HU & Lian Communique 胡锦涛与连战会谈新闻公报（全文）

The following article in Mandarin is the Communique issued By both.

It is a historical milestone for the Communist Party of Mainland & Nationalist Party of Taiwan.

The Communique is a significant achievement & reflect the Needs & Wants of the Chinese people.

For the Stability of Taiwan Strait

For the Benefits of the People in both shores

Achieve Peace & Economy Development

Together promote the rich Culture of Chinese

Promote Trades & Agriculture; Fisheries.....

Work together for Anti-Crimes

Workout mechanism for Taiwan to participate in International activities such as WHO

& The plateform for the both parties to exchange views regulary.

Most of these point I have covered in my earlier comments , please refer to the Archives.

I am confident that the late Mr Sun Yat Sun would be glad that his vision of United China is going to be accomplished sooner.

新华网北京４月２９日电 中国共产党总书记胡锦涛与中国国民党主席连战会谈新闻公报，全文如下：

中国共产党总书记胡锦涛与中国国民党主席连战会谈新闻公报

二００五年四月二十九日

应中国共产党中央委员会总书记胡锦涛邀请，中国国民党主席连战率国民党大陆访问团，于二００五年四月二十六日至五月三日访问大陆。这是国共两党一次重要的交流与对话。在两党“正视现实，开创未来”的共同体认下，四月二十九日，胡总书记与连主席在北京举行会谈。双方就促进两岸关系改善和发展的重大问题及两党交往事宜，广泛而深入地交换了意见。这是六十年来国共两党主要领导人首次会谈，具有重大的历史和现实意义。四月二十八日，中共中央政治局常委贾庆林会见了国民党访问团全体成员。两党工作机构负责人进行了工作会谈。基于两党对促进两岸关系和平稳定发展的承诺和对人民利益的关切，胡总书记与连主席决定共同发布“两岸和平发展共同愿景”。全文如下：

五十六年来，两岸在不同的道路上，发展出不同的社会制度与生活方式。十多年前，双方本着善意，在求同存异的基础上，开启协商、对话与民间交流，让两岸关系充满和平的希望与合作的生机。但近年来，两岸互信基础迭遭破坏，两岸关系形势持续恶化。目前两岸关系正处在历史发展的关键点上，两岸不应陷入对抗的恶性循环，而应步入合作的良性循环，共同谋求两岸关系和平稳定发展的机会，互信互助，再造和平双赢的新局面，为中华民族实现光明灿烂的愿景。

两党共同体认到：

━━坚持“九二共识”，反对“台独”，谋求台海和平稳定，促进两岸关系发展，维护两岸同胞利益，是两党的共同主张。

━━促进两岸同胞的交流与往来，共同发扬中华文化，有助于消弭隔阂，增进互信，累积共识。

━━和平与发展是二十一世纪的潮流，两岸关系和平发展符合两岸同胞的共同利益，也符合亚太地区和世界的利益。

两党基于上述体认，共同促进以下工作：

一、促进尽速恢复两岸谈判，共谋两岸人民福祉促进两岸在“九二共识”的基础上尽速恢复平等协商，就双方共同关心和各自关心的问题进行讨论，推进两岸关系良性健康发展。

二、促进终止敌对状态，达成和平协议

促进正式结束两岸敌对状态，达成和平协议，建构两岸关系和平稳定发展的架构，包括建立军事互信机制，避免两岸军事冲突。

三、促进两岸经济全面交流，建立两岸经济合作机制促进两岸展开全面的经济合作，建立密切的经贸合作关系，包括全面、直接、双向“三通”，开放海空直航，加强投资与贸易的往来与保障，进行农渔业合作，解决台湾农产品在大陆的销售问题，改善交流秩序，共同打击犯罪，进而建立稳定的经济合作机制，并促进恢复两岸协商后优先讨论两岸共同市场问题。

四、促进协商台湾民众关心的参与国际活动的问题促进恢复两岸协商后，讨论台湾民众关心的参与国际活动的问题，包括优先讨论参与世界卫生组织活动的问题。双方共同努力，创造条件，逐步寻求最终解决办法。

五、建立党对党定期沟通平台

建立两党定期沟通平台，包括开展不同层级的党务人员互访，进行有关改善两岸关系议题的研讨，举行有关两岸同胞切身利益议题的磋商，邀请各界人士参加，组织商讨密切两岸交流的措施等。

两党希望，这次访问及会谈的成果，有助于增进两岸同胞的福祉，开辟两岸关系新的前景，开创中华民族的未来。（完）

Historical Meeting - Hu & Lian 胡连会晤载入史册 真诚沟通两岸必将和平

This is the Historical event for Both Communist Party of Mainland & Nationalist Party of Taiwan.

It is good for the Chinese People, Chinese Race & bring Peace to the World!!

More report would be follows!!


胡连会晤载入史册 真诚沟通两岸必将和平

这是一个必将载入史册的春天。对全球华人来说，胡锦涛主席和连战会晤无疑是历史性事件。岁月轮回，60年后，国共两党最高领导人终于实现了历史性的握手。对中国国民党主席连战的来访，大陆表达了足够的诚意，这种诚意来自于官方，也来自于民间，还有各路传媒。

连战来访，有关部门从安全保卫，到所吃之物、所游之地，都做了精心布置、细致准备。并且，接待连战的规格之高，让世人瞩目。所有这些，都表明了大陆对连战来访的重视，更表明了官方的极大诚意。

南京市民打出“连哥你好”的标语，无疑表达了来自民间最朴实最真挚的情感。大陆和台湾本就是血脉相连，一母同胞，兄弟之间无论有过多少恩怨，无论有过多深的隔阂，终究是兄弟，血浓于水，没有谁可以割断两岸人民的感情链条。

日渐发达的两岸三地传媒，对连战来访投入了巨大精力，数百名内地记者的长枪短炮，国家级传媒的现场直播，不仅可以解读为传媒的激情与敬业，更是传递了社会各界对两岸和平的期盼与愿望。

所有这一切的一切诚意，不仅仅是针对连战先生和国民党代表团，更是大陆人民对于和平与统一的渴望。一湾浅浅的海峡，隔断了两岸近60年的沟通与互动，不仅是中国的遗憾，也是历史的遗憾。但是，两岸人民交往、沟通、互动的内在冲动永远存在，任何蕃蓠都不能阻挡。胡锦涛对台工作新讲话所释放的巨大诚意，使得两岸交流的空间骤然加大，终于打破僵局，使“相见”没有“再晚”。

邓小平在上个世纪八十年代就曾说过，问题的核心是祖国统一，但不是我吃掉你，也不是你吃掉我。我们希望国共两党共同完成民族统一，大家都对中华民族作出贡献。

在海峡两岸关系高度敏感时期，从破冰之旅到和平之旅，国共两党间的这次历史性握手，是对中华民族的巨大贡献，让两岸人民和全球华人看到了和平的曙光。而这曙光，就在眼前，就在今天。

Fishing Man Become Prime Minister

BÛRMAH
Originally uploaded by bocavermelha.

Yes!! There Are 2 persons that I am awared off from full-time Fishing as his hobby, then later become the Prime Minister of the Country.

1. Jiang Tai Gong in The Western Zhou Dynasty (11 century - 770BC)

2. Abdullah Badawi, The current Prime Minister of Malaysia. Whom I personally know.

So Stay In tune...

Structure of Leaf

Jungle Desktop Background
Originally uploaded by Michael Heilemann.

What is The Wisdom Behind??

That You Can Get From A Palm Leaf??

From A Single Stem, Branching It Out to the Directions,
Original from One!!

Can You See The Universes Is Actually:

0 & 1

The Police State: Agents of the Police Statepapers

This is A interesting article, although the news is not new to me.

It is known that the Singapore system is totally difference from the world. It is neither so call the communism nor Democracy as what people look it from the outset. From the surface, it is following the British democracy & having the English as the most commonly prefered language in the Business world & government establishments. The Educations system also have naturely due to the colonial educations system influence those day, the Baby bloomer's parents who have foresight naturally had send their Kids to the so call English Stream School. So as to warrant their kids have a brighter future.

In order for their baby bloomers generations.. so in the 70-90's there is no more so call the difference between English School or Chinese School. It is either English as 1st Language or ...

In the 1960's - 1970's there are still a big populations from so call Chinese School. Therefore, Chinese News paper are still selling well. After Singapore independent from Malaysia - 1965. Lee Kuan Yew then the Prime Minister have ordered the integration of Press & also foreclosed those so call the Chinese school's as the secret police reported that the high tendency of Communist influence & insurgency are actually from those people with the Chinese education background.

On the other hand, those western correspondance have written articles, that deem to be not of the interest of Singapore are expelled. The one & only Chinese Unviversity is also closed. Many of the Graduate from the Chinese University, if they don't improve on their command of English.. there may landed in some job not better then those just have the Junior college qualification of USA.

Lee as the father of Singapore. He did alots of Bad but he did alots of Good things as well.. To understand his Power & Politics in Governing Singapore, you can always read the 1st book "The Singapore Way", Also the news Paper Archives & interviews of his advisor a Dutch national by origin - Alex Jose.

Now looking into the figure Head of State; the President of Singapore, a few Singapore past preesident's are either Juornalist or Senior Executives of the Press, be it the malay or The Straits Times (Which is the Government control/ influence company from the British colony). That includes, Yusof Ishak, Devan Nair, Wee Kim Hui! Even the Minister's there are numbers of them are from the press. You see that his cabinet, Minister in the cabinet such as Ek Jun Tong, Rahim Ishak ( Brother of the 1st President), Lim Kim San....

Singapore system is Lee KY Creation & is very Unique, therefore, Leeism, it is not the British system nor the Chinese system. So if anyone observe, attempt to equate Singapore pre-dominant Chinese population culture with the China Culture would be totally wrong...Read More..

Agents of the Police State
Recommended Article: Climate Control in the Singapore Press (Kudos to Steven, who added an extension regarding the criteria of being an elite in Singapore)

Although I was quite well-aware some former intelligence officers worked in the national press, I had no idea of their prevalence.

"Cheong, 57, has been with the paper since 1963. He's proud of the paper and its contribution to modern Singapore. And he's proud, too, of the former intelligence operatives in his newsroom.

There's Chua Lee Hoong, the ST's most prominent political columnist. She might be Singapore's Maureen Dowd, except The New York Times's Dowd didn't work with the secret police for nine years. There's Irene Ho on the foreign desk. She was also an "analyst" with Singapore's intelligence services. So, says Cheong, was Susan Sim, his Jakarta correspondent.
And there's Cheong's boss, Tjong Yik Min. From 1986 to 1993, Tjong was Singapore's most senior secret policeman, running the much feared Internal Security Department, a relic of colonial Britain's insecurities about communism in its Asian empire. Now Tjong is a media mogul, the executive president of SPH, Singapore's virtual print media giant, which controls all but one of the country's newspapers."

There is also of course the juicy bit, that describes how efficient they are in framing the national ideology and boundaries of debate and issues.

"But Chua is not coy. "I'm not ashamed about [being ex-ISD]."

Chua is a classic example of the system working for Singaporeans, and Singaporeans paying it back. The Government sent her to Oxford University for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics. Her pro-government columns are perceived by analysts as insights into official thinking. "Is the ST a government mouthpiece?" she asks, then answers herself: "Yes . . . and no".

It's not China's People's Daily, Chua insists. "The key editors are not government appointees or necessarily [the ruling] People's Action Party members but they are loyalists in a general sense. It's true of every major institution in Singapore."

Chua admits Singaporean journalists self-censor – "they do everywhere," she says – but "editorial interference" is too strong a term to describe the input of authorities. "It's much more subtle than that. I would say we are sometimes, but not often these days, reminded to be mindful of the boundaries."

Chua brings to her commentary "certain basic assumptions" about Singapore's national interest. It so happens they often accord with the Government and its over-arching demands of its people.
The Police State: Agents of the Police State

Thai PM Thaksin's Could Be In Danger!!

Fabio Scrapello could be right "Thaksin Could Be Played by fire!!"

I have monitor the Thailand politics & economy since the mid 60's.

My observations is that Thailand Politics, the day to day operation is control by the Prime Minister & his cabinet. The stability of the Nations is mainly influenceby the Police & the Military General's.

The Royal Thai Kingdom for the past history have been modelling after the China Emperor Court system. Which the king is the supreme commander in the Kingdom. Although for these years of change. In the outlook the Prime Minister & it's cabinet is running the country. The King is more a less a ceremonial figure.

But because of the rich history, religion & culture. The King is still a most important or Supreme figure in the heart of the Thai people.

Between, mid 60's till now, I have witness many military coup's that took the power. & Finally when the King step in & ordered the General's to return the power to their Parliment & return the Democracy to the people.

Thasin is consider very fortunate that after the Last economy downtown , with the guranty purchase order from China. Their Economy is more healthy then anytime in the history.

Thasin may think that using the Military power to enlarge his power base. But that would also invoke the ill feeling of the Police force as well. Then the Parliment could be divied by the 3 groups of infleunce. Namely the People The Military & the Police. Then the equilibrium that built since 1992 would be broken.

With the Aging of the King, the situation may not be as simple to control then before. If the Military General's set another coup!! So the result is beyond imagine.

My opinions is Thaksin should re-think his strategies in the power play. & using the Military Power to his cabinet. Go further to strengthen the economy.. provide food & shelter to his fellow Thai's. Build Thailand as the Nirvana for their citizen. Then he shall be respected like a living Buddha.

Thaksin's power play with Thai generals
By Fabio Scarpello

Thai politics have always been characterized by a close association between the country's military and its politicians. But under the administration of business tycoon turned politician, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, that relationship has changed. Where before the generals held the reigns of power, the prime minister is now calling the shots and has integrated the military into his power base. Analysts who were hoping for a de-politicization of the armed forces fear long-term negative consequences.

There seem to be no limits to Thaksin's power. Re-elected in February by an overwhelming majority to an unprecedented second consecutive term in office, he sits comfortably at the helm of the country with full control over the parliament and cabinet, the latter filled with members of his inner circle. But the prime minister's influence extends much further, encompassing big businesses, bureaucrats, politicians, most of the media, the police and - crucially - the armed forces.

At first glance, the link between Thaksin and the military is nothing new in Thailand, where politicians and generals have always stood shoulder to shoulder. Yet scraping the surface only slightly, it becomes apparent that the current association is made from a different mold. The difference is the shift in the balance of power, which has slipped away from the generals and now - for the first time - lies firmly with the prime minister.

To say that the army has dictated the political tempo in Thailand is an understatement. Historical records tell of 17 coups or attempted coups since 1932 and of generals occupying the prime minister's seat for all but eight years between 1938 and 1988. Furthermore, whenever not in power, the military had been the main force behind most of the civilian leaders who preceded the current prime minister.

The situation is different with Thaksin, who despite training at a military cadet school and serving as a policeman for a few years, entered politics as a civilian and has been legitimized by two democratic elections. Moreover, Thaksin's ascent has coincided with probably the weakest period of the army in modern Thai history.

The military began losing ground in the political arena in the late 1980s, but the turning point in the civilian-military relationship was the violent civilian resistance of May 1992, which brought an end to Thailand's last military regime. The resulting pro-reform movement, culminating with the drafting of the 1997 constitution, cornered the generals' political aspirations and threatened the army's status and its main financial resources. As a consequence, the military had no option but to lie low and partially de-politicize. This trend was interrupted, however, in 2001, when Thaksin was first elected premier.

In this position, Thaksin carved a new role in society for the generals and secured the army's financial resources, halting its decline. Both moves won him favor among most high-ranking officers. The prime minister also set out to transform the country's three armed forces - the Royal Thai Army, the navy and the air force - into another branch of his power base. The approach he used to achieve such a goal involved meddling with the military's internal promotions.

Making over the military
When Thaksin became prime minister, the military lacked a clear role. With the communist threat long gone and without any immediate foreign threat, the military had difficulties in claiming a special role in society and was somehow squeezed out of the limelight by the democratization movement that pressed for its de-politicization. The new situation was in stark contrast to the previous 50 years, during which the military was wrapped up in an aura of reverence and generals were offered senior positions in government agencies.

Thaksin filled the vacuum by using the army to flank the police in dealing with civil issues. Under the current administration, the army has been called upon to deal with protests in rural areas and to play a pivotal role in the "war on drugs" and the "war on dark influences" begun in 2003. The army is currently involved in the predominantly Muslim provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat, where civilian unrest has flared since January 2004.

In addition, Thaksin stepped in to ease the chronic surplus of generals in the Thai army by offering "high influential advisory governmental positions" to more then 50 of them. The prime minister has also restored the army's influence over the country's foreign policy - another area in which it had previously been losing ground.

Likewise, Thaksin's rise to power found the armed forces struggling to hold on to their main sources of finance. The share of the national budget allocated to the military had shrunk gradually from 18%, allocated in the 1980s, to about 11-12% in the mid-1990s and 9% in 1999-2000. Even more dangerous for the army was the instruction laid down by the 1997 constitution that called for Thailand's radio and television frequencies to be placed under public management. Such a change meant that the army was in line to lose its main source of income, namely its control over roughly 200 radio frequencies and television Channel 5.

Since 2001, Thaksin has increased the military budget, lifted the embargo on military procurements that had been in place since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and approved the entire army's spending list for the 2005-13 period. With Thaksin in power, the army has also managed to hold on to its radio frequencies.

Hidden dangers in controlling the military
Regenerating the armed forces' status and securing its financial resources were important means for Thaksin to secure the generals' gratitude, but what turned the military into another part of Thaksin's power base was the relentless meddling with its internal promotions.

In the past four years, Thaksin has pushed some members of his own family and no fewer then 35 of his former cadet-school classmates, collectively know as "Class 10", up the seniority ladder in the army and, to a lesser extent, in the navy and the air force. In doing so, he has shaped a powerful new clique that owes a lot to him and little to ability and seniority. The generals' gratitude translates into open support for Thaksin.

Among the beneficiaries of Thaksin's patronage, Chaisit Shinawatra, one of Thaksin's cousins, deserves special mention.

From August 2001 (the first military reshuffle under Thaksin) to August 2003, Chaisit shot to the very top of the army's hierarchy. In rapid succession he was promoted to lieutenant-general (2001), full general (2002) and then army commander (2003). His meteoric rise - as noted at the time by several military experts - would have been impossible without political connections. Last August, Chaisit was pushed into the highly ceremonial role of armed forces supreme commander, after his failure to ease separatist tensions in the troubled south and his involvement in Channel 5's controversial plan to be listed on the Thai stock exchange.

Some analysts have argued that Thaksin is playing with fire with his military meddling and say he not only risks burning his fingers but might set the whole house ablaze.

"The re-politicization of the military is very dangerous for Thailand and for Thaksin himself; he cannot handle it," said Professor Ukrist Pathmanand, assistant director of the Institute of Asian Studies at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University and co-author of the book The Thaksinization of Thailand.

Part of what worries Professor Pathmanand - and a few others - is that by allowing Class 10 to dominate the armed forces, Thaksin has opened the door to the risk of another military coup. In his book, Pathmanand noted that some of Thailand's past military coups - Class 7 or "The Young Turks" in 1977, attempts in 1981 and 1985 and Class 5 in 1991- were the direct consequence of a specific military-class supremacy.

"It has happened before and it could happen again," Pathmanand said.

Other critics, including Suriyasai Katasila, secretary general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, fear that by allowing his friends to leapfrog the seniority ladder, Thaksin has created a larger and more unhappy layer of generals. Such a situation, they argue, could lead to a takeover, especially if the socio-political situation in the country were to change.

"Thaksin has interfered too much with the promotion of his peers in the military," Suriyasai said.

Although the logic behind both analyses stands, it must be noticed that Thaksin's current grip on power and the lessons of history have made the eventuality of another "successful" military coup in Thailand a slim possibility - as noted by Abhisit Vejjajiva, deputy leader of the Democrat Party, in an interview in late December.


Asia Times Online :: Southeast Asia news and business from Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

X - Mr Internet - Gore TV Network to Launch in August, Google Tie-In

In 1994-2000, Al Gore is known as Mr Internet.

As the Founder/Intitiator of the Non-for-Profit Organization for Asia Pacific to promote eCommerce & eBusiness. Since Gore is the Patron of the organization. I invited him to inaugurate the Corporation Openning in Singapore. He did not respond, not even given a written citation. At least his Boss Bill Clinton did send a letter of Commemorating the Occassion.

In fact, I am on the honorary position in the mentioned organization. Devote my time & resources to promote the Leadership of the eEconomy.

Now, Al Gore is the Chairman of the "Current" channel & the

Giant of Search Engine
partnership, & their foundation of success is laid.

My opinion's about these TV network should be of Righteous Spirits, the views must be impartial; take no bias on any side. Politics is a

Believe;

Religion;

Dream;

& Most importantly is Power!!

It is hard to believe that A person so much into his believe can give a impartial views in his daily life. Even in reality he would remind himself that he shpould be impartial. But as he is still in the infleuncial role in his respective political party. His soul & his sub-conscious mind would not allow him to do so to against his party or his religion.

My suggestion is that Google would have to enlarge the partnership with other political parties in these country so as to get the equal representations in running the "Current" Channel as an impartial TV network & service to the people between the age group of 18-34!!!!!. Not to Mis-Lead!!

Gore TV Network to Launch in August, Google Tie-In
Mon Apr 4, 5:31 PM ET By Jeremy Pelofsky

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday unveiled his new television network, "Current," which aims to attract younger viewers with short videos and a tie-in with the popular Google Inc. search engine.

The network plans to debut on Aug. 1 and be available to 19 million subscription television viewers, Gore said at a news conference at the cable industry's annual convention. Gore led an investment group that last May bought the network from Vivendi Universal for an undisclosed sum.

The channel will show professionally produced segments as well as viewer-produced videos mostly short in length, running from a few seconds to up to 15 minutes.

"We are about empowering this generation of young people in their 20s, the 18-34 population, to engage in a dialogue of democracy and to tell their stories about what's going in their lives in the dominant media of our time," he said.

Viewers will also be able to vote for their favorite videos and get tutorials via the Internet on how to produce their own segments, according to network officials.

"We're starting something new and we're trying to bring about a change in the way the television medium is used," said Gore. "We know it's hard, but we're excited about trying."

In addition to the videos, the new network reached a pact with the search firm to include Google data on the most popular Web searches.

The deal came despite early skepticism from Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, the No. 1 Web search engine that earlier this year stepped into the realm of entertainment by releasing a test video search service that pulls up still shots from such content providers as Fox News, PBS and the NBA.

When first approached, "I thought it would be an extraordinarily challenging endeavor," Brin said. "Having seen some of the work they've now put together, I think it's an extraordinary opportunity."

Google did not disclose the terms of the deal. Brin said the company is providing specialized data from its Zeitgeist service, which tracks search patterns and trends.

Gore, who lost the 2000 election in a bitter contest with current President Bush, seemed to have put politics behind him, insisting the channel would not be a liberal pulpit.

"We have no intention of being a Democratic channel, a liberal channel, or a TV version of Air America, that's not what we're all about," he said, referring to the liberal radio network.

Gore serves as chairman of the board of that channel.

The network said its financial backers included Rob Glaser, chief executive of RealNetworks Inc., Bob Pittman who helped create the popular MTV networks and Joel Hyatt, who is chief executive of the network and built a network of legal services clinics.

Network officials said they were trying to expand the viewer base, but acknowledged that lining up more cable systems was not easy.

So far, they have agreements involving DirecTV's "Total Choice" tier, as well as in certain markets operated by Comcast Corp. and Time Warner Inc. .

(Additional reporting by Lisa Baertlein in San Francisco)

Yahoo! News - Gore TV Network to Launch in August, Google Tie-In

10 Big Tax Breaks for The Rest of Us - However, The Tax System Need To Revamp Totally!!

At least in this country. You need to educate yourself for the Tax system. Be knowledgement about it .

I agreed that Tax-Advantaged Investments help create new businesses & New Jobs. News Jobs would Produce More PayChecks, & those additional paychecks produce more Taxes in the long term future.

However, I am in the opinion that the world of Income Tax systems need to have a total revamp. Especially in this country. Looking at the economy transitions from the traditional Industries to Professional Services & Knowledge based economy. Also with the aging polulations, and the Baby bloomer's are going into the retirement. I can forsees that the world is moving toward, so call the "Consumption Taxable" system. I have shared my thoughts with the President George Bush in year 2 thousand when he visit Los Angeles.

A simplified, uniform Income Tax code; lower Income tax to say 12-15%p.a. for State Tax; for The Federal Tax say lower to 8%. Then, with the consumption system, with the difference goods like Luxury & Branded goods, Spirits & Liqueurs, Cigars & Cigarettes & those non-essential items Taxing according to the Values. The food & Services Taxes should be lower too.

Then looking at the Corporation & Small Business, the incentive for lower corporation tax & also providing Tax incentive for hirring the Physical & mental healthy Baby Bloomers must be implement to encourage more Baby Bloomers to return to the employments. These in term would spur the Income Tax contributions from Baby Bloomers after they reach their retirment age. Especially from year 2008 onwards.

Medical cost & Medical Insurance shall have a reform as well. As the world is moving into Knowledge base economy. With the High cost of Medical Insurance systems, the people going to benefits most is not the government nor the citizens, It is the Provider of Insurance & those Drugs corporation. Everyone know that we are what we eat. So the problem of aging society would increase the medical cost of the individual & country as a whole.

But with the awareness & education programs, these would help to reduce the cost of Medical Care. Give tax incentives for the use of Herbs base Nutritions Supplements & for the preventions of Disease & Health preventions.

As the Old saying. "Prevention Is Better Then Cure!!" Why should we see's the suffering in immediate future but doing nothing positive now!!

The Basics
10 big tax breaks for the rest of us
advertisement


It's not just the rich who shelter huge amounts of income from the IRS. See how you stack up.
By Jeff Schnepper

Think the rich guys get all the tax breaks?

Wrong, deduction denier.

In fact, most of the big tax breaks go to middle-income earners like you and me. We don’t call them tax shelters. But that’s really what they are.

The tax pros call these shelters “tax expenditures.” These darling deductions and credits have the same impact on the federal budget as direct expenditures. That’s because they represent dollars not collected by the government. And each of these expenditures gives special or selective tax relief to only certain targeted groups of taxpayers.

Sounds like a tax shelter -- or at least a loophole -- to me.

These targeted provisions either encourage some desired activity or provide special aid to certain taxpayers. Some of them make a lot of sense. For example, the federal government seeks to encourage certain forms of investment. So, Congress has legislated accelerated rather than straight-line depreciation on new plants and equipment. This produces more tax savings up front, creating additional capital for business to expand.Banks and insurers
check your credit.
So should you.


Tax-advantaged investments help create new businesses and new jobs. These new jobs produce more paychecks, and those additional paychecks produce more taxes. In the long run, if everything works as it should, everyone wins.

Some tax expenditures have been adopted as relief provisions to ease tax hardships or to simplify tax computations. The elderly and the blind receive special financial benefits through a deduction called the “additional amount,” which is added to their standard deduction. Other tax benefits for the aged -- the retirement income credit and the potential exclusion of Social Security payments from taxable income -- also fall into this personal or hardship category.

Cost: $800 billion per year
Back in 1980, the Congressional Budget Office had 92 provisions that qualified as tax expenditures, at a cost of $206 billion. President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget listed 137 individual tax expenditures projected at more than $800 billion.

The financial benefits offered by these tax expenditures resemble those available on the spending side of the budget. A tax expenditure provision can provide special tax relief in any of the following ways:


Special exclusions, exemptions and deductions. These reduce taxable income and result in a smaller tax bills. Examples are tax-exempt municipal bond interest, the exclusion of employee discounts from taxable income, and dependent-care assistance programs.


Preferential rates. These reduce tax bills by applying lower rates to all or part of your income. Congress gave taxpayers a big one in 2003: the new special maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains or on qualified dividends. (It’s 5% for taxpayers in the 15% bracket or lower; 15% for everyone else.)

While the dividend and capital gains breaks are available to all, it is true that higher-end taxpayers will derive more benefit than anyone else. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that more than half of the benefits will go to taxpayers with incomes above $145,000.


Special credits. These are subtracted from your tax bill, rather than from the income on which your taxes are figured. For example, the child tax credit or the foreign tax credit.


Tax deferrals. Deferrals let you pay later rather than now. Such deferrals really constitute interest-free loans from the IRS. The best-known deferrals today are the contributions we make to Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k) accounts or similar retirement funds.

The other side of big spending
Tax-expenditure spending and direct spending are two sides of the same coin. Nearly any tax expenditure can be recast as a spending program. One side reduces the revenues collected. The other side increases the actual cash outflows. The real difference is nothing more than a choice between alternative administrative mechanisms.

So much for the theory. In fact, just like spending provisions, these tax expenditures are really the result of pressure applied by special-interest groups seeking relief provisions for their own constituencies.

For example, the additional amount added to the standard deduction for the blind isn’t available for the deaf. I suspect this may have more to do with the political and lobbying power of the two groups than with any inherent difference between the hardships.

What kind of savings are you getting from your own expenditure tax shelters? A lot, according to a 2003 report by the Joint Committee on Taxation on tax expenditure estimates for fiscal years 2004-2008. Check out the tax shelter deals you may be getting. (Note: These are ranked by size.)

The biggest tax breaks
And if you’re not claiming the tax break, investigate to see if you can.
Health-care benefits. You don’t pay any tax when your employer pays the premiums for your health insurance and health care. Cost to the government over these five years: $602.7 billion.

This total doesn’t include the estimated cost for deductible health insurance and long-term care insurance premiums. That’s an additional $20 billion.


Contributions to retirement accounts. You don’t pay any current tax when you or your employer sock money away in pension and retirement plans. Cost to the government: $522.1 billion.


Lower rates on dividends and long-term capital gains. Cost to the government: $406.3 billion.


The mortgage-interest deduction. We all love the deduction for home-mortgage interest. But renters and those who own their homes free and clear get nothing. Cost to the government: $372.7 billion.

About 73% of the taxpayers who claimed this deduction on their 2002 returns earned $50,000 or more. About 47% of the total earned between $50,000 and $100,000.


State and local income taxes and personal property taxes. You get a deduction for state and local taxes and personal property taxes paid. Cost to the government: $195.2 billion.

About 94% of the 36.7 million tax returns that claimed the income tax deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. And 46% of the total earned between $50,000 and $100,000.


Charitable contributions. Very noble of you. But the rest of us kick in a part of your cost. Cost to the government: $158 billion.

About 81% of the 38.1 million tax returns that claimed this deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. About 43% of the total had earnings of between $50,000 and $100,000.


Children under age 17. The child tax credit puts $1,000 per child in your pocket. Cost to the government: $173 billion.

About 53% of the 31 million tax returns that claimed this deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. And 75% of that group earned between $50,000 and $100,000.


The earned income credit. You qualify for the earned income tax credit, which is targeted at low-income taxpayers. Cost to the government: $179.7 billion.

About 96% of the tax returns that claimed this benefit last year had earnings of $40,000 or less.


Life insurance or annuity contracts. No current tax on the inside investment income. Cost to the government: $137.5 billion.


You die. The basis for all of your assets (the value at which you start to calculate potential capital gains) is stepped up to fair market value on the date of your demise. That means that the tax on all capital gains you earned up to the date of death is lost. Cost to the government: $202.6 billion.
The total for the 10 above? $2.95 trillion over five years. And I haven’t even mentioned that the deduction you get to take for property taxes on your home will cost the feds $77.8 billion over the next five years. (A total of 34.5 million tax returns claimed the real estate property tax deduction last year.)

And the big break you now get on any profits from selling your home: Another $91.4 billion.

I’m not saying that any of these exclusions, deductions, or credits is a bad idea. I’m just shining a light on the fact that all the breaks don’t really go to the big guys.

I guess that if the expenditure puts money in my pocket, it represents good, sound tax policy.

On the other hand, if I’m a renter in a state with a high sales tax and no income tax, your deductions for interest, real estate tax and state income tax are coming out of the taxes I pay. And you’re the one with a real tax shelter. I’m the one making up the difference.



The Basics
10 big tax breaks for the rest of us

advertisement


It's not just the rich who shelter huge amounts of income from the IRS. See how you stack up.

By Jeff Schnepper

Think the rich guys get all the tax breaks?

Wrong, deduction denier.

In fact, most of the big tax breaks go to middle-income earners like you and me. We don’t call them tax shelters. But that’s really what they are.

The tax pros call these shelters “tax expenditures.” These darling deductions and credits have the same impact on the federal budget as direct expenditures. That’s because they represent dollars not collected by the government. And each of these expenditures gives special or selective tax relief to only certain targeted groups of taxpayers.

Sounds like a tax shelter -- or at least a loophole -- to me.

These targeted provisions either encourage some desired activity or provide special aid to certain taxpayers. Some of them make a lot of sense. For example, the federal government seeks to encourage certain forms of investment. So, Congress has legislated accelerated rather than straight-line depreciation on new plants and equipment. This produces more tax savings up front, creating additional capital for business to expand.Banks and insurers
check your credit.
So should you.



Tax-advantaged investments help create new businesses and new jobs. These new jobs produce more paychecks, and those additional paychecks produce more taxes. In the long run, if everything works as it should, everyone wins.

Some tax expenditures have been adopted as relief provisions to ease tax hardships or to simplify tax computations. The elderly and the blind receive special financial benefits through a deduction called the “additional amount,” which is added to their standard deduction. Other tax benefits for the aged -- the retirement income credit and the potential exclusion of Social Security payments from taxable income -- also fall into this personal or hardship category.

Cost: $800 billion per year
Back in 1980, the Congressional Budget Office had 92 provisions that qualified as tax expenditures, at a cost of $206 billion. President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget listed 137 individual tax expenditures projected at more than $800 billion.

The financial benefits offered by these tax expenditures resemble those available on the spending side of the budget. A tax expenditure provision can provide special tax relief in any of the following ways:


Special exclusions, exemptions and deductions. These reduce taxable income and result in a smaller tax bills. Examples are tax-exempt municipal bond interest, the exclusion of employee discounts from taxable income, and dependent-care assistance programs.


Preferential rates. These reduce tax bills by applying lower rates to all or part of your income. Congress gave taxpayers a big one in 2003: the new special maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains or on qualified dividends. (It’s 5% for taxpayers in the 15% bracket or lower; 15% for everyone else.)

While the dividend and capital gains breaks are available to all, it is true that higher-end taxpayers will derive more benefit than anyone else. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that more than half of the benefits will go to taxpayers with incomes above $145,000.


Special credits. These are subtracted from your tax bill, rather than from the income on which your taxes are figured. For example, the child tax credit or the foreign tax credit.


Tax deferrals. Deferrals let you pay later rather than now. Such deferrals really constitute interest-free loans from the IRS. The best-known deferrals today are the contributions we make to Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k) accounts or similar retirement funds.

The other side of big spending
Tax-expenditure spending and direct spending are two sides of the same coin. Nearly any tax expenditure can be recast as a spending program. One side reduces the revenues collected. The other side increases the actual cash outflows. The real difference is nothing more than a choice between alternative administrative mechanisms.

So much for the theory. In fact, just like spending provisions, these tax expenditures are really the result of pressure applied by special-interest groups seeking relief provisions for their own constituencies.

For example, the additional amount added to the standard deduction for the blind isn’t available for the deaf. I suspect this may have more to do with the political and lobbying power of the two groups than with any inherent difference between the hardships.

What kind of savings are you getting from your own expenditure tax shelters? A lot, according to a 2003 report by the Joint Committee on Taxation on tax expenditure estimates for fiscal years 2004-2008. Check out the tax shelter deals you may be getting. (Note: These are ranked by size.)

The biggest tax breaks
And if you’re not claiming the tax break, investigate to see if you can.
Health-care benefits. You don’t pay any tax when your employer pays the premiums for your health insurance and health care. Cost to the government over these five years: $602.7 billion.

This total doesn’t include the estimated cost for deductible health insurance and long-term care insurance premiums. That’s an additional $20 billion.


Contributions to retirement accounts. You don’t pay any current tax when you or your employer sock money away in pension and retirement plans. Cost to the government: $522.1 billion.


Lower rates on dividends and long-term capital gains. Cost to the government: $406.3 billion.


The mortgage-interest deduction. We all love the deduction for home-mortgage interest. But renters and those who own their homes free and clear get nothing. Cost to the government: $372.7 billion.

About 73% of the taxpayers who claimed this deduction on their 2002 returns earned $50,000 or more. About 47% of the total earned between $50,000 and $100,000.


State and local income taxes and personal property taxes. You get a deduction for state and local taxes and personal property taxes paid. Cost to the government: $195.2 billion.

About 94% of the 36.7 million tax returns that claimed the income tax deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. And 46% of the total earned between $50,000 and $100,000.


Charitable contributions. Very noble of you. But the rest of us kick in a part of your cost. Cost to the government: $158 billion.

About 81% of the 38.1 million tax returns that claimed this deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. About 43% of the total had earnings of between $50,000 and $100,000.


Children under age 17. The child tax credit puts $1,000 per child in your pocket. Cost to the government: $173 billion.

About 53% of the 31 million tax returns that claimed this deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. And 75% of that group earned between $50,000 and $100,000.


The earned income credit. You qualify for the earned income tax credit, which is targeted at low-income taxpayers. Cost to the government: $179.7 billion.

About 96% of the tax returns that claimed this benefit last year had earnings of $40,000 or less.


Life insurance or annuity contracts. No current tax on the inside investment income. Cost to the government: $137.5 billion.


You die. The basis for all of your assets (the value at which you start to calculate potential capital gains) is stepped up to fair market value on the date of your demise. That means that the tax on all capital gains you earned up to the date of death is lost. Cost to the government: $202.6 billion.
The total for the 10 above? $2.95 trillion over five years. And I haven’t even mentioned that the deduction you get to take for property taxes on your home will cost the feds $77.8 billion over the next five years. (A total of 34.5 million tax returns claimed the real estate property tax deduction last year.)

And the big break you now get on any profits from selling your home: Another $91.4 billion.

I’m not saying that any of these exclusions, deductions, or credits is a bad idea. I’m just shining a light on the fact that all the breaks don’t really go to the big guys.

I guess that if the expenditure puts money in my pocket, it represents good, sound tax policy.

On the other hand, if I’m a renter in a state with a high sales tax and no income tax, your deductions for interest, real estate tax and state income tax are coming out of the taxes I pay. And you’re the one with a real tax shelter. I’m the one making up the difference.




The Basics
10 big tax breaks for the rest of us

It's not just the rich who shelter huge amounts of income from the IRS. See how you stack up.
By Jeff Schnepper

Think the rich guys get all the tax breaks?

Wrong, deduction denier.
In fact, most of the big tax breaks go to middle-income earners like you and me. We don’t call them tax shelters. But that’s really what they are.

The tax pros call these shelters “tax expenditures.” These darling deductions and credits have the same impact on the federal budget as direct expenditures. That’s because they represent dollars not collected by the government. And each of these expenditures gives special or selective tax relief to only certain targeted groups of taxpayers.

Sounds like a tax shelter -- or at least a loophole -- to me.

These targeted provisions either encourage some desired activity or provide special aid to certain taxpayers. Some of them make a lot of sense. For example, the federal government seeks to encourage certain forms of investment. So, Congress has legislated accelerated rather than straight-line depreciation on new plants and equipment. This produces more tax savings up front, creating additional capital for business to expand.Banks and insurers check your credit. So should you.

Tax-advantaged investments help create new businesses and new jobs. These new jobs produce more paychecks, and those additional paychecks produce more taxes. In the long run, if everything works as it should, everyone wins.

Some tax expenditures have been adopted as relief provisions to ease tax hardships or to simplify tax computations. The elderly and the blind receive special financial benefits through a deduction called the “additional amount,” which is added to their standard deduction. Other tax benefits for the aged -- the retirement income credit and the potential exclusion of Social Security payments from taxable income -- also fall into this personal or hardship category.

Cost: $800 billion per year
Back in 1980, the Congressional Budget Office had 92 provisions that qualified as tax expenditures, at a cost of $206 billion. President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget listed 137 individual tax expenditures projected at more than $800 billion.

The financial benefits offered by these tax expenditures resemble those available on the spending side of the budget. A tax expenditure provision can provide special tax relief in any of the following ways:

Special exclusions, exemptions and deductions. These reduce taxable income and result in a smaller tax bills. Examples are tax-exempt municipal bond interest, the exclusion of employee discounts from taxable income, and dependent-care assistance programs.


Preferential rates. These reduce tax bills by applying lower rates to all or part of your income. Congress gave taxpayers a big one in 2003: the new special maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains or on qualified dividends. (It’s 5% for taxpayers in the 15% bracket or lower; 15% for everyone else.)

While the dividend and capital gains breaks are available to all, it is true that higher-end taxpayers will derive more benefit than anyone else. The Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that more than half of the benefits will go to taxpayers with incomes above $145,000.

Special credits. These are subtracted from your tax bill, rather than from the income on which your taxes are figured. For example, the child tax credit or the foreign tax credit.

Tax deferrals. Deferrals let you pay later rather than now. Such deferrals really constitute interest-free loans from the IRS. The best-known deferrals today are the contributions we make to Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k) accounts or similar retirement funds.

The other side of big spending
Tax-expenditure spending and direct spending are two sides of the same coin. Nearly any tax expenditure can be recast as a spending program. One side reduces the revenues collected. The other side increases the actual cash outflows. The real difference is nothing more than a choice between alternative administrative mechanisms.

So much for the theory. In fact, just like spending provisions, these tax expenditures are really the result of pressure applied by special-interest groups seeking relief provisions for their own constituencies.

For example, the additional amount added to the standard deduction for the blind isn’t available for the deaf. I suspect this may have more to do with the political and lobbying power of the two groups than with any inherent difference between the hardships.

What kind of savings are you getting from your own expenditure tax shelters? A lot, according to a 2003 report by the Joint Committee on Taxation on tax expenditure estimates for fiscal years 2004-2008. Check out the tax shelter deals you may be getting. (Note: These are ranked by size.)

The biggest tax breaks
And if you’re not claiming the tax break, investigate to see if you can. Health-care benefits. You don’t pay any tax when your employer pays the premiums for your health insurance and health care. Cost to the government over these five years: $602.7 billion.
This total doesn’t include the estimated cost for deductible health insurance and long-term care insurance premiums. That’s an additional $20 billion.

Contributions to retirement accounts. You don’t pay any current tax when you or your employer sock money away in pension and retirement plans. Cost to the government: $522.1 billion.

Lower rates on dividends and long-term capital gains.
Cost to the government: $406.3 billion.

The mortgage-interest deduction. We all love the deduction for home-mortgage interest. But renters and those who own their homes free and clear get nothing. Cost to the government: $372.7 billion.

About 73% of the taxpayers who claimed this deduction on their 2002 returns earned $50,000 or more. About 47% of the total earned between $50,000 and $100,000.

State and local income taxes and personal property taxes. You get a deduction for state and local taxes and personal property taxes paid. Cost to the government: $195.2 billion.

About 94% of the 36.7 million tax returns that claimed the income tax deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. And 46% of the total earned between $50,000 and $100,000.

Charitable contributions.
Very noble of you. But the rest of us kick in a part of your cost. Cost to the government: $158 billion.

About 81% of the 38.1 million tax returns that claimed this deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. About 43% of the total had earnings of between $50,000 and $100,000.

Children under age 17. The child tax credit puts $1,000 per child in your pocket. Cost to the government: $173 billion.

About 53% of the 31 million tax returns that claimed this deduction reported earnings of $50,000 or more. And 75% of that group earned between $50,000 and $100,000.

The earned income credit. You qualify for the earned income tax credit, which is targeted at low-income taxpayers. Cost to the government: $179.7 billion.

About 96% of the tax returns that claimed this benefit last year had earnings of $40,000 or less.

Life insurance or annuity contracts. No current tax on the inside investment income. Cost to the government: $137.5 billion.

You die. The basis for all of your assets (the value at which you start to calculate potential capital gains) is stepped up to fair market value on the date of your demise. That means that the tax on all capital gains you earned up to the date of death is lost. Cost to the government: $202.6 billion.

The total for the 10 above? $2.95 trillion over five years. And I haven’t even mentioned that the deduction you get to take for property taxes on your home will cost the feds $77.8 billion over the next five years. (A total of 34.5 million tax returns claimed the real estate property tax deduction last year.)

And the big break you now get on any profits from selling your home: Another $91.4 billion.

I’m not saying that any of these exclusions, deductions, or credits is a bad idea. I’m just shining a light on the fact that all the breaks don’t really go to the big guys.

I guess that if the expenditure puts money in my pocket, it represents good, sound tax policy.

On the other hand, if I’m a renter in a state with a high sales tax and no income tax, your deductions for interest, real estate tax and state income tax are coming out of the taxes I pay. And you’re the one with a real tax shelter. I’m the one making up the difference.

MSN Money - 10 big tax breaks for the rest of us

Militarization of Space - It Should Think About Cyberspace.

The "Star War" was initiated by Late President Ronald Reagan .

In the book "War & Anti-War" written by Alvin Toffler, he have mentioned that with the advance of Digital Technology & Bio-Tech.. the War would be of the difference forms. .. However, he said .. in any War situations.. There is An Anti-War moment to check in the balance. I salute Alvin for his wsidom of "Tao".

Before, China opened ups, the Military Competitions is between Soviet Union & USA. However, as we enter the
the century. Economy Growth of China is always at the 1st place in the world. They are also taking steps to de-Militarized their Military forces & moving towards Technology base Military forces.

As a independant person, I have travel & visit many parts of China As well as living in Western world & Asia, South East Asia.. I have studied the history of Chinese culture on my own accord. I have study the cultural influence of

Lao Tze

Jiang Thai Gong

Qwei Ku Tze

Confucius

Mencius

Sun Tze

Conming

Tang Thai Zhong (Li Shi Ming)

Gengiskhan

Liu Poi Wen

Yong Zheng

Mao Tze Dong

Deng Xiao Peng



In fact, all the later Stratgies or the Ruler of China. Have follow one Guru strategies.. That is:

Lao Tze... "Military Force is A Dangerous Means" then even for

Sun Tze....he have going into few hundreds of battle.. But finally he still advise his King...."Kill No More".

The Emperor Yong Zheng.. He said only those who have the heart of the people then have everything below the Heaven.

Now, looking at the China history back to the 1960-1980. it is on the record that the Rich Chinese Culture of going for War with Peace in their mind. When they achieved their Military Objectives.. then they withdrew back to their country. This is written in the history as on the war with

Soviet Union

India

Vietnam

These is exactly what the Guru's Strategy

"Go To The War To End A War!!" &

"To Punish Is To Teach!!" As Well As,

"To Touch Is The End!!"


Now let's us looking at the more positive side of the situations. In fact it would be a excellence opportunity for the Powerful, Nations to pool their Investments & Resources of Military Space for the collabraqtions of:

"Disaster's" Preventions & Recovery,

Agriculture

Environmental Protections

Poor Nations Assistance

Anti-Terrorism

Space Program's Collabrations..etc.

That would make peace & make the people in the World living in Nirvana.

Militarization of Space

The Washington Post has a report on the Pentagon's recent moves to militarize space. The article is framed within the context of arms control, particularly as it relates to a set of recent conferences on space militarization. Representatives from Russia, China, and an assorted group of thinktanks have recently issued statements condemning Washington's policy agenda in this area, and the article approaches the issue from that perspective.

In any case, the Post story touches upon one of the most important aspects of security policy in the 21st century: space. The global economy has increasingly come to rely on the use of satellites in Earth orbit for communications, commerce, and travel. This space infrastructure is also vital to American intelligence agencies and the armed forces. Satellite reconnaissance (although in some ways being eclipsed by the use of unmanned aerial vehicles) is essential for monitoring potential hostile agents, safely tracking troop movements and exercises, and a variety of other important intelligence gathering tasks. The US military is extremely reliant on space infrastructure; the functions of aerial attack, communications, command, logistics, and movement are all irrevocably tied into the constellations of US satellites. Should this space infrastructure ever be destroyed or suffer massive damage, the consequences to both the global economy and American security would be tremendously detrimental. Worldwide depression, massive US losses, and global destabilization are all within the realm of possibility. Meanwhile, the exploitation of space for offensive purposes promises to yield rich rewards; the Pentagon, for example, is currently exploring technology that would enable America to launch decisive aerial attacks both through space (originating in the United States itself) and from space.

The Pentagon is developing a suborbital space capsule that could hit targets anywhere in the world within two hours of being launched from U.S. bases.

It is therefore exceedingly critical that this space infrastructure be protected from all potential threats. Furthermore, considering the significant advantages granted to any military force through space infrastructure, the ability to deny a wartime enemy use of space infrastructure is similarly important. It is therefore in the essential national interests of the United States to develop systems of this nature, and thus to militarize space. Recognizing this truth, strategic planners at the Pentagon have mapped out a comprehensive future plan for satisfying American interests in space. Described in a series of recent documents (beginning with the 2002 report on national defense strategy and continuing), this map includes both offensive and defensive components.

A series of Pentagon doctrinal papers, released over the past year, have emphasized that the U.S. military is increasingly dependent on space satellites for offensive and defensive operations, and must be able to protect them in times of war.

The Air Force in August put forward a Counterspace Operations Doctrine, which described "ways and means by which the Air Force achieves and maintains space superiority" and has worked to develop weapons to accomplish such missions.

On March 1, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed a new National Defense Strategy paper that said the use of space "enables us to project power anywhere in the world from secure bases of operation." A key goal of Rumsfeld's new strategy is "to ensure our access to and use of space and to deny hostile exploitation of space to adversaries."

The US push to militarize space is being rapidly propelled along due to two factors. First is the rise of China as a competitor in space. Beijing is actively seeking to neutralize the American advantage in space, and thus correspondingly to enhance its military power relative to that of the United States. Since Washington's domination of space currently provides US forces with greatly augmented strength and capabilities, China can gain significantly by reducing Washington's ability to leverage this advantage. An international agreement not to militarize space would leave the American satellite constellations vulnerable and unprotected, a weakness that China could then exploit with the anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons it's certainly developing. Even the mere threat of downing the US satellite system could be enough to keep American out of a Chinese-Taiwanese war. China is also undertaking a crash program to exploit the benefits of space for itself. It's participating in a European rival to the GPS system, working on developing space launch technology, and generally preparing to make its own forays into space. When its technology is sufficient, China will almost certainly make an attempt at militarizing space for Chinese interests. The US is concerned about this, and wants to head Beijing off. Read More.....

Power Politics: Aerospace, Defense, & Energy Archives

United Nation Reforms

This 60 years old worldwide organization certainly need a reform.

No doubts that United Nation have in the past 60 years contributed in area like

Human Rights

Women Charters

Populations Control

3rd World & Underdevelope Nations Assistance Programmes

Peace Keeping - Security Council

UNESCO

World Health Organization

..etc.

The task for the UN is not easy as it is always viewed as the figure head or "Staff" organization. UN existence & operations is highly dependant on its members contributions.

For the past 50 years the super power's have much more saying in the organization. However, from 1990.. China have been paying more important role in the UN activity & financial contributions.

I can foresees that China would be the biggest contributor in terms of financial as well as manpower from hereon.

UN need to reform includes more Power & Actions over the following:

Anti-Terrorisms

Environment Protections these includes:

Air; Water; Ozone Depiction; Green House Effects..

Aids Education & Control

Disaster's Task Force Deployments

Cybersphere Crimes Preventions

Reformulation of UN World Peace Military Force.


That means that the members countries need to put an act altogether in synergy, to contribute money & kinds & getting things work for the betterment of the world.

Annan Drafts Changes For U.N.
Use of Force, Terrorism Among Issues Targeted

By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, March 19 -- Secretary General Kofi Annan on Monday will propose establishing new rules for the use of military force, adopting a tough anti-terrorism treaty that would punish suicide bombers, and overhauling the United Nation's discredited human rights commission, according to a confidential draft of a report on U.N. reform.

The 63-page draft report represents Annan's most ambitious effort to restore international confidence in an organization that has been traumatized by divisions over the Iraq war and battered by revelations of financial impropriety and sexual misconduct by its personnel. But he faces an uphill battle to secure backing for some of his more controversial proposals from key members, including the United States, which opposes Annan's advocacy of the International Criminal Court.

Annan said his proposal provides a unique opportunity to update the 60-year-old organization to address today's most serious challenges. And he said promoting it would be one of his "highest priorities" in the run-up to a September summit at the opening of the General Assembly session.

"These are reforms that are within reach," Annan wrote. "If we act boldly -- and if we act together -- we can make people everywhere more secure, more prosperous, and better able to enjoy their fundamental rights." he wrote.

Annan's report, titled "In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security, and Human Rights For All," calls for expanding the 15-nation Security Council before year's end to ensure more democratic representation on the United Nations' most powerful institution. Its findings were first reported in today's Los Angeles Times.

"A change in the council's commission is needed to make it more broadly representative of the international community as a whole," Annan wrote.

While Annan said he would leave it to governments to determine the structure of an enlarged council, he backed efforts by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, which are seeking permanent Security Council seats, to ensure that an agreement cannot be blocked by a single member that opposes their candidacies.

"It would be far preferable for member states to take this vital decision by consensus," Annan wrote. "But if they are unable to reach consensus, this must not be an excuse for postponing action."

Two proposals are under consideration by states that would increase the membership from 15 to 24.

Annan cast his report as an attempt to reconcile the security interests of wealthy countries, which want the world body to focus on combating terrorism and stemming weapons proliferation, and poor nations, which are more concerned with the consequences of poverty and disease. He noted that a catastrophic terrorist act in a major Western city could cripple the economies of poor nations on the other side of the world while an outbreak of disease in a poor region could spread to the developed world.

"The rich are vulnerable to the threats that attack the poor, and the strong are vulnerable to the threats that accost the poor," he wrote. "Whatever threatens one threatens all."

Annan said that wealthy countries must dramatically increase development aid and debt relief to poor countries that govern responsibly. He also pressed poorer countries to combat corruption aggressively and to promote private-sector investment. "In an era of global abundance, our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that persist between rich and poor."

The contentious international debate that preceded the Iraq war led to "declining public confidence in the United Nations" by supporters of the war, who believed the organization had failed to enforce its own resolutions, and opponents, who faulted it for failing to stop the war.

Annan urged that the Security Council forge agreement on "when and how force can be used." He proposed that it adopt a resolution setting out principles -- including a determination whether the military option is proportional to the threat -- that would guide it in making the decision whether to go to war.

U.N. officials said they expected stiff resistance to the proposal from the Bush administration, which has reserved the right to use force unilaterally for national security interests.

But they say that Washington appreciates Annan's support in the report for the Bush administration's Proliferation Security Initiative, which was established to halt illicit trafficking of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The United States is also amenable to Annan's call for an anti-terrorism convention that would define terrorism as any act that is "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants" to intimidate a community, government or international organization. Annan wants such a convention to complete its work next year.

Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, declined to discuss specifics, saying, "We are looking at the report, and we will give it every consideration."

Efforts to adopt an anti-terrorism convention have been stymied by Arab governments, which have resisted labeling anti-Israeli militants, including Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, that have targeted civilians as terrorists.

Annan also called for strengthening the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. But he said that the Commission on Human Rights, which has recently included countries such as Sudan, Cuba and Libya with histories of rights violations, has "been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism." He said that some states have sought membership on the commission "not to strengthen human rights, but to protect themselves against criticism, or to criticize others." In its place, Annan proposed creating a smaller Human Rights Council, whose members would be appointed by the General Assembly. But he said the members "should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards."

Most Americans No Good At Investing -- To Revamp & Simplify The Whole System Please!!

In fact America would not be the 1st to allows it people to utilized Social Security for Private Investment into Stocks & Bonds. Singapore have allowed its citizen to use part of their Central Providents Funds to invest in Stocks & Bonds, I believe back in 1986 after the Black October.

Singapore citizen also have been using their Central Providents Funds for buying home rather leasing of homes, as the News homes there be it from private or government are all 99 years lease.

Well anyone who have experience the losses in stocks & Shares in 2001-2002 certainly cannot forget their dreams become bubble bust. As written earlier. The only way for people to be confidence in utilizing their Social Security to invest is through:

1. The Education program

But most importantly is

2. Revamp & simplified the Social Security System.

Most Americans no good at investing
By Adam Shell, USA TODAY

NEW YORK — Robin Neil Haberle, 45, wants the chance to manage every penny of his Social Security payroll taxes. The marketing professional from Media, Pa., cites the main reason he backs President Bush's plan to create private accounts: "I've proven to be a more prudent investor than the federal government. I know what I'm doing."

But Haberle is not your ordinary investor. In fact, when it comes to managing money, studies done by a leading human resources firm to track the financial acumen of the masses show that most Americans don't know what they are doing. That's a big negative for Bush, whose plan is based on his belief that most Americans want to, and are capable of, building a profitable portfolio made up of stocks and bonds.

"I have a Ph.D., have belonged to an investment club for 10 years and have studied the market — and even I have invested badly over the years," says Marjorie Abrams, 67, a retiree from Gainesville, Fla. "What will those who don't understand the market do with their savings? How much time can they be expected to devote to it?"

Certainly not the long hours logged by professional Wall Street analysts, traders and money managers. Research confirms that a huge swath of U.S. workers have little or no interest in serving as their own personal portfolio managers.

Six out of 10 Americans (59%) think it is a "bad idea" for the government to let workers invest some of their Social Security taxes in stocks and bonds, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll done Friday-Sunday. Nearly one-quarter (23%) said they are "uncomfortable" with the idea of managing their own investments, and just 27% said they pay "a great deal" of attention to their investments. (Related: Social Security, Medicare solvency not getting any better.)

A study by Hewitt Associates that analyzed the 2003 investment behavior and account activity of 2.5 million employees eligible for 401(k) plans exposes a trove of investment mistakes by average investors:

•Three out of 10 employees eligible for 401(k) plans don't participate, Hewitt says. That means investors are passing up free money in the form of matching contributions from their employers.

•Despite horror stories about employees at scandal-scarred companies such as WorldCom and Enron having their 401(k) accounts wiped out because they had all their money riding on their own company's stock, 27% of 401(k) investors still have more than half of their money in their employer's shares.

•And proving that investors are hardly hands-on, only 17% made 401(k) transfers in 2003.

Another Hewitt study, done in fall 2004 with Harvard University and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, found that a "non-saving mentality" persists. The study focused largely on "low savers," those who do not stash enough in their 401(k)s to earn the company match. When "low savers" learned they were passing up $1,200 a year in matching contributions, one-third said they intended to raise their savings rate. Only 15% actually did.

No doubt, there are lots of people who consider themselves savvy investors and think, as Bush suggests, that they can earn bigger returns managing a slice of their own Social Security money. But there is a far larger, more vocal group that views stocks as a tough way for amateurs to make money.

One investment adviser who has seen many investors make costly mistakes says privatizing Social Security would have "catastrophic" consequences. "The general public tends to play up their investing success while ignoring the lessons of their losses," says Christopher Harriman Dann of the Olson Dann division of LaSalle St. Securities. He says nine times out of 10, investors' long-term performance lags behind the market by a wide margin.

A study released in April 2004 by Dalbar, a financial services market research firm, confirms Dann's theory. The research, which analyzed mutual fund money flows the past 20 years, found that the Standard & Poor's 500 index had annual gains close to 13% during that period; the average investor earned just 3.5%.

"Keep Social Security the way it is," says Fred Berlack, 61, of Oceanside, Calif. "The average Joe has little or no investing skills."

2000 collapse changed minds

How one views Bush's plan to create personal Social Security accounts depends partly on one's view of the stock market. Indeed, the stock market slump from 2000 to 2002 that wiped out $8.5 trillion in market value, according to Wilshire Associates, sapped the confidence of many do-it-yourself investors. It turned them off of the stock market, made them more risk-averse and confirmed what some experts have been saying for a long time: Most mom-and-pop investors are not cut out to manage their own money.

"The typical 401(k) investor is a much different animal than someone who opens an account with a broker and makes a decision to be an active investor," says Lori Lucas, Hewitt's director of participant research. "Most investors don't feel they're up to the challenge."

Bob Pozen, chairman of MFS Investment Management and a member of the presidential commission formed to address Social Security reform, says concerns about investors not being smart enough to manage their own money "are overblown." Even though the Bush administration has not yet issued a final proposal, Pozen stresses that investors will likely not be inundated with a dizzying array of choices.

Many experts such as Lucas say it is important that any plan put forth be simple and essentially mistake-proof. They recommend a short menu of options and say a plain-vanilla balanced fund with a pre-determined mix of stocks and bonds based on one's age would make the most sense. In addition, balanced funds would serve as a relatively low-risk default option for people who don't want to make their own investment decisions.

There are growing signs that do-it-yourself investing is not everybody's favorite pastime, including:

•Falling participation in Washington state's hybrid plan. In 1996 and 1997, when the bull market was in full swing, Washington gave its teachers an option of staying in the traditional pension plan or switching to a hybrid pension plan — 50% of assets in a traditional pension and 50% in a private account. Seventy-four percent opted for the hybrid plan. But when public employees were offered the same choice in 2002 and 2003, after the slump, only 11% chose the hybrid offering.

In a further sign of how reluctant investors are to go it alone, the teachers union has a bill before the state Legislature to make the hybrid plan, now mandatory, optional for new employees. Since the hybrid plan for public employees went optional, only 5,400 of the 37,000 new members, or 15%, selected the hybrid plan, says Washington state retirement director John Charles.

"I'm sure the market was a major factor," Charles says. "The feeling prior to 2000 was the market was always going to go up. Our members thought they could get better returns than the professionally managed pension funds. But now they don't want to take on the risks of investing themselves."

•Lower returns for do-it-yourself pension investors. Nebraska, which pioneered private accounts for public employees in the early 1960s, scrapped the accounts for new hires in 2003 after a study that showed returns on individual accounts were lower than those posted by professionally run state pension programs. Replacing them: a cash-balance plan run by pros with a guaranteed 5% return and the potential to earn more.

The state is basically shifting back toward traditional pensions, says Anna Sullivan, executive director of Nebraska's Public Employees Retirement Systems. "Frankly, people have too many other things to do than manage money. They are busy working and taking the kids to soccer games and Cub Scouts."

•401(k) money left on the table. One theory as to why people don't invest in 401(k) plans is they can't afford it. But a study co-authored by Harvard University Ph.D. candidate James Choi found that "ignorance" and "procrastination" may be more to blame.

The fall 2004 study found that 66% of workers over 59½ who don't participate in their 401(k) — people who could stash money in their 401(k) and yank it the next day without penalty — still said they didn't plan to ever sign up.

"These people basically had free money available to them but didn't take advantage of it," Choi says. "It is akin to walking past a $100 bill and leaving it on the sidewalk."

•Frequent mistakes by investors in the federal government's Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The simplicity and success of TSP, a retirement savings plan available to federal employees that offers five investment options, is often cited as a model for Social Security. The theory is that if people are given a small menu of diversified, plain-vanilla investment choices, they will be less likely to make mistakes.

Not true, says Kathy Bostjancic, senior economist at Merrill Lynch, who found that many TSP investors "unwisely" shifted assets into stocks near the market peak in 2000 and had too little in stocks at the bottom three years later.

"The president's plan to privatize Social Security ... suggests that if you empower people, they will take initiative, have more investment dollars in their own name, and have a bigger stake in the future of the United States," Bostjancic says. "And that is OK if people feel they are capable of investing their own money. But our research shows that people don't feel comfortable managing their own money."

Going to the pros for advice

That might explain the growing preference for financial advice. In 1995, 21% of new mutual fund sales were direct transactions between the fund company and retail investors. In 2003, that number dropped to 13%, according to the Investment Company Institute. In contrast, sales through financial advisers rose from 59% in 1995 to 65% in 2003. ICI data also show that 71% of fund investors tend to rely on the advice of a professional when making decisions to buy and sell funds.

Underscoring how some individuals need their financial hands held, a survey conducted six months ago by Hewitt found that one-third of the 621 respondents didn't know what investments were available to them in their 401(k) plan. And only 2% said they believe they are "very knowledgeable" about investing.

Proponents of Bush's proposal, which would give workers 55 and younger the option of diverting a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes and opening an account in their own name, say it has clear benefits.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan backs private accounts, saying they would bolster the savings rate and serve as a wealth-building vehicle for less-affluent Americans. Private accounts also would give workers an opportunity to earn larger returns than the current system and help build wealth that can be passed on to heirs.

So why aren't more Americans excited? "People are suffering from cognitive dissonance," says Woody Dorsey, president of Market Semiotics, which studies how psychology drives investment decisions. "People probably like the idea of controlling some of their money, but at the same time they don't trust their ability to invest."

If so many people had not lost so much money when the bubble burst in 2000, Bush's push to create private accounts might be garnering more support.

"Timing is everything," says Bob Barbera, chief economist at ITG Hoenig. "There would have been more broad-based support back in 1997, 1998 and 1999, when everyone and his sister was watching TV to find out what Internet stocks to buy, and 30% was considered a good return for low risk."

Of course, had Bush's bold plan been enacted during the heady '90s, many new accounts likely would have slipped into the red once the stock market turned south in March 2000.

Therein lies the problem. The worst stock meltdown since the Depression era gave people a greater appreciation of the emotional and financial value of a safety net, a powerful concept that fostered the creation of Social Security back in the 1930s.

"Everyone knows you do better in stocks over the long run, but in moments of despair it can be helpful for an economy and its citizens to know there is something that's not at risk," Barbera says.

Strategy Questions Loom for Bush in Retirement Push -- His Hand Are Tied!!

Like any other developed countries. the pension fund system is very ill!! The Isue become worst is that the people who propelled the economy is reaching the retirement age. The 1st batch of Baby Bloomer are suppose to retire on Jan 1, 2008., then follows by the declining, contributor's of these pension fund from the X generation & the Web generation. The situation would be worst then what people espected

The issue of Social Security for this Nation is even more serious then any other country. As the system have been changing from time to time over those years of "Revisions". This have according to

Lao Tze said: Governing A Big Nation; Is Like Frying A Small Fish!!

Then with the Congress, House of Senate As well as 2 opposing Political parties holding on their own Political Interests & views, these made the President of this country almost Paralysis on his initiatives to put solutions forward.

Well it is the time to "Do More & Talk Less", as 2008 is just at the corner. Put all personal or political agenda aside & get the Social Security & Income Tax issue resolved before it is too late!!

Strategy Questions Loom for Bush in Retirement Push
1 hour, 16 minutes ago

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (Reuters) - Seven weeks after launching a drive to remake Social Security (news - web sites), President Bush (news - web sites) has visited 18 states and traveled thousands of miles but has had little success in getting the public to warm to his idea of private accounts or in enticing Democrats to bring forth ideas.

Experts say Bush is getting closer to some crucial decisions on how far he wants to go to broker a compromise he might be able call a victory in his effort to change the national retirement system.

One dilemma for him is that some ideas that might appeal to Democrats could risk infuriating his conservative Republican base.

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the final leg of a two-day western tour, Bush again made a plea for both parties to come to the table.

"In order to solve this problem, it's not going to be a Republican idea or a Democrat idea," Bush said. "It's going to be American idea brought forth by both either Republicans or Democrats or both."

Traveling with Bush in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado was Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a one-time Republican rival to Bush, who played on his reputation for bipartisan appeal as he called Social Security an issue that "transcends party identification."

So far, Democrats are focusing their energies on fighting the centerpiece of Bush's plan -- allowing workers to shift part of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. They say such accounts would drive up the federal debt and undermine the traditional Social Security program.

Bush first rolled out some details of his proposal in his Feb. 2 State of the Union address. Since then, public opinion polls show no major movement in support of his plan.

'ADD-ON ACCOUNTS'

One way some analysts believe Bush could win over Democrats would be to embrace so-called "add-on" accounts funded outside of the Social Security system. Many Democrats favor such accounts. The powerful senior citizen lobby, the AARP, has no objections to them.

"The president has sounded a bit more conciliatory," said political analyst Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas. But he said Bush may need to make a much more dramatic shift in his approach to lay the groundwork for a compromise.

Bush has acknowledged private accounts alone won't permanently fix what he warns are serious financial strains facing Social Security as the huge baby boom generation prepares to retire.

He has floated ways to rein in its costs, such as tying the growth in future benefits to inflation rather than faster-growing wages, but has not offered specifics.

To reach out to Democrats, he has also signaled a willingness to discuss such ideas raising the $90,000 cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. He has been careful not to rule out "add-on" accounts, though he and his aides call his own approach of accounts funded through Social Security important to any plan.

Peter Ferrara, head of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a conservative think tank, called overtures like the signal of openness to a rise in the payroll tax cap -- which would effectively boost taxes on the wealthy -- a sellout. He vowed to lobby Republican lawmakers to defeat them.

This week marks a crucial time for Bush's Social Security effort. Lawmakers spending their Easter break meeting with constituents to gauge their views on Social Security. During a recess in February, many Republicans were shocked to be hit with a barrage of concerns from constituents.

Bush has a little over a month left in the 60-day 60-city blitz in which he and his aides are fanning out around the country to try to draw attention to Social Security's financial problems. The administration calls this the "early phase" of the Social Security effort.

At a Bakersfield, California, forum on Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) claimed some progress on that.

"One of things that I think has been heartwarming is the extent to which I believe the American people now -- the vast majority as we look at the polls -- understand we do have a problem," Cheney said. "This is not something somebody cooked up."

But Susan MacManus, political scientist at the University of South Florida, said that as his campaign wraps up, the pressure will grow for Bush himself to put out more specifics.

"Then it will be time to pass the ball back to Congress," she said.



Yahoo! News - Strategy Questions Loom for Bush in Retirement Push

Indonesia - The Balance of Power In South East Asia

The appended article is written by Winston Marshall of:

Power Politics

I am born 10 years before Singapore Independent. Singapore joint Malaysia in 1963 Aug 31st.

Then later in 1965 Aug 9th, Singapore become independent. Anyway, I will share my observations & Memory on these later.

I can recalled those day Lee used to come to my Dad shop for meeting almost on a weekly bases. I have been in born a political observer since I was 6th years old. I have witness the

Riots

Confrontations & Insurgencies

Political Struggle between Parties & Countries in the Regions


The Isreal assitance in setting up the Army is a known facts for those days in Singapore. But the Air Force & Marine were trained by the British. I can recalled that the British have withdrew the Airforce totally in 1979.

The things that happen then & now be it in South East Asia, Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America...etc. There are no difference on the basic Conflicts issues:-

Interests

Idealogises

Religion

Challenge of Power

Be it Chinese, Malay or Indonesian even Thais; Burmese; Philippinothey have in common is that all these race are through many thousand years of ehnic groups integrations. But due to the history have not been properly recorded. Therefore it create an opportunity for those intend to be Rule's or Political leader's to capitalized it as an issue. So that they can rally the support of their respective people in their country. That create the opportunity for their ex-Soverign Government Nation's & other Military Gears manufacturing nation's a multi-billions dollars business opportunity.

I have lives in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia... I have friends relatives in all these countries... It is not my interest to see that these countries due to the certain Politicians ulterior motives & pushing our friends & relatives to war. Be it the war in the Region or even in the case of What Winston have said, the super power in the making of China & India.

Looking at the blood relations from the people in South East Asia.. be it Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Vietnam ...Singapore... you see that their people have blood relations from both India & China. Now looking at the China & Indian Culture.. there is no history inscripted that the Chinese & Indian Race with such a strong civilization & cultural back ground; have proven that the Parents & Heirs are killing each other!!

Yes, you may see that the news paper reporting that the people .. parents & children are fighting in court over Money!!!!! Never, in the history hard written that these 2 great race with more than 6,000 of civilization have been killing their own bloods. After all be it Chinese or Indian, their "God" is their Ancestors. It have been past on generations after generations that their respective Ancestor's are their Living "God" who give them the Power of this Live!!

Therefore.. the Best Balance of Power in South East Asia is their own people.. the whole Asia is a big family by itself. Leave the family alone!!

Indonesia

I have previously touched on the paradigm of an arms race in Southeast Asia, particularly between Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Since the demise of the Soviet Union and the breakdown of bipolar stability, the region been suffering from a power vacuum. China and India are becoming increasingly assertive over the area, but as of yet lack the credible ability to apply force. Partially in response to the explosive growth of these two Asian giants, the three aforementioned countries place military defense as a top priority. Singapore has, with Israeli help, built up a technologically advanced, very efficient, and very powerful defense force. As it stands, the island is effectively invulnerable from amphibious assault. It also possesses enough naval power to enforce its interests throughout the area; natural resource concessions, piracy, and orderly commerce are all key issues. As such factors apply equally to Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur has spent a great sum of capital improving its stock of weaponry as well. Indonesia has also sought to do so, but over the past decade has been stymied by a variety of factors.

Perhaps most importantly, the country became an international pariah for its humanitarian abuses and tyrannical rule. Ever since Washington, Jakarta's main backer for many years, imposed an arms embargo 13 years ago, the country's forces have been in decay. Improvements have come at a far slower pace than those in neighboring Malaysia and Singapore. Furthermore, severe corruption among government officials and the military-industrial complex has crushed efficiency, and the government has been poorly managed. Indonesia's military forces remain fairly capable, but are rapidly aging and insufficient for the nation's demands. The type of gunboat diplomacy it's been using with Malaysia, for example, can only go so far unless its backed up with credible hard power. Unless it reforms, Jakarta in the future will be evicerated by rival powers.

So it's within that political context that recently elected Indonesian President Susilo Yudhoyono has set out to reestablish strong ties with the United States and greatly strengthen his decaying country. I have written very positively of Mr. Yudhoyono in the past, and I firmly stand by that assessment today. The President has taken real steps to accomplish his bold agenda, and has shown a determination to reform. Irrespective of whether he's able to effectively root out corruption (or if he merely suppresses it), I foree strong economic growth and vibrant foreign investment in Jakarta's future. Following from this, and the warming of ties between Indonesia and America, it appears that Mr. Yudhoyono will almost certainly succeed in modernizing the military and building up hard power. A very assertive foreign policy is sure to accompany this change.

One question to be asked is whether strengthening military and diplomatic ties is in Washington's best interest. After all, helping Indonesia to improve militarily would mean reducing the relative power of an important American ally, Singapore. Yet this concern is relatively minor in the overall scheme of things. US power would always be greater than either Indonesia or Singapore. So Washington could continue to maintain leverage over the balance of power. Furthermore, allowing Indonesia to strengthen itself militarily may actual result in greater regional stability. Granted, a powerful Indonesia may bully its neighbors. However, it would be resistant to Chinese pressure and, with increasing economic integration, could play a positive role in securing commerce and cracking down on piracy.

The other risk in warming relations is somewhat more real. In doing so, some argue, the United States will release the pressure currently on Jakarta in response to its human rights abuses. Senior military officers indicted by UN prosecutors in relation to alledged war crimes in East Timor have yet to be handed over by the Indonesian government. Continuing abuses in the fight between the central government and separatist insurgents have also provoked international outrage. Many believe that maintaining the current system, whereby the military exercises significant influence over government policy, will necessarily lead to more abuses.

That's a valid point. By lending military and diplomatic support to the regime in Jakarta, the United States may very well allow the regime to carry on unsavory practices. However, engagement with the government would foster greater liberalism and accountability in the country. After all, to accomplish the goal of modernizing Indonesia under the framework of liberalism would require reform in governance. The eventual transfer of military control to civilian authorities, the more expansive rulesets Indonesia would have to abide by, and the influence of a Western presence would all advance the cause of good governance and accountability. The very positive effect of American intervention in Aceh province following the recent tsunami disaster is proof enough of that.

While the costs to the US of support for Indonesia are marginal, the benefits are far larger in magnitude. The most obvious benefit is the revenue that would accrue to US companies for arms sales and defense integration contracts. This may turn out to be quite substantial. The most important benefit, however, would be in the form of Indonesian stability and prosperity.

As is, the Indonesian state is economically and politically unstable. It's fractured, and the civilian central government lacks the authority it should have for proper administration. Corruption is rife, and the country is a hotbed for piracy; both the traditional kind and that of intellectual property. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim state, and a central base for many radical strands of Islam. It's a destabilizing factor in an already tense region.

Restoring strong ties between Washington and Jakarta would help the government to stabilize the country and promote economic prosperity. Diplomatic support would lend credibility to the central government in its mission to centralize power. Military cooperation would lead to a more powerful central government in the hands of more responsibile civilian leadership. Coordination between international groups and the Indonesian police would help in the effort against piracy. Furthering economic ties, such as with a trade agreement, would help the country to expand economically. US influence could be useful in bolstering the authority and legitimacy of the legal system. Positive American action, like that in Aceh, would vastly improve Washington's image in the eyes of those 200+ million Muslims. Not to mention that the US could eventually gain another ally for the day when it must compete with India and China as equals in the Asian theater.

Thus it becomes clear in the final calculus that the benefits of a good Indonesian-American relationship far outweigh the costs.

Power Politics: Asia Pacific Archives