AN OIL BATTLE BEST LEFT UNFOUGHT

Los Angeles Times: The Bush administration first sought to link searching for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to California's energy crisis. But all the oil in Alaska wouldn't turn on a single light bulb in California.
Now, the administration suggests in its budget document that federal revenues collected from oil companies for the right to lease portions of the refuge be used to finance research into solar and wind power and other alternative energy sources. Is this a bad joke or just oil patch cynicism?
Although there were few details, the White House budget plan said the $1.2 billion would be reaped by 2004 by leasing a coastal slice of the refuge for exploration and production of oil and gas in an "environmentally sensitive" manner.
Comprehensive plan: The administration presumably will present its Alaskan oil plans in detail with its comprehensive energy plan this spring. Bush would be better off dropping the idea of drilling in the refuge. It is a battle better left unfought.
It's curious that the administration has seized Arctic oil with such vigor as its symbol of energy independence. A modest improvement in auto fuel standards would free up more energy. Perhaps Bush's idea is to show how wrong-headed environmentalists are that they dare put this remote wilderness area on an equal plane with the nation's energy independence.
Administration officials argue that modern drilling technology will allow a minimum of disruption along the 1.5 million acres of coastal plain, perhaps affecting just a couple of thousand acres.
Last frontier: They underestimate the meaning of this wild area. This is truly the last frontier where an entire ecosystem is intact and undisturbed by American progress and the profit motive. Drilling for oil here would be like building a geothermal power plant in Yellowstone -- worse, in fact. Environmental advocates will be keeping tabs on how members of Congress vote on this issue at every turn. These will be fodder in the 2002 and 2004 elections.
U.S. SHOULD REVIEW CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Dallas Morning News: The United States can't fight the international drug war by itself. It needs help. But the U.S. law that requires the president to certify whether countries are cooperating fully with the United States, or taking adequate measures on their own, is counterproductive. In the understandable opinion of many foreigners, it appears to set up the United States as sole judge of other countries' performance. The United States can hardly afford to create that impression, since it is the largest consumer of illegal drugs.
On March 1, President George W. Bush certified 20 of 24 major drug-producing countries, including Mexico and Colombia. Unless Congress changes the law, he'll have to undertake the process again next year.
Trial period: There needs to be a better mechanism for objectively determining whether countries are cooperating. Sen. Charles Grassley has a good idea. The Iowa Republican proposes legislation that would require decertification only. "By doing this, we focus attention on the bad guys (and) reduce tensions with some of our friends and allies over the process," he testified recently. He would establish a three-year trial period.
In the meantime, the Organization of American States should refine its drug evaluation process. Last month, the 34-member body released its first collective report. Not surprisingly, it found that every country needs to improve, the United States included. But it shied from politically sensitive areas. If it improves the reports' quality, Congress might eventually decide that it could safely abandon unilateral certifications, or decertifications, altogether.
To her credit, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is intensively lobbying for both Mr. Grassley's proposal and the Pan American evaluation process. As a representative of a border state and friend of Mexico, she understands the difficulty that unilateral certification poses for U.S. diplomacy.
U.S. interests: The ultimate goal is to eliminate drugs. It matters less that the United States certify or decertify countries than that the job get done. If the job doesn't get done, nothing prevents the president from saying so and taking adequate measures to protect U.S. interests.