Editorials
Friday, November 27, 1998

Japan resists Chinese
pressure on phrasing

IN his talks in Tokyo, Chinese President Jiang Zemin apparently didn't get all he wanted on two key issues: Japanese atrocities during World War II and the status of Taiwan. This weakened a joint declaration by Jiang and Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi and dampened enthusiasm for the first visit to Japan by a Chinese head of state.

Obuchi verbally expressed his government's "deep remorse and heartfelt apology" for suffering caused by Japan's invasion of China but no formal written apology was issued. Tokyo also resisted Beijing's demand for a clearer statement that Japan would not support independence for Taiwan. China had sought an unequivocal apology for the war and a "no compromise" statement about Taiwan.

The joint declaration was issued six hours behind schedule because of wrangling over key phrasing, an indication of strains in the relations between the two East Asian powers.

Chinese officials may have believed that Japanese guilt over the brutal invasion of China would enable them to successfully press for the desired statement on Taiwan, currently the top diplomatic issue for Beijing. Evidently they miscalculated.

Although diplomatic feathers were ruffled, this setback doesn't indicate a falling-out between the two countries. China and Japan will continue to work together; they have little choice. The declaration said they agreed to expand cooperation on economic, environmental and other matters. Major train and infrastructure projects were approved and Japan agreed to extend up to $3 billion in loans.

Japan seems to have made it clear that China will not always have things its own way, that it is not going to roll over in the face of Chinese demands that it considers unreasonable. Jiang will go home somewhat disappointed. Like the Americans, the Chinese are learning that the Japanese are no pushovers in negotiations.

Pinochet extradition

BRITAIN'S highest court has delivered a victory for human rights by ruling that Gen. Augusto Pinochet may be extradited from London to Spain for prosecution of crimes committed during his dictatorship of Chile. Pinochet now faces a extradition battle in British courts.

The 3-2 decision by a tribunal of the House of Lords sets an important precedent. Britain's 20-year-old immunity law is sweeping, but not enough to override international law and custom, including Britain's 1988 adoption of a U.N. Convention on Torture. The fact that Pinochet was in Britain for medical treatment kept him from successfully claiming immunity, which is reserved for diplomats or foreign government representatives on official visits.

"It hardly needs saying," Lord Justice Donald Nicholls wrote in the majority opinion, "that torture of his own subjects or of aliens would not be regarded by international law as a function of a head of state."

Pinochet underwent back surgery on Oct. 9 during a visit to England. He was arrested in his hospital bed a week later on an order by a Spanish National Court magistrate for the alleged killing or disappearance of 94 people. A Chilean government report foundthat 3,197 people disappeared or were murdered during Pinochet's 1973-90 rule.

Chilean President Eduardo Frei has protested the extradition of the 83-year-old Pinochet, but neither Spain nor Britain are likely to agree to his release. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar opposed the human rights probe that led to Pinochet's arrest but said he would respect the court ruling in deference to "common sense" and "judicial independence."

The ruling means that government leaders who engage in human rights abuses may not travel abroad without running the risk of being prosecuted. Other rulers who have engaged in genocide and torture will have to consider Pinochet's case.

Adultery in the military

WHATEVER Congress decides in the Clinton impeachment inquiry, adultery and lying aren't acceptable behavior in the armed forces, and an apology isn't sufficient punishment. Navy Rear Adm. John T. Scudi faces a hearing to determine whether he should be court-martialed on two counts of adultery and on allegations of giving false official statements, obstruction of justice and an ethics violation.

In a case that was disclosed earlier, Army Maj. Gen. David Hale faces charges that he committed adultery with subordinates' wives while stationed in Turkey and made false statements to investigators. Hale was deputy commanding general for NATO land forces in southeastern Europe in 1996 and 1997.

Scudi is also accused of improperly steering $150,000 in defense contracts to a woman with whom he was having an affair, according to published reports.The admiral had directed the Navy office of outsourcing and privatization at the Pentagon, an office that handles millions of dollars in defense contracting each year. The Navy said that Scudi, if convicted on all charges, would face dismissal and up to 11-1/2 years in prison.

Judging by the report of the independent counsel, the president's conduct in the Lewinsky affair seems to bear some resemblance to that of these officers. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. If Congress refuses to remove Clinton from office, how can the government prosecute them?

---

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