Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (June 3, 1976)
Letters— What's it all about? It's Tuesday morning and I’m sitting here in speech class won dering what it’s all about. No, I don’t mean this class, but rather college in general. I know, I’m only a sophomore, and as such, I’m not supposed to know. They tell me that this is natural, that everyone gets contused about this time. Nevertheless, there are a few things I’d like to understand. For example, during the ASUO elec tions it seemed (from reading the Emerald, anyway) that nearly the entire campus population was deeply involved in selecting the proper candidate(s). Yet only a couple thousand people bothered to vote! I always thought that uni versities are where all the wide eyed idealists are. I kept hearing about the “activist” and the col lege student trying to change things. I thought, mistakenly I guess, that people only became apathetic after they left college. I guess I was wrong. I’ve heard it said that it’s up to the young peo ple to change the world. Does this mean that getting involved is going to be left to high-school stu dents? Eric Frazier psych., soph. Something said Now that the May 25 primary is over, and our ASUO elections are over, I believe something should be said about the Emerald's coverage of the candidates so far in 1976. After looking through many past issues of our University paper, I can only call the coverage very biased. From the presidential primary, down to the contest for ASUO president, the Emerald has not been giving fair coverage to aN the candidates. As a Democrat, I am most con cerned about the articles relating to my party’s choices to run against the other party in 1976. As most politically aware students realize, Jimmy Carter has been the overwhelming choice of the Democrats in our nation this year, garnering more than five times as many votes as his closest com petitor, Morris Udall. Early in this year, the Emerald started doing its hatchet job on Gov. Carter along with Mr. Brill (whose infamous ar ticle appeared in Harper’s Magazine). This unfair coverage culminated in a double attack on the editorial page against Carter in the May 24 issue of the Emerald. Firstly, while disclosing their choice for the nomination, the Emerald came out with the old familiar theme that Jimmy Carter is not specific on the issues. For general interest, it should be noted that this week’s issue of Time magazine stated that even Carter’s most ardent critics say that he is as specific on the issues as any other candidate running. Secondly, there was a letter to the editor that was printed on the same day which again tried to call Carter a liar, with the same ac cusations that have been refuted dozens of times by the Carter campaign, and many other re spectable sources (including Newsweek, US News, etc.) By printing this editorial and this letter to the editor in the paper, the Emerald is only serving to in crease the divisiveness in the Democratic party, and therefore, make it more difficult for Carter to defeat the Republicans in November because of the many false allegations against him. As I stated earlier, I am also upset by the coverage given to the people running for ASUO presi dent, especially in the runoff. After making their endorsement known, the Emerald continued to talk favorably about the person they favored, while giving poor cover age to the other candidates. On the last day to send in our ballots for the run-off, the Emerald printed five letters to the editor in a row endorsing the candidate they supported — with no letters at all for his opponent. Under no cir cumstances could I call this fair coverage. Hopefully, biased coverage of this type win not occur again in the future elections that are held, for if they do, the validity of the Emerald as a fair source will be severely damaged. Bryan J. Cohen bus. admin., soph. Editor’s note: The Emerald informed both ASUO presidential presidential candidates that we would make an effort in the run-off election to print every campaign letter we received. Davis re ceived far more letters than OSver. From day to day are tried to balance the number of letters for each candidate. By the last day we had printed every letter that we had received for Oliver and still had five left for Davis. Unfair to porkers Tuesday's Emerald carries a U.S. Navy advertisement ordering students: “Kick tfie 9 to 5 routine.” That advertisement contempts the civilian economy, the same sort of overt militarism that de stroyed the Assyrian Empire in only 200 years Pusilanknous pat rioteers (not patriots) in the Pen tagon can't equal that record but are trying to be not far behind. They waste taxpayers’ money, scarcening natural resources. This is totally contrary to the in terest of students and their pros pective children. Thank you for editorializing pro-Brown and anti-Reagan. Ronnie used to be called a “ham actor” but that's unfair to porkers. He’s a baloney actor. PRO-homo-sapiens, education ’36 Choice clear The Oregon primary last week gave us a dear choice in the race for Secretary of State. The choice is Sen. Blaine Whipple, Democrat Senator Whipple was Eugene McCarthy’s Oregon state chairer in 1968; at a time when it was “out of style” to go against Lyndon Johnson. In 1972 Blaine Whipple was George McGovern’s state coordinator as well as head of Oregon’s McGovern delegation to the 1972 Democratic Convention in Miami. As a state senator, Blaine Whipple has consistently sup ported progressive legislation. He would add a new dimension to the office of Secretary of State. Senator Whipple is not afraid to fight for what he thinks is right; no matter what the special interests have to say. Senator Whipple has earned the vote of every progres sive voter in November. Jeffrey Warren SUAB member Gail Ehman history, jr. ' *>••.'«*»*** ny ■ ‘COMEONCUT JiMMVOCTX- WE KWW IN THEf?E' opinion r Hunger strike opposes killing Presently many Iranian students in southern California, Chicago, and a few European cities are staging a Hunger Strike to oppose the brutal killings of many Iranian patriots in Tehran and several other Iranian cities, by the Shah’s secret police force (SAVAK), within the last few weeks. The New York Times and many other prestigious Western newspapers reported that 22 Iranian pa triots (men and women members of the People’s Fedayee Guerilla Organization, one of them a fourteen-year-old boy) were attacked and killed by SAVAK agents about three weeks ago. The World Confederation of Iranian Students learned that two women members of the Mojahedeen Or ganization died under torture in the Shah's jails in the same week, and that two ex-members of the Italian chapter of the World Confederation of Ira nian Students were kiled by the police in the streets of an Iranian city a few days later. Also, according to an unconfirmed report from Iran, many striking Iranian workers, who were demand ing higher wages and better working conditions, were shot to death by the Shah's police on the first of May. According to a Newsweek report which ap peared in its May 17, 1976, issue, the CIA is presently cooperating with the Iranian SAVAK in order to contain the Iranian revolutionary move ment. It was during the Nixon administration that Richard Helms, the CIA chief, resigned and sub sequently was appointed by Nixon to become the U.S. "ambassador’ to Iran. The Helms appoint ment and the support given to the Shah’s SAVAK by the CIA may have surprised many Americans; but to any politically aware Iranian, this news is not surprising at all. Let us see what accounts for this. If Americans had to wait for Senator Church's Senate sub-committee on Intelligence to discover some of the roles the CIA has played in the shap ing of American foreign policy since its inception, the Iranian people learned it the hard way some 23 years ago. When Dr. Mossagdegh, the na tional and democratic Prime Minister of Iran, had successfully led the Iranian people to nationalize the British-controlled Iranian oil industry in 1951, the British (and American) imperialists tried to buy him off. They were not successful because, unlike his predecessors, Dr. Mossadegh did not repres ent the interest of international monopoly capitafism or local reactionaries. The memoirs of Anthony Eden, who was the British Foreign Sec retary during Mossadegh’s time, clearly reveal the British and American disappointment at Mossadegh’s resistance to foreign pressure. In his words: “In the end of my conversations with Foster Dulles (the American Secretary of State) I was satisfied that we were nearer to agreement. The situation in Iran was certainly gloomy, but I thought we should be better occupied looking for alternatives to Mossadegh rather than trying to buy him off. In our last talks we were agreed about this...” Of course, as it should have been ex pected, once Mossadegh refused their last prop osals, the CIA, trying to get a share of the Iranian oil industry for American oil companies, stepped in. As a result, CIA staged a coup to overthrow Mossadegh’s democratically elected government and installed the Shah s monarcho-fasdst regime instead. The documentation of the 1953 coup d’etat in Iran by the CIA is ample; to mention a few: R. & G. Harkness, Saturday Evening Post, fall 1954; Fred Cook, The Nation, June 27, 1961; David Wise s The Invisible Government, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Harper's, .etc. Unlike Mossadegh, who did not represent any foreign interest, the Shah s regime was installed as a means of safeguarding die interest of West ern monopoly capitalism. Because in Iran a very strong anti-xnperialist movement existed at the time, the interest of Western monopolies could not have been perpetuated without the imposition of a fascist rule In doing so, the movement was crushed through hundreds of executions and thousands of jaihngs. Furthermore, right after the coup, an attempt was made by the Americans to reorganize the Iranian Army, to strengthen the police, to create a secret police force named SAVAK, to make Iran a co-founder of CENTO (a military pact), and to sign the "Mutual Security Pact" between Iran and the U S Since SAVAK was created to become the Shah's main instrument of his pro-American fas cist rule by the help and advice of American Intel ligence networks, it is not surprising at al to see it now directly cooperating with the CIA. Its agents have always been trained by Americans (the CIA and FBI), and they have always tried to suppress any anti-imperiakst movement in Iran. Despite its secrecy, the extent of SAVAK brutality is so se vere that it has been condemned by many interna tional organizations as one of the most oppres sive police forces. It was only last week that SAVAK was condemned by the U.N.'s commis sion for its severe use of torture against political prisoners. The armed revolutionary movement in Iran, in existence since 1971, is a response to the fascist rule and economic injustice which prevails in Iran, as well as to the role Iran is playing in the Gulf region of the Mid-East. Presently, Iran is the main watchdog of impenalism in the region, safeguard ing the Mid-Eastern oil which is so vital to the economies of Western industrialized countnes This is consistent with the global strategy of U.S. imperialism, designed by Henry Kissinger. It is this role of imperialist gendarme in the area that has made Iran become the biggest purchaser of arms in history In the last three years, for exam ple, Iran has purchased about 50 per cent of all the arms the U.S. has sold abroad. It is obvious who benefits from these arms. Of course it is not the Iranian people who benefit from these modem and sophisticated arms, as well as the oil re venues received by the Shah. The oil money and billions of arms purchased have been added to the Shah's instruments of oppression and economic injustice. We hope that all those who cherish democracy and human dignity write the Iranian Embassy, their Congressmen or the State Department to oppose the above mentioned murders, the inhu man conditions of 40,000 political prisoners of the Shah and his American supporters. Ahmad Razmandeh Iranian Student Association