Military

DATE=10/23/01

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=BUSH AT APEC

NUMBER=6-12516

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=YES

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: The U-S press is commenting on President Bush's trip to Shanghai for the Asia-Pacific Economic Summit, and his talks with the leaders of China and Russia. We get a sampling now from ________________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: Although meetings of the 21 Asian leaders usually deal with economics, and this year, were expected to focus on China's imminent entry into the World Trade Organization, terrorism was very much on the agenda. Mr. Bush used the APEC form to try to strengthen his global anti-terrorism campaign and in the opinion of several U-S dailies he succeeded. We begin in western Pennsylvania, where The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette feels Mr. Bush advanced his agenda.

VOICE: In the midst of war in Afghanistan and anthrax alarms at home, President Bush's departure to Shanghai for an economic conference this past weekend did not seem like perfect timing. As it turned out, Mr. Bush spent his time well, advancing understanding of the U-S fight against terrorism among some of the world's most important leaders -- not all of whom were inclined previously to be supportive.

The biggest challenge was with the host country, China. ... But at least Beijing seems to understand that the United States must fight those who attacked it. The Chinese qualified their tacit support by urging the United States to act with swiftness and precision in Afghanistan and not linger there. This guarded reaction nevertheless marks a significant improvement in the state of the ... U-S-Sino relationship which was at its nadir as recently as the spring, when a Chinese fighter collided with a U-S spy plane.

TEXT: The Post-Gazette goes on to say Russian president Vladimir Putin signalled his country is ready to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In Missouri, The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch is pleased with the growing rapport between the two powerful men, but worries about making changes in the ABM agreement.

VOICE: The savvy former K-G-B agent ... may have seen that Mr. Bush would push ahead with missile defense no matter what Russia did. So Mr. Putin decided to make the best of a bad situation. ... Mr. Bush argued in Shanghai that "the events of September the 11th make it clearer than ever that a Cold War ABM treaty that prevents us from defending our people is outdated and ... dangerous."

Logically, this view is flawed. The terrorists' use of passenger airplanes as missiles, supports the view that a nuke in a suitcase is more of a threat than a nuke riding a rogue missile. The tens of billions of dollars spent on missile defense would be better spent on intelligence, tracking nuclear materials and gainfully employing the former Soviet Union's mad weapons scientists. But emotion trumps logic. The September ... attacks made Americans feel vulnerable.

TEXT: Taking a different view than The Post-Dispatch, is Michigan's Detroit News, which says the ABM Treaty needs to be changed, and calls the prospect "a welcome development..."

VOICE: The president has hinted in the past that he would scrap the treaty if he could not reach an agreement with [President] Putin. America must have the right to decide how best to defend itself, but it would be far better for international relations if [Presidents] Bush and Putin can reach a consensus. Should the two leaders finalize the revisions to the treaty at their summit next month, America will gain the option of deploying an anti-missile attack by rogue regimes. ...The treaty may certainly have protected the world from a nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War... But the danger of either country attacking the other is remote now.

TEXT: Disputing the Detroit paper's view, California's San Francisco Chronicle says September's terrorist attacks show that an anti-missile defense shield will not protect the country from terrorism, and so changes in the 1972 document are blatantly unnecessary.

VOICE: This new spirit of cooperation between the United States and Russia is extremely desirable, especially when it reduces the number of missiles and tightens security around nuclear stockpiles and waste. But now, more than ever, an anti-missile defense system mocks the actual dangers that threaten Americans - - as well as the rest of the world. It won't defend against terrorist weapons that, so far, have included box-cutters, planes and anthrax spores. Nor will it protect us from plastic explosives, cyberterrorism, or chemical warfare.

... A more productive path to a safer world would be through nonproliferation - - keeping nuclear materials out of the wrong hands- - so that terrorists or rogue nations cannot make such weapons in any form. Before September 11th, this was the road not taken by President Bush. Now it is vital that he reconsider his course.

TEXT: Back in Missouri, The Kansas City Star marvels at how relations with all the world's most powerful nations have changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks.

VOICE: To appreciate how thoroughly the September ...attacks have scrambled longstanding international relationships, turn the clock back only about three months. In July, Chinese President Jiang Zemin traveled to Moscow, where he and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the signing of a treaty of friendship. The move was greeted with apprehension in the West. ... Today that seemingly ominous moment is all but forgotten, and the recent summit of Pacific Rim nations in Shanghai illustrated how rapidly the diplomatic world has been transformed.

...Now U-S power is on the rise in China's back yard. China can't directly oppose the U-S campaign without appearing soft on terrorism, and in any case, such a stance would be contrary to its own interests; Beijing faces Islamic extremists in its own northwest province. ... As for Russia, its diplomatic shifts since September have been nothing less than extraordinary. The turning point was marked by [President] Putin's decision to allow U-S planes to use Russian airspace for military and humanitarian missions in Afghanistan. ... Clearly, significant differences remain between the two sides. But Russia's apparent decision to decisively cast its lot with the West has been rightly called a watershed.

TEXT: Excerpts from an editorial in the Kansas City Star.

Back to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, The Chicago Sun-Times is very much in favor of modifying it, and pleased the Russian appear willing to go along, because the paper feels a U-S anti-nuclear missile defense system is definitely needed.

VOICE: How quickly would Osama bin Laden fire a missile at us, if he had one? How about Saddam Hussein? The answer, of course, is very quickly, and it is to our government's credit that it has been steadily working on missile defense, even as critics complain that it is physically impossible (as was manned flight, many claimed, and landing on the moon). The notion that our safety from attack should be based entirely on our enemies' inability to acquire long-range missiles is among the many attitudes shaken by the terrorist attacks of September 11th. One day somebody somewhere will press the button. The only question is: Will we be ready?

TEXT: And with that we conclude this editorial sampling of comment on President Bush's recent trip to the APEC meeting in Shanghai.

NEB/ANG/FC