Experts say Recently-Released US Intelligence Documents Still Relevant

By Gary Thomas Washington 29 June 2007

Download

The release of once-secret documents detailing past abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies opens a window into the sometimes dark history of the CIA. Most of the information in the documents, which date back more than 30 years, has long been publicly known. But, as VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, the revelations are of more than historical interest.

Central Intelligence Agency's secret documents of the agency's contacts with other US government agencies, shows some deleted portions in blank boxes, at the National Security Archives, 26 June 2007

Intelligence experts say the declassified documents known colloquially as the "family jewels" are significant for current policy debates on intelligence reform, secrecy, and presidential power in the post-9/11 era.

CIA director Michael Hayden said the documents, although unflattering, provide what he calls "a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency." But David Barrett, an intelligence historian at Villanova University, says that in today's war on terror some things are not terribly different in the intelligence world.

"I think that there are parallels," he said. "I think that when some decades have passed, I think we will look back at the few years after September 11 and see that there were abuses and hat there were activities which were of questionable legality. And that's sort of the view that we tend to have of the early Cold War period, the pre-'Family Jewels' period."

The 700-page dossier of memos and reports details some of the questionable and, in many cases, possibly illegal activities of the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. They include plots to assassinate foreign leaders, including the use of mobsters to try to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the domestic surveillance of political dissidents, the opening of mail, and the electronic wiretapping of American journalists.

Most of the information about the "family jewels" first came out in a New York Times report in December, 1974, which then sparked two congressional investigations and one presidential commission the following year. The dossier dealing with events some 30 to 40 years ago that was just released still has large portions blocked out.

Amy Zegart, professor of public policy and an intelligence specialist at the University of California at Los Angeles, says how a president wields the power of intelligence agencies remains as much an issue now as it was then.

"Democrats and Republicans, Cold War, terrorism - it doesn't matter," she said. "All presidents are tempted to go beyond the bound of what most Americans consider to be appropriate in their use of intelligence agencies. So there's this ongoing tension between what presidents see as protecting the national security interest, and what most Americans view as violating basic civil liberties. And we see that in the 1960s, and we see that today."

The original investigations of the "family jewels" led to the reforms, including the creation of permanent intelligence oversight committees in Congress. Britt Snider, who was counsel to the Senate committee investigation in 1975, says that oversight became somewhat lax in intervening years.

"Well, I think there certainly was a period here, a recent period, when there was more deference paid to the intelligence community and what they were doing, not as much oversight," he noted. "Certainly in terms of public oversight there was not a whole lot going on for, I don't know, almost probably 10-year period. But I think it's started to change now. I think both committees are becoming more active and getting back to the way they used to be."

There are those who say the changes imposed after the first revelations went too far. Former CIA officer Peter Earnest, who how heads the International Spy Museum in Washington, points out that barriers on information sharing that were erected between America's domestic and foreign intelligence agencies in the 1970s may have affected the chances of intercepting the 9/11 plot.

"When the 9/11 Commission met, they were concerned about, you remember the issue of the 'wall' came up. In other words, there was certain information that couldn't be shared. In other words, not only were we perhaps not collecting the right dots, we were unable to relate the dots to each other because of the so-called wall," he explained. "So it addresses that issue of did we go too far at times, and the pendulum swings back, and now we have to correct in the other direction."

However, David Barrett, who has written a book on the relationship between Congress and the CIA, doubts that the so-called "information wall" can be blamed for the failure of inter-agency cooperation before September 11, 2001.

"I think it had much more to do with the different cultures, the distinct cultures, each agency wanting to do things its way - FBI wanting to do things its way, CIA wanting to do things its way," he added. "So there are reasons why agencies didn't perform especially effectively in the lead-up to September 11th. But I don't think it had to do with these intelligence reforms of the 1970s. I just don't buy it."

UCLA's Amy Zegart applauds the release of the "family jewels," saying it is long overdue. But she says there is still much that the intelligence community is keeping locked up that should be aired.

"I think we have to be careful about congratulating the CIA too soon about its glasnost [openness]," she said. "There's a lot that remains locked up that could shed tremendous light on what led to 9/11 and how we could make the intelligence community work better."

The "family jewels" outline how the CIA and NSA engaged in electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping decades ago. The White House and Congress are currently locked in a struggle over documents - or, perhaps in these Internet days, emails as well - relating to the warrantless wiretapping program that the Bush administration ordered the National Security Agency to carry out after 9/11.

Kofi Annan Launches Global Humanitarian Forum

By Lisa Schlein Geneva 29 June 2007

Download

Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is launching a new organization to improve humanitarian assistance around the world. Mr. Annan says the new organization, called the Global Humanitarian Forum, will help people in poor countries play a greater role in finding solutions to their developmental and humanitarian problems. Lisa Schlein reports for VOA from Geneva, where the new organization will be based.

Kofi Annan

The Global Humanitarian Forum officially gets under way Monday. Mr. Annan, who left his U.N. post at the end of 2006, says the agenda and strategies of the Forum are still being developed. But certain things are clear.

He says the Forum does not intend to compete with other organizations. It aims to complement the work that is being done and to chart new ways of approaching humanitarian disasters so the victims can receive help in a more efficient and timely manner.

For example, he says the United Nations and other members of the humanitarian community would not have been able to deal with natural disasters such as the Indian Ocean tsunami and the earthquake in Kashmir without the help of the military.

"If the military had not come in and provided heavy logistical support … many more people would have died as we would not have been able to get to them," said the former U.N. chief. "And, so the military have become important players in humanitarian relief. And, yet, when we get together to discuss humanitarian issues, they are not around, they are not at the table."

"I think we would want to bring them to the table to discuss with humanitarian actors how we could cooperate. And, from my own previous experience, I know it is not an easy relationship," he added.

Mr. Annan says he recognizes private aid groups are not comfortable working with the military. He says he hopes the Forum can improve this relationship.

The Forum, according to Mr. Annan, will deal with such issues as the humanitarian consequences of climate change. He says more people are likely to flee their homes as natural resources, such as water and food become scarcer.

Yet, these so-called environmental refugees have no legal protections under international law. No one knows how to deal with them. This, he says, is an area of fruitful research for the Forum.

He says his group will also work to persuade developing countries they have an obligation to take carbon emissions and global warming seriously. Although industrialized countries are chiefly responsible for these emissions, he says China, India, Brazil. South Africa and other developing countries cannot afford to just sit back and do nothing.

"Not only should they begin now, they should take advantage and avoid the mistakes of earlier industrialization and frog leap some of the mistakes the others make and really begin to look for green [environmentally friendly] technology, even if it is a bit more expensive," he said.

"But there are reasonable technologies that can help them. I do not think they can sit back and say let those who are responsible for the bulk of it take care of it and pretend that stopping emission will slow their growth," he continued.

On the contrary, Mr. Annan says, failure to protect the environment may turn out to be the greatest constraint on growth and development around the world.

Bush, Putin to Meet in Attempt to Ease Tensions

By Peter Fedynsky Moscow 29 June 2007

Download

President Bush has invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Bush family home this weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine. The meeting, in a secluded and relaxed oceanside setting is designed to reduce recent tensions between Russia and the United States. VOA Moscow correspondent Peter Fedynsky looks at the Russian perspective on chances for success in Kennebunkport.

President Bush, center, chats with his mother, Barbara Bush, wearing hat, and others after arriving in Kennebunkport, Maine, 28 Jun 2007

Friday's edition of the Russian newspaper Izvestia devotes more than half a page not only to the Bush-Putin meeting, but also to the impact its location may have on the substance of the talks.

The article, complete with a color photograph of the Bush family home, quotes the first president Bush as saying former first lady Barbara Bush told her son, the current president, not to put his feet on the table.

That detail is used to suggest that the family home is neutral territory, unlike the Texas ranch of the American president or Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland. Izvestia says those venues have "exhausted their positive image" just as U.S.-Russian relations have taken a negative turn.

Alexander Khramchekhyn, research director at Moscow's Institute for Political and Military Analysis, told the VOA that the two presidents hope to prevent further deterioration of ties.

Khramchekhyn says neither president, because of the personal connection, wants to completely spoil Russian-American ties. The analyst notes that until recently, personal relations between Presidents Bush and Putin were good.

President Bush, (l), shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin after their meeting at the G8 in Heiligendamm, Germany, 07 Jun 2007

A top priority on the Bush-Putin agenda is expected to be an American plan to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington says the system is designed to guard against a possible attack by Iran. The Kremlin says it threatens Russia's security. Alexander Khramchekhyn rejects such fears for now, but says the system could be converted later into an offensive instrument against Russia. The analyst also suspects that Kremlin leaders may be using the missile issue to maintain power.

Khramchekhyn says the issue is also a propaganda tool. In other words, we will stop talking about your missiles if you stop talking about our democracy.

And the democratization of Russia is a concern for Washington. Senior U.S. officials have highlighted Kremlin pressure on Russia's non-governmental organizations, as well as independent media and political parties.

Another issue likely to be discussed at Kennebunkport is Kosovo, the predominately ethnic Albanian province of Serbia. Washington supports a Western plan to grant supervised independence to Kosovo. Moscow, a traditional Serbian ally, is opposed. Some analysts say the Kremlin wants to avoid setting a precedent of internationally-supervised independence, which some of Russia's independence-minded regions could demand.

Whether any of these issues will be resolved in Kennebunkport is uncertain. Izvestia says the meeting is planned not so much to resolve problems, but to lower the tension around them. Alexander Khramchekhyn says that given the poor state of relations, the fact that the two leaders are meeting at all should be considered a success.

US Supreme Court Reverses Decision, Agrees to Hear Guantanamo Detainee Appeal

By Gary Thomas Washington 29 June 2007

Download

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed itself and agreed to hear the appeals of detainees held at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, legal scholars say it is a highly unusual move for the country's highest court.

A detainee sits behind a chain-linked fence on the grounds of Camp Delta detention facility, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba, Sep 2006)

On the last day of its current session, the Supreme Court changed its mind about two cases involving detainees in government custody. After denying earlier appeals by the Guantanamo detainees in April, the court said it will hear arguments in its next term about whether inmates whom the government deems to be enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court.

There is some difference among legal scholars about exactly when the last time such a reversal occurred in the Supreme Court, but there is general agreement that it was about 40 years ago.

Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University and a legal advisor for the detainees, says the turnabout is a major victory for the Guantanamo inmates.

"It's a huge step forward for the detainees, and a serious, serious setback for the government's efforts to do anything except allow the independent judicial review which is at the bedrock of the separation of powers," said Freedman.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the Bush administration does not believe any legal review of its detainee procedures is necessary, but added that it is confident about its legal position.

But even conservative legal scholars say the court decision to take the cases does not bode well for the administration's detainee policies.

David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, calls the court action unfortunate. He noted that it takes only four of the nine justices to deny a hearing before the high court, but five to order a rehearing as it did Friday.

"It tells me that four justices for certain, and possibly five justices, entertain some questions about the propriety and legal sufficiency of the Military Commissions Act, which is of course the key underlying legislation passed last November that governs all aspects of detention and prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants," he said.

The detainees seek the right to challenge their detention in a federal court. The Bush administration says they are enemy combatants and therefore not entitled to such rights. At the administration's urging, Congress last year passed the law denying them that legal avenue and setting up military commissions to try detainees.

Eric Freedman says the government must explain to a civilian court why it is holding people in detention indefinitely.

"It is simply inimical to our Constitution that our government can throw somebody into a prison, announce that they are a national security threat, and not explain to a court the factual and legal basis why they're doing that," he said.

David Rivkin is gloomy about the Supreme Court's about-face, but adds he does not believe the court will totally abandon the military commission system.

"The courts are not going to cleanly kill the system," said Rivkin. "I do not believe that at any point in time the courts are going to come out and say, the laws of war paradigm does not apply, these people are not enemy combatants, you've got to let them go. At least the Supreme Court is most unlikely to do that because, frankly, even they understand how insane that would be."

The cases will be heard sometime after the next court term begins in October.

VOASE0629_In the News

29 June 2007

A Recent Study Suggests Most Young Americans Plan to Vote for a Democrat in Next Year’s Presidential Election
Most young Americans consider themselves socially liberal.

Download
Download

This is IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English.

What do young Americans think about the presidential candidates and social issues? A new public opinion study shows that the majority of young people support Democrats over Republicans. The young people also have liberal positions on several social issues.

The results of the study were published earlier this week by the New York Times newspaper. The opinion study was a joint effort by the New York Times, CBS News, and MTV, the music television network. The study was based on telephone calls to six hundred fifty-nine young people earlier this month. They were between the ages of seventeen and twenty-nine.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois at a Democratic presidential debate in June.

Fifty-four percent of the young Americans questioned said they plan to vote for a Democratic Party candidate for president in two thousand eight. They appeared to like two candidates the most -- Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The study also found that many more young Americans are paying attention to the two thousand eight presidential race than the last one in two thousand four. They share with the general public a negative opinion of President Bush. Only twenty-eight percent of this group approve of the job he is doing as president.

Almost half of the young Americans questioned feel their generation will be worse off than their parents’ generation. But more than seventy-five percent of them believe the votes of their generation would make a difference in the next presidential election.

The study found that young adults share the same opinions as the general population on some issues. But they have different opinions on several issues. For example, young Americans are more likely than the general public to support a government-controlled health care system for all Americans. The young people are also more likely to support a liberal policy on immigration.

Forty-four percent of the young Americans said they believe couples of the same sex should be permitted to legally marry. Only twenty-eight percent of the general population approve of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Young Americans are also more likely than the general public to support legalizing the possession of small amounts of the drug marijuana.

When asked about the war in Iraq, young adults appeared to be more hopeful than the population as a whole. Fifty-one percent of the young adults said the United States is likely to succeed in Iraq. This is compared with forty-five percent of the general population.

Young Americans share the same opinions as the general public on the issue of abortion to end a pregnancy. Seventy-five percent said abortion should be available, either as it is or with greater restrictions.

And the majority of young adults agrees with the general population that global warming is a serious problem that should be a top issue for government leaders.

And that’s IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English, written by Brianna Blake. Our reports can be found on our Web site, voaspecialenglish.com. I’m Steve Ember.

Chavez, Putin Meet in Russia

By Peter Fedynsky Moscow 28 June 2007

Download

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is in Moscow for discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin about a possible arms deal and expanded economic ties between the two countries. VOA Correspondent Peter Fedynsky reports from the Russian capital.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, greets Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during their meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow, 28 June 2007

President Hugo Chavez met his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, Thursday evening at an informal dinner at the Russian leader's country home near Moscow. But Russian news reports throughout the day focused on the opening of a Latin American cultural center in Moscow, where Mr. Chavez spoke for about an hour. Mr. Putin indicated that he followed the Venezuelan's appearance like most Russians, on television.

President Putin says he was able to watch televised news reports and noted that the new center will be a place where Russians can familiarize themselves with Latin American culture.

By scheduling Mr. Chavez so late in the day, Mr. Putin prompted speculation in Moscow that he downplayed the meeting because he does not want to be seen aggravating his already chilly ties with the United States. Washington considers Mr. Chavez to be a destabilizing element in Latin America. President Bush has invited the Russian leader for a visit this weekend at his family home in Kennebunkport, Maine to discuss ways of improving bilateral relations.

The United States is also concerned about Venezuelan arms purchases. Mr. Chavez's Moscow agenda includes the possible purchase of Russian diesel-electric submarines, armed with missiles. He is also interested in buying the Russian TOR-1 missile defense system. Last year, Mr. Chavez signed a deal with the Kremlin to purchase $3 billion worth of weapons, including helicopters, fighter planes and small arms.

The Venezuelan leader said on Thursday that he does not rule out the development of nuclear energy in his country. Mr. Chavez also said American troops should leave Iraq, and that Iran has a right to nuclear technology.

Hugo Chavez speaks while opening Venezuela's cultural center in Moscow, 28 June 2007

Mr. Chavez says that Iran has the right to a peaceful atomic energy industry because it is a sovereign state.

Russian and Venezuela, both major exporters of energy, are also discussing expanded commerce. Their bilateral trade, last year, amounted to only $90 million.

On Saturday, the Venezuelan leader will be President Putin's guest at a horse race in the southern city of Rostov-on-Don. However, despite signs of closer relations, Russian lawmakers voted against allowing Mr. Chavez to address them in a full session of the country's lower house of Parliament.

Mr. Chavez has plans for more weapons deals with neighboring Belarus, where he flies after his visit to Russia. He then continues to Iran.

Missile Defense to Be Discussed at Upcoming Bush-Putin Summit

By Andre de Nesnera Washington 28 June 2007

Download

Russia strongly opposes Washington's plan to introduce a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. In this report from Washington, VOA Senior Correspondent André de Nesnera looks at the proposal, which will be discussed during the upcoming Bush-Putin summit (July 1-2) in Kennebunkport, Maine.

President Bush, (l), shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin after their meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany, 07 Jun 2007

U.S. officials say the proposed missile defense system, made up of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, is needed against potential threats from countries such as Iran. They say it is not targeted against Russia.

But Russian officials have strongly criticized the proposed missile defense system. President Vladimr Putin has even threatened to target U.S. allies in Europe with nuclear missiles if plans go ahead with deployment.

Robert Legvold, a Russia expert at Columbia University in New York, says Moscow sees the Polish and Czech initiatives as the first steps in a much broader plan to install a larger missile defense system throughout Europe in the years to come.

"If there are genuine strategic defense concerns involved, I think it's the future and what they think the U.S. may be doing," Legvold said. "But the political-psychological side is part of this larger notion that the United States is simply disregarding Russia's interests and concerns and going ahead doing whatever it chooses to do unilaterally, including expanding, enlarging NATO into this region and bringing more military power close to Russian borders - not just the Polish-Czech case with missile defense, but the bases that are being planned for Romania and Bulgaria and a number of other steps taken within Europe - and that without consulting Russia."

President Putin recently offered Washington use of a radar facility in Gabala, Azerbaijan in exchange for abandoning the Czech and Polish plans. U.S. officials have reacted coolly to the idea but have agreed to discuss it.

Jason Lyall, a Russia expert at Princeton University, says Mr. Putin's offer is a very smart maneuver.

"Because what it does is it makes the United States decline Putin's gracious offer and it makes the United States look like it won't be the willing party to meet Russia halfway," Lyall said. "The radar site in Gabala, Azerbaijan, is actually very, very old, very decrepit and doesn't cover all of Iran. So Putin doesn't lose anything by giving up this radar system and he gains a lot by being seen as an honest broker, somebody who is concerned about this and hopefully he could knock out the radar system in the Czech Republic and Poland."

During a recent trip to Poland on June 8 President Bush repeated the U.S. view that the missile defense system is not directed against Russia. And he went on to say, "indeed we would welcome Russian cooperation in missile defense." .

The missile defense issue will be one of the topics discussed during the upcoming Bush-Putin summit in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Dale Herspring, a Russia expert at Kansas State University, says Mr. Putin must take up President Bush's offer to get involved.

"Now it may be that they will give him only cosmetic involvement," Herspring said. "In that case, if I were the Russians, I'd just say the hell with it. What Putin needs to do to Mr. Bush in Kennebunkport, is say: 'Okay, Mr. President. Now you say you want us involved. What does that mean specifically? I have General Popov sitting here next to me. We want to know exactly what you are talking about when you say us being involved. And then we'll be in a position to give you a more serious answer.'"

Herspring and others do not believe any major breakthroughs will be achieved in Kennebunkport. But they say the informal setting there might help to bring some movement on key issues, including missile defense.

Bush Sees Hopeful Signs of Progress in Iraq

By Scott Stearns White House 28 June 2007

Download

President Bush says there are hopeful signs of progress in Iraq as 30,000 additional U.S. troops have been battling al-Qaida terrorists. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports the president's comments come amid accounts of more gruesome violence in Iraq.

President Bush says reinforced U.S. troops in al-Anbar province have reduced sectarian violence there even as al-Qaida is fighting to regain a base of operations.

President George Bush addresses an invitation-only crowd of military and civilians at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, 28 June 2007

"It is working to assassinate sheiks and intimidate the local population," he said. "We have got to prepare ourselves for more violence and more setbacks, but a province that had been written off as hopeless now enjoys a level of peace and stability that was unimaginable only a few months ago."

The president spoke at the U.S. Naval War College in the northeast state of Rhode Island. He is under pressure from congressional Democrats and some within his own party to show that the increased U.S. troop levels in Iraq are making progress.

"Right now we are at the beginning stage of the offensive," he added. "We've finally got the troops there. Americans have got to understand that it takes awhile to mobilize additional troops and move them from the United States to Iraq."

Public opinion polls show a majority of Americans believe the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake. A survey by Newsweek magazine last week says 73 percent of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling the war.

In his remarks Thursday, the president again sought to link the war in Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and he again blamed Iran and Syria for helping al-Qaida in Iraq.

"The influx of foreign fighters and foreign support makes this job a lot tougher: tougher on Iraqis, tougher on our troops," he explained. "We can expect more casualties as our forces enter enemy strongholds and push back against foreign interference."

A man stands among destroyed vehicles at a bus station in Bayaa neighborhood in Baghdad, 28 June 2007

The president says he is encouraged by what he is seeing in Iraq despite what he says is al-Qaida's strategy to use suicide bombers to create grisly images to overwhelm what Mr. Bush calls quiet progress on the ground.

Baghdad police say a car bomb during the Thursday morning rush hour at a bus station killed 21 people and wounded 40 others in a mainly Shi'ite district. Officials say the bodies of 20 beheaded men were found with their hands and legs bound on a riverbank in a Sunni village.

US Senate Blocks Major Immigration Reform Bill

By Deborah Tate Capitol Hill 28 June 2007

Download

The U.S. Senate has again blocked a sweeping immigration reform bill, handing a key defeat to President Bush, who has made the issue a top domestic priority. The Senate action Thursday likely dooms the legislation until after next year's presidential election. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

Supporters of immigration legislation gather in Little Rock, Arkansas, as they learn of the Senate's rejection of the immigration bill, 28 June 2007

The Senate voted 46 to 53 to limit debate and move the bill to a final vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes were necessary in the 100-member chamber to move the bill forward.

The legislation called for tougher border security, a temporary worker program, and an immediate granting of legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Senator Ted Kennedy was a key supporter of the bill.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, left, and Sen. Edward Kennedy during a news conference on immigration in Washington, 27 Jun 2007

"Year after year we have had the broken borders. Year after year we have had the exploitation of workers. Year after year we see the people that have lived in fear within our own borders of the United States of America," he said. "This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time."

But his appeal was not enough to overcome the opposition, much of which came from lawmakers of President Bush's own Republican Party. They argued the bill would not go far enough in securing U.S. borders and would reward immigrants who came to this country illegally with the promise of U.S. citizenship.

But many Democrats, and their labor union allies, also opposed the measure because, they argued, the temporary worker provision would create an underclass of cheap laborers.

Immigrant advocate groups also criticized the legislation's limits on family migration.

A grassroots campaign by various groups opposing the bill resulted in a flood of phone calls to lawmakers urging defeat of the measure.

Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican and vocal opponent of the bill, says that had an impact on senators.

"This recent vote was a great victory, not for any individual senator, but for the American people," he said. "They were heard only because they demanded to be heard."

The bill had been blocked earlier this month by opponents, only to be revived amid an intense lobbying campaign by President Bush. But his efforts to secure more support, including phone calls and a rare meeting with fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill, were to no avail.

The president reacted to the Senate action during a visit to the eastern state of Rhode Island.

President George Bush addresses an invitation-only crowd of military and civilians at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, 28 June 2007

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," he said.

Supporters vow to try again.

"We will be back," added Senator Kennedy. "This issue is not going away. Ultimately, we will be successful."

But with the 2008 presidential campaign to begin in earnest later this year, many lawmakers believe that the heated partisan atmosphere accompanying the campaign will make it unlikely that the issue can be thoughtfully debated until after a new president is in office in January 2009.

That was a point made by Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, as he appealed for support for the bill ahead of the vote.

"A temporary worker program and merit-based immigration is a good deal for this country and if we say 'no' today, good luck ever getting it again," he said.

The House of Representatives has not drafted its own version of the bill because it had been awaiting Senate action.

Islamists Invited to Somali Reconciliation Talks

By Alisha Ryu Nairobi 28 June 2007

Download

The foreign affairs secretary for Somalia's ousted Islamic Courts Union has confirmed to VOA that he has received an invitation from the country's western-backed transitional government to attend peace talks next month in Mogadishu. But as VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu reports from our East Africa Bureau in Nairobi, the ICU leader says such talks are not possible while Ethiopian troops are still in Somalia.

Speaking to VOA from the Gulf state of Qatar, Islamic Courts Union Foreign Affairs Secretary Ibrahim Hassan Addow says the chairman of the Somali reconciliation committee, Ali Mahdi, extended the invitation to him by telephone last week.

"Ali Mahdi called me a few days ago," Addow said. "The problem is there has not been any discussion between the ICU and those who are saying they are in charge of reconciliation. There has not been any contact at all."

Inviting Addow to the long-delayed reconciliation conference is a striking turn-around for government leaders, who had insisted the talks would be strictly clan-based and rejected holding talks with any political entities, especially the Islamic Courts Union.

Many Somalis in the capital, Mogadishu, believe interim leaders would not have made such a conciliatory gesture without intense pressure from the government's biggest financial backer, the United States.

Six months ago, neighboring Ethiopia, with U.S. support, helped Somalia's secular transitional government take power in Mogadishu from the Islamic Courts Union. The Islamic Courts enjoyed popular support but, in the view of the West, was becoming increasingly radicalized.

To boost popular support for the weak transitional government and to end a violent insurgency in the capital, the United States and other western nations urged Somalia's new leaders to quickly organize a broad-based reconciliation conference, which included all Somalis willing to rebuild the war-devastated country peacefully.

The interim government had first intended to hold the peace conference in April, but insecurity in Mogadishu forced a delay. The talks have since been delayed two more times and are now scheduled for mid-July.

But Addow says there can be no reconciliation process without the immediate withdrawal of thousands of Ethiopian troops, who are still in Somalia protecting the interim government.

"The ICU is ready to go to any negotiation table anywhere," Addow said. "The only problem now is Somalia is under occupation and the TFG [transitional federal government] is not ruling Somalia. Ethiopia is the one that is running the show. And all those opposing the Ethiopian occupation cannot express their views politically. Somalia is not a free country right now, so it is amazing that some people are saying there will be a reconciliation in Mogadishu. We cannot attend any conference there."

The Islamic Courts Union leader tells VOA that he has been told the reconciliation committee chairman, Ali Mahdi, is preparing to travel to Eritrea to hold direct talks with Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, the head of the Islamic courts' moderate Executive Council, and some former members of the Somali parliament who are opposing the interim government.

VOASE0628_Economics Report

28 June 2007

World Trade Talks Break Down as the Group of 4 Fail to Reach Agreement
The United States, European Union, Brazil and India could not reach an agreement on farm subsidies. Now, World Trade Organization talks move to Geneva.

Download
Download

This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.

United States Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns at World Trade Organization headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday, June 22, 2007.

Talks meant to end disagreement over international trade failed to produce results in Potsdam, Germany last week. The European Union and the United States sought to find common ground with Brazil and India on several trade issues. The group has become known as the G-Four in World Trade Organization negotiations. But neither side could agree and talks ended last Friday, two days earlier than expected.

Brazil and India have been seeking big cuts in aid provided to farmers in industrial countries. The two nations have played the part of spokesmen for many of the least developed nations in the one- hundred-fifty-member W.T.O.

During the talks, the United States offered to limit farm aid, or subsidies, to seventeen billion dollars a year. That is down from twenty-two billion dollars offered in October of two thousand five. But Brazil wants the United States to promise a bigger reduction in farm aid to below fifteen billion dollars. Currently, American farmers receive a total of about eleven billion dollars a year in subsidies.

Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath blamed the United States' position on farm aid for the failure of the talks. But India wants to protect twenty percent of its farm product import taxes from all or most cuts. United States Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said that would leave almost all of India's import taxes in place.

An official at the talks said the EU offered to cut import taxes on its most protected farm products by seventy percent. That is ten percentage points higher than its proposal from October, two thousand five. Products considered especially important would only receive subsidy cuts of twenty-three percent.

The Doha round of W.T.O. negotiations started in November of two thousand one. A main goal was for rich countries to reduce their farm subsidies on important crops like cotton, sugar and corn. In return, developing countries would reduce or end barriers to trade in goods and services from industrial countries.

Now, negotiations of the Doha Round will have to continue in Geneva, Switzerland. United States Trade Representative Susan Schwab said nations want to reach agreement on the Doha development plan. But she admitted that negotiations only among the G-Four nations may not be enough.

And that's the VOA Special English Economics Report. I'm Mario Ritter.

VOASE0628_American Mosaic

28 June 2007

Exploring the Meeting Point Between Natural and Mechanical Forms: The Art of Graham Caldwell
Also: A listener in Hungary asks about Hell's Kitchen in New York City. And hear music from popular singer Chris Daughtry.

Download
Download

HOST:

Welcome to AMERICAN MOSAIC, in VOA Special English.

(MUSIC)

I'm Doug Johnson. On our show this week:

We answer a question from a listener about a place called Hell's Kitchen…

Play music by Chris Daughtry and his new rock group…

And report about a new American artist.

Graham Caldwell

HOST:

Graham Caldwell is a young artist who makes magical and unusual sculptures out of glass and metal. This artist does not want to make glass art that just looks nice. He wants to push the limits of this material. He likes to explore the meeting point of natural and mechanical forms. Critics are praising his imaginative and bold sculptures. Barbara Klein has more.

BARBARA KLEIN:

Graham Caldwell makes many of his glass sculptures in his workshop near Washington, D.C.

There, you can watch him put red-hot liquid glass on a metal stick called

Malocclusus by Graham Caldwell

a blowpipe. He expertly forms the glass in different ways by blowing air through the blowpipe opening. He can stretch the glass into long shapes or let it hang down so that gravity does the work. But Caldwell’s art is not usually just one single piece of sculpture. Each work is made up of many similar parts.

Graham Caldwell recently had a show at an art gallery in Washington. One work was made up of pointy glass pieces that looked like the shape of elephant tusks. They were attached to the wall by round metal bases.

Caldwell arranged these sharp, curved pieces in a circle so that all the points were

Untitled by Graham Caldwell

going in the same direction. It looked like the open mouth of an angry sea creature.

Another work was made up of many slightly different silvery glass forms that looked like tear drops coming out of the wall. Each glass drop reflected the silvery shape next to it. When you stood near the rounded forms, you could see yourself and the whole room reflected in the glass.

Graham Caldwell said the piece is about the "intelligibility of reflections." This striking artwork keeps you looking, wondering, and exploring.

Hell's Kitchen

HOST:

Our VOA listener question this week comes from Hungary. Monika Fogl asks about a neighborhood in New York City called Hell's Kitchen.

Restaurants in the Hell's Kitchen area of New York City

Hell's Kitchen is on the island of Manhattan. It is between Thirty-Fourth and Fifty-Ninth Streets west of Eighth Avenue all the way to the Hudson River. Dutch immigrants settled in the area in the late sixteen hundreds. Back then, it had green fields and small rivers. The Dutch called the area Vale of Flowers.

How did the area get the name Hell's Kitchen? There are several possible answers. Some people say it was the traditional name of a building in the area. The building was in bad condition and the people who lived there were very poor.

By the eighteen hundreds the area had become a dangerous place to live. Many poor Irish immigrants lived there. Fights and other crimes were common. People lived in dirty, crowded buildings that the owners did not take care of. The area had many factories, including slaughterhouses, where animals were killed and sold at food markets.

In the eighteen sixties there were riots in Hell's Kitchen to protest the government's order forcing people to serve in the military during the Civil War. White people attacked black people, whom they blamed for the war. Many people were killed during the riots.

Some people think the area was named Hell's Kitchen around that time. It could have come from Americans who knew of a poor and dangerous neighborhood in London, England called Hell's Kitchen.

There is also the story of a police officer named Fred who worked the area in the eighteen seventies. Fred and his partner were watching a fight among people in the neighborhood. The partner said, "The place is hell itself." Fred answered, "Hell's a mild climate. This is Hell's kitchen."

In the nineteen thirties, the Great Depression made the poverty in Hell's Kitchen even worse. Many factories in the area dismissed employees. Port companies and slaughterhouses closed. Many people were forced to live on the streets because they could not pay for housing. Many others left the area.

But new immigrant groups continued to arrive in New York, seeking a better life. Many Puerto Rican immigrants settled in Hell's Kitchen. The nineteen fifty-nine Broadway musical "West Side Story" was set in the area. It told about two young lovers torn by ethnic conflict between their Puerto Rican and white groups.

The area has experienced a renewal over the years. It has many art galleries and restaurants. And it is close to Broadway Theaters. Hell's Kitchen has in fact been home to many young actors. There are also several broadcasting operations for television and radio in the area.

There have been efforts to change the neighborhood's name to Clinton, after a former New York governor. But efforts to keep the name Hell's Kitchen are equal in strength.

Chris Daughtry

HOST:

The television show, “American Idol,” has been the most popular program on American television for the past few years. Young singers perform on the show each week. Three judges comment on their performances. Then the viewers at home vote for their favorite. The singer with the fewest votes leaves the show. The winner gets the title, “American Idol.” But what happens to the singers discovered on the show after the competition ends? Faith Lapidus tells us about one “American Idol” loser who has become a big winner.

FAITH LAPIDUS:

Chris Daughtry competed on "American Idol" a year ago. But he was voted off the

Chris Daughtry

show. He is now the lead singer of the rock group called Daughtry. That is also the name of the band’s first album, released last November. It has sold more than two and one-half million copies. Here is the first single from the album DAUGHTRY. It is called, “It’s Not Over.”

(MUSIC)

Chris Daughtry is twenty-seven years old. He was born and raised in North Carolina. He wrote or helped write ten of the twelve songs on the album. Here he sings, “What I Want.”

(MUSIC)

Critics say Chris Daughtry has become the best-selling musician in the United States. This is not bad for a singer who was a loser on “American Idol." We leave you now with another song from DAUGHTRY. It is called, “Home.”

(MUSIC)

HOST:

I'm Doug Johnson. I hope you enjoyed our program today.

It was written by Dana Demange, Nancy Steinbach and Caty Weaver, who also was our producer. To read the text of this program and download audio, go to our Web site, voaspecialenglish.com.

Send your questions about American life to mosaic@voanews.com. Please include your full name and mailing address. Or write to American Mosaic, VOA Special English, Washington, D.C., two-zero-two-three-seven, U.S.A.

Join us again next week for AMERICAN MOSAIC, VOA’s radio magazine in Special English.

US, S. Korea Finalize Agreement For Transfer of Wartime Command

By Kurt Achin Seoul 28 June 2007

Download

South Korea is a step closer to having independent control over its military forces in war. Seoul and Washington have finalized a plan giving South Korea command over its forces in the event of a war with North Korea. As VOA's Kurt Achin reports from Seoul, the plan changes a military structure that has been in place since the 1950s.

S. Korean soldiers salute during ceremony, 21 Jun 2007

U.S. and South Korean military leaders finalized plans Thursday for a watershed shift in the two countries' security relationship. The plan gives South Korea full command of its forces by 2012.

About 28,000 U.S. forces are stationed here to help deter a repeat of North Korea's 1950 surprise attack. Under a policy that dates back to the Korean War, if fighting resumed, U.S. commanders would control not only their own forces, but also South Korea's military.

David Oten, spokesman for United States Forces in Korea, says there will be a five-year transitional period before returning full control to the Republic of Korea - South Korea's official name.

"When the transition is complete, the result will be two complementary … coordinated commands with the Republic of Korea as the supported nation and the U.S. as a supporting nation," Oten said.

During the Korean War, the U.S. led United Nations forces against North Korea and its ally, China. In 1953, an armistice halted fighting.

The U.S. military retained wartime control over South Korean forces as the nation rebuilt itself into an economic powerhouse.

South Korea and the United States have been negotiating details of the control transfer for more than a year. Both sides say it reflects a new strategic vision of South Korea as a successful nation that deserves autonomy over all its own affairs.

South Korea's relations with North Korea have dramatically changed since the two sides held a historic 2000 summit, with more regular contact. North Korea has always condemned the U.S. military presence on the peninsula. Many South Korean analysts say a more independent security relationship with the U.S. may give Seoul a stronger hand in dealing with the North.

Venezuelans March for Freedom of Expression

By Michael Bowman Caracas, Venezuela 28 June 2007

Download

Protesters in Caracas 27 June 2007

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans have marched in the capital to press for freedom of expression, one month after self-proclaimed socialist President Hugo Chavez shut down the country's most popular private television station. VOA's Michael Bowman reports from Caracas.

Venezuela's private news media declared Wednesday Press Freedom Day, and large numbers of spirited opponents of President Chavez heeded the call to take to the streets. Among them was school teacher Maria Isabel. "I am fighting for the rights of Venezuelans to have a free and democratic country where no one prevents me from expressing myself. I lived through the era of dictatorship, and I do not want to return to that situation," she said.

Government opponents remain incensed that President Chavez refused to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television, forcing it off the air.

Mr. Chavez accused the opposition-allied RCTV of inciting rebellion against the government and backing a failed 2002 coup.

The head of the now-defunct RCTV, Eladio Lares, says the allegations are false. Speaking with VOA at the march, he said what is at stake in Venezuela today goes far beyond the fate of one television station.

"What is at risk is freedom of expression, which at this moment is being restricted. We will recover it when the signal of Radio Caracas is restored," he said.

The government had initially objected to the march, saying it could interfere with a hemispheric soccer championship Venezuela is currently hosting, the Copa America. Security forces did not intervene or impede the march, however,

and one government representative, social projects administrator Omar Urbina, bravely waded into the crowd sporting a red baseball cap which signified his support for Mr. Chavez.

"I applaud freedom of expression. The world says there is no democracy here. But look, here it is," he said.

Almost as soon as he began speaking, however, Urbina was surrounded by angry and highly vocal marchers.

Urbina's attempts to speak with this reporter were repeatedly interrupted,and at one point he turned to plead with the crowd. "Show that you can behave, that you have manners. Show that there truly is freedom of expression. Then, turning to this reporter, he commented, You see? They will not let me speak," he said.

Elsewhere in the city, addressing government supporters, former Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel labeled the marchers as a defeated people who have been swept aside to the margins of Venezuelan history. He added there is no country on earth that enjoys more freedom of expression than Venezuela.

The march came as President Chavez arrived in Moscow, beginning a weeklong trip that will also take the Venezuelan leader to Belarus and Iran.

US Congressional Report Finds Flaws in Iraq Forces Training

By Dan Robinson Capitol Hill 27 June 2007

Download

A bipartisan congressional report says Iraq's military and police forces are not capable of taking over responsibility for security, and U.S. forces continue to bear the burden of President Bush's military surge. VOA's Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill.

The House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee examined the training of Iraq's army and police, focusing on such issues as the Iraqi government's ability to support its own forces, and how various U.S. government agencies have handled the process.

In describing assumptions that Iraqi forces could be reformed as "seriously flawed," the 16-member panel says even now, with nearly 350,000 military and police, operational capability of Iraqi forces to take on the counter-insurgency fight cannot be determined.

Saying that the Bush administration and Pentagon have focused on "numbers, rather than the quality, capability, and sustainability" of [Iraqi] forces, the report characterizes the capabilities of Iraqi forces as "very uneven".

While some Iraqi army units appear to perform well, it says, Iraqi police have received less attention and have not been monitored sufficiently by U.S. and coalition partners.

Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA), with Todd Akin (R-MO) release report on Iraq security forces, 27 June 2007

"Despite this expenditure, we currently have an ISF that is nowhere near ready to operate independently, particularly the police, and what this report lays out is how difficult it has been to reach that goal," said Democratic Congressman Martin Meehan, who chaired the panel.

On the Baghdad Security Plan, involving more than 20,000 U.S. troops working with Iraqis, the report says U.S. forces continue to take the lead, something that will likely slow transferring security burdens to Iraqis, at least in the short term.

The report says the Iraqi government is not yet able to fully fund its forces, with the defense and interior ministries not fully capable in planning, programming, budgeting, or procuring equipment, and "critically deficient" in logistics and personnel accountability.

Congressman Todd Akin comments on Iraq security force report, 27 June 2007

"We have to develop the logistics train so these people can actually support and field an army that can run on its own," said Congressman Todd Akin, who is the Republican co-chairman. "That is the part that is scheduled for this year and next year. That part is not strong, but that is in process."

The report comes as President Bush faces new pressures on Iraq, notably from key Republicans, such as Senator Richard Lugar, saying the time has come for the president to change direction.

"The issue before us is whether we will refocus our policy in Iraq on realistic assessments of what can be achieved and on a sober review of our vital interests in the Middle East," he said.

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow sought to portray Lugar's statements earlier this week on the Senate floor this way.

"What he is trying to come up with is a way of engaging regional powers and also Iraqi powers, the allies, in such a way as to deal with the ongoing problems they have had in terms of violence, but also build the institutions that are going to be absolutely necessary in order to have a safe and free and democratic Iraq," he said.

Lugar's statement was cited Wednesday by Tom Lantos, as he opened a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"This troop escalation has in fact been a categorical and catastrophic failure," he said.

Testimony by Retired Major General John Batiste, a key critic of the president's Iraq strategy, supported findings of the House panel on weaknesses of Iraqi forces.

"The Iraqi security forces have taken horrendous casualties, but do not have the tools to replace U.S. combat formations," he said. "Whether we can trust these Iraqi formations quite frankly is another question. Our experience over the past four years is that most Iraqi formations, certainly not all, will either not show up for the fight, or will not hold their ground in the face of the insurgent for a myriad of reasons."

Among numerous recommendations, the House subcommittee report calls on the Pentagon to send to Congress by the end of July plans for transferring responsibility to Iraqi forces.

Others include a report on whether efforts to improve "deployability" of the Iraqi army are likely to succeed, steps to improve monitoring of Iraq's defense and interior ministries and a report on the extent to which sectarian and militia influences are at work in the Iraqi Armed Forces, and options to counter them.

Bush Encourages Muslim Moderates

By Scott Stearns White House 27 June 2007

Download

President Bush says he is confident that religious moderates in the Middle East will ultimately overcome the extremism fueling terrorist violence. VOA White House Correspondent Scott Stearns reports, Mr. Bush also announced a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

President Bush speaking at the Islamic Center of Washington, 27 Jun 2007

President Bush says the concept of religious freedom and individual rights is expanding in every region of the world except one.

"In the Middle East, we have seen instead the rise of a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination," said President Bush. "This self-appointed vanguard presumes to speak for Muslims. They do not."

The president says extremists falsely claim that America is at war with Muslims, when he says it is radicals who are Islam's true enemies by attacking religious shrines in hopes of dividing Shi'ite from Sunni.

Mr. Bush spoke at a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center of Washington. The president first visited that mosque six days after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to denounce reprisals against Muslim Americans.

On Wednesday, Mr. Bush said he is working to encourage democracy in the Middle East, not as a plan imposed from outside but as something that he says is being seized by the people of the region themselves.

"Millions seek a path to the future where they can say what they think, travel where they wish, and worship as they choose," he said. "They plead in silence for their liberty. And they hope someone somewhere will answer."

The president says elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are important milestones on the path to democracy, but he says the struggle does not end there.

"We say to those who yearn for freedom from Damascus to Tehran, you are not bound forever by your misery," said Mr. Bush. "You plead in silence no longer. The free world hears you. You are not alone. America offers you its hand in friendship."

At the ceremony, President Bush announced that he will name the first U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group based in Saudi Arabia that represents 57 Islamic states and territories.

Mr. Bush says that person, whom he did not name, will listen to and learn from representatives of Muslim states while sharing with them America's views and values. He calls this an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate respectful dialogue and continued friendship with Muslim communities.

VOASE0627_The Making of a Nation

27 June 2007

President Reagan's Main Goal was to Shrink Government. But Budget Deficits Created a Huge National Debt.
President Ronald Reagan was elected to a second term in nineteen-eighty-four. He won fifty-nine percent of the popular vote.

Download
Download

VOICE ONE:

This is Rich Kleinfeldt.

VOICE TWO:

And this is Warren Scheer with THE MAKING OF A NATION -- a VOA Special English program about the history of the United States.

(MUSIC)

Today, we continue the story of America's fortieth president, Ronald Reagan.

VOICE ONE:

President Ronald Reagan raises his left arm as he is shot while leaving a Washington hotel in 1981.

Soon after Ronald Reagan's presidency began, there was an attempt on his life. A gunman shot him in March, nineteen eighty-one. Doctors removed the bullet. He rested, regained his strength, and returned to the White House in twelve days.

The new president's main goal was to reduce the size of the federal government. He and other conservative Republicans wanted less government interference in the daily lives of Americans.

VOICE TWO:

President Reagan won Congressional approval for his plan to reduce taxes on earnings. Many Americans welcomed the plan. Others were concerned about its affect on the national debt. They saw taxes go down while defense spending went up.

To save money, the Reagan administration decided to cut spending for some social programs. This pleased conservatives. Liberals, however, said it limited poor peoples' chances for good housing, health care, and education.

VOICE ONE:

President Reagan also had to make decisions about using military force in other countries. In nineteen eighty-three, he sent Marines to Lebanon. They joined other peacekeeping troops to help stop fighting among several opposing groups. On October twenty-third, a Muslim extremist exploded a bomb in the building where the Marines were living. Two-hundred forty-one Americans died.

VOICE TWO:

Two days later, Marines led an invasion of the Caribbean island nation of Grenada. Communist forces were rebelling against the government there. Cuban soldiers were guarding the streets. President Reagan said he feared for the safety of American students at Grenada's medical school. He sent the Marines to get them out safely. The Marines quickly defeated the communist forces. Many Americans were pleased. Others were angry. They said Grenada was invaded only to make people forget about what happened in Lebanon.

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

The next year, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, was another presidential election year. It looked like no one could stop President Reagan. His warm way with people had made him hugely popular. He gained support with the military victory in Grenada. And, by the time the campaign started, inflation was under control. The Republican Party re-nominated Ronald Reagan for president and George Bush for vice president.

VOICE TWO:

There were several candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination. One was the first African American to run for president, Jesse Jackson. He was a Protestant clergyman and a long-time human rights activist.

The candidate who finally won the nomination was Walter Mondale. He had been a senator and had served as vice president under President Jimmy Carter. The vice presidential candidate was Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. It was the first time a major political party in the United States had nominated a woman for national office.

VOICE ONE:

One of the big issues in the campaign was taxes. Most candidates try not to talk about them. Democrat Mondale did. He said taxes would have to be raised to pay for new government programs. This was a serious political mistake. President Reagan gained even more support as a result.

The two candidates agreed to debate on television. During one debate, President Reagan looked old and tired. He did not seem sure of his answers. Yet his popularity was not damaged. On Election Day, he won fifty-nine percent of the popular vote. On Inauguration Day, the weather was not so kind. It was bitterly cold in Washington. All inaugural activities, including the swearing-in ceremony, were held inside.

VOICE TWO:

President Reagan's first term began with an attempt on his life. Six months after his second term began, he faced another threat. Doctors discovered and removed a large growth from his colon. The growth was cancerous. The president was seventy-four years old. Yet, once again, he quickly regained his strength and returned to work.

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

For years, the United States had accused Libyan leader Muammar Kaddafi of supporting international terrorist groups. It said he provided them with weapons and a safe place for their headquarters.

In January, Nineteen-Eighty-Six, the United States announced economic restrictions against Libya. Then it began military training exercises near the Libyan coast. Libya said the Americans were violating its territory and fired missiles at them. The Americans fired back, sinking two ships.

VOICE TWO:

On April Fifth, a bomb destroyed a public dance club in West Berlin. Two people died, including an American soldier. The United States said Libya was responsible. President Reagan ordered bomb attacks against the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. Muammar Kaddafi escaped unharmed. But one of his children was killed.

Some Americans said the raid was cruel. Others praised it. President Reagan said the United States did what it had to do.

VOICE ONE:

The president also wanted to intervene in Nicaragua. About fifteen thousand rebel troops, called Contras, were fighting the communist government there. Reagan asked for military aid for the Contras. Congress rejected the request. It banned all aid to the Contras.

At that same time, Muslim terrorists in Lebanon seized several Americans. The Reagan administration looked for ways to gain the hostages' release. It decided to sell missiles and missile parts to Iran in exchange for Iran's help. After the sale, Iran told the terrorists in Lebanon to release a few American hostages.

VOICE TWO:

Not long after, serious charges became public. Reports said that money from the sale of arms to Iran was used to aid the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Several members of the Reagan administration resigned. It appeared that some had violated the law.

President Reagan said he regretted what had happened. But he said he had not known about it. Investigations and court trials of those involved continued into the Nineteen-Nineties. Several people were found guilty of illegal activities and of lying to Congress. No one went to jail.

VOICE ONE:

Most Americans did not blame President Reagan for the actions of others in his administration. They still supported him and his policies. They especially supported his efforts to deal with the Soviet Union.

At the beginning of his first term, President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire". To protect the United States against the Soviets, he increased military spending to the highest level in American history. Then, in Nineteen-Eighty-Five, Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union.

VOICE TWO:

The two leaders met in Switzerland, in Iceland, in Washington, and in Moscow. Each agreed to destroy hundreds of nuclear missiles. President Reagan also urged Mister Gorbachev to become more democratic. He spoke about the wall that communists had built to divide the city of Berlin, Germany.

RONALD REAGAN:

President Reagan after his speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, on June 12, 1987.

"No American who sees first-hand can ever again take for granted his or her freedom or the precious gift that is America. That gift of freedom is actually the birthright of all humanity. And that is why, as I stood there, I urged the Soviet leader, Mister Gorbachev, to send a new signal of openness to the world by tearing down that wall."

(MUSIC)

VOICE ONE:

Ronald Reagan was president as the American economy grew rapidly. He was president as a new sense of openness was beginning in the Soviet Union. Yet, at the end of his presidency, many Americans were concerned by what he left behind. Increased military spending, together with tax cuts, had made the national debt huge. The United States owed thousands of millions of dollars. The debt would be a political issue for presidents to come.

On our next program, we will discuss some social and cultural issues of the Reagan years.

(MUSIC)

VOICE TWO:

This program of THE MAKING OF A NATION was written by Jeri Watson and produced by Paul Thompson. This is Warren Scheer.

VOICE ONE:

And this is Rich Kleinfeldt. Join us again next week for another VOA Special English program about the history of the United States.