Editorial Roundup: Excerpts From Recent Editorials in Newspapers in the US and Abroad

more images

more images

Editorial Roundup: Excerpts From Recent Editorials

Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:

July 5

New York Times on China, the sweatshop:

The labor strife spreading through China’s factory cities has clearly frazzled the government. Last month, it deployed Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, aka “Grandpa Wen,” who told laborers at a Beijing subway station that the government and society “should treat migrant workers as they would their own children.”

China’s exploited workers don’t need an extra parent. They need higher wages, better working conditions and a chance to form independent unions. They need China to stop being sweatshop to the world.

Worker unrest has spread after reports of suicides at two campuses in southern China owned by Foxconn Technology, an electronics maker that employs 800,000 people in China who assemble products and parts for Western companies, including Apple, Dell and Hewlett-Packard. Since May 17, workers struck at three Chinese plants that make transmissions, exhausts and locks for Honda, the Japanese carmaker. There also have been reports of labor action in dozens of other factories.

Working conditions in too many of these factories are dismal, and the pay is, too. …

China, over all, has done well with its export-dependent strategy based on cheap labor and a cheap currency. Gross domestic product per person trebled over the last 10 years, to $7,200. The share of the population living on less than a dollar a day fell to 16 percent in 2005, from 36 percent in 1999. But China needs to move on.

Too much of the country’s prosperity has been absorbed by companies’ profits. Too little has gone to workers. Partly as a result, consumer spending in China amounts to merely 36 percent of its gross domestic product. In the United States, that percentage is more than 70 percent. In Europe and Japan, it is almost 60 percent.

China’s manufacturing sector can afford to pay higher wages. …

Rising wages and better working conditions are essential for China to become a more self-reliant economy, powered by domestic consumption. Until it treats its workers better, it has no chance of becoming a just and stable society.

Online:

www.nytimes.com

July 5

The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, on whether the Coast Guard is working for the public or BP:

The Coast Guard says that rules aimed at keeping the public and news media away from the oil spill response are necessary to protect the environment and the people and equipment involved in the cleanup.

But the new “safety zone” that the agency has set up within 65 feet of any response vessels or booms on the beach or the water mostly protects BP from bad PR.

Since booms are often placed more than 40 feet outside of islands or marsh grasses, this additional buffer will make it difficult to document the effect of oil on the land or wildlife.

That’s not in the best interest of the Gulf Coast. Reporters and photographers, including those who work for The Times-Picayune, serve a vital function in documenting the disaster and the response.

This decision isn’t the only one that has hampered media coverage of the oil spill. The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered that no media flights to photograph the spill can go below 3,000 feet without special permission.

Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, national incident commander for the spill, said that the safety zone restrictions are not unusual. He said BP didn’t bring up the issue, but that local officials in Florida and elsewhere had raised safety concerns.

But plenty of local officials understand the need to inform the public. “Anytime you all want, you all can come in there wherever we go on our boats,” Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser told reporters.

At this point, the Coast Guard has not justified its position. In fact, its reasons keep changing. First the restrictions were needed to protect civilians. Now the claim is that workers and equipment are at risk. But what’s clearly at risk is the public’s right to know, and that deserves protection, too.

Online:

www.nola.com

July 2

The Gainesville (Fla.) Sun on infiltration:

Russia apparently sent spies to live among us to achieve … well who knows what they hoped to achieve? But let’s return the favor and send Americans to infiltrate an old Russian client state … communist Cuba.

Americans have been forbidden to travel to Cuba for decades. That Cold War-era travel ban, along with the equally pointless trade embargo, never hurt the Castro regime but it impinged on Americans’ freedom to travel and it hurt American business and agriculture.

This week, the House Agriculture Committee approved the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which would lift the travel ban and allow the sale of more American produce and goods to Cuba.

We can’t imagine a more subversive act than infiltrating a communist island with a good dose of capitalism. An invasion force of American tourists wielding American dollars in blunt instrument fashion seems like a revolutionary strategy for capturing the hearts and minds of everyday Cubans. This at a time when their ruling regime is tottering from age and, increasingly, irrelevance.

As U.S. Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., said in backing the Act this week, sending Americans and American goods to Cuba will “show the Cuban people how great democracy can be.”

The Russian spies who infiltrated here did their best to live the American dream. Infiltrating Americans to Cuba, openly, might cause Cubans to aspire to do the same.

Online:

www.gainesville.com

July 2

Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press on turning the Fifth Amendment on its head:

A horrible Supreme Court ruling in 2005 continues to yield ugly consequences.

In a 5-4 ruling that year, the court’s liberal majority said government may seize private property from one owner and hand it over to another owner. Local and state governments have repeatedly used that power to take private property and have it redeveloped by other private interests into upscale housing, stores and such that will bring in more tax revenue than they were getting from the rightful original owners.

But that turns the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution on its head. The amendment does provide for government to take private property in some cases, but only with just compensation and only for a legitimate “public use” — such as a military base or a road. It was never intended to allow property to be forcibly taken from one private owner and given to another.

In a troubling case based on the bad Supreme Court ruling, a court in New York state has declared that the state may seize property from unwilling landowners and hand it over to private Columbia University to expand its campus.

Whether the campus expansion is a desirable use of the land is beside the point. It is clearly not a true public use envisioned by the Constitution, but rather a private development. As such, the only way Columbia should have been permitted to acquire the land was by offering to purchase it on the free market. If the owners were willing to sell, so be it. If they were not, they should not have been forced to do so.

The high court twisted the meaning of the Fifth Amendment with its ruling allowing this sort of taking.

Online:

www.timesfreepress.com

July 2

The Seattle Times on Supreme Court ruling protects gun rights, reasonable restriction:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, applying the Second Amendment to the states, will have hardly any effect in the state of Washington. Gun rights already exist here.

Since 1889, the Washington Constitution has guaranteed “the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state,” which is more or less the rule the Supreme Court has now proclaimed for all the states.

The Second Amendment, which grants a right “to keep and bear arms,” has been in the U.S. Constitution for more than two centuries. But it was only two years ago that the court applied it to individual citizens.

Recently, the court said states, counties and cities cannot wipe out this right. Specifically, the court said Chicago cannot ban handguns entirely.

But Chicago, and any other government, can still do many things to restrict guns if it can offer a good reason. In the past two years, federal appeals courts have ruled that state and local governments can forbid guns to juveniles and illegal immigrants, ban guns with obliterated serial numbers, require a permit for a concealed weapon, ban guns in a government parking lot, ban machine guns, ban unregistered sawed-off shotguns, and impose stricter sentences for crimes when guns are present.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, all these cases still stand, as do the governments’ long-standing power to ban guns in sensitive places such as courthouses and schools.

The decision means there is a limit to such restrictions. A state or city cannot pile on so many that the right to use a handgun for self-defense is meaningless. But the right to own and carry a gun remains subject to reasonable regulation.

Online:

seattletimes.nwsource.com

July 2

The Kansas City Star, Mo., on why Congress should extend unemployment insurance:

Two million Americans stand to lose their unemployment benefits because Republicans in Congress have suddenly decided deficit spending is a bad thing.

The refusal by enough GOP senators to move a measure forward doomed the latest attempt to extend modest benefits to the long-term unemployed. The Democrats, meanwhile, refused to shift previously committed stimulus dollars, a move that would have convinced two Republicans to back the plan and provide enough votes to block a Senate filibuster.

To Republicans, the vote was a clear political statement: “We’re against government spending.” To the Democrats, the other side’s refusal to compromise was also a clear political message: “The GOP is heartless.”

Playing politics with the lives of others is hardly victimless.

Americans remember Republicans not too long ago were all in favor of deficit spending to pay for tax cuts under George W. Bush. Those have meant $2.48 trillion less in federal coffers — with most of the money going into the pockets of the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, also approved in the Bush years, have now cost more than $1 trillion.

The public also remembers, not so far back, Democrats were willing to move stimulus funds around to meet pressing needs. Auto bailout, anyone?

There are few things Congress can do that will have a more direct and positive effect on lives and the economy than extending unemployment benefits, as virtually every dollar allocated would quickly be spent on living expenses.

The long-term unemployed are not bums or “hobos,” as at least one GOP congressman has cruelly suggested. Many of them are people who worked for years and are desperate to work again but find themselves cast into a job market that has shed nearly 8 million positions in the last 2½ years.

Extending unemployment insurance until job prospects improve is the best thing Congress can do for them and for the nascent economic recovery.

Online:

www.kansascity.com

July 5

Houston Chronicle on why Obama’s speech provides little hope for immigration breakthrough:

President Barack Obama’s immigration address at American University had been promoted as an effort to get the ball rolling on long-stalled comprehensive reform legislation. Instead, it came off as a contradictory mix of high-blown rhetoric with a hefty dose of political pessimism.

Obama began with a review of the key role immigration has played in the development of the United States, including fueling a youthful work force essential to economic expansion. He described how various waves of newcomers, from Poles and Irish to Chinese and Hispanics, have fueled nativist resentments over the decades.

According to the president, the latest controversy has been exacerbated by the failure of the national government to secure our borders, and the resulting influx of an estimated 11 million people who are here illegally.

Most of them are men and women “simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children,” said the president. “They work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble.” On the other hand, their presence “makes a mockery” of all those attempting to follow the time-consuming and expensive path of immigrating legally.

Blanket amnesty isn’t a desirable solution, argued Obama, but neither is forced deportation, because it would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Yet, the newcomers must “get right with the law” by paying their taxes, paying a fine, and learning English before they can be eligible for citizenship.

Where solid bipartisan support for such an approach existed only a few years ago, including both President George W. Bush and Arizona Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain, in the polarized debate of today GOP support has melted away. What the president didn’t note is that moderates in his own party facing midterm elections are showing little zeal for walking into the immigration policy furnace.

Until all the broken parts of our immigration system are fixed — most advantageously in a coordinated package — the situation will only deteriorate further as states seek their own remedies. Unfortunately, the president’s words give little hope that Washington will produce change anytime soon.

Online:

www.chron.com

July 6

Los Angeles Times on how antibiotics and meat don’t mix:

For the American public’s health, it’s time for the meat industry to stop administering the drugs preventively but only to animals already ill.

With its blunt warning that antibiotics in meat “pose a serious threat to public health,” the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has finally acknowledged what many scientists have been saying for a long time. For years, evidence has been mounting that extensive use of antibiotics in livestock, particularly to promote growth or prevent the spread of disease in crowded pens, has resulted in the development of drug-resistant bacteria.

The issue is not that the meat itself is infected or that consumers are ingesting antibiotics with their protein, but that the overuse of antibiotics is diminishing the efficacy of crucial medications needed for human use. Estimates are that 70,000 Americans each year die from infections that once could be treated with common medications. The European Union has banned the use of antibiotics in livestock except to treat illness, but similar efforts in the United States have stalled in Congress.

So last week, when the FDA issued a “draft guidance” urging meat producers to employ antibiotics judiciously, asking them to voluntarily limit their use to instances of “medical necessity” or to administer them with the oversight of a veterinarian, it was a step forward. …

It is difficult to tell where all the stakeholders stand. The American Veterinary Medical Association welcomed the FDA’s action and vowed to work with the agency. The pork industry questioned the science behind the draft and said that its farmers already use antibiotics judiciously. And the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association issued a statement asserting that the causes behind drug-resistant infections are complex and solutions should also take into account human misuse of antibiotics.

It’s time to take a firmer stand and ban the use of antibiotics except when animals are sick. It’s harmful to public health to use antibiotics preventively or to promote growth. The results are in and the science is sound. No longer is the question whether antibiotics in meat farming should be curtailed, but how best to go about doing it.

Online:

www.latimes.com

July 2

The Japan Times on exporting nuclear technology:

India, a nuclear-armed country, has not joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Regrettably, Japan, which has advocated for a nuclear weapons-free world ever since the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, has started talks with India on a pact to allow India to import civilian nuclear technology and equipment from Japan.

India had been prevented from obtaining nuclear material and technology from 46 member countries of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. In 2008, at the prodding of the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush, the NSG dropped the ban on exports to India. As a result, the United States, France and Russia have signed civilian nuclear cooperation pacts with India.

U.S. and French firms hoping to enter India’s nuclear power generation market want to procure Japanese nuclear equipment. The export of nuclear power plants is an important part of the Kan administration’s growth strategy. Before agreeing to civilian nuclear cooperation, though, Japan should impose strict conditions on India so that Japan’s nuclear technology does not proliferate to other countries and thus the NPT regime is not undermined.

At the time of the NSG decision, India declared it would continue a moratorium on nuclear tests and involve itself in negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), which will ban further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Japan should demand that India ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty and stop production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

To get the NSG to decide in its favor, India had agreed to let the International Atomic Energy Agency inspect 14 of its 22 reactors. Japan should demand that India open the remaining reactors to IAEA inspection.

FMCT negotiations have stalled because of resistance by Pakistan, India’s nuclear-armed neighbor, which seeks a balance of nuclear forces. In a move that could undercut the NPT regime, Pakistan is seeking nuclear power plants from China. Japan should try to get both India and Pakistan to join the NPT, while the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France should push toward their own nuclear disarmament.

Online:

www.japantimes.co.jp/

July 7

The Khaleej Times, Dubai, on Isreal’s prime minister in Washington:

As Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington, President Barack Obama faces a stark choice: Go along with the pretense that all’s well with the world and that America and Israel remain the chums that they have always been; or confront the Jewish state on the dangerous games it has been playing for decades endangering the Middle East and the world.

Having kept Netanyahu at arm’s length for his open defiance of his warnings on the construction of new settlements on Palestinian land, President Barack Obama is now under pressure to “reach out” to the visiting Israeli leader.

In view of the upcoming mid term elections in the U.S., the governing Democrats who draw significant support from pro-Israeli forces in domestic politics are nervous that Obama’s cold war with Israel could cost them dearly.

This is why it is being suggested that the White House could roll out red carpet for the Israeli leader with all the regulation frills and photo ops and even a lunch after the talks thrown in for good measure. But this change of heart in Washington is far from justified. …

Although Israel has agreed to relax its stranglehold on Gaza slightly to allow in consumer goods and essential food items following international outrage over the recent attack on aid flotilla, Palestinians still live in open or in the ruins of their homes. Israel still persists with its ban on construction material arguing it could be used by Hamas to build weapons to attack Israel! Can you get any more absurd? …

The belligerent, reckless regime will fall in line only if the U.S. really asserts itself. During the current visit, Netanyahu is almost certain to persuade Obama that Iran, and not Israeli occupation, is the real threat to the Middle East. This has been a consistent Israeli strategy over the past couple of years.

It’s time to call that bluff. Iran’s rhetoric and its recent muscle flexing in the Gulf are all a direct result of Israeli policies and actions. This is a reality that is not lost even on the Americans now. …

It remains to be seen if Obama can persuade Israel, and its powerful friends in the U.S., to see the writing on the wall. For peace in the Middle East is in the U.S. — and that of Israel — national interest.

Online:

www.jordantimes.com

July 5

The Toronto Star on new economic clouds:

The latest economic signals from the United States are disturbing; they ought to give our political leaders reason to pause before embarking on draconian austerity programs.

In the past week, the U.S. reported a dramatic fall-off in home sales, a drop in manufacturing activity, a rise in new claims for unemployment benefits, and a net loss of 125,000 jobs. The unemployment rate fell marginally, to 9.5 percent, but only because many jobless people stopped looking for work. The stock markets responded with their worst week in two months.

The combination of negatives led to renewed talk of a W-shaped recovery, with the U.S. economy dipping back into recession.

That would be bad news for the whole world. It would be catastrophic for Ontario, where half of our economy is dependent on trade with the Americans. If they stop buying cars and household goods, our manufacturers feel the pain.

Perhaps in anticipation, the communique emanating from the G20 summit last month acknowledged that the economic recovery is still “fragile,” with unemployment in many countries remaining at “unacceptable levels.” As a result, the G20 called for countries to follow through on their stimulus plans and to move cautiously on restraint, with a target of cutting deficits in half by 2013. …

This is summit-speak for: don’t slam on the brakes.

The right-wing commentariat found that message far too limp and called for a more urgent approach to reining in government spending. In an opinion piece last week, Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation compared the Canadian fiscal situation to that of the so-called PIGs (Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain), when provincial deficits are lumped in with Ottawa’s. He urged Ottawa to “push the provinces hard to get their budgets back under control.”

Given the U.S. economic numbers, this is precisely the wrong advice at this time. Our governments should continue implementing the stimulus projects that have already been committed to and, indeed, should be prepared to fund additional stimulus if the economy falls back into recession. Deficit cutting can wait until the economy is back on more solid footing.

Online:

www.thestar.com

July 7

The Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on uncertain road ahead with globalization:

Domestic and foreign policy invariably overlap in this age of globalization. No country is immune.

Japan is grappling with some tough domestic issues: the consumption tax rate, pension reform and the low birthrate, among other things.

There is a danger of Japan becoming too inward-looking and neglecting to work on its foreign policy strategy. That would diminish the nation’s accomplishments on the home front. Yet, there has been little mention of foreign policy and international relations in the campaigning for Sunday’s Upper House election.

Take national security, for instance. In its National Security Strategy report for 2010, the U.S. government notes that, in addition to traditional military threats, new menaces now confronting the world include growing fiscal deficits, nuclear terrorism, climate change and infectious diseases. …

The synergy effect of domestic and foreign policies is most obvious with respect to free trade agreements. If Japan proceeds with agrarian reform, this will lay the foundations for agreements with a broad range of partners. And if Japan applies its diplomatic skills effectively, that should help increase the viability of the growth strategy proposed by Your Party — that Japan review its trade regulations with the rest of Asia and establish common rules if needed.

The international community today has become more aware of the importance of soft power, an ability to gain compassion and backing of other countries. …

Beefing up the nation’s foreign policy skills requires input from a broad spectrum of experts. The DPJ in the past proposed an “all Japan” team of seasoned bureaucrats, university and research institute personnel, local government officials and nongovernmental organization (NGO) members contributing to that end.

We propose the establishment of a suprapartisan think tank, independent of the government and the business community, as the core entity tasked with upgrading the nation’s foreign policy skills. …

Online:

www.asahi.com