Editorials
Monday, March 9, 1998THE resolution of the latest crisis over United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq seemed sealed when the American inspector at the center of the crisis went back to work touring suspected weapons sites. But the reappearance of American Scott Ritter, who had been blocked by the Iraqis in January on the spurious claim that he was a U.S. spy, was accompanied by a disturbing development. Keep the Russians out of U.N. inspections
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who brokered the deal to relieve the crisis, is considering a request from Moscow to appoint a Russian to a key position on the commission that oversees the weapons inspections. This is disturbing because Russia is Iraq's leading supporter on the U.N. Security Council. The appointment could give the Russians an important role in managing the inspection program, possibly including decisions on what sites would be inspected, when and for how long, and how data would be evaluated.
That could enable the Russians to alert the Iraqis about the inspectors' plans so they could remove the forbidden weapons in advance of the inspections. The inspectors already have accused the Iraqis of playing a game of hide-and-seek with them, possibly on the basis of tips from the Russians. This appointment could make it easier to evade detection and stymie the attempt to prevent Iraq from acquiring another arsenal of weapons of mass destruction for use in launching another invasion.
U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said Annan had received a letter from Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergey Lavrov, urging him to name a Russian as a second deputy chairman of the U.N. Special Commission, which conducts the inspections. The commission is headed by Richard Butler, an Australian. He has one deputy chairman - Charles Duelfer, an American.
The United States has long resisted any changes in the inspection program that would undermine the independence and integrity of the commission, known as UNSCOM. That resistance must be maintained. Washington should demand that Annan reject the Russian proposal.
AUCKLAND is practicing energy conservation in a big way, but not because it wants to. At least 2,000 businesses in downtown Auckland are "fighting for their lives," Mayor Les Mills said as New Zealand's largest city struggled to survive a massive power failure. There is no hope of relief for another five to 10 weeks. The mayor calls it "a situation that could be devastating for the whole economy." Powerless in Auckland
Honolulu has had its share of power failures, but nothing like this. Auckland's lights went out Feb. 20, when the last of four underground cables supplying power from a hydroelectric plant south of the city failed. The electric company had no backup system in place. The searing heat and humidity of New Zealand's summer compounded the problem.
Merchants estimate they are losing $60 million a week. Some who rely on serving the city's 80,000 commuters are considering bankruptcy. Some downtown blocks have been completely without power, except for emergency diesel generators keeping hospitals, traffic lights and other vital services running. In other blocks, only 10 percent of normal power is being supplied. The 5,000 people who live in the central city have had limited lighting, cooking and showering. Offices have been unable to operate computers, lights and elevators.
The electric company hopes to cut the 10-week delay in stringing the new cable to five weeks by running the cable down a rail corridor to its center city substation.
Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has urged businesses to sue the electric company for their losses, and 300 businesses plan to follow her advice. Shipley toured the area Friday and said plans were under way to draw office workers and shoppers back into the inner-city. She refused to release details of the plans, but said they could involve incentives and rebates for power users who agree to share what limited power exists around the city.
The electric company has a lot to answer for. Of course, that couldn't happen here - or could it?
SAME-SEX marriage made headlines with the Hawaii Supreme Court decision that could open the way to its legalization. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that abusive behavior in the workplace can constitute illegal sexual harassment even when the offender and the victim are of the same sex. Same-sex harassment
The ruling came in a case involving a Louisiana man who quit his job on an offshore drilling platform after he was ridiculed, grabbed and threatened with rape by two male supervisors. It will permit men and women who are subjected to harassment by persons of their own sex to seek damages in federal court. A lower court had thrown out the case before trial, declaring that this sort of harassment was not covered by the law.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a unanimous court, said that when harassment of a sexual nature is so "severely hostile or abusive" that workers cannot do their jobs, it is illegal. And it doesn't matter whether the offenders are of the same or the opposite sex of the victims.
These rulings recognize that neither romantic attraction nor sexual harassment necessarily involves persons of the opposite sex. The law should reflect that fact.
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
