EDITORIAL
Mu t 'America
Fir, t'mean
children last?
Each day, 40,000 children around the world die from malnutrition
aoo preventable disease,
The House of Representatives pessed a $13.8 bib ibn year
1993 foreign aid appropriations bill in late June. The bill was $1.3
billion below the President's request for foreign assistance am $300
million below the actual appropriation for 1992.
As generous as the bill may seem, the amount it provides falls far
short of that sum called for by the World Summit for Children
Impelementation Act. This act, introduced by a bipartisan team of
New York Representatives, was intended to spur the U.S. to �
I fair share of the goals ed by the United Nations Chit
Summit. I
Now it is the Senate's tum to reach out to the world's least
fortunate, hungry children.
, Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee Chair, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D- Vt) and ranking minority
Sen. Robert Kasten (R- Wi) now bear the responsibility of keeping the
U.S. promises ma.de at the Summit.
, Michigan Voters mus"t.urge Senators Donald Riegle and Cart Levin
to push Leahy and Kasten to provide funds for child survival and basic
education.
The new world order must be a world withOut hunger.
The needs of this country and the universal realization that our
country is in critical need should not blind us to the needs of the worlds
children.
Our cuts and savings must come from military budgets, not the rice
bowls of the world.
Vote
Vote
Vote
Tuesday, August 4 is Michigan's primary election. We cannot say
it enough: vote.
If our voice isn't compelling, then listen to the wide range of voices
from within the community shouting the same message and pick the
voice you like, because the message is the same. From Min. Louis
Farrakhan, to rapper Luther "Luke" Campbell, to the chorus of his
torically strong supporters of voter activity, the NAACP and the
Urban League -everyone is repeating the same message: vote.
. And it isn't enough for just you to vote. Take your neighbor,
relative, stranger even, to the polls with you. Make it a family affair.
Vote your conscience.
Just vote.
� most pr�i�HS .8js tkt
pr.mnts can --"ive a chM is time
. . rutd co tIS is re nt_9 uia unce .
.. ,
VIEWS OPINIONS
peeche ,
even of
rhetorical n uttered ould
remembered mainI)' for eon nt but
o for n unde nding of the
contemporary orld . tuation on
qu tions ofj nee and liberation for
the "developing n tio "of the
world.
Our purpose here is to quote d
comment on ted po itio of
everal of the heads of tate th t
addressed the Earth Summit in Rio.
Our analysis is devoted to viewing
whether or not there i in f ct
increasing international cooperation
on protecting the environment in the
context of worldwide economic
development.
ow that the so-caJled E tv.
West conflict is over, th re is tal of
the North vs. South conflict or in
other word the conflict between the
"developed nations" nd the
,"developing nations" of the world.
THE UNITED TAT S,
Germany, Great Bri tain, France,
Japan and other in ustrialized
nations have been challenged by the
"developing nations" to decrease
industrial pollution and to ist in
environmentally- afe economic
development. Yet, looming behind
these international tensions is the
question "Why are the developing
nations underdeveloped?"
It is always interesting to note
how peoples who have have -been
oppressed and exploited historicially
nation
treaty.
A nation or a society that
deliberately tolerates hum n
degradation i al 0 a nation or
ociety that will tolerate
environmental degradation.
Throughout the UNCED summit,
there were forceful demands issued
for both ocial and economic justice
as a prerequisite for environmental
justice.
PRESIDENT Femado Collor of
Brazil was the Chairman of the
United Nations' summit in Rio.
President Collor stated, "This is the
largest international summit meeting
in history.
Being the largest in size, it must
be the greatest in results. This
meeting must stand as a response t�
the great challenge of saving life on
earth. The world's people expect
much from their leaders, whose duty
it i to or to implement the
deci io n t . 0 rapidly nd
e cenUy.
Collar'
o th
Summi .
t in I n y the current
r te of glob I environment I
d tion ill h the point of
irre e ibihty d th d tine the
e rth' ecolo ic 1 b I nce to
permanent d mage.
Even Bri ti an' Prime Mini ter
John [or ttempted to confe the
importance 0 prot cling th world'
environment but ought to avoid
admitting that much of the
responsibilty for th m ive rate of
environmental de truction bas come
fromm ive and unj texploitation
of both natural and human ource.
Major chided, "The environment
become a vital inter t for all.
Much of the damage has been not out
of greed, but out of ignorance."
Oh. .. how i it that those who have in
the P t laid claim to "intellectual
uperiori ty" now claim an
"ignorance" about th impact and
the effect of centuries of
colonialization that advanced the
pre ent post-modern era of
technology and industry.
ALTHOUGH THE United ...
States is proportionately the world's
greatest polluter and destroyer of the
global environment, President
Bush's famous words at the ummit
were, "1 will not offer an apology for
what we are doing."
The Lord moves in mysterious
ways. The one head of state' that
received the largest applause and a
rare standing ovation at the summit
was President Fidel Castro.
President Castro affirmed, "An
important biologicial species is
disappearing-Human.
It de erve mention that the
consum r ocieti are po ible
for the trociou t te of the
environment. i th onI Y 20 percent
of the world' population, they
consume two thirds of i metal and
three quart rs of i energy. They
have poi oned the waters and air and
aturated the tmo phere with gases
that produce catastrophic affects.
Now when there are no pretex
for cold war and arms races, what
preven the immediate use of tho
re ources for the environment?"
Chancellor Helmut Kohl of
Germany explained, "The industrial
countrie have particular
re ponsibili ty in securing
environmental protection and
sustainable development and are
called upon to handle natural
resources more carefully than they .
have in the past" '
PERHAPS IT WAS said the
bes by Pre ident Jose Eduardo dos
Santos of Angola. President Dos
Santos concluded, "The most
important thing, however-much
more .important than blaming one
another for the ecological
imbalance-is finding the unity to
confront the problems. "
Yes, the international unity won
in Rio was historic and remains as a
profound necessi ty for those of us
who live in the United States to
strengthen our collective voices,
demands and struggles for
environmental justice in solidarity .
wi th our sisters and brothers
throughout the world.
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME.
The -illu
Democracy, the dictionary
informs us, means "government by
the people."
Generations have been weaned
on the premise that the U.S. is a
"democracy" and that this is
"government by the people," but a
brief foray into history reveals
otherwise.
The history of Africans, of
course, shows government as an
aider and abetter of the, vilest
oppressions on these shores, from
the U.S. Constitution's Art. I,sect. 3,
which held Africans as "Tb.ree-fifths
of all other persons," to Dred Scott
VS. Sanford (1857), where the U.S.
Supreme Court determined that the
term, "We, the People," in the
Constitution's preamble, did not
refer to Africans, wMtMr slave or
free, and therefore, Africans were
nei ther beneficiaries of
Constitutional "guarantees: and no)"
were IMiT descendtuus, "should they
become free."
Certainl y, as regards Africans in
America, the notion, "government
by the people," did not include them
in this democracy. Native
Americans, misnamed "Indians,"
fared little better.
ion of- II Democracy"
THE � SAME
CONSTITUTIONAL provisron
that made Africans 3/5ths of a man,
excluded Indians altogether from
representation, and its companion
document, the Declaration of
Independence, called them
"me.rciless Indian savages." Their
share of "democracy" was genocide
on a scale that would make a Nazi
blanch.
In this, their sacred ancestral
lands, the U.S. Supreme Court
recently ruled their religious practice
must give way to the needs of
business, and may be bulldozed and
"developed" by business interests,
without violating the Constitution.
Asians WCIe initially sPecifically
excluded from the U.S. from the
earliest days, by the U.S.
Immigration Act of 1790 which
allowed citizenship only for "free
white persons." Many U.s. states
espedally California, made it illegal
for � C:Unese to testify in court, for
example, this California statue of
1863, c. 70, "No Indian, or person
having one half or more of Indian
blood, or Mongolien or Chinese,
shall be permitted to give evidence
in favor of, or against, any white
person," � 14.
In February 1884, the California
Legislature promulgated a "new"
Constitution, and in Art. XIX, sect.
2, prohibited the employment of
Chinese or Mongolian� native
bom-in anyccrporatton, public or
private.
Many of these laws stood until
1940s Federal decisions reversed
them.
THE WORLD WAR II
confiscations and mass internments
of Japanese property and persons is
still within living memory-this,
while Italo-and German Americans,
even as Fascist and Sund parties"
blossomed here, were never subject
to mass concentration camps.
It's important to note that the
Japanese internments happened with
the blessings of the U.S. Sup�me
Court. To these millions of BlacJ[,
Red and Yellow souls, then,
government, for centuries, meant
denial, exclusion, refu at and
sanction. To them, "democracy"
was but a synonym for white
tyranny, often under cloak of "law."
It is, to me, somewhat stupid to
refer to women under the misleading
rubric 9f "minority," for the imple
reason that females constitute 52
percent of the nation's population
FROM
DEATH
ROW
MUMIA
ABU
JAMAL
and are thus, the nuJjority.
TO THE EXTENT they have
been denied representation, it only
accents the obvious illusion of a
"democracy," that has historically
frustrated and oppressed the
majority of its people, at the
minority's whim.
For, if women are 52 percent,
Blacks,-12.5 percent;
Hispanics-9.5 percent, and
Asians/Native Americans/
Others-3.8, then 77.8 percent, of
Americans have been systematically
excluded from democracy's empty
promises.
Only in America, can a
"democracy" oppress the majority.