Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / June 23, 1983, edition 1 / Page 14
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
COMMENTARY :.Q - : v: v LETTERS TO THE EDITOR The Tar Jeff Hiday, Editor Bill Riedy, News Editor Lbbeth Levin e, Arts 9 Features Editor Jeff Neuvhjle, Photography Editor Heel Ginie Lynch, Associate Editor Joel Broadway, Sports Editor Staff: Margaret Bell, Scott Bower, Jeff Brody. Mary Clifford, Kate Cooper, Pete Felkner, Sue Frankel, Gwen Hailey. Les A. FLamashima. April FLardison, Andy Hodges, Marlynn Ruth Jones," Eileen Mc-Cann, Tom McNeill, Haleh Moddasser, Ben Perkowski. Cassandra Poteat, Bill Rose, Bill Shaw, Jom Smith, Susie Spear, Low Thomas, Mike Toole, D.A. Trevor, Melanie Wells, Edith Wooten, Rebekah Wright, and Joel Katzenstein, assistant arts 9 features editor. Advertising: Paula Brewer, manager, Mike Tabor, coordinator, Terry Lee, representative. Business: Anne Sink, interim manager. SecretaryReception ist. Kim Baker. Composition: UNC Printing and Duplicating Department. Printing: Hinton Press, Mkbanf.. Red, white, blue and afraid Register at will A judge ruled last week that a law requiring male students to disclose their draft registration status when applying for financial aid is unconstitutional. The law, scheduled to go into effect late next week, has been on the books since last September. It deserved to be thrown out the window. U.S. District Judge Donald Alsop issued a permanent injunction against the federal government last Friday and ordered that the law not be enforced in any state. This week the judge rejected requests from U.S. Justice Depart ment attorneys to stay his order to allow for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court Kudos to Alsop. Not only does the law, known as the Solomon Amendment, lead to self incrimination, thus violating the Fifth Amendment, but it exhibits a simple attempt by the government to coerce members of society. It takes away an important tool of democracy, that of protest, and curbs freedom of speech. Proponents of the amendment say they are prepared to argue the case before the Supreme Court immediately. If it gets that far, hopefully the bretheren will have insight enough to uphold Alsop's injunction. An impressive week This must be Ronald Reagan Week. Newspaper headlines sing sweet sere nades of the wondrous space shuttle goings-on. They tell of the wise" reap pointment of the president's Federal Reserve Board chairman. The International Monetary Fund predicted Tuesday that after three years of stagnation, the world economy is poised for "modest but significant improvement" for the rest of this year and 1984. And yesterday the government announced that the GNP is rising the fastest in two years. Not bad for a president fighting accusations of naivete and builheaded ness, a president toying with the idea of reelection next year. Sort of takes the wind out of the Democratic presidential hopefuls' sails. Other big stories like the pope's visit to Poland and Lt. Gov. Jimmy Green's indictment, of course, have done little to disturb the president's Week. Again, the California knight in shining armor has come through in "the clutch." Wow. We're impressed. .To the editor: I am not on the left. I am not on the right. I am not radical. I am not conservative. I am an American, and I am afraid. I am afraid of our involvement in Central America. I am not so much fearful of our physical presence there, as much as of the morality which has placed us in the current situation. A moral madness seems to have possessed the Reagan Administration. Our country was founded upon the particular morality em bodied in the Declaration of Independence. It has served us well, been a source of strength. Now, unfortunately, our moral interests are being subtly subverted in the name of "na tional interests" (meaning money and power) in El Salvador and other Central American countries. I am afraid the Reagan acLrninistration is manipulating our fears to convince us that the way we are handling Central American prob lems is the moral way. "Communism" and "The Communist Threat" are words fre quently used by the administration in public declarations. But we no longer know what these words mean. Their only effect on us is a vague fear. Something to be avoided. Like a shadow sliding in the darkness of an alley at night. The spectre of an "Evil Empire," as Mr. Reagan stated, is another blatant scare tactic I am afraid that you and I will allow the ad ministration to involve us in Central America in a way that is contrary to our beliefs and humanity. We are already involved there is a strikingly Vietnam-like way. The early days of the Vietnam war were chronicled in the back pages of the national newspapers. First, equipment and weapons went in. "Military advisers" were next. It was not too long before the first killing of an ad viser was detailed on newsprint. Our adminis tration says that no more than 55 advisers will be allowed in El Salvador (the first one has already been killed), and 100 advisers are based in neighboring Honduras. Because of the Vietnam war, the media are giving greater, more visible coverage to early developments in Central America. Yet, it seems that we have not learned from our past. The Reagan ad ministration is going along the path of war with Little popular resistance. I am afraid that as United States transgres sions against the humanity of other peoples in crease, we will ourselves become less human. Now is the time to deliver a message to the Reagan administration. On July 2, at 4:30 p.m., a march will be staged in Washington, D.C., to protest the handling of U.S. affairs in Central America. The march will culurninate with a rally in front of the Shoreham Hotel, where President Reagan will host the Independence Day Gala Ball. Joel Richman Chapel Hill The Vietnam parallel To the editor: While people in Central America continue to die at the hands of U.S.-sponsored right wing terrorism, we have no right to be silent. U.S. preparations for direct, Vietnam-style in tervention must be met with more than acqui escence and passive despair. Electing a new president might help. But that is not enough. Our policy in Central America is a manifestation not of presidential evil or idiocy, but it represents the perceived short- and long-term economic interests of particular segments of the private sector. But these interests do not determine U.S. policy; they just exert powerful influence in its formulation. Specifically, in addition to pre serving international climates conducive to corporate profits, policy-makers must main tain domestic stability and preserve the legiti macy of the government in the eyes of the public. How can we best demonstrate the potency of our opposition? Vietnam is an instructive precedent. While the United States was bombing Vietnamese peasants in the mid 1960s, broad sectors of the American public were demonstrating their dis sent. There were long-term effects as well: the unwillingness shown by the American people to sanction the mass murder of Third World people struggling to build more humane socie ties has struck fear into policy-makers, conser vative intellectuals, journalists and other apologists for American atrocities. . To curb U.S. aggression in Central America, we must confirm these fears. We must oppose U.S. efforts to overthrow the Nicaraguan gov ernment and sustain "the rule of Salvadoran plantation-owners not because such efforts will fail dismally, but because the U.S. govern ment is on the wrong side. We must prove that the "Vietnam Syndrome" persists. . Joe Morris Chapel Hill Ethical opposition to U S foreign policy By ASHLEY McKINNEY The editorial in last week's Tar Heel ("Evolution of an American War,'' June 16) described U.S. interest in Central America as complex, but nowhere does it penetrate the thin surface of White House double-talk on foreign policy. What are the real reasons that current policymakers define the area as vital to U.S. interest? What motivates our leaders to defend right wing dictators who atrociously abuse human rights? The editorial places the blame for our Central American pol icy on the shoulders of our "confused president," but U.S. foreign policy is rooted far deeper than in Reagan's moral and intellectual cretinism. Reagan, after all, is hardly standing alone on this issue; he is backed by a number of conservative intellectuals, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick. And, his course of ac tion in no way deviates from traditional policies toward Cen tral America. The CIA destabilization effort in Nicaragua stems from a long history of U.S. intervention. If the current course proceeds, the United States will invade Nicaragua for the 15th time. Neither is Reagan's policy inconsistent with the general pol icy toward the Third World. A Vietnam-style escalation in mil itary involvement appears imminent. Reagan's pledge not to send combat troops to El Salvador recalls Lyndon Johnson's pledge that "we seek no wider war" soon before the massive escalation of "non-combat advisers", to 500,000 U.S. troops. The fact is that Reagan's policy cannot be discounted as idi otic, the result of confusion or misconception. It is, in fact, based on the pursuit of certain interests. But are these interests the interests of most Americans? The majority have nothing to gain by the U.S. effort to impose right-wing governments on the people of Central America. And young men are not the only ones who will lose in Amer ica's imperialist war games. Military spending impedes the funding of human needs. With raging unemployment, hunger and housing problems, Americans can no longer afford U.S. foreign policy. In contrast to popular interest, however, there is the interest of the capitalist elite. North American-based companies have invested in the agricultural business of Nicaragua, investments now threatened by economic transformation. Prior to the Nicaraguan revolution, the country's economy was based on export production at the expense of the produc tion of food and other internal necessities. The Sandinistas are trying to rebuild the war-crippled economy through agrarian reform. Their objective, to make Nicaragua more self-suf fi . cient, runs counter to U.S. corporate interests. This transfor mations threatens to dissolve markets for U.S. goods and to deplete the supply of cash crops. Thus from the perspective of U.S. corporations, Nicaragua is a bad example for the rest of Central America and the entire Third World. Nicaragua could send another "domino' topp ling, and thus, the U.S. is not inclined to let even Nicaragua fall. Corporate interests are very influential in the creation of na tional policy and explain how even a war opposed by a majority of Americans could still be waged. In order to prevent direct in tervention, domestic uprisings must reach such a height that it becomes more costly for the policymakers to maintain corpo rate rather than popular interests. People who oppose our continued entanglements in Central American affairs are not simply draft-frightened youth who wish to save their own skins: There are also those who object morally to denying the right of people to improve the condi tions of their lives. And yet the Tar Heel editorial only excites self-interest by alleging that "you or someone you know might be sent to El Salvador for actual combat." Playing to people's ; self-interest may not be a bad tactic in building resistance to U.S. involvement. However, in order to insure a more prin cipled resistance, opposition to the policy must be ethical as well as emotional. It isn't simply that you might die in El Sal vador or that the U.S. might suffer an embarrassing defeat. Opposition must come from the conviction that the policy is abjectly wrong. Ashley McKinnon is a junior from Raleigh. 14 The Tar Heel Thursday, June 23, 1983
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 23, 1983, edition 1
14
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75