OPINION 6 Page 4 Thursday, December 9, 1982 The Michigan Daily k - a f A Latin American history lesson By Jon Weiss x "By studying history we can learn how to use our power effectively for the better- ment of all. " This assumption was expressed by John Jacobs to support his case for United States military and economic aid to the Salvadoran government ("The need for intervention in El Salvador," Daily, Dec. 3). History, he claims, has shown that when the United States "has done nothing, communism has prevailed"-the result of which has been the untold suffering and misery of the people. That an understanding of the past can be useful in improving the human condition makes sense. But because I agree with his assumption, I can only disagree with his con- clusion. What the history of U.S. intervention in Latin America does teach us is that we must not intervene in El Salvador. Let's take a look at history. A few examples should suffice. Cuba. In 1901, the United States, under the Platt Amendment, gave itself the right to in- tervene in Cuban affairs. Historian Roman Ruiz says that this act ".. . encouraged a fear and distrust of the United States bordering on the pathol'ogical" that culminated in Castro's revolution of 1959. It was only after the revolution, when the United States cut ties with Cuba, that Castro was forced to turn to the Soviet Union for aid. As punishment, we then tried to overthrow his government-as part of our "Alliance-for-Progress" program. Guatemala. The United States was more successful here. In 1954, it toppled the Arbenz regime. According to Professor Franklin Por- ter, "Guatemala had reached a highpoint of ' democracy under Arbenz." Unfortunately, he encouraged long-needed r'eforms that posed a threat to our ability to reap whatever was left in his poor country. Which meant, in our eyes, he was a godless "communist." Dominican Republic. In 1965, the United States landed 24,000 troops on this island to protect the military junta from former President Juan Bosch. Bosch had the audacity to call for land reform and a return to his nation's democratic constitution. He, too, was seen as a tool of the communist conspiracy. Chile. This one I'll save for you to look-up. Hint: It doesn't make the U.S. of A. look terribly concerned about trivial things like self- determinism, democracy, and integrity. But we had no choice (of course). These four cases provide vivid testimony to our treatment of our neighbors to the south. U.S. intervention in Cuba, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Chile each fed the other; each intensified the hostility of Latin Americans for the United States. The United States relationship with Latin America has been marked by short-term gains for ourselves at the expense of immense long- term costs for all. We have become the "bad guys." Our military support of authoritarian regimes has gone hand-in-hand with our ex- ploitation of the Third World, widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The spark for revolution has been lit by Washington, not Moscow. IN SO DOING, the United States has sadly hastened the process of its own decline. But we continue to ignore the lessons of history. The State Department's White Paper on El Salvador declared, "In short, over the past year, the insurgency in El Salvador has been transformed into a textbook case of in- direct armed aggression by communist powers through Cuba." What has been textbook about El Salvador has been the United States respon- se. The Reagan administration, like past ad- ministrations, refuses to recognize the real sources of insurrection in Latin America- years of political repression and poverty, f ,.- AP Photo which we helped to create. Unfortunately, with Cuba and Russia stronger than ever, the stakes for our blindness are now much higher. Ironically, our interven- tion in Central America serves only to promote outside communist influence in the region. As Robert Leiken writes, "Fears of renewed U.S. hegemonism under President Reagan have El Salvador: Learning from history impeded progress toward collective security. The Soviet Union's greatest asset in Latin America, even greater than Cuba, is anti- Yankee sentiment." BANK-ROLLING right-wing repressive regimes make neither good policy nor good morals. We speak of democracy, yet we uphold-in fact, install-juntas that are in no way democratic. We speak of national sovereignty, but show no qualms abol violating the sovereignty of other nations. Jacobs is right on one point. By learning lessons from the past, the United States could use its power more effectively for the better- ment of all-if we honestly give it a try. Weiss is an LSA senior. Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan LETTERS TO THE DAILY: The '60s: More than media hype Vol. XCIfI, No.75 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109- Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board To the Daily: I would like to react to the ar- ticle several weeks ago about the 1960s and their relevance to today, because that article referred to me extensively. First of all, two corrections must be made. One, I spell my last name Duboff, not DuBoff, as is in the article in Weekend. Second, I am not a '60s activist, as mentioned. I was a '60s ac- tivist, of course, then I was a '70s activist, and now I am an '80s ac- tivist,nand I hope to be a '90s ac- tivist, et cetera. To call me a '60s activist is the kind of hype and far away. Tom Hayden, who just won a seat in the State Assembly in California, was one of the media stars of the '60s (as I was, locally), and he is constan- tly the victim of this kind of hype. An MX victory typiied aby the movie Gxr though the 1960s were1 Carter piece on mark. THE CHOICES could not have been more distinct, and when the smoke cleared, the House's position could not have been more explicit: For the first time since World War II, a house of Congress had voted to deny a president a major weapon. President Reagan, not surprisingly, is describing the administration's defeat on the MX in the House of Representatives in terms of national betrayal. The Congress, he said, is ''sleepwalking into the future" and "handcuffing our negotiators at the arms table." And, perhaps more ominously, he said, "I plan to do everything I can to take this case to the American people." The president has every right to throw a tantrum. Tuesday's vote by any standard was an enormous rever- sal for a man who has made huge military expenditures a cornerstone of his foreign policy. Clearly, the American people and the Congress have begun to reject the Reagan notion that the path to arms control lies in building as many arms as possible. They are beginning to recognize that the administration's arms policies are destroying the economy and increasing the likelihood of nuclear war. In greater and greater numbers, they are building an op- position which can force the ad- ministration to moderate its positions and ease the tensions of the Cold War. But the president's threat to "take this case to the American people" can- not be taken lightly-even on an issue which has the tremendous popular support of arms control. The president has a proven ability to generate vast quantities of mail to the offices of recalcitrant congressmen, and, given the stakes, he can be expected to throw his heart into this fight. But the further the president pushes the issue, the more dangerous it will become to him. The harder he tries to force the MX through Congress, the more tha public will identify this in- satiable appetite for new weapons with him and his party.. Of course the president can still win the fight on the MX. But Tuesday's vote in the House makes it clear that such a victory-if it should come-will be costly not only to the nation's security but to the Republican party and the president as well. To the Daily: I enjoyed yourhOpinion Page piece on Anthony Carter ("Making a god out of a gifted athlete," Daily, Dec. 7). I don't know Anthony, but I ac- cept your observations. It's tough for a young person to come to un- derstand how much perceptions count. Anthony Carter is a public figure at this point in his life and what he says (or does not say) shapes the outsider's view of the Michigan athletic program as much as what he does on the field every Saturday. I'd like to think Bo and his staff feel some respon- sibility for this part athletes' education. This brings me to the your column I liked bl respect and recognitiony to the athlete/scholar.7 proud tradition at this un I'm sure it will endure alumnus, as well as sta ber, I find it satisfying couraging that the Dai] staff reflects thisvalue. A.C. may be a bit pu your piece. But I believ done him a favor; h preciate it one day. Dec *ong -gs Another correction needs to be long agomade as well. The Weekend ar- ticle ends on an "up note," except it says the '60s were ephemeral. . . It should have said that the '60s were not ephemeral, a much bet- of their ter tone to end on. The '60s created long-lasting and far- e part of reaching changes in this country. test: the An entire alternative culture has you gave been spawned, replete with That's a cooperatives, collectives, com- iversity; munes, and intentional com- e. As an munities. More people are Iff mem- working harder now than ever and en- before. More attention is being ly sports focused on disarmament, eliminating hunger, poverty, and it off by injustice here at home and e you've throughout the world. among the younger radicals like myself. But it was also a period of revolution, and this cannot' be denied. The Cultural Revolution that swept this country is on a par with the Cultural Revolution that swept through China during thi1 period, and indeed the two go hand in hand. The French gover- nment was nearly toppled in May 1968, as French students and workers took their cue from American and Chinese counter- parts. American young people aided the people of Cuba as well as the people of Indochina. Many new Socialist governments were formed in Africa during this period. So, what happened in thi country can't be seen as separate from the worldwide Revolutionary Era the world has been throughout this century. What happened here during the '60s is nothing new. The cooperative movement has existed since this country began, and really took off here in Ann Arbor in the 1930s. ie'll ap- i Cartier cember 7 Many look on the '60s as a period of rebellion against parental authority. Undoubtedly, there were aspects of this, particularly ... or just pretentious ? -David Duboff December 1 F To the Daily: I never knew with what criteria to judge a person's godhood- that is until I read Ron Pollack's. article "Making a god out of a gif- ted athlete" (Daily, Dec.7). In his scathing attacks on Anthony Car- ter's deity, he has shown me the light. Pollack suggests that being able to catch a football better than anyone else is not a prerequisite for godhood. This, of course, assumes he must also know what the prerequisites are for godhood. Examing his article I have found four Pollack prerequisites for godhood: " A god has tact; " A god speaks flawless Mid- western English; " A god must be a top-notch student; " A god must give frequent in- terviews to the press. Carter, Pollack writes, is deficient in all of these basic deifying qualities. The first characteristic of a god i s ennw.aec tart n nharw- student who would zip through his classes and still have time for life-saving miracles (not just game-saving miracles). And make no mistake-a god's dialect would certainly be Midwestern English. Since Pollack considers Carter's command of the English language below what would be "expected of a college student," he must be referring to A.C.'s Florida dialect, as Sports Illustrated called it, which is un- suitable for a gridiron god. At lease we now know a god must have a college-level command of the English language. In the same vein, Pollack suggests that a god gives frequent interviews, and when he does not grant a Daily reporter five minutes, he is at least quick to apologize and show us a rain- bow. I, for one, am glad that Pollack has shown us the human side of Anthony Carter. Still, it would be grand to think that if god were a flanker he most certainly would be Anthony Carter. On the other hand, if god were a sports editor. To the Daily: Here is the text of a letter which was sent to President Harold Shapiro today by more than 75 faculty members within the University: We want to express our op- position to any weakening of the. University's stance that research which directly leads to destroying human life is inap- propirate at the University of Michigan. The present policy is that the University will not enter into any agreement contract or accept any grant the "clearly forseeable and probable result of which is to destroy human life or to incapacitate human beings." The University Research Policy Committee has been given the task of proposing an ad- ministrative mechanism for im- plementing this policy. Before doing so, however, they are presently considering a diluted aliterna tive nolicv sta tement Preserve research guidelines seem only a trivial weakening of the previous policy, there are im- portant differences. We should all1 oppose any University research which has the destruction of human life or humans as even a secondary purpose, In many research activities, it is arguable which objective is primary and which secondary-often, the researcher may have multiple objectives. Who is to determine if the primary purpose of certain weapon systems is deterrence or destruction-or is it the other way around? The present policy statement is clear about the University's commitment to enhancing human life rather than harming it. The new statement is not. We are grateful that the University is pursuing an open argument mechanism for soliciting faculty opinion. We are writing a public letter because it is so close to the holiday season. a