Daily Press Review/Atlantic-Pacific Alliance

Iraq War Today / Less Safe due t= o Iraq? / China, prepared to use nuclear weapons against US / Joe Wilson / Tomorrow y= ou will be in Paradise / US Army Recruits / Jews, Iraqis / The Meaning of Tort= ure / US Investing in Energy-Efficient Vehicles / Canada Joins U.S.-Backed Methane Initiativ= e / Drought resistant crops /= Africa Should Hasten GEO Test Approvals / Environmental cost of the tomato on your plate / How G-8 Killed Kyoto / Articles in Spanish

<= o:p>

I= f you would like to receive any of the following, free of charge, you can request them = to Jorge Mata:

<= o:p>

1= Any US State Dept., US Defense Dep= t., or any other US Government agency article, transcript, press release, briefing report, etc.

2= Any article, roundtable, etc., of Frontpage Magazine (index in http://www.frontpagemag.com), National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com), The National Interest (http://www.nationalinterest.org), Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/current/), The Atlantic (http://www.theatlan= tic.com/issues/current), etc.

<= o:p>

-= ----------------------------------------------------------------------=

T= oday's articles (free of charge, sometimes registration needed):=

<= o:p>

Politics/Economy/Society

- Iraq War Today=

http://iraqwa= rnews.net/2005/07/fallujah-mission.html

- Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe? Why = That's Ridiculous, by C Krauthammer

h= ttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1081384,00.html

Plame security breach? It just ain't so, Joe. By Mark Steyn

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/= cst-edt-steyn17.html

Breeding Stupidity, by Hugh Hewitt

Where does the insistence that the war in Iraq is creat= ing terrorists come from?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/0= 00/000/005/825ijtne.asp?pg=3D1

- China is prepared to = use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attack= ed by Washington during a confro= ntation over Taiwan, a Chinese gene= ral said. By Alexandra Harney in Beijing= and Demetri Sevastopulo and= Edward Alden in Washington

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

- Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccur= acies And Misstatements

http://www.gop.com/New= s/Read.aspx?ID=3D5630

There's a lot we= don't know yet about the CIA flap, by Byron York

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/0= 71405.html

- Are you ready? Tomorrow you will b= e in Paradise= . . ., by Nasra Hassan=

http://w= ww.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1692606,00.html

- Recruits are undaunted by danger, = Mom and Dad, by Katherine Kersten

http://www.sta= rtribune.com/stories/191/5505587.html

Of heroes and hatred, by Oliver North

htt= p://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050715.shtml<= /span>

- The Jews, Michael Ledeen [Jews, Ir= aqis]

http:/= /www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200507130823.asp=

- The Meaning of Torture. By Jamie G= lazov

http:/= /frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3D18796=

Education/Culture

Today there are no articles in this section

<= o:p>

Science/Health

- Genetic clue to drought resistant = crops found, by Sonja van Renssen

http://www.scidev.net/content/news/eng/genetic-clue-= to-drought-resistant-crops-found.cfm

- Africa Should Hasten GMO Test Appr= ovals – Researcher

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/31655/story.htm

- The environmental cost of the toma= to on your plate. By Charles Clover

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2005/0= 7/15/ntomato15.xml

- Canada Joins U.S.-Bac= ked Methane Initiative http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=3Dwashf= ile-english&y=3D2005&m=3DJuly&x=3D20050715164557cmretrop0.93957= 16&t=3Dgi/gi-latest.html

- How G-8 Killed Kyoto<= o:p>

http://= eteam.ncpa.org/eteam_news/20050714etn.html

Technology

- United States Investi= ng $195 Million in Energy-Efficient Vehicles

http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/Jul/14-324945.html

APPLE HAS HELD talks with recording compan= ies about licensing music videos to sell through its iTunes store, a possible prelude to an iPod version that plays video.

Venture-capital firms= Kleiner and Sherpalo plan to announce a $16 million investment in Zazzle.com, a Web site that helps shop= pers add images to such items as T-shirts, cards, posters and postage stamps.

Traders are bidding up Google options and sending = expected stock volatility higher, indicating uncertainty about the stock's near-term movement ahead of the firm's earnings report.

Philips reported<= /b> its net profit jumped 60% i= n the second quarter, boosted by a one-time gain due to the sale of Navteq shares. Overall sales, however, fell 2.7%.

Tata Consultancy Services sa= id net profit rose 34% in its = first quarter from the previous quarter, and India's largest software exporter wi= ll merge with sister firm Tata Infotech.

Sony Ericsson's net profit fell 16%, due to increased = spending on research and development. Sales at the mobile-phone maker rose 7.3%.

Florida law enforcement agen= ts arrested 10 people for ille= gally selling prescription painkillers and other drugs worth more than $10 million through the Internet.

H-P is expected to announce a restructuring= , likely the biggest move undertaken so far by the new CEO, Mark Hurd.

= >>>>>>>>>>> You can request these articles at no charge. Call Jorge Mata at any time to ask.

Copyright &co= py; 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

In Spanish: = La pobreza no causa terroris= mo. Por Jorge Valín http://www.libertaddigital.c= om/opiniones/opi_desa_26052.html

- Calentamiento, consignas y mentira= s. Por Luis Hernández Arroyo http:= //www.libertaddigital.com/opiniones/opi_desa_26024.html

= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D

Wall Street Journal (excerpts)

<= o:p>

R= EVIEW & OUTLOOK

<= o:p>

S= acramento Strikes Back

T= rying to keep gerrymander reform off the ballot.

<= o:p>

S= anctions and Silicosis

T= he O'Quinn firm has had "numerous opportunities to be heard" and should pay = up.

<= o:p>

T= he Madness of Herds

T= he idea that one, or even many, mad cows endanger the U.S. food supply is nonsense.=

<= o:p>

<= o:p>

C= OMMENTARY

<= o:p>

D= ONALD H. RUMSFELD

W= ar of the Words

T= he free flow of information is often our strongest ally.

<= o:p>

D= AVID C. MULFORD

T= wo Great Democracies

A U.S.-India partnership will be crucial in shaping the international landsca= pe of the 21st century.

<= o:p>

E= . FULLER TORREY

P= igeons vs. People

M= oney spent examining pigeons and marriage means less research on what should be NIMH's priority -- severe mental illnesses.

<= o:p>

D= ANNY GITTINGS

G= eneral Zhu Goes Ballistic

T= hreats of nuclear annihilation won't better U.S-China relations.
<= o:p>

<= o:p>

O= PINION EUROPE AND OPINION ASIA

<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

G= lorifying the Radicals

H= atred for the West is a tool of Islamic extremists.

<= o:p>

T= haksin's Wrong Move

T= he attack on Yala brings up the question of what the Thai prime minister's strong-arm= ed tactics have accomplished.

<= o:p>

C= HARLES KRAUTHAMMER

E= urope's Native-Born Enemy

E= urope's second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants are more radicalized than the first

<= o:p>

Copyright &co= py; 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

=

-----------------= ---------------------

Sacramento = Strikes Back
July 18, 2005; Page A12

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is rolling the dice by ordering a November 8 special election that has the potential to end politics-as-usual in California and beyond. So naturally, Sacramento's political elites are fighting back, even= if it means taking the low road.

The governor's reforms include a modest teacher tenure measure that would give principals more time -- five years instead of the current two -- to evaluate new instructors before granting them jobs for life. Another is designed to reduce perpetual government overspending. But Arnold's most potent initiati= ve would transfer the authority to draw California's voting districts from the legislature to a panel of bipartisan retired judges. Of the 153 seats ostensibly up for grabs last November -- 53 Congressional seats and 100 in = the state legislature -- not a single one changed parties.

The current system allows politicians to determine legislative and Congressional boundaries -- which essentially means lawmakers can choose their voters, not vice versa. And it's a system that has resulted in a political class that answers first and foremost to its special interest patrons. This single bal= lot measure would go a very long way toward injecting competition into a politi= cal process in which incumbents currently hold office as long as they like.

The proposition has polled well, so it was no surprise that California's Democrat-controlled legislature, desperate to preserve these sinecures, initially responded with a counterproposal that would allow a seven-member "citizens commission" to redraw districts. A majority of the memb= ers would be chosen by the lawmakers, who would appoint commissioners who do as they're told. Sort of like the puppet regime that Japan set up in China pri= or to World War II.

That plan was going nowhere, when earlier this month state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat and former leader of the state senate, decided to take matters into his own hands by suing to have the Governor's redistricting proposal simply removed from the ballot on a technicality.

Mr. Lockyer says he's just doing his job. And there are discrepancies between t= he redistricting petition circulated for signatures and the version sent to his office for review, which is the basis for the suit. But these are minor by = any reasonable interpretation -- e.g., using the word "select" rather than "appoint," or "provided" instead of "specified" -- and in no way deceitful.

Mr. Lockyer, who's running for state Treasurer next year, clearly has his own agenda and a history of using the AG's office -- which titles and summarizes initiatives -- to make partisan mischief. His outrage seems more selective = than principled, and it's hard to believe he would be filing lawsuits based on semantics if these discrepancies were attached to a ballot measure for universal preschool or higher taxes for education.

The initiative is now in the hands of a judge, who last week denied a motion by= the Democratic Assembly Speaker and Democratic Senate Pro Tem to join Mr. Locky= er's supposedly nonpartisan suit. A hearing is set for later this month, but in = the meantime these actions demonstrate just how far the Sacramento political cl= ass will go to preserve its fiefdoms.

The latest chatter is that the Legislature might be willing to accept the Governor's redistricting plan if he would back a constitutional amendment t= hat loosens the current legislative term limits. But the only way to alter the incumbent mindset that plagues the political class is to create conditions = for competitive elections. Loosening the term limit law would have the opposite effect.

Some 80 citizen initiatives have been filed with California's Secretary of State this year, not all of them helpful. But Californians keep resorting to dire= ct democracy because their politicians are shielded from voter accountability.= Mr. Schwarzenegger's determination to challenge this cozy status quo has made h= im the target of tens of millions of dollars in union-financed attack ads and = his approval rating has fallen as a result. Taking reform to the voters is risk= y, but in doing so Arnold is simply keeping his word. If California wanted a risk-averse Governor, it would have stuck with Gray Davis.

-----------------= ---------------------

Sanctions a= nd Silicosis
July 18, 2005; Page A12

We'd like to apologize to the law firm of O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle for misstating the amount of its fine in our editorial last week on silicosis l= egal fraud in Texas. We reported that Judge Janis Graham Jack had required the O'Quinn firm to pay all $825,000 of the defendants' legal fees, but the real figure is 1% of that amount.

No one should think, however, that this lesser sanction is due to any lesser disgust by Judge Jack with the firm's legal practices, or for that matter t= he practices of the other plaintiffs' firms that worked alongside O'Quinn. The federal judge had ruled on 111 silicosis cases -- involving about 10,000 plaintiffs -- remanding most to state courts with a blistering judgment abo= ut their illegitimacy. The one case over which she said she clearly had jurisdiction, filed by the O'Quinn firm, contained about 100 plaintiffs, or about 1% of the total.

In other words, Judge Jack felt that under the law she could sanction O'Quinn = only for the claims that fell within her jurisdiction. However, at her March 14 sanctions hearing she also made clear that, if she had her way, everyone involved in bringing these fraudulent suits would come in for penalties, in= cluding the doctors who had delivered bogus silicosis diagnoses. She said her real = wish was to "sanction all the Plaintiffs' lawyers to go to those doctors for the rest of their lives . . . themselves, their children and their grandchildren."

O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle requested another hearing on the sanctions because, as partner Richard Laminack told us on Friday, the judge "was wrong." But later on Friday came news that Judge Jack had rejected that request. She issued a brief order saying the O'Quinn firm had already had "numerous opportunities to be heard" and ordered it to pay up, promptly.

-----------------= ---------------------

The Madness= of Herds
July 18, 2005; Page A12

Remember mad-cow disease -- how it was going to be the next AIDS epidemic? Back in t= he late 1990s, there were predictions that the human form of the brain-wasting ailm= ent would soon take a heavy toll, "potentially even hundreds of thousands = of deaths," according to journalist John Stauber, who co-wrote a book on = the subject. Over in Europe, billions of pounds and euros were spent, and milli= ons of healthy cows slaughtered, to avert prospective catastrophe.

We are reminded of this history on more recent, and happier, mad-cow news. On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an injunction by a federal judge in Montana extending a ban on the importation of Canadian cat= tle and certain cuts of Canadian meat. The Bush administration imposed that ban= in May 2003 after a solitary mad Canadian cow was found, then sought to lift it over the objections of a protectionist ranchers lobby. This follows on last month's news that a Texas cow was diagnosed with the disease, making it America's first homegrown case.

In case you're wondering why the discovery of a mad American cow is good news,= one answer is that it shatters the protectionists' alibi that our cattle herds = were safe while those of other countries weren't. Since Canadian and U.S. beef safety standards are almost identical, it's no wonder the Ninth Circuit rul= ed as it did.

As it is, the idea that one, or even many, = mad cows endanger the U.S. food supply is nonsense. The U.S. has banned the use= of meat and bone meal in cattle feed, long considered the chief vector of the disease, for almost a decade. America's cattle population is subject to rou= tine and intensive monitoring, with 400,000 cows tested in the last year alone. = The brain and spinal cord tissue of animals 30 months or older -- the most infectious parts of the most at-risk animals -- are banned from entering the U.S. food supply.

More to the point, the supposed link between eating infected tissue and acquiring the human form of mad-cow disease (known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disea= se, or vCJD) is in doubt. The first case of mad-cow disease was detected in Bri= tain in the 1980s, during which an estimated 700,000 infected animals were thoug= ht to have entered the human food stream. Epidemiological evidence suggests th= at vCJD has a very long incubation period, in the five to 25 year range. Thus = we should now be witnessing skyrocketing rates of infection. Instead, as the nearby table shows, cases of vCJD peaked in 2000 at 28 (yes, only 28) world-wide and have been declining ever since, with just nine cases in 2004. Epidemiologists now believe the ultimate toll from the disease will not exc= eed 200.

Yet even as the incidence of the disease falls, the protectionist consequences = have risen. The administration should have known better when it slapped the ban = on Canadian cattle and beef, because it was just a matter of time before a mad= cow would show up in a U.S. herd. Sure enough, in December 2003 a Canadian-born= mad cow was found in Washington state. And sure enough, some 50 countries put b= ans on American beef, including Japan, South Korea and Mexico. Japan's ban still holds, representing the loss of what was once a $1.7 billion market for the U.S. cattle industry.

Matters are even worse on the Canadian front. Prior to the ban, the U.S. imported a= bout one million head of cattle per year, many of which went to slaughterhouses = and meat-packing plants in northern states. Those plants are now at risk of bei= ng shut down; already, 7,800 jobs have been lost to protectionism. Then there = is the cost to consumers: Beef prices have risen by 20% since the ban took eff= ect, no small price to pay for burying one mad cow.

If there was ever a textbook case of faulty science having disastrous policy results, this is it. There's a lesson here for the Bush administration, whi= ch has tried this game before with its steel tariffs and softwood lumber ploys= . We can only be grateful that the Ninth Circuit has rescued the administration = -- and a good-sized chunk of an American industry -- from the consequences of = its short-term thinking.

-----------------= ---------------------

War of the = Words

By DONALD H. RUMSFELD
July 18, 2005; Page A12

Every conflict in history has seen its share of rumor, propaganda and misinformat= ion. The "yellow journalism" that helped launch the Spanish-American W= ar and the infamous radio broadcasts of "Tokyo Rose" during World Wa= r II come to mind. But the information technology of the 21st century has made waging an ideological global struggle against extremism particularly comple= x. Decision makers, the media and the public at large will need to come to terms with t= he effect of these new realities. The old adage that "A lie can be half-w= ay around the world before truth has its boots on" becomes doubly true wi= th today's technology.

But, it must be noted, the availability of new communications media can inform a= nd illuminate as well as lead to new challenges. I think of how much has chang= ed just in my lifetime. In earlier wars, Americans, for the most part, were limited to a few definitive news sources -- Edward R. Murrow during World W= ar II, for example, or Walter Cronkite during Vietnam -- to get information th= at had been packaged and approved for presentation to the public.

Think of all the new doors that since have been opened. Today we have multiple global-satellite-television networks; 24-hour news coverage; dozens of dome= stic and international television channels devoted to news, commentary and analy= sis; talk radio; bloggers and the Internet; and live coverage of terrorist attac= ks, disasters and combat operations.

Consider a few of the other changes we are experiencing today. In previous wars, rig= ht up through Operation Desert Storm in 1991, families and loved ones communic= ated with the troops using what is now dismissively referred to as "snail mail." Letters often took weeks to reach their destination. Today, ema= il, cell phones and digital cameras give every citizen and soldier global reach near instantaneously. Something that is happening, or that a person may thi= nk is happening, in one location is instantaneously transmitted to multiple addresses halfway around the world across digital networks.

The Department of Defense is working to find ways to adapt to these new realiti= es, as we must, and to try to better inform the public of our many and varied activities on their behalf. And like other large unwieldy bureaucracies, we= are doing this through a process of trial and error, and, therefore, imperfectl= y.

At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Department of Defense decided= to "embed" hundreds of reporters in U.S. military units, with few re= strictions on what they could broadcast or publish. This was a risk, but it has been judged by most accounts a great success -- indeed a breakthrough. As a resu= lt, journalists -- and because of them, many more Americans -- received a great= er understanding of the realities of the conflict, as well as of the sacrifices undertaken daily by America's men and women in uniform. This added consider= able texture to the nuance and perspective of the overall news coverage.

We have also posted increasing amounts of information -- including transcripts= of interviews and speeches -- on the Department's Web page (www.Defenselink.mil) to enable= the public to inform themselves directly about the military's activities. Follo= wing the publicity of allegations of detainee abuse, the Pentagon even declassif= ied and published memoranda pertaining to interrogation techniques and detainee policies.

I have long believed in the importance of granting the public greater access = to information about their government -- the good and the bad. Almost four decades ago, wh= ile serving as a member of Congress, I was a co-sponsor of the legislation later called the "Freedom of Information Act" that allows individual citizens and the press to obtain access to public documents, absent a showi= ng by the government of a need to keep certain information confidential.<= /o:p>

That law has opened up a flood of new information, but it has also added new challenges to policy makers attempting to comply with those requests. Last = year alone, for example, the federal government received nearly three million requests for documents. And though many of the documents released have been informative, the release and subsequent news coverage of others have actual= ly had the opposite effect of fully informing the public when presented selectively without relevant context.

The challenge of conveying accurate and complete information is multiplied when= it comes to the battle of perceptions beyond our borders. In the Middle East we have an enemy that is using the various types of media to try to poison the minds of people in that region about the intentions and actions of the U.S.= and other countries. We see this in Web sites that propagandize hate and despair and that have turned the gruesome murder of innocents into grist for terrorists. We see it in purposely misleading broadcasts that say, for exam= ple, that U.S. forces target civilians.

Yet even in that region, where information historically has been tightly controlled, the advance of technology is forcing a greater information flow= . Internet blogs are appearing in countries where the press is still controlled by the government. Pro-democracy forces are communicating by email, pagers and blackberries. As more citizens gain access to new forms of information, to = new ways of learning of the outside world, it will be that much more difficult = for governments to cement their rule by holding monopolies on news and commenta= ry.

* * *
As America adjusts to this new Information Age, I suggest the following notion= s as part of the discussion:

• First, government officials will need to communicate clearly a= nd often. When a government official is found to have put out information that= is not exactly correct or fully complete -- even in good faith -- it plays into the hands of our enemies, who seize on any fault to try to harm the American system.<= br>
• Second, a healthy culture of communication a= nd transparency between government and the public needs to be established. Due= to the ubiquitous sources of information and access, most things -- controvers= ial or not -- become known eventually. But they become known unhelpfully when t= hey dribble out piecemeal or in highly selective excerpts -- as opposed to being presented early, in full and with appropriate context.
=

This openness, however, does not obviate the necessity of protecting the secrecy= of confidential information that, if revealed, could harm the security of the = U.S. While I have long believed that too much material is classified across the federal government as a general rule, an increasingly cavalier attitude tow= ards sensitive information in various quarters can put the lives of our troops at correspondingly increasing risk.

• Lastly, government officials must find new and better ways to communicate America's mission abroad. This will mean embracing new ways of engaging people across the world, as the U.S. Information Agency and Radio = Free Europe did during the Cold War. We will need to find ways to use the capabilities offered by the Information Age to counter the toxic images and lies that target the U.S. and to better inform the world about our nation's efforts.=
=

I have no doubt that free and well-informed people can and will sift through = the increasing volumes of information and over time develop a balanced view of = our government, our Armed Forces, and our values and principles. The American system of openness works and I know our country will ultimately benefit, as= we always have, from being on the side of freedom.

Mr. Rumsfeld is secretary of defense.

-----------------= ---------------------

Two Great Democracies

By DAVID C. MULFORD
July 18, 2005; Page A12

U.S.-India relations are at an all-time high as President Bush welcomes Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington today. Our two great pluralistic democracies a= re now positioned for a partnership that will be crucial in shaping the international landscape of the 21st century. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently said, "the United States is serious about its vision= for the U.S.-India relationship," and welcomes India's ambition to become a world power.

Secretary Rice's first visit to India in March marked three important areas for expan= sion of the U.S.-India strategic partnership: economic policies; a formal dialog= ue on India's energy requirements, including civil nuclear; and strategic and military issues. Our respective private sectors will play a key role in all these areas.

The U.S. commitment to develop deep economic and commercial ties with India has never been stronger. U.S. exports to India are up by 50% and India's by 15%= for the first quarter of 2005. The recent Open Skies Agreement with India is already increasing air traffic, and India is finalizing a large order for Boeing aircraft. Our revitalized Economic Dialogue focuses on finance, trad= e, commerce, energy and the environment.

Private enterprise and free markets are key to long-term progress. Effective public-private cooperation will address economic growth and development challenges far more effectively than micromanagement by governments. Govern= ments after all are not the creators of wealth, the makers of markets, the wellsp= ring of human energy and ingenuity. These are the productive forces of individua= ls, which governments must make special efforts to promote. Business activity a= nd people-to-people engagement will be critical to the transformation of U.S.-India relations.

Nevertheless, governments play an important role in setting the ground rules for much business activity. Prime Minister Singh has put economic reform at the top = of India's agenda. I recognize that these reforms must be politically viable to survive, yet there are a number of mutually beneficial strategic reforms th= at could contribute significantly to India's progress and encourage American business to invest in India's future.

The most prominent challenge is world-class infrastructure, which India must provide as a platform for higher sustained growth to achieve its vision of becoming a world power. Infrastructure is now a national priority, but brin= ging together federal and state authorities and public and private players is ju= st beginning, and remains a tall order. Political stakes are high because those leaders who provide infrastructure to India's rural and urban millions will gain lasting popular support. Infrastructure challenges are complicated by = the fact that India's federal and state fiscal deficits severely restrict neces= sary finances for development. India must invigorate private sources to finance long-term project development.

This means that the regulatory environment and attitudes towards private investm= ent in infrastructure at the federal and state level must change. Investors need greater confidence to undertake infrastructure investments, especially in t= he power sector, where our new Energy Dialogue promotes increased trade and investment, including in civilian nuclear power.

Liberalization of India's financial markets would have significant positive ripple effects throughout the economy. Chronic budget deficits derive in part from wasteful government subsidies. Developing a truly long-term capital market that taps India's vast private savings must be a key objective, together with fiscal restraint and creative private-sector financial engineering that reduces government's "crowding out" in India's financial markets. Reducing government's dominance in banking is vital to these reforms as is lifting t= he ceiling on foreign direct investment in insurance and liberalizing India's emerging pension industry, with greater private participation and increased freedom for both foreign and domestic banks to invest in India's rising economy.

Continued progress in intellectual property rights, or IPR, is also helping India att= ract more U.S. investment in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. We share a major interest in science and technology, and India is proving to be a world-class player in these fields. As IPR protection improves, U.S. companies will bec= ome major investors, contributing capital, top quality science and technology, global management expertise, and new jobs.

Liberalization of India's retail sector is another strategic reform vital to India's future development. Today, India effectively prohibits foreign investment in the retail industry and permits a variety of restrictive practices favoring countless middlemen and preserving internal barriers that raise costs to India's consumers. International giants like Wal-Mart buy billions of dolla= rs of goods in India annually to sell to foreign consumers. Current Indian law prohibits these same companies from selling goods to consumers in India. Li= kewise, agricultural reform and higher growth may be hampered without commensurate liberalization in retail and related businesses.

Increasingly it is understood in India that much can be gained from bold initiatives that liberalize India's economy and, in turn, generate popular political support= . Such reform will improve living standards in ways the average citizen can feel a= nd understand. Political credit will accrue to those in government with the vi= sion to effect such change. Impressive results in the IT and telecom sectors alr= eady demonstrate the dynamic of less regulation, free foreign direct investment, freer trade in services, and consumer benefit. Broadening our investment in both directions is firmly in the interests of both our countries.

Finally, we must extend our growing strategic relationship. Cooperation on political issues -- from promotion of democracy abroad to global peace-keeping operations, to combating terrorism and WMD threats -- are at the core of the bilateral relationship. Defense cooperation has reached new levels and mili= tary cooperation in the tsunami disaster was unprecedented. A new defense relationship agreement signed recently by Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee= and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will guide our defense relations for t= he next decade in a wide variety of areas, including the enlargement of two-way defense trade, improved interoperability, co-production and greater technol= ogy transfer.

Prime Minister Singh's visit to the U.S. will mark the next stage as the world's = two largest multicultural democracies reach for new heights in their relationsh= ip.

Mr. Mulford is the U.S. ambassador to India.=

-----------------= ---------------------

Pigeons vs.= People

By E. FULLER TORREY
July 18, 2005; Page A12

On June 24, Congressman Randy Neugebauer successfully attached an amendment to= the 2006 appropriations bill for the National Institute of Mental Health. The amendment, which passed the House by voice vote, prohibits the use of feder= al funds for two NIMH research studies. One study, which has cost more than $1= .5 million over 15 years, examines how pigeons classify objects into categorie= s. The other, which has cost $750,000 over five years, assesses the effect of self-esteem of newlyweds on their marriage.

As Rep. Neugebauer made clear, he is not opposing these studies because he is against pigeons or marriage but rather because they are examples of NIMH's failure to focus research resources on what should be its foremost priority= -- severe mental illnesses. Contrary to rumor, governmental coffers are not bottomless; money spent examining pigeons and marriage means less research = on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, autism, etc. Three studies in recent years have documented NIMH's failure to prioritize research for severe mental illnesse= s. Indeed, a 2003 study that I co-authored concluded that only one in 17 NIMH research awards was "clinically relevant" insofar as anyone currently suffering from a severe mental illness had any likelihood of benefiting fro= m it.

* * *
Finding examples of egregious NIMH research awards is not difficult. In any given y= ear, NIMH supports between 10 and 20 studies of pigeons, and the NIMH research portfolio bulges with grants to examine marriage, adolescence, happiness and other aspects of human behavior. Now in its 19th year and at a total cost of almost $2 million, one noteworthy award fuels the quest to determine why ma= le Japanese quails are attracted to female Japanese quails. In 1988, the grant received one of Sen. William Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards, yet it has be= en continuously funded ever since.

Some of these research projects have merit and could get the funding they need f= rom a more appropriate source. For instance, the National Science Foundation was created to fund basic research, such as how pigeons think. And it is the mission of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to address issues of adolescence and marriage. NIMH's charge is research on se= vere psychiatric disorders. Thus, when NIMH fails to do its job, we do not know whether bipolar disorder is increasing in children, whether SSRI antidepressants really cause suicides, or how to find more effective drugs = for treating schizophrenia. On economic grounds alone, NIMH's failure to do more research on severe mental illnesses is foolish; the annual cost of these illnesses is now more than $40 billion in federal Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, = and SSDI funds and is rising rapidly.

Rep. Neugebauer has been publicly criticized for second-guessing the NIMH peer-r= eview process, which has been called the "gold standard" in research evaluation. "Gilt-edged" is a more appropriate term; anyone who h= as sat on an NIMH review panel is aware that cronyism and scientific correctne= ss are rampant. And when you pack the review committee with pigeon researchers, more pigeon research is funded. The priorities of NIMH have become distorted over many years. Dr. Thomas Insel, current NIMH director, is working dilige= ntly to correct these priorities but is meeting with major opposition, both from within NIMH and from special interest groups without.

Rep. Neugebauer should be commended for focusing congressional attention on a failing federal research program. It is both fiscally and scientifically responsible to do so. If other members of Congress emulated him, we would h= ave better federal programs and a lower federal deficit. Congress was not creat= ed to simply write checks but rather to also provide oversight.

Dr. Torrey is president of the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlingto= n, Va. (www.psychlaws.org), a nation= al nonprofit organization working to eliminate barriers to treatment of severe mental illness.

-----------------= ---------------------

General Zhu= Goes Ballistic

By DANNY GITTINGS
July 18, 2005; Page A13

BEIJING -- It could hardly have come at a worse time for Beijing. When Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the People's Liberation Army warned last week that U.S. military "interference" in a conflict over Taiwan could lead to a Chinese nuclear attack on the U.S., he reinforced every worst fear of a "China threat." What's worse, indeed almost comical, is that he made the comm= ent to me and a handful of other foreign correspondents who had been invited he= re by Beijing in an effort to improve China's international image.<= /span>

Recent warnings about Beijing's military buildup suddenly took on a very real significance, and the cloud cast by the general's threat is likely to inten= sify pressure on the Bush administration to take a tougher line with China over everything from Cnooc's bid for Unocal to revaluation of the yuan.

Despite these potentially devastating consequences, it was clear to those of us who witnessed last Thursday's warning that it was no accidental outburst. I'd b= een asking about possible Chinese tactics in the event of a conventional war ov= er Taiwan, when the general responded to my question by raising the stakes dramatically:

"According to the balance of power between the United States and China we have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," the= PLA hard-liner told me. "If the Americans interfere into the conflict, if = the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition into the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons."

Almost too stunned to respond, I offered Gen. Zhu a chance to back down -- or at l= east qualify the circumstances under which China would unleash its nuclear missi= les against "hundreds of, or two hundreds" of American cities. Presum= ably, I suggested, he was only talking about the unlikely scenario of a U.S. atta= ck on mainland Chinese soil. No, the general replied, a nuclear response would= be justified even if it was just a conventional attack on a Chinese aircraft or warship -- something very likely if Washington honored its commitment to he= lp defend Taiwan against an invasion by Beijing.

A fellow correspondent offered Gen. Zhu another escape route, reminding him t= hat China had a longstanding policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. But the general brushed that aside as well, saying the policy could be changed and = was only really intended to apply to conflicts with nonnuclear states in any ca= se. Afterward he made only half-hearted efforts to dissuade us from publishing what he insisted was purely his personal view and said he thought there was unlikel= y to be a war.

In Washington, the first ramifications of Gen. Zhu's comments are already being felt. The State Department denounced the general's remarks as "highly irresponsible," and at least one congressman has called for a review of diplomatic ties with China. A Pentagon report on the growing pace of China's military buildup, due to be released within the next few days, is likely to intensify calls for tougher action.

But to PLA hard-liners, all this is of secondary importance. After all, if the likes of Gen. Zhu are prepared to contemplate the "destruction of all [Chinese] cities east of Xian" in order to capture democratic Taiwan -- which Beijing insists is part of China -- they are unlikely to lose any sle= ep if outrage over his remarks derails Cnooc's bid for Unocal.

A self-professed "warmonger," the general has often previously warn= ed of a nuclear war over Taiwan -- most recently at a panel discussion earlier this year with Admiral Dennis Blair, the former commander-in-chief of the U= .S. Pacific Command, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Chas. Freem= an.

That doesn't mean his comments reflect Chinese military strategy. Beijing doesn't have enough nuclear warheads to target hundreds of American cities, and more senior figures in the PLA presumably realize that attacking even one would = mean the end of Communist rule as well as most of China. Nor is Gen. Zhu an influential policy maker -- as dean of international fellows at China's National Defense University his main job is running exchange programs for visiting senior foreign military officers.

But the general's career hasn't suffered from his outspokenness. He was promoted two ranks in 2004 and continues to meet foreign visitors despite his habit = of making controversial remarks. Even if Gen. Zhu's views don't represent offi= cial policy, China's top brass evidently see advantages in allowing such sentime= nts to be disseminated to an international audience.

Nor is he the only Chinese general to have warned of nuclear war if the U.S. co= mes to Taiwan's defense. Senior Col. Luo Yuan, of the Academy of Military Scien= ce, has voiced similar sentiments. So too has Gen. Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff, who was famously quoted as warning Mr. Freem= an in 1995 that Americans "care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei."

The likely goal of these repeated threats is to sow the idea in Washington that China might actually be crazy enough to initiate a nuclear exchange, even though it would amount to political and military suicide. "It's a stra= tegy of perception management," said Larry Wortzel, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has known Gen. Zhu for more than a decade. "One objective is to put enough doubt in the minds of the American public that t= hey will think it's not worth going to war over Taiwan."=

As demonstrated by the backlash following Gen. Zhu's remarks, that is a counterproductive strategy which only makes the China threat look even more alarming. Some in Beijing evidently realize that China has a PR problem -- otherwise we wouldn't have been invited on last week's trip. But they don't have the clout to take on the PLA -- indeed even President Hu Jintao has tr= ead cautiously since taking up the chairmanship of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Military Commission last year. And, judging from my experience last week, the PLA seem to be the ones calling the shots over Taiwan -- whatever= the cost to China's international image.

Mr. Gittings is The Asian Wall Street Journal's deputy editorial-page editor.

-----------------= ---------------------

Glorifying = the Radicals
July 18, 2005

Last Friday, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke outlined government plans to = ban even indirect statements of support for terror and violence. One can of cou= rse wonder whether this might unduly limit freedom of speech. But without a dou= bt, this legal initiative is the result of the moral failure of British and Eur= opean institutions, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, to act as gatekeepers and reject extreme positions as acceptable political arguments in Western democratic societies.

Instead of shunning Islamic radicals, many in the mainstream media and political establishment present them as moderates and repeat their justifications for terrorism. The London attacks produced only a brief moment of polite restra= int. By Wednesday, less than a week after the July 7 bombings in London that cla= imed 55 lives, the Guardian apparently had no second thoughts about publishing an article by Dilpazier Aslam, one of its trainee journalists. In it, Mr. Aslam argued that the British have no right to be shocked by the attacks since th= at would, "suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own."

He was referring to Iraq of course. Before joining the Guardian, Mr. Aslam, who calls himself "a Yorkshire lad, born and bred," had been working = for the London-based Web site Khilafa.com. There he coauthored an article telli= ng Muslims why they should excel in sciences: "We will have to run an Isl= amic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically."

Last Thursday, the BBC invited Azam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain = to present a film about what he considers to be the reasons for the terrorist attacks. In the film, Mr. Tamimi interviews young British Muslims ostensibly angry about Iraq and Palestine and concludes that the way to prevent this "killing of the innocents for the sins of the guilty," is to chan= ge Britain's foreign policy.

During the subsequent panel discussion, Mr. Tamimi, a former spokesman for the Mus= lim Brotherhood in Jordan, repeated his previous glorifications of Palestinian suicide bombers, but insisted that supporting such attacks could not possib= ly encourage British Muslims to do the same in the U.K. The BBC presenter, Gev= in Esler, only feebly challenged Mr. Tamimi's support for murdering Jews in Israel. Instead, he gave the last word on this matter to Asghar Bukhari, ch= ief executive of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, who promptly backed Mr. Tamimi without reservations. "I couldn't agree more," he said.

Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who impressed the world with his near-Churchillian defiance and who now wants to curtail indirect incitement, fell into the root-cause trap when he suggested shortly after the attacks t= hat the Middle East conflict was one of the reasons for terrorism.

The obvious moral fallacy is trying to explain, let alone justify, terrorism wi= th foreign policy grievances some Muslims may have. Even this "anger" that so-called Muslim representatives like to talk about isn't spontaneous outrage that this community feels for the suffering of their co-religionists wherever they may be. Instead, it's highly selective. Consider the lack of outrage among such spokespersons over the genocide in Sudan, where already = up to 300,000 Muslims have been slaughtered by a radical Islamic regime, or the thousands of innocent Iraqis, including two dozen children last week, who h= ave been killed by Baathists and Islamic terrorists.

Rather, this "anger" is carefully fomented, nurtured and channeled exclusively towards those conflicts where Muslims fight non-Muslims. So sim= ply to point at this supposed fury and demand policy changes is not only morally reprehensible but also disingenuous. This anger at the West that many Muslim leaders encourage is a political tool of radical Islam rather than one of i= ts alleged causes.

* * *
Much is being said these days that the Muslim communities in Britain, Europe and elsewhere must do more to ostracize radicals in their midst. In a survey of five Muslim countries by the Pew Research Center, support for Osama bin Lad= en and suicide bombings has declined but is still intolerably high. Opinion ra= nges from 18% of those sampled in Morocco to 88% in Jordan who say that violence against civilian targets is justified in at least some circumstances. Anoth= er study last year found that 13% of British Muslims support terror attacks against the U.S.

Such polls are tricky, since the circumstances in which they are asked, and the wording, can flip the results. But they give Europe's political organizers = of Muslims a sense of self-justification. The community contributed in great numbers to the millions of people who demonstrated against the Iraq war throughout Europe.

It would be gratifying to see more responsible leadership. Muslim clerics in Britain would improve their image if they emulated their Spanish colleagues= who issued a fatwa against al Qaeda after the bombings in Madrid. No better mom= ent than now for truly moderate Muslims who eschew violence without qualificati= on to claim a leadership role from the extremists. A good start would be for t= hem to question the widely held canard among their co-religionists that Muslims= are the victims of a Western conspiracy.

But the outlook is not promising. As long as the collusion between leftist journalists and politicians and the more radical Muslim leaders continues, = the moderates will have a hard time getting heard.

-----------------= ---------------------

Thaksin's Wrong Move
July 18, 2005

Centralizing all powers on a single individual has one saving grace. If things don't work out, no one will have any doubt about whom to blame. This is something Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra should bear in mind.

Mr. Thaksin assumed sweeping emergency powers Friday after Muslim militants sta= ged a daring attack that plunged a southern provincial capital into darkness. R= esponsibilities that rested with military commanders will now be centralized within his off= ice. Other extraordinary powers he has awarded himself include the ability to cl= ose publications and arrest Thais without warrants or prevent them from leaving= the country. He will also be able to declare curfews.

Mr. Thaksin saw fit to assume these authoritarian powers after 60-odd Islamic radicals successfully laid siege to a city of 150,000 and killed two securi= ty officers. The attack on Yala began late Thursday. The rebels bombed a power station -- knocking it out of operation -- as well as hotels, restaurants, police posts, department and convenience stores. There is no doubt that this attack marks a turning point in an 18-month rebellion in mostly Muslim sout= hern Thailand. Attacks previously were scattered, though deadly. Almost 1,000 persons have been killed in the southern provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani since the start of 2004. A city has now been attacked and brought t= o a standstill.

But as well as adding new gravity to the situation, the attack last week brings= up the question of what Mr. Thaksin's past strong-armed tactics have accomplis= hed. Some 78 Muslims were suffocated or crushed to death last October in a police truck, hardly a way to win hearts and minds.

With the latest decree -- which the cabinet agreed to in an emergency meeting hurriedly called hours after the attack -- the prime minister is out of step with those large areas of the world that are increasingly embracing liberal democracy. His own attempts to compare his measures to the situation in the U.S. after 9/11 are disingenuous. The president of the U.S. has at no time invoked or requested emergency powers that abridge the constitutional right= s of American citizens.

We empathize with the problems the Thai prime minister is encountering, but he should remember that Thai democracy is young, and still fragile. Fortunatel= y, there are institutions that will not be easy for an elected politician to override. Newspapers and universities have had their say since the governme= nt announced the harsh measures on Friday. The Nation newspaper in a front-page editorial on Saturday called the decree a "solution more worrying than= the problem," and one that "could plunge the whole of Thailand into something much darker than the widespread blackout."=

Constitutionally, the decree granting Mr. Thaksin all these extraordinary powers must also be signed by King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The monarch is revered to a degree that = has no parallel among other constitutional monarchies, such as Britain or Japan= . Like Spain's King Juan Carlos, he has taken a hand in the past in checking the p= ower of those who would hijack democracy.

For the sake of Thailand's future, one hopes that other institutions will persu= ade the prime minister that he is on the wrong course. Democracy is a defense against radicalism, not a source, and should have been employed more effectively to relieve the ethnic resentments in the troubled south. By resorting to what comes very close to martial law, Mr. Thaksin risks destro= ying the very instrument that can solve his problem.

-----------------= ---------------------

Europe's Native-Born Enemy

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
The Washington Post
July 18, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Last Nov. 2, Theo van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker and descendant of the painte= r, was cycling through Amsterdam. He was accosted by Mohammed Bouyeri, who shot him six times as Van Gogh pleaded "We can still talk about it! Don't do it!" Bouyeri then cut his throat with a kitchen knife, severing his he= ad all the way to his spine. Bouyeri was not done. He then took a five-page Islamist manifesto and with his knife impaled it on van Gogh's chest.<= /o:p>

On trial now in Holland, Bouyeri is unrepentant. In court he turned to van Gog= h's grieving mother, and with infinite cruelty said to her, "I do not feel your pain." He feels instead glory. Van Gogh had made a short film abo= ut the oppression of Muslim women. Bouyeri was acting "purely in the name= of my religion," championing his faith by butchering a filmmaker critical= of it.

Bouyeri is no newly arrived immigrant. Nor is he, like the 9/11 hijackers, a cosmopolitan terrorist sent abroad to kill. He is native born and bred in Holland. As were three of the four London bombers, who were second-generati= on Pakistani Brits.

The most remarkable discovery is that Europe's second- and third-generation Mus= lim immigrants are more radicalized than the first. One reasonably non-political and non-radical Muslim activist, raised in the suburbs of Paris, explained himself to The Wall Street Journal as having "immigrated to France at = the local maternity ward."

The fact that native-born Muslim Europeans are committing terror acts within th= eir own countries shows that this Islamist malignancy long predates Iraq, long predates Afghanistan and long predates 9/11. What Europe had incubated is an enemy within, a threat that for decades Europe simply refused to face.=

Early news reports of the London bombings mentioned that police found no suspects among known Islamist cells in Britain. Come again? Why in God's name is a country letting known Islamist cells thrive, instead of just rolling them u= p?

British Islamists had spoken of a "covenant of security" under which Brit= ain would be spared Islamic terror so long as it allowed radical clerics free r= ein. Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, for example, a Syrian-born, exiled Saudi cleric granted asylum 19 years ago, openly preaches jihad against Britain. He is sought by the press for comment all the time. And, a lovely touch, he actua= lly lives on the British dole -- even though he rejects the idea of British citizenship, saying, "I don't want to become a citizen of hell."<= o:p>

One of the reasons Westerners were so unprepared for this wave of Islamist terrorism, not just militarily but psychologically, is sheer disbelief. It shockingly contradicts Western notions of progress. The savagery of Bouyeri= 's act, mirroring the ritual human slaughter by Zarqawi or Daniel Pearl's beheaders, is a return to a primitiveness that we in the West had assumed a progressive history had left behind.

But the problem is far deeper. It is essentially a civil war within a rival civilization in which the most primitive elements are seeking to gain the u= pper hand. 9/11 forced us to intervene massively in this civil war, which is why= we are in Iraq. There, as in Afghanistan, we have enlisted millions of Muslims= on the anti-Islamist side.

But what about the vast majority of European Muslims, the 99% who are peace-lov= ing and not engaged in terror? They must also join the fight. They must actively denounce not just -- what is obvious -- the terror attacks, but their sourc= e: Islamist ideology and its practitioners.

A modest beginning might be removing the likes of Sheik Omar -- and Bouyeri -- from the teat of the infidel taxpayer. "He (Bouyeri) had the time to p= lan this," van Gogh's mother told the court, "because for three years= he was on unemployment benefits." Decadence is defined not by a civilization's art or music but ultimately by its willingness to simply def= end itself.