Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 8, 2002)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union RO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 Email: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: www.dailyemerald.com Tuesday, October 8,2002 -Oregon Daily Emerald Commentary Editor in Chief: Michael J. Kleckner Managing Editor Jessica Richelderfer Editorial Editors: Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne Editorial U.S. must give Iraq time, option to comply with U.N. resolutions War is never the preferred solution to interna tional disputes, and it isn’t the right answer now for the situation with Iraq. For the past 12 years, Iraq has been under the terms of an armistice that halted the Persian Gulf War. At the time, U.N. resolutions ordered the de struction of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capability. Since 1991, Hus sein has repeatedly hampered the inspectors from doing their work, and in 1998, he threw the inspec tors out altogether. There are some in President George W. Bush’s ad ministration who are very eager to send the U.S. mil itary into Iraq immediately and be done with Hus sein once and for all. Congress is close to giving Bush the unfettered ability to attack Iraq at will. Bush him self made a national speech Monday evening laying out his case for unilateral U.S. action. Nothing Bush said, however, was new or surprising. We do not argue with the fact that Hussein is un fit to rule a nation, but it is not the responsibility of the United States to force Iraq to comply with U.N. sanctions. Worse, to do so would undermine U.N. authority and destabilize the region, threatening America’s security. Instead, the best suggestion would be to take the compromise proffered by France of a two-stage reso lution in the U.N. Security Council. The first stage would demand complete disarmament and inspec tions to force compliance. The United Nations should unequivocally tell Hussein that inspectors must be allowed in any place, at any time, under any circumstances and with no warning, until the world is convinced that Iraq no longer has weapons of mass destruction. There should also be a trigger for a second resolu tion that would enumerate the consequences of re newed stonewalling. One of the benefits of this method is that it gives Hussein enough rope to hang himself. On the one hand, if he complies and disarms to the satisfaction of the United Nations, so much the better. Everyone would win — the world could avoid war, Hussein’s power would be preserved and the sanctions would end. However, should Hussein once again deny inspec tors access or try to impede their work, the world would have clear “causus belli” — reason for con flict. The Security Council can then authorize U.N. forces to militarily disarm Hussein. Should military action come, the aim of any attack must be the same as the aim of the resolutions: Disar mament first, regime change a distant second, if at all. It is only in the case of extreme resistance to inspec tors’ entry that the international community should consider removing Hussein from power by force. The deal currently being hammered out between Iraq and U.N. weapons inspectors must be allowed a chance to work, and the United Nations itself must be allowed to enforce its own resolutions. If the United States acts unilaterally, it will undermine its own se curity and the force of international law that it relies on when demanding that the United Nations act against Iraq. A familiar battle cry Kate Petersen In other words The headline was outrageous: “U.S. de tails Iraqi missile fire” (The Oregonian, Sept. 30). Iraq shooting missiles at Ameri can aircrafts patrolling the no-fly zone? Those pesky Iraqi citizens trying to shoot our brave American soldiers out of the sky? What nerve! Who do they think they are? For some reason, I don’t buy it. The story made me immediately think of two things. The first is a movie, “Wag the Dog.” The sec ond occurred in 1964 and was named the Gulf of Tonkin incident. “Wag the Dog” is a movie starring Robert De Niro as the presi dent trying to convince the American public that they are at war in Albania when, in fact, there is no such war. De Niro and his aides hire top Hollywood producers, directors and actors to star in “war footage,” which is then distributed to news organizations who then broadcast to a dismayed American public. In the end, the American people are nev er the wiser, the president wins re-election and all is well at the White House. About 38 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced to a shocked public that Vietnamese torpedo boats had launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. The story said that North Vietnamese PT boats “deliberately attacked” a pair of U.S. ships. Not long after, Johnson announced air strikes against North Vietnam, a huge es calation of the war. In truth, the “routine patrol” was not rou tine, but rather a coordinated maneuver that aligned the United States with the South Viet namese Navy and the Laotian Air Force. Years later, the truth came out and America discov ered that Tonkin did not happen as the Presi dent said it had. The story was manufactured to draw Ameri ca into a war that the White House had already mapped out. As of a few days ago, the White House released never-before-seen footage of U.S. planes being fired at in Iraq. The tapes show a two missile battery swiveling in a circle, then launching a mis sile at the pilotless spy plane which was shooting the video. The tapes were once confidential but now, for some odd reason, are available for the voting public to see. The question here is: Why? Why did the government decide to suddenly publish this new, previously classified infor mation? The most likely /i 0 reason is to give the Bush adminis tration all of the support it needs to declare war and bomb the hell out of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Since Iraq is now actually firing at United States aircraft, potentially endangering American citizens, isn’t that cause for war? That’s exactly what President Bush wants the American public to think. On Wednesday, Bush reached an agree ment with House leaders authorizing him to use force against Iraq. The agreement read, “The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he de termines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” (The Oregonian, Oct. 3). President Bush may be authorized to use mil itary force as he sees fit? What a scary thought. I hope Congress is scared, too. One part Gulf of Tonkin, one part Wag the Dog? I truly hope not, but something makes me think that the folks in charge of running America are not above this kind of action. Bush wants to declare war so bad he can taste it, and this may just be the event that will give him the consensus to do it. Trust the government? Not me. Holly wood shows that this kind of thing is more than possible, and history shows it has been done before. E-mail columnist Kathryn Petersen atkathrynpetersen@dailyemerald.com. Her opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Emerald. Frohnmayer s dry frat policy is a riot Guest commentary In spring 2002, University President Dave Frohnmayer, along with key members of the administration, finalized a resolution to force fraternities at the University to imple ment substanee-free housing. With news of this mandate came a flurry of student frus tration and public dismay over what seemed a grotesque abuse of power. What bothered me, however, wasn’t the administration’s blatant infringement of civ il liberties. Nor was it the surprising dis crimination against the Greek community, a population whose alumni contribute roughly 60 percent of the University’s finan cial donations. What really struck me about Frohnmayer’s decision was the inherent blindness with which it addressed the issues of student conduct, safety and alcohol abuse. Under pressure to react to a national ly growing problem of student misbehavior on college campuses, Frohnmayer’s posi tion on “dry” fraternities has paradoxically fueled the fire he was trying to put out. Anyone who went to college or goes to college, or has even the vaguest concept of life in a university setting, can agree that students are going to party occasionally. To pretend that student nightlife, drinking, and experimentation are problems that need to desist is to deny the very essence of a young adult coming of age. Further, to force frater nities to be substance-free in an effort to en hance student safety and health is the veri table equivalent of sticking one’s head into a bag so as not to face the real world. In a fraternity, there exists a great amount of personal liability on the part of its residents. If something goes wrong, if an accident hap pens, if fun turns into trouble — then mem bers of the fraternity will find themselves in court. This accountability forces these men to take personal responsibility for both them selves and all those in their house. A tightly controlled hierarchy of officials, including a president and risk management officer, take charge within fraternities to ensure the secu rity of all attendees. In turn, gatherings at these houses are always closely monitored and relatively safe. This is not the case when students are pushed into neighborhoods surrounding the campus. In this environment, substance abuse, violence and pandemonium spring up on busy nights. Overcrowded house parties become beacons for police activity, fights, rapes, DUIs, riots, and there was even a shoot ing last year. There is litde control and almost no personal liability. Frohnmayer undeniably knew this and yet persisted in making frater nities go “dry,” essentially forcing even more students to find their good time in quiet resi dential neighborhoods. The result of this decision was easily pre dictable, and as they say, the proof is in the pudding. I was wondering how long it would take for disorder and property damage to begin occurring in the streets around the University. It ended up only taking two days. Friday’s riot and ensuing police action is just the beginning of what this year will bring. As a student, I suppose 1 will just sit back and watch. But if you’re a local resident, a parent or Eugene police officer, I will say this: In your moment of frustration, be sure to call Frohnmayer and thank him for his ignorant disregard.for student safety and community civility. Dan Occhipinti is a sophomore philosophy and political science major. Letter to the editor Police approach to riots overzealous First of all, I resent as a student that the blame for this event has been put all on our shoulders. I understand that this was drunken kids that started these riots and that they ab solutely got out of hand, but let’s think about who allowed them to get out of hand — the police! I honestly believe that the Eugene po lice get off on tear-gassing crowds of people. This is my second year at the University and I have seen this twice now. I am origi nally from New York, where people are much crazier than these Oregon wannabes. I have never in my life seen anything get so out of control. Fortunately, I was not a part of this. At 2 a.m., tear gas was the only op tion, but at 11:30 p.m. when the “riot” be gan, those measures were definitely not necessary and should have been handled in a civilized manner at that time. P.S. 1. Gras was not poured on the golf cart, but there was a gas leak in the cart’s fuel tank. 2. News reports across the country stated that the fires were on the “campus.” What’s that about? 3. Instead of just men tioning coughing and tearing, how about you mention the extreme vomiting that every tear gas victim suffers with? Katherine Vogeier junior journalism
