Social Security reserve".
Greenspan said of Mr. Clinton's statement, "... it could be risky to allow government money to be invested in the stock market because there is no way to insulate investment decisions from political forces, raising the prospect that specific investment decisions could be influenced by non financial considerations. I do not support the investment of government funds in private equity markets."
Senator Phil Gramm(R) told reporters, "I was profoundly disappointed in what the president proposed ... the whole thing is dead for this Congress ... we may have to wait for a new president to take office."
Under Clinton's plan to address the potential insolvency of the Social Security system when the baby boom generation begins to retire, nearly $2.7 trillion out of total surpluses of about $4.4 trillion would be used to purchase shares of corporate stock on Wall Street to shore up the lost reserves.
Mr. Clinton will, under his plan, to start with, invest $700 billion of the $2.7 trillion in speculative corporate stock traded on the NYC Stock Exchange. The Clinton White House is preparing to dump what reserves remain in the defunct Social Security system so that expected higher returns they might make with corporate stock ownership might extend Social Security solvency for an extra five years, to 2055 instead of 2050, at best.
There is widespread concern over government participation in private corporate financial markets, however. Greenspan told the commitee, "I do not believe that it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds from government direction ... Political pressures could lead to inefficient investments that, in turn, would result in a lower rate of return for retired people and a lower standard of living for all Americans."
Michael J. Boskin, chief economist to president George Bush, rejected the Clinton plan as "... politically naive ... Congress will simply not stand by and let huge surpluses accumulate without spending them."
Meanwhile, on Wednesday in a Buffalo NY rally Mr. Clinton added fuel to the firestorm when he spoke to a crowd of supporters, saying that the federal government knows best how to spend the projected budget surplus and that the money should go to shore up Social Security. "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen ... Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks ... so, we have to get into the Social Security Trust fund."
Its that slippery slope, that gets you. After that corner has been turned, its too late to reverse direction.
|
The Sacred Fire of the Cherokee
By Howard Hobbs, Editors' Desk
George Washington's First Inaugural Address
contained a reference to
an honored symbol
of unity and the Republican form of government.
WASHINGTON -The story of the Sacred Fire began before recorded history. It has been a part of Cherokee Indian culture since long before the Europeans arrived on the shores of North America.
Legend has it that the Sacred Fire burned seven sacred woods from the far flung regions of the Cherokee nation. It was kept burning in the council house of each village and was used to light the fires of every Cherokee household. It was the highest symbol of strength and unity among the Cherokee nation. The Cherokee people were friends to early American pioneers and served as scouts for General Washington.
The symbol of the sacred fire was adopted by George Washington and used to rally the American people in his First Inaugural Address. In fact, his emphasis on this honored symbol of unity carried with it the power of the human inagination and devotion to traditions.
He told Americans,"... there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity .... And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
Larry P. Arnn, of the Conservative Claremont Institute, for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, in Southern California told the Daily Republican Newspaper that president Clinton's reference to the sacred fire of liberty in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday "...was especially striking to those who know the context of this remark ... he has a rather high opinion of himself, and invites comparisons by quoting memorable passages from his predecessors."
Douglas A. Jeffrey, a Senior Fellow at the think tank has just published a critical essay on this point. Jeffrey describes Mr. Clinton's remarks about George Washington as, "... self-incriminating."
|
It's Mockery By Mike Rathco, Washington Correspondent
It
was an unmistakable message of "I'm right, you're wrong."
WASHINGTON - President Clinton repeatedly gave Americans the finger last night. It was an unmistakable message of "I'm right, you're wrong ... when he wags his pointed finger at us, he's being defiant," said Kevin Hogan, author of Psychology of Persuasion.
He was angry and intense. His overly rehearsed gestures seemed unnatural and crudely out of place in the stately House of Representatives Chamber.
He also incorporated the display of his crooked finger, the squinted eyes and a jabbing fist in the air. These ingenuous devices deadened any message of conciliation. Gone was the confidence man charisma that Mr. Clinton has often attempted to project in his public rhetoric.
His lengthy bombast lasted well over an hour as he made a series of unsupported claims to the existence of an enormous surplus of government tax revenues, but had no plans to cut taxes. After making a number of similar exaggerations in past years, the audience seemed to be about to shout him down, with "Show us the money!" when he launched into a parody of his former self, and promised to raise taxes on employers in order to hike the minimum wage and give tax breaks to the poor. The Democrat side of this audience rose to their feet and wildly appluaded.
Seizing the moment, he then launched into an outline of some enormous expansion in public spending that would add more government regulation and interferrence in local school curriculum, testing, and teacher competence, together with an elaborate scheme to gamble Social Security Trust Fund money in a sepculative Wall Street experiment in which the Treausury would purchase ownership shares of private corporations.
This was not the William Jefferson Clinton elected by a slim plurality a scant six years ago. His words now seem hollow and his charm, threadbare. Almost as a gesture of self-sacrafice, or mocking crucifixion, the embattled president then opened his arms wide and said the things he had done were "... for the good of the country."
Republicans and some Democrats sat motionless as if to remind Mr. Clinton, that clever words, promises, and insulting gestures will not aid in an escape from the legal consequences of his disgraceful conduct in the perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice case for which he is currently on trial as the defendant in the United States Senate.
|
King Day Tribute Backfires
By Mike Rathco, Washington Correspondent
On the eve of State of the Union speech, there
is
another Clinton announcement that is
misleading and untruthful.
WASHINGTON - President Clinton announced what he depicted as "... the settlement," Monday saying the Columbia National Inc., a Maryland savings and loan had, "... agreed to make $6 billion in home mortgage loans available over five years to minorities and low to moderate income families in 28 states."
Mr. Clinton also said "... the company will spend $529 million on programs designed to increase home ownership among minority and poor families."
However, Columbia National said there had been no such settlement. Spokespersons for the savings and loan told reporters Monday, Mr. Clinton made up the $6.5 billion figure. It said it was told by HUD that there was no finding of discrimination.
Making matters worse, Mr. Clinton has scheduled another State of the Union speech in the shadow of the Monica Lewinsky scandal on Tuesday after his lawyers begin their opening statement. They are attempting to mount a plausible defense of the embattled president. The Senate trial has the power to order removing Mr. Clinton from office for telling lies under oath, and obstructing justice in an orchestrated and elaborate effort to conceal his perjury in the Paula Jones federal sexual harassment case brought against him early in his administration.
Mr. Clinton's nationally televised appearance in the House of Representatives was timed by Whitehouse lawyers to appear on national television in the same chamber, on the same date, and at the same hour the House voted Articles of Impeachment last month.
Adding to this charade, the mortgage company is publicly challenging the veracity of the White House Press Release on Monday that it has agreed to a purported "$6.5 billion settlement of discrimination accusations."
The head of Columbia National Inc. denied that the company, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission reached any settlement in the matter.
Chief Executive Officer Dave Gallitano told reporters the only agreement with HUD is to continue the company's mission to bring home mortgage loans to low income families. and that, "The statements released by the Clinton White House and HUD are inaccurate and very misleading."
At issue were vague accusations that Columbia National had not complied with the Fair Housing Act regarding loans to minority and other low income families.
"It's a very awkward situation," said Representative Bob Barr(R) who, along with a dozen House prosecutors spent three full days last week making a very powerful legal argument that Mr. Clinton is not fit to hold public office and should be removed from the presidency by Senate vote.
|