100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

September 22, 1978 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1978-09-22

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

September 22, 1978-The Michigan Daily

Iie 3ibi rn O a i

Campus labor solidarity:
Much talk, but little action

Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom.
Vol. LIXNdn. 14 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

By Mitch Cantor

4

_

5QMQA
CO~

MCARj

A

i

' ./-

I

,0.

When leaders and supporters of
campus labor groups rallied on
the Diag and on the Regents'
Plaza last week they called for
campus labor organizations to
band together to better their
bargaining position with the
University. But the
demonstration seemed to
indicate that these organizations
have a long way to go to achieve
that solidarity.
Ostensibly the rally seemed a
strong indication that campus
labor might truly become more
unified this year in hopes that the
hald dozen organizations might
be able to help each other in,
achieving their separate goals.
Graduate Employees
Organization (GEO) President
Mike Clark came to represent his
organization and give a rousing
speech, in which he compared the
Regents to Ku Klux Klan
members.
Dwight Newman, president of
American Federation of State
County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) local
1583, also appealed and urged

campus-wide support of all
efforts by labor groups.
Organizing Committee for
Clericals (OCC) chairperson,
Marianne Jensen, made a pitch
for amalgamation of campus
labor groups.
THOUGH EACH appeal
differed in intensity, they all
seemed sincere.
But the fact is that each of
these three organizatons is
currently involved in struggles
which will determine it's role on
campus. and none of these groups
have received more than weal
vocal support from their brother
organizations. If these
organizations are truly dedicated
to joint support of their fellow
organizations, why haven't they
shown more support for each
other over the last year during
which:
* AFSCME collided with
Servicemaster, a sub-contractor
which operates the Housekeeping
Department at the University
Hospital. AFSCME claims that
Servicemaster discriminates

against women and is hurtng
workers by needlessly shifting
them to different posts.
" GEO has been literally
fghting for its life. Hearings
which began in May will
eventually decide whether
Graduate Student Assistants
(GSAs) will be allowed to
collectively bargain with the
University. University
administrators claim gsas are
students receiving their
assistantships as - a form of
financial aid, and are not
employees.
O 0CC has worked hard to
collect enough signatures from
campus clericals to allow them to
vote on whether they want a
union. The vote, which will
probably be taken sometime in
late October, is }# big hurdle for
clericals whose union disbanded
a year and a half ago.
IN THE MIDST of these
battles, these same groups, which
last week rallied for union
solidarity, were out taking care
of their own business and no one

else's.
It is also hard to see how labor-
groups are supposed to join
forces and become stronger when
each group is plagued with
internal dissension. Obviously, a
militant caucus within a union
does not mean it is weak. On the-
contrary, it probably is an
testimony to the strength of the
union, showing that it has such a
diversity of ideas behind it.
However, when these caucuses
campaign for their own goals at a
rally intended to unify labor
forces, one wonders whether
labor groups can ork together if
they have trouble keeping their
smaller organizations unified.
The Campus Labor Support
Group (CLSG), which sponsored
the rally, certainly has the right
idea in urging both students and
workers to unite behind labor in
their seemingly endless war
against the University. But if the
individual nions do not sit down
together and work out their
common goals, as well as their
means of achieving them, they
will forever fight an uphill battle.

E I

re

r
si.

,,

~1

.I.

V'..,

..
.
- .
" ;"_

X

- S ".

IM

lm X)OL-

I'M IN
COAW

0

S 'THEMILWAUKEE JOURNAl.
9 __ OIST. IquD NEM VOW SVN1OCArE 19o
Don't bother appealing to the CIA and ITT! Their specialty is the
overthrow of freely elected governments like Chile!'
5overnrnent spying: a
problem for everyone

Ever since the Senate Select
mmittee on Intelligence Activities
arings in Washington began in 1975
e American public has been deluged
th revelation after revelation about
e amazing tactics U.S. intelligence
encies use to maintain the American
vay of life" here and around the
rld.
NTewspapers and magazines have
blished fantastic stories about how
e FBI and the CIA surveiled,
rassed and even plotted the demise
public figures who were labeled
angerous because of, their political
ews. But not just the men or women
io were leading the protest against
gregation, discrimination or the
etnam war were targets of political-
ying. The average person, the
)rking woman or man, who
monstrated or spoke out for the
'hts of others were often watched
st as closely as the leaders of the
vil rights or anti-war movements or
y other cause which seemed to differ
)m mainstream of political thought.
Behind the banner "of keeping the
>rld safe for democracy U.S.
telligence agencies have attempted
d often succeeded in overthrowing
eely elected governments.r And
here they were not successful, they
rsist in altering the government
om within.
The FBI and the CIA have worked
th intelligence agencies of other
untries to keep track of suspected
ssidents here and abroad. They have
)rked with U.S. corporations at home
id overseas. They have each
filtrated various political groups -
e FBI in the Students for a
emocratic Society or the Ku Klux
an, the CIA in the Black Panthers for
ample. They have used newspaper
d magazine reporters to alter the
ws in other countries.or to collect
formation here.
On college campuses, and at this

University, the CIA and FBI
established an intricate network of
operatives and cooperatives, often
enlisting the aid of' professors. They
have spied on professors, students and
administrators and developed the
extensive files used to develop lists of
those considered a security risk in
times of national emergency.
The history of CIA and FBI activities
for the past 25 years reads better than
any spy novel yet written - basically
because it is not ficti'bn.4 These
agencies along with state and local
"Red Squad" intelligence forces have
directly affected the lives of everyday
people everywhere in this country.
The question is: Will it stop?
Government political spying can be
stopped but it will take the concerted
effort of an informed voting public.
Today the Campaign to Stop
Government Spying (CSGS) begins its
first national conference here in Ann
Arbor. The CSGS is a coalition of more
than 80 groups, including the American
Civil Liberties Union, the United
Presbyterian Church, USA, and
Friends of the Earth.
The purpose of the conference is
educational. Individuals from across
the country are assembling here to
discuss ways of creating a 'grassroots
level movement to stop government
spying. Ann Arbor is fortunate to host
such an important conference.
Although most of the conference will
not be open to the public, there will be
an open seminar on intelligence
activities including speeches by
Morton Halperin, former White House
aide during the Nixon administration,
on CIA on campus, State Rep. Perry
Bullard, (D-Ann Arbor) and Clyde
Bellecourt, a founder of the American
Indian Movement.
The seminar will be held in the
Rackham Auditorium 8:00 p.m. We
urge everyone to attend what should be
a very enlightening experience.

HAQ&WT5
P L't.

1J5- R7~j5iA,

T owww rw otoudVu %iwwmv,1

urrr5 o
VA'lJ 00 -MATRC
W6V&Te i
FIA)S5 WHIAT
A8 r MY
PLAS

so cOs
PO/

sM eA'x
l

n

U.S.

So. Africa discuss nuclear deal

WASHINGTON - The United States and
South Africa are close to an agreement on a
secret deal to insure South Africa's
nuclear future in exchange for
the country signing the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and
submitting to international in-
spections.
The bargain was arranged dur-
ing meetings in Pretoria on June 25
to 28 between President Carter's top nuclear
negotiator, Ambassador-at-large Gerard
Smith and South African officials.
The U.S. delegation included senior State
Department nuclear expert Charles Van
Doren, and the south African delegation
included Foreign Minister Pik Botha and Dr.
A. J. Roux, who heads South Africa's Atomic
Energy Board and the Uranium Enrichment
Corp.
MOST OF THE details of the of the complex
plan have been worked out, but it remains for

By Robert Manning
to launch a nuclear explosion.
AFTER CHECKING, American
intelligence was so convinced by the evidence
that Carter warned Vorster and began the
diplomatic action.
South Africa still maintains that the
Kalahari complex is only developing nuclear
energy for peaceful uses. But Carter wants
the South Africans to sign the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty and make it official. For
many years the South African government
has refused to sign the treaty, primarily
because it could result in an invasion of the
secrecy of South Africa's uranium
enrichment technology.
The process of enriching uranium is
necessary before the strategic mineral can be
used either to make wea-oms or to run power
plants. South Africa is one of only seven
nations with such sophisticated technology.
WHETHER OR not South Africa is
interested in making nuclear weapons, the
country does have an ambitious nuclear
energy program and hopes to be able to
export enriched uranium by the 1980's.
Under than arrangement that appears to be
unfolding, South Africa is expected to agree
"in principle" to sign the non-proliferation
treaty. It then would discuss the inspection of
South African nuclear facilities by the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
and an IAEA team would visit South Africa.
Finally, the government would sign the non-
proliferation treaty, and the safeguard
system would be implemented. This
procedure generally takes 24 months.
IN RETURN, the United States would
approve a South African request for nuclear
fuel which Carter has held up pending a
nuclear bargain. South Africa would use the
fuel for its billion-dollar Koeberg nuclear
plant and its experimental "Safari I"
uranium enrichment plant at Valindaba.
The United States has a nuclear co-
operation agreement with South Africa for
more than 20 years. Under the agreement the
United States supplies nuclear fuel and other
research materials to Safari I. In return,
Pretoria has allowed international insnection

with South Africa would open up Valindaba
to international inspection for the first time.
ASIDE FROM the problem of working out
inspection procedures, legislation passed by'-
the U.S. Congress in March bans the export of:
enrichment technology. But some analysts
believe the terms of the legislation would still
permit the United States to supply equipment:-
until 1980.
United States officials believe South Africa
has atomic weapons or has the capability to
produce the bomb within a few months, and
according to a just-published book, "The
Nuclear Axis," by Zdenek Cervenka and
Barbara Rogers, Pretoria is already
operating a secret plutonium repreocessing
plant producing the essential ingredients for
an H-bomb.
The Carter administration believes:
completion of the deal with South Africa'
would be a major achievement in halting the
spread of nuclear weapons.
BUT THE deal may be only a pyrrhic
victory for the Carter administration.
On a technical level, many nuclear experts
claim that safeguards may not be sufficient to
stop a nation from diverting spent uranium
for reprocessing into plutonium.
United States officials believe
South Africa already has
atomic weapons or has the
capability to produce the
bomb within afew months.
Moreover, many Africans and other Third'
World nations, as well as the growing anti-
apartheid mnovement in the United States,
oppose nuclear cooperation with the white
minority regime. Oil is one of the few,
strategic resources that South Africa lacks,
-a hi n idi, ct :,, nt: panr nnwr,.n.lnt,. :ha . d. s

South Africa still

maintains

that the Kalahari complex is
only developing nuclear
energy for peaceful use. But
Carter wants the South
Africans to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and
make it official.
Prime Minister John Vorster to set it in
motion.
"The ball is now in South Africa's court,"
said an Arms Control and Dusarmament
Agency (ACDA) source. The agency source
expects Vorster to "respond affirmatively",
perhaps before October. But State epartment
._ _!- .. - . .. A _ t, ._ _ .. T..n .

e , Itcl igttn + ttil

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editors-in-chief
DAVID GOODMANG

BUSINESS STAFF
NANCY GRAU........... .... Business Manager,
DENISE GILARDONE.. ...................B.Sales Manager
CNFIr.F. SFovrF.R n--ninn k -.. v

GREGG KRUPA

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan