What U.S. newspapers are saying

www.upi.com From the National Desk Published 3/6/2003 1:16 PM BOSTON, March 6 (UPI) -- New York Times

With yesterday's barely veiled French and Russian threat to veto a war resolution, the United Nations Security Council appears to be rapidly approaching a crippling deadlock over Iraq. That would be the worst of all possible outcomes. It would lift the diplomatic pressure on Iraq to disarm and sever the few remaining restraints that have kept the Bush administration from going to war with its motley ad hoc coalition of allies.

The rupture in the Security Council is not just another bump in the road in the showdown with Iraq. It could lead to a serious, possibly fatal, breakdown in the system of collective security that was fashioned in the waning days of World War II, a system that finally seemed to be reaching its potential in the years since the end of the cold war. Whatever comes of the conflict with Iraq, the world will have lost before any fighting begins if the Security Council is ruined as a mechanism for unified international action.

The first casualty is likely to be the effort to use coercive diplomacy to disarm Iraq. ...

There may be a few days more for diplomacy to play out on Iraq, but it is already clear that the great powers on the Security Council, particularly the United States and France, have brought the United Nations to the brink of just the kind of paralysis and powerlessness that they warned would be so damaging to the world.

-0- Washington Times

During a visit to The Washington Times last week, journalists from Venezuela detailed the physical dangers they are facing. And to the extent that the freedom of the press gauges the health of a country's democracy, the intimidation and harassment of the media in Venezuela signals a wider problem for the society and, if instability spreads, for the region.

Luis Alfonso Fernandez is probably Venezuela's most famous reporter. He and his cameramen covered, from the rooftop of a building in Caracas, snipers opening fire at protesters during the infamous demonstration against President Hugo Chavez on April 11 that killed 17 persons. Later, on April 13, as supporters of Mr. Chavez protested a short-lived coup, 23 protesters, probably supporters of the president, were killed.

Mr. Fernandez ... documented a member of Mr. Chavez's party in the City Council of Caracas shooting at protesters. Mr. Chavez has charged Mr. Fernandez for fabricating his report in a computer. ...

Last month, the Chavez government began "administrative procedures" against media outlets for airing reports unflattering to the government. ...

Regardless of how Mr. Chavez and his supporters regard the objectivity the press in Venezuela, the president would make a big mistake to limit its freedoms. After all, Mr. Chavez can use speeches and state-owned outlets to counter any perceived subjectivity or inaccuracies.

Weakened accountability could well result in serious human rights abuses in Venezuela, as seen in other places in the world.

-0- Washington Post

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has one big advantage in his face-off with the Bush administration: He has a clear strategy. His regime is racing to produce nuclear weapons, while taking steadily escalating steps to force the United States into direct negotiations at which Pyongyang can demand political recognition, security guarantees and economic bribes. Most experts believe North Korea has the means to achieve at least one of those aims, and maybe both. Once it opens a reprocessing plant now being readied, something that could happen within weeks, it will be able to produce one nuclear bomb a month. If that doesn't succeed in bringing Washington to the table, Mr. Kim can always use military provocations, like the attempt last weekend to force down a U.S. surveillance plane on North Korean territory.

There are no easy answers to the North Korean challenge, but the Bush team seems incapable of any answer at all -- or at least, of any coherent answer. ...

Though Mr. Bush was right to restore it as an option, military action must be a last and desperate resort, because it would risk mass destruction in South Korea. Multilateral pressure may be the best approach, because the Clinton administration strategy of trading economic and political concessions for unfulfilled North Korean promises has been discredited. But if direct contacts between Washington and Pyongyang could serve some purpose, they should be tried. At a minimum, the administration could clearly communicate what specific steps the North must take to restore its relations with the outside world -- and what actions will not be tolerated by the United States. Talking to this ruthless and untrustworthy regime is surely distasteful, and may well be fruitless. But it is better than doing nothing.

-0- Christian Science Monitor

The views of Americans about whether to go to war, as in Iraq, can be influenced by they way the US media has covered -- or couldn't cover -- past wars.

In Vietnam, for instance, wide-open access for journalists helped expose inherent problems in that war and made Americans gun-shy of more wars -- for a while. In Somalia, they saw US soldiers humiliated by local thugs. In the Gulf and Afghanistan wars, however, the Pentagon had learned to keep reporters away from fighting units.

Americans now have grown accustomed to what seem like relatively "clean" wars -- usually just flashes on CNN. Many of war's tragedies go unheard and unseen, like a tree falling in the forest.

But in its plans for war in Iraq, the Pentagon has decided more media coverage is better than less. It hopes journalists will present the "facts" and counter misinformation. It's started to "embed" some 500 journalists inside military units and will allow them to record almost any action that won't compromise a US victory. The journalists have had to agree to pages and pages of rules to gain that access. Local commanders will have much authority over what they do and can impose blackouts.

This experiment bears careful watching. While Americans may benefit from reports of frontline action, they must also ask if journalists will become too "embedded." How much will reporters compromise impartiality and their freedom to roam to maintain such access?

A journalist's first rule is not to become part of the story. Yet by relying on the military for protection (and room, board, flak jackets, etc.), the media expose themselves to being targets, as well as being codependent on their subjects. News organizations eager to cover the war (sometimes too eager) must alert their audiences to the conditions imposed on these journalists.

-0- Chicago Tribune

It's hard to know what France, Germany and Russia intended Wednesday when they said they would not let the United Nations Security Council approve a resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

Maybe the three nations are serious. Maybe they're stalling for time by threatening to block the council's Resolution 1441, which gave Saddam Hussein one final, immediate chance to disarm -- a distant 119 days ago. Or maybe the Europeans were just testing Bush's determination to make the nations that approved 1441 stand by its threat of enforcement. Those yes voters, of course, included France and Russia; Germany has since joined the council.

The appeasers did not have the limelight to themselves. Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq is hiding machinery to make new al-Samoud missiles even as it hands over other missiles for disposal by the UN. ...

President Bush is correct to pursue international approval for an attack on Iraq. But at some point he needs to choose:

He can defer to those who want the inspections fiasco to drag on and on and on with no hard conclusion and no enforcement.

Or he can say that as the heat and wind build in Iraq, he will not imperil his troops by asking them to fight in more dangerous weather because nations that voted for Resolution 1441 now pretend it doesn't exist.

-0- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

If the Bush administration wants its position on global climate change to be taken seriously, it needs to get serious about keeping a presidential promise and coming up with a plan to address the issue. Granted, the administration has much on its plate right now. But so far, appearing serious on climate change seems to be missing from that plate.

At least that's the impression one gets from a report released last week by a panel of the National Academies, which commended the administration for addressing global warming but criticized the administration's draft plan for having serious gaps. ...

What the administration needs to do is change the appearance by demonstrating that it is serious about finding out what's really going on with the climate. It can start by paying heed to the National Academies report and making the necessary changes in the final plan, due out next month.

-0- (Compiled by United Press International)