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?