New York Times
The most important war crimes trial in Europe since Nuremberg opens tomorrow in The Hague. Slobodan Milosevic, once Yugoslavia's dictator, stands indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, and genocide committed in Bosnia. It is not only his victims who should rejoice that Mr. Milosevic is facing justice. His trial is a triumph for the civilized world, which has created a court capable of condemning the most heinous crimes with appropriate gravity and fairness.
Mr. Milosevic started four wars -- Slovenia was the site of the first -- which killed 200,000 people and drove 3.5 million from their homes. A longtime Communist Party functionary, he reinvented himself as a nationalist, and rose to power in Yugoslavia selling the ancient dream of a Greater Serbia. He artfully used propaganda and fear to keep Serbs in a nationalist frenzy through war after disastrous war. It was a cynical strategy to maintain his support among Serbs and divert public attention from his corruption and mismanagement.
When the United Nations Security Council established the Yugoslavia tribunal in 1993, few imagined it would ever hold Mr. Milosevic. He seemed likely to be in power for life, and the court was weak, established with few resources by Western nations feeling guilty about their failure to intervene in Bosnia before thousands had died. But despite the failure of NATO forces in Bosnia and Yugoslav officials to arrest indicted war criminals, the court has grown. It has capitalized on its successes to wrest the money from the United Nations and Western governments to do its job. So far the tribunal has tried 31 Serbs, Croats and Muslims -- five of them were acquitted -- and 43 more people are awaiting trial. It has become an admirably fair tribunal whose judgments have helped to modernize aspects of international law stagnant since Nuremberg, for example ruling that rape is a form of torture and a crime against humanity. But Mr. Milosevic's trial will be its capstone. The tribunal will ultimately be judged on its competence and fairness in this case.
Baltimore Sun
The rest of the world may be comfortable recognizing two Chinas, but both Beijing's communist rulers and their Kuomintang nationalist enemies on Taiwan believe there is only one China. And Taiwan is an integral part of it.
The trouble is the once-powerful Kuomintang, which fled the mainland in 1949 when the communists took over, lost power in Taiwan as well two years ago. And the island's increasingly powerful indigenous population doesn't want to be part of China; it is striving for independence.
Under President Chen Shui-bian, whose roots are firmly on the island, the economic powerhouse is taking steps to forge a distinct identity separate from China.
Consider:
-- The island's passports, which traditionally have only contained the name "Republic of China," have added the following declaration in big letters to their cover: "Issued in Taiwan."
-- Taiwan's government has removed a central element from its emblem -- a big blue map of mainland China.
Kuomintang kingpins in Taiwan are so angry their legislators want to retaliate against the president with big budget cuts.
For decades, they have promised that it's only a question of time before they return to the mainland to reclaim power in China.
Beijing, too, is upset. It regards Taiwan as a renegade province, not a different country, and sees the island government's moves as dangerous separatism.
In reality, none of this makes much difference. Most of the world's governments deal with two Chinas. Consumers, too, see no difference. Even the Beijing and Taiwan governments deal with one another, through a variety of back channels. The Taiwanese independence advocates now threaten to upset all these pragmatic arrangements by denying China's hegemony over their island.
It will be an interesting drama to watch.
Dallas Morning News
So Iraq wants to talk with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan about arms inspections. Now that it has seen the force of U.S. arms in Afghanistan. Now that it has heard President Bush speak of his determination to oppose nations that threaten others with weapons of mass destruction.
As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says, it should be a very short discussion, which should consist solely of Iraq agreeing to allow U.N. arms inspectors to resume their work there unimpeded. No new terms. No side deals. Just Iraq complying with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and the promises that it made as a condition of ending the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War.
If experience is an indication, Iraq's request is a gambit to buy time. But the Bush administration feels that it is in a race against time to stop regimes that might give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States. As Mr. Bush said in his State of the Union speech, "Time is not on our side. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
Talking is still worthwhile with the other members of Mr. Bush's "axis of evil" -- Iran and North Korea. With Iraq, what is needed is action. Saddam Hussein must be feeling his vulnerability. He must understand that the United States is capable of making Iraq another Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the United States armed and fought with the Northern Alliance. In Iraq, it could do so with the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Muslims in the south, both of whom despise Mr. Hussein.
Mr. Hussein could neutralize the possibility of a U.S. strike by welcoming the arms inspectors whom he expelled in 1998. If he does not, his days are probably numbered, which would be a great relief to his country's long-suffering people.
No more talk. Action.
(Compiled by United Press International)
