Editorials
Friday, February 20, 1998PRESIDENT Clinton's efforts to muster support for his threat to punish Iraq for Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations ran into some hecklers the other day at a televised forum in Columbus, Ohio. The heckling may or may not be indicative of the nation's mood but is certainly raising questions about it. Clinton’s difficulties
in dealing with IraqAs a Vietnam War protester who managed to avoid military service in that conflict, Clinton has a problem explaining why in this instance he is calling for the use of military force against another small country, if necessary to meet U.S. demands.
Another irony is the fact that in 1991 most of the Democrats in Congress voted against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. In the Senate the vote was 52-47, with only 10 Democrats joining the Republicans to win approval of the resolution.
Now a Democratic president is appealing for support in essentially the same cause. Fortunately for Clinton, the Republicans have been on his side.
It's a harder sell this time, because Saddam hasn't invaded another country, as he did with Kuwait in 1990. Anyone could see that this was naked aggression and that it threatened vital U.S. interests. This time Saddam has merely obstructed the attempts by United Nations inspectors to search out evidence that he is making weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. orders. That is much less dramatic, much less outrageous.
This time Clinton has been unable to reassemble the extraordinary coalition that George Bush put together. The Arab countries, France, China and Russia are all actively opposed to military action -- for self-serving reasons.
However, to let Saddam get away with this defiance would be very dangerous. It would encourage him to continue building his arsenal, and someday to use it again.
Moreover, it would weaken, perhaps destroy, the credibility of the United Nations in its role as an enforcer of the peace and deterrent to aggression.
The United States, which has taken the lead in enforcing the sanctions against Iraq since the Gulf War, cannot walk away now from Saddam's challenge. The president accepts the need to back up the sanctions with military force if diplomacy fails.
However, the force to be applied apparently will be limited to air power. There seems to have been no consideration given to mounting another ground attack, which would expose American and allied forces to many more casualties. This leaves the question of how much damage can be inflicted, and whether it will be enough to force Saddam to permit the U.N. weapons inspectors to do their job.
It's an awkward situation for the president because he can't realistically hope to eliminate Saddam but he has to be willing to apply force as a last resort to enforce the U.N. sanctions. If the United States doesn't, no other country will. Unless Clinton convinces the Iraqi dictator that he means business, there is no hope of getting him to back down.
IT'S not a pretty picture: Jeremy Harris and Mufi Hannemann blaming each other for the City Council's failure to give final approval for rezoning of the Pearl City site slated for a Home Depot hardware store. Home Depot store
The mayor accused Councilman Hannemann of "political cowardice" while Hannemann said Harris "abdicated his leadership responsibility" on the issue.
What both politicians were saying was that the other official backed off in the face of opposition to the mainland chain. The Council voted 8-1 to send the zoning bill back to committee, where the bill will be amended to remove the agreement with Home Depot. It would then be up to the administration to issue a new request for proposals for the 13.75-acre site.
Hannemann said he led the move to refer the bill back to committee because of accusations of impropriety. But those claims seem without merit.
The sale of the parcel to Home Depot was approved unanimously by the Council last July and a revision of the land-use plan for the area was granted in December. The project had the support of a citizens' task force and the Pearl City Neighborhood Board.
Home Depot may yet wind up building on the site, but the initial impact this decision makes is to indicate that mainland investors are not welcome -- the last message Hawaii should be sending, particularly with the economy struggling.
SEARCHING for new sources of revenue for the state to offset proposed cuts in personal and corporate income taxes and avoid an increase in the general excise tax, House Finance Chairman Calvin Say is pondering a broadening of the GET to include nonprofit organizations such as churches, charitable trusts, hospitals and private schools as well as insurance payments and court awards. Say has introduced a bill imposing a 1.5 percent tax on such institutions and payments -- lower than the current 4 percent GET, but still substantial. Bad tax idea
This is not the way to go. Nonprofit institutions are exempted from the tax because they provide important services without rewarding investors. Sometimes the government contracts with them to implement its programs. In many cases they can barely scrape by. Taxing them would make it more difficult for them to survive and would hurt the people who depend on them.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
