6The Daily Tar Heel Tuesday, November 19. 1985
atly ular Mni
93 r d year of editorial freedom
Arm: Rk ki rt and David Schmidt
. Editor Editor
CAHII RINI.COW'AN
A Nil 11 A McQUl.l.N
JanitOi.son
Jami Whiti:
Andy Trincia
.iutitciatc Editor
VrtiJiiiltiin Editor
Vn tri nity V.Jitnr
News liditor
State and National Editor
Larry Chjldress
Lorktta Grantham
Lorry Williams
Lee Roberts
Elizabeth Ellen
Sharon Sheridan
Photography Editor
City liditor
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Behind the scenes at Geneva
board
opinion
The world bra
ces as its two most
powerful men,
Ronald Reagan
and Mikhail Gor
bachev meet today to begin the super
power summit in Geneva, Switzerland.
This meeting will define and gauge U.S.
Soviet relations for a long time to come.
The fate of the world, and the balance
of power, may be bargained away by
either side of crack negotiators.
The summit will focus on the control
of the nuclear arms race, both on earth
and in space. However, much behind-the-scenes
negotiating already has taken
place that has been just as intense as
what the world will see today, negotiat
ing that will directly influence what
Reagan and Gorbachev will discuss. For
instance:
Hotels: Geneva, for all its neutrality,
is really a very small place, and the
summit occurs at peak skiing season.
The two sides had to wrangle here, but
when the smoke cleared, the United
States had booked the Geneva Ramada
Inn, while the Soviets were left with the
Howard Johnson 10 miles outside of
town on the Bern-Geneva turnpike.
The opening-night banquet: Score a
propaganda success for Grobachev here.
President Reagan initially took a hard
line on prime rib, which the Soviets took
advantage of by requesting hamburgers,
and only if it was no trouble. The United
States immediately recognized its
blunder and asked for pot roast, while
accusing the Soviets of plans to smash
the packets of ketchup on the floor and
to unscrew the tops of SALT shakers.
The final menu will be pot roast, with
an ample serving of humble pie for the
United States.
The guest list: This also was a major
point of contention. Seating was at a
premium because of the smallness of the
Geneva VFW banquet hall (there aren't
many veterans in Switzerland), and Mrs.
Reagan created a stir by exceeding her
guest list with a last-minute invitation
to something reputedly "warm and
fuzzy." Gary Goleman was a rumored
possibility.
The Soviets considered bringing their
own bulky tables, as opposed to the
multiple, card-table approach employed
by the United States. The Soviets
rejected the plan as a major breach of
protocol, but the Unitec( States refused
to fold.
The Soviets suffered their own epis
tolary embarassment when Soviet news
agency Tass accidentally printed a letter
from chief Soviet negotiator Viktor
Komplektov to Gorbachev urging Gor
bachev not to seat him next to "that
boring old goat Shultz" at the banquet.
One official described the letter as "a
serious detriment to talks." When asked
which talks he meant, the official replied,
"The talk around the pool."
The wives: The two first ladies are
waging their own propaganda cam
paign. Gorbachev's wife, Edith, won the
first round by rushing out to the Moscow
Bloomingdale's when first informed of
the trip and buying the entire Winter
line. Mrs. Reagan, undaunted, asked
Macy's to create a special look. Olive
and "peace blue" are reputed to be her
theme.
Mrs. Reagan will continue her world
wide quest to eliminate drugs by speak
ing at a Geneva kindergarten against
them. Mrs. Gorbachev, supposedly a
green thumb, will visit a Swiss hus
bandry clinic. But it will not be all work
for the women, as Mrs. Gorbaachev
plans to tour a Swatch watch factory
while Mrs. Reagan will take in the
Aalgstadt Valley, where The Sound of
Music was filmed.
As can be seen, much preparation has
created the backdrop to the dramatic
events, that will unfold during the next
several days. Which side will win? Jimmy
the Greek was unavailable to The Daily
Tar Heel for a prediction, but the key
seems to lie in whichever side gets, the
camera on it the longest.
THE Daily Crossword by Virginia Hopswell
ACROSS
1 "Splendor In
the "
6 Tilt
10 Catches
14 Hold the
attention
15 Indian servant
16 Aid
17 Idolize
18 Vikklofsong
19 M but the
brave..."
20 Drudge
22 Condensed
liquid
24 Included with
26 Rained Ice
27 Olympiad stars
31 Gaelic sea god
32 "I If I
could"
33 Made bovine
sounds
35 Sch.gp.
33 Ostentatious
39 Protozoan
40 Intuit
41 Affirmative
42 Postulate
43 A Greene
44 Beetle
45 Pool additive
47 Crickets' kin
51 Father horse
52 Reference
54 An Allen
53 Celebrity
59 Time for lunch
61 Signs of
sorrow
62 Endure
63 Tell
Sweeney
64 Fortune
telling card
65 Experts
63 Masticate
67 Combat place
DOWN
1 Metric unit
2 Astronaut
Sally
3 Stratford-on
4 In installments
"i 2 3 4 5 6 H 8 9 10 111 112 113
71 71 75
77 71 75
27 22 23"
24 " 25" m 25 '
27 28 1 29"" """" """"" """" 30" """"" 17" """"
32 """" 33 ST" """ 35 1 36 37
,
-- , .--
IT" - ,- -- .
47 ial 49 50" """""" 5l" """" """"
75 53" 54 555657"
II """" -- go 61 '
- -
65 "66 67
1985 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
111985
Yesterday's Puzzle Solved:
5 Cooked with
little water
6 Fond du
7 Moslem holy
, man
8 Aegean gulf
9 Tickled pink
10 Raillery
11 Concerning
12 Category
13 Horse
21 Ignited
23. Plant embryo.
25 Common people
27 Out of sight
28 Raced
29 Hovels
30 boom
34 Swearwords
35 Lovely girl
38 Nashville's
state: abbr.
37 Mariner's word
39 Of a glacial
ridge
40 Grandfather
was one
airtatdi
lioInieI
HE
S A UNIT LOU I SIB LUES
E N lOr LEX tT0 ESS"
IsTe r fm aTd ejnb HuTe
B A H ifp- n. 0. M A DJZ E. N D.
A M OT CAM IE Li A5"T 0"
L I MEH0U mUkU E JT
U-JAM
msr TATsm
BILIUIEISII INITIHIEINII GHT
A I DA MOTEL FEET
RIEIEIDUPILIUIMISLJAIEIRIYI
42 Seed shells
43 A Lynn
44 Disheartens
46 Operculum
47 Lily type
48 Concerning
a hip bone
49 Shut
111985
50 True, old
style
53 Memo
55 Expose to
the public
56 Press
57 This: Sp.
60 Immediately
A serious peek at the summit
By JIM TOWN SEND
With today's meeting between President
Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, we find
ourselves already knowing a great deal about
the web of arms control issues they will confront
and the differences they must overcome in order
to end five years of dangerous stagnation in arms
control. The Soviet Union, for example, seeks
a ban on all testing and deployment of strategic
defense systems and attaches this precondition
to any proposal it makes concerning offensive
weapons. At the same time, the United States
refuses to negotiate any facet of its proposed
missile defense known as the Strategic Defense
Initiative.
For anyone serious about arms control,
observing the daily rounds of pre-summit
posturing emanating from both sides can be more
than a little disheartening. Each side advances
its latest position always reminding the other of
its readiness, in the words of Secretary of State
George P. Shultz, "to get down to real business
with the seriousness the subject deserves." Given
the intransigence of both sides, particularly the
United States, one wonders if either side is taking
the subject of arms control as seriously as those
of us sitting on the sidelines watching.
, Any hope we entertain going into these talks
rests on the assumption that both sides will work
effectively toward a compromise, not so much
on their differences concerning the reduction of
offensive weapons, but primarily on tfieir
disagreement over the testing and deployment
of defensive weapons. Regardless of one's
position on the future of strategic defense, the
fact cannot be ignored that the more plausible
any defense, the greater the pressure to counter
it with greater offense. While both U.S. and
Soviet positions on strategic defense are
undesirable preconditions to which neither is
entitled, the administration's refusal to negotiate
SDI jeopardizes the future of arms control more
because it is pre-emptive. It rules out the
possiblity of a mutually advantageous agreement
on this all-important aspect of the nuclear build
up. 1
This does not suggest that we should succumb
to Soviet demands simply because that may lead
us to arms reduction. Quite the contrary, we
should consider the legality of SDI testing and
deployment in light of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missle Treaty which explicitly prohibits such
testing and deployment. By pursuing this type
of testing and deployment we would be renounc
ing a treaty, the letter if not the spirit of which,
both the United States and the Soviet Union
have abided by for the past 13 years. What would
be the effect of our subverting the meaning of
this pact on future agreements? Killing the
effectiveness of a treaty, whether by ignoring its
existence or "re-interpreting" its provisions (as
members of the Pentagon and State Department
recently sought to do) throws into question our
ability to stand by our agreements and casts
doubt on the point of making arms control
accords with the United States.
What then does the Reagan administration
READER FORUM
believe we stand to lose by negotiating strategic
defense? Nothing other than our very ability to
negotiate. The president himself has said that
SDI could someday be the "big bargaining chip"
that will bring about nuclear disarmament. But
this goal, he says, can only be achieved after
years of research and testing bring us to the brink
of deployment. Gorbachev, on the other hand,
argues that the lure of billions spent on testing
will make more advanced testing and finally
deployment irresistible and thus preclude their
negotiation. In other words, strategic defense
should be negotiated now, because it will only
become more difficult to negotiate as time passes
and the money spent on developing it mounts.
In addition, the feasibility of the plan itself
is still very much in question. Regardless of which
expert on the subject one believes, one fact
remains: The kind of scientific effort required
to determine whether or not SDI is feasible will
take many years. In pursuing its line of keeping
SDI off the bargaining table in Geneva, the
Reagan administration is assuring the failure of
the summit to achieve substantial arms reduc
tions. All the pre-summit maneuvering, verbal
jousting, and any vestiges of optimism will have
been for naught. The president, quite simply, has
decided to subordinate arms control to his vision
of a nuclear shield. It is a decision tha may
preclude the possibility of any new arms
agreements and drive the nuclear arms race to
an even more preposterous level.
Jim Townsend is a sophomore history major
from Summit, N.J.
Group and individual rights
To the editors:
"Think globally, act locally" is
this year's theme for the Campus
Y. Also appropriate for Human
Rights Week, the theme has been
adopted as an answer to the ques
tion from participants of the Week
who want to know "What should
I do to get involved?"
In one sense, this theme relates
to today's topic "Group and Indi
vidual Rights" because we all
identify with others on a large scale
but our actions are uniquely
individual.
There are 15 programs today, in
addition to another program, "Date
and Acquaintance Rape," on Wed
nesday at 7 p.m. in Room 211 of
the Student Union. (For specific
information check the Campus
Calendar.) This day is a "catch-all"
that should consume programs
which deal with individuals and or
groups in regard to race, gender,
sexual preference and religion.
These issues may overlap in many
of today's programs, but each
program has its own theme.
Three programs deal with eco
nomics: "Affirmative Action or
Reverse Discrimination," "Capital
ism, Socialism and Communism:
Three Views," and "Is Unemploy
ment a Human Rights Abuse?" Two
programs which deal with gender
are "Women in Iran," sponsored by
the UNC-CH Baha'i Club, and
"Invisible Barriers: Being Female at
UNC,"sponsored by the Campus Y
Executive Committee. "Affirmative
Action or Reverse Discrimination"
also deals with race and gender.
Programs which deal with race
and civil rights issues are sponsored
by the Carolina Indian Circle, the
Union Human Relations Commit
tee and the Campus Y Human
Rights Week Committee. The Carol
ina Indian Circle is showing an
excellent film, "Annie Mae: Brave
Hearted Woman," which highlights
an Indian civil rights leader during
the '60s whose life was stifled by
FBI cover-up. It gives the viewer
a strong feeling for Indian philo
sophy and culture. "An Evening
with Susan Harjo," director of the
National Congress of American
Indians and a citizen of both the
Cheyenne and the Arapaho tribes,
continues in the same vein. She will
speak on "The Forgotten Ameri
cans: Indians and Human Rights."
Certainly, if there is one race of
people who have been shuffled,
pushed aside, and "reserved," it is
the American Indians. (By the way,
North Carolina has the fifth largest
Indian population in the country.)
Dean Renwick, the guest of a
dinner discussion at 5 p.m. in the
North Banquet Room of Lenoir
Hall, will discuss civil rights on
campus. And with the participation
of the UNC Baha'i Club and the
UNC Chaplain's Association, the
theme of religion has not been
forgotten. The Baha'i Club gives,
specific illustrations of religious
persecution of members of the
Baha'i faith using two programs:
"The Mona Video," and "A Cry
from the Heart: Persecution of the
Bahals in Iran." The Chaplain's
Association will sponsor an inter
denominational celebration, "Songs
of Justice," a combination of
dramatic readings, songs, and
liturgical dance.
One program, "Pornography and
Homophobia," deals with sexual
preference and is sponsored by
Carolina Gay and Lesbian Associ
ation. Other programs include
"Forum on the Death Penalty,"
sponsored by Amnesty Interna
tional, and "Chapel HillCarrboro:
Response to Those in Need."
The. day should offer something
for everyone. We are hoping these
programs will incite global thoughts
and local action.
Addison Sweeney
David Schnorrenberg,
Human Rights Week Committee
Add some comment please, 'DTH'
To the editors:
OK, so a paper supported by
involuntary student fees is obliged
to provide a forum for all sorts of
student opinion, even ill-informed
gibbering. But you don't have to run
it without comment: somebody
might think you agree with it. When
you ran Sally Pont's "Zionism lives
in infamy " (Nov. 13), you really
owed it to your readers to point out
that judging Israeli policy by the
ravings of the Jewish Defense
League is roughly equivalent to
judging the civil rights movement
in the United States by the actions
and rhetoric of the Symbionese
Liberation Army. Someone who
doesn't recognize that cannot really
be expected to distinguish between
Zionism and racism and should
not be able to expect that her
opinions will be treated seriously.
J.S. Reed
Dept. of sociology
Fast support
To the editors:
The Hunger Responsibility
Committee of the Campus Y has
for 12 years been involved in
organizing and sponsoring the
Oxfam International Fast for
World Harvest. Oxfam Interna
tional is a non-sectarian grass
roots organization concerned
with .world-wide hunger, and its
programs are oriented toward
technological and economic
development to relieve hunger.
The organization depends to a
great extent on the financial
support derived from the annual
Fast for World Harvest.
Again this year the Hunger
Responsibilty Committee is
involved in prom6ting the Fast.
Participants are asked to donote
to Oxfam the money saved by
fasting. The Hunger Responsi
bility Committee will have tables
set up in or around the Union
to collect donations, or contri
butions may be sent to the
Campus Y. In addition, the
Committee will sponsor a, break
fast meal in Room 210 of the
Union after the fast is over.
The need for constructive
action in the face of world hunger
becomes greater with each pass
ing day. Only with such contin
uous action can we ever hope to
alleviate the problem; it is with
this in mind that I bring the
problem to your attention.
I encourage all to assist with
this important effort, and I thank
the Hunger Responsibility Com
mittee of the Campus Y for the
leadership which makes possible
our participation in this interna
tional program.
Christopher C. Fordham III
Chancellor
Remember the fast times at Campus Y
To the editors:
On Wednesday, the Campus Y
Committee on Hunger Responsibil
ity will sponsor the annual Oxfam
Fast for World Harvest. The fast
begins at 5 p.m. on Wednesday and
will run until the same time on
Thursday. At this time, there will
be a break-fast dinner in the Union
where f asters will assemble to
formally break the fast and eat
foods supplied by local restaurants.
Donations are requested of.fasters
who should give the amount of
money that they would normally
have spent on food during this 24-
hour penod. Interested others may
also donate, (i.e., those who have
a big heart, but an equally big
appetite.) You're all encouraged to
join in the fast in an effort to fight
the continuous battle against world
hunger.
A little information on Oxfam:
Oxfam America is a non profit,
Boston based, international organ
ization that funds self-help deve
lopement projects and disaster relief
in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Oxfam is funded by private indi
viduals and groups and neither
seeks nor receives money from any
government agency. During its 43
years of existence, Oxfam has
achieved an international reputa
tion for innovative yet realistic aid
to some of the poorest people in
the world.
Current projects include renova
tion and development of small-scale
irrigation systems in rural African
villages, collection and distribution
of food, blankets, and other emer
gency supplies to Ethiopia, and
getting rice seeds to peasants in
Kampuchea who were very affected
by the severe flooding in 1984.
Of the 6 million in contributions
received last year, only seven per
cent were used for administrative
expenses, excluding fundraising
expenses which were 17 percent.
Your money will be well spent and
your time spent fasting will be well
worth it. Stop by the Hunger
Responsibility table in the pit this
week for additional information.
Martha Brady
Campus Y
Conclusion reached wasn't worth the tripe
By DAVID BROWN
It is hard to recall a more ill-informed, poorly
argued, and biased editorial as that which graced
this page on Nov. 13 ("Zionism lives in infamy").
Rarely have I seen such tripe masquerade as a
student's thought on a major issue. Indeed, I
am doubly surprised to read such a rambling
from Sally Pont. She has achieved a considerable
reputation as a writer and student in many
classrooms and for various Carolina publica
tions. I had expected more thought from one
of the most able undergraduate students of this
university. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to make
sense of her arguments. It is difficult, however,
to know where to start when analysing a diatribe.
First, she makes no attempt to define either
Zionism or racism. Both are terms whose use
is fraught with difficulty. They are used in many
different ways by many different people, by
people acting in good faith, and by those acting
in bad faith.
Second, she claims Zionism is "entirely
militaristic and imperialistic." Such a claim
ignores the nation-building, the study, both
secular and religious, and the land-reclaimation
that is going on in Israel at the moment. However
I suspect the writer is loathe the accept such vague
claims. She might care to consider that a 1982
demonstration in Tel Aviv against the war in
Lebanon drew 10 percent of the population. I
cannot imagine 24 million people descending
upon Washington to protest anything. I cannot
imagine 5 million people protesting in London,
and I certainly cannot imagine a nation that is
"entirely militaristic and imperialistic" allowing
10 percent of its population to protest a war
it is currently involved in.
Third, it is argued that the plight of those
Palestinians outside Israel further proves
Zionism's (Israel's?) inherent racism. Are we to
assume Jordan's killing and expulsion of many
Palestinians during "Black September" is the
fault of Israel? An analysis of the role of the
Palestinians in the Lebanese civil wars, both past
and present, would also be worthwhile.
Fourth, the editorial stated that the Jewish
Defense League, (an American Jewish organi
zation) "provoke(s) the fear, anger, and retali
ation" that manifests itself in the "1972
kidnapping of Israeli athletes at the Summer
Olympics in Munich." This nonsense is void on
its face. Are we to assume that the "attributed"
actions of the JDL in 1985 justify the actions
of the terrorists in 1972? We have a substantial
time jump here. Or alternatively, are we to
assume that the JDL is part of the international
Zionist conspiracy that exists irrespective of time
and space? You might find the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion interesting reading, Miss Pont.
When you are finished, you can extol its virtues
in the DTH. The double speak continues for
the article refers to the "kidnapping" of the Israeli
athletes. They were not only kidnapped; they
were murdered.
However, there is a more general point to be
made here. The blame is laid upon the victims,
the athletes, the Israelis (Zionists?). Are we to
now blame the victim? You might consider this
when thinking about crimes against women; or
more specifically, would the killing of the '
passengers of the TWA plane in Beirut have been
semi-justified?
Fifth, the editorial states that "there needn't
be so much fear at least (of) the moderate faction
of the PLO." I wish you could say that to the
children murdered in their cots in Kiryat
Shemona, or to the three Israeli boaters in
Cyprus, or perhaps you might try asking Mrs.
Klinghoffer. She is one of the Zionists who lived
to tell the tale.
Sixth, you claim that U.S. support for Israel
drives the Arab nations into the hands of the
Soviets. I suspect such an argument is peripheral
to your central point, but nevertheless you might
take the time to notice the new and growing
strength of the U.S. relationships with Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, and despite some tensions, Egypt.
Seventh and finally, you claim that "as the
Jewish Defense League proves, Zionists have
behaved and continue to behave in a maniacal,
militaristic manner." I wonder whether the KKK
proves that all white Americans are racist.
I have no doubt that some Israeli policies are
gravely mistaken, if not reprehensible. I am
equally certain that the views of some American
Jews who support Israel are racist, but I am
confident that Zionism does not equal racism.
What is more, when I read such an editorial,
and see so many internal flaws and factual
deceptions, I wonder whether the writer has a
hidden agenda.
David Brown is a senior history major from
Birmingham, England.