DATE=05/14/02

TYPE=U-S EDITORIAL DIGEST

TITLE=TUESDAY'S EDITORIALS

NUMBER=6-125667

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

INTRO: A trio of major stories is drawing comment in the editorial columns of Tuesday's American newspapers. First among them is a new arms reduction treaty agreed to Monday by the U-S and Russia; the second is a vote by Israel's ruling Likud Party to reject a Palestinian state; and, the third is former president Jimmy Carter's trip to Cuba.

Other comments concern a variety of African topics; the beauty of tiny loans to individuals in Bangladesh; Colombia's troubles; and trying to help the world's children. Now, here is _________ with a closer look and some quotes in today's U-S Editorial Digest.

TEXT: President Bush has announced he will sign a new treaty with Russia on his impending visit to Moscow that will further reduce each nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons. The reaction is somewhat mixed in the U-S press. "No-Frills Arms Control" is how The New York Times describes it.

VOICE: Unlike the voluminous and arcane arms treaties of the Cold War, the latest pact runs barely more than three pages and is a model of simplicity. It codifies cuts that George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin … informally announced last fall. Over the next decade each nation will reduce the number of warheads loaded on missiles or bombers from current levels of nearly 6-thousand to somewhere between 17-hundred and 22-hundred.

TEXT: In California, The Los Angeles Times, noting that President Bush has "rejected one international agreement after another" calls this announcement "a refreshing change." And in the nation's capital, The Washington Post adds: "the most important aspect of the new treaty on nuclear weapons reductions … is its mere existence. … [President Bush's] announcement … that he and Mr. Putin would sign an accord this month … represents an important advance for his administration."

Today's Wall Street Journal, calling the deal "A Gift for Mr. Putin", takes a much less favorable view.

VOICE: The American [president] has now agreed to breathe life back into the dinosaur bones of arms-control, largely to assist Mr. Putin in Moscow. There's really no other justification for Mr. Bush's announcement … of one more nuclear-arms reduction treaty, a Cold War relic if there ever was one. … Mr. Bush really didn't want another treaty… [so] this is [his] gift horse to Mr. Putin [who] has been under pressure from his generals and die-hard nationalists to show something tangible for his embrace of Mr. Bush after September eleventh.

TEXT: Also nonplused by the announcement is today's Chicago Tribune:

VOICE: There was a time when such an announcement might have sparked the kind of hats-in-the-air exuberance of the end of World War Two. It is a sign of changing times and improving relations that both nations seem to take this as great news, but no great surprise.

TEXT: Turning to the day's other much-commented upon news story, a dismaying vote in Israel's Likud Party Sunday that it would never accept creation of a Palestinian state, there is a good deal of consternation (sudden dismay). Like this from Michigan's Detroit Free Press, which calls the vote "both defiant and dangerous…"

VOICE: Just when you think the prospect for peace in the Middle East couldn't get worse, Israel's ruling Likud Party finds a way to ratchet things up.

TEXT: In Ohio, Cleveland's Plain Dealer finds some hope in the latest public opinion survey.

VOICE: If the Central Committee of the Likud Party reflected the thinking of all Israelis, then any peace process in the Mideast would be in real trouble. [But] Fortunately, the latest polls indicate that [Mr.] Netanyahu's naysayers do not reflect Israeli opinion as a whole.

TEXT: In Cincinnati, The Post explains:

VOICE: The Bush White House dismissed the vote as "internal domestic politics" and reiterated the president's support for an independent Palestinian state. And, in part, it was domestic politics. The no-state resolution was engineered by …[Mr.] Netanyahu … who hopes to oust [Prime Minister] Sharon and regain his old job.

TEXT: Today's Boston Globe accused Mr. Netanyahu of demonstrating "blind ambition" adding that the resolution places Mr. Sharon "in the position of trying to govern Israel in a time of crisis while being denounced on a crucial issue by his own party. In Texas, The Houston Chronicle suggests that the vote is "… less a setback for Palestinians than a blow against Israeli security and U-S diplomacy…" since it "… cost Israel a measure of international sympathy it had gained for suffering a wave of suicide bombings."

In the Pacific Northwest, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, calling the intra-party dispute "ill-considered" adds that "Israel's Likud Party risks being marginalized, and rightly so, after … [the vote] …

Moving to the Caribbean, former President Jimmy Carter's trip to Cuba as honored guest of President Fidel Castro is also drawing abundant comment, both pro and con. Calling for an end to the trade embargo with Cuba, New Jersey's [Trenton] Times comments that Mr. Carter's visit "… is drawing American's attention once again to one of their country's most enduring - - and at the same time most counterproductive - - foreign policies: Its [trade] embargo … to the island [which] has punished the Cuban people by depriving them of food, medication and other necessities.

While conceding the visit is "not likely to yield dramatic improvement in official relations…" today's San Francisco Chronicle adds: "We're glad to see the conscientious ex-president (CQ), now 77, using his stature to ease troubles abroad." Taking a much less favorable view of the trip, which it calls "Mr. Carter's Cuban mistake," Tennessee's Chattanooga Free Press suggests:

VOICE: When president … Jimmy Carter …was a man of admirable character and good intent who unfortunately had very poor judgment so far as national policies and the conduct of government were concerned. Since leaving the White House, Mr. Carter has continued to show the same qualities…. Currently [he] is making another serious mistake of judgment by visiting Communist Cuba and glad-handing vicious Communist dictator Fidel Castro.

TEXT: The New York Post is of the same mind, calling the former president a "sad old man" and wondering about his motivation for the trip.

VOICE: Poor Jimmy Carter - - forever truckling to foreign tyrants like Serbia's Milosevic, North Korea's Kim and now Cuba's Castro. Is he hungry for a Nobel Prize, sainthood - - or is it just attention he needs, decades after his buffoonish presidency?

TEXT: In Hawaii, The Honolulu Advertiser says that Mr. Carter's personal diplomacy can't do any harm, while Tulsa's [Oklahoma] World wonders whether "…anything [will] really change…" as a result.

Moving on to other topics, as regards today's election in Sierra Leone, The Times-Picayune in Louisiana notes:

VOICE: Because of isolated reports of political intimidation, there is reason for concern about the integrity of today's election in the troubled West African nation of Sierra Leone. Even so, it's a small miracle that residents of that nation are voting at all.

TEXT: Still with African affairs, today's [Cleveland] Plain Dealer is pleased with Congress's pending legislation that would provide a huge increase in spending for AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa and elsewhere. Omaha's [Nebraska] World Herald laments the case of child soldiers, believed to be numbered, says the newspaper, at 300-thousand individuals on all but two continents. And on that somber note, we conclude this editorial sampling of Tuesday's U-S press.

NEB/ANG/MEM