My RSS Feeds
NORTH KOREAN DOMINOES! Like Old West, USA Broke North Korea TREATY! Potential WMD Doomsday Involves Japan, China. Could Bible Be Wrong Re Middle East Armageddon? Was GWB Wrong Re Iraq Urgency?
NORTH KOREAN
DOMINOES! Like Old
West, USA Broke
North Korea TREATY!
Potential WMD
Doomsday Involves
Japan, China. Could
Bible Be Wrong Re
Middle East
Armageddon? Was
GWB Wrong Re Iraq
Urgency? So Much
For Biblical
Historians,
Predictions &
Preemptions!
Fareed Zakaria, “If Japan - which is directly threatened by North Korean missiles - decides to go nuclear, that would trigger a strong reaction from China. That could mean the start of an arms race and associated tensions in the region. In fact, some people think it would be in America's interests to have this happen, because it would finally scare the Chinese into pushing the North Koreans.”
Tabacco: Dominoes is one thing; but a USA Foreign Policy, based on the Russian Roulette School of Diplomacy, is something entirely different!
When will American Capitalists realize this is NOT a VIDEO GAME and their manipulations could lead to a real Armageddon, just not the one depicted in the Bible!
If not the smartest man in America, Zakaria is, without a doubt, the “Smartest Anchor at CNN”!
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/31/fzgps.01.html
FAREED ZAKARIA GPS
North Korea's Nuclear Test; Diplomacy With Rivals
Aired May 31, 2009 - 13:00 ET
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.
The big news of the week is, of course, North Korea's nuclear tests. What do they mean? How should the world respond?
It's a complicated issue, but I do think we need to keep it in perspective.
What does it mean? Well, that North Korea is a bizarre, aggressive regime and is defying the international community and building nuclear weapons. This has been true for about a decade.
The real reason that this is a complex problem, though, is that it could change the basic geopolitics of East Asia.
If Japan -- which is directly threatened by North Korean missiles -- if Japan decides to go nuclear, that would trigger a strong reaction from China. That could mean the start of an arms race and associated tensions in the region. In fact, some people think it would be in America's interests to have this happen, because it would finally scare the Chinese into pushing the North Koreans.
But, of course, that would have many associated costs. Other countries in Asia that have been dominated or invaded by Japan would probably have an allergic reaction to a nuclear-armed Japan. China would react very dramatically. None of this is going to be peaceful or stable.
And none of it is happening yet. I'm not predicting it will happen. But that is what is at stake. And it's the reason why these tests are important, and why we need to watch and manage the situation carefully.
So, today I'm talking to two men who've been sitting across the table from the North Koreans. Selig Harrison and Jack Pritchard know and have negotiated with these people. You'll be surprised by what they have to say.
Then, then main event, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger! His ideas on what choices the United States has in dealing with this bizarre North Korean regime -- more importantly, what China can do, a country he knows well.
And we will take a look inside the private compound of Kim Jong-il. What does he do for fun?
And finally, some rosy economic predictions this week from Niall Ferguson and Joshua Cooper Ramo! If you've been reading what Niall Ferguson writes, you know that was a joke.
Let's get started.
(BREAK)
ZAKARIA: What are the North Koreans really thinking?
I'm going to talk to two men who have sat across the table from North Koreans, often recently, and negotiated directly with them in various capacities.
Selig Harrison made his 11th trip to North Korea in January. And just this week, he met with senior North Korean diplomats at the U.N.
And Jack Pritchard is a retired Army colonel who has worked on North Korean issues in both the Clinton and the George W. Bush administrations. Right after the show, he is going to go and meet with the North Koreans.
Welcome, gentlemen.
People sometimes look at what the North Koreans are doing. And they think, these guys are crazy.
Are they crazy? Does it make sense what they have just done?
CHARLES (JACK) PRITCHARD, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE DPRK: Well, it certainly doesn't make sense from a Western perspective. But if you take a look at this from a North Korean perspective and understand what's going on behind the scenes, then it begins to look slightly more rational.
We don't accept it, but it's something that we can understand.
Tabacco: “We don't accept it”? Only an American could make that statement! Wait and see how selfish, self-centered and self-absorbed that comment is in view of the explanation follow up!
SELIG HARRISON, AUTHOR, "KOREAN ENDGAME": First of all, they feel they've been conned by the United States.
We always talk about North Korea being untrustworthy and not living up to agreements. From their point of view, from the point of the view of the hard-liners in North Korea, they agreed, went along with the decision to suspend the North Korean nuclear program.
From October 1994 to December 2002, there was no North Korean nuclear weapons program, because the Clinton administration made a deal with them. That was abrogated.
We didn't fulfill our main promise in connection with that, in return for their suspension, which was building two light-water reactors for them. We just couldn't quite get our act together.
Tabacco: I don’t know what country you live in, but in all the countries I know of, when you violate your end of a “deal”, that deal is NULL & VOID! So don’t give me, “We don't accept it” or “We just couldn't quite get our act together”.
Then the moderates say, well, wait. We're going to get Obama now, and everything's going to be OK. Then along comes Obama. And from their point of view, he still is demonizing North Korea. Hillary Clinton, in particular, has been making a whole series of very -- of statements that confirm the North Korean belief that the U.S. is hostile to them, and confirmed the hard-line belief that we might engage in military action against them.
After all, from the point of view of are they being rational, they are surrounded by very powerful U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities.
ZAKARIA: Do you think that the Obama administration has done things to make them feel insecure?
PRITCHARD: No, I don't. I think the Obama administration has been put into a position of reacting far too soon.
Launching that rocket on the 5th of April seemed very provocative. And the North Koreans were asked, “Please don't do this?”
The North...
ZAKARIA: Asked by?
PRITCHARD: Well, the entire international community.
ZAKARIA: But specifically and publicly by the Chinese, right?
Tabacco: Why didn’t the Chinese tell the United States, ”Build those two light-water reactors you promised!” Or maybe they did tell the US, but Obama and the MSM has reneged on divulging that information, which seems more likely! You see, LIES OF OMISSION are just as relevant and dangerous as LIES OF COMMISSION!
PRITCHARD: The Chinese very specifically have told them this was not a good thing to do. The United Nations has done this. Each of the major players in the region has also done this. This has been a unanimous request not to do that at this point in time.
The North Koreans were extraordinarily angry. They were angry at the Chinese. That put in play their next item, and that was the nuclear test that we witnessed on the 25th of May.
HARRISON: But I think the whole point is that they view the idea, the U.N. resolution on this satellite launch as completely unjustified, and what they consider a double standard internationally that makes them feel that they're the aggrieved party.
Tabacco: I can state uncategorically that North Korea, not the United States, was the “aggrieved party”! Why do you pull your punches, Mr. Harrison! “.. makes them feel” indeed!
ZAKARIA: Do you agree with the idea that this is a regime in which there is a debate? I mean, you were actually negotiating with them.
PRITCHARD: Yes.
ZAKARIA: I mean, it strikes one from the outside, this is about as close as you get to a one-man regime there.
PRITCHARD: It is a one-man regime. But there are discussions that take place before decisions are made.
But what has occurred in the last few years -- not just the last weeks or months -- is that those that Selig describes as being moderate forces have lost the battle. ZAKARIA: The feeling is the relationship with the United States is dead and is not going anywhere anyway.
PRITCHARD: Well, this is where the mistake takes place.
The anticipation that President Obama would come in with a more open attitude and a willingness to engage even on a higher plane, that was what they had anticipated. But they didn't give this administration an opportunity to respond...
Tabacco: Mr. Pritchard, I think we can safely assume is of the GOP-orientation. Why blame President Obama! Let’s put the blame where it truly belongs: the GEORGE W. BUSH 8-YEAR ADMINISTRATION! Oh, I forgot: Bill Clinton, not George W. Bush, was responsible for 9/11/2001, right?
ZAKARIA: Isn't that fair...
HARRISON: Well, I agree... (Will wonders never cease!)
ZAKARIA: Isn't that fair, Selig? For the last two years, we have adopted a policy toward North Korea, which has been negotiations, talks...
HARRISON: However, here again -- here again, they feel that they've been conned. In the negotiations that took place last year, in which we got them to disable their Yongbyon plutonium reactor, we were supposed to -- the six parties -- were supposed to provide 600,000 tons of energy aid. That was the main quid pro quo.
Tabacco: When our “Wall Street Crisis” happened last year, it took less than 2 months to pass that WALL STREET BAILOUT. If Bush didn’t do anything about those 2 light-water reactors, and he didn’t, it’s because Bush didn’t want to do anything. Knowing how cowardly Bush is re Nuclear Powers vis-à-vis powerless Islamic countries, that fact is incomprehensible!
They disabled the reactor. Our side provided 400,000, and not 600,000.
And when I went there in January, they said, "Now, you tell Obama, the one thing he's got to do to show us he's serious about a fair, equitable bargaining relationship is to get Japan to provide those 200,000 tons they were supposed to provide. If you can't get the Japanese to do it, then find another way to do it."
ZAKARIA: OK. Let me ask about the one country that people say we should be working harder with and to get them to push the North Koreans. And that's, of course, China!
PRITCHARD: Yes.
ZAKARIA: In your experience, did the Chinese have real leverage with the North Koreans?
PRITCHARD: The Chinese will tell you when you talk to them, "Yes, we have leverage. But the first time we try to use it, we lose it". So, they're very cautious about that. (If only the US were as wise as the Chinese!)
And for the Chinese, the significant events in Northeast Asia would be instability along their border with North Korea. That, above all else, drives their own national security interest.
ZAKARIA: Meaning they fear a North Korean implosion more than they fear North Korea with nukes?
PRITCHARD: That's correct.
ZAKARIA: What's your sense of the North Korean-Chinese relationship?
HARRISON: Well, the whole point is that (RED) China and the United States have conflicting interests in North Korea. We do not have divergent interests. Everything Jack said is correct.
Tabacco: I supplied that (RED). Funny how we never omitted that important fact during the Cold War period, but never include it now that China is our Prime Manufacturer & Financier – but CHINA IS STILL RED!
But the point is that the Chinese want to make sure that North Korea survives. They don't want a unified Korea in which the United States has bases next to their border, so they're trying to make North Korea as economically dependent on them as possible.
ZAKARIA: But you know, a lot of people say -- are going to listen to this and say -- it sounds an awful lot like you are kind of an apologist for a very nasty regime.
This is a regime that has allowed two million of its own people to starve to death. This is a regime that maintains gulags, that has been responsible for an enormous amount of internal misery and also external instability.
Why do you trust them enough that you feel like you could imagine this kind of amicable, rational relationship?
HARRISON: It is a nasty regime. I don't like the regime.
The only way to change the regime is by opening up with North Korea, engaging with North Korea. They want to do it. Because the hard-liners have been empowered through mistakes on our part, in my view, it's going to be harder to do it now.
Tabacco: Q. Is Harrison really talking about “Human Rights” or is he discussing “Capitalism” in code while using “Human Rights” as a COVER? They may not “trust” North Korea, but Tabacco doesn’t trust them!
We won't even send back the -- we won't even invite the DPRK Philharmonic to come to Washington, to the United States now, after the New York Philharmonic went there, because Hillary wants to use it as leverage. Now, that is not helping our cause in North Korea.
To the extent that we open it up, we can defeat -- we can help the people working for human rights (CAPITALISM) in North Korea. (Tabacco: Reading between the lines is the biggest part of my job!)
ZAKARIA: Do you buy this?
PRITCHARD: Not at all! The North Koreans are responsible for their own actions. We have given them plenty of opportunity.
The North Koreans are not on a path for benign...
Tabacco: Note how everybody seems to have forgotten about those “two light-water reactors”! Capitalists seem to have a problem with focusing, staying on subject, and remembering relevant points, which undermine their arguments. Fortunately, Tabacco has no such problem!
HARRISON: In what way have they reached out?
ZAKARIA: Wait, wait, guys.
PRITCHARD: I'll answer my question. You answer your question.
HARRISON: OK. I was told to interrupt when I had something.
PRITCHARD: OK. I have seen no evidence in the last three years that the North Koreans are pursuing what used to be the standard conventional wisdom that they wanted to have a more amicable relationship with the United States. That hasn't been on the books for some time.
Tabacco: Again, I ask if “amicable relationship” means anything more than "Capitalist cohabitation"?
It'd be nice if they showed us that it was a return, what they'd like to do. But that's not what's going on now.
ZAKARIA: On that note we have to stop.
Selig Harrison, Mr. Pritchard, thank you so much.
And we will be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY KISSINGER: If, for some reason, they're impelled to give up -- I mean, if it's conceivable that they're impelled to give up these nuclear weapons...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAKARIA: There are few people who can offer keener insight and deeper understanding on North Korea and other international problems than former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Tabacco: Now, Zakaria makes me want to puke! He doesn’t mean it, but he did say it!
His list of accomplishments is long, so I will point out that he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who engineered detente with the Soviet Union and brought Nixon to China. He currently runs Kissinger Associates, an international consulting firm.
Tabacco: Well, there goes Tabacco’s respect for the Nobel Peace Prize! What a backhanded insult that is to Martin Luther King!
Welcome, Henry.
HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: A pleasure to be here.
ZAKARIA: First tell me, how big a deal are these tests, because this is a small, dysfunctional country with a small arsenal?
KISSINGER: They have now put themselves into a position where, if, for some reason, they're impelled to give up -- I mean, if it's conceivable that they're impelled to give up these nuclear weapons, their whole regime might collapse. (How, Henry? How?)
And then one has the problem of the evolution of Northeast Asia in a region, of course, of primary interest to South Korea, but of huge interest to Japan and China.
ZAKARIA: So, you think that were the weapons to be taken away from them, were they to face a kind of diplomatic reversal and the loss of their weapons and, thus, the loss of prestige, the regime could collapse?
KISSINGER: It could collapse. At any rate, it would be a different regime.
Tabacco: Kissinger means this “tiger would be de-clawed!” North Korea, even with its two light-water reactors, would have its hat in its hand and be very respectful when addressing the Great American father, whether Black or White!
The one significant accomplishment of that regime that they can advertise is their nuclear program. And for that, their people have suffered unimaginably.
Tabacco: Courtesy of United States’ retaliations! How dare the North Koreans “stand up” to the US of A! Just because you ended our dreams of winning the Korean War, that’s no reason to now get uppity!
ZAKARIA: So, it's a terrible set of choices. So, either we accept a nuclear North Korea, which has consequences for proliferation policy, or we risk a highly -- a destabilizing push to denuclearize it, which might mean the implosion of the regime, refugees...
Tabacco: Tails, you win; Heads, I lose!
KISSINGER: Yes. But we cannot have a view of international affairs where we say a country can develop nuclear weapons in the face of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other obligations.
Tabacco: DUH! Have you, Henry Kissinger, ever heard of a small country called ISRAEL!
And then you're afraid to get them to give it up, because the impact on their domestic structure might be too severe. (With the United States’ able assistance, of course! NOW I understand what Kissinger was getting at (I mean, if it's conceivable that they're impelled to give up these nuclear weapons, their whole regime might collapse.) and why this potential scenario DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME! Does Henry truly believe the North Koreans are dumb enough not to see this too? Why would any of our “enemies” allow themselves to be conned out of their WMDs while Israel goes INCOGNITO, nuclearly speaking!)
ZAKARIA: Because the Chinese look at this and say, "Look. The scenario under which we press the North Koreans harder has many possible outcomes, all of which are mostly bad for us.
"Either the regime implodes and we have millions of refugees, or unifies, and we then have a unified Korea on our border, perhaps with some nuclear weapons. The state will certainly be an American ally, as Germany became when it unified.
"So, why is any of this good for us? Why should we press them?"
KISSINGER: If they do nothing, they will then live in an Asia in which South Korea and Japan have nuclear weapons, and it creates a nuclear-armed regime that's on their borders. That's not a good prospect either. (But preferable to the alternative: US DOMINANCE!)
What I think is necessary is that the United States and China, and with some significant consultation with Japan and Russia, but -- and, of course, South Korea -- but that they come to some understanding about a Northeast Asia security conference.
ZAKARIA: Give North Korea some security assurances, so that they don't...
Tabacco: North Korea would have to be INSANE to take the word of a country that lied to American Indians, lied to Negro Slaves, lied to women, lied to Japanese in internment camps, lied to homosexuals, and lied to Saddam Hussein about removing his WMDs and then invading Iraq anyway! No, I don’t think North Koreans are that STUPID! Why would anyone give up the only bargaining chip they have? (Chinese), yes, we have leverage. But the first time we try to use it, we lose it. So, they're very cautious about that.
If common sense is good for China, why would it be bad for North Korea!
KISSINGER: As part of a...
ZAKARIA: ... so that they're not justified in being insecure.
KISSINGER: That's right. North Korea does not, should not have to worry about an American military attack -- or, for that matter, a Chinese military attack.
Tabacco: What is Henry drinking or shooting up with? Or is he just lying! Don’t you just love it when world-famous politicos tell outrageous lies that would make mere mortals choke!
ZAKARIA: You know there are many people who say, we've been trying to get the Chinese to push the North Koreans. And they really always stop, because they don't want this to happen.
Should we be telling the Chinese that we are going to encourage Japan and South Korea to collaborate with us on security arrangements? Should we signal to them the scenario you suggested, which is they might end up facing a nuclear-armed Japan and a nuclear-armed South Korea, if they're not -- if they don't push hard enough?
KISSINGER: When you go to the Chinese and say, "Will you bring pressure on the North Koreans in the following way", in the back of their minds they say to themselves, "If the pressure doesn't succeed, we look impotent. If the pressure does succeed, we may face an implosion along our border". (That’s called a Lose-Lose Situation also, and there’s only one logical solution – DON’T DO IT!)
And so, they would need to have some dialogue about what happens in case of an implosion. And it would have to be conducted in a manner in which they are not the initiators of this.
Tabacco: That’s a lie too big for even Henry Kissinger to tell! Good going, Henry! But that question still remains, "HOW?"
You understand this is my assessment. This is not my knowledge. But this, I believe, is the way to proceed.
Tabacco: Which way is that, Henry? You’ve given us several scenarios and then discredited them. So which way, Henry? Which way?
ZAKARIA: But you imagine that the Chinese view of their interests in North Korea is shifting, because they see...
KISSINGER: I think the Chinese view of their position in the world is shifting, in general. And I think that the Chinese, if they analyze it in the long-term view that I have known them to, they must realize that this is an untenable situation.
So, I believe that we need a comprehensive, strategic concept of how we're going to operate, that we should try to coordinate that importantly with China.
ZAKARIA: And our interests are aligned?
KISSINGER: Our interests are sufficiently aligned that we both want a peaceful Northeast Asia, and that we cannot go on to have the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
To say that a government that oppressive, and that monomaniacally focused on this one weapon will then not use it in some way, is an illusion.
Tabacco: But they are “using” it, Henry. The North Koreans are using their new military power as LEVERAGE! Remember the Chinese! Once you actually use your LEVERAGE, you lose it! So the North Koreans are satisfied just to have it; actually using it makes to sense to them either, Henry. And, after all, isn’t their analysis the one that really counts!
Of course, Henry is prejudiced by the knowledge that the United States had to “experiment on actual people” in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to determine just how deadly their new toy actually was. You see, folks, Evil people like Henry Kissinger, who think evil thoughts all the time, cannot imagine anyone else thinking or acting any differently.
But even -- it's not an issue of how they would use it. It's an issue also of the symbolic effect of the impotence of the world community in the face of a very unambiguous challenge.
ZAKARIA: And we will be back with more with Henry Kissinger.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KISSINGER: What would the Japanese think if the United States suddenly said, we'll turned North Korea into a paradise? What would the South Koreans think?
It's an absolutely unworkable idea. But even if it were even conceivable, why would we needle China at its Korean border?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAKARIA: I'm back now with Henry Kissinger for more on North Korea, China and Russia.
Back to China, because no one knows China better than you. Is it your sense -- you said China's interests are changing - Its conception of its interests are changing in the world?
Do you think China is becoming more aware that it has broader responsibilities for global order or for regional interests?
So far, let's be honest, they have tended to have a very internally driven view. They want to develop. They want peace.
They want a free ride on American security. They have not wanted to provide security and make any dramatic policy initiations that would do that.
KISSINGER: You know, the idea of a country having a global responsibility for security everywhere, simultaneously, that's a uniquely American idea.
Tabacco: More accurate Truth from Henry Kissinger? Is Armageddon at hand!
And I'm not sure it's all that much in our interest to have China actively engaged strategically in every corner of the world.
Tabacco: Particularly where Oil Interests are at risk!
ZAKARIA: But this is on their border.
KISSINGER: But this is on their border. And they are -- of course, it is in their interest. And there they are engaged, at least...
ZAKARIA: But I press you on this, because you know there are a lot of people, a lot of conservatives -- Bob Kagan had a piece in the "Washington Post" where he said, let's face it. The Chinese interests and our interests are completely opposed. They want a client state in North Korea.
KISSINGER: He wants to create an American client state in North Korea. He said, let's magnify our contact with North Korea, turn it into a democracy by having exchange programs. That will then teach the Chinese a lesson.
Tabacco: do you mean, Henry, a “democracy” such as we have in the United States in which the Haves and Have-Mores rule while the other 95% serve? Is that the sort of “democracy” you would “give” to North Korea, Henry!
ZAKARIA: But to a certain extent, Selig Harrison was also saying, we should combat Chinese influence in Northeast Asia by extending ourselves.
There are people who feel -- Robert Kaplan in "The Atlantic" says, this is a North Korean play to get America involved, to balance against the Chinese, whom they fear are going to overwhelm them.
KISSINGER: I believe that it's not a wise American strategy to challenge China at its very -- at the Yellow River -- in a broken-down country, to see whether we can turn it into a symbolic anti-Chinese state, which in more ways is frankly an absurd idea.
Tabacco: More Kissinger wisdom! I guess everybody is smarter than George W. Bush, who never told the Truth about anything. Even Kissinger has to tell the Truth sometimes to camouflage his lies on important matters. Perhaps Kissinger watches Lou Dobbs Tonight!
Who in North Korea would cooperate with us on such an effort?
What would the Japanese think if the United States suddenly said, we'll turn North Korea into a paradise? What will the South Koreans think?
It's an absolutely unworkable idea. But even if it were even conceivable, why would we needle China at its Korean border?
I think, in the next decade, the evolution of the Chinese- American relationship is going to be complicated enough. And I think we should look at it first from the point of view of cooperation.
Of course, if any country attempts to dominate Asia in a hegemonic fashion, that would be a challenge.
And if North Korea should think that the way to get us to make them an ally against China is to kick over an existing agreement (Duh, who “kicked over the existing agreement, Henry?), throw out the American, the distinguished American ambassador who was sent to negotiate and to check the American secretary of state's visit to Pyongyang, that is a very short-sighted view.
ZAKARIA: Let's talk about the other great power that's involved here -- because this is another thorny relationship -- Russia.
How do we get the Russians to be more cooperative on an issue like this? And I say, "like this", because there is a more general problem. (Like what, Henry, like what? We’re almost finished with the Kissinger interview, and so far all he’s given us is non-viable options. Where are those insightful, Henry Kissinger like, Nobel Peace Prize Solutions?)
The Obama administration has made a significant overture, with Hillary Clinton. And so far, there doesn't seem much in the view, in the way of reciprocation.
Now, you have met with Putin more often, one-on-one, than I think any American. You've met with him about...
KISSINGER: Twenty -- 18, 20 times.
ZAKARIA: What is your sense of what it would take to get the Russians, to draw the Russians in?
KISSINGER: Well, first of all, Russia has achieved its national identity historically through a kind of imperial policy in all directions, and has been progressively expanding in all directions, which was extremely difficult, obviously, for neighboring countries.
Now, in the space of 20 years, they have lost towards the West 300 years of their history. And they're right back...
ZAKARIA: The 300-year-old empire.
KISSINGER: ... to where they had started under Peter -- where they've started under Peter the Great.
So, the posture of Russia is very assertive, but the analysis of Russia is very insecure. And so, Russia has been groping in its historically and sometimes clumsy way towards some kind of a possible partnership with the United States.
ZAKARIA: But you don't think Russia has so far demonstrated that it wants to reject international order? Do you think that there's a good chance to work with them?
KISSINGER: I think there is a possibility of working with Russia. We have to understand their special concerns. And they need to understand our special concerns.
I have the impression from the last conversation of Putin with President Bush in Sochi, and the conversations between President Obama and the new Russian president, Medvedev, in London, that at least a framework exists in which discussions are possible, and that that should be the basis of our relationship.
And now it tests this in a way. North Korea is a test of China. Iran is a test of Russia.
ZAKARIA: And we will talk about Iran and Russia and more the next time you come on the program.
Tabacco: That’s right, Fareed! Keep Henry on point!
Henry Kissinger... KISSINGER: It's always a pleasure to be with you.
ZAKARIA: Thank you, sir.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World?" segment.
Can you make out what this image is?
It's a satellite image of a waterslide. But not just any waterslide! This is North Korea, in a compound where the country's dear leader, Kim Jong-il, and his henchmen live just outside the capital of Pyongyang.
This mini water park was discovered by a band of cyber sleuths. They pore over Google maps of North Korea looking for landmarks that might aid our understanding of this bizarre nation.
They have found what they say are the countless idolatrous statues of Kim's father, the golf courses that Kim built for himself, the massive shells of buildings never finished and stadiums rarely used -- all further evidence of Kim's megalomania and his profligate spending.
The ridiculous amounts of money wasted are especially egregious in a country where millions of citizens have died of starvation because of Kim Jong-il's ruinous policies. (And ours! Zakaria has not suddenly grown Stupid; he is merely paying homage to his Capitalist bosses at CNN! No member of the FOR PAY 4th Estate is a FREE AGENT – NOT ONE!)
Which brings us to this picture. Experts confirm that what you're looking at here is a mass burial site. Hundreds upon hundreds of individual graves that many believe are filled with the victims of the mass starvation. These separate graves are much different from the mass graves that you find in other countries.
One more quirk of North Korea, I suppose. Even if the living have blood on their hands, they will always bury the dead with honor.
For more information on these armchair sleuths and what they have found, go to our Web site, cnn.com/gps.
Now, for the "Question of the Week"!
We at GPS are swiftly approaching our first birthday marking one year since the program began. And last week I asked you to tell me the one GPS moment over the course of the last year that stands out for you. You were all very kind.
The top answer so far, my interview with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and especially this remarkable moment of candor about his country's political future.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Do you think in 25 years there will be national elections in which there will be a competition, there will be perhaps two parties running for the positions such as your own?
WEN JIABAO, CHINESE PREMIER (voice of interpreter): It's hard for me to predict what will happen in 25 years' time.
Tabacco: Don’t bother! The TWO-PARTY SYSTEM has not worked in America! Perhaps you can institute two Parties like this: a “Communist Party” and a “Party Communist” as we in the USA have Democrats and Republicans!
This being said, I have this conviction that China's democracy will continue to grow.
Tabacco: Lies! He might have said, “I have this conviction that China’s CAPITALISM will continue to grow”.
In 20 to 30 years' time, the whole Chinese society will be more democratic and fairer, and the legal system in China will further be improved. The socialism, as we see it, will further mature and improve. (One can only hope! But if Capitalism grows, Socialism must SHRINK!)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZAKARIA: Next week we'll have a special look back at many of the highlights from the year. You won't want to miss this, so please make sure to tune in.
As for this week's question, if you were advising President Obama, what is the one idea you would tell him he must include in his speech in Cairo on Thursday? What's the one thought that he needs to get across to the Muslim world?
Send me an e-mail and let me know. We'll see if he uses your idea.
As always, I'd like to recommend a book. This one is called "The Man in the White Sharkskin Suit". Beautifully written, it is by Lucette Lagnado, and it's her account of a Jewish family's flight from Egypt to Paris, to Brooklyn. But it's a great personal story of Egypt's complicated history in the last half of the 20th century.
Lagnado, who is now a reporter for the "Wall Street Journal", draws a picture of a liberal Egypt that disappeared, but perhaps is coming back, or might some day come back.
Now, please mark your calendars. I will be taking questions from you, our loyal viewers, live on cnn.com, this coming Thursday, June 4th, at 11:30 a.m.
Thursday, 11:30 a.m., go to our Web site, cnn.com/gps. You'll find a link to the chat. And if you have a burning question you've always wanted to ask me, e-mail it to gps@cnn.com.
And please remember, if you've missed a GPS interview that you really want to see -- Musharraf, Wen Jiabao, Eliot Spitzer, any of them -- you can always find them on our Web site.
Thanks to all of you for being part of this program. I'll see you next week.
Tabacco: If I were Fareed Zakaria, and I were seeking a voice of authority, I would NEVER select Henry Kissinger, who embodies all that is wrong with USA’s Foreign Policy. Kissinger is one of the proponents, if not the originator, of America’s Russian Roulette Foreign Policy. When it comes to putting out fires, Henry Kissinger is an Arsonist, not a Fireman!
But, hey, it’s Fareed’s show, and CNN must always solicit well-known celebrities to ensure the largest possible audience whereas Tabacco publishes the truth and selects sources for their relevance, not their notoriety. When my numbers go South, I don’t change my MO, I just keep publishing the Truth until the apostates miss it so much they must come back. Finding unadulterated Truth in 21st century America is much harder than finding swine flu. There are no SACRED COWS on this blog!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World