Editorials
Tuesday, July 20, 1999Pakistani withdrawal
ends Kashmir fightingTWO months of fighting between India and Pakistan in Kashmir have ended with the withdrawal of Pakistan-based fighters across the mountainous border. The fighting was the worst between the two countries since the 1971 war that created Bangladesh out of what was then East Pakistan.The issue: Fighting between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has ended with the withdrawal of Pakistani forces.
More than 1,000 died in the latest conflict and there was concern that it could have gotten much worse. Both countries tested nuclear devices last year, dramatically raising the danger level in their long rivalry.
Two of the three wars India and Pakistan have fought have been over Kashmir, and the latest conflict reiterates the need to find a solution.
Kashmir's population is mostly Muslim and has long been claimed as such by Pakistan. But India has resisted calls for self-determination in the sector under its control.
Pakistan initially claimed no direct involvement in the fighting, denying that its troops had crossed the line dividing the territory between Indian and Pakistani control. However, last week the Pakistanis negotiated a cease-fire and withdrawal from the Indian portion, tacitly admitting responsibility for the military operation.
India's army chief, Gen. V.P. Malik, said the intruding forces were all Pakistani soldiers and did not include mujahedeens, or Islamic holy warriors, as originally thought.
A turning point in the conflict may have come when Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met with President Clinton on July 4 in Washington and agreed to respect the demarcation line between the Indian and Pakistani sectors of Kashmir.
Sharif seemed eager to end the conflict and thereby avoid economic sanctions from the United States, which reportedly blamed Pakistan for the crisis.
It's suspected that the Pakistani army sent troops into the Indian sector without properly briefing the prime minister, an ominous sign of a resurgence of the military's power. Sharif used the conflict to divert public attention from other problems, but his hold seems to be slipping.
India now says its soldiers will maintain a yearlong vigil to guard the icy mountain territory in Kashmir and keep Pakistan-based fighters from returning. The intruders had seized mountaintop posts vacated by Indian soldiers in winter, when up to 10 feet of snow blankets the Himalayan ranges.
However, no strengthening of Indian defenses is likely to provide a long-term answer. The Kashmir problem requires a political solution. Until an Indian leader musters the will to find one, more armed conflict -- possibly nuclear -- can be expected.
U.S. appeals court
THE federal appeals court encompassing California, Hawaii, seven other Western states and U.S. possessions in the Pacific has come under criticism for being unwieldy, too liberal and dominated by California. The court's 28 judges differ about what -- if anything -- should be done, but a proposal to create three divisions within the circuit could be a workable solution.
The main criticism of the 9th Circuit Court has come from several Western Republicans who have complained about liberal decisions resulting from California's dominance. In 1997, the Supreme Court reversed 27 of 28 cases coming through the 9th Circuit.
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, proposes establishing three divisions within the court, one including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, another including Nevada, Northern and Central California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the third encompassing Southern California and Arizona.
Under the system as it has been proposed, each division would be a "semi-autonomous decisional unit" from which rulings could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. If division courts disagreed in concurrent cases, a panel would determine which appeal would be taken to the high court.
Procter Hug Jr., the appellate court's chief judge, maintains that the restructuring would undermine the court's ability to interpret and apply federal law. However, the circuit is simply too large as it is, and creation of one or two additional circuits would be too costly.
Murkowski's proposal seems like a good compromise. It would lead to greater efficiency and probably enhance Hawaii's stature as a major jurisdiction within its division without disturbing the court's consistency.
Indictment sought
LESS than a month after a state judge threw out criminal charges against ousted Bishop Estate trustee Henry Peters, state prosecutors are going to a new grand jury to seek a new indictment of Peters related to an alleged kickback scheme involving Bishop Estate land.
The attorney general's office has subpoenaed Peters as well as local developer Jeffrey Stone and businessman Leighton Mau to appear tomorrow before the grand jury.
Circuit Judge Michael Town threw out indictments against the three, saying the proceedings were tainted by the testimony of Stone's former lawyer, Richard Frunzi. But the subpoenas show that state prosecutors haven't given up. The last chapter of this story has yet to be written.
Bishop Estate Archive
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert 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
