PERSPECTIVES
fhe Michigan Daily
Friday, July 24, 1987
Page 7
I
Interview with representative of the Democratic Revolutionary Front.
Searching for solutions in Salvador ElSALVADORUBRE
ew C: The FMLN includes five housing, running water, electricity, last time we put out another D: What conditions are necessary
nal political-military organizations health, education - not just for the proposal to renew the dialogue was to reach a satisfactory political
tic which also began a unity process few who can afford it now; to have only five weeks ago. The proposal change?
The following is an intervi
with Ramon Cardona, internatio
representative of the Democra
Revolutionary Front (FDR), the
political wing of the revolutionary
forces in El Salvador. The FDR is
allied with the Fardbundo Marti
National Liberation Front (FMLN),
the armed opposition in El
Salvador. The interview was con-
ducted on July 9 by 'pinion Page
Co-editor Tim Huet
Daily: What is the FDR and
how did it come into being?
Cardona: The Democratic
Revolutionary Front was formed in
April 1980. At that moment it
included the political parties that
existed since the 1960s, many of
which participated in the first junta
government of late 1979. They all
resigned en masse after they saw
they were being manipulated by the
military. They joined with the mass
popular organizations at that time,
put together a government
platform, and formed this coalition
of forces.
D : What is the FDR ' s
relationship with the FMLN?
by late 1979 that ended in October
1980 with the formation of the
Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front. At that time the
FMLN also adopted the government
platform that had been put out by
the FDR as its main principles that
they were fighting for, so that
enables them to join with the FDR.
Since then the FMLN and FDR
have been together.
D: And can you describe your
political platform?
C: The Salvadoran situation has
been one where we have had a
system that has perpetuated a very
unequal distribution of the wealth
of the country. Much of the land
has been concentrated in the hands
of what we call the oligarchy, a
tiny minority of families, which,
along with the military, have been
in control of the government and
economy for many, many decades
by dictatorial means. So the
platform calls for the carrying out
of social projects that would benefit
the majority of the people -
a Nicaraguan system, categorized as
a mixed economic system; to have
the political freedoms that have not
been enjoyed by the people of El
Salvador for a long time; io have
elections that we can really say are
free in which the will of the people
is expressed; to have the full respect
of human rights; to carry out major
reforms and also have a foreign
policy of nonalignment.
D: Do you think a political
solution is possible to the conflict
in your country and, if so, what
kind of solution would be favorable
to the FDR?
C: Since late 1980, the FMLN
and FDR have put out proposals to
find a diplomatic solution to our
problems. The answers from the
government have been 'no.' In
1984, because of political needs,
the Duarte government accepted and
we had two meetings. They were to
be the start of a process that was
cut-off later by Duarte himself. The
this time included 18 concrete
points to humanize the war: to
diminish the negative effects on the
civilian population. For example, if
the Salvadoran army stops the
indiscriminate air bombings, we
would stop all mining. If they were
to stop indiscriminate artillery fire,
we would stop sabotage, and on and
on. This proposal was meet by
widespread favorable opinion
throughout El Salvador, not only
from popular organizations, but
from institutions, political parties,
professional organizations and the
church. Duarte immediately said
'no.' We feel that that is just an
impulsive reaction, responding to
the Reagan administration's
position. We maintain that this
could be a way to solve the prob-
lem. But it is necessary to incorp-
orate all sectors of Salvadoran
society because the problem is not
just the armed conflict; the problem
is also the social crisis, the
economic crisis, and the political
crisis.
C: To answer that, I must
address the role of the United
States. The Reagan administration's
policy towards El Salvador has been
set to accomplish essentially one
thing: the physical elimination of
all opposition forces. The United
States has failed to recognize that
the forces who want change are the
majority and, therefore, cannot be
defeated. While the Reagan
administration does not change that
position, the forces of the
government of El Salvador which
must do what Washington says will
not change their actual position of
non-negotiation. So, until forces in
the United States - the public;
perhaps, some Democrats in
Congress - challenge that policy
of war, there will not be the change
that would allow Salvadorans to
find the solution to their crisis -
because nobody else, no one outside
El Salvador can find a solution for
us.
University has no need for private police force
By Mike Phillips
The University of Michigan does
not need a private police force.
Senate Bill number 339 intro-
duced in the Michigan legislature
on June 3, 1987, by Senators J.
Hart, Cropsey, Ehlers, Dingell
and Schwarz, would grant un-
checkable powers to the Univer-
sity's Board of Regents. Specif-
ically, it would allow the regents
to create a private police force
with the same powers and auth-
orities as state police officers.
The administration is in favor
of such legislation and has
lobbied for its passage. On the
other hand, the majority of us
who favor the democratic ideals,
which our country is supposed to
represent, find such legislation
dangerous and unnecessary.
Incredibly, the administration
has been able to come up with
three main reasons for having a
private police force, these being:
(1) The University is a
special community and requires
its own private police force to
handle its specific and unique
disturbances.
(2) A private police force
would increase safety at the
University. Today, campus se-
curity responds to campus inci-
dents quicker than the Ann Arbor
police. Thus, if they were depu-
tized they could apprehend and
detain individuals before the Ann
Arbor police arrive.
(3) A private police force is
more cost efficient for the
University, because it would not
have to pay the private force as
much as it pays the public force
to perform non-public duties.
First, the U of M is not a
special community! It is a four-
year public institution of higher
education like sixteen other col-
leges in this state. The U of M
is participating in the inter-
national race for academic excel-
lence. Whereas, most second-rate
institutions of higher education
have private police forces, world-
acclaimed and respected univer-
sities have refrained from insti-
tuting private hit and run squads
of repression and expulsion.
Secondly, the administration
argues that a deputized campus
security would lead to increased
safety on campus, because cam-
pus security responds quicker to
campus incidents than the Ann
Arbor police. All I want to
know is what does campus se-
curity do now when they arrive at
the scene of a crime? Do they
think, "no I'm not deputized, I
better let that person steal the
television set?" Hopefully not.
What they should do is intervene
if intervention is necessary to
prevent or discontinue a criminal
act on University property.
It scares me to think that the
administration actually believes
because campus security is geo-
graphically-situated, it should be
deputized to handle serious offen-
ces on University property. Us-
ing that criteria, why not just
create mini police forces in each
residence hall? Hell, why not set
up check points along the Diag?
The question is not who can
respond to the scene faster, but
who is better suited to handle
these incidents. Even with the
minimum training requirements,
which SB 339 calls for, deputized
campus police officers can not
objectively determine when to
intervene in campus incidents,
and what warrants the use of
force.
Theoretically, private police
forces are only illegal-legalized
codes. For this reason, we
should question the merits of
such legislation. Three argu-
ments against such legislation
are clear, those being:
(1) The lpck of accoun-
tability to the public by such a
force.
(2) This police force would
be loyal to The University of
Michigan, and not to the consti-
tutional laws of this state or
country.
(3) This private police force
would clash with and hinder the
Ann Arbor police from perform-
ing their duties.
The current lack of police
accountability to the public is
well documented. Examples are
apparent in the Ann Arbor police
force itself. When charges of dis-
crimination are raised regarding
the conduct of Ann Arbor police,
who investigates these alloca-
tions? Answer - the Ann Arbor
police, a good nonpartisan rela-
tionship. A private police force
would have a similar relationship
to the University community.
Who is going to keep them in
check? Neither the community
nor faculty can because they do
not pay the salaries of these
individuals. Students definitely
can not. Even the administration
could not completely corral this
new power magnet on our
campus. In reality, the regents
would have a private police
force accountable only to their
legislative actions and financial
rewards.
For years the administration,
in conjunction with regental
approval, has been attempting to
disregard due process on campus
by instituting rules which limit
student participation in campus
decision making. With a private
police force backing their decrees
and resolutions, they could pun-
ish those individuals who break
private, institutional laws.
Finally, why; if so many
arguments exist against insti-
tuting a private police force, if
the majority of the University
and local community have ar-
gued against it, if the state legi-
slature has already rejected this
type of legislation; why does the
administration and regental board
continue advocating this issue?
The answer is because, "it's al-
ways easier to get what you
want, if you ask for something
else they won't let you have."
Michael Phillips is the Chair of
the Student Rights Committee,
Michigan Student Assembly