10 Things Extraordinary People Say Every Day

They're small things, but each has the power to dramatically change someone's day. Including yours. Want to make a huge difference in someone's life? Here are things you should say every day to your employees, colleagues, family members, friends, and everyone you care about:

"Here's what I'm thinking."

You're in charge, but that doesn't mean you're smarter, savvier, or more insightful than everyone else. Back up your statements and decisions. Give reasons. Justify with logic, not with position or authority.

Though taking the time to explain your decisions opens those decisions up to discussion or criticism, it also opens up your decisions to improvement.

Authority can make you "right," but collaboration makes everyone right--and makes everyone pull together.

"I was wrong."

I once came up with what I thought was an awesome plan to improve overall productivity by moving a crew to a different shift on an open production line. The inconvenience to the crew was considerable, but the payoff seemed worth it. On paper, it was perfect.

In practice, it wasn't.

So, a few weeks later, I met with the crew and said, "I know you didn't think this would work, and you were right. I was wrong. Let's move you back to your original shift."

I felt terrible. I felt stupid. I was sure I'd lost any respect they had for me.

It turns out I was wrong about that, too. Later one employee said, "I didn't really know you, but the fact you were willing to admit you were wrong told me everything I needed to know."

When you're wrong, say you're wrong. You won't lose respect--you'll gain it.

"That was awesome."

No one gets enough praise. No one. Pick someone--pick anyone--who does or did something well and say, "Wow, that was great how you..."

And feel free to go back in time. Saying "Earlier, I was thinking about how you handled that employee issue last month..." can make just as positive an impact today as it would have then. (It could even make a bigger impact, because it shows you still remember what happened last month, and you still think about it.)

Praise is a gift that costs the giver nothing but is priceless to the recipient. Start praising. The people around you will love you for it--and you'll like yourself a little better, too.

"You're welcome."

Think about a time you gave a gift and the recipient seemed uncomfortable or awkward. Their reaction took away a little of the fun for you, right?

The same thing can happen when you are thanked or complimented or praised. Don't spoil the moment or the fun for the other person. The spotlight may make you feel uneasy or insecure, but all you have to do is make eye contact and say, "Thank you." Or make eye contact and say, "You're welcome. I was glad to do it."

Don't let thanks, congratulations, or praise be all about you. Make it about the other person, too.

"Can you help me?"

When you need help, regardless of the type of help you need or the person you need it from, just say, sincerely and humbly, "Can you help me?"

I promise you'll get help. And in the process you'll show vulnerability, respect, and a willingness to listen--which, by the way, are all qualities of a great leader.

And are all qualities of a great friend.

"I'm sorry."

We all make mistakes, so we all have things we need to apologize for: words, actions, omissions, failing to step up, step in, show support...

Say you're sorry.

But never follow an apology with a disclaimer like "But I was really mad, because..." or "But I did think you were..." or any statement that in any way places even the smallest amount of blame back on the other person.

Say you're sorry, say why you're sorry, and take all the blame. No less. No more.

Then you both get to make the freshest of fresh starts.

"Can you show me?"

Advice is temporary; knowledge is forever. Knowing what to do helps, but knowing how or why to do it means everything.

When you ask to be taught or shown, several things happen: You implicitly show you respect the person giving the advice; you show you trust his or her experience, skill, and insight; and you get to better assess the value of the advice.

Don't just ask for input. Ask to be taught or trained or shown.

Then you both win.

"Let me give you a hand."

Many people see asking for help as a sign of weakness. So, many people hesitate to ask for help.

But everyone needs help.

Don't just say, "Is there anything I can help you with?" Most people will give you a version of the reflexive "No, I'm just looking" reply to sales clerks and say, "No, I'm all right."

Be specific. Find something you can help with. Say "I've got a few minutes. Can I help you finish that?" Offer in a way that feels collaborative, not patronizing or gratuitous. Model the behavior you want your employees to display.

Then actually roll up your sleeves and help.

"I love you."

No, not at work, but everywhere you mean it--and every time you feel it.

Nothing.

Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing. If you're upset, frustrated, or angry, stay quiet. You may think venting will make you feel better, but it never does.

That's especially true where your employees are concerned. Results come and go, but feelings are forever. Criticize an employee in a group setting and it will seem like he eventually got over it, but inside, he never will.

Before you speak, spend more time considering how employees will think and feel than you do evaluating whether the decision makes objective sense. You can easily recover from a mistake made because of faulty data or inaccurate projections.

You'll never recover from the damage you inflict on an employee's self-esteem.

Be quiet until you know exactly what to say--and exactly what affect your words will have.

A record 107,500 people reach Yemen in 2012 after risky sea crossing

Aid workers from a UNHCR partner organization help people who have just reached the Yemeni shore by boat.

GENEVA  (UNHCR) – The UN refugee agency announced on Tuesday that some 107,500 African refugees and migrants made the perilous sea journey from the Horn of Africa to Yemen in 2012, the largest such influx since UNHCR began compiling these statistics in 2006. The previous record high was in 2011, when more than 103,000 people arrived in Yemen on smugglers' boats.

Some 84,000, or more than 80 per cent, of the arrivals were Ethiopian nationals, while Somali refugees constituted the rest. Many migrants use Yemen as a transit stop en route to states in the Persian Gulf.

Despite economic and security difficulties last year, Yemen continued to receive and host a record number of people fleeing the Horn of Africa in search of safety, protection and better economic conditions. All Somali arrivals are automatically recognized as refugees by Yemeni authorities.

UNHCR conducts refugee status determination for Ethiopians and other nationalities seeking asylum in Yemen. A very low percentage of Ethiopian arrivals decide to seek asylum, either due to a lack of awareness and access to asylum mechanisms or because they do not meet the criteria to be recognized as refugees. However, for the vast majority of Ethiopian migrants protection space is nearly non-existent and they are often extremely vulnerable.

In Yemen, staff from UNHCR and its local partners conduct daily patrols along the Gulf of Aden coast to provide assistance to all new arrivals that pass through strategically positioned reception and transit centres. However, there are substantial difficulties in responding to the various protection risks that new arrivals face in transit and upon arrival in Yemen.

Boats crossing to Yemen are often overcrowded and smugglers, in order to avoid the Yemeni coastguard, sometimes force the passengers into the water, often far from the shore and in stormy weather. UNHCR estimates that at least 100 people have drowned or gone missing while trying to cross the Gulf of Aden or the Red Sea in 2012.

New arrivals are at risk of exploitation, violence and sexual abuse. The situation is particularly difficult along the Red Sea coast, where Yemeni smugglers and traffickers are often waiting to receive new arrivals. Traffickers mainly target Ethiopians looking to travel onwards to Persian Gulf states.

Conflict and instability in the north and south of the country has curbed the ability of Yemeni authorities to address trafficking. In 2012, there was a proliferation in smuggling and trafficking and a significant increase in reported cases of violence and abuse perpetrated against new arrivals. The increased presence of armed gangs of smugglers and traffickers is an additional risk to aid workers.

"The continually growing mixed migration movement from the Horn of Africa is an issue affecting the region beyond Yemen," UNHCR spokesman Adrian Edwards said in Geneva on Tuesday. "We welcome the decision of the authorities in [the Yemen capital] Sana'a to host a regional conference this year with UNHCR as part of wider efforts to develop a strategy to manage the flow of mixed migrants, and prevent and reduce smuggling and trafficking in the region."

Yemen is a historic transit hub for migrants and stands out in the region for its hospitality towards refugees. The country currently hosts more than 236,000 refugees, virtually all of them of Somali origin. There are also more than 300,000 internally displaced Yemeni civilians in the north due to recurring conflict since 2004.

Meanwhile, in the south, more than 100,000 internally displaced people have returned to their areas of origin in Abyan governorate as the conflict subsided and conditions improved. UNHCR has been advocating with the government and international community to ensure the sustainability of these returns.

On December 30, the UN refugee agency airlifted emergency relief items to Aden, including blankets, plastic sheets and sleeping mats for the returnees. The aid and further assistance arriving by sea will help some 30,000 vulnerable Yemeni families.

Outside View: Building a secure Somalia

Somalia has had perhaps the most turbulent statehood in modern history but perhaps that is turning into an era of peaceful leadership.

WHITNEY GRESPIN

By WHITNEY GRESPIN, UPI Outside View Commentator  

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Jan. 25 (UPI) -- The territory of the Federal Republic of Somalia has had perhaps the most turbulent statehood -- or marked lack thereof -- in modern history. Somalia has been an ambiguous conglomeration of entities that struggled to provide any semblance of order for its estimated 10 million citizens over the past two decades.

U.S. President George H.W. Bush and the wider international community publicly conceded that Somalia had ceased to exist as a state in the early 1990s, as the country collapsed spectacularly into a series of brutal civil wars fueled by resource and power competition between warring clans.

For the next 20 years warlords, rival clans, transitional governments and myriad coalitions attempted to quell the violence and offer any sort of governance that would elicit international recognition. None succeeded for nearly a quarter of a century, until last week.

The era of ambiguity ended for the Somali people and government of the Federal Republic of Somalia on Jan. 17, 2013, when Somali President Hassan Sheik Mohamud traveled to Washington to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After their meetings, the U.S. government formally recognized the government of Somalia, a development Mohamud said was, "A very turning moment of the history -- of the recent history of Somalia and the relationship -- and the diplomatic relationship between the United States government and the government of Somalia."

Mohamud was elected as Somalia's leader last September after choosing to stay in the country following the outbreak of civil war in the 1990s. In the passing years he worked both as a professor and alongside international organizations to advance institutional capability in Somalia.

In 2011 he was selected to be a member of Parliament and was then chosen by his peers to replace incumbent President Sharif Sheik Ahmed in a run-off election.

Mohamud summed up his understanding of the challenge had undertaken when he spoke Jan. 17 to a full house at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Twenty-two years of lack of functioning state and institutions and 12 years of transition is enough for us to reclaim our sovereign territorial integrity and our people. We are now ready to lay down strong institutions with good governance," he said.

Mohamud publicly acknowledged the pivotal role that private companies have played in delivering improved technology and opportunity to the people of Somalia. In addition to ongoing aid and development programs through intermediary institutions such as non-governmental organization and U.N. agencies, Mohamud credited private contractors for their ongoing support of Somali interests.

For example, the performance of specialized technical work and investment of private money has resulted in Somalia having one of the fastest growing telecommunications infrastructures on the continent.

When asked what the Somali diaspora could do for the fledgling government, Mohamud touched on the dearth of technical expertise and practical know-how in the public and commercial sectors.

He went on to explain: "In our way, in our vision, private-public partnership is the only way out. The Somali government has no capacity. The international community will never come [on] time. So it's the private who has been [addressing needs]."

A number of forward-leaning private entities have already started working with local authorities and recognized stakeholders to lay the groundwork for success in the relegitimized state.

What is perhaps the lynchpin of success for the new government is the ability to build stable institutions that will incubate improved security throughout the country.

Mohamud realizes this and admitted, "Institutions are the basis of good governance, and in Somalia, there are no institutions, no resources to make institutions easily and even no capacity in certain areas."

He went on to say, "One of our main challenge[s] is to build our security forces, who are now doing a good job compared to previously. This is an area we would need the international community's help and assistance."
Security sector reform and capacity building are areas with which both the U.S. government and private sector have much recent experience.

Mohamud volunteered: "The United States' government is the largest contributor to Somalia in the past 22 years. The limited security forces that we have today is existing with the support of the United States government."
As skilled military and civilian personnel depart from postings in Iraq and Afghanistan, there may be great opportunity to realize synergies between those individuals' mentoring experiences and the needs of the nascent Somali federal force.

The Somali National Armed Forces is composed of veteran fighters. They don't need to learn how to fight; they need to learn how to administer and develop a professional army that is proficient in upholding the rule of law and promoting a responsible monopoly on the use of force.
--
(Whitney Grespin is an operations specialist at Atlantean, a provider of specialized services to the U.S. government and private sector clients around the world. She has overseen operations for private firms operating in Afghanistan, Kenya, United Arab Emirates and Somalia as well as managed development and educational programs on four continents.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Ex-Officer for C.I.A. Sentenced to 30 Months in Leak Case

former C.I.A. agent, John C. Kiriakou

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The first Central Intelligence Agency officer to face prison for disclosing classified information was sentenced on Friday to 30 months in prison by a judge at the federal courthouse here.

The judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, said that in approving the sentence, she would respect the terms of a plea agreement between the former C.I.A. agent, John C. Kiriakou, and prosecutors, but “I think 30 months is way too light.”

The judge said “this is not a case of a whistle-blower.” She went on to describe the damage that Mr. Kiriakou had created for the intelligence agency and an agent whose cover was disclosed by Mr. Kiriakou.

Before issuing the sentence she asked Mr. Kiriakou if he had anything to say. When he declined, Judge Brinkema, said, “Perhaps you have already spoken too much.”

The sentencing was the latest chapter in the Obama administration’s unprecedented crackdown on government officials who disclose classified information to the press. Since 2009, the administration has charged five other current or former government officials with leaking classified information, more than all previous administrations combined.

In October, Mr. Kiriakou pleaded guilty to one charge of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, when he disclosed to a reporter the name of a former agency operative who had been involved in the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation of detainees. The plea was the first time someone had been successfully prosecuted under the law in 27 years.

Mr. Kiriakou, who had worked as a C.I.A. operative from 1990 to 2004, had played a significant role in some of the C.I.A.'s major achievements after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In March of 2002, he led a group of agency and Pakistani security officers in a raid that captured Abu Zubaydah, who was suspected of being a high-level facilitator for Al Qaeda.

In 2007, three years after he left the C.I.A., Mr. Kiriakou discussed in an interview on ABC News the suffocation technique that was used in the interrogations known as waterboarding. He said it was torture and should no longer be used by the United States, but he defended the C.I.A. for using it in the effort to prevent attacks.

After the ABC interview was broadcast, reporters contacted Mr. Kiriakou. In subsequent e-mails with a freelance writer, Mr. Kiriakou disclosed the name of one of his former colleagues, who was still under cover and had been a part of the interrogations.

The freelancer later passed the name to a researcher working for lawyers representing several Al Qaeda suspects being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who included the name in a sealed legal filing, angering government officials and kick-starting the federal investigation that ultimately ensnared Mr. Kiriakou. The name was not disclosed publicly at the time, but it appeared on an obscure Web site in October.

In January 2012, federal prosecutors indicted Mr. Kiriakou, accusing him of disclosing the identity of an agency analyst who had worked on the 2002 raid that led to Abu Zubaydah’s capture and interrogation. The prosecutors said Mr. Kiriakou had been a source for a New York Times story in 2008 written by Scott Shane that said a C.I.A. employee named Deuce Martinez had played a role in the interrogation. When Mr. John Kiriakou pleaded guilty last October, the charges stemming from that disclosure were dropped along with several others.

Prosecutors raised questions this week about Mr. Kiriakou’s contrition. In a filing, prosecutors cited a lengthy article by Mr. Shane published this month in The Times in which he quoted Mr. Kiriakou as saying that if he had known that the C.I.A. officer had still been under cover, he would not have disclosed his identity. The prosecutors said that Mr. Kiriakou’s intimation that the disclosure was an “accident or mistake” contradicted his plea that he had willfully disclosed the information.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?hp&_r=2&

Somaliland:independent press is still immature and filthy!!!

As Journalist or journalism field, the entrance of this role is to know the different between opinion and genuine news often to avoid causing further damage and destruction to the society you serve. It is doubtless that mostly unprofessional individuals are involved in this field who create daily arguments and political suspicion in the society, this happens lack of knowledge and unaware of exactly the serious impact of this problematic activities damaging the reputation, union and better living of Somaliland society generally which are irresponsibly reiterated by these mafia on papers and websites with out proper knowledge of the filed.

Of course, there are good, clean journalists in this field who are accustomed to deliver very reliable and important news to the society or their nation. But mainly the nature of Somaliland journalism is a way of tribalism, revenge, based on a personal opinion rather than accurate and precise duties of journalism role freely and neutrally that defends the integrity, sovereignty and dignity of the nation, as well as national politicians who always deserve to have certain level of respect whether you like or not.

The current behaviour of Somaliland websites, daily papers and all independent press activities are not in the proper position in terms of knowledge and ethics of the field as well. Why not improve the journalism techniques and best way of presentations instead of using their work as a bullet to destroy the livelihood of the society on daily basis. There is no different of piracy in the sea, warlords operate in the grounds by hindering the better continuation of the Somaliland society’s way of life.

People habitualize this kind of dirty business in the name of journalism, must see the wider picture and go to the colleges to study and understand fully, what it means to be a brilliant and professional journalist. At the moment, it looks a gun point on the head of the society, especially the very important people like business people, politicians and so on. People are somehow held in for ransom and threatened unfairly for the purpose of extortion

Abdilahi John

UK

In Defense of Zero Dark Thirty

There comes a point about two-thirds of the way through 'Zero Dark Thirty' where it is clear something, or someone, on high has changed. The mood at the CIA has shifted, become subdued. It appears that the torture-approving guy who's been president for the past eight years seems to be, well, gone. And, just as a fish rots from the head down, the stench also seems to be gone. Word then comes down that – get this! – we can't torture any more! The CIA agents seem a bit disgruntled and dumbfounded. I mean, torture has worked soooo well these past eight years! Why can't we torture any more???

The answer is provided on a TV screen in the background where you see a black man (who apparently is the new president) and he's saying, in plain English, that America's torturing days are over, done, finished. There's an "aw, shit" look on their faces and then some new boss comes into the meeting room, slams his fist on the table and says, essentially, you've had eight years to find bin Laden – and all you've got to show for it are a bunch of photos of naked Arab men peeing on themselves and wearing dog collars and black hoods. Well, he shouts, those days are over! There's no secret group up on the top floor looking for bin Laden, you're it, and goddammit do your job and find him.

He is there to put the fear of God in them, probably because his boss, the new President, has (as we can presume) on his first day in office, ordered that bin Laden be found and killed. Unlike his frat boy predecessor who had little interest in finding bin Laden (even to the point of joking that "I really just don’t spend that much time on him"), this new president was not an imbecile and all about business. Go find bin Laden – and don't use torture. Torture is morally wrong. Torture is the coward's way. C'mon – we're smart, we're the USA, and you're telling me we can't find a six-and-a-half-foot tall Saudi who's got a $25 million bounty on his head? Use your brains (like I do) and, goddammit, get to work!

And then, as the movie shows, the CIA abruptly shifts from torture porn to – are you sitting down? – *detective work.* Like cops do to find killers. Bin Laden was a killer – a mass killer – not a general of an army of soldiers, or the head of a country call Terrorstan. He was a crazed religious fanatic, a multi-millionaire, and a punk who was part of the anti-Soviet mujahideen whom we trained, armed and funded in Afghanistan back in the '80s. But he was a godsend and a very useful tool to the Dick Cheneys and Don Rumsfields of the world. They could hold him up to a frightened American public and scare the bejesus out of everyone – and everyone (well, most everyone) would then get behind the effort to declare war on, um ... well ... Who exactly do we declare war against? Oh, right – Terrorism! The War on Terrorism! So skilled were the men from Halliburton, et al. that they convinced the Congress and the public to go to war against a noun. Terrorism. People fell for it, and these rich men and their friends made billions of dollars from "contracting" and armaments and a Burger King on every Iraqi base. Billions more were made creating a massive internal spying apparatus called "Homeland Security." Business was very, very good, and as long as the boogieman (Osama) was alive, the citizenry would not complain one bit.

I think you know what happens next. In the final third of 'Zero Dark Thirty,' the agents switch from torture to detective work – and guess what happens? We find bin Laden! Eight years of torture – no bin Laden. Two years of detective work – boom! Bin Laden!

And that really should be the main takeaway from 'Zero Dark Thirty': That good detective work can bring fruitful results – and that torture is wrong.

Much of the discussion and controversy around the film has centered on the belief that the movie shows, or is trying to say, that torture works. They torture a guy for years and finally, while having a friendly lunch with him one day, they ask him if he would tell them the name of bin Laden's courier. Either that, or go back and be tortured some more. He says he doesn't know the guy but he knows his fake name and he gives them that name. The name turns out to be correct. Torture works!

But then we learn a piece of news: The CIA has had the name of this guy all along! For ten years! And how did they get this name ten years ago? From "a tip." A random tip! No torture involved. But, as was the rule during those years of incompetency and no desire to find bin Laden, the tip was filed away somewhere in some room – and not discovered until 2010. So, instead of torturing hundreds for eight years to find this important morsel of intelligence, they could have found it in their own CIA file cabinet in about eight minutes. Yeah, torture works.

In the movie, after they have the name of the courier, they then believe if they find him, they find bin Laden. So how do they find him? They bribe a Kuwaiti informant with a new car. That's right, they find the number of the courier's family by giving the guy a Lamborghini. And what do they do when they find the courier's mother? Do they kidnap and torture her to find out where her son is? Nope, they just listen in on his weekly call home to Mom, and through that, they trace him to Pakistan and then hire a bunch of undercover Pakistani Joe Fridays to follow this guy's every move – which, then, leads them to the infamous compound in Abbottabad where the Saudi punk has holed up.

Nice police work, boys!

Oh – and girl. 'Zero Dark Thirty' – a movie made by a woman (Kathryn Bigelow), produced by a woman (Megan Ellison), distributed by a woman (Amy Pascal, the co-chairman of Sony Pictures), and starring a woman (Jessica Chastain) is really about how an agency of mostly men are dismissive of a woman who is on the right path to finding bin Laden. Yes, guys, this is a movie about how we don't listen to women, how hard it is for them to have their voice heard even in these enlightened times. You could say this is a 21st century chick flick – and it would do you well to see it.

But back to the controversy and the torture. I guess where I part with most of my friends who are upset at this film is that they are allowing the wrong debate to take place. You should NEVER engage in a debate where the other side defines the terms of the debate – namely, in this case, to debate "whether torture works." You should refuse to participate in that discussion because the real question should be, simply, "is torture wrong?" And, after watching the brutal behavior of CIA agents for the first 45 minutes of the film, I can't believe anyone of conscience would conclude anything other than that this is morally NOT right. You will be repulsed by these torture scenes because, make no mistake about it, this has been done in your name and mine and with our tax dollars. We funded this.

If you allow the question to be "did torture work?" then you'll lose because yes, if you torture someone who actually has the information, they will eventually give it to you. The problem is, the other 99 who don't know anything will also tell you anything to get you to stop torturing – but their information is wrong. How do you know which one of the 100 is the man with the goods? You don't.

But let's grant the other side that maybe, occasionally, torture "works". Here's what else will work: castrating pedophiles. Why don't we do that? Probably because we think it's morally wrong. The death penalty sure works. Put a murderer in a gas chamber and I can guarantee you he'll never murder again. But is it right? Do we accomplish the ends we seek by becoming the murderers ourselves? That should be our only question.

After I saw 'Zero Dark Thirty,' a friend asked me, "During the torture scenes, who did you feel empathy for the most – the American torturer or the Arab suspect?" That was easy to answer. "Oh, God, the poor guy being waterboarded. The torturer was a sadist."

"Yes, that's the answer everyone gives me afterward. The movie actually makes you care for the tortured guys who may have, in fact, been part of 9/11. Like rooting for the Germans on the submarine to make it back to port in 'Das Boot,' that's the sign of some great filmmaking when the writer and director are able to get you to empathize with the person you've been told everywhere else to hate."

'Zero Dark Thirty' is a disturbing, fantastically-made movie. It will make you hate torture. And it will make you happy you voted for a man who stopped all that barbarity – and who asked that the people over at Langley, like him, use their brains.

And that's what worked.

P.S. One final thought. I've heard fellow lefties say that even if the filmmakers didn't intend to endorse torture (Bigelow called torture "reprehensible" on Colbert the other night), the average person watching the movie is going to take it the wrong way. I believe it is the responsibility of the filmmaker attempting to communicate something that they do so clearly and skillfully (and you can decide for yourself if Bigelow and Boal did so. For me, they did.). But I never blame the artist for failing to dumb down their work so that the lesser minds among us "get it." Should Springsteen not have named his album 'Born in the USA' because some took it to be as a salute to patriotism (Reagan wanted to use it in his 1984 reelection campaign but Bruce said no)?

(An edited version of this appeared on Time.com this week.)

North Korea Nuclear Test Aimed At U.S. Announced By Regime After UN Sanctions

 

By HYUNG-JIN KIM

 SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea's top governing body warned Thursday that the regime will conduct its third nuclear test in defiance of U.N. punishment, and made clear that its long-range rockets are designed to carry not only satellites but also warheads aimed at striking the United States.

The National Defense Commission, headed by the country's young leader, Kim Jong Un, denounced Tuesday's U.N. Security Council resolution condemning North Korea's long-range rocket launch in December as a banned missile activity and expanding sanctions against the regime. The commission reaffirmed in its declaration that the launch was a peaceful bid to send a satellite into space, but also clearly indicated the country's rocket launches have a military purpose: to strike and attack the United States.

While experts say North Korea doesn't have the capability to hit the U.S. with its missiles, recent tests and rhetoric indicate the country is feverishly working toward that goal.

The commission pledged to keep launching satellites and rockets and to conduct a nuclear test as part of a "new phase" of combat with the United States, which it blames for leading the U.N. bid to punish Pyongyang. It said a nuclear test was part of "upcoming" action but did not say exactly when or where it would take place.

"We do not hide that a variety of satellites and long-range rockets which will be launched by the DPRK one after another and a nuclear test of higher level which will be carried out by it in the upcoming all-out action, a new phase of the anti-U.S. struggle that has lasted century after century, will target against the U.S., the sworn enemy of the Korean people," the commission said, referring to North Korea by its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

"Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words, as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival," the commission said.

It was a rare declaration by the powerful commission once led by late leader Kim Jong Il and now commanded by his son. The statement made clear Kim Jong Un's commitment to continue developing the country's nuclear and missile programs in defiance of the Security Council, even at risk of further international isolation.

North Korea's allusion to a "higher level" nuclear test most likely refers to a device made from highly enriched uranium, which is easier to miniaturize than the plutonium bombs it tested in 2006 and 2009, said Cheong Seong-chang, an analyst at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea. Experts say the North Koreans must conduct further tests of its atomic devices and master the technique for making them smaller before they can be mounted as nuclear warheads onto long-range missiles.

Shortly before the commission issued its declaration, U.S. envoy on North Korea Glyn Davies urged Pyongyang not to explode an atomic device.

"Whether North Korea tests or not, it's up to North Korea. We hope they don't do it. We call on them not to do it," he told reporters in Seoul after meeting with South Korean officials. "It will be a mistake and a missed opportunity if they were to do it."

Davies was in Seoul on a trip that includes stops in China and Japan for talks on how to move forward on North Korea relations.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday said North Korea's aggressive stance is unnecessary and warned against any further testing.

"North Korea's statement is needlessly provocative and a test would be a significant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Further provocation would only increase Pyongyang's isolation, and its continued focus on its nuclear and missile program is doing nothing to help the North Korean people."

He said the recent U.N. resolution is a "strong message of the international community's opposition to North Korean provocations and these tightened sanctions will impede the growth of weapons of mass destruction programs in North Korea and the United States will be taking additional steps in that regard."

Carney did not elaborate on what those steps might be.

South Korea's top official on relations with the North said Pyongyang's nuclear and missile development is a "cataclysm for the Korean people," and poses a fundamental threat to regional and world peace. "The North Korean behavior is very disappointing," Unification Minister Yu Woo-ik said in a lecture in Seoul, according to his office.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, a special envoy for South Korea's President-elect Park Geun-hye warned Pyongyang against conducting a third nuclear test.

"President-elect Park makes it clear that North Korea's nuclear ambitions and further provocations against the South will not be tolerated," said special envoy Rhee In-je, speaking to The Associated Press and other selected media in Davos. "In particular, she strongly urges North Korea to refrain from further worsening the situation by conducting a third nuclear test."

Rhee said South Korea wants to leave the window open for constructive dialogue with the North and will continue offering medical and food aid to the communist state. He said Park has proposed a "Trust-building Process on the Korean Peninsula."

"It is a gradual process based on mutual trust and respect, which can begin with keeping promises," he said.

North Korea claims the right to build nuclear weapons as a defense against the United States, its Korean War foe.

The bitter three-year war ended in a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953, and left the Korean Peninsula divided by the world's most heavily fortified demilitarized zone. The U.S. leads the U.N. Command that governs the truce and stations more than 28,000 troops in ally South Korea, a presence that North Korea cites as a key reason for its drive to build nuclear weapons.

For years, North Korea's neighbors had been negotiating with Pyongyang on providing aid in return for disarmament. North Korea walked away from those talks in 2009 and on Wednesday reiterated that disarmament talks were out of the question.

North Korea is estimated to have stored up enough weaponized plutonium for four to eight bombs, according to scientist Siegfried Hecker, who visited the North's Nyongbyon nuclear complex in 2010.

In 2009, Pyongyang declared that it would begin enriching uranium, which would give North Korea a second way to make atomic weapons.

North Korea carried out underground nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, both times just weeks after being punished with U.N. sanctions for launching long-range rockets.

In October, an unidentified spokesman at the National Defense Commission claimed that the U.S. mainland was within missile range. And at a military parade last April, North Korea showed off what appeared to be an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Satellite photos taken last month at a nuclear test site in Punggye-ri, in far northeast North Korea, showed continued activity that suggested a state of readiness even in winter, according to analysis by 38 North, a North Korea website affiliated with the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies.

Another nuclear test would bring North Korea a step closer to being able to launch a long-range missile tipped with a nuclear warhead, said Daniel Pinkston, an analyst with the International Crisis Group.

"Their behavior indicates they want to acquire those capabilities," he said. "The ultimate goal is to have a robust nuclear deterrent."

U.S. Recognition Doesn't Bode Well for Somalia

Benjamin Powell

Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute

and Director of the Free Market Institute at

Texas Tech University Benjamin Powell

The United States government's recent recognition of Somalia's new government is no cause for hope for the Somali people. Official recognition brings official largess in the form of development aid that will do little to promote development. Worse yet, recognition might help to legitimize what is likely to be yet another oppressive African government.

In a White House ceremony with Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, the recently elected president of Somalia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "I'm very pleased that... we are taking this historic step of recognizing the government." Most news stories have reported the event as a good sign for progress in the region. Unfortunately, official recognition is likely to do more harm than good for the average Somali.

President Mohamud and his government will benefit from official recognition because they are now eligible for official development grants from the World Bank, IMF, and USAID. More than $2 trillion has been given in official development assistance since 1950, but there is little to show for it other than flush Swiss bank accounts for former government officials.

The effective and appropriate dissemination of aid is only a small part of the problem. The real problem is that development aid funds are driven by proximate causes of economic growth: infrastructure, education, investment, etc; while it perverts the fundamental cause of growth -- good institutions that secure economic freedom. Countries that have more economic freedom have higher standards of living, higher rates of growth, and do better on just about every measure that people care about.

Development economist P.T. Bauer contended for decades that development aid politicized economic life and discouraged markets. More recently, co-author Matt Ryan and I found that higher levels of aid led countries to have lower levels of economic freedom after receiving the aid.

Isn't official recognition at least a sign that Somalia is moving towards establishing a more stable state? Maybe, but we should be cautious. Somalia's previous government was predatory and non-democratic. An oppressive government is not necessarily better than when no
 government exists at all. Why should we expect this new government to be any different?

Governments repress economic freedom in Africa more than on any other continent. As measured by the Index of Economic Freedom, the average sub-Saharan country is classified as mostly unfree. Their average Polity IV score, which measures how democratic or autocratic a country is, falls below 3 (like present-day Iraq), which is far shy of the index threshold of 6 to be classified as broadly democratic.

An oppressive government is therefore not necessarily more civilly advanced than when no government exists at all. Contrary to popular perception in the United States, Somalia has not been in a state of chaos since its government collapsed in the early 1990s. Rather, Somalia has relied on its customary legal system, in lieu of a state, to provide law and order.

Law is based on customs and clan elders make judgments on cases and mediate disputes between members of different clans. Rather than jailing wrongdoers, the guilty party must pay restitution to the plaintiff. There is no legislature that passes laws. Instead, law is "discovered" through the dispute resolution process. Indeed, it's not entirely unlike the early English common law system that our legal system evolved from.

Somalia's institutional environment in its state of anarchy is far from perfect. But co-authors Ryan Ford, Alex Nowrasteh and I found that it outperformed Somalia's previous government and the governments of many other African countries between 1990 and 2005 when we conducted our study.

Our research examined 13 different measures, including life expectancy, immunization and disease rates, access to various telecommunications, and access to water/sanitation. In 2005, Somalia ranked in the top 50 percent of African countries in six of our 13 measures, and ranked near the bottom in only three. This compares favorably with circumstances in 1990, when Somalia last had a government and was ranked in the bottom 50 percent for all seven of the measures for which we had that year's data.

Perhaps most impressive is Somalia's change in life expectancy. During the last five years of government rule, life expectancy fell by two years, but since state collapse, it actually has increased by five years. Only three African countries can claim a bigger improvement.

The United States government's recognition of the Somali government opens the door to money that could help entrench the political elite of the new government. Unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the new government will provide the protection of individual rights and economic freedoms that are necessary for sustained development.