4 OPINION Page 4 Tuesday, December 2, 1986 The Michigan Daily 4 Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan SDI abets proliferation Vol. XCVII, No. 62 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board All other cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Daily. Intentional violations T HIS PAST WEEK, the news has been dominated by mounting revelations of U.S. administration involvement in clandestine ship- ping of arms to foreign countries. Inspite of President Reagan's denials of the illegal Iranian transaction and subsequent ship- ments to the Contras, the arranged delivery of arms to Iran, through Israeli agents, follows an extended history of illicit weapons tranfers and violations of congressional intent on the part of the Reagan administration. Ignorance does not indicate innocence. Even if it were true that Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North was able to transfer huge amounts of U.S. arms and funds without the sanction or knowledge of other Reagan officials, which no one seems to believe, Reagan would be guilty of compliance and neglect. The two operations most recently uncovered are additional demon- strations and results of, the Reagan administration's contempt for legal restrictions, popular sentiment, and congressional power. The Iranian arms deal and the related diversion of money to the Contras are not isolated operations. -They fit within the Reagan administration scheme to circumvent the mandates of congress and the American people. Covert arms deliveries, often through third parties, have become common practice for this administration. The administration practices triangular trade, the use of third parties to transfer arms, when it is prevented by congressional and popular opposition from becoming directly involved. The role of Israel in the Iran affair came as a surprise to few. Israel has traditionally fulfilled the United States' "need" to support undemocratic governments. Whenever congressional restriction prohibits U.S. military aid to a repressive "ally," Israel increases its military support. Israel has served this function by supplying such beneficiaries as Guatemala, Chile, South Africa, and the Contras. Beyond economic profit, Israel has little self-interest in arming such repressive powers- unless one considers that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. monetary aid. Israel is not the only country employed in triangular trade. Other countries implicated include South Korea, Taiwan, Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, not incidently, began to provide military aid to the Contras after receiving the AWAC aircraft shipment for which President Reagan strongly lobbied. Of course, there is no documented evidence that there is a reciprocity of aid involved. The Pell amendment to the 1986Foreign Aid bill prohibits the granting of aid to countries with the express intent of channeling money to other parties. Yet, as long as there is no written agreement-i.e., evidence of intent, the Reagan administration can, and does, violate the intent of the law while appearing to obey it technically. It is characteristic of the Reagan administration to manipulate, twist, and when all else fails, violate the law to achieve its foreign policy objectives. The recently revealed operations should not be treated as anomalous or products of "overzealous" individuals. They are only further evidence of the triangular trade's prevalence. They are symptomatic of the Reaganism disease. It is a disease which calls for a cure. By Justin Lahat I was quite enlightened by Mr. Palis' and Mr. Caver's letters ("Peaceniks miss the point on arms control" and "Star Wars foes are wrong," Daily, 11/10/86). Little did I know that the Soviets "have violated every major arms control agreement they have ever signed with the United States," as was stated by Mr. Palis, I suggest that he look over the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Seabed Treaty and the Threshold Ban Treaty, all of which have been apparently followed (there is some speculation that the United States has violated the Serabed Treaty). If Mr. Palis has any evidence to the contrary, I would gladly welcome his presenting it: my subscription to The Plain Truth has lapsed. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which specifically bans the deployment of nuclear weapons in the earth's orbit and outer space in general, must also be taken into consideration. It appears that the SDI system touting the famed X-caliber laser, the power of which would be generated by a nuclear explosion, is in direct violation of this treaty. Further - more, I cannot conceive where Mr. Palis came up with the idea that the United States has unilaterally decreased the Justin Lahat is a LSA sophomore. megatonage of its nuclear arsenal by more than 30 percent since the mid-sixties. I must also take note of a major inconsistency in Mr. Palis' argument in favor of SDI. First he writes that the idea of "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is failed doctrine." He gives no evidence to support this stance though he later writes that a nuclear war is unwinnable. Excuse my ignorance, but is not the inability of winning a nuclear war the underlying premise of the MAD doctrine? Beneath the surface of all this rigamoroleais the assumption by Mr. Palis that SDI works. Even if this Dalkon Shield of defense technology could be implemented (which is doubtful), it is not even proposed that it could defend against cruise missiles or low flying bombers. Furthermore, even if SDI was 95 percent effective against high-flying intercontinental missiles, which no one of merit believes, the remaining five percent would be enough to levy substantial damage. Obviously, the Pentagon understands this. Reportedly, they think of SDI as a bargaining chip for cutting an arms control deal with the Soviets. This appears to be the position maintained in Mr. Caver's infinitely better-thought out, though equally misguided, letter. Mr. Caver mocks Gorbachev's request for a test ban on SDI, writing that the Soviet Premier is unwilling to give any concessions of his own. The Soviets have been folowing a self-imposed, unilateral nuclear test ban since August, 1985. This is verifiable by current sattelite and seismographic techniques. This attempt to convince the United States to halt testing as well seems like a major concession on the part of the Soviets. The United States, as Mr. Caver submits, enjoys quite a technological advantage over the Soviets. What better way to continue this advantage and decrease the huge amounts of money we spend on our military wares than signing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets? Mr. Caver appears to believe that through increasing the arms race we can economically force the Soviets to submit to us. With the United States spending $300 billion a year on the military ($30 billion so far for the proposed SDI) while we have a deficit approaching $3 trillion by 1988 and an upcoming recession, it seems that Mr. Caver has cast himself in the role of the. pot calling the kettle black. Every president since Eisenhower has been in favor of a halt to testing except Reagan. The United States now has the best opportunity it has ever had to reach this goal. It in fact, has an obligation to work toward ending the nuclear arms race with the Soviets as stated in jhe Non-proliferation Treaty. We must act quickly. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Wasserman TE91~SoTS A~etfT CGOINGTO ?U;s MS AROUND t-Ik TEY DI D JI~MYCARTER. WE P~pAM5F.V SWIF T T1BUTION. AND WE'RE 601N& I NEF YPUT AW oN woT- 'oU @4'JN BUT YOU CANT, .. TRADouE Z 4 For people who know everbody Putting it on the line A GROUP OF UNIVERSITY students have determined that an Online debate would be a good way of opening up political exchange on campus. Topics they have suggested for debate include; Classified Research on Campus, Political activism by religious groups, Middle East Conflict, and Prospects for Arms Control. The students have proposed setting up two simultaneous conferences. The first would include only local and/or national 'experts' and a moderator, who would lead the debate according to as-yet unestablished guidelines. The panel would proceed with experts responding to the moderator and each other. In the second conference, computer users would respond to the panelists, pose questions if they so desired, and generally discuss the content of the first conference. The combination of two conferences gives computer users access to information and a channel for discussion. Computer users could suggest topics and people or groups who would be interested in serving as panelists. Though computer dialogues may seem removed, people are already using computers to send messages to friends or meet new people. Taking advantage of the University communication system in this way makes sense, especially since all students pay at least $100 per term. The computer system is an easy, accessible information source (when there aren't massive lines during midterms and finals) and can be a viable means of finding out what other people on campus think about political issues. Such a forum would extend the exisiting debate all over campus, possibly to people who have little opportunity to voice their opinions or time to attend conferences. Computer dialogues will not replace personal conversations, but they can add to the discussion process. Information access will increase as permanent records of all conferences are saved for reference. Using the computer system for thought provoking debate is an encouraging sign of openminded - ness. Willingness to share ideas and opinions with people who have diverse viewpoints is education at its best. I was walking to class Qne day with a friend and a funny thing happened. Somehow it took us 15 minutes to get from one end of the Diag to the other. Why had this trip, which normally takes two minutes, taken fifteen? Well, in the space of 200 yards, my friend had to stop to talk to Suzie from economics, Pete from West Quad, Doug IDD ow Ihi~ from Mojo, Tim from wrestling, Carrie from home, Beth from arobics, Joe from the frat, John from the co-op, Judy from the Mug, Sheila from freshman orientation, Debbie from work, Liz from the bar, and-worse-Bill and John from my psychology and poli. sci. It seems my friend was one of a select group of people. She was what anthropologists classify as "a person who knows everybody." Just exactly how these people know everybody is a mystery and is a point of unending curiosity to those of us who don't know everybody. To further probe into this issue, I interviewed Hubert T. Popularity, the person who knows the most people on the U of M campus. By last estimate, Mr. Popularity is on a "Hey, what's up" relationship with over 5,000 people on campus. Further, he can carry on a 30- second chat involving classes, politics, or housepets with over 3,500 persons. Mr. Popularity points out that people who know everybody benefit from the self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems that people are impressed with and want to know people who know everybody. Thus, the people who know everybody now know everybody plus some. "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. It's sort of like Reaganomics," he explains. Mr. Popularity can think of no other reason that he is so popular, except that he is a great guy. The people who know everybody have a certain code, he says. It's not cool for a person who knows everybody to scream across a street, "Hey, John!!" That would be seeking out recognition and for that they can be disbarred from the Persons Who Know Everybody Club. Instead, persons who know everybody must coolly walk by their friends with a "John, what's happening?" The code specifies that when two people who know everybody meet, the one who is with another person will wait to be greeted. This maximizes impressing people, because the person with the other did not have to seek out the greeting. Problems could arise if both persons who know everybody are each walking with other people. The code of ethics, however, takes care of this says Mr. Popularity. If both persons are walking with others, the person with the opposite sex friend gets priority. What are we people who don't know everybody to do in the face of this? How are we to deal with the people who know everybody? A friend of a friend of a friend of mine got back at his friend this way: anytime he would walk with his friend he would whisper under his breath to strangers who were walking by, "Hey, John," "Hey, Ralph," "Hey, Jenny." I urge everyone to take this strategy. If all of us start talking to people we don't know, it will be harder for the people who know everybody to distinguish themselves. Anywhere you go, you should strike up impromptu conversations with strangers. Keep the subjects safe: classes, clothes, sports. And above all, do not blow your cover by attempting to guess the other person's name. If this group effort fails, there is a solution for individuals seeking to do some impressing. People who don't know everybody should band together with the friends they do have and coordinate their schedules. They should schedule their classes so that their paths to and from buildings cross. That way, these people will run in to each other and impress the hell out of anyone they may be walking with that day. This is a good example of long range planning. For short range planning, one might try to impress others by having his friends line up in the Fishbowl around lunch time and stream out at 30 second intervals. For solving the more general problem, a third solution may be in order. It is a punitive one and should only be used in extreme circumstances. A quota would be put on how many people a person can know. At an institution of 35,000 people, one can be fairly liberal about these limits. Say, for example, an undergraduate should be limited to 1,700 acquaintances. 1,200 persons smiled at in class, but never spoken to. 500 friends (semi-close). 450 friends known exclusively in classes. 250 friends (very close). And 30 best friends. Failure to limit oneself to these quotas would result in punishment. Persons who know everybody would all be rounded up and put in one room. The door would not be blockeil; but because these people would know everyone there, they could never leave. . The people who know everybody would be forced by habit to make the rounds and visit with everyone they knew. Just as they would finish talking to everyone they knew, a day will have elapsed and they will have to make the rounds all over again. A never ending cycle wouldensue. Persons who know everyone would be trapped in this Kafkaesque institution forever. I call this punishment: the myth of Sisyphus meets Dale Carnegie. Some persons may object to this penalty as "too harsh" or "too existentialist." Being in a room with one person who knows everybody is bad enough. Think how bad it would be when everybody knows everybody. 4 I would have to agree here. These punishments are too harsh. The only solution would appear to be letting these friendly maniacs out on the street. We have no humane choice but to learn to endure them. With a little patience and tolerance, you might even enjoy walking with a person who knows everybody. Just not when you're in a hurr J T . .i ,__.. U