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