DOCSLIB.ORG

Rewarding Nonproliferation: the South and North Korean Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rewarding Nonproliferation: the South and North Korean Cases Michael J. Engelhardt REWARDING NONPROLIFERATION: THE SOUTH AND NORTH KOREAN CASES by Michael J. Engelhardt Michael J. Engelhardt is Professor of Political Science at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He is the co-author of American Government: Essentials and Perspectives (3rd edition forthcoming 1997) and author of two studies on counterinsurgency conflicts that appeared in Conflict Quarterly (1991,1992). Personally I am haunted eration has been superpower alli- community in general have main- by the feeling that, unless ance commitments made during the tained a commitment to nonprolif- we are successful, by 1970 Cold War. In his study of 40 coun- eration. The question is whether there may be ten nuclear tries in 1984, Meyer finds that hav- nonproliferation strategies will be powers instead of four, ing a nuclear ally had “the greatest effective in the post-Cold War and by 1975, fifteen or twenty.... I see the possi- overall dissuasive effect”: most world. bility in the 1970s of a countries allied with either the On this point, the case of the two President of the United United States or the Soviet Union Koreas may tell us much, since in States having to face a showed no sign of wanting a bomb.4 Korea the United States has had to world in which fifteen or Reiss, in six case studies of address proliferation threats from a twenty or twenty-five na- proliferators and nonproliferators, friend as well as an adversary. As tions may have these assigns more weight to internal fac- an examination of proliferation in weapons. I regard that as tors, such as antinuclear public opin- the two Koreas will show, both the the greatest possible dan- 1 ion in democracies, but friend and the adversary ultimately ger and hazard. John acknowledges the importance of al- responded to American threats and Kennedy, 1962 liance ties.5 incentives. However, rewarding Reiss’s conclusion supports the nonproliferation by a friend may ortunately, we do not live in recent pessimism about proliferation have encouraged an attempt at pro- the world President Kennedy given the collapse of the Soviet al- liferation by a foe. feared. Instead of 20 nuclear F liance system and the possible weak- powers by 1970, the number had ening of the U.S. system (in the THE SOUTH TRIES FOR A reached nine by 1990, including four absence of a unifying outside BOMB, 1970-1976 undeclared nuclear powers (Israel, threat). For example, if the United India, Pakistan, and South Africa).2 States withdraws from commit- In 1970, U.S. allies in Asia and South Africa subsequently decided ments abroad, former Cold War elsewhere were nervous. The Viet- to dismantle its six bombs.3 Few allies may reconsider the nuclear nam involvement, undertaken to would have predicted such successes option as a way of dealing with lo- demonstrate American resolve and in the early 1960s. cal threats.6 So far, however, the commitment to distant friends, in- According to the literature, the United States and the international stead undermined both. Reacting to greatest single deterrent to prolif- The Nonproliferation Review/Spring-Summer 1996 31 Michael J. Engelhardt domestic displeasure with open- draw all American forces if it con- Ministry of Science and Technol- ended military commitments over- tinued. As a result the project was ogy announced plans to build its seas, President Nixon came out in shut down.10 In April 1975, South own reprocessing plant, without July 1970 with the Nixon Doctrine, Korea ratified the nuclear Non-Pro- foreign assistance.15 These plans which required allies to take more liferation Treaty (NPT). were scrapped when Carter can- responsibility for defending them- However, a second nuclear dis- celled the withdrawal plans in 1978, selves, except in cases of direct So- pute between Seoul and Washing- under heavy pressure from domes- viet threat.7 The same year, the ton erupted in the autumn of 1975, tic critics. United States began reducing its when France announced its inten- Why did South Korea give in to forces stationed in South Korea tion to sell the South a reprocess- American pressures not to build a from 70,000 to 44,000. ing plant for separating plutonium bomb? The South’s economic de- The Nixon Doctrine came as a from spent fuel rods used in South pendence upon the United States and severe shock to South Korean lead- Korea’s civilian reactors.11 Al- its allies was clearly a factor. If it ers, whose country would not exist though such plants are legal under had continued the project, Seoul if it had not been saved by Ameri- the NPT, the United States raised would have faced “almost certain can military intervention in 1950. strong objections, fearing that the severe sanctions.”16 While such Twenty years later, the military plant could not be safeguarded sanctions are often ineffective, this threat from the North was still very against secret bomb-making efforts. case probably would have proven real. North Korean commandos had The Ford administration warned an exception. The United States was attempted to assassinate President that building the plant would result South Korea’s largest trading part- Park Chung Hee in 1968 and would in a loss of American Export-Im- ner, buying 26 percent of the try again in 1974. Also during this port Bank loans for South Korea’s country’s exports. If the United time, North Korea seized the U.S. civilian nuclear program and “jeop- States had persuaded Japan, South spy ship Pueblo in January 1968 and ardize” the Korean-American secu- Korea’s second largest trading part- shot down an unarmed American re- rity relationship. The United States ner and a major investor in Korean connaissance plane 90 miles outside also got Canada to hold up the pro- industry, to join in the sanctions, its airspace in April 1969. In line posed sale of a heavy water reactor the results would have been devas- with the Nixon Doctrine, the United to South Korea.12 In early 1976, the tating. States authorized $1.5 billion over South Korean government backed The threat to halt financing for five years to modernize the South’s off again, cancelling the French or- the civilian nuclear program was armed forces and thus reduce the der. also a powerful one, coming at a need for American troops. How- While in 1974-1975 the United time when oil prices were soaring ever, with the North’s ground forces States demonstrated its ability to and substitutes for oil were urgently considered superior to those of the coerce South Korea, in 1977-1978 needed. In addition, South Korea South, this hardly seemed an ad- the shoe was on the other foot. Dur- owed $20 billion in foreign debt in equate security guarantee.8 ing his 1976 presidential campaign, the late 1970s, mostly to American South Korea began work on its Jimmy Carter promised to withdraw and Japanese banks.17 Any political first nuclear reactor in September all American ground troops and tension that could frighten creditors 1970.9 Though this reactor was un- nuclear weapons from South Korea. and prevent refinancing of the debt connected to any military purpose, In March of 1977, just after his elec- could have severely damaged the a parallel, secret weapons research tion, Carter announced plans to economy, even without formal gov- project was apparently begun at carry out his promise and have all ernment sanctions. about the same time on the orders ground troops out by 1982, leaving Most important in the South’s of President Park Chung Hee. In only air forces.13 South Korean of- decision, however, was probably the 1974-1975, the United States dis- ficials responded both publicly and fact that continuing the program covered the project, and Secretary privately with “strong hints—virtual “risked placing the country in a po- of State Henry Kissinger commu- threats,” to build nuclear weapons sition where it had neither nuclear nicated directly to President Park if Carter’s plan were carried out.14 arms nor the American commit- that the United States would with- In August 1977, the South Korean ment.”18 Building a bomb would 32 The Nonproliferation Review/Spring-Summer 1996 Michael J. Engelhardt have taken South Korea about four technology in order to make pos- South Korean experience with the to six years in the late 1970s.19 If sible a successful non-nuclear de- United States set a precendent fol- Washington had withdrawn its fense against the North.22 By the lowed later by the North. forces in 1975-1976, North Korea early 1990s some authorities con- would have had a “window of op- tended that the South’s qualitative THE PYONGYANG PUZZLE portunity” in which to launch a con- advantage balanced the North’s nu- 1989-1995 ventional attack. Since the perceived merical superiority, though others conventional superiority of the disputed this.23 As noted earlier, North Korean interest in nuclear North was the reason for consider- such an upgrading of conventional matters began soon after the Korean ing nuclear weapons in the first capabilities was foreseen in the War, during which the United States place, the attempt at proliferation Nixon Doctrine, but prior to the several times threatened the use of 28 could have been self-defeating, ex- nuclear dispute the South Korean nuclear weapons. In the early posing the country to invasion and government was dissatisfied with 1960s, a small research reactor was conquest. A South Korean bomb the pace of force improvement.24 built at Yongbyon. However, little could also have provoked North The threat to proliferate must have concern was shown by either the Korea and possibly even Japan to increased Washington’s incentive to United States or South Korea until develop their own bombs.20 provide the South with what it a larger, five megawatt reactor was On the other hand, the South re- needed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: a Question of Access
    690 American Archivist / Vol. 56 / Fall 1993 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/american-archivist/article-pdf/56/4/690/2748590/aarc_56_4_w213201818211541.pdf by guest on 30 September 2021 Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Question of Access SARA S. HODSON Abstract: The announcement by the Huntington Library in September 1991 of its decision to open for unrestricted research its photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls touched off a battle of wills between the library and the official team of scrolls editors, as well as a blitz of media publicity. The action was based on a commitment to the principle of intellectual freedom, but it must also be considered in light of the ethics of donor agreements and of access restrictions. The author relates the story of the events leading to the Huntington's move and its aftermath, and she analyzes the issues involved. About the author: Sara S. Hodson is curator of literary manuscripts at the Huntington Library. Her articles have appeared in Rare Books & Manuscripts Librarianship, Dictionary of Literary Biography Yearbook, and the Huntington Library Quarterly. This article is revised from a paper delivered before the Manuscripts Repositories Section meeting of the 1992 Society of American Archivists conference in Montreal. The author wishes to thank William A. Moffett for his encour- agement and his thoughtful and invaluable review of this article in its several revisions. Freeing the Dead Sea Scrolls 691 ON 22 SEPTEMBER 1991, THE HUNTINGTON scrolls for historical scholarship lies in their LIBRARY set off a media bomb of cata- status as sources contemporary with the time clysmic proportions when it announced that they illuminate.
    [Show full text]
  • SAY NO to the LIBERAL MEDIA: CONSERVATIVES and CRITICISM of the NEWS MEDIA in the 1970S William Gillis Submitted to the Faculty
    SAY NO TO THE LIBERAL MEDIA: CONSERVATIVES AND CRITICISM OF THE NEWS MEDIA IN THE 1970S William Gillis Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Journalism, Indiana University June 2013 ii Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Doctoral Committee David Paul Nord, Ph.D. Mike Conway, Ph.D. Tony Fargo, Ph.D. Khalil Muhammad, Ph.D. May 10, 2013 iii Copyright © 2013 William Gillis iv Acknowledgments I would like to thank the helpful staff members at the Brigham Young University Harold B. Lee Library, the Detroit Public Library, Indiana University Libraries, the University of Kansas Kenneth Spencer Research Library, the University of Louisville Archives and Records Center, the University of Michigan Bentley Historical Library, the Wayne State University Walter P. Reuther Library, and the West Virginia State Archives and History Library. Since 2010 I have been employed as an editorial assistant at the Journal of American History, and I want to thank everyone at the Journal and the Organization of American Historians. I thank the following friends and colleagues: Jacob Groshek, Andrew J. Huebner, Michael Kapellas, Gerry Lanosga, J. Michael Lyons, Beth Marsh, Kevin Marsh, Eric Petenbrink, Sarah Rowley, and Cynthia Yaudes. I also thank the members of my dissertation committee: Mike Conway, Tony Fargo, and Khalil Muhammad. Simply put, my adviser and dissertation chair David Paul Nord has been great. Thanks, Dave. I would also like to thank my family, especially my parents, who have provided me with so much support in so many ways over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Do I Owe Israel Support of Nixon?
    killed not him alone, but much more. It killed a dream, morality. We helped by joining forces with destructive and woke me up to the horrible reality in which we hate-mongers, who talk about an Utopian world, but in Jews live. times of real need are incapable of human decency and feelings. We dreamt of a United Nations — about an^nlightened world opinion. Where were they when the Arabs seemed May the untimely death and sacrifice of our Israeli to be victorious? Only when the Arabs seemed beaten brethren be a warning to all of us before it is too late. did the United Nations awake and spread its protective umbrella to prevent Egypt from suffering the results of its aggression. Where, were all those great humanist Do i owe israel support of nixon? nations that were so concerned about Vietnam? Not a single one spoke out — all being more concerned with Jonathan Groner oil than with elementary human decency. How would the impeachment or resignation of the Where was the great McGovern, when his friend Fulbright President affect the future of Israel, and therefore, gave an anti-semitic speech worthy of a Goebbels? And how are we as Jews to respond to calls for either? where were all the great liberal columnists from the New York Times? Only William Safire found it appro- It is clear that if the removal of Richard Nixon would priate to express a word of encouragement. Had we directly endanger Israel's security — for example, if a been criminals, maybe a Tom Wicker or an Anthony Fulbright stood to succeed him — we would have to Lewis would have found time to shed a fake tear — but support Nixon and swallow our revulsion.
    [Show full text]
  • Torturing Terrorists for National Security Imperatives: Mediated Violence on "24"
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 5-2009 Torturing terrorists for national security imperatives: Mediated violence on "24" Michael D. Sears University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Film and Media Studies Commons, Journalism Studies Commons, Mass Communication Commons, and the Television Commons Repository Citation Sears, Michael D., "Torturing terrorists for national security imperatives: Mediated violence on "24"" (2009). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/2596826 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TORTURING TERRORISTS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVES: MEDIATED VIOLENCE ON 24 by Michael D. Sears Bachelor of Arts New Mexico State University 2007 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in Journalism and Media Studies Hank Greenspun School of Journalism and Media Studies Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2009 UMI Number: 1472488 Copyright 2009 by Sears, Michael D.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Meaning and School Vouchers
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 42 (2000-2001) Issue 3 Institute of Bill of Rights Symposium: Article 9 Religion in the Public Square March 2001 Social Meaning and School Vouchers Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Education Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Neal Devins, Social Meaning and School Vouchers, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 919 (2001), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol42/iss3/9 Copyright c 2001 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr SOCIAL MEANING AND SCHOOL VOUCHERS NEAL DEvINs* The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same: In 1981, I wrote a paper on the constitutionality of school vouchers for a law school course. At the time, it appeared that a sharply divided Supreme Court would reject vouchers, five to four. Two decades later, it appears that a sharply divided Supreme Court might well uphold vouchers, five to four. For this very reason, academics and others continue to fill the pages of law reviews with competing analyses of whether school vouchers violate the Establishment Clause.' Far more tellingly, during the 2000 elections, Court watchers claimed that the winner of the presidential race would control the constitutional fate of school vouchers (by, presumably, appointing the Justice who will cast the deciding vote in a constitutional challenge to school vouchers).2 * Goodrich Professor of Law and Lecturer in Public Policy, College of William & Mary.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Hill Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt809nd82d Online items available Register of the Charles Hill papers Finding aid prepared by Grace Hawes Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2007 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Register of the Charles Hill 89004 1 papers Title: Charles Hill papers Date (inclusive): 1898-2006 Collection Number: 89004 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 157 manuscript boxes, 6 oversize boxes, 9 card file boxes, 1 cubic foot box, 2 envelopes(70.9 Linear Feet) Abstract: Collection includes correspondence, speeches and writings, dispatches, memoranda, reports, notes, printed matter, memorabilia, and photographs, relating to international relations and diplomacy, American foreign policy during the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan, and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Also contains speeches and writings of Secretary of State George Shultz. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Shultz, George Pratt, 1920- Creator: Hill, Charles, 1936- Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access "Boxes 39-51 closed. The remainder of the collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use." Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives between 1989 and 2011. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Charles Hill papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives Alternate Forms Available Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org.
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Rebirth of Missile Defense
    The Strange Rebirth of Missile Defense: Why Republicans Resurrected Reagan’s Dream Paul Musgrave Introduction National missile defense, even in its stripped-down, post-Reagan version, died in 1993. The Clinton administration killed it; shifting funding from research on “Star Wars”-like projects to missile defense systems like the Patriot. Instead of building a shield that would protect all of America, the United States would henceforth try to construct only limited defenses that could protect troops deployed in a future battleground. Yet ten years later, the George W. Bush administration has broken ground on new testing sites for a planned national missile defense, and billions of dollars annually are flowing into research and construction of a nationwide missile shield. The Bush administration could claim, were it so inclined, that it was merely following its predecessors; the basic parts of the Bush system are the same as those President Clinton proposed to use in his national missile defense. Why did U.S. policy toward missile defenses shift so dramatically? How did National Missile Defense survive its apparent death in 1993? These questions are important. National missile defense, in all of its guises and architectures, is among the most complex technical challenges humans have ever attempted to solve. It is also among the most costly, with some estimates placing the total cost of a missile defense system at nearly a trillion dollars. Understanding the sources of NMD’s resurrection is critical to a deeper comprehension of American security policy in the early years of the twenty-first century. The rebirth of missile defense came from two sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Syndicated Columnist Assignment
    SYNDICATED COLUMNIST ASSIGNMENT This portion of the summer reading assignment provides students with a measure of choice, and is intended to allow them to spread the work over the course of a few weeks, although this assignment may also be completed in less time by using archived material. Students are to select two columnists from the list below and read a minimum of five columns by the same columnist, writing a rhetorical précis (pronounced “pray-see”) for each column using the guide provided. A brief biography of each columnist is provided (most are quoted or paraphrased from the corresponding newspaper site); students may wish to read one sample column from several writers listed below before settling on the two columnists who will be central to completing this assignment. A diverse selection of columnists has been provided; additional suggestions are welcomed. List of Syndicated Columnists Charles Blow Visual Op-Ed columnist who won first John Gould An American humorist, essayist, and New York Times two best in show awards from the Christian columnist who wrote a column for the Saturday Malofiej International Infographics Science Monitor Christian Science Monitor for over sixty Summit for work that included deceased; check years from a farm in Lisbon Falls, coverage of the Iraq war. archives Maine. He is known for his role as a mentor to novelist Stephen King. David Brooks He has been a senior editor at The Bob Herbert Prior to joining The New York Times, New York Times Weekly Standard, a contributing editor New York Times Mr. Herbert was a national Tuesday & Friday at Newsweek and the Atlantic Tuesday & correspondent for NBC from 1991 to Monthly, and he is currently a Saturday 1993, reporting regularly on “The commentator on “The Newshour with Today Show” and “NBC Nightly Jim Lehrer.” He is also a frequent News.” He had worked as a reporter analyst on NPR’s “All Things and editor at The Daily News from 1976 Considered” and the “Diane Rehm until 1985, when he became a columnist Show.” His articles have appeared in and member of its editorial board.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scanlan's Monthly Story (1970-1971)
    THE SCANLAN’S MONTHLY STORY (1970-1971): HOW ONE MAGAZINE INFURIATED A BANK, AN AIRLINE, UNIONS, PRINTING COMPANIES, CUSTOMS OFFICIALS, CANADIAN POLICE, VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW, AND PRESIDENT NIXON IN TEN MONTHS William Gillis November 2005 ii ©2005 William Gillis All Rights Reserved iii This thesis entitled THE SCANLAN’S MONTHLY STORY (1970-1971): HOW ONE MAGAZINE INFURIATED A BANK, AN AIRLINE, UNIONS, PRINTING COMPANIES, CUSTOMS OFFICIALS, CANADIAN POLICE, VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW, AND PRESIDENT NIXON IN TEN MONTHS BY WILLIAM GILLIS has been approved for the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism and the College of Communication by _________________________________________ Patrick Washburn Professor of Journalism _________________________________________ Greg Shepherd Interim Dean, College of Communication iv Acknowledgments Were it not for the guidance, encouragement, and good cheer of my advisor and thesis committee chair, Patrick Washburn, this thesis would not exist. Many thanks also to Joe Bernt, who like Pat took interest in the Scanlan’s project from the very beginning, and pointed me in interesting and fruitful directions; and Bill Reader, who provided good advice about where to take this project—and my life—after completing my degree. I must thank Tom Hodson; without his efforts on my behalf, I surely would have left Scripps for another program. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues Andrew Huebner, Andy Smith, and Betsy Vereckey for taking interest in the project, editing the manuscript at various stages, and sharing ideas. Finally, a very special thank you to my parents. Their support—financial and otherwise—made this possible. v Table of Contents Page Chapter 1: Off the Ramparts and to the Barricades……………………………………1 Chapter 2: Pay the Buck and Turn the Page………………………………………...18 Chapter 3: “You Trust Your Mother But You Cut the Cards”…………………….37 Chapter 4: The Magazine the President Hated So Much…………………………..58 Chapter 5: Guerilla Warfare in the U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • President Richard Nixon's Daily Diary, December 1-15, 1970
    RICHARD NIXON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD DOCUMENT DOCUMENT SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS DATE RESTRICTION NUMBER TYPE 1 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 12/4/1970 A Appendix “A” 2 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 12/4/1970 A Appendix “D” 3 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 12/5/1970 A Appendix “A” 4 Manifest Helicopter Passenger Manifest – 12/6/1970 A Appendix “A” COLLECTION TITLE BOX NUMBER WHCF: SMOF: Office of Presidential Papers and Archives RC-6 FOLDER TITLE President Richard Nixon’s Daily Diary December 1, 1970 – December 15, 1970 PRMPA RESTRICTION CODES: A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy. E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or B. National security classified information. financial information. C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual’s F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law rights. enforcement purposes. D. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material. or a libel of a living person. H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material. DEED OF GIFT RESTRICTION CODES: D-DOG Personal privacy under deed of gift -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION *U.S. GPO; 1989-235-084/00024 NA 14021 (4-85) ...... "".... ~I.. m\"nAKU NIXUrt·~ UAILY UIAKY (See Travel Record for Travel Activity) DECEMBER 1. 1970 THE WHITE HOUSE TIME DAY WASHINGTON D. C. 7: 45a TUESDAY PHONE TIME P=Placed R=Received ACTIVITY 10 Out Lo LO 7:45 The President had breakfast. 8:10 10:07 The President attended a. Republican Leadership meeting in the Cabinet Room.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN FRANCOPHOBIA TAKES a NEW TURN Justin Vaïsse
    03-Vaïsse 6/14/03 4:37 PM Page 17 AMERICAN FRANCOPHOBIA TAKES A NEW TURN Justin Vaïsse Center on the United States and France, Brookings Institution At the dawn of the 21st century, something new may be happening in the heartland of America: the spread of a negative image of France.1 Traditionally, a mostly positive image of France linked to its reputation for good food, high fashion, and sophisticated tourism, coexisted with a somewhat negative image in some elite circles. But the most important factor was definitely a lack of knowledge and the fact that above all, indifference reigned supreme. (See Body-Gendrot in this issue.) “Francophobia” (not a very satisfactory term2) does not constitute rational criticism of France. It expresses a systematic bias against this country, the way anti-Americanism does against the United States. It is based on a set of stereo- types, prejudices, insults, and ready-made judgments. Moreover, like anti- Americanism it deliberately conflates what a country is and what it does. Negative stereotypes about personal characteristics of the French, (for exam- ple, they are lazy, immoral, or arrogant) are combined with stereotypes about French society (elitist, unwilling to modernize, or anti-American) and stereo- types about French foreign policy (allegedly based on purely commercial inter- ests or nostalgia for past glory) to produce a complete, if sometimes self-contradictory, discourse of disparagement, what Jean-Philippe Mathy calls in this issue a “system of Francophobia,” a web of loosely related clichés that can be mobilized at will—especially, of course, when a diplomatic crisis erupts.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of Subpoenas Received by the News Media
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 2008 Avalanche or Undue Alarm? An Empirical Study of Subpoenas Received by the News Media RonNell Anderson Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the First Amendment Commons Article Avalanche or Undue Alarm? An Empirical Study of Subpoenas Received by the News Media RonNell Andersen Jones† In 2006, Mark Fainaru-Wada, a reporter for the San Fran- cisco Chronicle, sat down with his two young children to break some bad news: he likely would be spending the holidays in jail.1 He had refused to reveal the name of a confidential source when subpoenaed to do so, and a federal district court judge had found him in contempt and sentenced him to eighteen months in federal prison.2 Journalists across the country were outraged, but not wholly surprised.3 This, they said, was part of an alarming trend—an “avalanche” of recent cases in which members of the media had faced subpoenas seeking material they did not believe they should be compelled to provide. Across the country, a deputy attorney general was testify- ing in a congressional hearing.4 The avalanche, he said, was † Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. This article was funded by a research grant from the Uni- versity of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, where the author was a Distinguished Faculty Fellow from 2004 to 2007. The author thanks Universi- ty of Arizona Dean Toni Massaro and Associate Dean Kay Kavanagh for their support of the project; the law faculties at the University of Arizona and Brig- ham Young University for helpful comments in work-in-progress presenta- tions; Professors Kathie Barnes, Gordon Smith, and, especially, Lisa Grow Sun for excellent feedback and insights; and the following University of Arizo- na students for their legal research and assistance with the survey: Flynn Ca- rey, Megan Heald, Mary Hollingsworth, Susan Schwem, Rebecca Stahl, Holly Wells, and Tianlai Zhou.
    [Show full text]