Opinion
Page 6 Tuesday, June 15, 1982- The Michigan Daily
The Michigan Daily
Vol. XCII, No. 29-S
Ninety-two Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Peace i
Begin at the end
THE GUNS ON the Falkland Islands now
have fallen silent, returning the islands to
the peace and tranquility that was so suddenly
and brutally replaced by the sounds of war.
Aggression was not allowed to succeed and so
begins the tenuous path toward the long-term
solution that has so eluded negotiators.
Scores of Britons gave their lives to show
Argentina and the world that aggression does
not pay. But now that the fighting has stopped
and the light of glory shines on their shores, the
British should not forget their cause.
Aggression has been put down, at great cost of
not only lives, but fragile political ties as well.
The United States has as much, if not more,
stake in the eventual outcome of the cease-fire.
If the British insist upon kicking the Argentines
while they are down, it will jeopardize already
damaged (but reparable) relations with Latin
America as well as continued U.S. support.
The best solution for the Falklands again lies
on the negotiating table, not in jingoistic
chauvinism. Some peacekeeping force must be
put together (preferably not American, which
the Argentines will resist) to take control of the
islands from British and Argentine troops.
The Falklands crisis has put Prime Minister
Thatcher on firmer footing on her home turf,
but she should remember that even Winston
Churchill was thrown from office within months
of his finest hour. War or no war, the conflict
over the islands remains, and Thatcher would
do well to return that conflict to negotiations
and work on a solution.
~. 7
"1eITS rArCE>.Od \ULL TA<E CA2E Or -T4E P00S
,Nc> Lu. TAleC OF-HE RICHt
By Phillip Ochieng
A question I often ask myself
about the peace movement now
sweeping across the United
States is: What is there in it for
me as a member of the Third
World?
And the answer I keep arriving
at - perplexing though it may
sound to most Americans - is
nothing. I could even say that the
movement runs afoul of my best
interests.
THE CENTRAL demand of the
movement is general disar-
mament or, most specifically, a
nuclear freeze. It is a demand,
however, based on assumptions
which are fundamentally false;
indeed, they can only impair the
real cause of peace in the long
run.
Onefalse assumption is that a
freeze or arms accord can
provide a long-term answer to the
intense rivalry between the
United States and the Soviet
Union.
A second false assumption is
that the conflict is a purely
Soviet-American affair, a
phenomenon exclusively of the
Northern Hemisphere. It is
probably from this assumption
that the peace movement
behaveshas though the problem
can be solved without any
reference to the Third World.
To ask questions is to begin to
understand that the political
rivalry and the arms race aresnot
ends in themselves. To ask
questions is to realize that, in the
last instance, politics and war are
means to ends which are
sometimes - as now - seldom
mentioned by the belligerents.
Even when theydo refer to en-
ds, it is only in extremely subjec-
tive terms, phrases which are so
hackneyed that they only help to
mystify the real objective of the
present rivalry. Such is the case
when the U.S. and its allies claim
that their only aim in the world is
to foster and defend "freedom"
and "democracy" or, to put it
another way, to counter the
"threat" of Soviet "com-
munism" and "totalitarianism."
SUCH IS THE case, too, when
the Soviet Union alleges that its
only mission in the world is to
"liberate" mankind by helping
defeat U.S-led imperialism and
building "socialism."
But neither assertion prevents
the United States from siding
with some of the most totalitarian
and tyrannical regimes in the
world - as long as those regimes
tend for the time being to serve
the long-term interests of the U.S.
and NATO.
Likewise, such terms as
"socialism" and "liberation"
have not prevented the Soviet
Union from going out of its way,
wherever it has a foothold, to
n~1 heong run
~ R
4
4
a
a l "
:
- -
.
. s
. - ,
Protesters march for a nuclear weapons freeze inuNew York City,
while the East-West conflict over the Third World continues.
channel most revolutionary fer-
vor to the Soviet mold so as to
prevent it from taking a more
popular dimension.
TO TALK OF Soviet and
American rivalry in the Third
World is to begin to answer the
question posed at the outset: The
Third World is the spoil,the aim,
the target of the intense rivalry
between the United States and
the Soviet Union.
This should be clear enough.
The Soviet Union is not interested
in any territorial part of the
United States, nor is the United
States interested in any
territorial part of the Soviet
Union. They would not go to war,
much less arm themselves so
frighteningly, in the claim of such
territory.
What is' there in the Third
World to warrant such an un-
precedented race then, such a
frighteningly military array on
both sides? The answer, of cour-
se, is raw materials. They are the
kernel of the conflict. But to say
that alone oversimplifies the
whole situation.
IN MANY AREAS both the
United States and the Soviet
Union have more natural resour-
ces internally than have many
Third World countries. But this is
where political tactics and
military strategy comes in. To
secure Third World ground for
the Western alliance is to block
Soviet political, military and,
ultimately, economics in-
filtration into the Western
Hemisphere. That is why Cuba is
such an anathema: not because it
is "communist" - it isn't - but
because it furthers the political,
military and economic interests
of a great rival.
The entire political and
military strategy of the United
States in West Africa, East
Africa, the Indian Ocean and the
Middle East is to make sure that
those areas are safe politically
and militarily, not for their own
sake, but for the protection of the
vast riches in which Africa and
the Middle East abound.
It is not that the Western
alliance is discovering the
economic imporancerofgthese
areas for the first time. These
have been Western spheres of in-
fluence ever since the 15th cen-
tury. In fact, Western states
fought bitter wars among them-
selves there long before the
emergence of the Soviet Union.
THE SOVIET-AMERICAN
rivalry, in truth, is a very recent,
postwar phenomenon. Both coun-
tries emerge as world powers, af-
ter World War II nearly tore the
old imperial powers of Europe to
death.
But whereas collective in-
terests allowed the United States
to easily enter the spheres of in-
fluence of the Western European
powers, the Soviet Union'found it
much more difficult to enter the
fray of international plunder.
For the Third World, therefore,
the rivalry is between two kinds
of powers: one kind which has
been fleecing us for centuries and
another which now challenges the
first everywhere. For the people
of the Third World, this conflict
has meant the consigning of
millions to the grave while others
sink below the starvation line.
We can thus say that the North-
South conflict is the essence of the
East-West conflict. The East-
West conflict is an important
form of the conflict from the
political and military point of
view, but the North-South conflict
is its true content.
This the American-Soviet
rivalry cannot be resolved until
the North-South line (between
poverty and affluence) has been
solved. Any peace movement
which ignores this fact will only
perpetuate war and world poverty.
Ochieng, a prominent
African journalist, wrote this
article for the Pacific News
Service.
4
I
I