Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www. dailyemerald. com
Friday, April 12,2002
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Yesteryear's Editorial
It’s nothing
short of an
act of war
The mining of harbors in Nicaragua is —
frankly speaking—an act of war. The Unit
ed States’ part in the mining is — without a
doubt — the action of a belligerent aggressor.
There really are no two ways about it. The Cen
tral Intelligence Agency’s involvement with the
mining of Nicaraguan harbors is a reprehensible
action on par with Iraq and the Soviet Union’s
use of chemical warfare.
However, the Senate, by a
6 to 1 margin, approved a
resolution Tuesday calling
for the end to CIA funding of
the mining operation. That
may pull the CIA up short.
According to reports, the
CIA decision to mine
Nicaraguan harbors was ap
proved on the recommen
dation of Robert McFarlane, White house na
tional security adviser, the Pentagon and
President Ronald Reagan. Apparently, the only
member of the Reagan administration who had
“misgivings” about the mining was Secretary of
State George Schultz.
The Reagan administration has refused to ac
cept the jurisdiction of the World Court to ex
press an opinion on the United States involve
ment in Central America. It seems that the
Reagan administration would prefer to use the
opinion of the World Court only when it serves
their end and does not criticize their actions.
But there is some dissention inside the White
House over the administration’s decision to cir
cumvent the World Court’s opinion. Fred Field
ing, White House counsel, and James Baker,
White House chief of staff, questioned the ad
ministration action regarding the World Court.
Senator Edward Kennedy and the Democrat
ic (and some Republican) members of the Con
gress are loudly criticizing this latest aberration
in Reagan’s Central American policy.
Kennedy told the media that it “is time to call a
halt to the secret war in Nicaragua. If the rubber
stamp Republican Senate will not halt it, I am
very hopeful the House of Representatives will.”
Seven Democrats in the House Foreign Af
fairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
wrote a letter to Schultz asking for an end to the
U.S. role in the mining and for a reversal of the
administration’s position on the World Court.
The reason behind the Reagan administra
tion’s refusal to accept any comment from the
World Court on its Central American policy is
obvious. The Reagan administration is escalat
ing its secret war in Nicaragua. But that war is
no longer secret and U.S. involvement in Cen
tral America is increasingly coming under the
censure it deserves.
This editorial is courtesy of the April 12,1984, edition
of the Emerald.
University
of Oregon
125th
ANNIVERSARY
Originally
published on
April 12,1984
Letters to the Editor and
Guest Commentaries Policy
letters to the editor arid guest commentaries are
encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and guest
commentaries to 550 words. Please include contact
information. The Emerald reserves the right to edit
for space, grammar and style.
CORRECTION
The editorial “Campus news offers good, bad, offensive,’1
(ODE, April 11) should have recognized the Office of Student
life as the sponsor of Thursday's campus safety forum.
The Emerald regrets the error.
Mideast issue about more than just land
I would like to thank the Emerald for pre
senting two balanced views on the cur
rent crisis on the Middle East (“Where do
we stand?” ODE, April 5). However, I found
that both editorials missed a key point.
The current crisis, in my opinion, has
more to do with religion and freedom than
issues regarding land. The Palestinians
and Arabs in Israel are in essence an op
pressed people who want the right to be
free. Remember these words, “We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal,” and that among these
inalienable rights are “life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.” The Palestinian
people are and have suffered tremendous
ly under the Israeli occupation and are
treated as second class citizens (or less). As
an American, I believe the words “these
rights are inalienable” to mean that all peo
ple — not just Americans, not just Euro
Guest Commentary
John
_Melville
peans, not just the Israelis — have the right
to live without fear in a free society.
Israel is a religious state; many hard-line
Zionists believe they have a “God”-given
right to be in Israel, that the Jewish temple
should be re-erected and that Jerusalem
should become the new capital of Israel.
On the other side, Palestine is, in essence,
also a religious state, and the Dome of the
Rock (one of the most holy sites in Islamic
tradition! is built on what was the old Jew
ish temple. Jerusalem has also been the
Palestinian capital for hundreds of years.
Let’s not forget the Christians either. East
Jerusalem and Bethlehem are incredibly
j important religious sites for Christians.
I Hence, religion and freedom are a key issue
to this conflict. The United States and the
United Nations need to take a stand and
separate the two parties, give the Palestini
ans their state and enforce the peace.
However, there needs to be a conse
quence for both sides, since they can’t set
tle their own problems. Jerusalem should
become a U.N. protectorate — a place that
is safe and free for people of all faiths.
Since Jerusalem is key to what both parties
want, it should be taken off the table and
made a non-issue.
Like two four-year-olds fighting on the
playground, one of the key punishments is
to take away their toys and get them out of
the sand box. Both Israel and Palestine
should be treated as such.
John Melville is a research associate at the University’s
Institute of Neuroscience.
Peter Utsey Emerald
Let "5 C, O THAT WAY. * T Uiok^
Pledge helps students make conscious choices
I was outraged by the Emerald’s edito
rial entitled “University shouldn’t
hop on the pledge bandwagon” (April
9, ODE). I found poorly informed allega
tions against the graduation pledge al
liance stating that it is unnecessary and
inappropriately aligns the University
with certain political agendas.
In light of the Emerald’s claim that a
pledge for social and environmental re
sponsibility is “unnecessary,” take a mo
ment and consider a few of the sobering
facts we face as global citizens. An esti
mated two to eight wildlife species go ex
tinct every hour. At least 2.7 million peo
ple die prematurely each year from air
pollution. Communities with a single
hazardous waste facility have twice as
many people of color as do communities
without such a facility. During 1999, in
the United States, 19 million adults and
12 million children went hungry.
In the face of such disturbing environ
mental and social realities, it seems ab
surd to suggest that encouraging others to
consider how their jobs impact society
and the environment is “unnecessary.”
Although college students should be com
mitted to overcoming such environmental
and social horrors, many currently fail to
consider the impact their job choice will
Guest Commentary
Leona
Kassel
have upon the global community.
Furthermore, people often feel over
whelmed by the magnitude of trouble
some situations riddling modern society.
The graduation pledge of social and envi
ronmental responsibility encourages
graduating college students to manifest
their social and environmental ideals in
a proactive fashion by incorporating a
sense of morality into their careers.
The significance of the graduation
pledge is not reducible to simply signing
a wallet card, as the editorial suggested.
Rather, the card serves as a reminder of a
commitment some graduates will choose
to make, to utilize their knowledge to
contribute to a better world for all.
In response to the Emerald’s sugges
tion that the pledge unnecessarily aligns
the University with certain political
agendas, I ask how is the phrase “politi
cal agenda” intended? If a “political
agenda” is encouraging others to think
and be compassionate, then the accusa
tion is correct. What agenda is not politi
I cal? And why should making conscious
choices be apolitical? Living in a democ
racy, we are granted the right to partici
pate in political processes and freedom
of speech, whether it is in the grocery
store or at graduation.
Graduation is not solely a time to remi
nisce about all the hard work graduates
did while at the University. Commence
ment is a time to look forward, to think
about how we will apply our education
in the future. By allowing a group of stu
dents to encourage their peers to take re
sponsibility for the impact of their job
choice, the University is fostering a di
versity of ideas and allowing for the free
dom of expression that this country, and
the institution of higher learning, was
founded upon.
Regardless of whether we, as college
students, acknowledge the current state
of affairs, we live in a world teeming with
environmental degradation and human
suffering. The graduation pledge encour
ages us to act as global citizens by mak
ing conscious choices and applying what
we’ve learned. After all, isn’t this what
college is about?
Leona Kassel is a philosophy and environmental
science major.