[ OUR OPINION ]
Hardline policies led
to failed diplomacyPRESIDENT Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein resulted from failed diplomacy that may not have had a chance of success. The president acceded to demands last year that he seek the United Nations Security Council's approval of military action only as a process of appeasing critics. Faced with an obstructionist France, the United States was in too much of a hurry to build a broad coalition of participating countries outside of U.N. approval. The seriousness of the damage is as unpredictable as the cost -- both human and economic -- of the war on which the United States and Britain are about to embark.
THE ISSUE President Bush has given Saddam Hussein until tomorrow to leave Iraq or face military attack by U.S. and British forces.
The Bush administration was far from intransigent in its diplomacy. It was correct in its assessment that Hussein has been in flagrant violation of the Security Council's resolution that it disarm. While U.N. inspectors made inroads in gaining some cooperation from Iraq, claimed destruction of large amounts of previously confirmed chemical and biological weapons in Iraq's possession remains undocumented. The Security Council shirked its duty of forcing such documentation upon threat of military action.
Britain drafted a reasonable resolution that would have required Iraq to take a number of steps to achieve compliance with the Security Council's unanimous resolution of last November. Resolution 1441 warned Iraq of "serious consequences" from noncompliance. While Bush was grudgingly supportive of the British compromise, France rejected it out of hand, promising a veto of any resolution that contained an ultimatum -- and raising questions about what France considered "serious consequences" to be.
Meanwhile, President Bush has called not only for disarmament of Iraq but for "regime change" and for replacing the dictatorship with a democratic government. His pious vision for Iraq is eerily reminiscent of naive goals envisioned for China in 1940 by Sen. Kenneth Wherry, Republican of Nebraska: "With God's help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City."
The refusal of France and Germany to share in that vision has prompted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to brand them as "old Europe." The overwhelming opposition by the people of Europe to U.S. military action in Iraq threatens to change the U.S. image from superpower to hyperpower. That rift will not easily be repaired.
BACK TO TOP |
Keep political funds
to charities limitedPOLITICAL candidates should not be overtly handing out money in return for votes, but that would be the effect of a provision of a campaign-spending reform bill approved by the state Senate. Under the provision, candidates would be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of campaign money to charities "to influence the nomination and election." This invitation to abuse should be deleted from an otherwise sound reform measure.
THE ISSUE The state House is considering a measure that would allow unlimited contributions to charities from political campaign chests.
Charitable contributions from campaigns now are limited to $2,000 from House candidates and $4,000 from Senate candidates. Sen. Cal Kawamoto, who is under investigation by the Campaign Spending Commission for allegedly exceeding that limit, quietly inserted the proposed change in the current legislation.
Kawamoto's proposal would characterize charitable donations as expenditures instead of donations, thus eliminating the limits. He told Star-Bulletin columnist Rob Perez earlier this month that he routinely donates money from his campaign chest to youth groups, among other charitable organizations, as "part of my campaign," expecting them to conclude, "Hey, that guy Kawamoto supports youth programs." The senator's obvious reasoning is that members of the organizations will be persuaded to vote for such a generous fellow; if elected, more contributions will follow.
"Our understanding of the proposed amendment is tantamount to saying that you can buy votes," Bob Watada, director of the Campaign Spending Commission, told the House Judiciary Committee last week. Jill Aoki of the League of Women Voters added that the provision "does away with the pretense that the contribution is made only for noble cause" and "legitimizes the seeding of what amounts to the buying of votes."
In a letter to the Star-Bulletin, Kawamoto complained that Perez had characterized his insertion of the provision into the bill as "stealth." Unfortunately, it is true that the practice of quietly amending legislation with questionable and self-serving provisions has become all too commonplace. Perez made note of other instances of cunning legislation in the current session.
Kawamoto complained that Watada's characterization merely reflected the campaign-spending chief's "disdain for legislators" and "his belief that he should be the policy maker." However, Watada's description of using charitable donations to "buy votes" is consistent with Kawamoto's own explanation. His terminology is simply more to the point.
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, 529-4748; mpoole@starbulletin.com
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
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.
