4 OPINION Page 4 Saturday, November 19, 1983 The Michigan Daily Choking on chemical weapons By James Boyd In 1969 that torchbearer of peace and morality Richard Nixon ordered a halt to U.S. production of chemical and biological weaponry on the grounds that the use of such weapons would be repugnant to the conscience of mankind. With admirable, if uncharac- teristic clarity of thought he decided to abide by the Geneva Protocol of 1925 that banned the use of poison gases in warfare. Such clarity of thought is now alar- mingly absent from our legislative body. The Senate in disregard of Nixon's actions last week voted 47 to 46 to commence production of nerve gas weapons. . NIXON WAS responding to the con- clusions of committees on disar- mament at Geneva and within the United Nations that called for the agreeing parties to "undertake not to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire or retain biological agents or toxins, of types and in quantities that have no justification for peaceful purposes, as well as weapons, equipment, and means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in ar- med conflict." The Convention stated, and Nixon agreed that the cessation of poison gas production would facilitate the achievement of general disar- mament.- But today we are deep within the heart of Cold War II and the naive notion of de-escalation really doesn't have any place. The line between "us" and "them" is being drawn with a much sharper pencil under the current administration. Proponents of the Senate bill use the vocabulary of a bi- polar world; they speak of "deterren- ce," "national security," and "necessary bargaining chips." The argument of Reagan and others is that these gas weapons should be produced in order to force the Soviets into a negotiated reduction of chemical stockpiles. Proponents argue that we need the bargaining chip against a country that is going full steam ahead with its production of these weapons. BUT PRODUCTION doesn't equal reduction and it certainly doesn't equal the correct moral and diplomatic stand that this country should be taking. There is evidence that the Russians used nerve gas in Afghanistan and Kampuchea but this does not allow us to sever agreements based on morality and the goal of complete disarmament. A violation of international agreement does not give the remaining parties free reign to disregard these accords. What a violation should do is strengthen the resolve of countries like our own to uphold the position that morality and diplomatic understanding necessitated. It is a frightened and weak political stand for our nation to render void an agreement on the grounds that "the Russians did it first." Joseph McCarthy and his ilk have created a generation of, cold war crybabies. Reagan rules the playground of international politics with the stick of fear. IS YURI packing a switchblade yet? We better play it safe and carry one just in case. Unfortunately we are not talking about switchblades, broken bottles, or baseball bats. We are talking about the latest model of morally reprehensible weapons. Now would be a perfect time for the United States to support the side of that which is morally correct. Even those legislators who approved of the bill do not deny that nerve gas is a truly odious weapon. But then you've always got deterrence about which to think. We've been thinking a lot about deterrence lately. We deterred a Cuban military buildup in Grenada, and we must be deterring something in Lebanon. Why don't we make one ex- ception and just do what is purely, unassailably, and morally right for a change? We should send a message to the world that we haven't gone com- pletely berserk with our thrusting and parrying - with our games of war. If Nixon could do it then why can't we? And especially why can't we now? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to predict the ef- fects of nerve gas warfare on a society or the environment. The danger would apply to the country employing these weapons as much as to the coun- try that had been attacked, regardless of any protective measures that would have been taken in parallel with the development of its offensive capability. What other weapon have you heard of that carries with it such dangerous un- certainties? The escalation of yet another gruesome weapon capability is frighteningly absurd. The atomic bomb, then nerve gas - what's next? Will the Soviets come up with a satellite zapper that fries a country's little babies until they are nothing more than charred stains on the sidewalk? The Senate had a perfect opportunity to display that there is some sanity left in this world. During the heart of the first cold war, President John Kennedy at one point defined the peace our coun- try sought as "not a (peace) forced on the world by -American weapons of war. ...Let us re-examine our attitude toward the cold war," he asked, "remembering that we are not engaged in debate. ...We must deal with the world as it is." Kennedy wasn't exactly practically committed to such an ideology but at least this sort of thought helped set the wheels of detente spinning. If nothing else, the rhetoric was comforting - rhetoric that is completely absent today. We have evolved to a point where we don't even feel the need to espouse altruism. The Capitol is full of hardened, cynical types who don't have the time for peaceful recourse. The final decision rested upon the shouldersvof George Bush who cast the deciding vote. One has to wonder why Bush felt the desire and need to create theseaweapons while 15 yearsnearlier Richard Nixon felt the desire and need to destroy them. What exactly is hap- pening? It appears that we are not progressing toward a safer more rational environment, but rather toward a world dominated by two fac- tions that are in constant competition to see who can most effectively scare the other into submission. It's scary, but I find myself asking, "Richard Nixon, where are you?" Boyd is the Daily 's associate arts editor. 4 4 4 If you thought Richard Nixon's policies were off the mark, compare them to the Reagan administration's declaration of Cold War II. Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan LETTERS TO THE DAILY: To hell with you, Bo Schemb Vol. XCIV-No. 64 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 4 s Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Boar u ashigdsuso T IS DISTURBING that in an open university community like this, a student could be fired from his job because of his political beliefs. But that seems to be exactly what happened early last week. A University professor fired one of his research assistants partially because the student was a member of the Progressive Student Network and has protested campus military research. Although the student, Piers Lewis, did not participate in a recent PSN sit-in, he did attend a candle-light rally to support the sit-in. y In another incident,, a University employer threatened to fire a different 'SN member after the student took two hours off work to assist protestors uring the lab blockade. } The University's action against thesea students displays a frightening intolerance for dissenting views - intentionally or otherwise. It an intolerance, which can do nothing $ut stifle open discussion of these ex- traordinarily important issues. Prof. Joseph Datsko, who is in charge of the defense d sponsored research projec Lewis was working, said choice - "morally, respor ethically" - but to fire V because of his apparent op military research. He saii moral contradiction to bel PSN and work on a defe tment-sponsored project. Does this mean it is also a tion to support a nuclear work on defense research, an an end to the arms race a cept DOD grants, or to lobb defense department's budg the same time accept thel money? And more importantly, is sko or anyone else willing those decisions for their emp If there is a contradiction, the employee and should him or her to resolve. The should evaluate employee their job performance. To do otherwise is telling will be fired if their opinio with those of the University. To the Daily: St. Seventy-eight years ago here in .8109 Ann Arbor, Fielding Yost wrote, "Anyone who can be present as a spectator at one of the big foot- rd ball games of the year and can look on without enthusiasm as the game progresses is lacking in red blood and can expect no pleasure - in outdoor sport." (Football for Player and Spectator, Ann Arbor, epartment- 1905) In 1983, Bo Schembechler t on which commented, "I can't believe the he had no fans are not sophisticated enough nsibly, and to understand the game, in my ;he student stadium." heostidn tWhat this is all about is the new p3Osition to Icheer introduced to Michigan d it was a football fans at the Michigan- long to the Iowa football game on October nse depar- 23. This cheer, known as the Wave, takes place as each section in the stadium stands up in suc- contradic- cession and yells. Hopefully, sec- freeze and tion will follow section all the way to pursue around the stadium. Incidently it nd also ac- makes a wonderful, incredible, yy to cut theI maize and blue big noise. Now Bo get and at wants to get rid of whoever g thought up the cheer. Michigan's Pentagon's cheerleaders claimed to have nothing to do with the wave. In Prof. Dat- ftict head cheerleader, Bob g ro make Seymour was quoted as saying, omkes "We never do any cheer during ployees? the game." No Kidding! The it is within biggest reaction the cheerleaders be left to have had in recent memory was professor last Saturday when some fans got '~tired of waving and grabbed the s only on dummy cheerleader (don't ask what's the difference) and tried them they to pass it up and out of the ns conflict stadium. However, a determined rush by the near grief stricken cheerleaders rescued the dummy from the clutches of the evil fans. Anyway, the first I remember hearing about the Wave cheer was a few years back in a Sports Illustrated article about Crazy George, a cheerleading drummer with the NHL Colorado Rockies. I doubt though that Crazy George comes under Bo's jurisdiction and can be fired. I don't think he is even on the University payroll. The problem here is that the fans at Michigan are too red- blooded and understand the game of football only too well and they respond to 21 point quarters with sophisticated waves of en- thusiasm. But to Bo, instead of being redblooded, those fans who took part in the Wave are just plain asses. Well, so what! Daryl y - Rodgers called arrogant Michigan fans asses a long time ago and instead of being hum- " ' . bled- most Miphns fnsar really think that without the wave cheer no one would know that the Stadium is an oval? This isn't Michigan State, Bo. What it all comes down to is the question of sportsmanlike con- duct, which I feel brings up a question of intent. I do not feel that it was the intention of fans taking part in the Wave to inter- fere with the playing of the game. True, against Iowa the first Wave may have caused a lack of com- munication which might have created some confusion which resulted in a delay-of-game penalty for Michigan. But the Wave had none of the malicious intent of those Wisconsin fans who back in 1980, made enough continuous noise that the referee's took away three Wisconsin time outs, penalized Wisconsin five yards for delay-of- game and gave Michigan a first down within the Wisconsin five, all in the same drive! Michigan Stadium does not have an elec- tronic scoreboard like Illinois that can be used to bring forth pre-programmed responses from Illinois fans during key game situations. I think Bo is upset because he likes to say, "We don't do that at Michigan, not in my stadium." And he is right, the fans do not maliciously and with pre- mediated intent attempt to inter- fere with the play of the game. Wolverine quarterback, Steve Smith said, "The cheering DIDN'T bother me," And it didn't, Smith had three touch- down passes on Audible Plays called at the line of scrimmage. Still Bo threatens to clear the stadium if the fans wave on in the future. Now who is not being sophisticated Bo? Clear the echler. .". stadium? The Michigan Athletic Department might as well print on all the tickets that alcholic beverages are not to be brought into the stadium. One has to be realistic about these things. To sum it all up, Purdue Cheerleading Captain, Belinda Cook, was quoted as saying, "I think the cheer just shows a lot of enthusiasm." Judging by Fielding Yost's criterion, en- thusiasm is what any fan who en- joys football should and must have. Sorry Bo, but the writings of Yost must bevindicated and the Waverines must wave on. But just think what it will be like if the Wavers move across the alley in- to Crisler Arena for basketball games. Only if... Michael Hoffman November 8 4 ... Our cheer is the wave of the future To the Daily: Michigan Students, please do not let Bo intimidate your use of the Wave cheer at future football games. The noise generated by small segments of the stadium is much less than that generated by organized cheers involving the en- tire stadium. I commend you on your reac- tion to the asinine PA announ- cement during the Purdue game to refrain from cheering when the ball is in play. The silent cheering and the silent Wave were very resourceful reactions to a request which easily could have provoked much uglier responses. I haven't had so much fun in Michigan stadium in years. To placate Bo, you might start the Wave between plays and during timeouts and then, when the quarterback approaches cen- ter, make the Wave silent. Also, don't overdo it. These are the observations of an alumna (LSA '57), mother of three University students, long standing season ticket holder and long time defender of Bo.-But on this matter of the Wave, Bo is all -wet! Sally Gerak November 7 Daily backs first amendment unevenly Ll To the Daily: You were so quick to defend General Haig from the smat- tering of hecklers at this speech that I expected you would ex- press similar outrage at the con- siderably more disruptive behavior of the hecklers at the rally on November 7 against military research. On that Monday, the invited speakers - especially Lowell Peterson, an elected official - were literally shouted down by a small number of loud-mouth con- servatives. One, as you pointed out in your article, actually clim- bed up the curb to where Mr. Peterson was speaking, shouting all the way, and waved his hands in Mr. Peterson's face. You know as well as I did that if anyone had even tried to get on stage with Gen. Haig, let alone shout him down for ten straight minutes, he UT IVCWt CATkTPV' would be in jail now. Yet these right-wingers don't get so much as their wrists slapped. If the Daily is to view itself as the guardian of the First Amen- dment, perhaps it should be a bit more evenhanded. If you are going to criticize people who make remarks during a speech by a conservative supporter of nuclear arms and armed inter- vention aboard, at least show some outrage when right-wing hecklers make it impossible for someone who opposes all that even to speak at all. - Cheryl Foster Bullard November 9 4 .................................. ..................... ............. ........ . ...... . ............. .............. -xi ................... .... ................. 4i . I 1 , rr r, We encourage our readers to use this-space to discuss and respond to issues of their concern. Whether those topics cover University, Ann Arbor community, state national, or international issues in a straightforward or unconventional manner, we feel such a dialogue is a crucialfunction of the Daily. Letters and guest columns should be typed, triple-spaced, and signed. I '? t^ ' , i , . " A~a Inmolrm ..,,4at