New York Times
These days America finds itself at once uniquely strong and vulnerable, the only superpower and a target of envy, hostility and suspicion around much of the globe. The Bush administration has clearly been tempted to go it alone in this new environment, dodging any international undertakings that the United States does not completely control.
President Bush has shown skill in working with Russia and other nations to put together a coalition to fight terrorism. But there are other critical problems in the world, some equally important to our own future and others of pressing concern to the people whose good will we need to fight terror abroad. They include global warming, proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons, fighting infectious diseases like AIDS and malaria and assuring the prosecution of war criminals. The United States does not rule the world, and the administration needs to think more creatively and strategically about how this country works with the rest of the planet. A dash of humility might be a help, too. ...
Global leadership requires more than visionary statements and forceful American actions. Washington needs to be a leader, not a spoiler, in efforts to build international cooperation.
Washington Times
In recent weeks, many Democrats have shed any reluctance to sternly criticize President Bush in the conduct of the war on terrorism. At a June 29 fund-raiser in Nashville, Al Gore delivered a speech questioning the success of the war, basing his claim on the fact that "they haven't gotten Osama bin Laden." The day before, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle asserted that U.S. war efforts "have not been as successful as we hoped [they] could be" and blamed the president for the failure to "capture the ringleaders of al Qaeda." Several days earlier, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry asserted on "Meet the Press" that the December operation in Tora Bora was "a failed military operation" and called U.S. military strategy there "an enormous mistake." In an April political speech to Florida Democrats, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards accused the president of committing "an enormous mistake," thus permitting Afghanistan to go "right back to chaos, right back to where it was under the Taliban." It is hardly a coincidence that the rash of wartime critiques has erupted among the president's political opponents who dream of defeating him in the 2004 election. ...
The Democrats are hypocrites. Their prospective presidential contestants claim the right to criticize various aspects of the conduct of the war on terrorism, while insisting they support the war in general. Yet, the party cries foul when its vulnerable liberal colleagues are called to account for their votes on defense and foreign policy matters preceding the war. Worse, recall that Democrats feigned outrage in January when White House political adviser Karl Rove recommended that Republican candidates emphasize the utterly uncontestable reality that they "do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and hereby protecting America." Implausibly, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe accused Mr. Rove of "politicizing the war," declaring his matter-of-fact observations to be "nothing short of despicable." ...
To fully understand why Democrats are hypocritically charging Republicans with politicizing the war on terrorism, be advised that crucial cohorts of the poll revealed these Republican advantages in the war on terrorism: 49-19 among suburbanites, 44-19 among independents and 47-23 among moderates.
With both bodies of Congress so narrowly divided, no wonder Democrats are hypocritically accusing Republicans of "politicizing the war," even as their presidential aspirants embark on that very path.
Chicago Tribune
As if "Socialism or Death" weren't a dismal enough national jingle, the rubber-stamp Cuban National Assembly has unanimously made it even more so -- something like "Socialism after Death."
Cuban lawmakers last month approved three constitutional amendments that make socialism in the island "irreversible," presumably even after the passing of Fidel Castro, 75, and his dour brother Raul, 71. The first draft of the legislation had used "untouchable," but "irreversible" was judged more precise. Either way, you get the picture: In the contest between Havana and Washington to see who can demonstrate the most muleheaded resistance to change, Cubans won't settle for second place.
Indeed, the Castro brothers have outlasted nine American presidents and even 80-year-old archfoe Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), an implacable political dinosaur if there ever was one, who is retiring this year. Castro's government has withstood natural disasters, a U.S. trade embargo, a fossilized economy and global communism's implosion, not to mention enough bootleg Sylvester Stallone videos to rattle the nerves of even a Ming emperor.
But Cuba's recent wham-bam amendments -- got to admit, a model of legislative efficiency -- were a response to a far more serious threat: An initiative signed by about 11,000 brave citizens, demanding free speech and elections, amnesty for Cuba's 250 political prisoners and the right to own and run private businesses.
Under article 88 of Cuba's 1976 Constitution, anyone who collected more than 10,000 signatures of registered voters could petition the National Assembly for a referendum on any subject. So Oswaldo Paya and about 300 volunteers throughout the island -- give them a Nobel Prize for guts -- set out to collect the required signatures.
When the government sabotaged the initial petition, Paya went back and did it all over again. This freedom fighter kept going, even after his family was threatened and the regime's feared "rapid-response brigades" beat up some of his followers.
So the regime's final response was to ban petitions and decree change illegal. That may make Cuba's aging leaders feel good. Except that with real-life Rambos like Paya and his band on the other side, change in Cuba is all but inevitable.
Los Angeles Times
Turkey, the only Muslim-majority member of NATO, is a valuable rarity: a Muslim nation that also is a secular democracy. A longtime ally of the United States, it is a leader of the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. But while Turkey is applauded abroad, at home the government is in bad shape. If it collapses, the fundamentalist Islamic White Party could rise again, triggering a reaction by the staunchly secular army.
Frail and ailing Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit clings to power as his political coalition crumbles. He insists he will stay in office until parliamentary elections are held in two years.
Ecevit, 77, emerged in public recently after two months of struggling with ill health. During his absence, the government was virtually paralyzed and racked by political strife among factions in the ruling coalition. At least six Cabinet ministers resigned this week. More than 30 members of parliament have quit Ecevit's Democratic Left Party in protest at his refusal to step down. Those who want to reform government to bring it closer to Europe and those who oppose civil reforms are hardening their lines. The only point of agreement between nationalists and center-right members of the coalition is that they all want Ecevit to hand over power. Ecevit should pick a successor and bow out. The economic and political problems that besiege Turkey demand a new and invigorated leadership capable of stabilizing the economy and preserving a $17-billion loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund. Turkey wants membership in the European Union, which would require greater financial stability. To join, the government also would have to increase civil freedoms and ban police torture to comply with European standards.
Even though only 3% of Turkey's territory is considered to be in Europe, the vast majority of Turks have made it clear they see their future from a European perspective.
The United States should do everything in its power to persuade Ecevit, a national hero in the 1980s for his defiance of the ruling military junta, to step down now. A peaceful, secular Muslim country that is a reliable partner of the Western alliance in such a strategic location adds to global stability.
(Compiled by United Press International)
