#
WIN-WIN SOLUTION TO NORTH KOREAN CRISIS
MAINTENANCE
Donald Trump would be ‘honored’ to meet Kim Jong Un
President Trump said Monday he would “be honored” to meet with ruthless North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un amid heightened tensions over the rogue regime’s nuclear-weapons program.
“If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would, absolutely. I would be honored to do it,” Trump told Bloomberg News.
“If it’s under the, again, under the right circumstances. But I would
do that,” said the president, who a day earlier had called Kim “a
pretty smart cookie” on CBS News.
North Korea’s saber-rattling has turned into the greatest
national-security threat and foreign-policy issue facing Trump in his
first 100 days.
Kim’s regime has stepped up development of its nuclear program, despite international condemnation and sanctions.
The murderous strongman — who has had his own family members executed
— has never met with a foreign leader since taking charge after his
father’s death in 2011.
“Most political people would never say that,” Trump said of his
willingness to meet with Kim, “but I’m telling you: Under the right
circumstances I would meet with him. We have breaking news.”
The White House later defended the president’s comments, saying that Kim, 33, had led his “country forward.”
“He assumed power at a young age when his father passed away. And
there was a lot of potential threats that could have come his way, and
he’s obviously managed to lead a country forward, despite the obvious
concerns that we and so many people have,” said Trump press secretary
Sean Spicer.
But Spicer added that Trump would not meet with Kim until certain
“conditions” were met — such as toning down the threats and stopping
missile and bomb tests. “Clearly, conditions are not there right now,”
he said.
Spicer also addressed Trump’s unexpected White House invitation to Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who is accused of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects.
Spicer said Trump had been fully briefed about Duterte’s human-rights
abuses but was trying to find Pacific Rim partners to help isolate
North Korea.
Meanwhile, CIA Chief Mike Pompeo made a surprise trip to South Korea over the weekend — just as North Korea defied Trump by vowing to strengthen its nuclear-weapons program “to the maximum.”
The visit came after North Korea conducted another missile test on
Saturday, and as a spokesman for the North Korean government warned that
more tests would be coming.
“Now that the US is kicking up the overall racket for sanctions and
pressure against the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], pursuant
to its new DPRK policy called ‘maximum pressure and engagement,’ the
DPRK will speed up at the maximum pace the measure for bolstering its
nuclear deterrence,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Monday.
With Wire ServicesShare this article:
SOURCE/LINK: https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/possible-win-win-solution-to-the-north-korean-crisis/
Skip to main content
LINDA WERTHEIMER: China today confirmed it will host talks this month on North Korea’s nuclear program. Officials from the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia will attend. Commentator Michael O’Hanlon says Washington should think about changing its approach to making the region safer and more stable in the long run.Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution has been giving a lot of thought to how this crisis might be defused and how a long-term resolution of tensions between the United States and North Korea might be brought about. With his colleague, Mike Mochizuki, Mr. O’Hanlon has written a book called “Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea.” Mr. O’Hanlon, thank you very much for coming in.
Now your view is that what is needed is a ‘road map’ for the way North Korea relates to Seoul and to the region and, of course, the United States. I wanted to go over some of the elements of that plan. But first, I want you to tell me why you think it’s necessary to think big.
MICHAEL O’HANLON: Mostly because North Korea needs hope. They’re in a hole they don’t know how to get out. Their economy is failing. Their society is failing. And if we just negotiate on tactics and on the short-term crisis of the nuclear weapons issue, they are not going to see any way to fix their economy, and they’re just going to wait for the next opportunity to use a dangerous weapons program to try to extort resources from the international community.
WERTHEIMER: Now the centerpiece of your plan is not the nuclear disarmament part—that’s first—but the big part is conventional disarmament, getting rid of tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, weapons, vehicles of all kinds on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.
O’HANLON: That’s right. The real motivation is to get the North Koreans to cut forces so that their economy can begin to recover. Right now, they spend 25 percent of their GDP on their military. It is by far the highest ratio in the world. It is about eight times what we spend here in the United States, about eight or nine times what the South Koreans spend, and you’ve got to find some way to induce them to do this. Part of the inducement is that we will give them economic aid, but part of the inducement is we will at least make small, reciprocating cuts in our own forces. We don’t give the North Koreans 20 billion bucks up front. We essentially, together with our partners, give about $2 billion a year not in cash but in building infrastructure, health programs, so forth, as we watch the North Koreans cut their forces. And then we can also offer the famous non-aggression pledge, which is so much in the news these days, as a final piece of this overall pie.
WERTHEIMER: Well, there’s also a problem with President Bush buying into this. He’s said over and over again that he is opposed to nuclear blackmail, which is what he perceives Korea to be doing. And President Bush clearly has a very low opinion of North Korea’s leader. He has said that he loathes Kim Jong Il, and that’s one of the milder things he said.
O’HANLON: That is one of the milder things he said. But we like to argue that we’re trying to build on some of the ideas you put on the table, Mr. President. You’ve said the North Koreans have a conventional military that’s too large. You and your secretary of Defense and others have said they need a market economy, they need to move in the direction of reform. We’re trying to essentially force the North Koreans to change their regime without regime change. This is not an easy deal for the North Koreans to accept. They may very well say no because this requires them to take extraordinarily painful medicine, and to really change their country the way Vietnam has in the last 20 years or so, the way China has in much of its eastern regions. They can still potentially hold onto power, but they’re going to have to change their economy, even begin to change some of their human rights policy. And, therefore, we’re not buying out a weapons program. We are helping them radically change their own failed way of organizing their society.
WERTHEIMER: But Kim Jong Il, obviously, has got to see this as headed for regime change. So why would he want to play?
O’HANLON: He would want to play if he’s convinced the alternative is worse. If the alternative is either war because we will go after his nuclear facilities at some point or continue deterioration of his economy to the point where he can’t even sustain his own lifestyle and that of his top leadership, he may feel that taking a chance on these entrepreneurial zones and on this gradual economic reform is a chance worth risking. After all, the Chinese did it and they kept their Communist Party in power. The Vietnamese did it and they kept their Communist Party in power. We have two very good examples, and we have one of those two countries willing to play a big role in this whole process and they…
WERTHEIMER: And that’s China…
O’HANLON: That’s right. That’s right.
WERTHEIMER: …which will be sitting at the table.
O’HANLON: Absolutely. And which has been probably our number-one partner in this whole recent business.
WERTHEIMER: Another point that you make in the midst of this argument is that North Korea cheats. They made an agreement to back down on their nuclear production and then they secretly started doing it again. How does the United States, how do all these countries sit down and make an agreement with a country that behaves that way?
O’HANLON: It’s not going to be easy, and you have to build a plan that allows people to develop confidence as you implement it year by year. It’s good to have the Russians involved as well because the Russians have experience with conventional force reduction treaties. They did with us back in the Cold War period, and the Russians can say to the North Koreans, ‘Listen, the Americans are not going to use this as a pretext to attack because you don’t have to show them where you keep your leadership. You don’t have to show them where you keep your mobile forces. You have to account for most of your heavy weaponry. You can hide your state secrets. You can hide your top leaders and we’ll show you how because we used to do it when we were having this conventional force in Europe treaty with NATO.’ And so Russia can play a role helping reassure and spur on the North Koreans. China can say, ‘We can do economic reform and teach you how to do it and stay in power without losing control over your own society. It’s going to be tough. You’re going to have to learn some new things you really didn’t want to learn, but you have no choice.’ So having those two countries involved in the six-party talks and in any implementation of any agreement is critical. It’s one of the reasons why the North Koreans may get the necessary confidence to try this.
WERTHEIMER: What do you think the chances are that the talks that are about to start will achieve something?
O’HANLON: I think there’s some hope because I think the Bush administration is at least wrestling with the idea of giving greater inducements to the North Koreans. Let’s face it; this administration has really wanted to hide from this crisis for a long time. So we are in trouble if we don’t really focus on this and get it right.
WERTHEIMER: Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution. His book written with Mike Mochizuki is called “Crisis on the Korean Peninsula.” Mike, thanks very much.
O’HANLON: My pleasure. Thank you.
LINDA WERTHEIMER: China today confirmed it will host talks this month on North Korea’s nuclear program. Officials from the United States, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia will attend. Commentator Michael O’Hanlon says Washington should think about changing its approach to making the region safer and more stable in the long run.Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution has been giving a lot of thought to how this crisis might be defused and how a long-term resolution of tensions between the United States and North Korea might be brought about. With his colleague, Mike Mochizuki, Mr. O’Hanlon has written a book called “Crisis on the Korean Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea.” Mr. O’Hanlon, thank you very much for coming in.
Now your view is that what is needed is a ‘road map’ for the way North Korea relates to Seoul and to the region and, of course, the United States. I wanted to go over some of the elements of that plan. But first, I want you to tell me why you think it’s necessary to think big.
MICHAEL O’HANLON: Mostly because North Korea needs hope. They’re in a hole they don’t know how to get out. Their economy is failing. Their society is failing. And if we just negotiate on tactics and on the short-term crisis of the nuclear weapons issue, they are not going to see any way to fix their economy, and they’re just going to wait for the next opportunity to use a dangerous weapons program to try to extort resources from the international community.
Related
WERTHEIMER: Now the centerpiece of your plan is not the nuclear disarmament part—that’s first—but the big part is conventional disarmament, getting rid of tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, weapons, vehicles of all kinds on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.
O’HANLON: That’s right. The real motivation is to get the North Koreans to cut forces so that their economy can begin to recover. Right now, they spend 25 percent of their GDP on their military. It is by far the highest ratio in the world. It is about eight times what we spend here in the United States, about eight or nine times what the South Koreans spend, and you’ve got to find some way to induce them to do this. Part of the inducement is that we will give them economic aid, but part of the inducement is we will at least make small, reciprocating cuts in our own forces. We don’t give the North Koreans 20 billion bucks up front. We essentially, together with our partners, give about $2 billion a year not in cash but in building infrastructure, health programs, so forth, as we watch the North Koreans cut their forces. And then we can also offer the famous non-aggression pledge, which is so much in the news these days, as a final piece of this overall pie.
WERTHEIMER: Well, there’s also a problem with President Bush buying into this. He’s said over and over again that he is opposed to nuclear blackmail, which is what he perceives Korea to be doing. And President Bush clearly has a very low opinion of North Korea’s leader. He has said that he loathes Kim Jong Il, and that’s one of the milder things he said.
O’HANLON: That is one of the milder things he said. But we like to argue that we’re trying to build on some of the ideas you put on the table, Mr. President. You’ve said the North Koreans have a conventional military that’s too large. You and your secretary of Defense and others have said they need a market economy, they need to move in the direction of reform. We’re trying to essentially force the North Koreans to change their regime without regime change. This is not an easy deal for the North Koreans to accept. They may very well say no because this requires them to take extraordinarily painful medicine, and to really change their country the way Vietnam has in the last 20 years or so, the way China has in much of its eastern regions. They can still potentially hold onto power, but they’re going to have to change their economy, even begin to change some of their human rights policy. And, therefore, we’re not buying out a weapons program. We are helping them radically change their own failed way of organizing their society.
Author
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Director of Research - Foreign Policy
The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
WERTHEIMER: But Kim Jong Il, obviously, has got to see this as headed for regime change. So why would he want to play?
O’HANLON: He would want to play if he’s convinced the alternative is worse. If the alternative is either war because we will go after his nuclear facilities at some point or continue deterioration of his economy to the point where he can’t even sustain his own lifestyle and that of his top leadership, he may feel that taking a chance on these entrepreneurial zones and on this gradual economic reform is a chance worth risking. After all, the Chinese did it and they kept their Communist Party in power. The Vietnamese did it and they kept their Communist Party in power. We have two very good examples, and we have one of those two countries willing to play a big role in this whole process and they…
WERTHEIMER: And that’s China…
O’HANLON: That’s right. That’s right.
WERTHEIMER: …which will be sitting at the table.
O’HANLON: Absolutely. And which has been probably our number-one partner in this whole recent business.
WERTHEIMER: Another point that you make in the midst of this argument is that North Korea cheats. They made an agreement to back down on their nuclear production and then they secretly started doing it again. How does the United States, how do all these countries sit down and make an agreement with a country that behaves that way?
O’HANLON: It’s not going to be easy, and you have to build a plan that allows people to develop confidence as you implement it year by year. It’s good to have the Russians involved as well because the Russians have experience with conventional force reduction treaties. They did with us back in the Cold War period, and the Russians can say to the North Koreans, ‘Listen, the Americans are not going to use this as a pretext to attack because you don’t have to show them where you keep your leadership. You don’t have to show them where you keep your mobile forces. You have to account for most of your heavy weaponry. You can hide your state secrets. You can hide your top leaders and we’ll show you how because we used to do it when we were having this conventional force in Europe treaty with NATO.’ And so Russia can play a role helping reassure and spur on the North Koreans. China can say, ‘We can do economic reform and teach you how to do it and stay in power without losing control over your own society. It’s going to be tough. You’re going to have to learn some new things you really didn’t want to learn, but you have no choice.’ So having those two countries involved in the six-party talks and in any implementation of any agreement is critical. It’s one of the reasons why the North Koreans may get the necessary confidence to try this.
WERTHEIMER: What do you think the chances are that the talks that are about to start will achieve something?
O’HANLON: I think there’s some hope because I think the Bush administration is at least wrestling with the idea of giving greater inducements to the North Koreans. Let’s face it; this administration has really wanted to hide from this crisis for a long time. So we are in trouble if we don’t really focus on this and get it right.
WERTHEIMER: Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution. His book written with Mike Mochizuki is called “Crisis on the Korean Peninsula.” Mike, thanks very much.
O’HANLON: My pleasure. Thank you.
==//==
Voice of Korea, English: August 17, 2014
August 25, 2014
Many thanks
to Shortwave Radio Audio Archive contributor, Andre
Bagley, who submits this recent recording of the Voice
of Korea. Andre writes:
"Voice Of Korea is the international radio service of North Korea (officially known as the Democratic Republic of Korea). Most broadcasts of Voice Of Korea only have one or two stories that are either anti-American, anti-South Korean, or ant-Japanese. However, this particular broadcast's news segment seems to be solely dedicated to insulting it's enemies. Here we have North Korean commentary on the current Israel-Hamas conflict on the Gaza Strip, where the United States is blamed for the mess in their report. South Korea is declared a "colony" of the United States, and much more!
The program follows the exact same format for every broadcast:
:00 Opening signal, station identification: “This is Voice of Korea”
:01 National Anthem
:03 Song of General Kim Il Sung
:06 Song of General Kim Jong Il
:09 News, editorials (approx 15 minutes, but can be extended to full broadcast), followed by music
:30 Reminiscences of Great Leader President Kim Il Sung
:40 Music and features
:50 Editorial, special message (occasional)
:55 Frequency information
:57 Close
The broadcast was recorded using a Olympus VN-702 voice recorder hooked up to a Tecsun PL-600 Shortwave receiver using a random wire antenna. Broadcast was received on 11710 khz between1500-1557 UTC."
Click
here to download as an MP3, or simply listen via
the embedded player below:
Comments (0)
Newest First
==//==
==//==
-
Trending
-
U.S.
Politics & Government
Possible Win-Win Solution to the North Korean Crisis
Michael E. O’Hanlon Saturday, August 16, 2003
LINDA
WERTHEIMER: China today confirmed it will host talks this month
on North Korea’s nuclear program. Officials from the United States,
North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia will attend.
Commentator Michael O’Hanlon says Washington should think about
changing its approach to making the region safer and more stable in
the long run.Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution has been
giving a lot of thought to how this crisis might be defused and how a
long-term resolution of tensions between the United States and North
Korea might be brought about. With his colleague, Mike Mochizuki, Mr.
O’Hanlon has written a book called “Crisis on the Korean
Peninsula: How to Deal with a Nuclear North Korea.” Mr. O’Hanlon,
thank you very much for coming in.
Now your
view is that what is needed is a ‘road map’ for the way North
Korea relates to Seoul and to the region and, of course, the United
States. I wanted to go over some of the elements of that plan. But
first, I want you to tell me why you think it’s necessary to think
big.
MICHAEL
O’HANLON: Mostly because North Korea needs hope. They’re in a
hole they don’t know how to get out. Their economy is failing.
Their society is failing. And if we just negotiate on tactics and on
the short-term crisis of the nuclear weapons issue, they are not
going to see any way to fix their economy, and they’re just going
to wait for the next opportunity to use a dangerous weapons program
to try to extort resources from the international community.
Related
WERTHEIMER: Now the centerpiece of your plan is not the nuclear disarmament part—that’s first—but the big part is conventional disarmament, getting rid of tanks, planes, helicopters, artillery, weapons, vehicles of all kinds on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.Related Books
-
By Steven Pifer and Michael E. O’Hanlon2012 -
20072003
O’HANLON:
That’s right. The real motivation is to get the North Koreans to
cut forces so that their economy can begin to recover. Right now,
they spend 25 percent of their GDP on their military. It is by far
the highest ratio in the world. It is about eight times what we spend
here in the United States, about eight or nine times what the South
Koreans spend, and you’ve got to find some way to induce them to do
this. Part of the inducement is that we will give them economic aid,
but part of the inducement is we will at least make small,
reciprocating cuts in our own forces. We don’t give the North
Koreans 20 billion bucks up front. We essentially, together with our
partners, give about $2 billion a year not in cash but in building
infrastructure, health programs, so forth, as we watch the North
Koreans cut their forces. And then we can also offer the famous
non-aggression pledge, which is so much in the news these days, as a
final piece of this overall pie.
WERTHEIMER:
Well, there’s also a problem with President Bush buying into this.
He’s said over and over again that he is opposed to nuclear
blackmail, which is what he perceives Korea to be doing. And
President Bush clearly has a very low opinion of North Korea’s
leader. He has said that he loathes Kim Jong Il, and that’s one of
the milder things he said.
O’HANLON:
That is one of the milder things he said. But we like to argue that
we’re trying to build on some of the ideas you put on the table,
Mr. President. You’ve said the North Koreans have a conventional
military that’s too large. You and your secretary of Defense and
others have said they need a market economy, they need to move in the
direction of reform. We’re trying to essentially force the North
Koreans to change their regime without regime change. This is not an
easy deal for the North Koreans to accept. They may very well say no
because this requires them to take extraordinarily painful medicine,
and to really change their country the way Vietnam has in the last 20
years or so, the way China has in much of its eastern regions. They
can still potentially hold onto power, but they’re going to have to
change their economy, even begin to change some of their human rights
policy. And, therefore, we’re not buying out a weapons program. We
are helping them radically change their own failed way of organizing
their society.
Author
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Director of Research - Foreign Policy
The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
MichaelEOHanlon
WERTHEIMER:
But Kim Jong Il, obviously, has got to see this as headed for regime
change. So why would he want to play?
O’HANLON:
He would want to play if he’s convinced the alternative is worse.
If the alternative is either war because we will go after his nuclear
facilities at some point or continue deterioration of his economy to
the point where he can’t even sustain his own lifestyle and that of
his top leadership, he may feel that taking a chance on these
entrepreneurial zones and on this gradual economic reform is a chance
worth risking. After all, the Chinese did it and they kept their
Communist Party in power. The Vietnamese did it and they kept their
Communist Party in power. We have two very good examples, and we have
one of those two countries willing to play a big role in this whole
process and they…
WERTHEIMER:
And that’s China…
O’HANLON:
That’s right. That’s right.
WERTHEIMER:
…which will be sitting at the table.
O’HANLON:
Absolutely. And which has been probably our number-one partner in
this whole recent business.
WERTHEIMER:
Another point that you make in the midst of this argument is that
North Korea cheats. They made an agreement to back down on their
nuclear production and then they secretly started doing it again. How
does the United States, how do all these countries sit down and make
an agreement with a country that behaves that way?
O’HANLON:
It’s not going to be easy, and you have to build a plan that allows
people to develop confidence as you implement it year by year. It’s
good to have the Russians involved as well because the Russians have
experience with conventional force reduction treaties. They did with
us back in the Cold War period, and the Russians can say to the North
Koreans, ‘Listen, the Americans are not going to use this as a
pretext to attack because you don’t have to show them where you
keep your leadership. You don’t have to show them where you keep
your mobile forces. You have to account for most of your heavy
weaponry. You can hide your state secrets. You can hide your top
leaders and we’ll show you how because we used to do it when we
were having this conventional force in Europe treaty with NATO.’
And so Russia can play a role helping reassure and spur on the North
Koreans. China can say, ‘We can do economic reform and teach you
how to do it and stay in power without losing control over your own
society. It’s going to be tough. You’re going to have to learn
some new things you really didn’t want to learn, but you have no
choice.’ So having those two countries involved in the six-party
talks and in any implementation of any agreement is critical. It’s
one of the reasons why the North Koreans may get the necessary
confidence to try this.
WERTHEIMER:
What do you think the chances are that the talks that are about to
start will achieve something?
O’HANLON:
I think there’s some hope because I think the Bush administration
is at least wrestling with the idea of giving greater inducements to
the North Koreans. Let’s face it; this administration has really
wanted to hide from this crisis for a long time. So we are in trouble
if we don’t really focus on this and get it right.
WERTHEIMER:
Michael O’Hanlon of The Brookings Institution. His book written
with Mike Mochizuki is called “Crisis on the Korean Peninsula.”
Mike, thanks very much.
O’HANLON:
My pleasure. Thank you.
More on North Korea
Order from Chaos5 questions Donald Trump needs to answer before traveling to Asia
Friday, September 22, 2017
Order
from Chaos
Trump’s indecisive, ill-prepared debut at the United Nations
Thursday, September 21, 2017
North Korea
Trump ramps up North Korea sanctions
Thursday, September 21, 2017-
Copyright 2017 The Brookings Institution
==//==
Subscribe via e-mail
Preview
The Shortwave Radio Audio Archive
The Shortwave Radio Audio Archive (SRAA) is a collection of shortwave radio recordings that you can download or listen to as a podcast.
The collection grows every day and includes both historic recordings
and current recordings from the shortwave radio spectrum.
The goal
of this site is for shortwave radio enthusiast to have a place to
store, archive and share their radio recordings with the world.
Click here to learn how to contribute and archive recordings.
==//==
SOURCE/LINK:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/north-korea-guam-locals-reliving-world-war-ii-military-crisis/8806754
North Korea: Guam locals say they are 'reliving World War II' amid escalating military crisis
By defence reporter Andrew Greene in GuamUpdated 14 Aug 2017, 10:36pm
Photo:
Many protesters demanding peace were members of Guam's indigenous
Chamorro population. (ABC News: Gregory Nelson)
Related
Story: US
'locked and loaded' to retaliate as Guam prepares for 'imminent'
strikeAs North Korea makes preparations for a potential missile strike on Guam, locals say they feel like they are reliving World War II at the centre of a geopolitical crisis they never asked for.
Residents of the tiny Pacific island, who are confused as to why they have suddenly become the target of a rogue state's nuclear ambitions, on Monday demanded a peaceful solution to the standoff.
Why pick on Guam?
North Korea is threatening a missile strike on the US Pacific territory. So why target Guam?
Pyeongyang has warned plans for a strike on the US Pacific territory could begin in the middle of this month, leading to locals to dub August 15 "D-day".
Until now, many locals have seemed nonplussed by North Korea's escalating threats, but others are increasingly concerned at the prospect of a looming war.
"We do not ask to be placed under nuclear threat. That's not what we're about," said Kenneth Gofigan Kuper, the organiser of a rally.
"Why are we in the middle of this? What are the factors that led us to become heavily in the national consciousness just because we're a target of nuclear threats?"
Photo: Guam locals have demanded peace and warned against history repeating itself. (ABC News: Gregory Nelson)
Mr Kuper said he could not fathom why a peaceful island had been thrust onto the world stage.
"For the longest time, Guam has been absent from the world consciousness, and all of a sudden we're the target of a possible North Korean nuclear attack and the world's eyes are turned to us," he said.
"Yes, we are a colony of the United States, in which the United States military owns about 27 per cent of the island."We want to show that there are 160,000 people who live there.
"We just don't want to be known as this military base."
'It's like reliving World War II'
Photo: Mr Kuper could not fathom why a peaceful island had been thrust onto the world stage. (ABC News: Gregory Nelson)Many of those taking part in Monday's demonstration were members of Guam's indigenous Chamorro population, who oppose the heavy US military presence on the territory.
Guam's many problems with the US
Guam has been a strategic island for the US since it was taken from Spain in 1898. American bases cover a third of the island, but Guam has a love-hate relationship with the US, writes Ben Bohane.
Chamorro man Ronald Laguana said his island, which was recaptured from Japanese control during World War II, has already endured too many conflicts and invasions.
"It's a repeat in history, just like World War II, the Japanese and the Americans. That's what it is," Mr Laguana said.
"It's like reliving World War II again, and this is World War III."Mr Kuper said he did not want to see history repeated and hoped peace could be preserved on the island.
Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
"A lot of our grandparents went through brutal occupation by the Japanese during World War II because we were once again forced into the middle of a large conflict.
"We don't want that to repeat itself in any future generation."
Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
Video: Guam-based journalist Nick Delgado describes the US military territory (The World)
Topics: nuclear-issues, unrest-conflict-and-war, world-politics, defence-and-national-security, guam, united-states, korea-democratic-peoples-republic-of
First posted 14 Aug 2017, 9:45pm
Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Contact Andrew Greene
North Korea tensions
==//==
SOURCE/LINK:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/north-korea-guam-locals-reliving-world-war-ii-military-crisis/8806754
Nota: Para a organização intergovernamental, veja GUAM - Organização para a Democracia e o Desenvolvimento Econômico.
| Guam Guåhan Guam |
|
| Lema: Inglês: Where America's Day Begins Português: Onde o Dia da América Começa |
|
| Hino nacional: Chamorro: Fanohge Chamoru Inglês: Stand Ye Guamanians |
|
| Gentílico: Guamês(esa) | |
 Localização |
|
| Capital | Hagåtña |
| Cidade mais populosa | Dededo |
| Língua oficial | Inglês e chamorro |
| - Presidente dos Estados Unidos | Donald Trump |
| - Governador | Eddie Calvo |
| - Vice-governador | Ray Tenorio |
| Área | |
| - Total | 541,3 km² |
| População | |
| - Estimativa para 2009 | 178 000 hab. (181.º) |
| - Censo 2000 | 154 805 hab. |
| - Densidade | 320 hab./km² (37.º) |
| PIB (base PPC) | Estimativa de 2000 |
| - Total | US$ 2.5 Bilhões (167.º) |
| - Per capita | US$ 15 000 |
| Moeda | Dólar dos Estados Unidos (USD) |
| Fuso horário | (UTC+10) |
| Cód. ISO | GU |
| Cód. Internet | .gu |
| Cód. telef. | +1-671 |
 |
|
ouvir); em chamorro: Guåhån), é um território organizado não incorporado norte-americano na Micronésia, localizado na extremidade sul das Ilhas Marianas, no oeste do Oceano Pacífico.Faz divisa, ao norte com as Marianas Setentrionais, também sob administração norte-americana, e ao sul com os Estados Federados da Micronésia.
Os Chamorros, população indígena de Guam, foram os primeiros a habitar a ilha aproximadamente há 4 000 anos. A ilha tem uma longa história de colonialismo europeu. Foi descoberta pelo navegador português Fernão de Magalhães a 6 de Março de 1521, na altura ao serviço do rei de Espanha, tendo-se assim estabelecido a primeira colónia em 1668 pela Espanha, que marcou também a chegada do missionário católico Padre São Vitores. A Ilha foi controlada por Espanha até 1898, passando para o domínio dos Estados Unidos após o Tratado de Paris na sequência da Guerra Hispano-Americana.
Índice
História
As instalações militares na ilha estão entre as bases americanas de maior importância estratégica no Pacífico Ocidental.Cedido pela Espanha em 1898, foi ocupado pelo Japão em 1941, tendo sido retomado pelos Estados Unidos três anos mais tarde. Guam é uma base aeronaval estratégica para os Estados Unidos, servindo de base para operações militares e de espionagem na Ásia e na Oceania.
Dois grandes combates aconteceram na ilha durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial:
- Batalha de Guam (1941) - vitória japonesa
- Batalha de Guam (1944) - vitória Aliada
Geografia
- Área: 541 km²
- População: 157 557
- Densidade demográfica: 291,2
- Capital: Agana (Aganha, Hagåtña ou Agaña)
- Ponto mais elevado: Monte Lamlam (406 m)
Cidades
- Agana Heights
- Agat
- Asan
- Barrigada
- Chalan Pago-Ordot
- Hagåtña – capital
- Inarajan
- Mangilao
- Merizo
- Mongmong-Toto-Maite
- Piti
- Santa Rita
- Sinajana
- Talofofo
- Tamuning
- Umatac
- Yigo
- Yona
Praia do litoral de Guam.
Referências
- Segundo o Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, pode-se também usar a forma aportuguesada Guame.
Ver também
- Lista de territórios dependentes
- Lista de Estados soberanos e territórios dependentes da Oceania
- Batalha de Guam
- Guerra do Pacífico
Ligações externas
You can subscribe to the archive with any podcasting application by subscribing to our RSS feed. Simply right click and copy this RSS feed url, then paste it into your podcasting application's subscribe box.
The Shortwave Radio Audio Archive is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
THE END
Comments (0)