OPINION
Page6 Friday, June 12, 1987 The Michigan Daily

nObtMita Batflu
97 Years of Editorial Freedom
Vol. XCVI - No. 6S
Unsigned editorials represent the majority views of the Daily's
Editorial Board. Cartoons and signed editorials do not
necessarily reflect the Daily's opinion.
No more Libyas!
No more death!

Out of the court, into the street

CITY COUNCIL is currently con-
sidering several plans concerning
parking on the western parts of
Catherine and Ann Streets. Their
prime concern should be to give
full parking privileges to the people
living on these streets.
Currently no parking is allowed
on the streets. This is due to the
streets' proximities to the train
station and the fear that commuters
will park on the streets and clog
them for thru traffic as well as
residential use. However, landlords
do not provide adequate parking for
the number of cars owned by the
residents in this area. They are
forced to park far away or pay
expensive parking tickets if they
wish to park near their own homes.
Clearly, the present situation is
unacceptable. City council realizes
this.
One plan would allow two hour

parking on the street. If anything,
this would better serve the
commuters than the residents.
A second plan is to have two
hour parking on the street with
permits available to those who "can
show need." That is to say that city
council would still ticket residents
in the area who could afford to pay
$10 per day in parking fines.
Because the area is not metered, the
minimum fine is $10 and there is
no reduced fee for prompt payment.
Regardless of this, the show of need
sets arbitrary limits as to who will
be fined.
The last plan would allow
people to receive permits without
show of need, but would also allow
commuters to park in the street.
Residents would still need to worry
about finding a place to park and
might further clog the street by
using it as their "private driveway'

and always parking cars there before
using private driveways, which
could be considered secondary
parking spaces to be used as a last
resort. Additionally, parking for
commuters is available though it is
farther from the train station than
Ann Street and Catherine Street.
The best plan is to offer parking
permits to all those people who
live on the street without show of
need, and to limit parking of non -
residents in the area. Commuters
should be sensitive to the needs of
the residents and park in already
designated areas. While city council
may fear people "treating the streets
as their own driveways," they allow
unlimited parking on other streets
and are setting arbitrary limits on
the rights of those living in
different parts of the city. Indeed,
standard parking legislation for all
of Ann Arbor is the best solution.

A LITTLE OVER A YEAR ago, the
United States belligerently carried
out an air raid on Libya based upon
a sham "provocationn." Now, back
for an encore, President Reagan has
threatened pre-emptive air strikes
on Iran if that country sets up
land-to-sea missiles on its shores
overlooking important oil shipping
lanes. Such bully tactics, aimed at
subverting weaker nations, violate
international law and the right to
national self-determination.
The superpowers, whose mis -
siles place each other in constant
peril, do not trade such bold threats
of pre-emptive strikes. The pre-
emptive strike is an option the
United States has reserved for
weaker countries that it can attack
with impunity. Under the guise of
protecting free navigation, the
President has resorted to the
conventions of piracy.
Pre-emptive strikes are, by their
nature, illegal and an affront to
sovereign countries. They are
retaliations for acts that have not
even occurred yet - similar to
arresting someone merely because
they have the potential of
committing a crime.
President Reagan is displaying
imperialist tendencies, bending
other countries to his will by
threatening military reprisals. These
threats will almost certainly bring
terrorist retaliation and further loss
of American credibility if they are
ever carried out.
More immediately, an air raid
would invite additions to the long
toll of American casualties. The
death of two airmen in the Libyan
strike and the death of 37 U.S.
sailors in the Persian Gulf seems to
have left the administration
strangely unaffected - or affected
in a strange way.
For what reason does the
President deem it worthwhile to
risk further lives? We are told of the
need to protect "our strategic
interests." It is necessary to protect
shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf
because they comprise a "strategic
interest." More specifically and
bluntly; we are protecting oil from
Kuwait. This oil does not belong to

us; it just "interests" us, and
because of this "interest," American
soldiers are being imperilled and
killed. This "interest" amounts only
to President Reagan's concern that
oil prices do not rise: cheap oil is,
to Reagan, worth human life.
Reagan's latest signal to Iran
continues a strange practice of
alternatively cajoling and seducing
Iran. This reflects the somewhat
confusing role the U.S. has chosen
to play in the Iran-Iraq war in
pursuit of its interests. While
claiming neutrality, the U.S. has
engaged in a strategy of prolonging
the conflict by aiding both sides.
The United States has had Air Force
advisors in Iraq helping send up
Iraqi planes while selling Iran
anti-aircraft missiles to bring them
back down. The U.S. simultan -
eously supplied Iraq with doctored
satellite pictures and misleading
intelligence while surreptitiously
selling arms to Iran. The "fickle
friendship" of the United States has
served to preserve the costly
stalemate between the two warring
countries.
Keeping the two countries
occupied with each other, the
United States has been able to min-
imize Iran's revolutionary influence
in "moderate" Arab nations while
neutralizing the Iraqi threat to
Israel. These efforts are aimed at
maintaining the precarious "stab -
ility" - and flow of oil - which
benefits the United States. The
Reagan administration is well aware
that a victory by either side in the
Iran-Iraq war would be a defeat for
the United States.
The administration appears even
less concerned with the tremendous
carnage it is abeting in Iran and Iraq
than it is with the death of
American servicepeople. The U.S.
role in maintaining the mutual
bleeding of Iran and Iraq is justified
in the name of American "strategic
interests." "Strategic interest" -
that is, oil - has also claimed the
blood of American sailors.
President Reagan has judged this
interest sufficient to risk more
blood. By what perverse and callous
calculation has he found oil more
precious than blood?

Abandoning false Principles

A DECADE AGO, the Reverend
Leon Sullivan formulated a set of
principles which he hoped would
bring about the destruction of apart -
heid. These principles, eventually
adopted by many U.S. corporations
operating in South Africa, were
designed to desegregate the work -
place; strengthen the training and
promotion of Black employees; and
help improve health care, housing
and education for South Africa's 24
million person Black majority.
U.S. corporations justified their
presence in South Africa by
pointing to these operational guide -
lines, which varied greatly from the
official policies of the white
government.
However, after many years
without any real alleviation of the
plight suffered by South African
Blacks, Rev. Sullivan has called for
the abandonment of the Principles
which bear his name. Realizing that
the regime in South Africa is
determined to resist the growing
tide of political change and to roll
back even the marginal reforms of
the last few years, Sullivan has
called for a total economic boycott
of South Africa by American
interests. Dropping any semblance
of "constructive engagement,"
Sullivan has boldly, if belatedly,
called for the total withdrawl of all
U.S. firms from South Africa; an
end to all shipments of electronic
components to that racist govern -
ment; and the discontinuance of
licensing agreements in that
country, excepting news media,
philanthropic programs, and Black-
owned businesses.

This new position seems the
next logical step for U.S. policy
toward South Africa. Divestment
will provide a greater incentive for
South Africa's rulers to come to a
peaceful agreement of power-
sharing with its Black majority or,
barring compromise, add to the
pressures which will eventually
overthrow the apartheid regime. In
addition, it would signify to the
future government of South Africa
that America is prepared to make a
significant contribution toward
change, insuring good relations
with South Africa when, as it
inevitably will, a majority-
government comes to power.
The situation in South Africa
has only deteriorated further in the'
past few years. That country's
recent whites-only elections pro -
duced a sharp, hard-line shift to the
right. Virtually complete press

censorship has been imposed. Under
the so-called "state of emergency,"
thousands of Black children have
been jailed indefinitely, without
charges. U.S. companies who wish
to maintain the Sullivan principles
- principles which have now been
repudiated by both experience and
their own author - demonstrate
not a commitment to human rights
and progress, but a craving for
cheap Black labor and huge profits.
The call for an economic boycott
should be heeded by all U.S.
companies and strongly pursued by
Washington. Americans should not
be neither lulled into a sense that
"all is well in Pretoria" nor misled
by appeals to remain well-
intentioned. Impotent and, thus,
immoral principles serve more the
interests of the South African
police state than they do the vast
majority of its population.

.

COULD YOU M d® 5 41
MOVE V ovo? , - -

Q'5. it5SN

{