44
OPINION
Page 4
Monday, February 3, 1986
The Michigan Daily
01 be :tchgt ai
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVI, No. 87 420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
Corruption exercise
Wasserman
4
N FRIDAY citizens in the
1 Phillipines will go to the polls
and vote for the person who osten-
sibly, at least, will guide them and
act in their best interests for the
next six years. The political system
is so corrupted and the election is
so certain to be rampant with
fraud, however, that it seems there
will be no result from Saturday's
elections that will address the
Filipino people's needs.
Ironically, the greatest obstacles
in the election are the candidates
themselves: President Ferdinand
Marcos and Corazon Aquino.
President Marcos' record speaks
for itself. After being
democratically elected in 1965, he
first declared martial law in 1972,
having suspended civil liberties
several times since. He has also
been accused of taking state funds,
claiming them as his own personal
property, and investing them in the
United States. While these charges
have not been fully evidenced, a
real estate executive recently
testified in front of a House panel
that Marcos gave four New York
buildings to his wife as a gift,
buildings which are worth over $70
million.
Marcos' campaign has been lit-
tered with events that would be
humorous if they didn't have such
serious implications for the close to
forty million Filipinos. Marcos has
displayed signs of failing health but
has denied any illness more serious
than a common cold. He also has
accused the U.S. Army of lying
when a search failed to find any
evidence that supported Marcos'
claim about being a guerilla leader
during World War II. In a speech
last week, Marcos offered peasants
outright bribes and promised that,
if elected, he could change laws
that stood in the way of what he
wanted to do.
The problem with Aquino is
twofold. First, while she has
delivered good rhetoric concerning
human rights and economic parity,
her sincerity is questionable.
Stronger doubts arise over
Aquino's ability to put these refor-
ms into action if elected. It has
been estimated that Aquino must
gain seventy percent of the real
vote in order to be elected, and the
military is decidedly against her.
An Aquino victory might lead to a
bloody civil war and not to peaceful
social and economic reforms.
The United States, for its part,
has displayed an opportunist role
during the campaign. The U.S.
government, after years of near
blind support for Marcos, has
recentlymade aid contingent on
improved human rights. The ad-
ministration has not yet thrown its
support to one side, preferring in-
stead to declare allegiance to the
winner after the elections. But,
Reagan's true intentions are clear:
to protect America's largest over-
seas military bases which are in
the Phillipines, and to continue
military agreement with the
Filipinos beyond 1991, when the
present agreement runs out.
There seems to be no positive
solution to the present mess in the
Phillipines. President Marcos him-
self perhaps unwittingly suggested
the best solution in a news con-
ference last week: "So many
crimes have been attributed to this
administration that if they were
true at all, the country would need
exorcism instead of free elec-
tions."
THE FEB. 7TOELECTIONS
LETTERS:
I DON' K~oW
I'M SPLL trNT1'0
I
I
4
Israelis fight threats of annihilation
Angola chess
THE U.S. government has let it
T be known that the C.I.A. will
provide covert monetary aid to
Jonas Savimbi, who is trying to
overthrow the government of
Angola. For the moment, Reagan
appears unprepared to give open
military support for Savimbi's civil
war in Angola. Savimbi's recent
visit to plea for U.S. aid provides a
good lesson in global politics.
Recently, anti-communist
"freedom fighters" have formed
' something of an international
organization with key military and
former military supporters in the
U.S. The hard-liners, who have the
support of Jeane Kirkpatrick and
the Anti-Communist League, want
the U.S. government to take an.
open role in supporting the contras
and Savimbi.
There are three reasons the U.S.
government does not always
openly support "freedom fighters"
in its proxy war against the Soviet
Union. First, public opinion does
not yet support all out war against
the Soviet Union, its allies, and
possible allies. Secondly, as the
contras have discovered,
American-labelled "freedom
fighters" do not necessarily win.
The third and most interesting
reason that Reagan does not start
open aid to Savimbi is that the U.S.
and Soviet Union have some
leeway for bargaining; the
possibility exists for trading Cuban
troop withdrawal for Namibian in-
Cuba with the justification for
fighting against him.,
The MPLA did the bulk of the
fighting to turn back the South
Africans, but still called in 30,000
Cuban troops as well as Soviet and
East German advisors. At this
time, Savimbi's group took on new
value to the U.S. policy-makers -
front line fighters against the
Soviet Union.
American policy-makers such as
Chester Crocker want South Africa
to pull out of Namibia, which is a
U.N. recognized country under
South African domination. In ex-
change, the Soviets should feel
secure enough in Angola to send
home the Cubans.
Secretary of State Schultz does
not want overt military aid to
Savimbi unless all else fails. The
Soviets could never save face in
negotiations if the U.S. sent open
military aid to Savimbi.
Savimbi wanted open support,
but says he is satisfied with covert
aid. Trained by Maoists, Savimbi
used to spout revolutionary
rhetoric, but opportunistically tur-
ned to accept C.I.A. support.
Whatever a Savimbi government
might look like, and however
meritorious Savimbi's tribal base,
U.S. policy-makers do not seem to
care. The U.S. supports Savimbi in
his attacks on the MPLA, but only
up to a point, as the Cabinda in-
cident illustrates.
U.S. aid to Savimbi can only
To the Daily:
In response to Hilary
Shadroui's "Zionism is racist in
Israel," (1-20-86), I would like to
show what she says is fact is
merely propaganda of her own or
a personal emotional bias that
has obscured the real facts of the
.issues to her.
When Ms. Shadroui states, ".. .
the Israelis took the best far-
mland from the Palestinians in
1948," she is ignoring British
government statistics. Accor-
ding to these statistice, 19.8% of
the land in Israel was owned by
the Arabs. When Israel officially
became an independent state, a
vast majority of these
Palestinians left Israel rather
than live in the Jewish homeland.
After Israel became an indepen-
dent state, 3.3% of the land
remained owned by Arabs.
Israel did not take any land away
from the Palestinians.
Another misrepresentation of
the truth regarding her version of
Israeli land acquisition is where
she states that "Palestinians
would be living on their farms
and in the villages from which
they were driven by the Israeli
invaders in 1948 and 1967 ... "
Israeli invaders? The war in 1948
was hardly an Israeli invasion.
On theaday that the armies of five
Arab nations entered Israel's
border on the provocation that
Israel had become an indepen-
dent state, the Secretary General
of the Arab League, Assan
Pasha, said, "This will be a war
of extermination and a momen-
tous massacre which will be
spoken of like the Mongolian
massacres and the crusades."
Israel reacted to this threat as
any country would; by defending
themselves and repelling their
invaders.
Regarding the "Israeli in-
vaders" of 1967, Ms. Shadroui is
correct in that the Israelis at-
tacked first. What she fails to
mention is that on May 20, 1967,
approximately 100,000 Egyptian
troops had ammassed them-
selves on the Israeli border. In
less than a week, Israel was
ringed in by a quarter of a million
Arab troops. On May 27, 1967,
President Gamal Abdel Nasser of
Egypt said, "Our basic objective
will be the destruction of Israel."
I believe that the intentions of the
Arabs were made rather clear to
the "Israeli invaders." Nine
days later, Israel made a pre-
emptive strike against Egyptian
airfields resulting in the begin-
ning of the Six Day War.
Ms. Shadroui states that the
PLO's terrorist acts are actually
acts of war justified by the
mission of their people. I already
have discussed her misuse of the
word "invade," but for the sake
Loss of professor is loss of opportunity
To the Daily:
We are dismayed by Professor
A.L. Becker's departure from the
Linguistics Department. The
proposed reorganization of that
department into a program star-
ted last spring; shortly afterwar-
ds Professor Becker chose early
retirement. We understand that
his decision was a personal one
and was regretted by the depar-
tment. We believe that it might
have been different, however, if
the administration had con-
sidered more fully the needs of
students for a teacher of Becker's
quality. As a result of his depar-
Challenger
SPA CE BIRD
Space bird in air
Rockets fired to fly.
Lift off perfect-clean
Up, up, watch her climb
Into outer reaches
Beyond this Earth's confines.
Always this way-always.
Can never fail.
Mission will be accomplished
But ... what happened?
Not possible.
School kids waiting in awe-
Parents, relations, spouses-a
nation
Gaze upward ready for launch.
It comes-perfect leaving pad.
Smoke-but that's expected.
Wait it curls-Sprouts fingers.
The impossible has happened.
ture, those of us on campus as
well as future students have lost
the opportunity to study with him
and to be a part of the community
he created through his classes.
Although this letter is written by
graduate students from outside
the Linguistics ; department,
these students also regret his
departure but feel unable to
speak out on his behalf.
In his courses, Professor
Becker offered readings intended
primarily for students from
linguistics and anthropology. Yet
he took seriously the respon-
sibility of this university to
provide interdisciplinarydand
cross-cultural studies. Students
from other intellectual traditions
heard of his fine scholarship, of
his skills as a master teacher and
joined his classes.
Students at this university
seldom find teachers who place
greater emphasis on close and
careful description than on sup-
posed scientific explanation.
Professor Becker's diverse ap-
proach to the study of language
and to learning encourages
questions as much as answers. In
how many classes do we hear our
teachers say, "I don't know the
answer to your questions, but
these are the questions we need to
be asking?" In many classes we.-
near our questions reformulated
to fit prepared answers, but
Professor Becker elicited
humility and openess in a setting
which typically rewards intellec-
Pro tect rightL
To the Daily:
I am writing to correct Mr.
Russel E. White who wrote on the
morality of abortion. He states,
"Medical science can tell us
unequivocally that a fetus is a
living human being." Indeed,
biologists and doctors can tell us
that it is alive in the strict
biological sense. A dog is alive as
is an amoeba. Nevertheless,
society does not confer upon them
the rights of a human being.
Thus, we must attempt to make
the distinction between that
which is alive and that which is
uniauely human. What makes a
tual arrogance.
Professor Becker encouraged
his students to believe that the
quality of their research was
more important than meeting
deadlines and completing a
degree early. We did not hear the
constant tick of the academic
clock during office hours. He
gave generously the gift of his
time, and he helped us to think
through our projects in an
unhurried manner.
Certainly there are other ex-
cellent teachers here who take!
their teaching responsibilities as
seriously as their research. We
fear that they too will go.We
need to ask ourselves why a
professor of Becker's quality
chooses to retire from this
university at the peak of his
career. What kind of an
educational system allows this to
happen without students, faculty
and administrators working
together to forestall his depar
ture?
We hope to find Professor
Becker teaching in some
capacity at this university in the
future. If this is not the case, then
we thank him for his teaching and
for his scholarship and wish him
well in the many projects that he
will now pursue. Professor
Becker will be sadly missed by
our students and faculty alike.
- John Lofty
Joe Gaughan
January 30
offhumans
unborn which cannot con-
clusively be called human and
therefore deserving of rights, or
they can allow the woman
freedom of choice to do what she
wishes. Seen in this light, Mr.
Russell can no longer make the
contention that Pro-choice ad-
vocates hope to impose a singular
view of morality upon society.
Rather, they aspire to leave the
decision to the individual, and
thereby leave her rights intact.
Pro-life advocates, on the other
hand, are the ones who wish to
impose E subjective morality"
February 11, 1980 in El Mundo in
Caracas, Venezuela, "Peace for
us means the destruction of
Israel. We are preparing for a
war which will last for
generations." What he says are
not the idle words of a powerless
man. The PLO represents
Palestine as a voting member of
the League of Arab States since
1976.
PLO attacks are acts of war
according to Ms. Shadroui, yet in
a display of her emotional bias
she labels the bombing of the
PLO headquarters in Tunisia as
an act of state terrorism. It
seems odd to me that if Israel and
the PLO are at war with each
other, as Ms. Shadroui says, that
an Israeli attack is terrorism,
while a PLO attack is considered
a legitimate act of war.
Ms. Shadroui's pervasive
emotional bias and inaccuracies
in her historical descriptions
detract from her conclusion that
Israel is ". . . one of the major op-
pressors of the 20th century." On
the contrary, Israel has presen-
ted herself as a valiant fighter for
her right to exist in the face of
constant threats posed by those
who wish to witness her an-
nihilation.
Daniel J. Myers
January 20
Silence-stun
What went wrong
flawle
Seven less
race-G
Only memories
frien
Country weeps anc
led nation
g? Space bird
ss.
of human
one
offamilies,
is.
d sighs-How?