New York Times
Sherron Watkins took a bow in Washington yesterday. The Enron executive who famously warned Kenneth Lay last August that accounting misdeeds threatened to destroy the company was greeted as a hero by the same House members who excoriated Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow last week. ... The welcome was largely deserved, though Ms. Watkins's role was not quite as heroic as some have described.
In clear, direct testimony that contrasted with last week's obfuscating account by Mr. Skilling, the former Enron C.E.O., Ms. Watkins helped fill in blanks about top management's awareness of the company's freewheeling ways. ...
Ms. Watkins's testimony, so damning to Mr. Skilling and Mr. Fastow, provided some solace to Mr. Lay. ... Ms. Watkins said she thought Mr. Lay had been duped and failed to comprehend the full implications of the deceptive accounting she outlined for him in their August meeting. ...
Ms. Watkins was least convincing when asked why she hadn't taken her concerns about the company's accounting gimmicks, and possible fraud, to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the media or at least to other Enron board members. All she could say was that she did not want to hasten the demise of the corporation. In truth, Enron's only hope for survival was for someone like Ms. Watkins or Jeffrey McMahon, the treasurer who also worried about the company's accounting, to go public with their concerns as early as possible. That would have given this sordid tale a true whistle-blower.
Los Angeles Times
President Bush leaves Saturday for a weeklong trip to Japan, South Korea and China. All three deserve the president's thanks for supporting his war on terrorism. Then Bush must show Olympic-caliber balance as he skates between public and private diplomacy.
At the United States' urging, Japan has its warships out patrolling the Indian Ocean in support of coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan. But at home, it is suffering a decade-long economic stagnation that threatens to spread across Asia and the Pacific. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi now appears less the economic reformer than he claimed to be in campaigning for office. Bush should stress the need for systemic reform, especially in the banking sector, and offer support for Koizumi's original plans to overhaul the Japanese economy. Cowboy swagger won't cut it, though. Too blunt and public a lecture would only embolden economic reform's conservative opponents.
Bush's second stop is South Korea, home to 37,000 U.S. troops, many of them close to the border with North Korea, one of the nations the president described as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union speech. The troops provide visible evidence of the mutual interest of Asia and the United States in regional stability. President Kim Dae Jung won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 for trying to start the reunification of the two Koreas nearly half a century after the Korean War. Unfortunately, North Korea has not lived up to its end of a deal, and public opinion has turned against Kim in South Korea. ...
Bush and Kim both want North Korea to fulfill its international obligations. Both want the Stalinist regime to change course and allow international inspectors to verify that it is not developing nuclear weapons. ...
On his next stop, China, Bush should urge Beijing--one of North Korea's few allies--to lean on Pyongyang to reopen talks with the South and reduce tensions. He should also bring up China's need to comply with regulations of the World Trade Organization, which it joined two months ago.
Three decades have passed since President Nixon's historic visit to China and more than a dozen years since Chinese troops slaughtered democracy activists during demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. In recent months, relations with China have been back on a more even keel; the visit is a chance to remind Beijing of what it takes to preserve a mutually positive relationship.
Washington Times
The foreign ministers of Andean countries traveled collectively to Washington to deliver a common message, which surely hit a nerve at the White House and on the Hill. In a meeting with reporters and editors at The Washington Times, these officials recast trade preferences as a counternarcotics tool. Fighting drugs is certainly more popular in Washington today than lowering tariffs on sensitive imports. On Tuesday, President Bush himself said that the purchase of illegal drugs enriches terrorists.
Echoing Mr. Bush's concern, Ecuador's foreign minister, Heinz Moeller, said that the renewal and expansion of the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA), which expired in December, was "a matter of national security because drug-trafficking is linked to crime and terrorism."
Surely, as the top consumer of the drugs these countries produce, the United States has a unique interest in fighting the blight its drug habit generates. Mr. Bush said on Tuesday that he was striving to cut U.S. drug use by 25 percent within five years. Better access to U.S. markets for other goods could help these countries to a better economic footing, providing badly needed employment and opportunities. All of this is true, and the United States ought to renew and expand ATPA.
Still, these ministers appear to be overstating the link between trade and the success of counternarcotics initiatives. Establishing rule of law and honestly assessing drug policy are equally critical to thwarting drug production. ...
The Andean ministers visiting Washington make a legitimate point that better access to U.S. markets could help governments gain a non-military advantage. At the same time, officials must also open the door to an honest discussion on drug policy. They may not like it, but there it is.
San Diego Union-Tribune
In confronting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's rogue regime in Iraq, President Bush must proceed not only resolutely but cautiously. What is needed now is a careful analysis of the full range of options -- diplomatic, economic, covert, military -- for ousting Saddam, not a lot of loose talk about an impending go-it-alone invasion by U.S. forces.
If the escalating rhetoric of senior administration officials is mere saber rattling, it appears to be frightening America's allies in Western Europe and the Middle East a lot more than Baghdad.
According to the reports, President Bush has made a firm decision to remove Saddam from power, even if that means American troops have to act without the backing of our allies. All that remains to be decided is the means by which to achieve that objective, which Secretary of State Colin Powell euphemistically calls "regime change." The president reportedly has directed the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department to devise plans for eliminating the Iraqi leader. ...
That is why, as the Bush administration ponders the scene, it must recognize the importance of generating solid international support for whatever steps ultimately are taken against Baghdad. Clearly, such patient measures as economic sanctions, vigorous enforcement of the no-fly zones, and various kinds of covert actions stand a better chance of attracting international support than a rush to war in the spring, as some U.S. officials have suggested.
Our advice to President Bush is to tread cautiously and carry a broad range of options.
Chicago Tribune
Despite the photo-ops and a pat on the back for a job well done, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf came away largely empty-handed from his trip to Washington this week.
His wish list included obtaining the 28 F-16 fighter jets that Pakistan paid for in the 1980s but has never received, trade relief for textile exports, and U.S. mediation in settling the 55-year-old dispute with India over Kashmir.
President Bush made no promises. ...
There is opportunity to go further with steps that are in the U.S. national interest. The Bush administration may not want to get directly involved as a mediator, but it can encourage Pakistan and India to resolve the dispute over Kashmir. ...
"Our hope is that we can facilitate meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan," Bush said.
India has flatly refused outside intervention, and sees the U.S. as too closely aligned with Pakistan to serve as a mediator. But the role of facilitator, one that the U.S. is ready to carry out, apparently is more agreeable to Indian officials. ...
With two bull-headed countries refusing to budge, a final resolution of the Kashmir issue may be asking for too much. At the very least the U.S. can broker a standoff and keep those nukes in a bottle.
(Compiled by United Press International)
