4
OPINION
Page 6
Tuesday, October 6, 1987
The Michigan Doily
I I
e t a n t Michigan t
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Reagan
By
Mark Weisbrot
Vol. XCVIII, No. 19
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.
.,Get out of Persian Gulf
SINCE THE BOMBING of the USS
Stark by an Iraqi jet, U.S. policy in
the Persian Gulf has been
spearheaded by a policy of "shoot
first and ask questions later." The
Iranian mining of international
waters is a response to military
hostility on the part of the United
States.
The Reagan administration has
sent the largest naval contingent
since the Korean War into the
Persian Gulf in an attempt to
provoke Iran. A series of incidents
has occurred which exposes the
United States's intentions.
In August, U.S. naval jets were
scrambled and fired several
Sparrow missiles at Iranian
reconnaissance planes. The planes
did not have their targeting radar
on, nor were they out of the area in
which they usually fly.
Since then, several Iranian sailing
boats were fired on and destroyed
before the capture of the mine-
la'ing vessel. Rather than target
specific military objectives, the
Navy is attacking whatever lies in
its path.
The Iranians' reaction to the
United States should not be
confused with their military action
against Iraq or Kuwait.
,The mining of the Persian Gulf
hurts Iran through destruction of its
main source of revenue - export
oil - and diverts essential capital
and human resources away from its
efforts against Iraq. Iraqi oil is
exported through pipelines into
Turkey and Syria and thus does not
Zlepend upon Persian Gulf
shipping.
While Iraq has flown numerous
air strikes against Iran in the last
month, the Iranian mining of the
Gulf has had no effect on Iraq. Iran
is reacting to the United States, not
Iraq.
The Khomeini government acts
Subverting
HAVING FAILED WITH HIS SEVEN-.
year-old attempt to establish
"democracy" in in Central America,
P esident Reagan is n o w
desperately attempting to twist the
arms of those Central American
countries which seek to develop
their own, autonomous de-mocratic
institutions. Now is the best time
for the United States to abandon the
Contras and pursue a logical
strategy in our hemisphere that pro-
motes security and doesn't threaten
it.
It now seems that the Reagan
administration plan of funding the
rebel Contras within Nicaragua and
under-mining that government
'won't succeed. This tack has
produced only chaos in Latin
America and the biggest scandal to
surround a president in 13 years.
The time is now ripe for the United
States to modify its position and
Work with the five Latin Presidents
who have signed Costa Rica's Arias
peace plan.
Developments in the region
indicate that progress could be made
by the November 7th compliance
trate of the plan. Last Sunday,
'Salvadoran President Duarte met
wih rebels for the first time in three
years. More significantly,
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega
out of fear of U.S. domination and
the necessity for the most powerful
Shiite nation to assert its
sovereignty. The CIA intervened in
Iran during the 1950s, in order to
keep Shah Pahlavi in power. After
the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, the
United States sheltered the Royal
Pahlavi family who had oppressed
Iran for decades.
Many other Islamic countries
react to the Iranian position as either
one of leadership or extremism.
Iran influences other Islamic
countries in the region (such as
Saudi Arabia) to remain religiously
conservative in their policy. Shiite
groups also look to Iran as a model
and have links with Teheran. These
factors make it imperative for the
Khomeini government to take some
action in the face of U.S.
maneuvers.
For the United States to threaten
Iran with sanctions and walk out of
the UN discussion of the Iran-Iraq
cease-fire, further demonstrates
Reagan's intentions in the Persian
Gulf.
The Reagan administration is
using well known public relations
stunts to resurrect itself from the
worst image crisis of any president
since Nixon. Reagan desires a
popular war to rally support for the
administration, as Grenada did.
Though the United States trades
with both Iran and Iraq, the balance
is vastly in favor of Iraq, which
receives more of the U.S. import
market, as well as U.S. military
assistance and advisors.
The United States should remove
its forces from the Persian Gulf.
They serve no purpose, except to
aggravate an existing conflict,
continue the war, and satisfy the
Reagan administration's desire to
improve its public image through
engaging Iran.
SCosta Rica
includes Nicar-agua's five year
decree which restricts rights to
strike and demonstrate. The plan
will also eliminate external support
for counter-revolutionaries,
specifically the Contras based in
Honduras, but still allowing Soviet
and Cuban aid to Nicaragua. After
the principals, inclu-ding
Nicaragua, signed the agreement in
August, Reagan deemed it "fatally
flawed." This seems to indicate a
vac-illating U.S. position and a
reluctance to participate in this peace
process.
In 1983, Reagan told the
Congress that we must use "the
resources of diplomacy in dealing
with the Sandi-nistas." He has
recently asked Congress, however,
for $270 million in aid for the
Contras who want to overthrow the
Sandinistas. The peace plan on the
docket would most likely contribute
more to security in this region than
continuing to subvert a government
the Reagan administration doesn't
like. Because of this, Reagan
should trust those directly involved
and work with them in securing
stability through di-plomacy.
Reagan has done more than
disavow the treaty and refuse to
abide by it. The Administration
now appears to be intentionally
If anyone still had doubts about
Reagan's true intentions in Central
America, they should have been dispelled
this past weekend. His latest list o f
"demands" presented to the Nicaraguan
government are clearly a pretext for further
war against the people of Nicaragua.
Most ridiculous among these demands is
Reagan's insistence that Nicaragua hold
new national elections, before the
regularly scheduled elections in 1990.
Reagan knows that the Nicaraguans would
never give in to this affront to their
national sovereignty.
The people of Nicaragua freely elected
their representatives, and President Daniel
Ortega, for a 6-year term in 1984. More
than 400 observers from 40 countries,
including the parliamentary democracies of
Western Europe, were on hand for the
election. The consensus, which included
even the right-wing Freedom House from
the United States, was that the elections
were free and fair. The Nicaraguans are not
about to hold new elections, simply
because the Reagan administration didn't
like the outcome.
Perhaps the Nicaraguan government
should demand new presidential elections
for the United States. They would stand on
much firmer logical and legal ground,
since the Reagan administration has
already been found by the World Court to
Mark Weisbrot is an Opinion staff writer.
sabotage
be in violation of international law for its
armed aggression against Nicaragua.
Nicaragua had demonstrated its ardent
desire for peace by complying with the
Arias accords and allowing La Prensa to
resume publication. The U.S. corporate
media has much lauded this event, but the
slant of its reporting reveals the media's
subservience to the U.S. State
Department's overall line. Any honest
analysis would show that Nicaragua is
being held to a much higher standard than
the United States or any of its allies would
comply with. Can anyone imagine a pro-
Nazi newspaper, funded with millions of
dollars from Germany, publishing openly
in New York during World War II? Would
this paper be allowed to call for the
overthrow of the government, supporting
foreign-financed armed groups who were
attempting to do just that? It's doubtful.
Yet the U.S. media portrays La Prensa
(not to mention its front page articles
about women giving birth to chickens) as
though it were just a respectable, freedom-
loving, "opposition" newspaper persecuted
for criticizing the government.
Also unnoticed by the mainstream
media have been the U.S. efforts to
destabilize the Arias government of Costa
Rica. This is punishment for the Costa
Rican president's proposal of the peace
plan that Reagan is trying to undermine.
For the past six months, no U.S.-
appropriated funds have been disbursed to
Costa Rica. The amount withheld is
estimated by U.S. Congressional officials
at $140 million. In addition, the Reagan
s -peace
administration has placed unusual
restrictions on Costa Rican exports to the
United States, further depriving the
country of foreign exchange. And in
August the United States refused for the
first time to intervene on behalf of Costa
Rica in the rescheduling of its foreign debt
with U.S. commercial banks. These
tactics could spell serious trouble for a
small country with one of the highest per
capita debts in all of Latin America.
The Arias peace plan was clearly an
unwanted challenge to the Reagan
administration's pursuit of a military
solution. It is one of those rare moments
in history where the puppets revolt against
the puppeteer. The New York Times
reported last week that President Azcona of
Honduras had promised the United States,
before going to Guatemala City, that he
would not sign anything more than at
loosely worded communique. He returned
having signed the Arias accord.
U.S. attempts to sabotage Central
American peace efforts are nothing new:
they were evident throughout the
Contadora process as well. As the
November 7 deadline for compliance with
the Arias plan approaches, Reagan will
wage a full-scale propaganda campaign
against Nicaragua, accusing it of not
living up to the agreement. He will try to
convince Congress to appropriate another
$270 million for the Contras.
Much will depend on how the corporate
media portrays the upcoming debate. Their
record on this issue does not make for
great expectations of independent news
coverage.
4
LETTERS:
Daily insensitive on rape issue
To the Daily:
The articles by Steve
Blonder (and edited by Daily
editors) ("Sexual assault trial
begins," "Conflicting testi-
monies muddleassault trial,"
Daily, 9/22/87, 9/23/87),
regarding the sexual assault
trial involving two University
students, were absolutely out-
rageous in the biased, insensi-
tive and sexist manner in
which they were written. The
articles' reliance upon exten-
sive quotes from the defense
attorneys and the unnecessary
repetition of the modifier
"alleged" reflect biased journa-
lism at its worst. The only
quotes from the victim were
those in direct response to the
Defense Attorney's badgering
and which reflected some doubt
or discrepancy. Why did the
Daily thinK these quotes were
so germane to his story? The
victim could not remember the
exact time she was assaulted or
what the room looked like.
Those were totally irrelevant
details since, as the Daily
points out in the 9/22 article,
the defendant admits the
encounter occurred on the night
cited: the question of consent is
the only point of contention.
The coverage of all those
involved at the Daily, is
typical of the longstanding
sexist precedent of putting rape
victims instead of rapists on
trial. It is also precisely why
many rape victims, especially
in cases of acquaintance rape,
are fearful of coming forward
with their stories. After all,
only the most misogynist
stereotypes of women would
assume such charges would be
made "for the fun of it." A rape
trial is hell for all parties, not
least of all the victim who has
to bear her soul and relive a
terrifying experience. Ulti-
mately, the victim herself
becomes a victim once again of
callous, self-serving defense
attorneys and insensitive, male
journalists.
A case like this raises very
sensitive and serious issues on
both sides. A great deal is at
stake for both of these young
people. Yes, Griffith Neal
faced the possibility of life in
prison; however, the victim
Dennis Bila, advertised his own
ignorant sexism by referring to
adult college women as "girls"
and by lashing out at feminist
advocates, characterizing them
as manipulative and opportun-
ist. Obviously, Mr. Bila is
quite familiar with opportun-
ism and manipulation, but not
with the women he is accusing
or the important social and
political issues surrounding the
case he is involved in.
Both sexism and racism
permeate American culture and
institutions. The Daily has, on
more than one occasion, been
guilty of both. Several
positive steps can be taken to
present this and future cases in
a more fair and non-sexist
manner. Firstly, in any
important story, Daily veterans
should offer some background
information and guidelines for
new reporters and insist on a
certain level of responsibility
to cover all sides. Secondly, a
case such as this cannot be
examined in a historical
vacuum. Helping readers un-
derstand the frequency of cases
of date rape, the statistics about
how many go unreported, and
the typical defense strategies of
blaming the victim by attack-
ing her credibility would give
readers more insight into the
problem of rape, beyond this
particular case. Lastly, those
involved at the Daily have
demonstrated their inability to
cover the case fairly and should
be reassigned and replaced with
people sensitive to the
multiplicity of issues
surrounding such a case.
Granted, the Daily's approach
was probably not conscious or
deliberately malicious, but as
already mentioned, there is a
lot at stake in this case and
there are serious implications
for future cases. The media has
a powerful ability to shape
public opinion by what in-
formation it presents and how.
Innocent ignorance on the part
of the- young reporter is not an
adequate excuse for biased and
potentially hurtful presentation
of an issue.
-fBarbara Ransby
September 23
I
I
4
Help support gay rights in DC
To the Daily:
On Sunday, October
11, tens of thousands will
march in the streets of.
Washington, D.C. to assert the
rights of lesbians and gay men.
These rights continue to be
denied by federal, state, and
local governments. The march
comes at critical time for gay
people as reactionary
legislation is being proposed
and adopted all over the country
to victimize persons with
AIDS or who might simply be
suspected of having the disease.
There has lately been a sharp
increase in anti-gay violence
in a political climate
characterized by such rulings as
last year's Hardwick decision
by the Supreme Court. This
decision says that gay and
lesbian love is criminal and
gives a green light to
anti-gay attacks, whether they
be in the legislature or on the
streets.
Local and national
organizers of this m arc h
recognize that attacks on
women, Blacks, other people
of color, and other oppressed
groups within our society are
coming from a desperate right
wing seeking scapegoats for
the economic and social crisis
of. U.S. society. For this
reason, we stand in solidarity
with these struggles for justice
and are committed to the fight
against racism and sexism
inside the lesbian/gay
community and in society as a
whole. In addition, the march
supports the struggles to free
South Africa and to end U.S.
intervention in Central
America. We will not stand by
while our sisters and brothers
here and around the world are
being brutalized.
Many area residents
will be marching o n
Washington on October 11 and
taking part in other activites,
such as civil disobedience at
the Supreme Court on October
13. Buses will leave Saturday,
October 10 at 7:30 P.M. in
front of the Michigan Union
on State Street and leave
Washington Sunday evening.
A limited amount of funds are
available to defray the $55
round trip cost of a bus ticket
for those needing financial
assistance. For information on
reservations, call 763-4186.
We urge all those who support
the spirit of this march to join
us in Washington. For love
and for life, we're not going
back!
-Julie Abbate
Tom Gaughan
Jeff Hale
Paul Lefrak
Judy Levy
Jim Toy
October 4
I
I
Chassy
ILLEGAL CMD
ANDI FIND THTSAI[
I