North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.
8The Daily Tar HeelFridav. October 28, 1983
91st year of editorial freedom
Kerry DeRochi, Editor
ALISON DAVIS, Managing Editor JEFF HlD AY, Associate Editor
LISA PULLEN, University Editor
Christine Manuel, State and National Editor
MICHAEL DeSiSTI, Sports Editor
Melissa Moore, News Editor
John Conway, City Editor
KAREN FlSHER, Features Editor
' Jeff Grove, Am Editor
CHARLES W. LEDFORD, Photography Editor
Marching in vain
Marches, rallies, mass demonstrations and human chains. These are what anx
ious, young Western Europeans have been made of this fall. They have blockad
ed military bases. They have formed a 60-mile chain from NATO headquarters
in Stuttgart to a prospective Pershing II base in Neu-Ulm. Clad in bright yellow
raincoats, they have jeered and taunted only to be forced moments later to
grit their teeth and brace themselves against the powerful police water cannons.
They have painted their faces some with skull and cross-bones, some with the
sign for peace. All to exaggerate what they perceive to be the inevitability of
In an ideal world, their protests would meet with success. In this world their
campaign is bound to fail. Unless the Americans and the Soviets reach a quick
agreement at the Geneva arms talks, NATO will soon begin to install the first of
what in three years will be 108 Pershing II missiles in West Germany and 464
cruise missiles in Britain, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium.
The deployment is NATO's carefully considered and painfully achieved response
to the Soviet buildup of powerful SS-20 missiles aimed not at the United States
but at Western Europe.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded with one purpose in
mind: defense. Yet since its formation in 1949, NATO has faced a dilemma that
stems from a fundamental difference of interests between the United States and
Europe. The United States is much stronger militarily than the European nations
it is committed to protect; geographically, it is separated from them by an ocean.
Traditionally, the only practical method for. the United States to ensure Europe's
defense has been through threats of attack on Russia if the Soviets were to attack
Western Europe. The Soviets, in turn, have strategic nuclear weapons pointed at
the United States.
The successful deployment of U.S. missiles in Europe could contribute to the
short-term integrity and strength of NATO, but by the same reasoning the
deployments could diminish European security while increasing the potential for
nuclear war. Because the relatively unprotected Pershing missiles would be
susceptible to surprise attack, the Soviets might have an incentive to destroy
them with a first strike should war with NATO appear imminent.
The European allies are aware of the massive destruction even a limited
nuclear war in Europe would inflict. They have wanted U.S. strategic nuclear
forces to be tightly coupled to Europe's defense, and they have tended to favor a
strategy that threatens an early all-out U.S. nuclear response to Soviet aggres
sion. That, they have hoped, would deter the U.S.S.R., removing the battlefield
from Europe should war occur.
Each side has important strategic, political and bargaining reasons for
calculating the balance the way it does. Yet U.S. and Soviet negotiators in
Geneva will be unable to set specific limits on weapons systems as long as they
cannot agree on which weapons are under consideration. The Soviet Union
claims there is presently an equal balance of nuclear forces in Europe, and that
the numbers have remained about the same for a number of years. The United
States insists that the Soviets have a six-to-one advantage and a monopoly in the
most threatening weapons: land-based, intermediate-range ballistic missiles
On Wednesday, Soviet President Yuri Andropov announced new arms control
proposals to demonstrate Soviet "flexibility" but at the same time warned that
the Geneva talks will collapse when U.S. medium-range nuclear missile
deployments in Western Europe get underway. The timing of his proposal was
significant; it comes at a time of division within the western alliance over the
American invasion of Grenada. It also coincides with a series of antinuclear
demonstrations in Western Europe and presumably was designed to increase
pressures on West European governments to seek a delay in U.S. deployments.
In addition, the shifts certainly keep in mind next month's scheduled West Ger
man parliamentary debate on the deployment questions.
Andropov's comments were noted for their unusually conciliatory tone, but
still there were the typically stubborn barbs: "The appearance of new American
missiles in Western Europe will make a continuation of the present talks in
Geneva impossible. On the other hand, the Geneva talks can be continued if the
U.S. does not start the actual deployment of the missiles."
The vigor of the European peace movement has shown those who support the
movement to be deeply concerned about the stationing of American missiles on
European soil. The support of the Social Democratic Party in West Germany
and the Labour Party in Britain has lent credibility to the movement and enhanc
ed its popularity.
Yet, as West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl says, this battle "will not be
decided in the streets of Germany." Until an arms reduction treaty is reached
with the Soviet Union, the NATO deployment should be continued. Neither side
. really needs new nuclear weapons in Europe, but for now deployment may be
the only way to forestall Soviet aggression and reach an eventual end to the arms
A former resident supports U.S. intervention
By JULIE HAACK
In response to all the rhetoric around campus, I
would like to clarify some of the issues involved in the
Grenada (pronounced Gre-NAY-da) situation. I was a
resident of Grenada for 14 years, leaving in 1979 after
the first coup.
There are several arguments being adopted by those
in opposition to U.S. intervention.
The United States acted in flagrant violation of
the Organization of American States Charter by in
tervening in Grenada's affairs.
The United States is just using Grenada as a
showcase for American muscle, to maintain the world
balance of power.
The reasons the U.S. government gave for in
tervening were weak because neither were the
Americans in Grenada in any immediate danger nor
did the Grenadians themselves request help from the
First of all, the OAS Charter states clearly in Article
15 that "No State or group of States has the right to
intervene directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any
In Article 17, it states that "The territory of a State
is inviolable. . . .."
However, Article. 18 qualifies the preceding by
stating that "The American states bind themselves in
their international relations not to have recourse to the
use of force, except in the case of self defense in ac
cordance with existing treaties or in the fulfillment
Article 19 also qualifies that "Measures adopted for
the maintenance of peace and security in accordance
with existing treaties do not constitute a violation of
the principles set forth in Articles 15 and 17."
The situation in Grenada obviously posed a serious
threat to the peace, democracy and secruity of the sur
rounding islands, as the Prime Minister of Dominica,
Eugenia Charles, stated.
On Saturday, Oct. 21, the members of the Organi
zation of Eastern Caribbean States sent a cable to
President Reagan requesting the military support of
the United States to invade Grenada. All of the islands
in the Caribbean lent their verbal, if not their military,
support to this intervention.
The Caribbean islands within the OECS treaty were
concerned for safety and the maintenance of peace on
their own islands. Because of this, they took decisive
action to intervene in Grenada's affairs. Recognizing
their own military weaknesses, they requested U.S.
The invasion was not an affair instigated by the
To refute the argument that the first concern of the
United States was for the preservation of the world
balance of power, U.S. concern rested primarily with
the people of a tiny country that suddenly found
herself without a Prime Minister (the one the Grena
dians supported had been executed along with his
cabinet members) and with the very powerful threat of
a Cuban government being established.
The argument that Grenada was unfortunate
enough to be the showcase for U.S. muscle and con
cern with the preservation of the world balance of
power cannot be applied here. The United States acted
in response to a plea for help from neighboring coun
tries for the sake of the human rights of the Grena
dians themselves and for the safety of the other
The reasons that the United States gave for in
tervening were not weak, but quite pertinent. The lives
of the U.S. citizens were in danger. When my family
was in Grenada in the coup of 1979, we were also
under a curfew, though only from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. We
were concerned for our safety then, as were the Grena
dians. The situation is even more serious now. We can
not deny that a 24-hour curfew with orders to shoot on
sight is a violation of human rights. As far as we
know, the Americans were in very grave danger. The
United States could not afford to wait for another
catastrophe to happen before it acted. As for the
medical students, who only constituted 600 of the
1,000 Americans, they may have been more safe than
the other Americans, but their safety was not
And for the person who asks why the Grenadians
did not request help themselves, I can reply in one
sentence. Any Grenadian who was brave enough or
stupid enough to contact the U.S. government for
help, knowing that there was no freedom of speech
and that all mail and telephones were being
monitored, probably would have been shot instantly.
This would not have been unusual.
Just to relieve all who are concerned that the Grena
dians did not want the United States to intervene on
Tuesday, I spoke with my father, who said he had
heard tapes of Grenadians shouting to the American
soldiers, "We free. We free now." That's enough to
My stance on U.S. military intervention is this: It is
not the unequivocable right of the United States to in
tervene in another country's affairs, but it was right in
this case. There were too many reasons to intervene.
The assassinations of Prime Minister Bishop and
his cabinet members, resulting in the end of any
semblance of a government.
Clear Cuban intervention in Grenadian affairs,
apparently without the Grenadian's consent or ap
proval. The question of the safety of Americans.
The 24-hour curfew and shoot-on-sight orders.
The danger to the surrounding islands and their
request for help.
Those who say that the United States never should
have risked the lives of the U.S. Marines are apparent
ly missing the point. The decision to intervene was one
that required an immediate response from President
Reagan. In light of eveiything that was going on, I
think he was absolutely correct in making the excep
tion to the rule of a non-intervention policy. This was
just an isolated case, not a doctrinal policy, in which
allies requested U.S. intervention.
Now, it is up to the United States to follow up on its
initial intention to pull out of Grenada as soon as it
can and allow the Grenadians to elect their own prime
minister. Whether it be Bernard Coard or a Marxist or
someone who would be suitable in the U.S. govern
ment's eyes, that decision must remain up to the
- Julie Haack, a junior international studies major
from Charlotte, lived in Grenada from 1965 to 1979.
LETTERS TO THE EDITO
Facing facts a Nicaraguan perspective
To the editor:
I would like to respond to "Facing
facts" (DTH, Oct. 26). Based on the six
weeks I spent in Nicaragua this past sum
mer, I feel qualified to respond to the
In spite of the role the U.S. government
is playing in the destabilization of the San
dinistas, the Nicaraguan people accepted
me, a citizen of the United States, with an
open mind and open arms. They make a
clear distinction between the government
of the United States and the people of the
, For six weeks, I lived and worked side by
side with Nicaraguans. I witnessed a peo
ple embarking on a road of reconstruction
for a nation too long oppressed and
betrayed by its government. In the
neighborhood Sandinista Defense Com
mittee meetings that I attended, there was
discussion, debate and decision, none of
which was possible under Somoza. People
are taking their lives into their own hands.
There are projects to physically
rehabilitate the country: government
subsidized housing construction,
agricultural cooperatives, literacy cam
paigns, free and accessible health care. I
saw the foundations of a society of and for
the people not blindly accepting a
model of another country, but creating
socialism based on the very real needs and
the reality of Nicaragua.
To the author of the editorial: these are
my facts; where are yours? How can
liberation and self-determination be
"harsh and barbaric?"
The editorial also charged that the bases
of Nicaraguan life today are "counter to
A fond farewell
fundamental, traditional American
values." The Sandinista Front for Na
tional Liberation (FSLN) was founded in
1961 based on the three aspirations of
Augusta Caesar Sadino: true democracy, a
system of social justice and Christianity. If
this is what our government is so violently
opposing, perhaps it is time to re-examine
those American values.
It is a very twisted, even perverse, no
tion to think that U.S. presence in Central
America is based on Reagan's desire to
help the people in that region. Take El
Salvador, for example, where massacres,
tortures and disappearances take place
daily at the hands of U.S.-trained death
squads. Or Guatemala, where the people's
liberation struggle is put down by a
repressive government propped up by the
United States. Or Nicaragua, where the
United States has been interferring and in
tervening since the early part of the cen
tury establishing an oppressive National
Guard and supporting one Somoza after
All for the love of the Central American
people? I think not.
The key question to ask here is: who
poses a threat to whom? And what exactly
is threatened? In the eyes of the Reagan
administration, U.S. economic and geo
political interests are at stake, not the lives
of thousands of Central American people
or thousands of North American people.
As Tomas Borge, the Minister of the In
terior of Nicaragua, said, "It is the threat
of a good example." After all, there is
much to be learned from a country that
fights for the liberation of the majority of
To the editor:
After 21 great months spent in Chapel
Hill, only enthusiasm and sweet memories
can really describe my feelings about the
ever-grand village. First, the people: a
blend of friendliness and class. Next, the
beauty of nature, the uncomparable am
bience on campus. What a treat for a guy
from Ireland accustomed to rather conser
vative and reserved fellows like you'd find
in the old country. But what stuns one the
most here in North Carolina is all the trees
because there are so many of them.
You may remember me as a fiddle
player on Franklin Street with a funny ac
cent playing American tunes and
Hungarian jazz type music.
Before I leave the Carolinas, I'd like to
thank everyone for the friendliness, open
minded ways, great receptivity and most of
The Daily Tar Heel welcomes letters
to the editor and contributions to col
umns for the editorial page.
Such contributions should be typed,
triple spaced, on a 60-space line, and
are subject toediting. Contributions
must be submitted by noon the day
Column writers should include their
majors and hometown; each letter
should include the writer's name, ad
dress and telephone number.
M6QIKS TO RUN THE
NTERIOR DEPARTMENT WITH
THE SAME PE1ERMIWOTQN
I tttUKHV AatNCV,
II J I
THE WEEK IN REVIEW
ombing in Lebanon claims 225 lives
By KELL Y SIMMONS
The number of American soldiers known dead
in Lebanon has reached 225, and many more are
missing following a terrorist bombing of the
Marine compound in Beirut early Sunday. It was
the greatest loss of life for American forces since
the Vietnam war.
Another terrorist truck was also driven into the
building housing French troops, but the damage
there was not as great.
Vice President George Bush, who was in Beirut
later this week, said the damage done was in
describable. "You've heard it. You've read it. But
until you feel it, see it, see the size of those
reinforcing steel bars. . . ," he said, and his voice
President Reagan has said that the disaster
would not persuade him to pull the troops out of
Lebanon. Instead, he said, the United States would
respond to the attack "as soon as the perpetrators
Eight North Carolinians are known dead, and
many families are still waiting to be notified. Many
of the injured Marines have been brought back to
the Womack Army Hospital in Fort Bragg for
Members of a family from Burlington who lost
their 19-year-old son in the bombing said they
agree that the troops should not be pulled out of
Lebanon. "We don't want Reagan to pull out,
especially now," said Donald Copeland, father of
Lance Cpl. Johnny Copeland. "We don't want
Johnny's death to be for nothing."
Invasion of Grenada
As if 219 dead in Lebanon were not enough,
U.S. forces were authorized to invade Grenada
Tuesday to protect the 1,000 Americans living on
the small island country and to "restore
democracy." The 1 ,900 Marines and Army Ranger
paratroopers deployed there seized the two main
airports on the 21-mile island. Grenada has a
population of 110,000.
About 800 paratroopers from Fort Bragg's 82nd
Airborne division arrived in Grenada Wednesday
to back up the troops already there.
Reagan explained that the sudden action in the
Caribbean was taken because the Americans there
were in danger and that he didn't want another
situation like the Iranian crisis. Reagan said six
Caribbean nations had requested U.S. intervention
to stop the spread of communism.
The Soviet Union demanded an immediate with
drawal of U.S. troops, and Britain expressed
strong reservations about the move.
The Soviet Union said that the aim of the United
States was to subordinate the country to neo
colonialist rule. British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher said that Reagan had contacted her
before the invasion and that she had warned him to
weigh the issues before making a move.
Evacuation of the Americans began Wednesday
with the first 61 jetted to Charleston, S.C. Most of
the Americans there are students at St. George's
Medical College. The administrators there criti
cized the U.S. invasion, saying the students had
been in no danger.
The Green trial
Lt. Gov. Jimmy Green took the stand this week
to fight conspiracy and bribery charges. During the
trial, Green said, "It never crossed my mind to ac
cept a bribe from anybody."
After testifying, Green told reporters he was
glad he was finally able to tell it how it is "to tell
He distrusted FBI agent Robert Drdak from the
very beginning, and he had suspicions about an in
vestigation all along, Green said under oath Tues
day. From the transcripts and the lack of evidence
in the courtroom, it's obvious Green had an idea
about some kind of undercover work his tracks
The prosecution last week was forced to with
draw one of the charges against Green con
spiracy to accept a bribe because of the state's
lack of evidence. Defense attorneys now are trying
to get the remaining four charges dropped for the
same reason. The only real evidence they have
against him is a $2,000 check he accepted from
Drdak, and he returned that.
Closing remarks in the nine-day trial were heard
Thursday, and jury deliberation was expected to
begin Thursday afternoon or this morning.
Manslaughter charges dropped
William Newman, professor emeritus, of music
at the University, was released of charges made
against him earlier this week in the shooting death
Two weeks ago, Newman shot his son, Craig,
twice once in the shoulder and once, fatally, in
the head. Craig Newman died at N.C. Memorial
Hospital that night.
Because of domestic problems between Newman
and his son, Judge Donald Paschal allowed the
charges to be dropped after, the initial hearing.
It seems that Newman had been having trouble
with Craig for several years. Over the years the son
had become increasingly unstable, unable to stay in
school for any period of time. He saw his life as a
series of defeats, Newman said. From time to time,
Craig would return to his parents' home asking for
money, sometimes physically abusing one or both
of them. He had been living in an apartment in his
parents' backyard since Aug. 7.
BSM given space
Harold Wallace, vice chancellor for University
Affairs, confirmed this week that the Black Stu
dent Movement was guaranteed space in the
renovated second floor of Chase cafeteria.
The BSM in the past has used the Upendo
lounge on the first floor of Chase, but construction
of a new cafeteria on the first floor has forced the
group to move. The second floor of Chase will
now be the South Campus Student Union.
BSM President Sherrod Banks said he hadn't
asked for anything unreasonable, just what was
rightfully the BSM's.
Wallace's letter said the decision made in 1976 to
assign space to the BSM was still valid and there
was no need' to debate the fate of the Upendo
Kelly Simmons, a junior journalism major from
Reidsville, is an editorial writer for The Daily Tar