fi The Daily Tar Heel Monday, February 25. 1S30
George Shadroui, Editor
Dinita James, Managing Editor
Brad Kutrow, Associate Editor
Thomas JessimAn, Associate Editor
Martha Waggoner, News Editor
Pam Kelley, University Editor
Anne-Marie Downey, City Editor
Jim Hummel, State and National Editor
Bill Fields, Sports Editor
Mark Murrell, Features Editor
Laura Elliott, Arts Editor
Andy James, Photography Editor
Melanie Sill, Weekender Editor
UoSo
international inf Imeiice in decline
latin
87th year of editorial freedom
Still waiting
It has been almost 16 weeks since Iranian students invaded the U.S.
embassy in Iran and took hostage 50 Americans. Initially, the debacle
had both the United States and Iran up in arms, as marches, protests and
threats of military intervention aptly demonstrated. However, the
frenzied excitement which first accompanied the incident has given way
to persistent and grim day-to-day negotiations which, no matter how
sincere, have proved fruitless and frustrating.
Most recently, rumors of compromise and the possible release of the
hostages failed to materialize as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said
Saturday that no decision on the fate of the hostages would be made
until Iran holds its parliamentary elections in April. The concurring
response of the young militants no hostages will be released until the
shah is extradicted to Iran seems enough to disillusion the most
sanguine of observers.
The inability of President Carter, U.N. Secretary-General Kurt
Waldheim and Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr to influence or
even weaken the position of the militants and Khomeini, seems a
portentous sign at best. And in the meantime, the world has slipped into
a mood of quiet resignation. In Iran, the area outside the gates of the
U.S. embassy, once inundated with thousands of Iranians, has grown
still and quiet. In the United States, life goes on as usual even as bells
ring daily for the prisoners. The refusal of numerous countries, pending
the release of the hostages, to aid Iran's efforts to recover and endure
disastrous floods and food shortages, also failed to weaken the position
of the militants, whom Bani-Sadr himself called "lawless dictators."
The stalemate now in effect, when coupled with the situation in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, only magnifies the confusion in the United
State as to the sagacity of its policy in the Middle East. The possibility of
the shah being delivered to Iran seems dubious and, given the latest
opinion handed down by Khomeini and the militants, the impending
implications are cause for immediate concern. Certainly, the most
recent events will fuel the fire of interventionists who have concluded,
perhaps correctly, that the only alternatives available to this country
short of some type of military action, are inane and ineffectual
negotiations and the continuation of helpless waiting.
A pervasive sickness
Student apathy a sickness everywhere but in Carmichael and Kenan
Stadiums is always a problem in campus elections, and the symptoms
were evident again last week when a Campus Governing Council seat
was decided by a vote of two to one. Ernest McCutcheon thought he had
been elected by a single vote, but the next day Brian Goray claimed the
seat with his two votes and, tongue in cheek, attributed his win to a
platform of "restoring legitimacy to student government." Although the
district Goray won has never had a high voter turnout, the whole affair
points to a more serious problem a pervasive student apathy towards
student government and a confusion over the CGC's function.
One student became incensed when a CGC candidate told her he
would not comment on any issues because he had no idea what his job
would involve. She ran a last-minute write-in campaign, earned 105 of
437 votes, and almost forced a run-off against one of the other two
candidates. Part of the problem it that the average UNC student really
does not know what the CGC does. There is a general sense that the
CGC allocates money in the spring but little more that that is known.
The CGC is made up of three committees, the Rules and Judiciary,
the Student Affairs, and the one that plays a prominent role in the May
budget hearings, the Finance Committee. The CGC's most important
responsibility involves the allocation of roughly $250,000 of student
fees. The CGC members play a crucial role in deciding where this money
is eventually apportioned. Yet, despite this important task only 25
percent of UNC students thought it worth their time to vote for student
body president even less voted for CGC representatives. This
aggressive ennui challenges both CGC members and new student body
president Bob Saunders to enlist student involvement. When Jim
Phillips was elected president two years ago, he used campaign workers
and staff me mbers to solicit student input action which at least showed
sincere commitment.
Perhaps CGC members need not take such a drastic step, but
certainly they should actively seek to obtain feedback and inform
constituents, of the happenings within the CGC. Such action is
imperative if student government is to be successful in its efforts to truly
represent the best interests of the University community.
The best in hockey
Closing ceremonies were held for the XIII Winter Olympiad
Sunday, bringing to an end the Games that often seemed to be more
trouble than they were worth. Problems beset the Lake Placid Olympics
from beginning to end. Poor weather, first in the form of a snow drought
and then a blizzard which effectively shut down transportation systems,
created problems that local organizers were incapable of solving.
The Olym pic ideal itself was threatened by the possibility that politics
might prevent the world's athletes from participating in the Summer
Games in Moscow, and the presence of an often-victorious Soviet team
served to remind the world of the Soviet presence in other foreign
countries including Afghanistan.
American competitors seemed to encounter more than their share of
difficulties as well. Favored ice skaters Tai Babilonia and Randy
Gardner had to withdraw when Gardner was injured. 1 976 cross country
skiing silver medalist Bill Koch was forced to drop out of the 25
kilometer race. Highly publicized speed skater Beth Heiden was labeled
a loser by some when, under pressure, she won only one bronze medal in
her three races.
In the closing days of the games, however, our athletes responded in
the way they knew best. Heiden's brother Eric, also a speed skater,
shrugged off pain and pressure to become the first Olympian ever to win
five gold medals in a single celebration of the Games. Skier Phil Mahre
won the first American medal in men's skiing since 1964, taking the
silver in the special slalom. Finally, the exuberant United States hockey
team upset the Russians, unbeaten in the Olympics since 1960, and
clinched the gold with a win over Finland Sunday.
The Americans won by beating the Soviets at their own game with
discipline, crisp passing and a tenacious defense led by Boston
University goalie Jim Craig. As Craig said after the game, "We beat the
best team in hockey; but then, maybe we're the best team in hockey."
i heir victory was triumphant not because they won a Cold War victory,
but because they played well and won. In doing so they affirmed the
Olympic idea Is of competition and fairness.
'In Quotes'
By JOHN DV SEN BURY
In the years between the Tet offensive in Vietnam and
the siege of the U. S. embassy in Tehran, American
influence overseas has weakened dramatically.
In an interview last week, James R. Leutze, history
professor and chairman of the curriculum in Peace, War
and Defense cited a number of factors for America's
decline in world prominence. Leutze feels that the"
United States top priority . should be continued
negotiations such as SALT II that would strengthen its
position and reverse this trend.
"Our declined world leadership comes about for a
number of reasons, the most obvious being the
rebuilding of the economy after World War II," Leutze
said. "As more and more competitors came into being
we lost the ability to call the shots. Only recently have we
come into the situation in which many people with
expertise in the area of the military have accepted this
fact.
"We used to talk about the idea of superiority, then
moved to the idea of parity and only recently have we
moved into the situation of sufficiency and sufficiency
might be below the level of some other country such as
the Soviet Union."
Leutze said it is not entirely bad that America has lost
its ability to totally control events in the area of
international policy. "We need to recognize the
limitations of our power and the need for us to live and
work cooperatively with other world powers," he said.
"We need to look reality in the face and realize that we
cannot dominate the world economically and
understand that we do not need to."
The fact that the Soviet Union has been outspending
and outproducing the United States in a variety of areas
in military weaponry, particularly in conventional or
non-nuclear armaments, concerns Leutze.
"Russia's increased production of conventional
weapons worries me more than their advances over us in
nuclear weaponry," he said. "The desire of all U. S.
politicians is to go to war as cheaply as possible and the
cheapest way is nuclear. It is much better to handle
letters to the editor
i
i
i. ..
t '
'
v
-?
-
ti.
it
. ' ?? fi t K& U V
DTHFM photo
James Leutze
problems with conventional military forces rather than a
nuclear defense. 1 think it is illisionary to think that we
could fight a war against the Soviets on a tactical nuclear
level; a tactical nuclear war would quickly rise to a
strategic nuclear war. The boundary between the two is
so imprecise."
Leutze is not impressd with the volunteer army both
because it is at reduced strength and because of its
generally lower level of intellectual capability.
"Some of our combat force units are, for practical
purposes, 50 percent effective. Many of the personnel in
units that have highly complex weapons cannot read
well enough to know how to work those weapons.
Another concern is the size and capability of the Navy at
present this is an important area in which we are falling
behind and it is a way to express power without nuclear
power expression."
Soviet forces outnumber American in terms of tactical
aircraft as well as manpower, Leutze said, and would
win a war fought with only conventional weapons. "If
the Soviets decide to really move, which I doubt," Leutze
said, "the only way we could realistically stop them
would be through the use of tactical nuclear weapons."
"I think it would be madness for either side to become
involved in a strategic nuclear exchange thinkingthat
they could win because the outcome would be mutual
destruction. 1 believe that if everyone is given time to see
things in a realistic phase then 1 doubt there would be
strategic nuclear exchange, but people do not always act
rationally when they are committed and losing," he said.
Leutze is not convinced that all NATO powers would
agree to defend against a Soviet move. "I think it would
be unwise to say unquestionably NATO will stand
together," Leutze said. "It is doubtful that they would
agree to use tactical weapons because that would mean
destroying their own territory. The answer to this is very
uncertain.
"1 feel that it is very probable that there is a certain
degree of overreaction involved here. I do not believe the
Soviet Union is immediately going beyond Afghanistan
into Pakistan or Iran. Most likely, the Soviets are going
to stabilize position so that if Iran goes into civil war, as I
believe it will, they will be able to move quickly through
Afghanistan and into Iran to take advantage of the
situation."
"The United States needs to realize that we can
respond other that militarily to this situation," Leutze
said. "We need to take advantage of Soviet distress at
this point we need to demonstrate to the Middle East
and Third World that we understand some of the
endemic difficulties that their societies face. An
intelligent response would be to take advantage of the
fact that the Soviets have hurt themselves and try to
demonstrate creative leadership in a variety of ways."
Leutze is not surprised that the Soviets are behaving
aggressively at this time, because the Soviet Union has
had economic and social problems and has failed to
solve them. One thing they can do, he said, is to express
themselves militarily.
He believes, however, that the Soviets will attempt to
extend their influence wherever and however they can.
"The Soviet threat is not going Xo dissappear anytime
soon," Leutze said. "The Soviet Union is a major power
and they are going to continue to be a major power."
John Dusenbury, a junior journalism major from
Try on. is a staff writer for The Daily Tar Heel.
Libertarian Party seen as selfish, naive
To the editor:
I've read with interest the numerous
letters about the proposed draft
registration as people bandy pros and
mostly cons back and forth. But the letter
from Elizabeth Ratchford, "Military
registration borders on slavery," (DTH,
Feb. 19), was so outstandingly ironic and
ridiculous that I felt obliged to write. Her
group, the Libertarian Party, has reached
a new zenith of selfishness and naivete,
and their gall in outlining their "belief"
that "all individuals have the natural right
to excercise sole dominion over their own
lives" is exceeded only by the narrow
minded "me first" attitutde at the base of
this ideology. By attempting to turn a
political question into an issue of
philosophical disposition, this party
completely has ignored the intrinsic
paradox its belief contains.
The first and most outlandish
statement Ratchford makes is that any
"coercive control of the lives and actions
of others is slavery." That is absurd. One
could take this notion as far as possible
and still slavery would be questionable at
best. For instance, does a policeman who
pulls you over for speeding force you into
slavery? Does a professor make us slaves
because he can fail us for skipping class?
Do the laws that constrain our lives make
us slaves to them? Certainly all are a form
of "coercive control" of our lives yet we
do not presume to be slaves in the sense
Ratchford implies. I would concede that
we are all slaves to civilization, but that is
unavoidable and often desirable. So on
this nebulous concept of slavery, the
Libertarian Party bases its attack on the
draft.
The notion that a country does not
have the right to draft or control its
people is quite simply anarchistic. No
person living in a nation has "sole
dominion" over himself because he is
part of a society. But Ratchford
completely ignores all obligations a
citizen has to his country. The fact is, we
are not separate islands, living isolated
lives, but we are a part of this nation as a
, whole. And each of us has an obligation
and duty to our fellow citizens, and thus
to our country. What irony that
Ratchford refers to "U.S. citizens" when
apparently she does not know the
meaning of the words. Merely existing in
a nation does not constitute citizenship
there are responsibilities attached. The
freedom and liberty she so easily calls into
play do not come without such
responsibility; our generation of
Americans has always had freedom, so it
is easy to assume it is inherent in life. But
it is not.
The mere possiblity of being able to
choose one's profession (to be or not to be
in the military) is available only because
people before us were willing to be
soldiers when it was necessary. They put
something ahead of themselves: their
duty. Phillip Busby's letter "Military
registration borders on slavery," (DTH,
Feb. 19) also of the Libertarian Party,
makes the same circular argument; he
wants the freedom to choose his job, but
is not willing to stand by the society that
gives him the freedom in the first place.
He speaks of "slavery" and of a violation
of "rights" yet in the same breath he uses
the term "free society." There are not any
societies of one. We are free only because
we are a part of this society, which, by the
way, is not self-sustaining. It requires
support from the public and that support
, is mandatory.
Ratchford's idea that only individuals
know what is best for them precludes the
fact that we live in an interdependent
society and world. And there is most
certainly a "common interest" comprised
of individual interests that is worth
pursuing. It's called the common good,
which at times conflicts with some
individuals' "best interest." But that is the
price of social living; one cannot always
have everything the way he would like.
The entire "individualist knows best"
Jif. c&a you believe tinte hotkey -reo?
"Zj4ku$, rtotf 4he. f inrush
Gold Hedalj I
1 1 '
SwwettiVq eke j
immmm
I've never sen car jty
plov so Kit a odou .
(
Ufttt
id Jfw, wWdA ya M4 uerma repeat or)
-Htfr U.S. ivi'nmVwa goa.l?r '
W (Wm&'M! 'vt- apt somfh.Vvg better
f J
not uf cJoe
and pvroml
scenario would be lovely if we all lived on
Gilligan's Island, where a few people
inhabited a small area. But that is not the
case. In our country no man is totally
free, whether 20 and drafted or 40 and
rationed at home. There is a debt to be
paid.
It appears to me that the Libertarian
Party only wants the benefits of freedom
and none of the responsibilities. To label
the draft as an "immoral institution" is
nothing more than verbose
gobbledygook. We simply cannot ignore
the roles we have as citizens because we
disagree with a specific policy. We have to
face the fact that our government has the
authority and right to control certain
aspects of our lives and that authority is
given by us. In exchange for that, we
enjoy a lifestyle with freedom and
liberties unique in the history of man. Yet
now suddenly the Libertarian Party feels
independent enough to assert what must
surely be the epitome of the "me
generation's" lopsided perspective on life.
To paraphrase Socrates, "All good
citzens have an obligation to good
states." So I suppose the irony of a group
holding obliquely anarchistic views
calling itself a "party" is too scary to be
funny.
Perhaps the most ironic point of all this
stuff is that I also happen to believe
conscription at this time is unwise. It
could easily lead to a war we don't want
or need. Unquestionably, oil is no cause
for war, but I cannot advocate anarchy
(under any name) to change our policies.
Our system of government was designed
to incorporate change, and just as it is our
duty to obey our government, it is also
our obligation and duty to make damned
sure the people in charge are responsive,
competent, and intelligent people who
would fight only when it is unavoidable
and imperative, and not before. And we
can do this within the paradigm of our
governmental system. It is election year
and now is the time to put people in office
who can hear what we the public are
saying. Certainly, let's make some
changes in policy, but not at the expense
of our freedoms; those freedoms we take
for granted now. It should be apparent we
all have a duty to perform for our
country, and fighting, if necessary, for
our "country's interest" is not wrong or
immoral when those interests are exactly
that: our country's. It is the elitist and
narrow-minded self-serving interests that
must be challenged.
McGuire Gordon
Carrboro
Slavery or liberty
To the editor:
Elizabeth Echols, in her letter "Draft
Ensures Rights," (D77, Feb. 21) is
"appalled" that Libertarians believe that
the draft is nothing less than slavery.
Echols does nto deny that forcing
individuals to serve in 'the military is
involuntary servitude (slavery), yet she
goes on to say that the "military draft can
and will ensure...fundamental rights of
U .S. citizens." I am astounded by Echols'
exercise in double-think, especially since
she recognizes that a libertarian is "an
advocate of freedom for all." If insisting
upon the right of individuals to decide
whether or not they will enter the
military, or any other profession, is not a
libertarian position, what is Echols
suggesting?
Am I to understand her to mean that
involuntary servitude is ok with
libertarians only if it is imposed in the
name of national service, either military
or civilian? If so, Echols does violence to
the ideals of libcrtarianism, and as a
libertarian I must protest.
Echols says, "The first libertarians
were our forefathers, the British
Americans. They were not too busy living
their fat, choosey lives to fight for the
independence of the country." With
respect to the first sentence quoted, I
would agree with Echols, with one
qualification: The libcrtarianism of our
"forefathers" was afflicted by a serious,
eventually disastrous flaw, namely the
acquiescence in the institution of slavery.
1 hope that the libertarians of today will
recognize slavery in whatever' guise it
appears, and oppose it.
In reference to the second part of the
quotation. I resent the implication that
members of the Libertarian Party arc
corpulent, persnickety sorts who would
be "too busy to fight for the independence
of this country." Libertarians realize that
the right to liberty implies the right to
self-defense, and that failure to exercise
the latter right frequently results in the
abrogation of the former. NevcrthclcM,
libertarians recognize no moral
justification for compelling anyone to
defend a "way of life." a "society," or a
government because libertarians are
dedicated to a coniUtent. principled
respect for the sovereignty of every
individual. This respect for the rights of
the individual stems from a conviction
that everyone posveses the natural right
to life, liberty and the use of justly (non
coercively and non-fraudulentty)
acquired property. Echo! atcrtt that
such right "come from the United State
government;" libertarians disagree, and
so, I daresay, would the "founding
fathers," who realized that rights exist
independently of governments and who
sought to establish a government which
would affirm and protect such rights. I
submit that any government which
enslaves its citizens through conscription
has exceeded its authority, and is not
longer (as Jefferson put it) a "necessary
evil" but simply evil.
If the United States government
continues to commit the American
people to the role of world policeman as it
has done for the better part of this
century, then there is no doubt that the
draft will, once again, be upon us. There
is no other way for the government to
maintain the military's bloated
manpower requirements, which are the
result, primarily, of troop commitments
overseas. Thus, the draft is a necessary
tool of an interventionist foreign policy
which consumes around two-thirds of the
American defense budget. The
Libertarian Party offers a non
interventionist alternative which obviates
the so-called "need" for a draft. I believe
the choice is clear: cither empire abroad
and slavery at home or liberty.
Robert McDowell
Rt. 2 Chapel Hill
Different strokes
To the editor:
With regard to the letter, "Priorities
illustrated." (DTH. Feb. 20) by Timothy
B. Brown, which concerned the
abominable (at least, to Mr. Brown) fact
that Woollen Gym will soon be open
more hours each week than Wilson
Library, I can say only this: 1 can study in
my living room, but cannot swim in the
bathtub.
(icorge Shcppard
306 Northampton Plaa
Letters?
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes
contributions and letters to the
editor. For prompt publication, all
submiuions mutt be typed triple
spaced on a 60-spacc line and
signed. Letter writers should
include their addrcis and phone
number. Column writer houU
include their class, major and
hometown. All contributions are
subject to editing.