NATION/WORLD
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Tuesday, December 1, 1992
5
U.S. troops may go to Somalia
U.N. suggests force to deliver food, supplies
The Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali yesterday recommended limited use of military force to deliver humanitarian supplies to starving Somalis.
He did not rule out a U.S. offer to commit 30,000 troops, but he indicated a preference for a U.N.-led force.
"I am more than ever convinced of the need for international military personnel to be deployed in Somalia," Boutrou-Ghali said. "The Security Council now has no alternative but decide to adopt more forceful measures to secure the humanitarian operations in Somalia."
Since dictator Mohammed Siad Barre was ousted in January 1991, more than 300,000 Somalis have died from the combined effects of famine and warfare, and 2 million more are on the brink of starvation, according to U.N. estimates.
But gun battles between Somalia's
warning clans and marauding gunmen have made it dangerous, and at times impossible, to deliver the hundreds of thousands of tons of donated food and supplies.
The country's warlords say they want nothing more than to end Somalia's suffering, but without the looted supplies, the loyalty of their militiamen would evaporate.
In Washington, a Pentagon source said a three-ship, 1,800-member U.S. Marine Corps contingent slated for duty in the Persian Gulf was prepared to set up an airstrip landing zone in Moadishu suitable for U.S. troops.
The ships could be ready to move into the city by Thursday, the source said on condition of anonymity. He emphasized that no decision has been made and that the U.S. forces would only move if the U.N. approves allowing them to report to a U.S. commander on the scene.
Andre Erdos, Hungarian ambassador and current president of the 15-member U.N. Security Council, said there was a risk of a U.N. military force getting involved in a conflict with clans and armed gangs if deployed in Somalia.
He said military intervention was necessary because "it is impossible to find the right partners" in a country
where central authority has totally collapsed.
Relief workers in Somalia have been attacked and killed, and clan rivalties have crippled a U.N. plan to dispatch troops to the warring camps to get the aid to Somalia's hungry
Last Tuesday, clansmen in northern Mogadishu fired a rocket that hit a ship bound for the capital city with tons of food. In Mogadishu, the international Committee of the Red Cross said two ships stranded off the capital city will begin soon to unload their cargo of more than 9,000 tons of food.
In a nine-page report to the Security Council, Boutros-Ghali outlined five options for U.N. action to protect the delivery of aid, ranging from wide-scale military operations to complete withdrawal from Somalia.
Washington has insisted that the troops operate under U.S. command as part of a multinational force, sponsored by the United Nations, on the order of the U.S.-led coalition that drove Iraq from Kuwait.
Boutros-Ghali said he would consider Washington's offer, made last Wednesday, but he said he supported an operation commanded or authorized by the United Nations.
should be precisely defined and limited in time.
In either case, he said, the objectives
A final decision rests with the Security Council, which is expected to authorize some form of military action this week.
Some council members were said to be concerned about Western nations intervening uninvited, under U.S. command, in a developing country.
Traditionally, the United Nations requires the consent of all parties to a conflict resolution agreement.
Under their current manatee, in 500 U.N. soldiers in Somalia need the consent of local authorities to act, Somalia has no central government.
The Security Council has never been asked to authorize full-scale military intervention for humanitarian reasons. The council approved use of force in Bosnia to safeguard relief convoys, but it did not call for a unified command under a member state or under a U.N. flag.
Widespread use of force would have to be justified on grounds that the situation in the country jeopardizes regional nece and security.
He said any plans should ensure the safety of 550 military personnel and about 400 civilian aid workers who could be in danger.
Court declines to review major abortion dispute
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sustained women's basic right to abortion yesterday, voting 6-3 against reviving a 1900 Gauam law that would have prohibited nearly all such operations.
The justices refused to review lower court rulings that had declared the U.S. territory's sweeping law unconstitutional.
Yesterday's action, which activists on both sides of the national debate had expected, marked the first time in 20 years the high court declined to review a major abortion dispute.
But a new case, testing how far states may go in making abortions more difficult to obtain, already is being acted on as early as next week.
The court also is wrestling with another abortion-related issue: whether federal judges have the authority to deal with abortion clinic blockades.
The court last June reaffirmed the core holding of its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision — that
women have a constitutional right to abortion.
But the June decision also said states may raise new hurdles for women seeking to end their pregnancies. The ruling upheld most provisions of a Pennsylvania abortion law.
The invalidated Guan law would have allowed abortions only when an embryo formed outside the woman's womb, or when two doctors determined that continuing a pregnancy would kill a woman or "gravely impair" her health.
The court's brief order in the Guam case drew dissenting votes from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scallia and Byron R. White.
Rehnquist, White and Scalia — joined by Justice Clarence Thomas — dissented from the Jule ruling. They said then that there is no constitutional right to abortion.
Thomas did not join in yesterday's dissent and offered no comment beyond the majority's one-sentence statement denying the appeal.
is the time to order your 1993 Jayhawker Yearbook
- Only $30 • Past Issues Available • 428 Kansas Union • 864-3728
It's not what you wear on the outside
It's what you wear
UNDERCOVER
THE PINK BUILDING
21 W. 9TH STREET
STREETSIDE RECORDS
HOLIDAY SAVINGS
Reprint Sale 3” Reprints From any one color negative -20 Reprints... -40 Reprints... thru Dec.1st
Friday Only!!! Nov.27th 20% off clothing and gifts
Film Developing special $3.99 any C-41 process color film 3 inch prints thru Dec. 1st
...and as always a wide selection of new books art supplies &more