Editorials
Saturday, September 19, 1998

Airlift may be needed
for Kosovo refugees

IT looks as though the United States will soon have to take a more active role in the conflict in the Serbian province of Kosovo. Military intervention may not be warranted, but a strong case can be made for emergency aid.

The fighting between ethnic Albanians who comprise a large majority of the population in Kosovo and Serbian government forces has left thousands displaced and the potential for a disaster as the weather turns colder.

The situation smacks of deja vu. Just a few years ago, from 1992 to 1996, aircraft from the United States and more than 20 countries mounted an airlift into Sarajevo, Bosnia, when it was under siege by the Serbs. The operation conducted 12,900 sorties to Sarajevo and delivered 176,370 tons of food, medicine and other supplies.

In the Bosnian conflict, the NATO allies dithered while the Serbs engaged in "ethnic cleansing," a euphemism for genocide. That is also a danger in Kosovo, but other means of pressuring Serbian President Slobodan Milosevich should be exhausted before military intervention.

To be sure, Milosevich has thus far defied warnings from the West, including Secretary of State Madelein Albright's declaration that the United States "will not stand by and watch the Serbian authorities do in Kosovo what they can no longer get away with doing in Bosnia."

However, the Serbs can argue that they must respond in kind to the efforts of the ethnic Albanians to establish an independent state by force. An independent Kosovo could be a destabilizing influence in that region of the Balkans and is not supported in Washington and other Western capitals. The preferred solution is autonomy for Kosovo while remaining within Serbia.

The Pentagon says it is looking at several options for getting emergency aid to the people displaced by the fighting. "The short time to winter is putting pressure on everyone for a solution," a Pentagon spokesman said. Former senator and Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole is urging quick action on humanitarian aid. A prompt decision could avert widespread suffering and perhaps prevent this conflict from spreading.

Clinton videotape

PRESIDENT Clinton could have avoided the embarrassment of having the videotape of his Aug. 17 grand jury testimony aired to the nation. The decision by the House Judiciary Committee to release the videotape -- with some portions deleted -- would not have been possible if Clinton had agreed to go to the federal courthouse to appear in person before the grand jury. If he had, no videotape would have been made; ergo no showing. The video was part of the deal under which the president testified from the White House, to spare him the indignity of appearing before the grand jury.

Opponents of the release of the videotape argue that grand jury proceedings are secret and the secrecy should be protected. In principle that is of course correct. However, this is an extraordinary situation.

The House Judiciary Committee is considering whether the charges warrant impeachment, a situation no other person except a federal judge can face under the Constitution. One of the charges is that Clinton committed perjury in his grand jury testimony. That means the committee must review the testimony.

Since the videotape exists, the members could hardly avoid viewing it. Should they have seen it but withheld it from the public? No. This proceeding cannot be conducted in secret. Relevant material should be made public.

Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, complained that independent counsel Kenneth Starr had rejected a request to destroy the videotape after it was viewed by a juror who was absent for the president's testimony. But Starr correctly responded that he could not destroy evidence.

Release of the video may be indeed be damaging, but it simply shows Clinton responding to prosecutors' questions. If that is damaging, whose fault is it but his? Why shouldn't the American people see and hear him and make their own judgment?

Ferraro’s last race

GERALDINE Ferraro says her unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination for a U.S. Senate seat from New York this week was her last race. But she had already earned a place in the history of feminist politics by becoming the first woman ever to become the vice presidential nominee of a major party.

Walter Mondale chose Ferraro, then a congresswoman from Queens, as his running mate in 1984. They were overwhelmed in the Reagan landslide, winning only one state and the District of Columbia. In 1992 Ferraro lost a close Senate primary. This time she got only 26 percent of the vote, well behind Rep. Charles Shumer's 51 percent.

Since Ferraro ran for vice president, many more women have become successful at the national level in politics. In 1984, she was one of only 21 women in the House of Representatives. There were only two women in the Senate. Few held cabinet or other top-ranked federal posts.

This year, 53 women sit in the House. There are nine female senators. The secretaries of state, health and human services and labor as well as the attorney general are women. There are two female governors. Someday -- probably not many years from now -- a woman will be elected vice president, and then president. It won't be Geraldine Ferraro, but she helped to pave the way.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

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