Editorials
Thursday, May 14, 1998

Anti-nuclear sanctions
against India justified

THERE is irony in President Clinton's imposing sanctions against India to protest the government's nuclear test explosions. The United States, of course, was the world's first nuclear power, while India, thanks to Mohandas Gandhi, was viewed for decades as the foremost national exponent of nonviolence, espousing Third World neutralism during the Cold War.

But the Cold War is history. With the threat of world war ended, lesser powers feel fewer constraints about pursuing their own agendas, military as well as diplomatic.

Now India is trying to join the world nuclear club, to strengthen itself in the ongoing conflict with its archenemy, Pakistan. The United States is trying to discourage non-nuclear countries from going nuclear, hoping to ensure that its nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 will never be repeated.

The danger is that Pakistan will follow India in nuclear testing and set the stage for nuclear war. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee claimed that the five underground explosions were a step his country had to take to protect itself. His decision won plaudits at home but condemnation abroad.

India has refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty approved by the United Nations in 1996, arguing it perpetuated the advantage held by nations that had already tested nuclear weapons. After conducting the first tests, the government indicated it was prepared to re-open talks on the treaty -- but this time as a nuclear state. The treaty does not require countries possessing nuclear weapons to give them up.

This tactic undermines the treaty's purpose and gives President Clinton another reason to impose sanctions. They are required by a 1994 U.S. law against countries not recognized as nuclear powers that detonate a nuclear device. Sanctions are also needed to express Washington's dismay in a tangible way.

The sanctions cut off non-humanitarian economic and military assistance. In addition, Washington will oppose loans to India by international lending agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and bar U.S. bank loans, except for food purchases.

India must have anticipated the sanctions and can easily survive despite them. However, if other countries heed Clinton's requests and take similar measures, the impact may be greater.

Miss Universe Pageant

HAWAII scored an impressive hit in the competition for tourism with the worldwide televising of the Miss Universe Pageant. Although results won't show up at the cash register for months, the value of two hours showcasing Hawaii during prime time is huge.

Competition for the tourism dollar is fierce and is certain to grow. Over the next decade, the global travel industry is expected to triple to as many as 2 billion tourists spending $1.83 trillion a year. The Miss Universe Pageant was tremendously valuable in helping to position Hawaii as a top contender in that burgeoning market.

The program included numerous scenes of Hawaii's spectacular beaches, mountains and recreational opportunities, plus high-quality shopping. Although there was Polynesian dancing and music, the program conveyed little about the islands' cultural breadth. Anyone who expected a program of such edification was bound to be disappointed.

Others found the notion of supporting a beauty contest to be unsettling, despite insistence by the highly educated contestants that the pageant was about more than beauty. But the most appropriate justification for bringing the pageant to Hawaii was the memorable admonition made by Bill Clinton in his 1992 campaign: It's the economy, stupid!

Governor Cayetano and legislative leaders did not approve the $3.3 million state price tag for the pageant simply to spread knowledge about Hawaii's culture. They regarded it as a sound investment aimed at lifting Hawaii's sagging economy, a trifling amount compared to the probable large dividends.

State officials would have been foolish to let the opportunity of hosting the Miss Universe Pageant slip away, and the telecast confirmed the wisdom of their decision. As for the contract clause that gives Hawaii the option of being the host again in 2001: Encore!

Barring news media

THE Navy's refusal to allow news coverage of the promotion ceremony for Timothy R. McVeigh can only be described as petty and spiteful. McVeigh is the Pearl Harbor-based submariner whom the Navy is trying to discharge on the basis of allegations that he is homosexual.

A federal judge ruled in January that the Navy violated government policy and a privacy law in investigating McVeigh. The decision barred the Navy from discharging him. The Navy says it intends to appeal the ruling.

Meanwhile a selection board promoted McVeigh to master chief petty officer, the highest enlisted rank in the service. McVeigh received the promotion at a ceremony at Pearl Harbor's Submarine Training Center. At the last minute, the Navy barred the news media from covering the event.

A Navy spokesman blamed McVeigh and his Navy lawyer, saying they failed to follow correct procedure by neglecting to make proper notification that the news media were invited. The spokesman said the ceremony is "not considered a media event."

What bureaucratic nonsense! The only justification for barring news coverage of military affairs is national security. The Navy didn't want to be embarrassed, but that isn't an acceptable reason. This act makes the service look even worse.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor