Chinese PM calls for close ties with Japan

Source: CNN.

TOKYO, Japan (AP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao urged Japan’s parliament on Thursday not to forget Tokyo’s wartime aggression, even as the two Asian powers mend their strained ties and bolster thriving business relations.

Wen — the first Chinese leader to address the parliament in 22 years — was on a three-day “ice-melting” trip to Japan as the two countries worked to reverse a deterioration in ties caused in part by disagreements about the past.

The Chinese premier, who spent part of Thursday urging Japanese business leaders to invest in China, also struck a conciliatory note, acknowledging Japanese apologies and blaming a clique of militarists for Tokyo’s invasions of China. (Watch why Wen’s visit marks a thaw in China-Japan relations.)

“To reflect on history is not to dwell on hard feelings but to remember and learn from the past in order to open a better future,” he said, adding, however, that he hoped Japan’s apologies would be “turned into actions.”

The two countries have been at odds in recent years over Japan’s invasions and occupation of China in the 1930s and ’40s. China has accused Japan of not fully atoning for its aggression, while some Japanese feel accounts of their wrongdoings have been exaggerated. (Watch how World War II continues to cast a shadow on the two countries’ ties.)

The Wen trip was aimed at building on an improvement in ties begun when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe traveled to China in October. Ties had plunged to postwar lows during the 2001-2006 term of his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi.

Japanese officials said they were satisfied so far with the visit, which was to end Friday.

“Premier Wen Jiabao’s speech was very positive, and I thought it was very good that forward-looking remarks were made on broad-ranging issues,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said.

On Wednesday, Wen and Abe declared their firm intentions to move forward on rebuilding relations, signed agreements on energy and the environment, and issued a joint statement that laid out a series of issues for the countries to cooperate on. (Full story)

Wen also strove to put a human face on the Chinese government, coming out early Thursday for a jog at a Tokyo park — wearing sportswear with a Beijing 2008 Olympics logo — and even joining a group doing tai chi. On Friday, he was to play baseball with college students in western Japan.

Much of Wen’s activities on Thursday and Friday were aimed at business relations. China, including Hong Kong, is Japan’s No. 1 trading partner, and Beijing is eager to increase Japanese technology transfers and investment in its booming economy.

After the parliament speech, Wen lunched with members of Japan’s leading business federation, declaring that “winter has past, and spring has come in China-Japan relations.”

He urged Japanese companies to invest in China, vowing to address vast imbalances in the Chinese economy, improve the natural environment, protect intellectual property rights, continue tax breaks for high-tech companies and proceed with currency reform.

“China must build a society that conserves its resources and protects its environment,” Wen said.

Wen and Abe also launched a series of high-level economic dialogues aimed at boosting ties between Asia’s two biggest economies.

“Our economies have become indispensable to each other … and our relationship is also crucial to the world economy,” Abe said.

Oil dispute

But a statement in an annual report by China’s No. 1 oil producer that it is producing oil and gas from a disputed area in the East China Sea threatened to disturb the cordial mood of Wen’s visit.

Japan has asked Chinese officials to confirm the report by CNOOC Ltd., which said the company was producing 42 barrels of oil and 4 million cubic feet of gas per day from the disputed Tianwaitian oil field, according to a Foreign Ministry official who spoke on customary condition of anonymity.

The two countries have not demarcated their exclusive economic zones in the area, and Japan has objected to Chinese exploitation of the deposits, saying some of the gas belongs to Japan. Joint talks so far have achieved little.

Still, Wen made a number of statements on issues close to Japanese hearts.

On Wednesday, he expressed understanding for Japan’s drive to win a resolution of North Korea’s past kidnappings of Japanese citizens. On Thursday, he alluded to Tokyo’s long-standing campaign to win a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council — a campaign China has blocked in the past.

“China understands Japan’s hope to play a bigger role in international society, and we are ready to strengthen our mutual understanding over the United Nations’ reforms,” he said.

Wen, however, also warned the Japanese not to meddle in Beijing’s relations with Taiwan, which it considers part of China. The premier said China hoped for peaceful reunification, but that it could not tolerate Taiwanese independence.

All eyes on North Korea nuke action

Source: CNN.

(CNN) — The United States will assess on Saturday whether North Korea has taken action to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, now that the communist nation has gained access to unfrozen funds, said U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

“It’s now up to them, and we have to see,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. envoy involved in nuclear talks with North Korea. “If they don’t fulfill their obligations here, we’ll know that very soon, and we’ll have to deal with that accordingly.”

Under a deal announced on February, North Korea said it would disarm its nuclear facilities in return for energy, financial and humanitarian aid. The agreement followed six-party talks involving the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

A major sticking point was the $25 million in North Korean funds, claimed by the United States to contain money from illegal activities, that had been frozen at the Banco Delta Asia in Macau since late 2005.

North Korea said it would close the nuclear reactor 30 days after the money was released, which occurred on Wednesday. (Full story)

“The problem in giving the money back to these accounts is, the North Koreans have not started the process of denuclearization,” Hill said. (why the release of funds is so significant)

“We’ve made it clear to them that we’re going to be watching carefully,” Hill said. “They are really on notice.”

The process of shutting down the reactor and reprocessing facility should be completed in a matter of weeks, Hill said.

Asked about whether North Korea may seek a 30-day extension, Hill said, “I just don’t think it’s very helpful to talk about extensions of any time at this point.” The focus, he said, needs to be on starting the process of shutting down the reactor.

Concerns about keeping the money from going to “nefarious people for nefarious purposes” have been communicated to North Korea, and Pyongyang has pledged to work to keep that from happening, Hill said.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said North Korea is willing to let its monitors verify the shutdown of the Yongbyon facility.

The release of North Korea’s frozen funds coincided with a four-day trip by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a presidential contender, to bring the remains of U.S. soldiers from the Korean War home. He left North Korea Wednesday with the remains of six U.S. soldiers, according to the communist nation’s official news agency, KCNA. (Details)

“I am optimistic North Korea will shut down their reactor and return to six-party talks … after our discussions,” Richardson said. “Now the ball is in North Korea’s court to take the next important steps.”

The United States halted oil shipments to Pyongyang after North Korea admitted in October 2002 that it was developing a nuclear-weapons program in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea.

Such oil shipments would resume under the February agreement.

The Corporate Puplic Broadcasting Saga Continues

Below you find the transcript of Glenn Beck Show, CNN Headline News, 11 April 2007. The struggle to confront CPB and force them to release the film that Frank Gaffney and others have created so that we the people may view it and decide for ourselves. I have learned oh so much more. You should really read this transcript. Don’t forget to read to this also: Producer: PBS dropped ‘Islam vs. Islamists’ on political grounds. Have a nice day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome to the “Real Story.”

Last fall, I aired a special on radical Islam. It was called “Exposed: The Extremist Agenda.” Got to tell you, that got so many people I mean just out of their minds and nuts. I found out quickly about the extraordinarily powerful and influential groups in this country that want to make sure that you only see one side of Islam. And, believe me, I heard from every single one of those groups.

For the first time in my life, I really started to understand how political correctness and personal agendas are silencing the voices of moderate Muslims and those in the media who want to speak out about a perversion of a religion. That`s why I was so glad when I originally heard that PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, had spent millions of taxpayer dollars to finance an 11-part documentary series called “America at a Crossroads,” to, quote, “explore the challenges confronting the post-9/11 world.”

Well, one of the 11 parts, the most interesting, at least to me, was one called “Islam versus Islamists.” This is just another word for extremist. This episode focused on how moderate Muslims everywhere, from the U.S. to the U.K. to France , are clashing with Muslim fundamentalists.

But the real story is, you`re probably never, ever going to see this documentary. PBS says they`re delaying the release because the film, quote, “is a mess.” They say it has no structure. It wasn`t ready in time. It`s weak. It`s incoherent. Bladdy, bladdy, bladdy, bladdy. I got two pages from PBS explaining.

To be honest with you, after reading their explanation, if I hadn`t have gone through the “Exposed” experience on the program, I probably would have been inclined to believe them. Unfortunately, I`ve seen how these things work from inside the newsroom.

What you have to understand — and you`ll only get this from standing in a newsroom — is there are two completely different schools of thought on who`s responsible for radical Islam. There are those that believe from the West and poverty causes the problem and, in some cases, we deserve everything we get, while others, like me, tend to blame the madrassas, the culture of hate, the extremists themselves who are only interested in a political agenda.

That clash of ideas is real, and it is happening in newsroom all over the globe. And I bet you that PBS is no different. But unlike the others who will take this material on, PBS has another problem. It`s called government money.

When you`re a taxpayer program, when you are funded by you and me, there`s another level of political correctness that you have got to worry about or else you run the risk of alienating enough people, and you put yourself out of business. That`s why I think the real story is simple: PBS is frightened.

They are scared of the groups that will inevitably threaten them with the boycotts, lawsuits. More importantly, they are scared of a lobbying campaign in Congress that could threaten their very funding. When your budget is at stake, it is only natural to stay away from controversy. But let me ask you this: Where is the controversy?

Why is it OK for me to show what the media calls a firebrand radical cleric that is spewing hate against the West, but it somehow or another is controversial for me to show a Muslim denouncing that same cleric? Why can we run Osama bin Laden`s latest propaganda video on the 6:00 news, but everybody`s got to walk on egg shells if we want to put on a Muslim who says that`s not what the Koran says, the Koran preaches peace?

There are two sides to every story, and PBS has one, but my gut and my honestly limited experience tell me that the truth lies closer to the filmmakers. Of course, there is an easy way to settle this. We called PBS. Let me see the film. PBS, I`ll watch it with an open mind. Let me look at it. If it is incoherent or just really unbalanced — honestly, I hope you`re right. I`ll get that message out for you. I hope the film is a mess, because that means it`s being pulled for a plot, not politics.

Unfortunately, knowing what I know, I sincerely doubt that`s the case, and PBS ain`t going to show it to me. Martyn Burke is the film`s producer. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is from American Islamic Forum on Democracy. He is one of the moderate voices featured in this documentary and a new contributor to this program.

Martyn, let me start with you. You believe your film is being tampered with in ways that undermine journalistic independence. What does that mean exactly?

MARTYN BURKE, PRODUCER, “ISLAM VS. ISLAMISTS”: Yes, well, I`ll give you one example. We were doing an investigative report on how the Nation of Islam, the so-called black Muslims, in Chicago were being funded by the Saudi Arabian fundamentalists through the Saudi embassy in Washington , D.C. And PBS, through WETA, the flagship station in Washington, appointed an adviser to oversee our efforts, and that adviser was from the Nation of Islam.

BECK: My gosh.

BURKE: I have never, ever heard of an investigative unit having to report to a person from the very place they are investigating. That was the first thing. And, of course, we protested that. We said, “This is just not journalism as we understand it in America.”

BECK: OK. So everybody knows, let me just give a quick highlight of who you are. You`re the guy who did the documentary on the “Pirates of Silicon Valley.” I mean, you`re not some jokester. You`re not me doing a special. And you had real, credible journalists on this project with you.

BURKE: Yes. Well, if I can even take that a step further, we hired a team which included a Pulitzer Prize nominee from last year for his coverage of Islam in Europe . We had a woman and her team from Toronto , Canada , from “The Toronto Star,” who were profiled in the “New York Times” as being one of the top journalistic teams in this field.

We had investigative reporters from Scandinavia who had won every award in their field. This was a first-rate team, which we had to — which we, my partners, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev , had to convince them and they had to convince us. This was a rigorous interpretation of the facts.

BECK: All right. Zuhdi, what was it that was in this that America is just not going to see?

DR. M. ZUHDI JASSER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: It was basically about, I believe, the struggle of moderates and why — you know, when you ask, where the moderate voices? Martyn basically interviewed some of the imams, interviewed some of the leading Muslim propagandists locally that have tried to suffocate our voice at the American Islamic Forum that don`t want me to get out the fact that I love the spirituality of my faith and I want to raise my kids Muslim, but I don`t want them to hijack my faith for their political motives and their political agenda.

BECK: Let me further this with you, because you are, in many ways, to Muslims, you are a credible voice, where PBS came back to me today and said, “Irshad Manji is on.” And I love Irshad Manji. She`s been on this program. But I will tell you that, because of her lifestyle, a lot of Muslims say, “Well, she`s not really a Muslim,” et cetera, et cetera.

You are a guy who lives every word of the Koran in all of its ways, correct?

JASSER: Yes. I mean, you could call me a social conservative even. And, you know, I love the spirituality, but my choice to live socially conservative is mine alone. It should not be governments`. It should not be the imams`. And they`ve stolen our pulpits for their political agenda. And when we get a story, a documentary that shows how the only pulpit I have to speak from is the media, they want to suffocate that and not let the world hear about it.

BECK: Martyn, your film was called irresponsible because it`s alarmist and unfair. How much danger do you think — you`ve been in this business for a while — how much danger do you think there is when there`s this kind of political correctness and pressure going on to get another side out of a story? How much trouble are we in?

BURKE: Glenn, first of all, the comments on our film became increasingly hysterical from the PBS people after we decided we were not going to be apologists for the Islamists who are silencing the moderate Muslims around the world.

And by silencing, I mean, we traipsed around Paris with a guy that had police protection 24 hours a day. We spent time with a member of parliament over in Denmark who is under police guard because he is a member of parliament. The Islamists do not want their own to participate in democracy.

And, by the way, a very important thing that you mentioned. They will call people like Zuhdi not real Muslims, because he believes in a Western way of life, because he believes in democracy and separation of church and state.

And, by the way, that`s exactly what PBS is doing to them. They sort of have told us, in so many words, that people like Zuhdi have become Westernized so they can`t really be Muslims. This small group — and I want to emphasize, it`s a small group within WETA and PBS — have decided they speak for the Muslims.

BECK: OK. Let me ask you this, because there was — when we did “The Extremist Agenda,” I mean, I`m not kidding you, people were on the phone trying to get the special pulled all the way until it aired. There are people who vehemently disagree. Do you believe it was out of fear or these people just say, “It`s not that big of a problem”?

What`s their motivation for this, do you believe?

BURKE: I think there are two different reasons. One is, I committed the unforgivable sin in their eyes of being partnered with two conservatives, Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev . And shortly after they took over the series, they flew to Toronto , Canada , where I was for a while and met me and said, “Fire your partners.”

I said, “Wait a minute. I did a film on the Hollywood 10, on blacklisting in Hollywood , and I am not about to fire my partners for their political beliefs.” And they uttered a statement that I never thought I would hear in America . They said, “Don`t you check into the political beliefs of the people you work with?”

BECK: Oh, my gosh.

BURKE: For the record, I just want to say, I couldn`t have cared less about the politics of the people we put on the air in this show, or I say on the air advisedly, because I have socialists, I have people who are conservatives on the air. It did not matter what their politics were.

BECK: OK.

BURKE: They were the moderate Muslims who had a right to speak out.

BECK: Martyn, Zuhdi, I would love to spend more time on this subject. I`d like to invite you to the radio program tomorrow. Let`s try to work that out, and thanks.

That is “The Real Story” tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a real story of your own, please tell us about it. Go to Glenn Beck and click on “The Real Story” button. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)