JP\/06\/Other<\/p>\n
Old-fashioned poisoning<\/p>\n
The Iron Curtain is no more, or so we thought until the news that
\nViktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western presidential candidate in the
\nformer Soviet republic of Ukraine, was poisoned with dioxin,
\npossibly by Ukraine's own security services.<\/p>\n
The good news for Yushchenko, despite his suddenly pockmarked
\nfeatures and tales of excruciating pain, is that he survived the
\nattempt and now seems poised to win the Dec. 26 reprise of his
\nrunoff against Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich.<\/p>\n
Ukraine's saga, much like the fall of the Iron Curtain, which
\nonce stood well to the west of Ukraine, is a reminder that a
\nsociety spontaneously demanding to decide its own future cannot
\nalways be poisoned back into submission. The trick for Bush in
\nhis second term will be to find a way to maintain constructive
\nties with Russian President Putin but not at the price of
\nabandoning clamor for more democracy in the former Soviet Union.
\n-- LA Times, Los Angeles.<\/p>\n
EU arms embargo<\/p>\n
The European Union is considering lifting its arms embargo
\nagainst China, which has been in place since the Tiananmen Square
\nincident in 1989, next year. We are very concerned about this.<\/p>\n
It would mean even more of a headache for Japan, as it would
\npresent a serious security problem for the nation.<\/p>\n
Over the past year, China has been making moves that pose a
\nthreat to Japan's security.<\/p>\n
The EU is considering lifting the ban because ties between it
\nand China have improved over recent years. Immediately after the
\nTiananmen Square incident, the EU's relationship with China
\ncooled over the latter's infringements of human rights. However,
\nit has been improving gradually to a level where in 1998 they
\nbegan holding regular summit meetings.<\/p>\n
Their relations have become closer, particularly in trading.
\nChina is the second-largest trade partner for the EU, while the
\nEU is the biggest for China. Between last year and this year, the
\nleaders of Britain, Germany, France and Italy -- core members of
\nthe EU -- visited China in succession because they all wanted a
\nslice of the Chinese market.<\/p>\n
Given these circumstances, Beijing said the continued
\nimprovement of these ties would be impaired if the arms embargo
\nwas maintained, increasing pressure on the EU to lift it. On the
\nEU side, some countries, particularly Germany and France, were in
\nfavor of lifting the embargo.<\/p>\n
The EU is an important player in international politics. It
\nshould refrain from pursuing its own economic interests at the
\nexpense of causing instability in Asia.
\n-- The Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo.<\/p>\n
Approach to North Korea<\/p>\n
It is already mid-December and there is little likelihood the
\nnext six-way talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear standoff
\nwill be held before year's end. North Korea, which stalled the
\nmultilateral process to await the result of the U.S. presidential
\nelection, will now set another timeline to further delay the
\ntalks in Beijing -- probably until after the second Bush
\nadministration is inaugurated in late January.<\/p>\n
The chief U.S. negotiator, James Kelly, is to be replaced and
\nso will most of his seniors at the State Department, hence
\nPyongyang would like to make its case on its "nuclear deterrent"
\nscheme with the new U.S. lineup. Since the North Korean
\nprocrastination has some justification at the moment, it is hoped
\nthe United States and other participants use the time to tidy up
\ntheir own house.<\/p>\n
The United States, China, Japan and Russia need to take a
\ncommon position on the issue of South Korea's past nuclear
\nexperiments which were exposed earlier this year and closely
\nscrutinized by the International Atomic Energy Agency through
\nrepeated inspections here.<\/p>\n
Pyongyang could really be cheating about the uranium
\nenrichment program but experts find it highly improbable that
\nNorth Korea, with its limited technological capabilities and
\nresources, has developed any HEU program to a significant level.<\/p>\n
It is recommended that the five parties in the six-way talks
\nshelve the uranium-enrichment suspicion for the time being and
\nmake concerted efforts to dismantle the already confirmed
\nplutonium-based nuclear weapons project in North Korea.
\n-- The Korea Herald, Seoul.<\/p>\n
Tanks for troops<\/p>\n
After making excuses and pleading for patience, the Pentagon now
\nseems to realize its soldiers don't have enough armored vehicles
\nto carry out their dangerous missions in Iraq. That message was
\ndriven home dramatically last week during Secretary of State
\nDonald Rumsfeld's fumbling performance in handling a question
\nabout such matters.<\/p>\n
Late last week, the Army said it was negotiating with a company
\nto accelerate production of armored versions of the Humvee to get
\nthem to troops more quickly. And the commander of U.S. ground
\nforces in the Middle East has promised to provide armored
\nvehicles for every soldier in Iraq. It's about time.<\/p>\n
Protecting the troops in Iraq is one of the military's primary
\nmissions. Without those troops, Iraq stands little chance to hold
\nan election in January or avoid civil war. That's why it's hard
\nto fathom the Army's treatment of six reservists, including two
\nveteran officers who had been decorated for their heroic efforts
\nin maintaining the gasoline supply line to troops in the war's
\nfirst months. The Tribune's Aamer Madhani reported Sunday that
\nthe six have been court-martialed for doing what soldiers always
\ndo in war -- scrounging to get what their outfit needed to do its
\njob, as safely as possible.<\/p>\n
In this case, the soldiers of the 656th Transportation Company,
\nbased in Springfield, Ohio, grabbed two tractors and two trailers
\nleft in Kuwait by other U.S. units that had already moved into
\nIraq in the early weeks of the war. Several weeks later, they
\n"liberated" a third vehicle, an abandoned five-ton cargo truck,
\nand stripped it for parts they needed for repair of their trucks.<\/p>\n
Nowhere in the absurd charges against these soldiers was any
\nsuggestion that they had done so for their personal gain. Indeed,
\nno one had reported the equipment missing.<\/p>\n
Now Maj. Cathy Kaus, the commanding officer, and Darrell Birt,
\nchief warrant officer of the unit, have been dishonorably
\ndischarged and stripped of all military benefits. Kaus is still
\nin the brig; Birt was released in October.<\/p>\n
That may not be the worst of it. Since they've got a felony
\nconviction on their military records, Birt has been fired from
\nhis civilian job and Kaus faces likely termination. Both Birt and
\nKaus are pleading for clemency, so their benefits can be
\nreinstated and they will have a chance to continue their military
\ncareers or salvage their civilian jobs.<\/p>\n
Birt, Kaus and their compatriots should never have been charged.
\nThe punishment is far beyond anything that would be reasonable.
\nThe Army must grant the clemency.<\/p>\n
Between now and Election Day in Iraq, America's military forces
\nare going to need all the ingenuity and strength they can muster
\nto protect the troops on the ground and provide security for
\nIraq's voters. The terrorist insurgents have been targeting, with
\nbloody precision, Iraqis who work for the military coalition or
\nthe Iraq interim government. Insurgents have killed hundreds of
\npolice officers and civilians who dared work to make their
\ncountry free and democratic.<\/p>\n
More than a year ago, this page argued that the world should
\nflood Iraq with troops to secure the peace and help reconstruct
\nthat country. That didn't happen.<\/p>\n
Since the president's re-election, there have been some words of
\nreconciliation from some of America's European allies that
\nstrongly opposed the war. But so far, that's all it is: talk.
\nThese countries, to their everlasting disgrace, have been
\nunwilling to lift a finger to help Iraq.<\/p>\n
The most recent example: While NATO has agreed to increase its
\nforces training soldiers in Baghdad, six member countries have
\nrefused to take part. Those six include the familiar refuseniks
\nFrance and Germany, but also Belgium, Greece, Spain and
\nLuxembourg.<\/p>\n
They're not being asked to send soldiers to fight, they're being
\nasked to train Iraqis as part of the crucial effort to ensure
\nsafe and viable elections in January. All of the countries in
\nNATO should recognize their interest in a free and stable Iraq.
\nThey should back that up with thousands of troops to ensure a
\nfree and fair election there.<\/p>\n
The Pentagon is increasing the number of American troops in Iraq
\nto 150,000 from 138,000 by early January, to help provide
\nsecurity for the Iraqi election and keep pressure on insurgents.
\nIt should, and could, provide substantially more troop strength
\nthan that. The U.S. should have a much greater troop presence to
\nreduce the flow of insurgents into the country and secure polling
\nplaces. And it needs the help of NATO to do that.<\/p>\n
A successful election in Iraq will not, on its own, quell the
\ninsurrection there. But it will be a powerful statement of the
\nwill of the Iraqi people to defeat those who sow chaos and get on
\nwith building a free and prosperous nation.<\/p>\n
-- Chicago Tribune, Chicago.<\/p>\n
More gridlock in the Taiwan Strait<\/p>\n
Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian had a disappointing weekend. His
\nDemocratic Progressive Party (DPP) was unable to win a majority
\nin parliamentary elections held Saturday. The result is likely to
\nbe continuing gridlock in Taiwanese politics, as different
\nparties control the presidency and the legislature. More
\ntroubling, the results will encourage more intransigence from
\nBeijing. The outcome will support those in China who argue that
\ntheir government's hard line against . Chen has checked his
\npolitical popularity and forced Taiwanese voters to opt for
\nmoderation. Given . Chen's history of responding emotionally to
\ndefeat, relations across the Strait could worsen.<\/p>\n
. Chen's DPP has made steady gains over the last decade. He
\nused the party as a springboard for presidential election
\nvictories in 2000 and 2004, and it has gradually increased its
\nseats in Taiwan's Legislative Yuan (LY). Although the DPP won 87
\nseats in the last ballot, making it the largest single party in
\nthe LY, it was unable to claim a majority even in combination
\nwith its ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), an unabashedly
\nproindependence party established by former President Lee Teng-
\nhui.<\/p>\n
Instead, the opposition Nationalist Party, the KMT, and its
\nallies won 114 of 225 legislative seats -- an increase of three
\n-- to retain control of the LY. The DPP and its ally won 101
\nseats. The DPP and the KMT both increased their share of the
\npopular vote, with the KMT picking up 11 additional seats and the
\nDPP, two. The losers were the more radical parties: The TSU lost
\none of its 13 seats, and the prounification People's First Party,
\na KMT ally, lost 12 seats, tumbling from 46 to 34. That should
\ntake some of the sharp edges off Taiwanese politics.<\/p>\n
. Chen accepted the results with good grace, and he called for
\n"reconciliation and cooperation." He called on all parties to
\n"unite Taiwan, stabilize ties across the Taiwan Strait and work
\ntogether for economic prosperity." Taiwan needs that sort of
\npolitical maturity. Both major parties have put opposition above
\nnational interest. The result has been political gridlock while
\nthe economy deteriorated and tensions with China and the U.S.
\nincreased. It will take cooperative effort by both major parties
\nto get Taiwan back on track, but the two parties have little
\nhistory of working together.<\/p>\n
The KMT continues to protest the results of the March
\npresidential race -- which may have turned on a mysterious
\nassassination attempt on . Chen during the final days of the
\ncampaign. For his part, the president has a history of reacting
\nemotionally to defeat: When he was outmaneuvered in the LY last
\nyear on legislation permitting referendums, he hastily exploited
\na loophole in the bill -- permitting so-called defensive
\nreferendums, even though the move infuriated China and the United
\nStates. What surprises does . Chen have up his sleeve after these
\ndisappointing election results?<\/p>\n
Taiwanese voters appear uncomfortable with . Chen's policies and
\nstatements, and would like him to move back toward the center.
\nMost opinion surveys show that an overwhelming majority of
\nTaiwanese favor the status quo rather than proindependence
\npolicies. They want recognition of their island's status and
\ntheir many impressive economic and political accomplishments, but
\nthey are not willing to risk conflict with the mainland.<\/p>\n
The Chinese government is ready to exploit that fear. Beijing is
\nconvinced that . Chen aims to declare independence before his
\nterm expires in 2008. It has said that there will be no cross-
\nStrait political discussions until . Chen acknowledges the "one
\nChina" principle, a step that the president will not take. He
\ndemands talks without preconditions. Neither side is willing to
\nbudge and options are shrinking as each sees compromise as a
\nvictory for the other.<\/p>\n
Beijing will use the election results to validate its hard line.
\nChina has stepped up its anti-Chen rhetoric since he won re-
\nelection in March, and the KMT win will be interpreted as a sign
\nthat Taiwanese voters are worried that the president is pushing
\ntoo far, too fast. Given the ill will between Taipei and Beijing,
\nneither side of the Strait is likely to compromise on its core
\nconcerns. The outcome of the vote then is likely to be gridlock
\n-- within Taiwanese politics and in cross-Strait relations.<\/p>\n
. Chen should now focus on his legacy. He has two choices. He
\ncan pursue the consolidation of Taiwanese democracy or he can
\npush the independence agenda. The former requires compromising
\nwith the KMT, working on modernizing Taiwan's political
\ninstitutions and putting independence aspirations on hold. The
\nlatter may be the president's longtime dream -- and that of other
\nTaiwanese -- but it risks conflict and the destruction of much of
\nwhat Taiwan has built in recent years. The choice appears easy.<\/p>\n
-- The Japan Times, Tokyo.<\/p>\n
Beware of U.S. donations<\/p>\n
Some recent international media reports awaken us to the power of
\nAmerica as the world's only superpower, lavishly exercised with
\nmoney and influence bought with it. The recent case in Ukraine
\noffers a significant message to whoever is engaged in activities
\neither in accord with or against American interests here or
\nelsewhere.<\/p>\n
The Associated Press reported that at least $65 million from the
\nBush administration and public and private U.S. sources has been
\nspent over the past two years to aid political organizations in
\nUkraine with a view to helping the pro-West opposition leader,
\nViktor Yushchenko, gain power. The American money is via
\norganizations like the Carnegie Foundation, the National
\nEndowment for Democracy that is directly funded by Congress, the
\nEurasia Foundation financed by the State Department, and the
\nRenaissance Foundation connected to George Soros.<\/p>\n
No U.S. money is sent directly to the pro-American candidate or
\nany Ukrainian political parties. It is used in diverse ways such
\nas arranging Yushchenko's meetings with U.S. leaders,
\nunderwriting exit polls during last month's presidential runoff
\nelection and educating Ukrainian citizens about reforming their
\nnation's government and economy, methods that can reject Russian
\nPresident Vladimir Putin's claim of U.S. interference in the
\nelection in the former Soviet republic.<\/p>\n
Korea's civil society, replete with numerous civic groups and
\nindividual activists, is showing a growing trend of anti-Ame-
\nricanism these years that may attract concerns of those who hold
\nthe purse strings in the U.S. State Department and some
\n"foundations" with goals to disseminate the "American values"
\nworldwide.<\/p>\n
In spite of their increasingly active role on political, economic
\nand environmental issues, Korea's civic organizations generally
\nhave weak finance with low membership contributions. They should
\nbe too cautious about financial offerings from obscure foreign
\nsources, because they could become unwitting beneficiaries of
\npart of the $1 billion U.S. taxpayers' money the State Department
\nspends each year to "build democracy" overseas or the "charity"
\noperations of the Soros Fund. Inflow of such American money into
\nKorean civil society movements will do harm to their credibility.<\/p>\n
-- The Korea Herald, Seoul.<\/p>\n
Terrorism's Trojan horse<\/p>\n
A terrorist attack involving a dirty bomb hidden in a cargo
\ncontainer wouldn't have to match the human toll of Sept. 11,
\n2001, to be effective. Shutting down even a few of the largest
\nports would have a devastating economic effect, so it's puzzling
\nthat so little is being spent to avoid such a catastrophe.<\/p>\n
Oceangoing freighters will offload more than 9 million cargo
\ncontainers at U.S. ports this year. Until we can know with
\ncertainty what's inside them, the boxes will remain, as U.S.
\nCustoms and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner has
\nsaid, "the potential Trojan horse of the 21st century."<\/p>\n
Some progress is being made. The major foreign ports have agreed
\nto give U.S. customs agents 24 hours' notice before U.S.-bound
\ncontainers are loaded, and the port of Dubai on Monday became the
\nfirst port in the Middle East to join the program. The United
\nStates also is dispatching customs agents to the world's busiest
\nports to establish offices. Shipping companies and cargo handlers
\naround the world are completing self-evaluations to help identify
\nweaknesses that terrorists might try to exploit.<\/p>\n
But big problems remain, and most are tied to who's going to foot
\nthe bill for added security. Private industry, including
\nmanufacturers, parts suppliers and retailers whose goods flow
\nthrough publicly financed ports, should shoulder a fair share of
\nthe financial burden, which means consumers ultimately will pay
\nmore for their goods. Government also must play a role. The Coast
\nGuard estimates the cost of security improvements needed at U.S.
\nports at more than $5 billion over the coming decade. Others,
\nthough, set the final cost at closer to $15 billion. Yet Congress
\nthis month approved just a third of the $400 million that port
\noperators most of them public agencies with already tight
\noperating budgets had set as the bare minimum of federal money
\nneeded to help cover security costs during the 2005 fiscal year.<\/p>\n
Congress' miserly approach is at odds with the importance of
\nocean shipping in global trade. More than 90% of non-North
\nAmerican foreign trade arrives on ships. It would be relatively
\neasy to disrupt that trade, to devastating effect. As part of a
\n2002 war game, a consulting firm estimated that the U.S. economy
\nwould suffer a $58-billion hit if a terrorist threat not even an
\nactual attack forced all oceangoing ports to close for two
\nweeks. Yet all but 10% of the Transportation Security
\nAdministration's funding goes toward making airports safe.<\/p>\n
Waiting for containers to arrive and then inspecting them isn't
\nthe answer. Keeping U.S. ports safe will require accurately
\ntracking millions of containers from the moment they're filled. A
\nnotice of 24 hours won't mean much if what's in the container
\ndoesn't match what's printed on the shipping bill.<\/p>\n
A truly effective system is going to be expensive. Failing to
\nbuild it could be many times more costly.<\/p>\n
-- LA Times, Los Angeles.<\/p>\n
Failure in Congo<\/p>\n
ONE OF THE MOST costly wars of the past half-century is on the
\nbrink of resuming: There are reports of heavy fighting around
\neastern towns in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Some say the
\narmy of neighboring Rwanda has again invaded, as its government
\nthreatened it would do last month. Congo's government is sending
\nits own troops to the area; refugees are once again on the move.
\nLast week the U.N. Security Council issued a stern warning to
\nRwanda and threatened unspecified "further actions" if it did not
\nwithdraw. Yet if Congo once again becomes a regional
\nbattleground, the United Nations will have mainly itself to
\nblame.<\/p>\n
Rwanda has sent its army into Congo twice before, in 1996 and
\n1998. In both cases, as now, the announced aim was to attack
\nRwandan Hutu militias based there, including fighters responsible
\nfor the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The last incursion led to a five-
\nyear war involving at least seven African countries; by common
\nestimates more than 3 million people died, mostly from disease or
\nstarvation. A peace agreement 18 months ago was to end the war,
\nand Rwanda and other nations withdrew their troops. But the keys
\nto the accord were that U.N. peacekeeping troops fill the vacuum
\nin eastern Congo, a vast area where the central government and
\nits forces have little presence, and that the militias whose
\npresence ignited the conflict be disarmed.<\/p>\n
In both these tasks the U.N. peacekeeping mission, known by the
\nacronym MONUC, has failed miserably. Though it is the largest
\nsuch mission in the world, with more than 10,000 troops, it has
\nfailed to keep order or even to prevent massacres in some of the
\nprincipal towns of the region. In Bukavu and Bunia, it has stood
\nby while local militias have raped and murdered civilians within
\nsight of its bases. Worse, its own troops have raped or sexually
\nexploited women and girls; the practice "appears to be
\nsignificant, widespread and ongoing," according to a confidential
\nU.N. report described by The Post's Colum Lynch last month. With
\nRwandan troops massing, the U.N. force finally raided a couple of
\nmilitia camps in the past few days. But its policy of relying on
\npersuasion rather than force to disarm hard-core Hutu militants
\nhas, not surprisingly, achieved next to nothing.<\/p>\n
Rwanda is wrong to respond to this situation with a new invasion,
\nwhich may be aimed at Congo's lucrative resources as much as at
\nthe Hutu militias. If its troops have crossed the line and are
\nnot withdrawn, the Security Council should consider sanctions.
\nBut it should also, at the same time, take an honest look at the
\nwreck of its mission in this strategic African country. Perhaps
\nthere are mitigating circumstances; it's probably true, for
\nexample, that the force has always been too small to do its job.
\nStill, the disastrous performance of U.N. peacekeeping in Congo
\nought to lead to a broad reconsideration of such missions.
\nNeither Africa nor the rest of the world can afford such
\nfailures.<\/p>\n
-- The Washington Post, Washington DC<\/p>\n
Coral peril<\/p>\n
TWENTY PERCENT of the world's coral reefs "have been effectively
\ndestroyed and show no immediate prospect of recovery." An
\nadditional 24 percent "are under imminent risk of collapse
\nthrough human pressures," and an additional 26 percent "are under
\na longer term threat of collapse." These are only some of the
\nconclusions of an exhaustive new report by 240 scientists in 98
\ncountries, working under the auspices of the Global Coral Reef
\nMonitoring Network. Coral reefs, in addition to being
\nbreathtakingly beautiful, are among the cradles of life on Earth
\n-- hotbeds of biodiversity critical to sustaining oceanic health.
\nBut a combination of global warming, pollution, overfishing,
\ndiseases and other factors is ravaging reefs worldwide. While
\nAustralian and Pacific reefs remain relatively healthy, the
\nreport documents devastating declines elsewhere, including the
\nCaribbean region, where coral cover on many reefs has declined by
\nup to 80 percent. If something isn't done soon, it will be too
\nlate for many reefs to recover.<\/p>\n
The dire threat to the world's -- and America's -- oceans is
\nhardly a surprise, and it isn't limited to coral reefs either.
\nTwo major task forces have recently documented the grave
\necological conditions of America's coastal waters. The studies
\nbasically show the same thing: People are using the oceans in a
\nfashion that can't be sustained, and, absent serious change
\nacross a range of human behaviors, the oceans will die off. Yet
\ndespite the widespread agreement on the nature and severity of
\nthe problem, action has been slow.<\/p>\n
Along with the related issue of climate change, this is the
\npreeminent environmental issue of our time. President Bush should
\nmake it a priority of his second term. An opportunity to begin
\ndoing so is coming; the administration by law has to respond by
\nDec. 20 to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
\nPolicy, which Congress created in 2000 to examine America's
\npolicy toward its coastal waters. So far, there is no indication
\nthe administration is contemplating the needed dramatic shifts in
\npolicy. But the oceans -- and their precious corals -- cannot
\nafford delay.<\/p>\n
-- The Washington Post, Washington DC.<\/p>\n
Vulnerable Russian nukes<\/p>\n
President Bush said during his campaign for re-election that
\nallowing weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of
\nterrorists is the "biggest threat facing this country." In fact,
\nthat's one of the few things he and his opponent, John Kerry,
\nagreed on.
\nPresident Vladimir Putin of Russia apparently agrees, too. Since
\nthe latest series of Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia this
\nfall, Putin has dispatched more troops to guard Russia's far-
\nflung nuclear-weapons facilities.<\/p>\n
But politics, bureaucracy and suspicion in both countries are
\nsabotaging the program aimed at helping Russia secure and destroy
\nits nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.<\/p>\n
As USA TODAY reported Monday:<\/p>\n
A half-billion dollars set aside by Congress in the past two
\nyears to protect or scrap Russian weapons sits unspent.<\/p>\n
Hundreds of millions of dollars more have gone to ineffective
\nprojects, according to federal auditors.<\/p>\n
Disputes between U.S. officials demanding more access to Russian
\nweapons sites and Russians jealously guarding what were longtime
\nstate secrets are stalling progress at several key locations.<\/p>\n
Russians also are increasingly reluctant to accept U.S.
\ndirection of U.S.-funded storage and disposal facilities or to
\nabsolve the United States of responsibility if a ghastly accident
\nshould occur.<\/p>\n
Scariest of all: The program expires in 18 months, and there's
\nlittle sign of any serious initiative on either side to renew it.<\/p>\n
The threat is vivid. In September, undercover agents arrested a
\nman in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan who was trying to
\nsell plutonium-239, a substance used to make atomic weapons.
\nEarlier this year, another suspect was picked up trying to sell
\ncesium-137, which could contaminate large areas if used in a
\ncrude nuclear bomb.<\/p>\n
The program Congress created in 1991 to help secure the
\nstockpiles of dangerous materials throughout the former Soviet
\nempire was a rare display of foresight. But the effort has been
\nhampered by resistance in Russia and restrictions engineered by
\nmembers of Congress. Some object to assisting Putin even if it
\nmight make the world safer; others want to score points on
\nunrelated issues such as human rights.<\/p>\n
The burden of preventing the program's collapse falls on Bush and
\nPutin. Both need to tell those obstructing progress that the
\nthreat posed by inaction is too great. And both sides must
\ndemonstrate flexibility in getting the job done, not stonewalling
\nin the name of national self-righteousness.<\/p>\n
-- USAToday<\/p>\n
The nation's fabric<\/p>\n
"Heritage Counts" is the title of English Heritages annual audit,
\nto be published today. The reader would be forgiven, though, for
\ncoming to the conclusion that in the new Labour philosophy,
\nheritage counts for far too little.
\nAlthough Britains stunning array of townscapes, landscapes,
\nchurches, cathedrals and stately homes form a significant part of
\nthe countrys character, they do not fit into the shiny, modern
\nimage that Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, wants to project.
\nEven worse, they can be caricatured as part of middle and upper-
\nclass culture, lacking relevance for Labour voters.
\n
\nThis is nonsense. The poor are not incapable of appreciating the
\ncountryside or the nations history. Churches and cathedrals
\nwelcome visitors and worshippers from all backgrounds. Restoring
\nneglected parks and town centres benefits everyone.<\/p>\n
The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has done much that fits with
\nLabours political agenda: targeting grants to areas of social and
\neconomic deprivation and insisting that the institutions it funds
\nattract new audiences.<\/p>\n
But still there is the sense that Labour does not value the
\neffort. In its new Lottery Bill, there are provisions to cream
\noff HLF money to give to other distributors. And the latest
\ngovernment grant to English Heritage represents a 4.6 per cent
\ndecrease over four years. Its budget has been cut every year
\nsince 1997.<\/p>\n
Todays report suggests that #3.4 billion is needed to save
\nheritage that is still at risk, despite the efforts of lottery
\nentrants. The nations character is in serious danger of neglect.
\nMinisters must not be willing participants in character
\nassassination.
\n
\n-- The Times, London.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp06other-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}