New York Times
Afghans expected that the recently concluded loya jirga, or grand council, would lead to a fairer sharing of power among the country's ethnic and political factions. Instead, President Hamid Karzai presented delegates with the results of a backroom deal that confirmed the tight grip of Tajik leaders based in one small area, the Panjshir Valley, over the most important posts. If Mr. Karzai is to become Afghanistan's first truly national political leader since the monarchy's fall in 1973, he will have to emerge from the shadow of this narrow faction.
Particularly troubling is the decision to keep Muhammad Qasim Fahim as defense minister. Mr. Fahim, the military leader of the Northern Alliance forces America helped to victory over the Taliban, is now the country's most powerful warlord. Another Panjshir Tajik, Muhammad Yunus Qanooni, who ran the police as interior minister, now becomes Mr. Karzai's adviser on internal security.
Mr. Karzai is a member of Afghanistan's largest ethnic group, the Pashtuns. Because many Pashtuns supported the Taliban until shortly before it fell, this group was conspicuously underrepresented in the interim government. The loya jirga, chosen by local councils across the country, was a chance to remedy that, and to strengthen the position of other underrepresented groups, like Uzbeks and Hazaras.
Instead, the hard realities of military power prevailed. With outside countries unwilling to expand the international security force beyond Kabul and with American and British combat troops in Afghanistan mainly concerned with hunting remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Mr. Karzai's authority still depends on the military muscle of Northern Alliance leaders. His best hope for independent authority in the future lies with the American-led effort to train a new national army.
The loya jirga was a lost opportunity for Mr. Karzai, who has served capably since December. His election as president, intended to add legitimacy to his authority, was marred by heavy-handed American and United Nations maneuvering to keep the former king out of the race. His cabinet choices were disappointing. Mr. Karzai's main challenge now is to establish his independence.
Washington Times
President Bush's soul-gazing affection for Russian President Vladimir Putin is enough to make a Cold War spook blush. When Mr. Bush courted Mr. Putin with barbecued steak a la Crawford, Texas, the friendship was the envy of European leaders, who seemed chastened that Mr. Bush's position on missile defense didn't lead to brinkmanship. Mr. Bush has now put America's critical defense alliance on the table for Mr. Putin.
Now Mr. Bush has formally invited Russia to become a kind of junior partner of NATO. Under the new arrangement, Russia will be involved in NATO activities related to crisis management, peacekeeping and some military areas, such as air defense, search-and-rescue operations and joint exercises. But Russia will not have a veto over NATO decisions and that includes, of course, which countries will become members of the defense alliance.
Bringing Russia into the NATO fold is part of Mr. Bush's bold effort to realign geopolitics in wake of the Cold War. By bringing the Kremlin closer to the West, Mr. Bush decisively weakened an informal rogue alliance that sought to minimize America's global strength. With the loss of Russia, the alliance has lost, for the time being, its nuclear component.
Still, the president has already misstepped. While the U.S.-Russia rapprochement is clearly a foreign-policy coup, Mr. Bush should not shy from pressing critical U.S. concerns in the interest of obliging Mr. Putin. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush has failed to broach some key priorities. If Mr. Bush continues on this track, his friendship with Mr. Putin will become a liability, rather than a diplomatic advantage. ...
Mr. Bush's recent meeting last week with Mr. Putin was his fifth in 12 months. And, while Mr. Bush spent three days in Russia, he stayed less than one day in Germany and France, respectively. Mr. Bush shouldn't let America's strategic alliance with Europe fall by the wayside. And, while he is commended for ridding the world of residual Cold War frost, he should be careful not to ice out other crucial allies.
Boston Globe
Because of the murderous suicide bombings last week in Jerusalem, President Bush had little choice but to postpone a speech in which he was planning to outline US proposals for reviving a Mideast peace process. Unavoidable as that postponement may have been, it cannot be allowed to persist for long. The violent chaos descending upon Palestinians and Israelis alike threatens not only those two peoples and their regional neighbors but also significant US interests.
Until now, Bush and his senior advisers have been reluctant to take the political and diplomatic risks of becoming engaged in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians. Above all, Bush officials have been leery of repeating what they regard as the mistakes made by President Clinton, who immersed himself in the details of negotiations on knotty matters such as shared sovereignty in Jerusalem, land swaps, and the future of the Palestinian refugees.
Sad to say, Bush's reluctance to commit presidential prestige to Mideast peacemaking has only made the situation on the ground worse. The ultras in both camps are taking advantage of the pathology of primal vengeance. The two sides are killing each other's children now, and the danger of a wider regional war spilling over into Lebanon and Syria increases each day. ...
Bush does face political perils and contradictory pressures as he prepares to abandon his passive stance and sketch an American plan for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But the risk of not using American influence to thwart the extremists stoking the chaos is much greater.
In the Mideast, Bush is being called upon to meet the kind of test that defines true leadership. To succeed, he will have to forge a multilateral peacemaking coalition and act resolutely to shepherd both sides toward the concessions a just and durable peace will require.
Chicago Sun-Times
In one of those twists of reality beyond parody, Syria is serving this month as head of the UN Security Council. This despite its being on the State Department's list of terror-sponsoring nations and despite Damascus being home to a number of terrorist organizations.
But last week during a closed door council meeting, sources say, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte rose to attack Syria for its support of terror. Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara issued the usual denial. A day later, however, in the very public setting of a New York press conference, Shara heaped praise on Hezbollah, the big terrorist gang in Lebanon which is aided and supported by Syria and which launches attacks on northern Israel. ...
The Los Angeles Times reports "growing indications" that the Bush administration "has given Israel a green light to attack targets on Syrian soil" if the Hezbollah terror intensifies. ...
When President Bush talks about the axis of evil, Syria should feel lucky that it's not on the list. But it looks like that could be changing, and it's about time.
Houston Chronicle
That Mexico is the United States' largest trading partner is a fact well-known to those who do business in Southwestern border states. But, as U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow pointed out during a visit this month with the Chronicle Editorial Board, Mexico affects the ordinary U.S. citizen to a degree beyond that of any other foreign country. Even those who do no business with Mexico are touched by the United States' southern neighbor.
Taxpayers fund a war on drugs that is shifting to Mexico, and Americans provide the consumer market that makes trafficking through Mexico profitable.
Americans pay lower prices for fruits, vegetables and other agricultural products because of the cheap labor of Mexican immigrants. The same can be said of prices for new housing, influenced by wages paid to immigrant construction workers, and the cost of a restaurant meal.
Low-cost immigrant labor has a direct impact on what small and large businesses shell out for immigrant worker salaries. And it influences wage rates set for American workers.
Mexico has an impact on what languages are spoken in the United States, especially by children in schools, but also by politicians on the campaign trail and how ballots are printed in the voting booth.
Texans and those in border states do not always realize the strength of social ties and economic interdependence of the two nations, for better and worse.
The rest of the nation could stand to take note, too.
(Compiled by United Press International)
