What U.S. newspapers are saying

New York Times

While the nation's attention is focused on the war against terrorism, the Bush administration is moving, both overtly and covertly, to dismantle major elements of Bill Clinton's environmental legacy. It is difficult at a moment of crisis to devote much thought to things like mining rules or snowmobile bans. But if the president's top officials have time to undermine environmental regulations, the public needs to pay attention as well.

The war against the Clinton rules goes back to Inauguration Day, when the new administration suspended a half-dozen directives approved in Mr. Clinton's final weeks. Among these was a rule reducing the arsenic content in drinking water. The arsenic blunder came to symbolize the administration's fecklessness on environmental issues generally, and only when Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, promised to review the matter did the issue recede. But as Interior Secretary Gale Norton now reminds us, the demolition effort proceeds.

On Thursday, Ms. Norton wheeled out her subordinates at the Bureau of Land Management to announce the reversal of Clinton-era regulations involving hard-rock mining for minerals like gold, copper and lead. The Clinton rules would have imposed stricter environmental standards on mining operations and, for the first time, would have given federal officials the power to block mines likely to cause "substantial irreparable harm" to water quality and other natural resources. The department claimed that the rules had been concocted at the "eleventh hour" and were unduly onerous. They had in fact been in the works for years, and did little more than impose on the hard- rock mining industry some of the same standards that apply to other extractive industries.

At least Ms. Norton was up front about it. Much of the assault on the Clinton rules is occurring under the radar, in obscure courtrooms where industry is challenging them, and in closed-door negotiations that shield the administration from public accountability. Industry lawsuits against government rules are hardly unusual. What is unusual is the administration's decision to use this litigation as an excuse to weaken, through settlement talks, popular rules that it would prefer not to attack directly.

A small but telling case in point is the administration's sneaky effort to reverse a Clinton rule phasing out snowmobiles from Yellowstone National Park -- a rule buttressed by overwhelming public approval and years of conscientious science. Under pressure from various industry lawsuits, however, the administration has agreed to review the matter and issue what is widely expected to be a more industry-friendly proposal next year.

In like fashion, the administration has signaled a retreat from Mr. Clinton's most ambitious land conservation measure -- a Forest Service rule protecting 60 million largely untouched acres of national forest from new road building, new oil and gas leasing and most new logging. Nine separate lawsuits have been filed against the plan, by private companies and state governments. In each case, the Justice Department has failed to defend the conservation rule in court. Nor, from the look of things, does it intend to. The sad truth is that the Bush administration would like nothing better than a court-ordered excuse to rewrite the plan so as to accommodate the very commercial activity Mr. Clinton had hoped to prevent.

Another possible rollback that has received virtually no public attention involves the nation's diminishing wetlands. After a decade of struggle, environmentalists finally persuaded the Clinton administration to close a loophole in the clean water laws that had exposed many thousands of acres of valuable wetlands to commercial development. In the week before Earth Day last April, when Mr. Bush was trying to atone for the arsenic fiasco, Mrs. Whitman promised to keep the loophole closed. Within days, however, the Justice Department began talks with the home builders and other industry groups -- talks from which the environmentalists say they have been excluded. Mrs. Whitman's resolve may again be tested.

Washington Times

For the past 40 months, Argentina, one of Latin America's largest economies, has been tottering between recovery and disaster. Now, an economic meltdown seems imminent -- and, if the past is an indicator, a debt-default in Argentina will likely be felt all over the continent and beyond.

One of Argentina's main problems, lately, is the lack of political consensus on how to best manage the country's fiscal shortfalls. While Argentine President Fernando de la Rua has been instituting a creative mix of fiscal austerity with tax cuts, to prompt consumer spending, and subsidies to the poor, the opposition Justicialist Party, which won control of both houses of congress earlier this month, is aggressively challenging the government's plan to reduce the deficit to zero. These political skirmishes have panicked already skittish investors and sent interest rates so high that the government doesn't appear to have the necessary funds to pay its outstanding debt. A loan extended earlier this year by the International Monetary Fund year has failed to restore investor confidence. Unfortunately, the de la Rua administration -- which has been buffeted by a senate bribery scandal and dizzying cabinet shuffles -- appears to lack the stature to bring together warring factions, even those within his own political coalition.

Argentina must now try to renegotiate its debt with its largest international lenders, with talks brokered, possibly, by the U.S. Treasury Department. After all, it is clearly in America's interest to avoid another large-scale IMF rescue.

San Diego Union-Tribune

The international coalition against terrorism deserves far more support from Saudi Arabia.

To date, 74 nations have agreed to go after financial assets that the United States has pinpointed as terrorist-related.

But Saudi Arabia, which is home to some of these sources, including at least one charitable organization believed to be a front for terrorists, has declined to freeze their assets. That's especially dismaying because Osama bin Laden's terrorist network receives considerable support from Islamic philanthropies. In fact, Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Kenneth Dam recently acknowledged that bin Laden receives the bulk of his financial backing from such organizations, which front for wealthy donors sympathetic to his cause.

The Saudis are not the only nation to balk at freezing terrorist assets or going after suspects. But the kingdom's reluctance looms very large in this struggle, given its strategic importance.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers of Sept. 11 were Saudis. While more than 40 countries have arrested suspected terrorists, Saudi law enforcement officials have yet to announce any arrests, even though many suspects are believed to live there.

Saudi officials have been no less reluctant to freeze the financial assets of suspected terrorist sympathizers, citing the country's tenuous relationship with Islamic extremists. The Saudi government has been wary as well of aiding U.S. military efforts against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, fearing that doing so could cause a domestic backlash against the kingdom that could lead to its downfall.

The Saudi royal family is caught in the middle, to be sure. It is seeking a delicate balance between combating terrorism and not appearing to be a tool of the West. That is even more difficult because some of Islam's holiest sites are in Saudi Arabia and Western troops are stationed there.

That said, the Saudi government should provide more help to the coalition, at least covertly.

Cutting off bin Laden's financial backing and providing intelligence about him are essential to destroying his terrorist network. The destruction of that network could actually prompt greater stability in Saudi Arabia.

In addition, the potential departure of Saddam Hussein from Iraq as a result of the war on terrorism could mean an end to the need for Western troops on Saudi soil.

The Bush administration, which has publicly praised the Saudi royal family for its cooperation, should quietly solicit far more assistance from Riyadh in the war against terrorism.

San Francisco Chronicle

A U.S. cargo plane rumbles overhead, dumping thousands of yellow food packets on an Afghan hamlet. A starving farmer runs to pick up an armful of the air-dropped meals. Miles off, American jets attack Taliban troops.

By now, nearly a million packets have rained down in a gesture that combines politics, generosity and surrealism. Of course, the food drops are better than nothing in a country where up to 3 million may be starving.

But the effort shouldn't be confused with the real thing: relief workers on the ground, backed up with tons of wheat, cooking oil and winter clothes. The manna dropped from heaven is expensive, haphazard and way short of what's needed in a country of 27 million.

The program clearly has purposes other than nutrition. The food bags carry the American flag and underscore that the war is with the Taliban leadership, not the Afghan people.

But it's time to get serious, as winter comes on. Private relief groups say it will take truckloads of food to prevent mass starvation, brought on by five years of drought and constant war. The meal packets reach only a few percent of the population.

The aid groups, unfortunately, have ample knowledge but no clout. The Taliban have looted the offices of the United Nations and Doctors Without Borders. Dispatching food convoys from Pakistan will take Taliban approval or risk disaster.

A rescue effort needs to be built from the ground up. It will take a major "air-bridge" operation, as Secretary of State Colin Power has indicated. Aid stations, warehouses and organization will be needed to get supplies to the Afghan people.

This level of relief can make a real difference. The meal packet air-drops are a start, but it's time for a more substantial response.

Providence, R.I., Journal

The Irish Republican Army on Tuesday announced that it was dismantling its secret arms caches. This was good news, coming only a week after Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, the most important Protestant politician, pulled out of the Protestant-Catholic coalition government to protest what had been the IRA's obstinate refusal to disarm.

Canadian Gen. John de Chastelain, head of the panel charged with overseeing the disarmament process under the 1998 Good Friday accords, said that "we have witnessed an event -- which we regard as significant -- in which the IRA has put a quantity of arms completely beyond use." Mr. Trimble accepted the general's assurances, thus opening the way for repairing the home-rule coalition government and "rescuing" the Good Friday accords.

Many factors contributed to the IRA's move. It had adamantly argued that only an army that has lost a war surrenders its weapons. Well, the IRA has lost its war. It could spread terror -- assassinating foes, gunning down police, murdering civilians, blowing up government buildings -- but, after so many decades, it had to concede that there was no way it could force Britain out of Northern Ireland. Now, presumably, it will have to seek its objectives by peaceful, political methods.

Another factor was this summer's arrest, in Colombia, of three IRA-linked militants. They most assuredly weren't on vacation; rather, they had been giving training in weaponry and explosives to members of that nation's largest leftist rebel force. This incident underlined the IRA's longtime links to terrorist groups in numerous countries. Now, with Washington embarked on a battle against international terrorism, it became clear to the IRA that this might be a good time to back off from any such associations.

Other factors contributed to the IRA's decision: the obvious relief most Ulster residents, Catholics as well as Protestants, have felt because of the armistice there over the past several years; the willingness of London to promote reforms that would give Ulster's Catholics a fairer share of political influence and economic opportunity; the likelihood that giving up violence would help the IRA's above-ground partner, the Sinn Fein party, a chance to bolster its political weight, in Dublin as well as in Belfast.

All in all, then, the situation in Northern Ireland has improved dramatically. Let's hope that this means that Ulster can avoid going back to the bad old days of intense sectarian violence.

Portland Oregonian

Three months and a lifetime ago, the Bush administration disparaged a key nuclear-arms treaty between the United States and Russia and vowed to build a missile-defense system in isolation. President Bush advised the world to adapt to this post-Cold War vision.

Now, it seems, the Bush administration is beginning to modify its nuclear vision to fit global reality. Bush should continue on this path, and acknowledge that old assumptions about nuclear risk and mutually assured destruction are as outdated as the treaty itself.

The president decided last week to postpone three scheduled tests for a missile-defense system that would have violated the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. The decision was a nod to Russia, which still supports the treaty -- and has supported the U.S. war on terrorism publicly and in the United Nations Security Council.

Isolationism will fail in a fight against terrorism that depends on cooperation and convergent interests. Bush is realizing that. Due next is the realization that a Star Wars shield -- even if it ever worked, let alone well enough to disable multiple warheads -- does little to protect against rogue nations with a craving for death and a small stash of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

This is not an era of missiles launched from afar, but of weapons unleashed in our midst. Working with Russia to limit nuclear proliferation and protect against a host of dangers on the ground offers a far better course for this nation's defense.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye took a risk four years ago when he formulated a plan that allowed a company to sail a foreign-built ship through Hawaii ports in hopes of building an American industry in cruise lines.

Now that the company, American Classic Voyages Inc., has gone into bankruptcy and its plans to build two new passenger cruise liners are on hold, some would conclude that the idea was a bad one.

Not so. In fact, the senator and his congressional colleagues could do Hawaii's economy much good if they continued to pursue legislation that would enable the nascent industry here to develop further. Even though the tourism industry is in a slump, passenger cruises are a specialty niche and a perfect fit for our island state.

To allow a foreign ship to sail into Hawaiian waters, Inouye pushed through Congress an exemption from the Jones Act, a 1920 federal law that requires cargo and passengers transported between U.S. ports to be carried on ships built, owned and registered in the United States. Although some label the act protectionist, the argument for the law is that it assures that a robust shipping industry would serve America's national security and economic needs. The law also requires that ships be crewed by Americans, providing employment, and that the ships adhere to U.S. environmental standards.

American Classic's foreign ship was to be used until American-built replacements were completed. However, with the company's bankruptcy last week, the Mississippi shipyard contracted for the work stopped operations when loan guarantees from the U.S. Maritime Administration were withdrawn.

Cruise ships greatly enhance the lure of Hawaii to travelers. Many people of a certain age can recall the romantic charm of bygone "boat days," when passenger ships would arrive in Honolulu Harbor to be greeted festively by hula dancers, musicians and lei. The fascination for ocean voyages remains today, judging from the tens of thousands who have sailed recently on the MS Patriot and the SS Independence.

Many foreign-owned liners that pull into Hawaii's harbors get around the law by launching cruises from other countries or having passengers disembark outside the United States. It would help Hawaii greatly if its congressional representatives can seek further exemptions, say if foreign vessels comply with certain parts of the law. Inouye also should find a way to renew the withdrawn loan guarantees so the new ships can be completed. Maybe then, Hawaii can come into its own as a cruising attraction.

(Compiled by United Press International.)