Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Tuesday, July 11, 2000Clinton should continue
missile defense testsTHE failure of the national missile defense system in a test over the Pacific -- the second failure in three tests -- is a strong indication that much more work is needed before the system is deployed -- if it ever is.The issue: The failure of a test of the national missile defense system has left its future in doubt.
Administration officials said they expect the president will decide to go ahead with the next phase of the project and not leave it up to his successor.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said it would be "irresponsible" for the administration to put off the decision, as suggested by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. Such a delay, she said, would give countries such as North Korea and Iran more time to develop missiles that could threaten the United States.
The proposed timetable calls for having a defense system in place as early as December 2005. The next president will have to decide whether the system should be deployed, but it's important that Clinton approve continuing the development process until his successor moves into the White House, to avoid delays.
Yes, this project is horribly expensive. But leaving the nation vulnerable to missile attack could be far more costly.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., noted that Congress has authorized some 16 more tests. "Too much has been made of this one test over the weekend," said Lieberman, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Opponents of the proposed system naturally seized on the failure as more evidence that the project is doomed. Certainly there is considerable doubt that the system would be effective. There is also much opinion that even if it were effective it shouldn't be deployed because of opposition from a number of countries, both allies and potential adversaries.
The second part of the opponents' argument wouldn't become relevant unless the system proved to be effective enough to be deployed -- which is of course very much in question. There is also growing sentiment for an alternative system.
But the latest failure isn't conclusive and shouldn't precipitate a decision to abandon the project.
Despite all the criticism, Clinton shifted his position on missile defense to support a limited system because of mounting concern over so-called rogue nations developing missile capability.
Clinton correctly sensed that the American public would not accept a refusal to develop a defense against missiles because of a 26-year-old treaty with the former Soviet Union that was concluded under totally different circumstances than those of today. Clinton is trying to persuade the current Russian government to accept amendments to the treaty.
The issue should be of particular concern to Hawaii, because North Korea has reportedly developed a missile with a range capable of reaching the islands.
Obviously the deployment debate is academic if the system doesn't work. And that question still remains to be answered.
Leadership against HIV
HOPES were strong that the first international conference on AIDS held in a developing country would add momentum to efforts at fighting the disease through public education. Instead, South African President Thabo Mbeki, host of the conference, opened it by questioning whether the HIV virus causes AIDS, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of the causal relationship. Mbeki singled out poverty as Africa's leading killer.
AIDS has created a more dangerous epidemic in South Africa than in any other country. In 1993, HIV infected 4 percent of South Africa's adult population. It now infects 20 percent, a total of 4.2 million South Africans.
A private organization has launched an ambitious campaign, using erotic and hard-hitting phrases, to encourage South Africa's young people to talk freely about sex and the risks of teen pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. More than one-third of pregnant women in some countries of Africa are infected with HIV.
Delegates at the conference hoped Mbeki would deliver a statement unequivocally citing HIV as the cause of AIDS. Political support is needed to generate government funds needed for basic measures to combat the epidemic in Africa. Dr. Peter Piot, who heads a United Nations program monitoring the spread of AIDS, says the $3 billion being spent annually in Africa to deal with the disease is one-tenth of what is needed.
Mbeki has questioned the use of certain drugs in treating HIV and said it "seemed to me that we could not blame everything on a single virus." Among the researchers he contacted in coming to the erroneous conclusion are two American biochemists who argue that poverty and malnutrition -- not HIV -- cause AIDS.
Disappointment with Mbeki's speech was heightened by the prior cancelation of a news conference about a statement signed by 5,000 scientists, known as the Durban Declaration, affirming that the link between HIV and AIDS was "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous." The South African government allegedly put pressure on organizers of the press conference and threatened to dismiss any signer of the declaration who worked for the government.
Scientists and AIDS activists have accused the South African government of lack of leadership on this issue in the past six years. Greater international pressure is needed to induce South Africa to respond appropriately to an epidemic that has reached crisis proportions within its borders.
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
