OPINION
Page 4
Thursday, April 14, 1983
The Michigan Daily
Lessons unlearned in Central America
By Matthew P. Levine
These days, everybody is fighting for
democracy. From San Salvador to Managua to
Moscow the battle wages on. Yet as the
problems in Central America persevere, the
policy-makers in Washington and the
Washington-makers in politics have their, han-
ds full. But is there a method to this madness or
have we again unwittingly entangled ourselves
in an unending web abounded in paradox and
polemics?
According to a brief policy statement
prepared by the U.S. State Department, the
government of Nicaragua is mainly to blame.
The Government for National Reconstruction
(GRN) promised "to install a regime of
democracy, justice, and social progress in
which there are full guarantees for the rights of
all Nicaraguans to political participation,
universal suffrage, full exercise of human
rights, fundamental freedoms and to organize
a mixed economy, but has reneged on these
promises."
The April, 1982 statement adds that "they
(GRN) have ignored a basic tenet of the inter-
American system; non-intervention in the af-
fairs of other states by providing material and
other support for subversion in El Salvador.
Nicaragua is also engaged in. a rapid arms
build-up which threatens the security of its
neighbors. Rather than strengthening
democracy, the Sandinistas have concentrated
on consolidating political power, imposing
heavy restraints on opposition activity and
postponing elections."
TH OM AS E N DE R S, the Assistant Secretary
of State for Inter-American Affairs, affirmed in
August, 1982, that "order among nations
requires order within nations as well as
arrangements that respect their territorial and
national identity.,
"We asked Nicaragua," he said, "to cease its
involvement in the conflict in El Salvador. The
Sandinistas say that they are not aware of any
such involvement, but are willing to end it if we
just give them the information we have."
"An unwillingness to negotiate positively,"
stated one high-ranking Nicaraguan official,
"is mainly a result of the conspicuous double-
standard that hollows Washington's words.
What about U.S. involvement in El Salvador?"
Similarly, the principles of non-intervention
are an empty bargaining chip because even the
most patriotic conservative is painstakingly
conscious of Washington's covert plans. The
Reagan administration has axiomatically ar-
med and equipped thousands of anti-Sandinist
terrorists that have occasioned hundreds of in-
nocent civilian deaths and disrupted the poten-
tiality of a budding democratic process.
EVEN A LEADER of one of Nicaragua's
most vocal anti-Sandinist groups has criticized
Reaganrs support for these guerrillas who are
trying to topple the provisional government,
saying it would lead to even sharper political
divisions and the less likelihood that a
democratic government would eventually
come to power. "If the Reagan Administration
wants to democratize Nicaragua and to pacify
the region, this is not the way to do it," said Dr.
Alvaro Jerez, a leading spokesperson for the
Democratic Revolutionary Alliance.
Although in opposition to the Sandinist-
dominated junta, the Alliance nevertheless has
praised much of what the Sandinistas have
done since coming to power. "The literacy
campaign, the confiscation of Somoza's
property, the nationalization of the financial
system, foreign commerce and natural resour-
ces, the improvements in the distribution of in-
come, some aspects of agrarian reform, are
accomplishments which should be defended
and fully implemented." Now the debate has
turned to the U.S. role.
This lesson has been incessantly ignored in
Nicaragua. The Carter Administration suppor-
ted the corrupt and cantankerous demagogue
Anastasio Somoza Debayle until his very last
political gasp. By alienating itself from the
revolutionary process the U.S. finds itself left
out in the political cold. But this is no surprise
because beginning with the direct American in-
tervention in Nicaragua starting in the early
1900s, the U.S. has always been an unwanted
outsider.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, the current ad-
ministration's policies toward Nicaragua are
not diffusive, they are effacive. Sergio Ramirez
Mercado, a member of the Junta for National
Reconstruction, as reported by the New York
Times, said that his government is convinced
by the stepped-up attacks by rebel bands that
the Reagan administration "had now decided
to seek the overthrow of the Sandinista gover-
nment."
These latest Honduran-based intrusions have
deeply affected the security and basic rights of
many workers and peasants in the northern
provinces of Jinotega, Nueva Segovia,
Matagalpa and the Indians in northeastern
Zelaya. The problems have been most severe
for these Indian communities.
The more violent techniques of repression -
torture, murder, decapitations, and dissap-
pearances - that occur regularly in El
Salvador, Guatemala, and other U.S.- allied
countries go unnoticed. In Nicaragua, these
human rights abuses, although arrant, readily
make U.S. headlines and even get charac-
terized as "more sophisticated systems of in-
timidation and fear perfected by Stalin and
regularly used in Cuba." Are we getting off the
track or does this kind of history rate it worse
than everyday torture and murder?
WE MUST ASK why is this sophisticated
suspicion necessary? Is it inherent in the power
consolidation of a "one party system" as we
are vacuously led to believe, or could it have
something to do with extensive outside
pressure and excessive economic and political
manipulation or both?
Although the State Department is incapable
of altering a lame strategy, some members of
Congress have become increasingly percep-
tive. As the Senate Appropriations Committee
took testimony, Senator Daniel Inouye (D-
Hawaii) warned Secretary of State George
Schultz that by aiding the regime in El
Salvador solely because it is anti-Communist,
the United States was repeating its mistakes of
the 50s when it blindly supported Fulgencio
Batista, the Cuban dictator.
"I am afraid that we may be creating
another Castro (in El Salvador). We are in-
viting revolution there. I think that its time for
us to support those who are being oppressed,
those who are victims of violence, those who
are being slaughtered."
Even if the Sandinistas, the revolutionaries
in Granada, the rebels in El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, etc., are molded in
Moscow and processed in Cuba, are we doing
the sensible thing to stop the process, or' are
we playing right into the hands of theRussians,
while the democratic actors are being flushed
out by a losing bluff?
Throughout Central America, there is no
historical doubt about the supreme injustice
and exploitation, but why does our government
hide behind a facade of external subversion and
a plot of international Communism? Central
America is not embroiled in just an East-West
confrontation, or a simple struggle between the
rich and the poor.
As the conclusion to an indepth trek through
the mire of Central America's mystery and
misery, I have ended up raising more questions
than I have answered, and rightly so. My work
is no better than any other biased, indoc-
trinated narrator, immersed in a difficult role
of interpretation. I have tried to illuminate'
some of the conflicts and their relation to our
ingenuous involvement, and to supply you with
some of the tools necessary to construct some
solutions, but the onus is on' you. And for the
sake of a democratic future; good luck.
Levine has been travelling in Central
America. This is the last in a series of ar-
titles based on his experiences.
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan'
Wasserman
Vol. XCIII, No. 154
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
A losing investment
THILE MORE than 45 corporations
holding more than $70 million of
,Jniversity investments continue to
participate in the injustices of South
Africa, the University has refused to
withdraw its implicit support of racism
and apartheid: The time to divest
arrived years ago, but the question
comes before the Regents again today
and gives them yet another chance to
reverse their intransigence.
In the face of student protests,
faculty pleas, and government deman-
ds, the majority of the Regents have
maintained an arrogant disdain of the
many who assert a profitable invest-
ment portfolio should not bankrupt a
university's principles. Instead, the
Regents have followed a corporate
compromise that offers little support
for blacks in South Africa and obscures
the real issue by asserting the state
law requiring divestiture is uncon-
stitutional.
The University should divest -
whether the state tells it to or not. If the
Regents adopted the Sullivan Prin-
ciples, which set guidelines for fair
employment practices in South Africa,
in hope of effecting change in South
Africa, it is clear their hope was
misplaced. The guidelines offer little to
a small number of black Africans, and
nothing to workers who are not em-
ployed by American companies. And,
of course, they do nothing to change
the political situation.
In any case, the University's efforts
to monitor companies' compliance
with the rules has been lethargic at
best. Numerous violations have been
cited, but the University has only
divested from one company since 1978.
\ y
Many companies refuse to supply in-
formation about their employment
practices in South Africa.
Still, some Regents argue, the
University should not have to bend its
autonomy to the state's will. Such an
argument is not only flimsy, but says
nothing to the central issue of divest-
ment. Though the law may be an inter-
ference in regental affairs, the in-
trusion is warranted under the state's
power to enforce its civil rights
legislation.
Some regents have said they may
vote to retain some of the stock so that
the University can challenge the state
law in court. But an unchallenged law
sets no precedent and the University
still can contest any other interfering
laws the legislature may pass in the
future.
The most important thing the law
has done, whether it is right or wrong,
is to refocus attention on the
inhumanity of apartheid and the
University's implicit support for it.
That some of the University's invest-
ments are in Michigan-based com-
panies makes apartheid no more
palatable for an institution of higher
learning. And that the state is
requiring it, makes divestment no less
desirable.
University divestment will not set off
a wave of reform in South Africa, but it
will not go unnoticed by the gover-
nment there. In joining Wayne State
and Michigan State universities in
divesting, the University would
become a member of a growing
movement of organizations which have
lost their tolerance for South Africa's
racism.
STUDEN~T
I N?
EC-tSRAL BUDGET
CUtS
My
N1OW AM I
6010&To &et
1A4 EPVCATiOW?
STATE AU;TER11Y
?LAq4
T~kI5 IS Your
ED~ULATi Ot
c-
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Aligning against apartheid
To the Daily:
On behalf of the Center for
Afroamerican and African
Studies Faculty and Faculty
Associates whose names are
listed at the end of this letter, we
strongly endorse the action taken
by the Faculty Senate Assembly
in urging thedRegents to divest
University funds from companies
doing business in the Republic of
South Africa. We urge this action
because it would represent a
strong and unequivocal
disavowal ofaapartheid, which is
unquestionably one of the two
most flagrantly racist and
inhumane political ideologies of
the twentieth century.
We recognize that divestment
by the University of Michigan is
but a small step toward the
dismantling of the South African
regime, which defiantly
brutalizes its black majority
population while arrogantly
proclaiming itself as one of the
world's democracies. We realize
nevertheless, that decisive
regental action in favor of
divestment would be a significant
sign of supnort for justice and
America's leading institutions of
higher learning. Such . action
would serve as a model for
others, and thereby escalate the
pressure for positive change in
South Africa.
It is clear that if the University
of Michigan fails to divest incom-
panies doing business in South
Africa, both the supporters and
critics of that regime will inter-
pret this as a sign of support for
the status quo.
We urge divestment not
because the Michigan legislature
has passed a law requiring the
University to do so; rather, we
urge the Regents to act because
in doing so, we align ourselves
with those who demand the right
of the majority population in
South Africa to live as free and
equal citizens in the country of
their birth.
-Niara Sudarkasa
Director and
Professor of Anthropology
-Thomas C. Holt
Associate Director and
Associate Professor of History
Richard Allen (Communications)
Walter Allen (sociology)
Frederick Cooper (History)
Harold Cruse (History)
Alfred Edwards (Business Administration)
Richard English (Social Work)
Frank Fairfax (Visiting Lecturer, CAAS)
Reynolds Farley (Sociology)
Lemuel Johnson (English)
Gayl Jones (English)
Jemadari Kamara (Lecturer, CAAS)
Jon Onye Lockard (Adjunct Lecturer, CAAS)
Vonnie McLoyd (Psychology)
Charles Moody (Education)
Raleigh Morgan (Romance Languages)
Aldon Morris (Sociology)
Betty Morrison (Education)
Jonathan Ngate (Romance Languages)
Maxwell Owusu (Anthropology)
Sakinah Rasheed (Visiting Lecturer, CAAS)
Allen Roberts (Assistant Research Scientist)
Christopher Roberts (Anthropology)
Rebecca Scott (History)
James Standifer (Music)
Pauline Terrelonge (Political Science)
Teshome Wagaw (Education)
Ernest Wilson (Political Science
Francille Wilson (Visiting Lecturer, CAAS)
Ronald Woods (Adjunct Lecturer, CAAS)
Frank Yates (Psychology)
April 12
Some British humor
To the Daily:
The Daily knocked us, rebuked
our style,
didn't believe in having fun.
Little they knew that all the while
we aimed to get things done.
We had real goals and set them
high
yet our feet were on the ground.
We wanted change, that's no lie,
with platforms unquestionably
sound.
Well we got beat, got beat real
bad,
even though we tried to please.
Hell, that's OK, we ain't sad
for tonight we're off to Dooley's.
The students cried for something.
new
and British Humour struck.
But to Mary Rowland and IOU,
we wish the best of luck.
- Duane Kuizema
Presidential candidate,
British Humour Party
April 8
Take back the night