What U.S. newspapers are saying

New York Times

Jean-Marie Messier was France's answer to the charge that Europe couldn't produce nimble, entrepreneurial corporate leaders. He was a turbocharged replica of the American model. That may be why -- despite having been the object of much veneration on both sides of the Atlantic just two years ago -- he now finds himself unemployed. The crash of American business values has been that swift. Now French corporate elites may embrace Continental staidness with a renewed passion.

Smart, relatively young at 45 for a (chief executive officer), boyish-looking and brash, Mr. Messier's is a Hollywood tale, but one that ends on a sour note more common to angst-ridden French movies. His ambition was to build a global media empire bridging Hollywood's and France's cultural establishments. His unlikely vehicle was a venerable French water utility, the Compagnie Générale des Eaux. In 2000 Mr. Messier, a former civil servant and investment banker, engineered the $34 billion acquisition of Seagram and its Universal music and film business.

Combined with its media and telecom interests in Europe, the renamed Vivendi Universal became one of the world's largest media conglomerates. ...

In what was taken as a snub back home, Mr. Messier moved to New York to a $17.5 million corporate pad on Park Avenue, and parroted American business jargon with the exuberance of a convert. In fairness, his company performed no worse than other media giants, but his timing was simply awful. He dragged his French shareholders into the dot-com maelstrom just as the market was about to drop precipitously. ...

As Vivendi's losses mounted and its share price plummeted, shareholders lost patience with Mr. Messier and his efforts to mimic (however charming the French accent) the dated incantations of the dot-com era. He was ousted this week, but not before securing for himself a lavish, $17.8 million severance deal. How very American.

Charlotte Observer

A new report by Arab intellectuals offers a blunt assessment to the Arab world of the high cost of political repression and isolation.

The survey, called the Arab Human Development Report 2002, was commissioned by the United Nations and written by a team led by Rima Khalaf Hunaidi, a former deputy prime minister of Jordan and head of the U.N.'s Arab section. It is the first U.N. Development Program report on Arabs prepared by Arabs.

The report examines the economy, health, education and human rights in the 22 Arab League countries with a combined population of 280 million. ...

"Given the political commitment, Arab countries have the resources to eradicate absolute poverty in less than a generation. Commitment, not resources, is the binding constraint," the report said. To reach that goal would require greater opportunities for women, increased political freedom and improved education.

When people have political freedom and economic opportunity, they don't have to seek change through underground political movements and terrorism. The determination to change must come from with the Arab nations. But the world can help by supporting Arabs who are working for freedom and opportunity, as President George W. Bush offered to do in his vision for Palestine.

Dallas Morning News

If you wonder why Arab states are the way they are, read the "Arab Human Development Report" released this week by the U.N. Development Program. The report notes some achievements of Arab states but more pointedly highlights their problems -- from illiteracy to women lacking power. These problems must be addressed if Arab countries are to advance.

On the positive side, the 22 Arab states have "dramatically reduced poverty and inequality in the 20th century." Among developing countries, they have the lowest level of dire poverty -- measured in terms of existing on less than $1 a day. They also are making great progress in education.

The states vary greatly, from Djibouti to Kuwait, in terms of "human development" -- which includes measures such as life expectancy as well as income. Labor productivity is low and declining. And with populations booming, the per capita growth in income over the last 20 years has been lower than any other region except sub-Saharan Africa.

The pot boils over. It burns the West too.

What to do?

Arab states have to stop running blindfolded on one leg. They need to reduce the constraints placed on half of their population -- women.

The need is being recognized.

Dr. Farkhonda Hassan, secretary general of Egypt's National Council for Women, told editorial writers visiting Cairo that the Arab League is establishing an organization of Arab women. "The main goal is the advancement of the Arab world. Women should participate in every way possible side by side with men. ... If you could educate women here, you would have everything -- you would have family planning, you would have everything."

The report also notes that education and freedoms would contribute to development and the eradication of poverty. Some states are wisely heading this way. Kuwait and Qatar elect national assemblies, while Bahrain and Oman are moving toward democracy. Good governance is needed, as is larger freedom of expression and association, greater access to knowledge, and Arab cooperation in development. Only about 330 books are translated into Arabic each year.

This report, available on the Web at undp.org/rbas/ahdr, will be posted in Arabic. It should be required reading for Arab leaders.

San Diego Union-Tribune

Since the early days of the Cold War, American defense policy has rested on the twin pillars of containment and deterrence. We challenged our chief adversary and fellow superpower, the Soviet Union, with equal or superior conventional forces and, as a last resort, a nuclear arsenal that could destroy the Soviets many times over. And though the Soviets could destroy America as well, this policy kept the peace.

Now, it is a different time -- the Soviet Union itself is dead -- and we are in a different kind of war. The horrific events of Sept. 11 proved that our policy of containment and deterrence must be rethought.

This is exactly what President Bush did during his address to the graduating class last month at West Point. The president said that America would launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorists operating in foreign lands if he thought they posed a potential danger to American citizens or interests. He also said we would strike against hostile foreign governments themselves if we had evidence they were harboring terrorists or sponsoring terrorist acts. His finger was clearly pointed at Iraq, Iran and North Korea. ...

Militarily, politically and economically, America is the most dominant nation in history. That power, however, must be exercised with extreme care. This nation can attack another, perhaps without fear of retaliation. But even if that nation's government is violently anti-American, this nation places itself in peril in the community of nations if our government cannot demonstrate that threat to the rest of the world.

The strategic change proposed by the president is a monumental one, and questions abound. What is Congress' role? Our Constitution gives it the exclusive power to declare war. Should we change the Constitution to enhance the president's war-making powers? It is obvious the president cannot launch surprise attacks after a public debate in Congress, but shouldn't, at the very least, a leadership committee share in the decision-making? What about our allies? And what if other nations adopt the same strategy to deal with their troublesome neighbors? The questions do not stop there.

This is a policy change the entire country, not just the administration, must weigh -- in Congress, in the nation's newspapers, at town meetings and across kitchen tables. It is that important.

Providence Journal

Some experts have warned that the stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons left over from the defunct Soviet Union pose a tempting target for terrorists. That is why it is good news that Japan, Canada and the European members of the Group of 8 meeting in late June agreed to spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to help dispose of that arsenal. That is roughly the amount the U.S. alone has committed to the effort.

There are few more alarming prospects than that of terrorists getting their hands on this material, which apparently is not adequately guarded. The weapons are stockpiled in 300 sites around Russia, which does not have the means to dispose of them itself. Some of the nuclear material can be extracted, and the U.S. has made a deal with Russia to send uranium back to the States for power plants.

Unfortunately, there are still some serious questions surrounding this effort: Will even $20 billion from the U.S. and other G-8 nations do the job? Will Japan, Canada and European countries come up with the money their leaders promised? Will nations work together to oversee this operation? Still, this appears to be an important step toward making the world safer. President Bush deserves credit for pushing hard for this cooperative effort, and these countries deserve the world's thanks for committing to a prudent effort to forestall terrorists' attempts at horrific destruction. It is worth taking action, costly though it is, rather than simply waiting for the worst and hoping for the best.

(Compiled by United Press International.)