4 OPINION Page 4 Friday, September 30, 1983 The Michigan Dily -I Sinclair -__ Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan / Vol. XCIV - No. 20 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Registered apathy O N THE surface, Rep. Gerald Solomon's wedding of financial aid to draft registration seems to be working. Beneath the surface, however, there seems to be another, more powerful force encouraging young men to register: that infamous political apathy among students. Universities all over the country report that only a handful of students have refused to sign statements about their registration status, and thus have been denied financial aid. Three of the state's largest schools - Michigan State University, Western Michigan University, and Grand Valley State College - have not had anyone refuse to sign the forms. At this University, only three students have refused to sign them. And even at schools like The University of Califor- nia at Berkeley, a leading school in student draft protests during the 1960s, few students have refused to comply with the law. Solomon, a New York Republican, credits his law. It is scaring students in to registering, he says. In support of his assertion, he points to a 6 percent rise in the percentage of registered 18- year-olds since last June. But Solomon can not take all the credit himself. He has had a powerful ally in apathy, the mark of this generation of students. It shows. up as low student voting turnout every year during city elec- tions, and has surfaced in the last couple presidential elections. Students, for the most part, showed little interest in voting and were of little consequen- ce. Now that political indifference seems to be the key to Solomon's suc- cess. The great majority of students don't listen to his, or for that matter even the Reagan administration's, talk of responsibility to register or duty to protect their country. They register merely because it is less bothersome than not registering. Conversely, there are still a full 15 percent of 18-year-old men who are not registered. Yet there is strikingly little opposition to the law from them. Ex- cept for a few highly publicized cases, they do not seem to have taken any moral stand against war or the nation's policies. The only reason they have not registered is that they have not been goaded in to doing it yet. A whole group of people seem to have made a decision based on everything except the real issues in- volved. The vast majority have chosen the path of least resistance and registered, the rest just have not got- ten around to it yet. At a time when students are not threatened by any war, or even a draft, the issues surrounding registration are abstract. But in a world which seems to be growing more turbulent, they are worth a second thought. SOM Th1 E~ IT SEEN LIKE I'M ALW~AYS' M)CK ?SOPLEN qDITyEC 'PLEo\NON - - c- ~ Y -. f x IM14C flW W r -S r __ , ., ! . ,. . z , - ' <- - -_ N ^ ,_ . r, ; . i - " ___ -\ , E 4' % =- NRlS1 ,, r ' "- .- -J' - -, L l ~ Reagan.Philippine policy mustavoid mistakes a la Iran Cancel out on Marcos P RESIDENT RONALD Reagan is scheduled to visit the Philippine Islands and that nation's embattled "leader," Ferdinand Marcos, in November. For the benefit of U.S.- Philippine relations, the trip should never take place. Marcos has ruled the Philippines un- der martial law for more than a decade without elections, a free press, and other basic rights citizens living in a democracy are supposed to enjoy. Only recently was martial law "lif- ted." But the oppression continues. The events of the last month have reenforced the belief that Marcos never should have gotten support from the United States. Benigno Aquino, Marcos' leading rival, returned to the Philippines after years in exile in the United States and was assassinated as he stepped off the airplane. Instead of allowing an open and thorough investigation of the murder - which most likely would prove that Marcos was behind the plot -- Marcos first tried to blame the communists. He then set up a weak commission and prepared to whether a storm of protest. And the Philippine people protested. In riots since Aquino's death more than a dozen people have died and hundreds more have been injured. Marcos responded to these protests by issuing threats of further restrictions on civil rights. Meanwhile, plans for the Reagan visit continued. Administration of- ficials have urged the president to make the trip, saying it will help stabilize the nation. What it is likely to do is strain a relationship with the people of the Philippines that has been strong and prosperous for many years. The Philippines was the- only U.S. colony. Granted independence in 1946, it has been a friend for longer. During World War II the Philippine resistance fought bravely until General Douglas McAr- thur returned. The United States' friendship is with the Philippine people, not the Marcos, government. Reagan's policy for the Philippines should be one to maintain that frien- dship, not ruin it. Lending credence to an oppressive dictator is not the way to keep friends worth keeping. By William H. Sullivan What are the parallels between the American dilemma in Manila in 1983 and our problems in Tehran in 1978? What do we do to avert a replication in the Philip- pines of our debacle in Iran? As someone in the unique position of having been U.S: am- bassador to both countries, I am constantly being asked those questions these days. I will at- tempt to provide some brief an- swers. FIRST, WHILE THERE are striking parallels between Iran and the Philippines, there also are sharp differences. In Iran, our roots of association were very shallow. There were established only after World War II and they were involved almost exclusively with the shah and his armed for- ces. We had little association with the rest of the country. In the Philippines, by contrast, we have had long and intimate association. The Philippines was our, only colony and we governed it from the beginning of the cen- tury until the end of World War II. By that action, we undertook almost an open-ended commit- ment to independence and democracy foraitspeople. Americans who have not lived in the Philippines may not realize how strongly Filipinos feel about that continuing obligation. A second major difference con- cerns the strategic relationships between our two countries. We had no formal treaty alliance with Iran, but, under the Nixon Doctrine, depended on its armed forces to act as a surrogate replacement for the British in preserving peace and order in the Persian Gulf. In the Philippines, by contrast, we have a bilateral treaty, but Philippine forces do not have a regional strategic significance. Instead, the two large Philippine bases provide the United States with the ability to project its military forces in the western Pacific and beyond in order to underpin the East Asian equilibrium that has been achieved at such great cost. That equilibrium is of enormous importance not only to the United States, but also to Japan, China, and the Asian states. As for the similarities, I shall mention only two. One concerns the fact that our alliance, although directed to the people of the Philippines, is widely per- ceived as a prop to President Marcos and as support for a regime that has patently lost its political base. When Marcos in- stituted martial law in 1972, he had broad political support, especially among the middle class. That middle-class support has new eroded, partly because. Marcos has stayed too long in of- fice, partly because the basic economic and political situation has not improved, partlyrbecause of the cavalier way the cronies of Marcos have treated and ex- ploited the business community. As in Iran, the middle class is now in the streets joining those who call for Marcos to resign. ANOTHER SIMILARITY is that we are dealing with an authoritarian leader who is ill, who is taking medication that may have altered his temper and his judgement, who ' is being egged on into extreme positions by powerful people around him. The irritable, sputtering figure we see on television screens as not the smooth, calculating, cautious political genius who has dominated his country for so long. He doesn't seem to be moody and morose, as the shah was, but he has clearly lost his touch. The United States, by the very nature of its association with the Philippines, must make some diplomatic choices in the current circumstances. President Reagan has a scheduled visit to Manila in the near future. Decisions taken concerning that event will shape our policy and may, indeed, shape the future of the Philippines. Of course, that visit may never take place because responsible authorities may conclude they cannot assure President Reagan's safety Japan cancelled an Eisenhower visit 'in 1960 on those grounds. Or unforeseen evidence will implicate the Mar- cos regime directly in the assassination of Beningo Aquino. BUT, BARRING developments of that sort, Washington's decision about the visit will be made on foreign policy grounds. What are the results we wish that decision to achieve? To answer this, it's important to recall how Carter mishandled the Iranian situation and contributed not only to the ascendancy of the Ayatollah Khomeini but the bitter confrontation that resulted in the taking of American hostages. He did so by miscalculating that the Iranian armed forces, acting on behalf of the shah, could disperse and ultimately crush the op- position in the streets. He con- sequently continued to embrace the shah, even after it was manifest that his regime was doomed. Carter became the or- chestra leader on the Iranian Titanic. In the case of the Philippines, the Reagan administration must avoid that mistake and admit to* itself that Marcos has run out his political string. It must see its obligation and the American national interests in protecting the Philippine people from the chaos and destruction of civil war. It must resolve to take positive action, however messy, to assist a peaceful, orderly, and democratic transition in Philip- pine politics. It must recognize that it is the only instrument that can lead such transition, but that it will have the overwhelming majority of Filipinos as its allies if it acts quickly, wisely and decisively. It is not enough of a policy decision merely to cancel President Reagan's trip and wash our hands of Marcos. That will give the signal to the most radical anti-Democratic and anti- American elements that we are prepared to see a violent revolution take place - one that we can be sure Marcos would fight tooth and nail. The country eventually would polarize and a Filipino Khomeini probably would emerge. AT THE OTHER extreme, it would be a disastrous policy for President Reagan to follow the Carter example and encourage Marcos to hang tough. Polarization, violence, and chaos again would be predictable. The White House should look at the issue of the scheduled visit as an opportunity for constructive American intervention. The prospect of the visit should be. used as an anvil against which to beat out positive action for political conciliation among Filipinos. A hard-headed political colleague of President Reagan (somebody like Lyn Nofziger), should be sent to the Philippines immediately to put together a formula for political transition that will be subscribed to by the Marcos administration and by the leaders of the democratic op- position, and endorsed by sueh respected figures as Jaime Car- dinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila. Such a formula. is not incon- ceivable. Cardinal Sin himself has proposed one that involves a return to the constitution of 1935, with open and free elections in- ternationally observed. We must not assume that Marcos would refuse to agree to that. We owe it to ourselves and the Filipinos to find this formula. If that can be done, President Reagan's visit can be turned into a triumph of diplomacy, and he can be seen as the catalyst for compromise, appearing on a platform of Philippine national reconciliation with Marcos, Car- dinal Sin and the leaders of the opposition. Sullivan is a former U.S. ambassador to Iran and the Philippines. He wrote this ar- ticle for the Pacific News Ser- vice. by Berke Breathed LETTERS TO THE DAILY Ed. facts missing To the Daily: i .MWiiEANEAN .....SEA BEIRUT . ................,...... $AISSOUR~ CAM RAJH . SAIGON -oQ ... TAN SON NHLW AIRPORr MY LAI ... DA NAND- K.E SANH The Daily's editorial on the budget cuts made in the School of Education ("40 percent necessary," Daily, September 22) was a prime example of irresponsibility in journalism. Indeed, "editorial" means "opinion" but implies knowledge and research of surrounding fac- ts. I was disturbed when I read the statement, "Arid while some of the research in the school is significant, much of it - par- ticularly graduate theses - ranges from trivial to silly." It would be of. great interest to see the data that you collected to support such a broad generalization. Furthermore, it is doubtful that anyone on the Daily editorial board is truly qualified (or should I say educated?) to make such munity teachers that make a dif- ference. Finally, because you are students, one might expect abit more sensitivity to the needs and desires of the students concer- ned. In reviewing the school, the regents were not open to student input and spent very little time actually reviewing the school (a couple of hours total!). I would suggest a much more in depth look at the facts before you con- demn us. I for one feel very well prepared to be a teacher that makes a difference. - Tanya Blanchard September 24 BLOOM COUNTY I i I 1