[ OUR OPINION ]
PRESIDENT Bush exercised good judgment in taking his case for a "regime change" in Iraq to the United Nations. Although the president came short of convincing most member states of the need for a military attack at this time, his speech to the General Assembly, coupled with that of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, set the groundwork for a future coalition in support of military action against Iraq. U.N. must demand
inspectors in Iraq
THE ISSUE President Bush has told the United Nations that military action against Iraq would be unavoidable unless it stops producing weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq has broken U.N. Security Council resolutions by sheltering and supporting terrorism and by refusing to end human-rights violations against its own people, free all Persian Gulf War prisoners and stop developing weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. The last category of violations, resulting in what Bush called "a grave and gathering danger," has prompted his proposal of a pre-emptive strike before Iraq can put such weapons to use.
U.N. inspectors demolished large amounts of weapons of mass destruction and operations for production of such weapons in the 1990s. They left Iraq in 1998 because they were "not able to do their work adequately." Chemical- and biological-weapons programs almost certainly have been rebuilt since the inspectors' departure. Concerns that Iraq has made headway toward production of nuclear weaponry also are legitimate.
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country," Bush said. "Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?"
Annan said he has "engaged in an in-depth discussion" with Iraq on a range of issues, including a resumption of weapons inspections. "If Iraq's defiance continues," he added, "the Security Council must face its responsibilities."
That is not enough. The Security Council should be unequivocal in demanding the resumption of inspections, making it clear to Saddam that any interference will be regarded as a provocation warranting a military response aimed at toppling his regime. Iraq's compliance with resolutions approved by the Security Council in 1991 should not be subject to negotiation.
The United States needs support from its Persian Gulf war allies in any operation aimed at removing Saddam. Most members of that coalition oppose a unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States. They have no good reason to oppose a demand for unfettered inspections with the threat of repercussions in the event of Iraq's defiance.
BACK TO TOP |
THE dearth of information about the health of U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink is troubling with the primary election in which she is a candidate a little more than a week away. Although Mink should be allowed some privacy, voters are due information so they can evaluate her fitness when they cast their ballots. Mink’s health is
a valid campaign issue
THE ISSUE The staff of the ailing congresswoman has provided scant data on her condition.
Mink, who has long served in Congress, has been hospitalized since the end of August, suffering from pneumonia as a result of an infection of chicken pox. Her chief of staff, Joan Manke, has said little about Mink's condition, other than that it is serious and that the congresswoman is being treated in Straub Hospital's intensive care unit. Manke says Mink's family has not given her information and that she has not been able to talk with her boss because of a quarantine.
No one needs to know the intimate details of Mink's illness. The 74-year-old, like any citizen, has a right to keep certain matters confidential. However, she is a public figure, an elected official who owes her constituency an assessment of her ability to carry out her duties if she is returned to Congress.
A candidate's health is a genuine campaign issue. Mink and her staff should be able to provide information or an evaluation without setting aside her desire for privacy. Not doing so fuels rumor and speculation, leaving voters uncertain.
Her illness is problematic for her opponents, who do not want to appear callous to her condition, but who also need to challenge her to get their messages out to voters. Election officials are in a bind in trying to figure out how to handle the various scenarios that may result if Mink does or doesn't recover. Democratic Party officials also must be worried about holding on to a seat that had been considered a shoo-in.
Meanwhile, Congress is back in session, working on numerous issues of national and local importance and Hawaii is without one of its four delegates. Manke says Mink's campaign staff is carrying on with her re-election effort, but that concern should be secondary to attending to the interests of the state.
Voters and political opponents are sympathetic to Mink and wish her a speedy recovery. But the congresswoman's health status extends beyond her private concern.
BACK TO TOP
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, Assistant Editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, Assistant Editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.comMary Poole, Editorial Page Editor, 529-4790; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
John Flanagan, Contributing Editor 294-3533; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
