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