New York Times
Tensions between India and Pakistan eased slightly yesterday but remain dangerously high. This latest crisis demonstrates the urgency of getting Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons and the policies governing their use under much firmer control than they now are.
In the four years since the two countries unwisely began their nuclear arms race, each has built up a stockpile of usable warheads, shortened the launch times of its missiles and talked recklessly about potential nuclear exchanges. India is thought to have about 40 operational Hiroshima-size atomic bombs and Pakistan around 20, deliverable to each other's major cities by military aircraft or missiles. Liquid-fuel missiles can be readied for launch in about six hours. The solid-fuel variety both countries are developing can be launched more quickly. Once the warheads are on their way, warning times would be less than eight minutes. The Pentagon estimates that a nuclear exchange could instantly kill 12 million people and injure 7 million more. ...
The internal and mutual constraints that prevented American and Soviet nuclear weapons from being used during the Cold War seem conspicuously absent on the South Asian subcontinent. Military miscalculation and diplomatic non-communication have become a way of life between India and Pakistan, leading to three full-scale wars and innumerable crises since the two became independent states in 1947. Now that both have nuclear weapons, this has to change.
Pakistan must no longer wink at the infiltration of armed terrorists into Indian-controlled Kashmir. Missile tests ought not to be conducted in the midst of military crises. The existing hot lines should be used to provide advance notice and explanations of troop and weapons movements. Petulance is a luxury these nuclear rivals can no longer afford.
Washington Post
President Bush has been steadily expanding his vision of America's role in the world since Sept. 11. Over the weekend he offered a rhetorical outline that, if realized in practice, would make him one of the most aggressive of internationalists among presidents. His address at West Point spelled out three fundamental missions, each of them extremely ambitious: that the United States would act preemptively against its terrorist enemies and the regimes that back them; that it would end the threat of war among the world's great powers, in part by maintaining its own military supremacy, and build coalitions with those powers to solve regional conflicts; and that it would actively "promote moderation and tolerance and human rights" in the Islamic world and in other places where freedom is lacking. The presidential candidate who once suggested that America approach the world with greater humility now argues that "moral truth is the same in every culture," and so "America will call evil by its name ... and we will lead the world in opposing it." Given the threat the country faces, such presidential determination is essential, and welcome. The challenge is preserving the clarity and focus Mr. Bush speaks of.
Many observers interpreted Mr. Bush's talk of taking "the battle to the enemy" as stage-setting for a possible military campaign against Iraq, which clearly fits in his category of "evil and lawless regimes" for which "containment is not possible." ...
Taking the offensive in the war, too, must not only mean police or military action. Answering critics in Europe and elsewhere, Mr. Bush declared that America has a greater objective than the absence of violence; he invoked "the peoples of Islamic nations (who) want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation." Until now the administration has been slow to press its agenda for free speech, elections, rights for women or economic reform with the governments that most need to hear it: U.S. friends such as Egypt, whose president, Hosni Mubarak, visits Washington this week. Addressing the threat of Iraq and other rogue states may take some time; but Mr. Bush can begin now to carry out in practice his sweeping promises of West Point.
St. Petersburg Times
The Pentagon waited 37 years to reveal that it tested nerve gas and biological agents on thousands of U.S. sailors stationed in the Pacific during the Cold War.
It is almost inconceivable that the United States would have gassed its own sailors during the Cold War. But the Pentagon recently disclosed the dirty secret, acknowledging that nerve gas and biological agents were dropped on thousands of sailors in the Pacific. The spraying was a test of how well ships and crews could protect themselves against such an attack. The Pentagon owes these sailors, their families and the public a full accounting, and Congress should ensure that the surviving veterans have access to any needed medical treatment.
It is too early to speculate on the extent of the harm. The Pentagon has released details of only a fraction of the tests carried out in the mid-1960s. ...
A public examination of the nature of these tests certainly is warranted, especially given the public's current concern over the threat of chemical and biological attacks. ...
The Pentagon needs to explain why it took four decades to start coming clean on the Shipboard Hazard and Defense project, or SHAD. Details show that four tests in the Pacific from 1964 to 1969 used a biological toxin, the nerve agent sarin or VX, a nerve gas. Military aircraft and turbines sprayed the chemicals and germs over a variety of warships. ...
Americans are particularly attuned these days to the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. Congress should open hearings into a troubling event already kept secret for much too long.
San Antonio Express-News
Mexican regulators are looking into allegations that Wal-Mart de Mexico SA, a subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., violates antitrust laws, mainly through low prices.
The investigation must be reassuring to Controladora Comercial Mexicana SA, Grupo Gigante SA and Organización Soriana SA. Before Wal-Mart arrived a decade ago, those supermarket chains dominated Mexico's market.
But we wonder why the Mexican government, under President Vicente Fox or former President Ernesto Zedillo, has not been as aggressive with Teléfonos de México, the national phone company known as Telmex.
Telmex's competitors, two of which are partly owned by AT&T Corp. and World.Com Inc., complain that since the opening of Mexico's long-distance market in 1997 the giant company has acted like the monopoly it used to be.
Telmex undercuts its rivals, mainly through low rates and high interconnection fees for any carrier using the company's fiber network.
The handling of the Wal-Mart and Telmex antitrust cases is, at best, selected enforcement and, at worst, a shameful double standard.
Raleigh News-Observer
The Bush administration's acknowledgment that the planet is warming because of man's activities comports with credible scientific findings and represents a significant shift in presidential thinking. Since it's important that the White House show intelligent leadership on environmental matters -- and obviously, even more important on issues of global reach -- this is an encouraging turn.
Unfortunately, the administration, in its report to the United Nations on climate change, seems to overlook the need for policy revisions. Rather, authors of the report say that Americans, and by extension the human family, need to adapt to the disruptions that global warming will cause. That's akin to finally noticing that rain is falling but leaving the umbrella folded -- except for its more serious consequences. ...
A few brave members of the administration, including EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman, have bucked the previous head-in-the-sand stance on warming, and their persistence has paid off.
But the vital next step is for President Bush to show a willingness to adopt new policies. An encouraging start would be to let Whitman propose ways by which the country could trim emissions without gumming up its economic engine. Facing up to the reality of global warming demands a serious attempt at slowing the cause.
Portland Press Herald
Greenhouse gases are on the rise "as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise."
No, it's no a press release from the Sierra Club, but the latest climate report from the United States, approved by the White House. As such, it is a remarkable turnaround from previous statements that attempted to discredit the science behind global warming and the role human activities have played.
While it maintains that the true scope of global warming remains unknown, the administration concedes that the burning of fossil fuels is primarily responsible for a substantial increase in greenhouse gases. ...
Doubters of climate change have relied on minority reports that attend to almost every scientific development. Nonetheless, the phenomenon of global warming has been recognized and defended by the great majority of climate scientists, as well as by international panels of specialists assembled specifically to weigh the evidence and draw conclusions.
We hope the Bush administration's new views move the debate to a more fruitful controversy: What, if anything, should be done in the face of climate change?
Environmentalists have argued that dramatically curtailing the use of fossil fuels will slow and possibly reverse climate change. The report, however, suggests a different approach - instead of focusing on prevention, the U.S. should stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and prepare for changes. "Adapting to a changing climate is inevitable," the report declares. "The question is whether we adapt poorly or well."
Although dealing with the consequences of global warming is better than sticking one's head in the sand, the U.S. should recognize that its policies also drive climate change. Real efforts to reduce emissions among all nations may mean adapting to fewer changes in the long run.
Philadelphia Inquirer
Not so long ago, the demilitarized zone dividing South and North Korea was considered the world's hot spot.
No more. The line of control, a cease-fire line separating Indian-ruled Kashmir from Pakistani-held Kashmir, now crackles with a far more palpable deadliness.
Intense international intervention, led by the United States, must take place quickly if a war between the two nuclear neighbors is to be averted. ...
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. Musharraf (with possible pushes from Russia and China) have a chance to lessen tensions now at an Asian security conference in Kazakhstan.
If they are unable or unwilling to do so, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's trip to South Asia later this week becomes even more critical.
His task in Delhi will be to get Mr. Vajpayee to restrain from launching even a conventional military incursion past the line of control.
In Islamabad, Mr. Rumsfeld, preceded by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, will have to make President Musharraf understand that the United States will not tolerate abetting terrorists by allowing them to use Pakistan or Pakistani-held Kashmir as a base of attack.
Mr. Rumsfeld will have to be as deft as he will have to be blunt - with both India and Pakistan.
The secretary's challenge could not be greater. Of course, neither could be the consequences.
Chicago Tribune
Few things are certain about nuclear terrorism. But one thing is: Should a nuclear device, paid for and developed by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime in Iraq, ever be detonated in a U.S. city, the atrocity will occur even while negotiations are going on over resuming international weapons inspections. Guaranteed.
Just as Japan held talks in Washington as its carriers were steaming toward Pearl Harbor, so Saddam will stall and smokescreen all he can. He is eager to create the impression of cooperation and rationality by appearing to discuss the return of international inspection, all the while moving toward his unspeakable goals. Sadly, some are reassured by such tactics. Our allies in Europe counsel patience and delay. The Muslim nations, whose ire at the West seems to know no maximum, warn that action against Iraq would somehow lead to new heights of hatred, as if that were possible. All the while, Iraq does whatever it can to acquire or create weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, nuclear--and find a way to unleash them, either on the United States, or on our friends, such as Israel. The only way Saddam will stop is if we stop him. ...
Bush told West Point graduates Saturday that the United States needs to be willing to make pre-emptive strikes to "confront the worst threats before they emerge."
Pre-emptive strikes go against 50 years of Cold War strategy, where the threat of counterattack was sufficient to stay the hand of any potential enemy. But in the shadow world of international terrorism, counterattack is too late. Our only protection is to disable those who would strike at us before they get the chance.
Los Angeles Times
Despite ongoing skirmishes, international pressure on Pakistan and India appears to have reduced the threat of war. For now. To ensure the two nuclear-armed foes do not cross the line into full-fledged combat, the United States, Russia, Britain, Japan and other nations should keep up the lectures and warnings that they might withdraw aid.
Then President Bush must go one step further and let Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf know unequivocally that, much as we appreciate his support -- Musharraf put his presidency at risk from domestic opposition when he backed the United States in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan -- the U.S. will not tolerate his army's aid to Islamic militants carrying out attacks in India, especially Kashmir.
Bush used tougher-than-usual language on Pakistan last week, saying Musharraf "must stop the incursions" as he promised. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are due to visit India and Pakistan this week and next. They should emphasize to Musharraf that the halt to border crossings must be permanent, not temporary. ...
The United States and the Soviet Union conducted a nuclear face-off for decades. They, however, were thousands of miles apart. India and Pakistan are neighbors and have not worked out detailed methods of reassuring each other that missile tests are peaceful and warheads loaded onto bombs are conventional.
Despite assurances to the contrary, neither side seems to understand the devastation nuclear war would cause.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Perhaps Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf thought the United States, grateful for the crucial help he provided in ousting the Taliban from neighboring Afghanistan, wouldn't care all that much about events in another border area: Kashmir. But Washington sure cares now, and with good reason. If Musharraf is smart, he will listen to what President Bush and others are saying.
They are saying -- make that demanding -- that Musharraf make good on his promises and end his government's training and other support for Islamic militants who cross the border dividing Pakistani- and Indian-controlled segments of Kashmir. Kashmir is a tract of land dividing the two countries that India and Pakistan have been arguing and sometimes fighting about for more than 50 years. ...
People who have studied the Kashmir dispute say it is at least as intractable as the troubles in Northern Ireland or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. Even if that is so, the principals must create conditions that would lead to a pullback of those million troops. And Musharraf can help create those conditions by ending his support for the militants who have provoked this emergency.
(Compiled by United Press International)
