EDITORIAL
North Korean threat
not to be ignored
Although he specifically said lhal ho did not wish to
engago in "saber rattling," President Clinton’s actions in
the past few weeks must have seemed to bo exactly that,
from the perspective of North Korea's aging dictator,
Kim II Sung.
Clinton's suggestion that the United Nations should
consider economic sanctions against North Korea was
clearly an attempt to frighten Kim into abandoning his
clandestine nuclear weapons program.— a program
which the CIA believes may have already produc ed one
or two nuclear bombs. Hut considering Clinton's foreign
policy record and Kim's tradition of bucking world opin
ion, it seems doubtful that the throat of sanctions will
force Kim to back down.
When Clinton’s proposal for sanctions was first re
leased. Kim made it clear once again that he would con
sider such actions an "act of war," and respond ac
cordingly. So now the United States is faced with an
awkward dilemma: eilhor continue pursuing a hard line,
and risk North Korea's military (and perhaps nudoar)
wrath, or back down and suffer the consequences.
And those consequences, to borrow an appropriate
cliche, are deadly serious. If North Korea is allowed to
keep building nuclear weapons, it will further threaten
valuable Western allies, such as Japan and South Ko
rea.
But the dangers posed by a North Korean nuclear pro
gram extend far beyond the immediate area, however.
North Korea already engages in a lucrative arms trade
with such renegade regimes as those in Libya and Iraq —
no friends of the United States. There are no guarantees
that North Korea would not also soil nuclear arms to
those countries, if allowed to build them in the first
place.
Ami lotting Kim continue his program, now that Clin
ton has said ho "cannot allow" it. will deal yot another
blow to the prestige of both to the president and the
United States. After tracking down on demands that Chi
na improve its human rights record, and after somewhat
indecisive policies toward Bosnia. Somalia and Haiti.
Clinton’s taking a beating in the international arena. His
ability to act as world leader is becoming more and mom
impaired as a result.
But the apparent alternative — stopping Kim's nuclear
activities through economic sanctions or military force
— carries dangers every bit ns grave as those that will
come if Kim is allowed to go ahead. The military situa
tion in Korea does not favor the United States. Some
35,000 American troops are stationed in South Korea,
and but even when combined with the half-million man
South Korean army, they would not be enough to halt a
determined North Korean attack, which could muster a
million regulars and five million reservists. And while
Japan is not in immediate danger of invasion, it is cer
tainly within range of North Korean missiles and aircraft
The answer is diplomatic negotiation. Clinton has
complicated things by insisting that the North Koreans
make nuclear concessions before the United States will
consider agreeing to North Korean demands, including
full diplomatic recognition from the U.S, and an end to
existing trade limitations between the two countries.
In any case, serious high-level talks are desperately
needed — not more blustering on the world stage. The
potential for disaster is too great.
Oregon Daily
Emerald
i -’•nii’-i yy j: i-l; t-vaini_
Tfxt (>egen OiVy f me* aid t* pubb&nod .la , Mevnday Itvou^ E'dary during in# school
yoft' ij'-'d Tuesday and thur$day du» ng the by the O#gon Da * t d
Pubfes^mj Co irtc . atf the University of Oregon. Eugene. Oregon
TNj EmerafcS operates *ndepe<xJerttty d in# lM*vw» 't w*th o«<ee m Su4e 300 of the
E»t> Menv.vtaJ U#\*on ftfxi it a of t*e A%v. • ..vied Prints
Tn« fm«<dcf >» private property th# uniawM removal or uM of papers <s prose*;-wtaWe
try i.w
Editor Kftiy Jvi-to
Associate Editor* t dean) u» Sa*. .» David T‘ .-••
Photo Editor M*.ha#i Sv V
Night Editor Oavd Trv •
Qcne/«i Manager kdy fled
Advertising Dir#ctor M*v* W,v'o> Production Manager M • .■Mi-ns
Advertising fV n Da v*s S.-t** Dutt* l-.viy f » ;«♦* M r M r v M ,-«#
Classified Decay Merchant mu
Bu*m#s* Kdlhy Carbone. S ,*• i
Production Dee McCotoO r1- . .,• ■ TaraGiu * »*> J#r ‘rr M M.rxl
Newsroom 346-55M Display Advert*smg 346-3712
Business Office 346-SS12 Classified Advertising 346-4343
I
1UI WCCX WTTN JUPTTfR
WHAT AK WT GONG TO DO
A0OUT OUR CRA^U ?
COMMENTARY
Feminists must respect women
David Thorn
I'in not what you would <.all a
typical conservative Sure,
•coifing at society's more
"liberal" i auses is a major pas
time of mine. Sure, I have been
known to read the (Commentator
on occasion. One time. I even
bought a copy of a Kush l.im
bough book (although I waited
for the paperhai k)
In light of all this, it may sur
prise some people to learn that
I consider myself to be a femi
nist
For as long as I can remember.
I've luul the good fortune to
know and work with a number
of highly intelligent and compe
tent women. In fact, as I was
growing up. it took a long time
for me to realize that men and
women weren't already being
treated as equals (iirls did every
bit as well us boys in all the
schools 1 attended: truth lie told,
they did better much of the time
Equality of the sexes seemed
so obvious a goal that I couldn't
believe that it hadn't already
been achieved.
So when I was confronted
with statistics revealing the oh
stat les still faced by women in
sih iety — such as women earn
ing 71 cents lor every dollar
earned by a man it made me
think that perhaps I should lend
my VOW e to those of more active,
prominent feminists
Until t heard what they were
saying Then I discovered that
my definition of feminism
wasn't quite the same as theirs
Now I'm not talking about the
extremists, who seem to think
that women are actually better
than men. 1 don't think most
feminists feel that way. so 1
won't waste time talking about
why 1 disagree
What ! am talking about are
those feminist thinkers who, on
one hand, trv to give women
more choices while, on the oth
ar hand, trying to tell women
what to do.
Feminism today is much more
than "equal pay for equal work.”
Feminism has been extended to
cover virtually every issue that
involves women, from abortion
to advertising, prostitution to
pornography
With each of these issues,
feminism has taken a stand "on
behalf of women." But what
many feminists fail to realize is
that the logii. behind each of
these stands is inconsistent; the
reasoning that justifies one po
sition nullifies another
Take abortion. What reason
ing do feminists apply to sup
port a woman's right to an abor
tion? Usually, they say that
women have the right to decide
what to do with their own bod
ies. and that they are fully ca
pable of making such a decision.
With these two points. I com
pletely agree
But when it comes to other
"feminist" issues, this idea of a
woman having the right and the
ability to make her own deci
sions gets thrown out the win
dow,
Prostitution and pornography
are two such issues I'm not here
to argue about the exploitative
nature of the so-called "sex
industries " My point here is
that many laws (or proposed
laws) to limit or prohibit these
activities send a message to
women that No, we didn't real
ly mean it, you don't have a
right to decide what to do with
your own !>ody Just kidding."
If a woman cam choose to have
an abortion, which is usually a
major life de< isiun, then she
ought to also lx- allowed to make
other major life decisions,
including what to do lor a liv
mg.
I bis widespread pra< lice of
telling women w hat to do — by
no means limited just to femi
nists — extends beyond such
seedy" activities, however.
I'm talkingi about
those feminists
who try to give
women more
choices while
trying to tell them
what to do.
Many individuals, and in this
ujs« feminists especially, soem
to have a negative attitude to
ward other traditionally female
professions, notably that of the
homemaker, or "housewife."
There is nothing wrong with a
person — male or female — ded
icating his or her life to the day
to-day business of raising chil
dren and maintaining a
household Although I person
al!) can’t see the appeal ol
washing dishes and changing
diapers, I have nothing but re
spect for those individuals who
do. Which is more than 11 an say
for some feminists.
In its early days, feminism
was largely synonymous with
"women's liberation." That al
ternate title hardly seems ap
propriate today, however Lib
eration means more than simply
being free to pursue activities
that were previously forbidden.
It also means being free to do the
same things you've always done.
If feminists continue to look
down their noses at certain oc
cupations. they'll be negating
much of the progress that has
been made in recent decades.
If. on the other hand, they tru
ly believe that women can bo
trusted to make their own deci
sions — something they ve been
saying all along — then they
ought to respect those de< isions.
whatever they mav lie.
David Thorn is an associate
editor at the Lmorald
LETTERS POLICY
The Oregon Daily Emerald will attempt to print all letters
i ontaining c omments on topics of interest to the University
community.
The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length or
style.