The nuclear arms reduction pact between the United States and Russia, announced this week, continues to draw reaction in the American press, much of it mixed. Former President Carter's trip to Cuba is also much discussed; as are facets of the situation in the Middle East. Homeland security comes in for more scrutiny; as does the death, or presumed death, of a controversial new army weapon. The assassination of a Dutch politician also draws more comment. Now, here is a closer look and some quotes in today's U-S editorial digest.

.

.

The treaty to further reduce the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States is not being greeted with wild excitement, as were earlier efforts. In fact, today's Boston Globe calls it a move to "catch up with history."

Presidents Bush and Putin are not agreeing to end the Cold War. That nasty chapter of the last century ended more than a decade ago. By agreeing to cut their arsenals of nuclear weapons the two leaders are merely certifying how excessive and unnecessary the arsenals they inherited from the bygone era of the Cold War have become.

However, in New Jersey's capital, The Trenton Times says the treaty is good news for several reasons:

The present number of strategic nuclear warheads is many times more than is needed for deterrence. Cutting that figure will not harm the security interests of the two nations and will make the world safer. Mr. Bush was wise to abandon his earlier position that the agreement be confirmed by a handshake rather than a treaty. A treaty will be binding on future leaders.

Minnesota's Saint Paul Pioneer Press calls the pact "another encouraging sign," but that view is not shared by Missouri's Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, which calls the agreement a "lost opportunity."

Mr. Bush missed a golden opportunity to destroy four-thousand Russian nuclear warheads and four-thousand of our own. That lost opportunity may be more significant in the long run than the modest step forward.

The big Missouri daily is bothered that the treaty does not call for the nuclear warheads taken out of service to be destroyed, but only stored from where they can be quickly brought back on line. In Ohio, Cleveland's Plain Dealer calls the treaty "a half-step forward."

It was not exactly what either man had said he wanted in a nuclear arms agreement. It is actually a compromise that each man - - and, it is to be hoped, the respective nations - - can accept. However this document, in its very looseness, contains a troubling flaw. Both nations have the option of destroying the devices, or merely placing them in inactive storage. That raises, especially in Russia, the threat of diversion or theft by terrorists. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Today's New York Times, in commenting on a related issue, the new NATO partnership agreement with Russia signed in Reykjavik, Iceland Tuesday, says it is:

a partnership that former President Ronald Reagan and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev could not have imagined nearly 16 years ago as they met in the same city for what turned out to be an unsuccessful summit in 1986.

Turning to the day's other major topic of commentary, President Carter's trip to Cuba, the Los Angeles Times says:

We have to wonder whether Fidel Castro knew what he was getting into when he offered former President Carter a chance to address the people of the nation over which he has reigned as dictator for 43 years. What he and the island's oppressed population got was blunt rabble-rousing - - in Spanish no less - - in support of those brave Cubans striving for democracy, free speech and respect for human rights. Mr. Carter's bold move, however, was accompanied by blunders during his visit. He showed dismal judgment in standing on Cuban soil and publicly siding with the hemisphere's last remaining dictator against accusations raised by U-S officials concerning Cuba's development of bio-terrorism weapons.

The views of The Los Angeles Times. A paper even more unhappy with the trip is Connecticut's Republican-American from Waterbury, which says:

By all accounts, former President … Carter is a decent, honorable, well-meaning man, which is why his little junket [Editors: slang for "trip"] to Cuba has been so successful - - for Fidel Castro.

In the realm of foreign affairs, [President] Castro is showing he deserves his reputation as the master propagandist while Mr. Carter is once again playing the role of the useful, er, prop. [Editors: a "prop" is a piece of stage furniture or scenery in a theatrical production. The visit gives him unprecedented legitimacy after years of irrelevancy.

Some criticism from Waterbury's Republican-American. From Texas, The Forth Worth Star Telegram reminds readers of its view of the Carter presidency: "… his foreign policy legacy was one of softness toward communism and weakness in the face of terrorism."

Turning to the Middle East, today's Detroit [Michigan] News is another paper upset with Sunday's Likud party vote never to accept a sovereign Palestinian state.

Israeli leaders pushed the Middle East further from peace this week … The dominant Likud Party, acting in defiance of its own leader, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted a … resolution that it would never support a Palestinian state without hope of gaining independence, the Palestinians have no reason to come to the peace table. The alternative to statehood for the Palestinians is for Israel to either commit itself to forever being caretaker to a hostile people, or to expel the Palestinians from the territories. Both are unacceptable.

Thoughts from The Detroit News. In South Carolina, Charleston's Post and Courier is pleased that through diplomacy, the U-S has "restored a frayed international consensus on the need to hold Iraq accountable for its weapons of mass destruction." It cites a new U-N move to apply new smart sanctions on Baghdad.

Today's Chicago Tribune is generally pleased at a new bill signed by President Bush to strengthen border security and keep better track of foreign students, but Florida's Palm Beach Post says reducing foreign visitors visas from six months to just 30-days is one of the "worst purported reforms" the Immigration and Naturalization Service is offering as its heads for Congressional extinction.

In Georgia, Atlanta's Journal - Constitution is furious that hundreds of Middle Eastern men, rounded up by the federal government after last September's terrorist attack, are still being held incommunicado despite three court's orders to end the illegal secrecy.

Several papers continue to voice views on the death of a multi-million-dollar new mobile howitzer named the Crusader. From the Washington suburbs, USA Today has this to say:

If you want a sense of how casually Washington will squander your money, look no further than the Army's proposed Crusader supercannon. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld does not want it. He thinks it is outdated even before it is built. But he may get it anyway - - at a cost of eleven-billion dollars.

The paper complains congressmen from states where the howitzer will be built are fighting to keep it in the budget.

As for the assassination of right-wing Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, Pennsylvania's Greensburg Tribune-Review takes issue with its fellow journalists on what it feels is the discriminatory language used in reporting his death because of Mr. Fortuyn's right-wing political philosophy:

What happened to Pim Fortuyn is indicative of a new and overtly brazen intolerance against so-called extremists

On that note, we conclude this editorial sampling from Wednesday's U-S press.

Note: The above newspaper comments have been paraphrased as close to the actual wording as brevity allows. For the actual wording please consult the VOA script from which the above information was taken. The script identification is : 6-125670 Wednesday's Editorials