New York Times
The attacks of Sept. 11 and the spread of anthrax have forced the Bush administration to reconsider its ill-advised antipathy to strengthening the 1972 treaty that bans the development, production and possession of biological weapons. This week President Bush proposed ways to assure international compliance with the accord. Unfortunately, the suggestions still leave the United States opposed to a critical enforcement mechanism.
Four months ago Washington withdrew from a 10-year-long international effort to negotiate mechanisms for enforcing the biological convention. Administration negotiators complained that the system of international spot checks on biological research centers favored by most other countries would not stop secret violations of the treaty. They also argued that it could leave the trade secrets of American companies vulnerable to theft.
The first objection had some merit. A stronger inspection system is needed, and the administration should work with industry experts to develop one that countries illegally developing biological weapons could not easily evade. The dangers of industrial espionage, however, are minimal, and far outweighed by the public safety benefit of inspections.
Many of the administration's new proposals are constructive. They include stronger national criminal laws against violators, new United Nations procedures for investigating allegations of biological weapons use and suspicious outbreaks of disease, and enhanced international cooperation on coping with the consequences of germ warfare.
Still missing are strong provisions for regular and surprise international inspections of government and private labs. Without such periodic inspections in advance of any suspected violations, enforcement of the treaty, known as the Biological Weapons Convention, will remain dangerously inadequate.
Because new enforcement provisions must be accepted by all 144 nations that have ratified the convention, Washington's earlier objections derailed the talks and left the treaty unenforceable. When international negotiators reconvene in Geneva later this month, they must return to the inspection issue. The United States should be prepared to participate actively in efforts to find an acceptable solution. An overwhelming majority of Americans would now agree that enforcing a worldwide ban on biological weapons has become an urgent international challenge.
Boston Globe
The country has a troubling leadership gap in its two-front war against terrorism. Our international interests appear to be in good hands. Agree or disagree with them on policy, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice have the experience to manage in a world crisis.
But at home, the extraordinary challenges of the day strain the abilities of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson.
All three are former governors. Ashcroft also served as Missouri's United States senator. And Ridge was a representative in the House. Since Sept. 11, however, the nation needs more.
Ashcroft has been the most disappointing.
He was wrong when he warned Acting Governor Swift and Mayor Menino that terrorist threats had been made against Boston. Gail Marcinkiewicz, a Boston-office FBI spokesperson, later said the threat was not credible.
It was a costly mistake for Boston. Public fear grew. People avoided the downtown area, quite likely causing a dip in local spending.
Ashcroft also erred when he said Air Force One had been targeted on Sept. 11. And he stumbled in his early defense of President Bush's antiterrorism bill. Some of the strong tools the bill proposed make sense. Some provisions were dangerous. The country could have relived the dark days of Japanese internment camps had the government been allowed to detain aliens suspected of terrorism indefinitely. The version that the president signed last week sets a more reasonable seven-day limit on detention.
Ridge's job makes sense. Someone should track federal agencies and make sure they share information. He's a friend of the president, but what Ridge lacks is power. He is supposed to manage almost 50 departments and agencies. Only instead of authority, he has the dubious role of coordination.
Tommy Thompson knows welfare reform. But he, Ridge, and other officials couldn't get the story straight on what grade of anthrax contaminated Senate offices. And when a Florida man came down with anthrax, Thompson prematurely called it ''an isolated incident.''
Now, anthrax has raced ahead of officials, infecting more people and sparking theories that there's contaminated mail that hasn't been found yet.
It's up to President Bush to bring in experts instead of friends. The president should find a skilled surgeon general to replace David Satcher, whose term ends in February. Similar care should be taken to find a new head of the National Institutes of Health, which only has an acting director.
Homeland defense needs experienced champions.
Boston Herald
White House officials, including most recently national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, have ruled out a halt in military strikes in Afghanistan during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. It's a decision that shows the resolve of this administration as well as an understanding that even within the Islamic world such military actions are not without precedent.
``We do not believe that al-Qaeda or the Taliban or any of their kind are likely to be ones who are going to be observant of any kind of rules of civilization,'' Rice said Thursday. ``This is an enemy that has to be taken on and taken aggressively and pressed to the end, and we're going to continue to do that. We have to continue the military action.''
The wisdom of that decision is reflected in support from the Muslim world.
``Terrorism doesn't respect holy values, festivals or Ramadan,'' said a spokesman for Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. Turkey this week became the first Muslim nation to offer to send ground forces to Afghanistan. (Some 90 special forces are expected to join the American contingent in the north.)
Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, also voiced agreement with the U.S. decision.
A bombing pause for Ramadan, which begins in mid-November, would let Taliban forces regroup at a time when the U.S. offensive is giving the Northern Alliance an opportunity to advance.
Ramadan has never kept Muslim states from making war on each other. In the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war there was no time out for the holy month. Egypt and Syria attacked Israel during Ramadan in 1973.
During the Vietnam War, bombing pauses allowed the enemy to catch its breath. Fortunately this nation has learned from that error.
The United States has chosen a better way to show its respect for Islam - by continuing our efforts to eliminate the heretics who kill in its name.
Dallas Morning News
Is Robert Altman right? The veteran director says that Hollywood "created the atmosphere" that inspired attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. "The movies set the pattern, and these people have copied the movies," Mr. Altman declares. "How dare we continue to show this kind of mass destruction?"
Strong words from one of Hollywood's own. But no. Hollywood does not cause terrorism. There is no way one could imply any moral equivalence between the destruction shown on screens and the death visited upon New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. And no matter how much Osama bin Laden-wannabes decry our culture, which Hollywood indeed exports, they have no right -- ever, period, end of conversation -- to deconstruct it with terrorism.
The fact is, Americans of different political persuasions have urged Hollywood for some time to improve the fare it produces. Even Bill Clinton, who often decamped in Los Angeles as president, was pretty rough on the Hollywood set. We prefer it that way, of course. We can police our own, thank you very much. We need no mad hijackers to improve ourselves.
But after Sept. 11, Mr. Altman's question assumes a new urgency. Just how long can Hollywood continue to mass-produce cinematic violence? Moreover, how long will we consumers patronize such movies? There is supply, and there is demand, and both parts of the equation are in play here.
At least for the moment, the entertainment industry seems to grasp this new world. An Arnold Schwarzenegger film movie about a firefighter battling terrorists was pulled. Entertainers galore performed benefits for the families of victims of Sept. 11. Some producers and studio chieftains even met with Bush administration officials to discuss how they can use their creative talents to combat false images of America abroad.
Of course, government meddling with films offers up the worst remedy of all. Let us leave propaganda reels to the military and fictional movies to the studios.
Still, Hollywood can create movies or television shows with lasting value without descending into patriotic jingoism. Who among us did not have our appreciation improved by Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan about the sheer courage it took to undertake the Normandy invasion?
Or what about the popularity of NBC's The West Wing? For once, we see politicians as more than bumblers. We instead peer into the complicated world of national and international politics.
These offerings are so vastly different from reality-TV shows or the bomb-a-thons that draw coveted "R" ratings. Hollywood has shown it does not have to titillate or desensitize. Instead, it can wonderfully probe our minds and elevate our understanding of history and the world around us.
Naturally, some Hollywood kind will remind Americans that we are the ones who punch their tickets on Friday and Saturday nights, sopping up sex and violence. No market, no films.
True enough. They have a point. Supply does not exist without demand.
But there is an answer. While no moviegoer can order up a film to his or her own specifications, just as a consumer cannot directly tell Detroit what kind of car to produce, Mr. and Mrs. America and their teenagers can vote with their feet, to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan.
The next time the violence seems gratuitous, leave. The next time the sex dehumanizes, demand a refund. Each of us has the power to make a difference in this part of the battle for the minds of the next generation.
And what a crucial front. The culture America exports forms an image about our nation and its values as much as any widget or hamburger that we sell abroad. We need no censorship, we just need a renewal of creativity. May it arrive sooner than later so this battlefront does not get lost.
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
The ease with which the 19 terrorists who took part in the September 11 attack had entered the United States on visas showed the glaring need to tighten American border controls. Antiterrorist legislation that President Bush signed into law last week is intended to scrutinize foreigners before they are allowed to enter the country. The administration's new powers should not be used, however, to deport legal aliens because of mere suspicions.
The Justice Department has announced its intention to bar entry to the United States to members of any group allegedly connected to terrorism, even those who support legal activities associated with those groups. Attorney General John Ashcroft added 46 groups to that list, bringing the total to 74, including groups in the Middle East, Ireland and Rwanda. A White House task force has been assembled to coordinate efforts to deny entry to people who are "associated with, suspected of being engaged in, or supporting terrorist activity." The aim also is to "locate, detain, prosecute or deport any such aliens already present."
The distinction between those seeking entry and those already in the United States is important. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to everyone in this country, not just to citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that legal aliens facing deportation are entitled to have their cases reviewed in court. Suspicion alone should not justify deportation.
Greater efforts are needed at entry points to weed out those whom President Bush describes as "the evil ones" from the "good, decent people (who) we're proud to have here." Ashcroft said measures will be taken to tighten the granting of visas to visitors. Those could include more biographical and past travel information.
Meanwhile, the government needs to keep closer track of foreigners after they have entered the country. Those efforts should include requiring more information from visa applicants to include fingerprints and unique characteristics, known as biometrics, such as computerized facial recognition, to check identities.
A computerized system for keeping track of foreign students was approved by Congress in 1996 but was opposed by universities and some members of Congress. The system now is planned to begin next summer. One of the Sept. 11 hijackers was in the United States on a student visa but have never attended the school he had designated.
Los Angeles Times
President Bush's planned speeches and meetings with audiences foreign and domestic next week are a necessary part of the battle against terrorism. It's not enough to take action; the action must be explained and justified, not once but often.
The basic fact to be repeated is that nearly 5,000 people from scores of nations were killed in terrorist attacks on innocent victims Sept. 11. Time diminishes horror; it cannot be allowed to erase memory.
There are lies abroad that the U.S. counterattacks are a fight against Islam or against innocent Afghans. Rather, they are a fight against terrorists, with the first targets Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. There are reasonable questions about strategy and tactics. Is the bombing of Afghanistan hurting the United States in the arena of public opinion more than it is helping in destroying bases of the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan who shelter Bin Laden? When bombs hit a Red Cross warehouse or fall on villages and kill innocent Afghans, what is done to prevent similar occurrences? Will continuing the bombing of Muslims during the month of Ramadan turn Islamic moderates against the United States?
Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security advisor, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday stressed the need for patience and reminded people that the war on terrorism has many components. Arresting suspects here and abroad, freezing bank accounts, persuading other nations to provide intelligence information all are important in the effort to disrupt hostile networks.
Bush's Sept. 20 speech was an effective explanation of what the nation confronted and what would be required. But there have been major developments since then: the bombing campaign, the spread of anthrax. Next week's speech will have to be every bit as good as the address to Congress, a blend of explanation, reassurance and rallying cry.
The president also will speak by satellite to officials from Central Europe gathered in Warsaw to discuss the war on terrorism. That's an opportunity to express thanks to nations supporting the battle and to remind them that terror can threaten any nation. Many countries knew that before Sept. 11.
Bush plans to meet with the leaders of several nations attending the U.N. General Assembly meeting next week, among them British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has done a good job articulating the allies' position on his trips to the Middle East. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is also on the meeting list. Both India and Pakistan have supported U.S. actions, yet the two nuclear-armed nations remain at each other's throats over the territory of Kashmir. Bush should assure Vajpayee that Washington values the friendship of a fellow democracy and urge that the quarrel with Pakistan not escalate.
The hiring of ad agency executive Charlotte Beers as the nation's spin-master will not persuade the world of anything. But spelling out U.S. reasoning is important in the new type of battle in which the nation finds itself. It needs to be done well and constantly.
New York Newsday
War respects no holidays; nor should it. Secretary of State Colin Powell has put an end to the hand-wringing over whether the United States should suspend hostilities in Afghanistan when the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins in two weeks. He has it right: The war won't stop.
Halting the air attacks and likely ground movements by U.S. and Northern Alliance forces against the Taliban for a full month would be a tactical disaster, losing momentum just as the unforgiving Afghan winter sets in.
In any case, Muslims themselves have fought some of their most vicious battles during Ramadan - often against one another. The most glaring example is the war between Iraq and Iran, in which as many as a million people were killed between 1980 and 1988. That war never stopped for Ramadan. Nor did Ramadan inhibit Lebanese Shiites from firing artillery barrages against Palestinian encampments south of Beirut in 1986. In Afghanistan itself, during the civil war and Soviet occupation of the 1980s, government troops bombed rebel villages repeatedly during Ramadan.
Yes, those attacks were brought by Muslims against Muslims, but consider this: In 1973, Egypt and Syria joined forces to attack Israel during Ramadan. That war began on Oct. 6, a date commemorating one of Muhammad's great military victories against infidels. It came to be known in the Arab world as the Ramadan War, though Israel calls it the Yom Kippur War because it also fell on the holiest of Jewish holidays .
It might even be argued that high holy days are chosen for major military attacks precisely because they distract the enemy; witness the 1968 surprise offensive launched by the North Vietnamese army during Tet, the lunar new year festival. So don't fret about attacks during Ramadan. You could say they are part of a long military tradition, within and without Islam.
(Compiled by United Press International)
