Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 28, 1997)
CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: ADDRESS: (541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald E-MAIL P.O.BOX 3159 ode@oregon uoregon edu Eugene. Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: darkwing uoregon.edu/-ode Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Nicole Krueger AN EMERALD EDITORIAL So, the United States is tem porarily happy. China has fi nally taken a step toward fit ting into our view of what the world should look like; it has stopped providing nuclear technolo gy to Iran. Let the world rejoice. Finally, only the good guys will be able to get their hands on the tools needed to build weapons capable of killing us all. The only problem is that every per son killed in armed conflict over the past 40 years has died from non-nu clear weapons. The real threat to world security doesn’t come from China and Russia helping Iran build a nuclear reactor; it comes from sales of conventional weapons. Unfortunately for the United States and its efforts to create a menacing image of China, the real villain in the “new world order” is the United States, which is responsible for the largest share of conventional weapons sales in the world. According to Arms Sales Monitor, the U.S. government provided $12.5 billion in arms to other nations in 1995. Private industry sold another $3.6 billion worth of weapons to for eign governments. China — that great threat to world security — only sold $600 million in arms. Overall, the massive military-in dustrial complex of the United States accounts for roughly one-half of glob al arms sales. In addition, the U.S. Army is among the biggest and most expensive in the world. Despite its claims that these sales go only to nations with legitimate se curity interests, the fact is that U.S. arms have done as much to con tribute to instability throughout the world as have any other weapons shipments. The United States has provided weapons to a number of na tions that promptly used them for immoral purposes. For example, the United States has long provided arms and other assis tance to the Indonesian government, despite its abysmal human rights record. According to Matthew Jar dine, who was writing in Z Maga zine, the United States at one point in the 1980s was providing more than $1 billion in annual aid to the In donesian government. Even now, in the post-Cold War era, 1994 sales to the nation from the United States are estimated at more than $80 million. The United States has propped up a variety of corrupt Latin American governments at various times be cause of the perceived strategic im portance of the region. Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama and Nicaragua, Peace Profit The United States is selling arms to dangerous nations at the cost of world security PlBjSUj. €> which is probably the only nuclear among others, have all suffered un der military dictatorships because the United States was buying the loy alty of the generals in charge by giv ing them the weapons needed to op press their people. Even Iraq, our enemy in the Per sian Gulf War, was at one time a weapons-receiving ally because we backed the secular Iraqis in their civil war against fundamentalist Iran. Sau di Arabia, which finally ended slav ery in the 1980s; Kuwait, where less than 20 percent of the people are eli gible to vote; and Egypt all receive arms from the United States. Few nations benefit more from our military friendship than Israel, power in the Middle East because of its strategic importance to the United States. According to an article recent ly published in Harper’s, U.S.-built missiles were found in the wreckage of civilian vehicles destroyed by Is raeli helicopters. It is reprehensible for the United States to demand that China, Russia and other nations stop sales of arms to countries the United States deems dangerous while U.S. leaders and companies continue to ship billions of dollars worth of weapons to na tions with documented human rights abuses. The solution is not to simply allow more arms sales throughout the world. Despite the claim of certain members of Congress that providing arms to all sides of a conflict ensures security, the fact is that the proliferation of weapons leads to in creased tensions and more casualties in con flicts. As one side of a conflict ac quires more arms, the other side inevitably feels the need to do the same. Otherwise, they might risk los ing the battle. At some point, as the cost of buildup becomes too high, one of the parties is likely to let loose with the weapons they have, choos ing to fight now rather than fall be hind in the arms race later. If the United States is interested in building a secure future for the world, the solution lies in putting a stop to arms sales, not in giving weapons to whomever our ally of the week happens to be. China’s decision to stop providing nuclear technology to Iran is ad mirable. If the United States would follow suit by ceasing to sell arms to even one of the aggressive govern ments we currently prop up, that would represent a sign that world stability truly was the goal of the re maining superpower. This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses may be sent to ode®Oregon.uoregon edit. WIVDOWS ’97_r Thumbs PRO-MEASURE 51 COMMERCIALS: We never want to hear about assisted suicide at the din ner table, but a re cent commercial by the proponents of Measure 51 is particularly upset ting. The spot which many local stations have re fused to run, fea tures a young actor who, we are told, erroneously de cides to end his own life despite not really having a ter minal illness. Not only does the ad capitalize on mis understanding of the assisted sui cide issue, but it also includes de scriptions of Billy, the youth in ques tion, dying as he chokes on his own vomit. Political commentaiy should speak to the brain, not the stomach. A ASTANDARD BLOOD-ALCOHOL - LIMIT: President Bill Clin ton recently pro posed national leg isiation that would set the legal limit tor blood alcohol of drivers at .08. This ought to be the absolute maxi mum states could set; there would be nothing wrong with allowing them to limit drinking and driving even further. For the av erage 180-pound man, .08 corre sponds to five drinks In a one hour period — more than enough to inhibit driving ability. Even a drink or two can adversely affect a person's ability to drive.
