PAGE 2
THE TWIG
DECEMBER 6, 1979
TBE
MEREDITH
Editor
Assistant Editors
Managing Editor
TiriG
Reporters
Columnists
^K>rts Editor
Photographers
Cartoonist
Business Manager
Advertising Manager
Circulation Editor
Layout Editors
Cartoonist
Proofreading
Faculty Advisors
COLLEGE
Mary Katherine Pittman
Dawn Hall, Darla Stephenson
Kristy Beattie
Mary Pickett. Kathy O’Brien.
Ginny Porter, Dana Warren,
Carmen Warren, Marlene Barnett,
Beth Giles, Ann Earp, Kelley
Stone. Jill Allen, Jackie Duong
Ratine Nickel. Ann Strlngfield
Darla Stephenson
Susan Kellum,
Paula Douglas, LorriWhittemore
GerlDeines
Leslie Landis
Leigh Stirewalt
GerlDeines
Suzanne Barr, Deborah Bartlett,
Sonya Ammons, Susan Jones
Ann Beamon
Steffani Hoffman
Dr. Tom Parramore.
Mr. BUI Norton
Guest Editorial
Do your part in
avoiding a war
The current situation has done a great deal to help the
American people feel the depths of ineptitude. Beyond such
symbolic actions as demonstrating and wearing white arm bands,
there is little that can actually be done.
However, both President Carter and North Carolina
Governor James Hunt have stressed the need for the lessening of
U.S. oil consumption, especially at this time. Only by lessening
our dependence on foreign oil, especially from countries like Iran,
can we avoid the weakness of dependence. By remembering to
turn off both lights and stereos before going to class; by
remembering that Zacks is within walking distance; and by
eating what is being served in the cafeteria for dinner, though it
may be personally distasteful, instead of driving somewhere else
for dinner, the Meredith community too can help in the con
servation effort.
It is also important at this time to remember the pain and
misery we, as a nation, experienced during the Vietnam war. No
one needs to be told that war is an ugly thing which can only bring
loss of human lives and dignity, but we may need to be reminded,
especially now, of that fact. Before we leap into support of a war
with Iran, we must support the presidnnt, no matter what our
personal political feelings toward Carter are, in his efforts to
solve this crisis through diplomatic means. We can do this by
showing to ourselves, Iran, and to the world, U.S. solidarity,
whether by demonstration, white arm bands, or the more ef
fective conservation of energy.
Kathy O’Brien
Campus Pcipcrbock bestsellers
1. Chesapeake, by James Michener, (Fawcett, $3.95.)
Multi-family saga along Maryland’s Eastern Shore; fiction.
2. A Distant Mirror, by Barbara W. Tuchman. (Ballantine,
$6.95.) Europe in the 14th century.
3. The Far Pavilions, by M. M. Kaye. (Bantam, $2.95.) High
adventure and love in the Himalayas: fiction.
4. In Search of History, by Theodore H. White. (Warner,
$5.95.) Memoirs of a journalist.
5. Mommie Dearest, by Christina Crawford. (Berkley,
$2.75.) Life with mother: Joan Crawford.
6. The World According to Garp, by John Irving. (Pocket,
$2.75.) Hilarious adventures of a son of a famous mother.
7. Evergreen, by Belva Plain. (Dell, $2.75.) Jewish immi
grant woman's climb from poverty on lower Manhattan.
8. The Thorn Birds, by Colleen McCullough. (Avon, $2.50.)
Australian family saga: fiction.
9. Scruples, by Judith Krantz. (Warner, $2.75.) Rags to
riches in the fashion world; fiction.
10. Wifey, by Judy Blume. (Pocket, $2.50.) Housewife’s ex
periences on road to emotional maturity: fiction.
Comptled by The Chronicle of Higher Education from information
supplied by college stores throughout the country. December 3,1979.
Gravity of the Iranian
situation underlined
by Regine Nickel
It is a shame to have to
end this year’s articles on a
gloomy note, but the global
implications of the crisis in
Iran don’t permit another
way. We got so used to press
coverage of the crisis that we
may have forgotten its im
minent gravity. To underline
the seriousness of the
situation, allow me to say here
that there has not been a
greater threat to world peace
since the Cuban crisis,
Vietnam, and the minute
Korean incidents. Only 10
years ago the seizure of a
country’s embassy, which is
sovereign ground under in
ternational law, would have
been an undisputed ‘casus
belli’!
The present crisis has
been handled in an un
precedented way, because we
are dealing with an un
precedented situation. 200
years of sophisticated
diplomacy proved worth
nothing; we were faced with a
complete break-down of
diplomatic channels, un
derstandings, and con
ventions. Our 20th century
governments are suddenly
faced with a government run
by a medieval mind, by a
despotic religious fanatic, who
does not give a hoot about
international relations and the
like, but who feels invested by
God~by his God~to make his
own laws.
Should the Ayatollah’s
demands be granted? Should
the Shah, who, as we now
know, was not a saint either,
be returned? I think the
situation would be far worse if
the Shah were to be returned.
A giving in to international
terrorists’ demands would
turn international relations
topsyrturvy. Never again
would American citizens be
safe in any unruly or un
friendly country. The same
would hold true for the
citizens of any other country
in the world. Once established
as a smooth way to gain profit
for a country, this method of
terrorism would spread like
wildfire.
This makes the outcome
of the crisis everybody’s
concern, one should think.
Why, then, is the Soviet Union
not completely on the side of
the United States?. It depends
as much on diplomatic im
munity as does any other
country. I feel strongly that
the reason lies within the
struggles among the Soviet
sphere of influence. The
Soviet Union has been so
ambivalent in its actions
regarding the crisis - saying
stop and go at the same time -
because its staunchest allies
in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe, Libya’s
Gaddafi and East Germany’s
Honnecker respectively, have
declared their support of
Khomeini almost from the
very start.
Also, the Soviets have
been looking to Iran for oil,
mainly because their own oil
reserves are predicted to run
out no later than the 90ties.
Any military intervention
on behalf of the United States
would then almost have to get
the Soviets involved on the
side of Iran; and the Soviets
would have advantages, too.
They border Iran directly and
would not have any extended
supply lines. Unless the
United States involved NATO
military, successful invention
would be hard to achieve. Yet,
if NATO were to be involved
global conflict would almost
be unavoidable.
What can be done? So far
the American government has
handled the situation very
well. Steady diplomatic
pressure and patience are
about the only means
Khomeini seems to respect.
Rashness and open threats
would only prove him right
and draw his open disgust.
As seen by Harold R. Isaacs
Views on Iranian problem
by Frank R: Grubbs,
History Department
The views expressed in
this article are not mine but
those of Harold R. Isaacs, a
former political scientist at
MIT and authority in world
politics.
I hope that Mr. Isaacs’s
views will aid Meredith
students, faculty, and ad
ministration in understanding
tha Iranian problem. His
views, in my opinion, are
extremely astute and
reasonable.
The problem in Iran is
part of the larger problem of
International Tribalism.
International Tribalism
emerged upon the world scene
after World War Two and was
based upon the common
elements of a similar religion,
language, and culture, among
a particular people. Tribalism
is a force in Black Africa,
Asia, and now the Near East.
The ultimate objective of
Tribalism is to unite a people
of similar ethnic values into a
new nationalistic state, often
against the wishes of a nation
already in existence, as in the
case of the old Congo, or
Federation of South Africa.
Often, Tribalism goes against
the foreign policy of both the
Soviet Union and the United
States, for Tribal Nationalism
does not respect the wishes of
either great power. It seeks its
own ethnic justification.
Now, considering Iran,
Harold Isaacs believes that
Tribai Nationalism has led to
the overthrow of the Shah and
to the rise of Ayatollah
Khomeini, whom Isaacs
considers a fairly typical
Tribal leader.
Tribalism always seeks
the following objectives,
Isaacs believes:
First, all foreign elements
must be driven from the new
Tribal culture. In order to
accomplish this feat, early,
nationalistic values must te
returned (folklore). The new
Tribal culture must be purely
native. Secondly,' nationalism
is the vehicle to purify the
Tribal culture. In Iran’s case,
Islamic Nationalism. All
Western influence must go. In
Iran’s situation, primarily
American influence.
Third, Tribalism can
succeed only if the new ethnic
consciousness is kept united
behind the new leader and
government, themselves a
symbol of ancient purity.
Consequently, a scapegoat is
useful, especially if the goat
represents the greatest
foreign influence on the
culture.
Isaacs points out that
Tribalism has its own
weaknesses. The people
seeking a new ethnic identity
based upon ancient values do
not always agree on their
precise values of objectives.
Thus, Khomeini in Iran has
the problem of uniting
numerous Islamic factions
within the country from the
western Kurds to southern
Arabs.
In facing the problem of
Tribal unity, the Tribal state
must resort to force and the
suppression of freedoms once
the unifying symbol of the
scapegoat has vanished. In
this case, American influence
in Iran had diminished.
Khomeini apparently hopes to
use the twin forces of religion
and nationalism to hold the
new Islamic nation together.
His chances are not good,
because there are too many
diverse subgroups within
Iran. Consequently, after
Khomeini, there will be a
reshuffling of power to
establish another pecking
order and another govern
ment which must find ways to
maintain unity.
What can the United,
States do when. confronted
with Tribalism today and in
the future? Isaacs believes
that we can do very little but
to accept Tribalism and in
corporate the realities of it
into our foreign policy ob
jectives.
We can no longer use
military force to stamp out
Tribalism. We failed to
prevent Tribalism in both
North and South Vietnam
from uniting that nation.
Military force is no match for
a people firmly convinced of
their ethnic destiny.
The United States must
accept Tribalism and
demonstrate to the new Tribal
nation that we are willing to
allow them to exist on this
earth. It is a new day, sayS
Isaac, and Americans are
going to have to learn to live in
it. But so are the Russians.
Tribalism is ethnic, not
political, and seeks its own
justification. , ■
The greatest weakness in
American thinking vis-a-vis
Tribalism, Isaacs believes, is
our lack of knowledge about
international .ethnic groups.
Americans must learn more
about the world in which they i
live, he advises.