Today's New York Times carries a front-page report that says the Pentagon is cutting back on friendly military contacts with the Chinese Communists. "Under the new policy, the United States is also no longer requesting port calls in Hong Kong, requests that the Pentagon had previously made to reinforce the territory's unique status," the Times reports.
Well, this policy is either really, really "new," it's nonexistent, or it was developed after the Chinese turned down an American request for a port call in Hong Kong -- any of which seems worth including in the Times article. The missing context appears in an Associated Press dispatch from Hong Kong that was picked up by FoxNews.com on Tuesday, May 29, 2001. That article reported: "HONG KONG -- Beijing refused permission for a U.S. warship to make a routine port call in Hong Kong -- turning down the first such American request since the spy plane crisis last month, a U.S. official said Tuesday. The U.S. Navy sought clearance for the anti-mine ship USS Inchon to stop in Hong Kong from June 28-July 3, said Robert Laing, a spokesman for the U.S. Consulate here. 'No reason was given for the disapproval,' Laing said by telephone, and he declined to speculate on China's motive."
In other words, the Times is reporting on its front page that there is a new "policy" under which the U.S. is no longer requesting port calls in Hong Kong, and the AP reported, albeit a few days earlier, that the USS Inchon requested a port call in Hong Kong for June 28 to July 3 but was turned down by the Chinese Communists. If there is an explanation for the apparent contradiction, it would have been nice if the Times included it in today's front-page news article.
Guilty Promise: The "Essay" column on the op-ed page of today's New York Times refers to "Arafat's guilty promise of a cease-fire." In fact, a June 3 report in Al-Ayam makes clear that, in Arabic, Arafat wasn't even promising a cease-fire. What the PLO chairman said was "We exerted and we are ready to exert all possible efforts" to prevent bloodshed. The word "ready" -- in Arabic, "musta'idun" -- was omitted from the translation of Mr. Arafat's comments in yesterday's New York Times, which reported him as saying, "We have exerted and will now exert the utmost efforts." A front-page news article in today's Times again refers to "Mr. Arafat's declared support for a cease-fire." There's a difference between declaring support for something and declaring that you are "ready" to support something. While the difference may sound subtle to American ears, the distinction surely won't be lost on Arab suicide bombers.
Can't Spell: The same "Essay" column in today's Times also misspells the name of America's ambassador to Israel. His name is "Indyk," not, as the Times has it, "Indyck."