Editorials
Friday, October 9, 1998

Japan’s apology to
Korean leader

APAN and South Korea have taken an important step toward healing old wounds. Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi issued his country's strongest apology to date to the Korean people for 35 years of brutal colonial rule, expressing "deep remorse" and extending "a heartfelt apology." It was the first written apology ever issued to an individual country by Japan for its actions before and during World War II.

The apology was accepted by Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who is visiting Tokyo. Kim acknowledged that it went farther than previous Japanese apologies. In a speech to the Japanese legislature, Kim forgave Japan for its colonial rule of Korea and envisioned a future of partnership for the two neighboring countries. He called for a united front against the common threat from North Korea.

In a step to implement the new partnership, Japan's Export-Import Bank signed a pledge to provide $3 billion in loans for small-to-medium sized South Korean firms and for energy projects.

For his part, the South Korean leader pledged a gradual opening up of his country to Japanese cultural imports, banned since the Japanese occupation ended in 1945. Japanese movies, popular songs and even cars are prohibited in South Korea.

Kim wisely said it was time to forgive and forget. "It is truly infantile to regard 1,500 years of exchanges and cooperation as insignificant because of unfortunate periods that totaled fewer than 50 years," he said.

It has taken half a century for Japan to extend such an apology and there are many older Japanese who still defend their country's actions during the war. Many older Koreans, meanwhile, still nurse resentment for long-ago Japanese oppression. Fortunately, both nations are now led by men who realize it is time to stop brooding over the past and build a future together.

Impeachment inquiry

INEVITABLY, the House of Representatives has voted to launch an inquiry into allegations that might lead to the impeachment of President Clinton. There was no possibility that the members could do otherwise. The charges made by independent counsel Kenneth Starr are too serious and the supporting evidence too massive to ignore -- as even most Democratic members admit.

The investigation was approved by a 258-176 vote, with 31 Democrats joining majority Republicans. Earlier, the House rejected by a mostly party-line vote of 236-198 a Democratic alternative that would have limited the scope, set a Dec. 31 deadline and asked that the Judiciary Committee first consider the historical standards for impeachment.

Whether the House will eventually decide that Clinton's offenses constitute the "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified by the Constitution as grounds for impeachment is uncertain. The House is free to interpret the constitutional standard any way it chooses. This situation isn't comparable to Watergate, but nowhere does it say that a president has to commit acts comparable to Watergate to justify impeachment.

The members of Congress are fully aware of opinion surveys showing that most Americans don't want Clinton impeached. But they are confronted with a report showing beyond any doubt that the president has behaved disgracefully. They think the country expects them to take some sort of punitive action -- if not impeachment, something less severe. But what?

Clinton could end the nation's agony by resigning, but he has shamelessly decided to tough it out. Unless he relents, Congress must proceed with the process.

Appellate division

PROPOSALS to split the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals into two circuits have been rejected by a congressionally chartered commission. However, the commission's recommendation that the circuit be reorganized into three divisions may accomplish much of what the circuit's critics have sought. Under that format, the 9th Circuit monolith would seem to cease to exist as a unified appellate court, bypassed by most cases headed for the Supreme Court.

Several Western Republicans senators have complained that California's domination of the 9th Circuit has resulted in a liberal stance that fails to reflect the views from its other states. Advocates of splitting the circuit wanted a separate one for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, leaving California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the 9th. However, California would have exerted even greater domination over the remaining 9th Circuit, while creation of the smaller Northwestern district would cost an estimated $40 million. Variations to split the circuit in other ways also were proposed.

Instead, the commission recommends that Congress reorganize the 29-judge circuit into northern (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington), middle (Northern California, Hawaii, Nevada and the Northern Mariana Islands) and southern (Southern California and Arizona) divisions. Each division would function as a "semi-autonomous decisional unit" comprised of appellate judges from that area.

Decisions made at the division level would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, except in concurrent cases in which division courts differ in interpretations of the law. In those instances, a Circuit Division panel would determine which appeal would be forwarded to the high court.

The commission's proposal appears intended to reduce the dominance of California in the 9th Circuit while trying to avoid the costs involved in servicing an additional circuit court. It also might enhance Hawaii's opportunity to end its absence on the circuit bench. The proposal should undergo thorough scrutiny by Congress and the legal profession.

---

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