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.

February 02, 1983 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1983-02-02

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

4

OPINION

Pige 4

Wednesday, February 2, 1983

The Michigan Daily

Reagan ratifies injustice in El Salvador

By A. Hernandez Lozano
Once again President Reagan has declared
that the government of El Salvador is eligible
to recieve further U.S. military and economic
assistance based on it's "continued progress"
in safeguarding the human rights of the
Salvadoran people. The sad fact is that nothing
could be further from the truth.
Throughout 1982 the level of violence directed
at the civilian population escalated. The
Salvadoran Army, security forces, and other
paramilitary groups conducted Vietnam-style
scorched-earth military sweeps throughout the
countryside, resulting in the indiscriminate
killing of thousands.
CLEARLY, THE intent of such a policy is
nothing more than a calculated strategy by the
junta to exterminate the rural civilian
population. Each peasant is seen as a possible
collaborator with those who have taken up ar-
ms in order to defend themselves against the
excesses of the dictatorship.
By the time that the Salvadoran Army had
completed it's offensive in Morazan Province,
which took place from December 7-17 1981,
1,009 bodies were counted. Of those identified,
97 were children and infants, many of whom
were burned alive in their hamlets while others
were found with their throats cut.
A survivor of the massacre stated that,
"pleas for mercy were useless, as were the
cries of mothers as they watched their children
being forced to march in a single line to'their
death."

stead have chosen to give weapons and finan-
cial assistence to those who have
systematically resorted to terror, torture, and
mass killings when their privileged position
has been threatened.
At this point I can only ask where is Reagan's
sense of fairness and that "different standard
of morality" that he claims to follow?
It is totally unrealistic on Reagan's part to
expect that there could be progress on the
human rights question, especially when his
own Assistant Secretary for Inter-American
Affairs Thomas Enders, recently described the
Salvadoran court system as being "non-
functional."
HIS STATEMENT merely confirms what the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
of the Organization of American States has
been saying publicly for years; the illegal
executions committed by the security forces
and paramilitary organizations take place
because these forces "act without punish-
ment . . . with the acquiescence or tacit con-
sent of the government."
As for Reagan's contention that military aid
to the junta is necessary to prevent it from
being overthrown by foreign insurgents, this
line of logic has no basis in fact. No proof of
such intervention has ever been put forth by the
administration because it simply does not
exist.
The Salvadoran people don't need the Soviets
or the Cubans to enlighten them about what
their course of action must be. For the past
half century these people have known nothing
but misery, terror, torture, and the in-

discriminate killing of their loved ones at the
hands of a series of ruthless military dictator-
ships.
The Salvadoran revolution is and remains
nothing more than the insurrection of the
people against a repressive and criminal dic-
tatorship, and against the social, political, and
economic system supporting such a gover-
nment. The common people have embarked on
this course of action because they have seen
that it is impossible to transform anything by
strictly peaceful methods and must now resort
to force in order to destroy a regime which is
contrary to their liberty, development, and
welfare.
We, as people who dearly cherish our
freedom, can do no less than to strongly sup-
port those less fortunate then ourselves in their
righteous struggle to attain what we as a nation
have always demanded: the right to life, liber-
ty and the pursuit of happiness.
To that end, the president should not forget
the words of a rebel from another insurrection,
Richard Henry Lee, as he stood before the First
Continental Congress in 1776: "Let this happy
day give birth to an American Republic. Let
her rise not to devastate and to conquer, but to
re-establish the reign of peace and of law, and
to set up a new standard of freedom for all the
peoples of the earth."
Lozano is an Ann Arbor resident.

The Salvadoran Army: Taking aim with U.S. supplied weapons.

COULD THIS be the progress to which the
president refers?
The price that has been paid by the people of
El Salvador for the "accomplishments" of the
bloody regime the United States government so
willingly supports is high. It constitutes a
serious indictment of not only the dictatorship,
but also of the Reagan administration for gran-
ting military aid to a corrupt and criminal
oligarchy that has repeatedly shown that it will
stop at nothing to maintain it's privileged
position in Salvadoran society.

In El Salvador, justice, like security and op-
portunity, is and continues to be the
prerogative of the privileged few who are sup-
ported by a U.S. trained and financed army
that has become the bitter enemy of the com-
mon people. Continued support for a gover-
nment that brings upper class prosperity while
pursuing a policy of degradation it's own
people is nothing short of criminal.
IN ESSENCE, the president has chosen to
pursue a policy that ignores the most basic
human rights of the Salvadoran people and in-

eRdictbaun 4atlQ
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Wasserman

Vol. XCIII, No. 101

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, M1 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
Amateur arms controller

L711

iT WON'T PAY;ITS BT?
- e-

4

A NY HOPES harbored about Presi-
dent Reagan's sincerity in pursuing
arms control must have faded when he
announced his choice to head the
nation's arms control agency. Kenneth
Adelman's scorn for past arms control
efforts runs deeper than his knowledge
on the subject, making him unfit to
hold the post.
As head of the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency, Adelman would
be ;responsible for coordinating and
implementing all U.S. arms control
policy - much different from his
current tasks as deputy United Nations
Ambassador. He would oversee
strategic and European nuclear
missile talks, as well as negotiations on
conventional forces.
Under vigorous questioning before
theiSenate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee; Adelman proved he was not chosen
forthis expertise in any of these fields,
but, for his ideological purity. He fits
they Reagan mold perfectly. He has
been a steadfast opponent of past arms
control achievements - particularly
the SALT II agreement - just like the
president.

Worse, Adelman was unable to
provide sufficient answers for senators
serious about arms control. Asked by
one senator what he would do if the
Soviets proposed to eliminate nuclear
arms, Adelman replied he'd never
thought of the idea. Are the Soviets
cheating on current agreements,
another senator asked. Again Adelman
had no answer.
Apparently, Adelman has limited
knowledge of the ultimate purpose of
arms control talks. With current U.S.
disarmament policy in disarray and
obvious high stakes involved, the
nation cannot afford to have a top arms
controller who only has a tenuous
grasp of the subject and refuses to do
the homework necessary to answer
even basic questions.
If the Senate confirms the
president's nomination it will only
stamp its ratification on the ad-
ministration's already lethargic at-
tempts at arms control. But if it is
serious about its constitutional duty to
screen presidential appointees, it will
send Reagan looking for someone else.
Adelman would be an amateur arms
controller at best.

K I GAST

VV R 9

W09% SWRY TIMS

A
H
ae;''
vl

L

fir

4

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Daily misunderstands SNR protest

4i,

"WE'VE GOT A BOLD NEW SOLUTION
A PIFFERENT SLOGAN"

.
k 1
At
(
z .,
, '
,; .., ..
K ^
s
j r . . 1'>
i' l.' s
i
j t' "f
' f. ; ' y-. y.. v' \\\
.6 S /sP S
t'
: .
_., ,
< .
m
! ?
/ .1 i ,.

To the Daily:
Recently, the Daily has
devoted a fair amount of atten-
tion to efforts by School of
Natural Resources students to
avert the 33 percent budget cut
recommended by the Budget
Priorities Committee as part of
the University's five year
redirection plan. Unfortunately
the reporting of events lacks a
complete understanding of the
issues and actions involved.
Sunday's "Week in Review"
section ("NR students:
Revolutionary tactics," Daily,
Jan. 30) demonstrated this ab-
sence of understanding. We have

stated exp'licitly that the diver-
sion of our tuition is not meant to
"topple" the University-the
money is going into a University
account. This action is a protest
against the overall reallocation
plan and the "review process"
which we have been subjected to.
We are protesting for several
reasons. First, there are many
problems with review commit-
tee's work, on which the proposed
cuts are supposedly based.
Although the review was sup-
posed to have been an open
process, the committee has so far
ignored input from students,
faculty, and others.
The committee's report is

faulty and based on inaccurate
information. This report doesn't
substantiate its major recom-
mendation-the proposed budget
cuts.
In the face of these and other
charges, the committee remains
silent, and Vice President for
Academic Affairs Billy Frye ap-
pears equally willing to ignore
the charges.
Furthermore, this review sets
a bad precedent whereby studen-
ts and faculty are given only the
most cursory consideration in
decisions determining their
future. Due process has been cir-
cumvented, and the whole
University should take note.
Unless vigorous protests are
made, the School of Natural

Resources is not likely to be the
last school in the University to be
treated in such a manner. Who's
next?
Finally, we feel that other
students need to know what is
happening. Through the tuition
diversion and other upcoming
events, we hope to make others
on campus aware so
"reallocation" can be turned
around.
The'Daily will do a great ser-
vice to its readers if it thoroughly
investigates the administration's
actions and refrains from mud-
dled editorializing.
--Mike Manuel
February 1

SCRAP attack misguided

/ ! I
.,.u 1: .; s

To the Daily:
We resent Maura Johnston's
uninformed attack on the Student
Committee for Reform and
Progress.
We began our petition drive in
response to students' strongly
PwnrPCCnd centimaent aainst the

If PIRGIM has the general
student support it claims, one
would assume that students
would be flocking to sign their
petitions. And one would assume
that if our cause were without
merit or student; support, as
Tnhncnn ;v n n n .. ...27mlI

Snow removal or art?

(',,
C

To the Daily:
I would just like to compliment
the University's maintenance
division for there prompt and ef-.

Now if the University could
perhaps take some of that money
and put it into the art and
educationnschools- thev might.

,s' "'L ~

J

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan