The world should not have been shocked yesterday to hear that Colin Powell had resigned as Secretary of State. That does not make his decision any less easy to take for moderates both here and abroad, though Powell himself had a mediocre tenure. Powell was a popular choice, one of the few political figures in the United States genuinely respected by partisans on both sides of the aisle. In an administration that features hard-liners like Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Powell was to be the voice of reason in the stormy swirl of neo-conservatism.
But that never came to pass. Powell, especially during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, was rendered powerless as the wheels of war began to spin. Cheney and Powell often made contradictory comments before the war, with Powell's attempts at diplomacy being undermined by Cheney's more boisterous pronouncements. To Powell, it was just another instance of disagreement with Cheney, his longtime boss and occasional antagonist. The mixed messages made Powell look like he was out of step with the rest of the administration.
Powell ultimately failed as a voice of reason in the administration. By the time the war rolled around, Powell, the good soldier, became more pawn than piper, taking a backseat to the hawks in the administration and being chosen as the moderate voice to make the case for war in the United Nations. However, with Rice as his predicted successor, the possibility of even a modicum of resistance to the Cheneys of the administration will be wiped away.
Even though the administration frequently ignored Powell, it knew that with him it had an individual who was universally respected. One has to wonder if Rice -or any replacement -will be as well-received internationally as her predecessor.
The most dangerous game
Journalists and journalism have had a very rough time in 2004. This year, governments and institutions across the globe have cracked down on reporters who did nothing more than their jobs: gathering and reporting the truth. Hazards ranged from mild restraints here in Athens -where senior Ohio University officials effectively gagged subordinates with a media process that forced all press inquiries through two spokesmen -to deadly retribution in Nicaragua, where politicians had a reporter murdered as he covered election-related protests. More than 100 journalists have been killed this year, the most in a decade, the International Federation of Journalists reported Friday. Some 60 were killed in Iraq alone.
Even in situations where reporters have a larger measure of personal safety, they still risk their freedom: Three federal judges in the United States have threatened incarceration for no fewer than eight journalists, the first of whom, an NBC reporter in Providence, R.I., may be in prison before The Post resumes publication next quarter. Press freedom, the most basic and essential keystone of democracy, has arguably not been in such peril since the Nixon administration.
It is perhaps understandable why Americans aren't more inflamed by the abuses of journalists here and abroad. After high-profile scandals at The New York Times, USA TODAY and CBS News; a deeply contentious presidential election; and the deep fissures between the political left and right, the public may have lost its patience with the news business. But whatever you think of reporters or TV personalities, the biggest casualty of press restrictions is society's free access to information. Without independent, up-to-date information about its world, an electorate is useless.
The world cannot tolerate the extremist thugs who detain journalists in the Middle East or who murder them in Africa or South Africa. Americans cannot tolerate bullying judges who threaten jail for reporters who refuse to give up sources or toe the line. The news game may not be perfect, but it is salvageable, and if officials around the world are allowed to clamp down on it freely, it may never recover.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
