US. covert aid props up 'phantom' dominos
“The Roman general was not a little astonished at fin
ding within the sacred recesses of the Holy of Holies,
neither an ass's head nor, indeed, images of any sort."
— Craetz, History of the lews
To state a solution to Nicaragua's problems bluntly,
"we" — the United States — are going to have to end our
warring in that country.
editor's note
debbie howlett
There is a lot of prattle that the problems in Nicaragua
are both confusing and complex. They are neither. The pro
blems that Nicaragua now deals with are only compounded
by U.S. intervention.
In order for Nicaragua to find peace it must first find its
own government, which it has in the Frente de Sandinista
Libveracion Nacional, and the United States has to
withdraw "covert" support of guerillas near the Honduran
and Costa Rican borders.
If the Sandinistas have done what they can, why
should, or rather, why does this burden still rest on the
U.S.'s shoulders?
The United States would be as the Roman general —
astonished — if only we would take time to look into the
recesses of the Sandinista movement. Nicaragua s leftist
government is, as most of the people who've been there
agree, helping the majority of Nicaragua's population and
benefitting the majority of Nicaraguans.
Indeed the Sandinistas are neither saints, nor are they
demons. They are the force behind improved health care, a
literacy rate so much improved that it nearly parallels the
United States' rate and a lower-class that now has enough
food to feed themselves.
In essence, Nicaraguans have solved some major pro
blems in Nicaragua.
U.S. foreign policy in Central America is wrong, it has
solved nothing, and has only lengthened an unnecessary
war. The U.S. says it has softened the negotiating position
of the Sandinistas, but that "softening," if it is in fact true, is
in the best interests of the United States, not Nicaragua.
We are interested not in the well-being of the people of
Nicaragua, but in protecting U.S. interests.
If the U.S. involvement were directed at Nicaraguans,
rather than the Reagan administration's perception of what
is correct, the United States would send economic and
social aid in lieu of guns and bullets.
But the major argument for U.S. involvement in
Nicaragua, as well as against ending aid to "contras" — the
anti-Sandinista guerillas — is a ludicrous concept called the
"Domino Theory." The United States operates under the
assumption that one government like the Sandinistas,
which the Reagan administration has labeled a communist
branch of the Soviet Union, will topple other governments
in Central America, forming a chain of dominos from Mex
ico to South America.
The major premises in U.S. policy are that the San
dinistas are communist, which the Sandinistas vehemently
deny, and that other Central American countries are run by
the governments the people want in power.
The Sandinistas were aiding rebels in El Salvador by
running shipments of guns to the guerillas. The Sandinistas
say they have halted that practice, but the U.S. is still leery.
It is my contention that the United States does have
legitimate interests in the governments empowered in Cen
tral America. The United States does need to be confident
that the Soviet influence is not overtaking Central America
— but only because a Soviet controlled Central America is
essentially the same as a U.S. controlled Central America —
a government not chosen by the people who will live with
it. m
The day after I returned from Nicaragua, I sat in a
Portland restauraunt reading the Oregonian over a cup of
coffee. A Will Rogers quote jumped off of the editorial
page.
We fought for our liberty when we wasn't ready for
anything... now we think no one could possibly be as
smart and as deserving as us.
Let those little nations go their own way, and run their
country any way they want. Nobody don't have to take
some other country to protect their own, but nations won't
tell the truth; they always give one reason, and then have
another.
Will is right. The U.S. should get out of Nicaragua.
letters
Stonewall
It is easy to agree that the Soviet
leadership lies, stonewalls, and
makes a general disaster of public
relations. There may well be some
important truths in their account
of the downing of the KAL airliner,
but how are we to know when
they include probable truths with
preposterous statements like not
knowing it was an airliner?
The Korean government,
military, and intelligence forces
are fanatics capable of just about
anything and they have similarly
provoked the Soviet Union before
and got away with it. I find it quite
conceivable that when the Soviets
did finally identify the plane
minutes before it would be leav
ing their airspace, they thought it
possibly a ruse (empty of
passengers), and possibly not. The
airline pilot refuses to land
which the Koreans have done
before — or maybe the Soviets did
not give enough time to see
signals; the plane was shot down
rather than let it get away with the
intelligence information it almost
certainly gathered.
The Soviet Union could give
reams of reasons why they might
make such a mistake. It is not just
paranoia and clumsiness — much
less an amorphous evil nature —
the history and exigencies of the
defense of the Soviet Union are
different from our own. To over
simplify: the U.S. has the capabili
ty and willingness to provoke the
Soviet Union in ways that the
Soviets cannot. But as was pointed
out by the professors, they don't
want to admit any mistakes and
prefer to stonewall. Essentially
such stonewalling is for internal
consumption.
Our esteemed Sovietologists be
moaned that Pres. Ronald Reagan
did not make more use of this in
cident to further attack the Soviet
Union. They are blinded by their
(understandable) distaste of life in
the Soviet Union and fool
themselves into thinking that the
U.S. can help the Soviet Union to
its demise. The Soviet Union is
not ready to crumble and the pro
fessors will probably readily admit
that the Soviet people are not
ready to be "liberated." Their
wishes for more aggressive U.S.
policies are arrogant and very
dangerous. Their regrets that
Reagan "talked big but carried a
small twig" caused them to miss
the essentials: by making a big PR
show and acting restrained,
Reagan managed to get his troubl
ed MX missiles pushed through
with hardly a whimper.
Our Sovietologists reveal their
true colors with a statement like,
"You cannot declare war. We are
paralyzed by sitting on nuclear
weapons." Unfortunately Reagan
also has close advisers with that
attitude, such as Richard Pipes,
who also happen to think that
fighting and "winning" a nuclear
war is conceivable.
What a thin thread we hang on
that we have to count on Reagan
for restraint. That thread is only
his calculated sense of making an
aggressive gain while appearing
cautious. But it is "caution" only
in relation to the delusions of
reasonable and intelligent men
who would chart a course of
madness.
Ken Summers
graduate
Transients
It certainly seems to me that the
Emerald's article on vagrancy was
superficial almost to the point of
being unthinking. If Eugene has a
larger than average number of
transients, as Mark Lindberg
guesses, it is largely because
Eugene has a worse than average
economy. The task force
discovered that about one-half of
the Eugene transients had been
Oregonians before becoming
transients.
The Emerald article speaks of
removing the cause of the pro
blem, implying that if the well-off
"well dressed" did not have to
look at the poor and "shabbily
dressed," the problem would be
solved. By any rational reckoning,
the transients are not the cause of
the problem, but the effect of an
economic system that can pro
duce plenty of goods, and a Wall
Street boom even though millions
of U.S. citizens are out of work.
Many of yesterday's college
students are today's transients.
What will today’s students be do
ing in five years? The whole situa
tion deserves a much deeper
study.
Harry Rude
letters policy
The Emerald will attempt to print all letters containing fair comment
on topics of interest to the University community.
Letters to the editor must be limited to 250 words, typed, signed and
the identification of the writer must be verified when the letter is turned
in. The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length, style or
'content.
"Your Turn" is an Emerald opinion feature submitted by members of
the university community. "Your Turn" columns must be limited to 500
words and typed.
Letters to the editor and "Your Turn" columns should be turned into
the Emerald office. Suite 300 EMU.
1
Parker presents 2500 chances
vour father never had
Enter the Parker Top-of-the
Class Sweepstakes and you could
win something that can give you a
real advantage in life.
Your ownTexas Instruments
home computer.
While you’re at it, pick up
something better to write with,
too. A Parker Jotter ball pea
Its microscopically-textured
ball grips the paper to help prevent
messy olobbing and skipping.
And it writes up to five times
longer than most ball pens.
Look for sweepstakes entry
forms and details at your college
bookstore. But do it sooa With
over 500 computers to wia this is
one sweepstakes worth entering.
While you still have the chance.
4> PARKER
theClass W^toT^S^S!?^^reprohked. All entries must be recaved no later chan October 15.1983 ©1983 1TPC