0 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, March 23, 1983 The Michigan Daily Questions on U.S. aid to El Salvador By Ken Naffziger President Reagan's recent calls for more military aid to El Salvador serves only to fur- ther illustrate his administrations outrageous policies there. What the reality is in this small Central American nation and what the ad- ministration portrays as reality, are two totally different pictures. The administration has sent close to $1 billion in aid to the government in El Salvador. What have our tax dollars accomplished? It has led to 35,000 deaths by the government and para- military groups since 1980. What kind of people are we supporting with this aid? The people of this country have been dominated for close to one hundred years by the "14 families," a small yet powerful network of millionaire Salvadoran families who control the nation's wealth, military and paramilitary death squads. THIS GROUP had kept its priviledged position by exerting repression and violence on the rest of the population. The current leaders of this group are Roberto D'Aubuisson and General Garcia. D'Aubuisson is known as the founder of paramilitary groups such as OR-* DEN, who have murdered thousands of civilans. He has also been linked to the mur- derssof.Archbishop Romero and the two U.S. land reformers. General Garcia is the Com- mander-in-Chief of the present military forces of the government. These are the people that our tax dollars are supporting. What is life like for the majority of the population? A mere two percent of the. population control the majority of the farm land and almost all of the industry. That leaves the rest of the Salvadorans to live in desperate poverty. The poor in El Salvador have the lowest per capita caloric intake in Latin America. This is 40 percent below the suggested minimum intake. Three out of four children are malnourished and over half of the children die before the age of five. Most rural Salvadorans are illiterate because they have no access to schools. Medical care is non-existant for the poor majority. The per capita income is only $750 dollars per year, but 90 percent of all Salvadorans earn less than $100 dollars per year. There is over 50 percent unemployment. Land reform is a joke as 60 percent of the rural families are landless. These people earn only $2 a day as seasonal workers on the coffee, cotton and sugar plantations of the 14 families. This is what the people, the guerillas are fighting about. If any one of us lived under these conditions, we would want to change them too. Why does Reagan ignore these deep- rooted social, economic, and political problems and conclude that a military solution is the answer? The current "solution" is keeping a small ruthless group in power over a large starving majority. WE ARE TOLD that our "national security" is at stake in El Salvador. What possible threat can these people have on the "security" of the United States? We are told that if El Salvador falls then so will the rest of Central America. It is the Domino Theory being raised from the dust. In the last few weeks, the president has said that we need more guns, more helicopters, and'more advisers. Also, a "pacification" plan has been proposed for El Salvador. The plan combines a large-scale military operation with a major effort to separate civilians from guerillas. destroy the guerilla's base of support will be followed by the same soldiers going back and providing social services to the survivors. This later move would demonstrate the government concern for the people. The major problem is that the soldiers cannot separate the civilians from the guerillas and many civilians will be killed in the process. In Vietnam, after the military sweep, the people were rounded up and put in "strategic hamlets" to protect them from the guerillas. The hamlets were com- pared to concentration camps by many obser- vers. Are these actions to be repeated in El Salvador? What do all these things that our president tells us have in common? For one, they all have been used before, to justify increased U.S. in- volvement in Vietnam. They are being used today to justify increased U.S. involvement in El Salvador. They also are part of the Cold War rhetoric used by consecutive administrations since 1945 to justify U.S. involvement around the world. WE HAVE TO stop the U.S. intervention in El Salvador before it is too late. Does anybody remember Vietnam? A military solution doesn't work so the Reagan administration sends more guns. Meanwhile, the people of this country sit by and watch it happen. Do something. Write to the people who control your tax dollars and say, "no more." Write to the editors of your paper. Tell your congressmembers to propose or support legislation to cut off all military aid to El Salvador. Tell them to support a negotiated set- tlement. Tell them that U.S. involvement violates the following laws. " International Human Rights Legislation: This law prohibits any government from aiding or abetting governments which carry out grave violations of human rights, such as summary executions and torture. " Immigration Law: This law requires the United States to grant temporary asylum to refugees who are fleeing government prosecution in their homeland. " The War Powers Act: This act prohibits the' United States from sending U.S. troops or ad= visers into places where fighting is taking,,, place, or is about to erupt, without: congressional approval. " The Foreign Assistance Act: This act' prohibits the United States from sending U.S. military and security assistance to "gover- nments engaged in a consistant pattern of' gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." " International Financial Investment Act:- This law requires delegates to the World Bank to oppose loans to governments engaged in gross and consistant violations of human,. rights. " El Salvador Certification Requirements:' These were passed by Congress and must be met in order for U.S. military aid to continue to El Salvador. All of these acts and laws are being violated : by the Reagan Administration. The most im-.'0 portant thing to tell your representative is that you are not going to sit back and watch history .repeat itself. Naffziger is a senior in LSA and a mem- ber of the Latin American Solidarity Committee. D'Aubuisson: Leading the right to massacre. The U.S. Agency for International Develop- ment, including Robert McNamara of Vietnam fame, will provide assistance. The plan resembles a part of "Operation Phoenix" that was used in Vietnam. In theory, a major sweep through guerilla strongholds in order to Stewart _ __ i Che Autdiitgan a Eilj Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCIII, No. 135 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 0 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Reagan's EPA nominee: Coming back to clean house PE IDENT REAGAN may have ma- de one of his few prudent moves of the Environmental Protection Agency scandal by nominating William Ruckelshaus to fill Anne Burford's tdi diretnrshin The agency operating the way it was inten- ded to be run and increase its budget-which has been slashed since Reagan entered office-so the EPA can once again protect the environ- ment. 6 vacaeu L Ruckelshaus n signals an adm center on envi the presiden Ruckelshaus, th the EPA, roomt on its feet. It is not insig chose Ruckelsh first director d ministration,l reputation for ministration.] Republican-a r administration. for refusing tof prosecutor Ar Nixon's famo Massacre in 1973 Though Ruck senior, vice pre nation's largest his nominatio business and e vironmentalists ning the presid heed: Let the inatLinlapparently Reagan needs to give Ruckelshaus a inistration shift to the free reign. He is going to be under ronmental policy, but, enormous pressure to clean up the tonedsaloivebutmess the agency is in without having to he original director of worry about matching the president's togethe gnircyracrhetoric with action. If Ruckelshaus to get the agency back doesn't get the EPA on its feet soon, the agency's problems may prove to be gnificant that Reagan terminal. aus. As the agency's Reagan seemed to be offering uring the Nixon ad- Ruckelshaus the kind of freedom he Ruckelshaus won a needs at the press conference announ- fair and tough ad- cing the nomination. At the same time, He is a moderate however, some of the typical anti-en- are bird in the Reagan vironment fervor for whichReagan has He also won respect become infamous did manage to sneak fire Watergate special its way in. When asked if he was chibald Cox during changing any of his environmental us Saturday Night policies, the president responded, "I'm 3 too old to change." elshaus is currently a According to one House Republican, sident at one of the "Bill Ruckelshaus isn't going to suck forestry companies, his thumb. He's going to be a very n won praise from tough administrator." If Reagan nvironmentalists. En- doesn't let Ruckelshaus have some , though, issued a war- room, the president better hope his lent would be wise to newest appointment doesn't choke on new director get the administration policies. 0 IIR 0 I i LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Attack on labor misses some targets To the Daily : Mark Gindin's attack on labor unions in the Daily of last March 15 - that they're monopolistic, a threat to the "free market," hen- ce "keep unemployment high" - even if justifiable, ignores other kinds of unions, other monopolies. Nor am I speaking of monopolies in business, outrageous as these are (like big oil). These, Gindin does recognize as likewise a threat, albeit to him a lesser threat than labor. What Gindin ignores are unions like the American Medical Association. What happens to his "free market" or "free enter- prise" with the medico's control of every facet of healthcare? Well, try finding on TV, for in- stance, the promotion of any kind mighty low and earnings mighty high. Gindin complains about the "closed shop" of the UAW-type unions, but these skilled trades are closed shop with a vengean- ce. Gindin's blasting the UAW-type labor unions is more like scapegoating. They're merely trying, as of the past half- century, to keep pace with the self-interest propensities throughout the rest of society - the skilled trades, the professional associations (medical, law, education, etc.), the business associations (big oil, utility monopolies, etc.). Go where you will in the 20th century and you'll find people getting into groups and associations to economically protect themselves. Does Gindin. want working people to be an ex- ception to this historical trend? . Laissez-faire, Mr. Gindin, is kaput! For everybody! - s. Colman. March 17. 0 Daily flunks Marx conference coverage 0 To the Daily: If your story on the first session of the Marx Centennial conferen- ce (Daily, March 17) were a final exam paper, it would flunk. Here are some of the larger points off: "Your reporter says I said tionary' when they were really organized radical." I said, in these words, "he changed his estimate of peasant-worker alliance in his earlier Class Struggles in France to the por- trayal of a fragmented and reac- tionary class in the Eighteenth * The picture you ran with the article is not, and never was, of me. It's a shot of Goran Therborn. With these howlers in the way, we can no doubt ignore such minor slips as the misspelling of j