Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 28, 1983, edition 1 / Page 8
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / 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
8The Daily Tar HeelFridav. October 28, 1983 Un inGrena rest 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 nuclear holocaust. 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. NATO's role 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 (IRBMs). Andropov's proposal 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 race. 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 United States. 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 other State." 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 thereof." 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. military aid. The invasion was not an affair instigated by the United States. 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 islands. 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 guaranteed either. 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 convince me. 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 Grenadians themselves. - Julie Haack, a junior international studies major from Charlotte, lived in Grenada from 1965 to 1979. LETTERS TO THE EDITO R 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 editorial. 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 United States. , 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 another. 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 its people. Claudia Werman Carrboro 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 all, class. Jan Zelenka Letters? 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 before publication. 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 He WATONfll I tttUKHV AatNCV, II J I NAPALM WU0W5TONE PARK, THE WEEK IN REVIEW d ) ombing in Lebanon claims 225 lives By KELL Y SIMMONS Jimmy Green 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 trailed off. 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 were identified." 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 treatment. 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 the truth." 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 are well-covered. 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 of his.son. 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 lounge now. Kelly Simmons, a junior journalism major from Reidsville, is an editorial writer for The Daily Tar Heel.
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 28, 1983, edition 1
8
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75