I OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, December 5, 1984 The Michigan Doily Real solutions lie far beyond cha By Brian Leiter 900,000 will be dead of starvation in Ethiopia alone by the end of this year. Millions more may die next year or be crippled for life by malnutrition. Around the world, hundreds of millions barely survive on inadequate nourish- ment - and, of course, many don't sur- vive at all. Yet we read recently in The Daily that "As a gesture of solidarity with the world's hungry people, studen- ts living in dorms, co-ops, and sororities signed away their meals and donated the money to...hunger programs." They raised $4,500. It is almost a sick joke. d Each year hundreds of millions face t death due to starvation. Meanwhile, college students sign away one meal in this year for which the University donates $1.50rto a hunger program. Even if all two to three million college students in the country participated, this would only generate three to five million dollars. And as it is, hardly that many do participate. LET US BE clear on what makes this a sick joke. It is not a "sick joke" that students are concerned with the world's hungry. It is a sick joke that people think that ceremonial affairs such as foregoing a meal constitute a serious contribution to relieving starvation. It is a sick joke that people devote time and energy to what is a frivolous and fleeting response to a problem of enor- mous proportions. In point of fact, this is a charac- teristic difficulty of all charity: it ap- proaches problems on the most super- ficial level. Why else would it be that charitable efforts appear eternal, that they return year after year doing the same fundraising for the same problems? It is because they do not, because they cannot, come to terms with the problems they address in a serious way. In a sense, it is really quite sad that charitable efforts are so frivolous. It is sad because one suspects that those who launch them and many of those who become involved really do feel strongly that there is something bad that needs correcting - whether it be hunger, poverty, and the like. BUT THIS IS the great irony of charity: for if there is something "bad" that needs correcting, then why not proceed to correct it in a way that is permanent? Why not look for solutions that are really solutions and not just pacifiers? "Charity" has consistently shown itself inadequate to that task, even though such a goal is implicit in what it is trying to achieve. No doubt such a strong remark will prick the sensibilities of many liber- tarians and conservatives. "Wait a moment," they shall retort. "If people feel strongly about something, then they should as private individuals do something voluntarily about it. That is the right way." But that is a fantasy for children (and need I add, Reaganites), not a proposal for those who really are concerned about world hunger. Problems like world hunger, or even poverty at home, are problems of enormous proportions. They are problems which, if we want to deal with them, require systematic and farsighted redress - not the come- what-may approach of various private efforts. THINK.OF IT this way. We do not expect private individuals to come together of their own volition for the purpose of generating a national defen- se. No doubt this is because we regard a strong, or at least adequate defense as a priority item. If we regard world hunger or poverty as a comparably high-priority matter - and the existen- ce of charities testifies to this sentiment among many - then we should not bred by the free market have, on the whole, been superficial and conser- vative. Our government's social policies have reflected more of a con- cern with pacifying the outcast in order to preserve the status quo than a con- cern with restructuring power, privilege, and opportunity so that all might participate in the life of the nation. Part of the problem then, for 'It is a sick joke1 that people think that ceremonial affairs such as foregoing meal constitute a serious contribution relieving starvation.' a to nation's political priorities, the poten- tial for combatting these problems would be tremendous. Perhaps, though, some are puzzled by this talk of "systematic redress" and by my indictment of our gover- nment's current lack of commitment to such solutions. A remark by a Deputy Administrator of the Agency for Inter- national Development (made in a Congressional hearing in the '60s) might illuminate the issue: Our basic, broadest goal is a long- range political one. It is not development for the sake of sheer development...An important ob- jective is to open up the maximum opportunity for domestic private initiative and enterprise and to insure that foreign private in- vestment, particularly from the United States is welcomed and well treated. In short, American response to the world's problems is conducted primarily with an eye to what American capitalism can reap. It is not "development for the sake of develop- ment" but "development for the sake of capitalism." (Maybe this explains America's lackluster response to the Ethiopian situation.) Yet it is by now a well-known fact that capitalism does not eliminate poverty, malnutrition, poor health care etc. (look at the ex- perience in Central America throughout this century). Perhaps the first task, then, will be to elect a gover- nment whose foreign policy actually matches its moralistic and humanitarian rhetoric. Some may still feel that while these IntI irit may be good long-range goals, charity is a worthwhile goal for the short run. But, again, I would disagree. In fact, 1 would venture that charity is quite harmful in two respects. First, charity tends to make people complacent - once they've given ,up their meal they feel that they've done- their part and that no more systematic changes in American policy and world order are required. Until charities dispel the illusion that they are making serious contributions to the world's problems, their existence will be an ob- stacle to the political momentum which might yield lasting solutions. Second, I sometimes wonder about the real value and humanity of prolonging people's misery with biti contributions without holding out any possibility of a secureand healthy way of life. Since most charities do no more than this, one should ask whether that is really a worthy goal? (There are ex- ceptions: Save the Children generally pursues community development projects with the goal of self-sufficiency in mind; but Save the Children's impact in numbers of people is quite small.) In sum: the existence of charities speaks to the reality of the problems. But if the problems are real then they should be treated in a real way with an eye toward doing away with the need for any charity. Our world is huge and complex; holding out fantasies about private efforts in such an environment is truly perverse against a backdrop of problems of such magnitude and severity. throw the burden of providing a solution on the fortuitous coming-together of concerned individuals. These matters, too, should be redressed through unified and far-reaching policies - the sort of policies for which government is suited and capable. Once again, though, the conservative will rear on his hind legs and yelp, "But government has not shown itself capable of dealing with problems!" That now famous Reagan cry has both truth and lie in it. The truth is that our government's ef- forts to confront the societal problems those determined to eliminate hunger will be to compel the government to bring its full abilites to the problem. THE LIE implicit in the conservative cry is twofold. First, the government has shown itself, on occasion, capable of more far-sighted programs: Head Start comes to mind. Second, there is no doubt that government could deal with these problems in a thorough way - the Scandanavian governments do it and they do not even have our wealth and technology. If all the energy devoted to charitable efforts were rechannelled to restructuring the IN Leiter is a graduate student in law and philosophy. I Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Wasserman Vol. XCV, No: 74 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 "CHAT COLLE(7E STU DENTS TODAY - DON'T K~NOWN OUQ. SN kT oN S T0QY AND TRAbtTiON... v {' 1111 So ~veGOING To STAQI THE CLS W IR 90I \N~40 AoWS TT FTNAQ of OUR2 COUNTRY? Ja Jf,; -II-ijl i~fy E YYAGSE¢lV1P.N m lr lOSw«6R1[tTU+Rt 3 n Rif w E RSA-Gant r.._., ReA- GAN RE-A- GAr! j 6, A Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Tampering with civil rights Nicaragua 'S place in the Soviet 500 6 The Reagan Justice Department has been slowly chipping away at the foundations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This week federal officials an- nounced that they are considering revamping the heart of U.S. civil rights policies, the guidelines used to detect patterns of discrimination in em- ployment. In order to go about disman- tling landmark civil rights legislation, the Reagan-appointed officials need an excuse and they think they have found one. But they are not fooling those who really want to see that women and members of minority groups have the same employment opportunities as the rest of the population. Clarence Thomas, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims that the guidelines need to be changed because they encourage the use of statistics in determining employment discrimination. He argues statistical disparities can be explained by factors other than discrimination. What Thomas is saying is not untrue. But it is simply an excuse to tamper with the existing rules. Statistics can often be used incorrectly to distort fin- dings. The Reagan administration knows this well. But the use of statistics is also one of the more con- crete ways of proving that an em- ployer has a history of discriminatory practices. In most cases, statistics alone are not sufficient evidence to prove discrimination. They are, nonetheless, one of the key factors, among many, that can point to em- ployment patterns which tend to have an "adverse impact" on a particular race, sex, or ethnic group. Discrimination is never easy to prove. Already the current guidelines allow employers to disregard any "adverse impact" a job selection procedure might have on the grounds that it is justified by "business necessity." Any alterations in these rules would make it even easier for employers to discriminate. Thomas says that he would like to see more reliance on evidence of ac- tual conduct, such as oral testimony from witnesses who describe discriminatory practices. This is, of course, the most damning proof of discrimination. It is, however, also the most subjective and difficult to corroborate. Because it is by nature subjective, in some cases such eviden- ce may be viewed as less substantial than statistics. Recent Supreme Court decisions have interpreted anti-discrimination laws loosely. In the case of Memphis, Tenn. firefighters, the Supreme Court ruled out preferential treatment for those who are not found to be "actual victims" of discrimination. The Reagan administration has jumped on this change in the tide of court rulings to support its laissez-faire civil rights positions and to prove that quotas and other practices to insure women and minorities are granted equal oppor- tunities, are destroyed. A change in the current guidelines would mean that the Reagan ad- ministration could effectively subvert the principles in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the last twenty years, this coun- try has come too far toward achieving the goal of equal opportunity to let one administration do that. By Michael Klare Although that Soviet freighter did not unload MiG-12 jet fighters in Nicaragua, the Reagan ad- ministration has stepped up its charges that Moscow is providing the Nicaraguans with large quan- tities of advanced military equipment. Yet even a casual look at Soviet arms transfers reveals that Nicaragua receives only the barest fraction ofsthe Soviet Union's total arms exports-and not the best at that. Indeed, In- dia, Jordan, Nigeria, Peru, and North Yemen, all generally aligned with the West on inter- national affairs, apparently receive more Soviet arms than Nicaragua. ADMINISTRATION officials have made their position clear. "The fact is," Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger claimed Nov. 11, "that the Soviets are sup- plying a great deal of heavy of- fensive arms to Nicaragua." Pentagon officials have further charged that Moscow sees Nicaragua as a "platform" for attacks on other Central American countries. For example, Gen. Paul Gorman, chief of the U.S. Southern Command, testified recently that Soviet arms ship- ments are intended to provide Nicaragua with "an unmatched offensive capability in the region."~ These charges have sparked considerable debate among the experts. For some, Nicaragua's tanks-an estimated 60 to 100 Soviet medium tanks, more than any other country in the region-gives it a decisive edge. Others point to Nicaragua's disadvantage in air power-Hon- duras has some 30 combat jets while Nicaragua has none, and El Salvador, with 17 U.S.-supplied A-37 jets and a large helicopter should be clear that none of these countries enjoys a superiority sufficient to allow it to invade one of the others with a sure expec- tation of success. If the Nicaraguans havebno particular edge, then what about the charge that the Soviets are trying to convert them into a major regional power? While it is impossible to know what Soviet leaders say in private about Cen- tral America, one can get some idea of their outlook by com- paring the Soviet arms program in Nicaragua with its programs in other countries. Along with the United States and France, the Soviet Union, is a leading arms supplier to Third World countries. According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disar- mament Agency (ACDA), the Soviets delivered $44.5 billion worth of arms to developing countries between 1978 and 1982, or 37 percent of all such arms transfers. This included tanks, armored troop carriers, helicop- ters and combat aircraft delivered to some 50 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East. IN THAT SAME period-the last for which ACDA has ac- curate statistics-Nicaragua received $70 million worth of Soviet arms, less than two- thousandths of all Soviet arms transfers in the Third World. Pentagon officials say more recent deliveries would bring the total shipped to Nicaragua up to some $250 to $300 million, but even this would leave Nicaragua behind 16 or so other Third World nations including Peru and Cuba in this hemisphere. In some cases, the gap is truly immense. Syria received $8.2 billion in Soviet arms between 1978 and 1982, or 117 times the Nicaraguan total, while Libya received $6 billion worth or 86 times the Nicaraguan amount. Nicaragua also be been ex- cluded from that select group of countries supplied with the most advanced equipment. These favored clients regularly receive more advanced MiG jets, main battle tanks, and surface-to-air missiles, but not the Nicaraguans. According to the London-based International In- stitute for Strategic Studies, no jet aircraft of any sort have been delivered and the country has received only relatively obsolete tanks. COMPARE THE Soviet treat- ment of roughly comparable recipients. South Yemen, with 2 million people (to Nicaragua's 2.8 million), has received some 450 tanks, 48 MiG aircraft, and a quantity of surface-to-surface missiles. Libya, with 3.2 million people, has received 2,800 tanks, including 200 I-72s, 230 of the most advanced MiGs, and a wide variety of other modern systems. Clearly, the Soviets have sup- plied only small quantities of relatively unsophisticated equipment to Nicaragua-tran- sfers which have given the Nicaraguans a small advantage on the ground but have not changed its disadvantage in air power. This is consistent with the belief, widely held by Western observers, that the Soviets are extremely reluctant to become deeply involved in a regional con- flict far from their borders. "The Soviets have taken a good look at the map and decided that they couldn't sustain a regime like Nicaragua, which is plagued by serious security problems and located in the wrong hemisphere," says Prof. Rajan Menon of Vanderbilt University,0 an expert on Soviet arms transfers. Given their experien- ces in Afghanistan, Angola, and Ethiopia, he explained, the Soviets have become very reluc- tant to take on new military commitments-especially within Washington's sphere of influence This reluctance is "a general theme in Soviet foreign policy," says Menon. "They make vague statements about international solidarity, but they are generally unwilling to take on any new military commitments." There are exceptions, of cour se-longtime allies like Vietnam, Cuba, and North Vietnam-but inm general, the Soviets seem willing to supply only cash customers, like Libya and Syria, or strategically situated neighbors. And there is no reason to believe that Moscow will jeopardize its slowly thawing relations with Washington by changing its ar- ms-supply behavior. Klare wrote this article for the Pacific News Service. .. .......... BLOOM COUNTY by Berke Breathed F---'qi' nil its IWF. 1/To7~ BW6AK HIM... Wise H5 1' CAqN CNLY AVP 11/fIr ,YM/)IC WARD, ?? BAKER