Paga 4 Portland Observer, March IC, 1963
EDITORIAL/OPINION
Salem Watch
Who will support Ron Dellums?
Congressman Ron Dellum s o f C a lifo rn ia ,
easily the most outspoken congressional critic of
President Reagan’s m ilitary buildup and the
headlong rush to nuclear war is under investiga
tion for use o f marijuana and cocaine.
T h e investigation o f Ron D ellum s is only
another in a long series o f government harass
ment of black spokesmen. The typical pattern is
press slander, repeated investigations, occasion
ally prosecution, and vindication. W hen, after
years of slander, these persons are proved inno
cent, their political base and their financial se
curity has been eroded. Suspicion remains in the
minds o f the public— the government persecu
tors have done their job.
We can name a long list o f national and local
leaders who have suffered this harassment. It is
not new: Marcus Garvey, W .E .B . DuBois, Paul
Robeson were earlier targets.
The question now is, will the black commu
nity and its leadership rally around and support
Dellums; w ill they reject him as many did D u
Bois and Robeson; will they stand in the wings
and wait until the verdict is in? Even before the
investigation was begun, the members o f the
Congressional Black Caucus denied Dellums its
chairmanship, calling him too radical, too far
from the mainstream. This is a demonstration o f
their fear o f identification with the forces for
change. W ill the members o f the Black Caucus
defend and assist Dellums, or will they wait their
turn?
No black person can promote radical change
in this country and not be presecuted by the
press and government; yet no change in the con
ditions o f black life— and in the life of all Am er
icans— will occur unless black spokesmen chal
lenge the system. This is one o f the dilemmas
black A m ericans must face. Support those
spokesmen who dare to challenge and demand
change or give up the struggle for justice and ac
cept life as it is.
Protect worker health, safety
Dangerous substances in the workplace re
main a serious threat to workers in this state and
in the nation. Millions o f workers have been ex
posed to asbestos, coal dust, cotton dust and
other substances that cause lung and heart prob
lems and eventual death. Others have been ex
posed to PCB, dioxin and a multitude o f cancer-
causing or lung destroying chemicals. A pproxi
mately 100,000 die from occupational disease
annually while 400,000 new cases are diagnosed
each year.
Under the Reagan administration profit has
been given a higher priority than workers’ lives
— federal safety restrictions have been relaxed
and enforcements reduced. Governor A tiych’s
budget eliminates eight safety enforcement o ffi
cers.
Senate Bill 294, sponsored by State Senator
Steve S tarkovich, would require labelling o f
toxic substances in places o f employment. This
seems to be a simple bill— it allows workers to
know that they are working with dangerous sub
stances. Too often they arc informed only when
they already debilitated and dying.
The business lobby opposes the bill, saying it
is unworkable and too costly.
Can certain businesses afford to endanger the
lives o f its employees? W o rkm en ’s compensa
tion and disability payments are costly, as are
hours o f work missed due to illness. But with a
large pool o f unemployed and the resulting pres
sure for lower and lower wages, Oregon’s em
ployees can afford to ignore the health and safe
ty o f their employees. It is the responsibility of
the State Legislature to insure the safety o f Ore
gon’s workers.
Corporations reconsider South Africa
{Continued from page I column 3)
$90 m illion had been lost because
the bank—like the u.S. government
— ignored signs o f extreme social
tension in the Shah's Iran. Another
shareholder added: "Things are not
going to get better in South Africa.
So we had belter begin to think now
about what we're going to do as
things get worse.”
On January 26, the Chrysler cor
poration announced its decision to
sell o ff its 25 percent stake in Sigma
Motors C orporation, South A fr i
ca's third largest auto and truck
manufacturing company. Not long
before. General Electric backed out
of a mining venture in the KwaZulu
black "hom eland," in part because
of mounting calls for divestment in
the company's home state o f Con
necticut. Polaroid, Inc., pulled out
in 1977, after learning that its South
African distributor had violated a
1971 agreement not to sell products
to the government. Indeed. South
A frica’s own largest company, the
Anglo-American Corporation, has
expanded its overseas investments—
as insurance against future upheav
als, according to some observers.
A few companies are even finding
ways to profit from pro-divestment
sentmcnt. Chem ical Bank still
makes trade-related loans of a non-
strategic nature to South Africa, but
has made no loans to the South A f
rican government or companies
doing business there since 1974.
Chemical is now setting up a special
fund that would invest only in non-
South Africa-related companies, to
capture part of the divested public
pension funds and church endow
ments.
No one understands more clearly
that divestment has become a seri
ous matter than the South Africans
IS »
HOreaon
1 New .p.iiM-i
1 Publishers
Asso, lation
=4
||
æ
IV
themselves. W hile South A frican
consulates have often conducted
low-key lobbying efforts against di
vestment bills, only recently have
South A fric a ’ s paid lobbyists be
come active at the state level, in re
sponse to the growing success o f
state and municipal divestment bills.
These efforts have been success
fully countered by groups which en
jo y widespread support from
churches, organized labor and com
munity organizations. Among the
proposals for alternative investment
made by divestment supporters in
Massachusetts, one particularly
struck home with state residents:
that the pension funds be used to
help revitalize local neighborhoods
and generate jobs.
There, as in Michigan, the Ford
Motor Company lobbied vigorously
against divestment, arguing for an
amendment that would have ex
empted companies which observe
the so-called "Sullivan principles'*
o f corporate responsibility. Black
unions in South Africa have public
ly rejected this approach, which in
volves voluntary, company-spon
sored improvements in working
conditions, as cosmetics and d iffi
cult to monitor or evaluate.
Adoption of the Ford amendment
in Massachusetts would have ex
empted from the divestment bill's
coverage I I of the 13 companies in
South Africa in which state pension
funds are invested. In M ichigan,
Ford's lobbyist implicitly conceded
divestment's impact by asking state
legislators to exempt the automaker
as "an economically distressed cor
poration." The University of Michi
gan, another active opponent of the
b ill, may still challenge it in the
courts as an infringement on univer
sity autonomy.
Divestment advocates are far
from claim ing that the battle has
been won. In m id-1982, U.S. banks
had S3.6 billion in outstanding loans
to South Africa's public and private
sectors, and direct investment was
estimated at $2.6 billion. Moreover,
the Reagan administration has re
moved restrictions on trade with
South Africa's military and police,
and eased them on nuclear-related
exports.
Nevertheless, divestment as an is
sue has generated a potent, "new
federalist" approach. It promises to
keep apartheid more effectively on
the minds o f millions of Americans
who do care, after, about the way
their money is spent
♦J A k V« Nrwj SrrvKv. I9H.1
Portland Observer
~ i » i .
,,o»‘ ItlO
Bii ’ •
The P u r lla n d O b t r r v t r IU S P S 9 5 9 68011« pu blish ed every
Thurxtey by E iie Publishing Com pany. Inc 2201 North Killingi
worth. Portland Oregon 9 7 2 1 /. Post Office Bo« 3137. Portland
Oregon 9 /7 0 8 Second class iMistage iiael at Portland Oregon
'9 U
&&
«H «SP4M«
- NL <1
NêWAw
X tio c iH io o - founded IM S
Subscriptions S10 00 per year in the Tri County area P ost
m a s te r Send address changes to the P o rtla n d Observer P O
Bo« 3137, Portland Oregon 97208
Alfred I. Henderson. Editor/Publisher
A ! Williams, Advertising Manager
283 2486
(Excerptedfrom Human Relations:
A Global Perspective, by A m b ily
Etekpet
It is no longer an exaggeration
that "tim e is running out in N am i
bia.” It has to be liberated. As long
as the Namibian problem remains
unsolved in terms of Security Coun
cil Resolution (S C R ) 435, and as
long as the anachronistic and perni
cious apartheid system remains
alive, peace and international secur
ity in the southern part of our con
tinent w ill continue to be th reat
ened, and the "h om e-g ro w n ” re
sistance will escalate.
Nam ibia is a land o f wealth and
awesome beauty, but also o f pov
erty and terrible oppression for the
blacks. Perhaps it is the richest
country in the world in relation to
the size o f its population and per
haps it is also the most exploited na-
Letters
To the editor:
We all know so much has been
said and written about Portland's
School Board. The bottom line is
our town needs decisive leadership
in the area o f education. Such lead
ership has to come from the Board
members. H ow ever, every voting
member of the community, regard
less o f whether they are property
owners, renters, or have kids in
school, has the responsibility to
make this leadership happen.
Some incumbent members of the
School Board are still working on a
"comprehensive educational plan."
We have had enough o f “ plan
n in g .” It's time fo r results, and
workable solutions to serious prob
lems.
It is my personal judgement that
one candidate, Jim Standring, has
the in teg rity, desire and com m it
ment to fill a void on the Board. He
certainly has the " te c h n ic a l" cre
dentials to do a good job, but more
important. I believe he has the feel
ing o f what needs to be done to
make our School Distrtict Number
One. He is a team player, but also
capable of making independent de
cisins. If you don't vote on the 29th
— you lost.
Rash Roofing Co.
Roofing of all kinds. Guarantaa;
90 days thru 1 year
N ational A d v e rtis in g R ep resentative
A m a lg a m a te d Publishers. Inc
N e w T o rli
Complicating the issue o f water
rights, o f course, is that most o f
these uses conflict.
One solution to Oregon’s water
rights dilemma may be impossible to
achieve because o f conflicting
claims, but any resolution— any at
all— may be well nigh impossible to
achieve because traditional sources
o f in fo rm atio n — the technical ex
perts— seem to have reached a
stand-off.
One example of this stand-off is a
benefit-cost analysis conducted by
the A rm y Corps o f Engineers. In
1978, they concluded that the eco
nomic benefits generated by irriga
tion approximates the economic
costs o f lost hydro-electric power
due to the withdrawal of water from
streams.
Perhaps more significant to the
impasse is the legal mare's nest o f
Oregon's water allocation system. A
non-stream water right, once issued,
is held in perpetuity, as long as the
holder exercises his/her right within
any five year period. Thus, each
year the legislature fails to ade
quately address water policy, the
State's managerial fle x ib ility de
creases. Each year the conflict con
tinues, the options available to all
Oregonians are further reduced.
At the center of Oregon’s current
water program is the Water Policy
Review Board. Several bills this leg
islative session would attempt to al
ter Oregon’s water policy by chang
ing the composition o f the Review
Board’ s members. The real prob
lem, of course, remains: Past failure
to adequately address Oregon's con
flicted water policies have resulted
in a future that has been mortgaged
more than once.
Portland State University’s Insti
tute for Oregon Policy Studies, in a
work entitled "Past Commitments,
C urrent Problem s, and W ater
Choices for O regon’ s F u tu re ,”
seems to have accurately outlined
the choice:
The (W ater Policy Reviewj
Board has had the opportunity
since 1995 to protect minimum
in-stream flows, to classify wat
ers, and to allocate water based
on its determination o f the pub
lic interest. The Board has the
ability to anticipate and perhaps
prevent harm to in-stream uses by
continued consumptive appropri
ation. Instead, the Board main
tains a permissive policy on fu
ture consumptive appropriations
from most state waters. Harm to
in-stream uses under this policy
is almost inevitable.
It will be difficult to undo a gen
eration of neglect— to pay o ff that
overdue mortgage— yet the Oregon
legislature must begin sometime.
Perhaps the place to start is with the
reconfirmation hearing o f the Water
Resources Department’s director,
James Sexon. While M r. Sexon, an
Atiyeh appointee, is not responsible
for the entire tangle of Oregon wa
ter rights, it is certainly appropriate
for him to address these issues at his
reconfirmation hearing next week in
Salem.
Secondly, the legislature must ad
dress these issues itself. A fte r all,
M r. Sexon w ill be reconfirmed or
not at the pleasure of the legislature.
I f a continued plundering o f our
water resources is the will of the leg
islature, then that is what Oregon
ians will get. But if our elected o ffi
cials want to help preserve our na
tural heritage for future generations
of every species, the time for action
is now.
Time runs out for Namibia
Fran Ariniello
The Pordeed O ta r rv r r wes established m 1970
member
"W a te r, water, everywhere, and
not a drop to drink,** may become
the next official Oregon motto if the
State legislature fails to address a
lengthy list of water right issues be
fore it.
Water right issues include main
taining the m inimum stream flow
needed to sustain aquatic life , in-
stream use (say for recreation) ver
sus out-of-stream use (perhaps for
irrig atio n), or the maintenance o f
ground water safe for human con
sumption.
These and other water rights is
sues have existed unresolved for
many legislative moons, largely be
cause it is impossible to address one
right to Oregon's most renewable
natural resource without alienating
a large or powerful block of special
interests But perhaps the most com
pelling reason for the Oregon legis
lature's failure to address these con
flicting and highly emotional claims
is that it is difficult to convince peo
ple in a state as wet as Oregon that
water is a scarce and precious re
source.
The players in this water game are
nearly endless, each with needs for
certain amounts of water at specific
times in varying quantities:
•Farmers require water for irriga
tion and livestock.
•Municipalities require drinking
water and m inim um streamflows
for sewage discharge, as do many
industries.
•Recreational users, as well as hy
droelectric utilities, require sizeable
in-stream water flows.
•Commercial and sport fishers re
quire not only m inim um stream
flows, but also preservation of spe
cific stream habitats for fish procre
ation and rearing.
4011 N.E. Union Ave.
287 8474
l l t n 'HeMRg»/» w
tion in the world by the Westerners.
N am ibia is about 318,261 square
miles, which is about the size of Cal
ifornia or as large as England and
France combined. According to
U .N . estimates, Namibian popula
tion is about 1.5 million people with
a gross domestic product (G D P ) of
$1,000 per capita. And yet, about 80
percent o f the population (blacks)
are living below poverty level.
Apartheiam
Race is the determinant factor in
N am ibia. A non-white child has
only 20 percent chance o f surviving
disaease and malnutrition to reach
the age o f five. The government
spends about $700 annually for each
white child's education. Whereas
the average income for a white is
$3,500, a black person earns less
than $200 a year.
The A partheid Law classified
Namibians into three groups: I )
blacks/natives (80 percent); 2)
mixed race (10 percent); and 3)
whites (10 percent). The major agri
cultural and mining areas are part of
the white homeland. About 30,000
of the whites are German-speaking
people, while the m ajority o f the
whites are A frican-speaking and
English-speaking, constituting seven
percent. According to Rev. Z. Ka-
meta, "have these three gods (race,
language. color| taken the place of
the trinity in the hearts of our white
brothers?”
Reactions
In January 1981, South A frica
again broke o ff negotiations with
the U .N . to set up internationally
supervised elections. At the same
tim e. South A frican troops were
busy invading Angola from Nam i
bia to attack SW A P O bases. This,
in our opinion, is an act o f aggres
sion against the Angolian Sover
eignty. With the latest rejection of a
negotiated settlement, South Africa
again faced threats o f U .N . sanc
tions. However, in A pril 1981, the
supposedly " fre e w o rld ” o f the
U .S ., France and Britain, chose to
veto any such sanctions. Instead,
the U .S ., Canada, Britain, France
and West Germany have decided to
pursue the issue from the "contact
group’s” point of view.
The complicated activity o f the
Western world has continued an ag
gravated history o f blunders and
negative reactions in A fric a n na
tions. In the last organization of A f
rican Unity (O A U ) meeting held at
Kenya, the A frican nations con
demned the roles o f the West. The
strongest criticism o f U .S . policy
came from the lib eration move
ments.
W hat the self-styled free world
forgot to continuously understand
is that African people have the right
to decide what is good for them
selves. They forgot to remember
that there are socialist (or commu
nist) parties even in the Western
world. Rather, their major concern
is that " A fric a is going com m u
nist . . . . ” The battle should be de
void o f ideologies o f "is m s .” A l
ready millions of Africans are con
cerned and frustrated over the mis
happenings of ideologies in our con
tinent. They feel that something is
wrong, drastically wrong, with for
eign ideologies but because o f the
"p ic tu re p ain ters,” they cannot
quite put their fingers on it. The A f
rican people should be allowed to
adopt their “ economic order” that
faces reality.
Time is running out in Namibia.
We believe, and accordingly de
clared, that South A frican racist
government policies are bound to
fail Nothing can slop the Namibian
people from becoming independent.
This is not only because they are
w»ging a just struggle but also be
cause they are defending their right
to self determination and freedom.
Receive your Observer by mail—
Subscribe todayl Only »10» per yea
Mail to: Portland Observer
Box 3137
Portland. Oregon 97208
Nam e_
Address
City____
.State
Zip.