New York Times
Jimmy Carter well deserves the Nobel Peace Prize awarded him yesterday. In four years as president and more than 20 as the most active and civic-minded ex-president of modern times, he has contributed substantially to peace, democracy and human rights. Not all of Mr. Carter's peacemaking efforts have succeeded, and his activities have often put him at odds with his successors. His own presidency was complicated by economic tribulations, the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But the totality of his career has significantly enhanced the cause of peace. ...
Mr. Carter has been considered for the Nobel Prize before. One reason he was chosen this year was the selection committee's desire to uphold the idea of a peaceful conflict resolution in what it diplomatically referred to as "a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power." That follows a valuable tradition of using the prize to send a contemporary message, exemplified by such past recipients as Martin Luther King, Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela. The point would have been more eloquently made had the committee chairman, Gunnar Berge, refrained from explicitly interpreting the prize as a criticism of America's current presidential administration. Jimmy Carter's achievements are big enough to stand on their own.
Washington Times
For more than two decades, Turkey has been working to qualify for membership in the European Union. Apparently, the 15 EU member nations think Turkey hasn't made the grade, because in announcing its plan to admit 10 new members within the next two years, the European Union conspicuously left Turkey off the list. Two questions must be asked. First, what is behind the European Union's rejection of the only Muslim member of NATO? Second, what is the effect of the union's continued rejection of Turkey on NATO?
Europe's pronouncement based the latest snub on Turkey's human-rights record, but that appears to be more an excuse than a reason. Greece, an EU member and longtime adversary of Turkey over control of Cyprus, may have reheated that conflict through EU action. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, reacting to a Greek-Cypriot military coup aimed at uniting the island with Greece. Now, the European Union included Cyprus (meaning the Greek-Cypriot government) among the nations to be admitted in 2004. America has no direct interest in which nations belong to the union, but to the extent that that affects Turkey's role as a military ally, our interests are definitely in play. U.S. advocacy of Turkish membership in the union has apparently fallen on the same deaf European ears as other American military concerns have. ...
Turkey's troubled economy and imperfect human rights record are insufficient to justify this rejection. Turkey retains its position as our most under-appreciated ally. Turkey's support in the war on terror is important, both symbolically and substantively. As our most prominent Muslim ally, it serves as proof that we are fighting a war on terror, not on Islam. Turkey's strategic location on Iraq's northern border makes it a key to our success in the coming campaign. Moreover, Turkey is now taking over the military peacekeeping task in Afghanistan, freeing up American troops for other duties. American interests would be well served by EU acceptance of Turkey. In its absence, the president should consider how we can lower trade barriers with Turkey and otherwise strengthen our economic relationship with an ally that is usually more faithful than many others.
Washington Post
It has been said many times that, although historians are unlikely to rank Jimmy Carter among the greatest U.S. presidents, he will almost surely go down as one of the greatest ex-presidents. The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Mr. Carter yesterday both challenges and reaffirms the historical truism. Certainly he was recognized in part for his post-presidential activities. Mr. Carter's selfless dedication to peace, human rights and the alleviation of misery has only become more remarkable with time, due both to his indefatigability and to the contrast with the wealth-maximizing behavior of his fellow ex-presidents. There has been no place too miserable for Mr. Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, to visit if they thought they could help relieve disease, prevent election fraud or avert war. But Mr. Carter was recognized also for his brokering, as president, of the peace accords between Israel and Egypt. The award is a reminder, if nothing else, that historical judgments of presidents rise and fall unpredictably over time.
As often happens with the Peace Prize, the award also took on significance in the contemporary political context. Mr. Carter, at 78, is far from a grandfatherly, apolitical figure. Just last month he wrote, on the facing page, a rather scathing attack on President Bush's foreign policy: "Belligerent and divisive voices now seem to be dominant in Washington," he wrote. He took the opportunity yesterday to criticize Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, as did the Norwegian chairman of the Nobel committee.
We have not always shared Mr. Carter's worldview, and the Peace Prize won't make his opinion on Iraq any more or less persuasive. As president, he inherited and then stuck for too long with a policy of detente with the Soviet Union; since then, his willingness to engage with any dictator, no matter how odious, has at times been discomfiting. But it has also been a reflection of his greatest strength: his faith in the power of reason, negotiation and goodwill. Even those who believe that (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein must be confronted cannot but admire that faith and the consistency with which Mr. Carter has put it into practice.
Los Angeles Times
One year after the United States forced the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, reconstruction of the shattered nation is proceeding slowly. U.S. military civil affairs units have done good work to build schools, dig wells and clear canals full of rubble. So President Bush was right to say on Friday that the nation has "entered a new era of hope." But major projects like building highways to connect the main cities remain stalled, and the central government is having trouble outmaneuvering warlords and extending its writ to all corners of the land. So that hope is fragile.
We agree with aid workers' complaints that too much money is going to firms for the design of massive projects such as dams and power plants. More, they say, should be spent on actual construction of roads, houses and schools. And foreign donors should channel much of that money through the central government of President Hamid Karzai rather than through non-governmental organizations. Afghans need to see Karzai's government employing people to make the bricks, build the scaffolding and mix the cement for new structures. ...
U.S. officials say about 65 percent of the nearly $2 billion that foreign donor nations promised to Afghanistan for this year has been spent or is in the pipeline to be spent on future projects. Washington should push countries that have lagged in fulfilling their pledges to come up with the other 35 percent. After the mujahedin defeated the Soviets, most nations forgot about Afghanistan. The Taliban and al Qaida did not. The world should not forget the country again.
Chicago Tribune
Seems like just yesterday that the environmental Cassandras were raising alarms about the ozone hole in Antarctica, growing ever larger, threatening to prematurely end life as we know it on Earth. Now, in one of the swiftest -- and quietest -- reversals of fortune in the history of this planet, scientists have recently announced that, if current trends hold, we're well on our way to mending the ozone hole.
What, you didn't hear?
Yes, the ozone hole is down this year from 9 million square miles to 6 million square miles, according to satellite observations. That's the first dramatic reduction since ozone-thinning chemicals were banned in 1987.
Ozone-depleting chemical levels in the atmosphere are falling, and the ozone hole over Antarctica should be completely gone by 2050 or so, according to global scientists.
The swiftness of this apparent victory over ozone has provoked some natural suspicion and skepticism in some. If it was this easy, was there really a big problem in the first place? And what does this mean for the other environmental bugaboo, global warming? ...
There are still many who are not convinced the cost of addressing global warming is worth the cure. That's one reason why the United States has refused to sign the Kyoto accord to reduce greenhouse gases.
But if the world ever decides to attack global warming, the Montreal Protocol could provide at least a partial how-to model.
"The predictions before the Montreal Protocol were that it would cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs," said Dr. Stephen O. Andersen, an Environmental Protection Agency official and author of a new book on the ozone layer. "Instead, what happened? It was totally inconspicuous to the customer. Once industry turns its mind to the issue and agrees to cooperate, they can do things that you couldn't even imagine before that ... progress can be remarkable."
And quiet.
Dallas Morning News
The speeches ranged from the eloquent to the tiresomely loquacious. But in all cases the talk was passionate, the voices resonant of historic debates in those congressional chambers. And even for those not liking the outcome of the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force if necessary to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," the American process for turning discord into resolve has to be admired. ...
What (U.N.) Security Council members must understand is that another toothless resolution just won't do it. There have been 16 already. The effort needs one resolution with specific consequences for noncompliance. And the United Nations needs to clearly define the responsibility for determining noncompliance.
Meanwhile, to protect America's longer-term security interests, Mr. Bush has to show he is willing and wanting to work within the global arena on multiple issues -- from the Israeli-Arab conflict to global warming. The world and Arab nations in particular may not like Mr. Hussein but are growing more fearful of U.S. intent and seemingly imperial desires. Reported administration planning to establish an American military command in post-Hussein Iraq will not reassure them.
Mr. Bush needs to allay those fears. Much like in a political campaign, the president must rally international leaders and their public. Nothing is so sad as war, and nothing is so great as statesmen building peace.
Boston Globe
The joint resolution Congress passed Thursday authorizing President Bush to use U.S. armed forces against the regime of Saddam Hussein is an improvement over the blanket authorization Bush originally sought. But the text is not as restrictive as it should have been.
There are two reverberating silences in the resolution. The first is a failure to stipulate that although Saddam is violating several U.N. resolutions, the only justification for going to war against the Iraqi tyrant should be his continued refusal to comply with resolutions requiring that he declare all his weapons of mass destruction programs and permit U.N. inspectors to verify the dismantling of those programs and the destruction of those weapons.
Equally insufficient is the language in the resolution that says Congress ''supports the efforts by the president to ... obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.''
What the resolution should have included is an explicit instruction from Congress that the president obtain a new resolution authorizing the use of force from the Security Council -- the relevant ''decisive action'' -- before sending U.S. military forces into action. ...
Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who came around to voting for the resolution, said during debate that Bush is expected to ''continue to consult with Congress and work hard to build a global coalition.'' These are not explicit requirements of the resolution, but Bush would be wise to act as if they were.
(Compiled by United Press International)
