Newspapers / Black Ink (Black Student … / Feb. 11, 1991, edition 1 / Page 5
Part of Black Ink (Black Student Movement, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
young African-Americans. ustifications for War The above explanation for the overrepresentation of African- Americans in Operation Desert Storm highlights racial inequality in career and life options, but it dodges the question of whether the war is justand thus worth fight ing. Let us examine the typical reasons used to justify war against Iraq. The first thing a supporter of the war might tell you is that we are fighting to liberate Kuwait. Although Kuwait is not a democ racy and less than 10% of its people lave full civil rights (the rest are largely foreign-born woricers), it is widely accepted that all coun tries have a right to self-determi nation. Some people have a diffCT- ent perspective on this issue. Rukiyah, a high school teacher in Raleigh, points out, “We have to the U.S. considered Hussein an ally until the invasion of Kuwait and sold him weapons throughout the 80s during the Iran-Iraq War, despite oppressing and gassing Kurds. Finally, the qualities used to prove the evil of Saddam Hussein can largely also be ap plied to George Bush, who has ordered the invasion of at least one nation (Panama) and has put out a fair share of macho rhetoric him self. While Bush has not used chemical weapons on American minorities, the U.S. has the largest stock of chemical weapons in the world, and past presidents have certainly used force to suppress people of color in America. It seems if we consider Saddam Hussein a threat, poh^ we should have not been involved in selling him weapons in the first place. We continue to supply arms to many nations with questionable leaders and human rights practices. Which Reflections look at American foreign policy as a whole. Our violations of self- determination in Grenada, Panama and elsewhere contradict the idea that this is what we are fighting for in the Middle East. We talk about this occupation, but we don’t talk about the occupation of Palestine by Israel, or about black South Africans fighting for the vote. They are also occupied by a white settler state.” If we closely examine U.S. foreign policy, it is unfortunately true that we only seem to support self-determination and liberation only when it best serves American economic intaests. Even more people will say that we must get rid of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein because he is crazy, dangerous and may encour age his nation to develop niKlear c^qjabilities in the future. When we look behind the rhetoric of this I argument, the evidence used to supportitcomes from three points: 1) the invasion of Kuwait, 2) the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds, an Iraqi minority, and 3) Saddam Hussein’s macho pos turing and inflammatory rhetoric befwe the wwld community. It is CCTtain that all these things show Hussein as a violent and negative world figure. But the U.S. has be friended its share of equally nega tive tyrants, including Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, P.W. Botha of South Africa and Au guste Pinochet of Chile. In fact. one will we face next across a battlefield? If our goal is to make ourselves safe from future nuclear attack, then we must question the use of war as a solution. When we see hundredsofthou sandsof Arabs from many nations demonstrating against American actions in the Persian Gulf, we can understand that we have created a generation of Arabs who will never forgive our country for this war. Instead of ending the nuclear threat from the Middle East, it is evident that this war has made it a likely possibility for the future. Once Saddam Hussein is gone, thwe will be others who will be able to rally their people around an anti-American view. A final argument many war suppOTters will make is that all othn options were exhausted, including economic sanctions that were in place for a short five months before military force was used. This stands in blatant contra diction to the decades of sanctions used against South Africa without any talk of military invasion of that country (in fact, the U.S. and Great Britain never fully complied with these sanctions). The Central Intelligence Agency reported last fall that sanctions were taking a heavy toll on Iraq. The CIA changed its tune a few weeks be fore the Jan. 15 deadline, saying sanctions were not working. I believe this change was suspicious and, in fact, was a fabrication used to justify using military force. Iraqi attempts to avoid war focused on linking an Iraqi pullout frx>m Kuwait to an Israeli pullout from Palestine (the occupied West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip on the Israel-Egypt border). American diplomacy was to refuse negotiations until Iraq left Kuwait and to refuse connect ing the occupations listed above. Since both occupations are unjust, it seems fair to say both should happen at once, especially consid ering many Arabs are more upset by the occupation of downtrodden Palestine than they are by the occupation of oil-rich Kuwait But it was actually the U.S. who re fused to negotiate and, in fact, was seen by many to be eager for war. In examining the reasons given for this war, I have found only two do not seem to be contradictory, based on the evidence of world politics. What is it that makes an Iraqi pullout from Kuwait so im- pwtant to our government that they would go to extreme measures to achieve it and use double stan dards to justify it? I believe, again, that the reason is based on eco nomics. If Iraq were to annex Kuwait, Hussein would have ma jor control over oil and oil prices. As our nation (with about 4 per cent of humanity) uses 25 % of the world’s oil, this could result in higher oil prices for you and me and a loss in oil corporation prof its. This explanation does not fully answer the choice of swift military action over slower sanctions. I believe the answer to this lies in the changing times leading up to this conflict After the end of the Cold War and the crumbling of the Soviet bloc, our military and de fense industry found itself without justification for the enormous amount of our national budget (about 70%) spent on it Now, once again, it has such a justifica tion. George Bush’s “new world order” will involve the U.S. as the world’s police force, a hired gun who will stop any tinpot tyrant anywhere as long as the price is right This war will be followed by othCTS. But at least the Pentagon and the defense contractors will continue to get paid at the expense of social {Ht)grams. With that I leave it to the reader to decide if these reasons for war are morally justifiable. Seeing war with a ‘^Black eye” The issues raised above are being debated across the nation by all nationalities. Polls have sug gested that African-Americans are almost twice as likely as whites to oppose the war. In places like Chapel Hill, where the anti-war movement has been overwhelm ingly white, issues particular to African-Americans are sometimes overlooked. Many African-Americans who oppose the war point to the lack of equal attention paid to problems within the U.S. Dara, an under graduate at N.C. Central, says: “Issues in America such as home lessness, unemployment educa tion, illiteracy and drugs in our communities are being ignored. Billions are being spent on war and weapons when they should be spent here to clean up our streets. Kuwait can wait. Let’s get the U.S. straight.” Some African-Americans say that it is hypocrisy forGeorge Bush and Colin Powell to encourage black support for the war when the Bush administration has helped to turn back the gains made by people of color. Says Jamaal, an under graduate from St Augustine’s College: “I oppose this war as an African-American man who sees one fourth of African-Americans males in jail or under court con trol. I may be drafted by an ad ministration who wants to cut mi nority scholarships to college. If George Bush expects me to sup port a way of life that perpetuates these things, he can kiss my black ass twice.” Indeed, it must be pointed out that while this country sends more black people to jail than South Africa, and while Bush moves to restrict minority access to universities and promote mi nority access to the military. Bush has become the only president in history to veto a civil rights bill. Some say that the war, for African-Americans, is here at home. “Some people in the Afri can-American communities have been saying for years that oppres sion is not coincidental and spon taneous, but is the result of con scious policy-making,” says Ajamu, a Raleigh postal worker. “To the extent that it is planned, it can be considered a declaration of war.” In fact, the Black Belt Youth Brigade, an organization of stu dents and non-student youth from the Triangle, has taken up the slo gan “Our war is at home” referring to this idea. The anti-war movement has been criticized by some for not supporting U.S. troops. But all the anti-war activists interviewed for this article said they did support the troops. “There is a high num ber of our African-American and Latino brothers and sisters fight ing in the Middle East, especially on the front lines,” says Dara. “We should support the troops by bring ing them home now.” The anti war movement defines “support ing the troops” by calling for their return, as opposed to sending them into battle. The key question of what we should do remains. If you support this war, can you hold your views with conviction, knowing all that you know? If you oppose this war, can you allow it to continue un challenged without adding your voice to the protests? The students and members of the community interviewed for this article would certainly urge everyone to get involved in some way. The final decision can only be made by the African-American students at UNC. Black Ink February 11, 1991
Black Ink (Black Student Movement, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 11, 1991, edition 1
5
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75