Editorials
Thursday, September 3, 1998

Campaign rally during
state working hours

A Republican Party complaint to the state Ethics Commission points up a practice that typifies the abuses of power that have become commonplace in Hawaii. Hundreds of state and county workers were given time off on Aug. 27 to attend what was officially described as an "informational meeting" but which in fact was a Democratic Party campaign rally.

Donna Alcantara, state Republican Party chairwoman, charged that the rally was a "blatantly political" event and was nothing more than a campaign event designed to win support for Governor Cayetano's re-election. And so it was. Cayetano was filmed addressing the crowd, making an open appeal for union support in the election campaign.

Cayetano said there was nothing illegal about the meeting, which he maintained was allowed under the government employee union contracts. "I saw nothing wrong with it," he said. "If the rally got a little political ... that's OK."

This event was held during working hours, at taxpayer expense. It's an outrage, but hardly uncommon. It was reminiscent of the practice uncovered several years ago of having state judiciary workers prepare sushi during office hours for Democratic fund-raisers -- only this one might be legal under the state's sweetheart union deals.

Unions are allowed four two-hour "informational meetings" each year, according to state Personnel Director James Takushi. Some informational meeting! It's a joke -- on the taxpayers.

This is a great deal for the public employee unions and the party in power -- the Democrats, of course. They get to drum up support for Democratic candidates at taxpayer expense.

What was all that about the state's fiscal problems and the need to find ways to eliminate unnecessary spending? Clearly, getting re-elected takes priority -- and never mind the misuse of official working hours and tax revenues.

Standoff at Subic

A standoff over control of the Subic free port in the Philippines has ended after nine weeks, but the incident marred the start of President Joseph Estrada's administration. Estrada succeeded in ousting Richard Gordon as director of the free port, which was established on the premises of a former U.S. naval base.

Gordon accepted defeat and agreed to relinquish control after the Supreme Court rejected his petition to prevent Estrada from forcing him out. More than 100 people were injured last month when troops stormed the Subic administration building, which Gordon's supporters had seized.

Gordon was mayor of the adjacent city of Olongapo when the United States vacated the naval base in 1992 as a result of the Philippine Senate's refusal to renew an agreement on use of the base. Gordon had wanted the Navy to stay because the base was the main prop of the local economy. Estrada, then a senator, opposed extension of the bases agreement.

Gordon subsequently led a successful effort to convert the base into an industrial zone and free port and to attract foreign investors to the facility. It has become one of the brightest spots in the Philippine economy.

But Gordon was an opponent of Estrada, and the newly elected president decided to replace Gordon with his own appointee. Gordon is widely recognized as the key figure in the success of the Subic free port and his removal for political reasons could discourage investors. The burden of proof is now on Estrada to demonstrate that what looks like politics as usual isn't quite as bad as it seems.

Prosecuting genocide

THE first conviction for genocide since the Nuremberg trials has been rendered against a Rwandan mayor held responsible for the slaying of 2,000 minority Tutsis and the rapes of dozens of women. The United Nations International Criminal Tribunal's verdict should be taken as a warning that those engaged in mass slaughter and rape will not go unpunished.

The Nuremberg trials resulted in the 1946 conviction of 19 men -- 12 of whom were sentenced to death by hanging -- for various war crimes, including crimes against humanity such as genocide. Two years later, the U.N. General Assembly affirmed that genocide is a crime under international law, whether committed in times of war or peace and even if committed by a government within its own boundaries. The law went into effect in 1951 but for four decades stood more as a principle than a prosecutable offense.

The U.N. tribunal's prosecution and conviction of Jean-Paul Akayesu in the neighboring country of Tanzania hopefully will change that. Although he portrayed himself as an unimportant village mayor who was powerless to stop the "force of evil," the evidence showed Akayesu encouraged the majority Hutus of Rwanda to kill Tutsis. Blaming him for an organized campaign of killings and rapes, the 300-page judgment found him guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, rape, murder and torture.

Survivors of the slaughter of more than 500,000 Tutsis in Rwanda are less than enthusiastic about the court operation, which they have accused of mismanagement, corruption and slowness. They also are dissatisfied with the maximum sentence Akayesu can receive -- life imprisonment.

Still, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan heralded the judgment as "a testament to our collective determination to confront the heinous crime of genocide in a way we never have before...Let us never again be accused of standing by while genocide and crimes against humanity are being committed."

Akayesu's conviction is an important milestone but should not stand alone. Prosecutions for similarly heinous crimes in Bosnia must proceed.

---

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