OPINION Page 4 Saturday, March 13, 1982. The Michigan Daily Is it time to move in on Mideast oil? By Dan Aronoff Last month the unemployment rate was 8.8 percent-that's the second highest level since World War II. It would be easy to blame our economic woes on Reaganomics, but let's not forget that the downturn began many years before Ronald Reagan was elected president. Economic theory is in a state of crisis and policymakers are unable to form a consensus opinion on solutions. There is one alternative, however, which would significantly alleviate our current economic problems-occupying the oil fields in the Middle East. If an exact price could be pinned on our dismal economy, it would be $34 a barrel-the price of oil from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. From the end of World War II to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, the American economy grew at an average rate of 3.3 percent a year. Since 1973, our economy has grown at a yearly rate of less than 2 per- cent, and in 1980, for the first time since the Great Depression, we actually suffered a decline in productivity. THE ECONOMICS of OPEC impact on the American economy are very simple. If we had sustained a 3.3 percent growth rate from 1973 to the present, we would have no unemployment problem, the largest budget surplus in history, and, as a result, no inflation. In this hypothetical situation, we could cut taxes, in- crease social welfare spending and still balan- ce the budget. The price of unemployment is $34 a barrel of oil, but the price of OPEC is much, much higher. What happens to the money after we pay it to OPEC and the military and strategic consequences of our non-intervention policy in the oil-producing regions may prove more costly than even the economic consequences of OPEC. A case in point is the recent sale of AWACS radar aircraft to Saudi Arabia. Proponents of the sale argued that it would enhance American strategic capability in the Persian Gulf area as well as ensure Saudi goodwill toward the United States. But what really oc- curred is that we have agreed to unilaterally withdraw our military presence from the Per- sian Gulf. America now operates four AWACS of its own in the region. The Saudis, however, have refused to allow Americans on board Saudi AWACS and are demanding the removal of American AWACS from the region. Moreover, on the day following the Senate vote on AWACS, the Saudis agreed to an oil price in- crease. So much for goodwill. THE FACT IS that the Saudis are unable and unwilling to defend American interests. They have supported virtually every United Nations resolution denouncing the United States and they (along with the Soviets) are the principal financial backers of almost every pro-Soviet hard-line Arab state. Saudi Arabia subsidizes regimes that are op- posed to the Camp David peace accords-Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization-to the tune of some $20 billion per year. The Saudis thus are subsidizing con- flict and bloodshed in the Middle East. One wonders whether Arabs would be more amenable to making peace with Israel if they port the United States in a conflict with the SovietUnion. King Khalid has said on several occasions that he does not consider Moscow an enemy. SAUDIS HAVE gained an inordinate influen- ce over American business and intellectual communities. Saudi rulers used economic means to manipulate influential portions of America's business community into pressuring key senators on the AWACS sale. Saudis of- fered hundreds of millions of dollars of finan- cial incentives to businesses that lobbied for them. Two days before the sale vote, the Whit- taker Corporation, one of the leading proponen- ts of the sale, received an $834 million contract for managing hospitals in Saudi Arabia (Whit- taker was never in hospital management until they did business with the Saudis). Sheik al Fassi of Saudi Arabia said of Whittaker, "This is one of the biggest corporations in the world and I control it." On the night before the AWACS vote a telex message from Saudi Arabia advised key U.S. senators to vote for the sale. The telex was co- signed by the presidents and chief executives of 22 of the largest corporations in America. It is intriguing that all of those corporate bigwigs just happened to be holding a pow-wow with Saudi shieks on the eve of the vote. THE NEW REPUBLIC recently reported that "evidence has been uncovered that points to widespread violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by major American cor- porations and their officers.. Oil-related interests alone in the 1980 election campaign are estimated at having accounted for over $5 million in contributions, and, accor- ding to CBS News, "more than half a million dollars in contributions to Senate candidates last year were from companies within the American businessmens' group (which sent the telex from Saudi Arabia on the eve of the sale)." The Saudi oil-weapon has been tran- sformed into a highly effective dollar-weapon to influence our sovereign political institutions. It is indeed a high price to pay for OPEC oil. But another issue is perhaps most important of all. We live in a dangerous world where sur- vival is precarious. Those who possess scarce resources will be opposed by those who do not-or by those who are wealthy military rivals. It is thus in the vital interest of any wealthy nation to promote prosperity and peaceful coexistence. In the case of OPEC oil, it may turn out that our best policy would be to end our dependence on foreign oil. We cannot, however, accomplish these goals in the short- term future. Persian Gulf oil is the lifeblood of Western civilization. To believe that the Saudis, or other Arab nations, will defend our interests is a pipe dream; leaving such an important component of our survival virtually unguarded by our military is the height of folly. If we want to secure that supply of oil, we must defend it. If we want to avoid a military confrontation with the Soviet Union, we must show them that we are committed to defending it before they gain control in our absence. In short, we should seriously consider the option of occupying the Persian Gulf oil fields. Aronoff is a Daily Opinion Page staff writer. 6 0 Prince Fahd of the reigning Saudi family. did not have the billions of dollars of Saudi in- ducement to make war. An unstable and repressive monarchy rules Saudi Arabia. Most experts agree that the likelihood of revolution or coup d'etat is very high. Uniting ourselves to their ruling clique could become a very hazardous proposition. We should, therefore, secure our oil interests with as little reliance on (and commitment to) Saudi rulers as possible. Some Saudis have in- timated that they would not necessarily sup- _ ___ _ Cbe Afhdutgan 4aly Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Sinclair LI&1G4T Api JUT Ax NO1'8Ri, THlE 3UND THE NEXT B~EI'JD... Vol. XCII, No. 127 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board 0 0 0 Williams and Abscam: A tale of foolish curiosity THE LAST MOMENTS seemed to some to be pathetic. Sen. Harrison Williams, convicted of bribery; sen- tenced to three years in prison, and virtually assured of expulsion from the Senate, writhed before his colleagues for five long days before finally resigning. But even more disheartening than the spectacle of William's final hours was that the Senate, in its seeming concern with the allegedly "evil" ac- tions of Williams, may have neglected a larger issue. . No one is going to jump up and say it was a good idea for Williams to have been so cooperative with the FBI agent who was posing as an Arab shiek. Nor is anyone going to argue that senators should not face severe punishment for abusing the power of their offices. But there is a legitimate argument - an argument which Williams attem- pted to make - that the FBI's extreme enthusiasm in creating traps for public officials is unacceptable. Naturally, there should be reasonable investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by public of- ficials. But the extent to which in- vestigators should be free to use Ab- scam-type tactics is a question which must be addressed and which the Senate has largely ignored. Centuries ago, Cervantes captured the problem in the "Tale of Foolish Curiosity" in Don Quixote. Cervantes wrote of a man who has a loving - and to his knowledge, completely faithful - wife. Still, he wonders whether his wife would ever cheat on him if given the chance. He talks a friend of his into making advances to his wife, and is greatly distressed when, after some resistance, his wife finally gives in. Cervantes' point was that people generally have enough problems without creating new ones from thin air - that there might be some hypothetical questions that shouldn't be asked. Granted, the case for "Foolish Curiosity" isn't quite so. clear for Williams. Nevertheless, Williams defense paints a picture of the FBI which is, .to say the least, hardly flat- tering. It paints a picture ofea federal police force that is increasingly anxious to find not only violations of law, but flaws in character; it paints a picture of a Senate increasingly anxious not to have to cope with the problem. Legislatures have been notoriously hesitant to address the problem of en- trapment, and the Senate's willingness to avoid the issue seems to follow character. Before he resigned, however, Williams obtained promises from Sen Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Sen. Alan Cranstion (D-California) that they would pursue a Senate in- vestigation of the conduct of the FBI during the Abscam investigation. So far the talk of a Senate in- vestigation remains nebulous. But the idea has merit, and shouldn't be allowed to get lost in the muddle of Washington politics. A Senate inquiry into FBI practices might just help solve some of the most important problems exposed during the Abscam investigation. _ ' ..y' «' I - y N '!r k 9 : ! ar , ' ti .X" V h i , t ., Y uC r M _,.- - Getting tough the Reagan way By Christopher Case- In the fashionable hard-line rhetoric of the Reagan administration, increased production of nuclear arms represents a policy that is both "sound" and "realistic." No one cdn deny that there is indeed something very real about thousands of megatons worth of high- tech hardware. But one might doubt the soundness of an administration which funnels increasing numbers of dollars into commodities which will at best remain unused and at worst bake our planet into a useless moon. The aim of such a policy is defense-perhaps an inap- propriate but nevertheless a convenient word for a growing arsenal of weapons designed primarily for offense. The word "defense" conjures up comforting images of some kind of force shield that will protect us from disaster. That our "defense" consists precisely of those things which threaten the continued existence of the earth most, is an irony not dwelt upon by the realists of the present administration. Behind the re-emerging fashion of the hard- liners is a growing concern for "hard" things-namely, the economy. It's no secret that dollars spent on arms production are dollars spent revitalizing the economy-dollars providing jobs and making for consumption. The problems inherent in consuming multi-megaton warheads become, for the economy, irrelevant. Unlike many other commodities, we pay for nuclear warheads whether we want them (and use them) or not. The defense budget, therefore, represents a kind of automatic stimulus which magically increases both production and consumption, bypassing the risk of a loss which businesses ordinarily confront. Hence, the firm insistence of hard-liners like Reagan on massive military spending. "Firmness'' is also an adjective that definitely jibes with the hard-line approach; it is a part of the realism and toughness that these men cherish. Reagan's "invitation to critics of his budget to "put up or shut up" represents just the kind of firmness that im- presses people who are convinced that the way to security is paved with no-nonsense and big muscle, who are convinced that a man, like Reagan, who can make jokes about an at- tempt on his life almost immediately after the fact is their kind of man. Tough military status, we are led to believe, is the kind of thing that real men stand by. Men this serious do not concern themselves with "soft" things like the ecology of the earth, or its fragility in the face of nuclear power. It's all part of an image with which the Reagan administration wants to imbue itself and our country. They want to re-establish the superpower status of our nation. A super- power doesn't tolerate acts against its in- terests. A superpower doesn't passively await its fate; it reaches out and grabs that fate with both hands. A superpower, in fact, can back up what it wants with enough space-age influence and metallic manhood to char our entire world into a total desert. 0 Case is an LSA senior. 0 Weasel By Robert-Lence ..M..................................w:......... :::r.iT i:~ii:v4:}:" 4'io.?-:"}Y :{":{::.?fiv::i::: Letters and columns represent the nnininn nf tho inrdivinral YORiAVE Ar.F I r oOURSE FSHAVE Cn ONE of L.E cT FEW j THE INSIcUOU5LY WU HEY T Ss \WANT WPiEL: AW, , OFvTHE PI COE A B IKE EYERY tE ~A(UtND j- BETTER ,A,,. II , , II i 11 Ami