What U.S. newspapers are saying
Compiled by United Press International
New York Times
A refugee crisis is brewing in Afghanistan that dwarfs the 1999 departure of 800,000 Albanians from Kosovo in the wake of Slobodan Milosevic's spasm of ethnic violence there. Millions of Afghans are fleeing their homes, partly in disgust with the Taliban but mostly in fear that America is getting ready to bomb their country. They are joining millions who have already fled, victims of 22 years of war and drought.
The Bush administration, fortunately, has announced that it will join with other nations to provide food for the Afghans. Helping the refugees and devising ways to get food aid to those too poor to flee are not only the right things to do, they signal the Afghan people and the Islamic world that America's quarrel is with terrorists, not Muslims.
Pakistan is already host to 2.5 million Afghan refugees, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is planning for 1.5 million more. While the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan, the West essentially paid for the refugees' support. Today the burden falls disproportionately on Pakistan, a country that cannot feed its own citizens.
Pakistan has tried to discourage the new exodus by closing the border and making its refugee camps as miserable as it can. It has allowed only a few thousand in, while tens of thousands more are massing on the Afghan side. These displaced Afghans are largely out of reach of international help.
To save them, Pakistan must be persuaded to open the border and set up viable, internationally run refugee camps. The West must take the financial burden off Pakistan and help it care for a group of people whose stay might well be a long one.
Those in danger of actual starvation are the ones still inside Afghanistan, too poor to flee. War and a four-year drought have so depleted food stocks that Afghans are eating animal fodder, locusts and even poisonous grasses. A hard winter approaches, and there are no seeds left to plant when spring comes. Before Sept. 11, the U.N.'s World Food Program, working through 150 different nongovernmental groups, was feeding 3.8 million people inside Afghanistan.
On Sept. 12 all foreign aid workers left Afghanistan. Now there is only enough food left for those 3.8 million refugees for a maximum of three weeks, according to the World Food Program. The U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan, said this week that 7.5 million Afghans, in the country and outside, would need food from the international community over the next six months. He has appealed for $584 million more in aid.
The United States has said it will join the appeal, but has not yet specified a donation. Yesterday Mr. Bush announced a $25 million gift for general aid to the refugees. Washington has been the largest donor of food for the Afghan people, and has continued sending food aid after Sept. 11. Delivering food by truck to the parts of Afghanistan under Taliban control is, for the moment, impossible, and flying low enough to carry out an airlift is risky. But the hope is that the next time rural Afghans hear a plane approaching, they will find the United States and its allies dropping bags of wheat rather than the bombs that the Taliban says are coming.
Washington Times
President Bush's proposals to increase airline security are laudable and worth implementing. However, more may be necessary to ensure not merely that the chances of a terrorist taking over an airplane in the future are minimized, but also that appropriate response mechanisms are in place as well. In addition to the use of National Guard personnel to patrol airports and provide additional physical security, allowing pilots to carry or have access to weapons should also be part of any response to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Mr. Bush should not allow himself to be cowed by gun-control groups on this critical piece of the security puzzle.
It's one thing to do all possible to prevent a would-be hijacker from getting on an airplane with weapons ? another thing entirely to provide a means for dealing with one who manages to defeat these measures. It's not unreasonable to believe that, no matter what steps are taken on the ground by airlines and airport security, a determined hijacker or terrorist will still likely be able to smuggle a weapon of some sort on a commercial airplane. Absent some means of defending themselves and the people on the aircraft, the pilot and flight crew are at the mercy of an armed hijacker. Only the presence of an armed air crew equalizes the equation, and gives the helpless passengers a chance. Indeed, the mere presence of firearms in the hands of the mostly ex-military air crews is bound to have a deterrent effect. Just as street thugs are less likely to attack an armed policeman, so also are would-be terrorists apt to think twice before attempting to commandeer an aircraft when they know the flight crew has the means and the ability to fight back. We already trust pilots with our lives; trusting them with firearms is no great leap of faith. And it would level the playing field considerably.
Regarding Mr. Bush's other proposals, they are mostly salutary and should be adopted as quickly as is feasible. Reinforced doors that make it more difficult for a bad guy to gain access to the flight deck, more thorough inspection of baggage, and under the supervision of better-trained federal workers ? all of these are steps in the right direction. So is the proposed expansion of the federal sky marshal program, which would put armed undercover officers on more commercial flights. But the sheer number and volume of flights that take place every day makes it difficult to place a sky marshal on every flight. Arming the flight crews, meanwhile, would help solve this problem. By all means, proceed with the sky marshal program. But let's not make airline safety a matter of Russian roulette. Let's make sure all U.S. flights are properly protected ? on the ground and once in the air.
Sacramento Bee
Despite the horror of what happened to thousands of Americans on Sept. 11, President Bush's attempt to assemble a broad-based and durable coalition to fight terrorism was likely to encounter problems. And so far, despite widespread expressions of sympathy and solidarity, the results have been mixed, not only with adversaries but, to some extent, even among allies.
Iran's supreme leader, for example, has denounced the U.S. campaign to rally other countries behind the U.S. counterattack. He denounced the effort as a pretext for extending American influence in the Muslim world, and said Iran will not join in.
European allies have given strong pledges of support, but even they have balked at taking military action, at least until Washington supplies hard evidence that Osama bin Laden, the Afghanistan-based terrorist leader, was behind the attacks against America.
For whatever reason -- security concerns, a lack of hard evidence or an inability to produce a viable plan -- U.S. officials neither provided conclusive evidence nor asked Europe to join in any military campaign during a meeting of defense ministers in Brussels on Wednesday. The military option, America's allies were told, is but one element of the U.S. plan of attack but, for the moment, not as important as intelligence-gathering, security measures and choking off the terrorists' sources of funds and arms.
That makes sense, and suggests that U.S. policy-makers now share the view of those who argue that an armed attack on terrorist camps in Afghanistan might do minimal damage to the terrorists but produce a backlash in the Muslim world that could more than offset any military gains. That caution underlines the risks for Washington in seeking to strike back while simultaneously trying to build and sustain an international coalition.
There are other risks, too. One is potential long-term consequences of aligning with countries whose behavior, whether in terms of human rights abuses at home or support for terrorism abroad, has put them at odds with this country.
In some cases the likely benefits appear to outweigh the costs. A clear example is Russia's unprecedented offer of intelligence and logistical support. In return, Russia wants a muting of U.S. criticism of Russian forces' brutality in rebellious Chechnya; help in counteracting the rise of hostile Islamic forces on its southern borders; and a generally warmer welcome in the Western world.
There are other examples of risks to be weighed against benefits. Pakistan, whose nuclear weapons tests provoked U.S. sanctions only three years ago, is vital to exerting pressure on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, despite their governments' abuses of human rights, border Afghanistan on the north and are thus critical potential allies.
In other cases, however, one must hope that the administration will demand more than just support. Syria, for example, harbors several terrorist groups and must be pressed to shut them down if it hopes to win any favor, economic or otherwise, from Washington. Sudan, whose government has tolerated slavery and whose armed forces have committed countless atrocities against the country's non-Muslim population, must be held to a similar standard.
A broad coalition in this historic struggle is surely needed. At the same time, there must be a limit to America's willingness to turn a blind eye, even in the faces of an unprecedented threat to this country's security.
The trick is in gauging just where that limit is. It is a demanding, perhaps impossible, task. The good news is that so far the Bush administration appears to be negotiating this diplomatic maze with skillful flexibility.
Boston Globe
President Bush, who came to office touting a unilateral foreign policy, is discovering that America needs as many partners as possible in his declared war against terrorism. Nowhere is this need more striking than in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The United States has much to gain from Iran's help against Osama bin Laden and his fellow fanatics in the Taliban regime that rules most of Afghanistan. The Shiite clerics who rule Iran despise the Sunni Taliban. Indeed, after the Taliban murdered 10 Iranian diplomats and a journalist three years ago in Iran's consulate in the northeastern Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif - in an area where the Taliban had massacred Afghan Shiites - Iran massed troops, artillery, and attack aircraft along Iran's long border with Afghanistan.
At the least, Iran can share intelligence about the Taliban's and bin Laden's heroin trafficking and their modes of communication. Since Tehran has been the major backer of the Northern Alliance - the primary armed resistance to the Taliban within Afghanistan - Iran could also complement any American forays into Afghanistan by increasing its supply of arms to the Northern Alliance.
Ideological rhetoric aside, an American campaign against bin Laden and his Taliban collaborators offers a great boon to Iran's national interests.
Should America's antiterrorist campaign topple the hostile Taliban, a government might come to power in Afghanistan that would include fraternal Afghan Shiites. Such an outcome would diminish Pakistan's sway next door in Afghanistan while augmenting Iranian influence there.
Iran's elected reformist President Mohammad Khatami has made public statements of sympathy for America. In certain neighborhoods of Tehran there have been candlelight vigils with women chanting the slogan, ''America will triumph!'' But the hardline supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, whose faction controls foreign policy, the security services, the army, and the Revolutionary Guards, has declared that Iran cannot enlist in Bush's coalition against terrorism because America's policies are ''disgusting.''
Nonetheless, there have been behind-the-scenes meetings with US diplomats in Geneva and promising talks with European Union representatives. Having relied on Great Satan propaganda to legitimate their increasingly unpopular and destructive rule, the Iranian hardliners can hardly enter an open alliance now with Washington.
For America, this prospect of unacknowledged cooperation, based on the tried-and-true principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, may also be the most convenient way of working together. Any more explicit alliance with Tehran might frighten Pakistan and confuse hardliners in Bush's own party.
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
With a Web survey showing that many Japanese are reluctant to travel to Hawaii, a delegation of state leaders heading there next month should strive to harvest a healthy crop of visitors.
The main message of the delegation, to be led by Governor Cayetano and include sumo star Akebono, should be that Hawaii is open for business, that it would be safe to come here, and that the presence of visitors would be welcome and not seen as disrespectful of a nation in mourning. The delegation also could show off the products, entertainment and visitor attractions in which Hawaii specializes. Altogether, this would broaden the benefits of an expected $10-million state subsidy to the tourist industry.
To encourage the Japanese, the delegation should take with them o-miyage, or gifts, a tradition imported from Japan, as tokens of appreciation. Perhaps a mini "Made in Hawaii" fair could be set up with each of the county's mayors, who are expected to make the trip. Maybe the best o-miyage would be the promise to travelers of a swift and courteous passage through immigration and customs, even though that is not the governor's responsibility, and safety on the streets, golf courses and beaches, which are within his kuleana.
Visitors from Japan generate about 43 percent of the tourist money spent in the state, according to the Japan-Hawaii Travel Association. The number of Japanese tourists has dropped to about half of the usual since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Even so, a majority of those who had planned trips to Hawaii in the next few months still intend to come here, according to Web site survey monitored by PacRim Marketing Group Inc.
However, a quarter of the respondents did not feel it appropriate to vacation when the state and the nation are grieving and about the same number were afraid of flying after the hijackings.
With former governors John Waihee and George Ariyoshi in the delegation, our political leaders would exhibit to potential visitors how important they are to Hawaii. Perhaps the governor should invite Linda Lingle, chairwoman of the opposition Republican Party, to join the delegation to give it a bi-partisan flavor and a stronger appeal in Japan. All told, this venture has promise and should be fully supported.
Los Angeles Times
From unfathomable tragedy has emerged a rare opportunity for a religion and a system of government to openly confront what each means to the other.
Osama bin Laden has repeatedly tried to position America as an enemy of Islam. "The American regime," he declared in 1996, " ... is against every Muslim." President Bush in his Sept. 20 speech to Congress effectively contrasted this fanaticism with Islam's constructive role in American society. Amid distinctions more likely to be heard in religious studies seminars than Congress came this presidential observation: "The terrorists are traitors to their own faith."
Many true followers of Islam have chosen the United States as a home precisely because they were disappointed in someplace else. Islamic leaders here say they appreciate this country because its political and social system comports with the real teachings of their religion by aspiring to equality in its ideals, its legal system and its Constitution. But they tend to speak softly, making it hard to compete for media attention with the radicals who preach contempt for the United States even in a handful of American mosques. This stark contrast speaks volumes about the United States as democracy's political and religious proving ground. At a 1993 celebration in Hollywood of the world's religious traditions, Maher Hathout, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California, identified several American core values as central to Islamic thinking: diversity, equality and human dignity.
Muslims have engaged in ecumenical dialogue, with special attention to exploring common roots in Christianity and Judaism. And, as Huston Smith wrote in "The Religions of Man," even Islam's obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca reflects the egalitarian sentiment that "rank and hierarchy are removed; prince and pauper stand before God in their undivided humanity."
Once the pilgrimage ends, many return to Islamic countries that lack these democratic ideals or to societies that proclaim such standards but nurture prejudice. Since they began coming to America in significant numbers after passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, Muslims have found a political system compatible with what many scholars say is their religion's true values. These tenets are abused in many nations, where leaders parlay religious authority into political power. But many imams, scholars and ordinary followers in this country have learned to appreciate the separation of church and state as the principle of American democracy that protects their right to practice their minority faith freely.
Nearly two centuries ago, the author Alexis de Tocqueville toured America and characterized its national experience as one in which religion served to strengthen the young democracy. That process continues. The attacks on New York and Washington have forced all Americans to grapple with their commitment to such democratic principles as tolerance, justice and liberty. Conversely, with the nation a bit older and reshaped by many tides of immigration, the democratic experience is also strengthening religion.
How ironic this is in view of what a few murderous zealots trumpet about America's supposed hostility to Islam. As imams and President Bush alike point out the differences between real faith and fanaticism, tolerance and bigotry, a window has opened. Someday history books will recount how the fires of Sept. 11 refined and strengthened both Islam and America.
