4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Wednesday, April 23, 1986
A dangerous precedent
If anyone deserved a slap from the U.S. military, it was Moammar Khadafy.
Much of the world already holds Khadafy in contempt for his unabashed support for terrorism. Most Americans, tired of being pushed around by such a tinnhorn, applauded Reagan's decision to bomb Tripoli and punish Khadafy. Few doubted that he deserved it.
The Reagan administration made its decision to attack as a last resort, in an effort to stop Libyan aid and comfort to anti-U.S. terrorists. Diplomacy and economic sanctions had failed, Reagan said, and Khadafy had to be shown that aiding terrorists has its price.
vet for all the good intentions, the raid sets a dangerous precedent for handling state-supported terrorism, and any hope that an airstrike on Tripoli will put an end to such
terrorism is misplaced.
These friends are cautious, fearing that a heavy-handed military response would only spur Khadafy's friends to take more brutal actions.
Certainly our European allies don't share that hope. In Europe, terrorist attacks are not distant, frightening images on the evening news. They hit the cafes, ticket counters and airline flights much closer to home.
So where does that leave U.S. policymakers? Certainly if Western Europe had joined the United States in applying economic sanctions, Reagan would have felt less pressure to respond more strongly.
But in an already risky world, the airstrike added to the dangers. Sometimes only patience and diplomacy, although not as satisfying as a punishing bombing raid, can effectively handle the world's madmen.
Travel with caution
The University study abroad programs apparently will continue as usual this summer, despite increasing threats of terrorism throughout the world.
Considering that the chance of actually being involved in a terrorist attack is still very small, they should.
The recent flap between the United States and Libya has intensified terrorist acts across the globe. Most of the targets of these actions have been Americans.
There is no reason to believe that President Reagan's raid on Libya will decrease terrorist incidents, and it may, in fact, increase the frequency of such attacks.
Of course, many Americans are running scared and avoiding travel to Europe and the Mediterranean. But it only makes terrorism more effective if countries or citizens give terrorists control of their lives.
Travel abroad shouldn't be abandoned, although great caution must be exercised. Terrorism is a very real threat, and travelers should take common-sense precautions to reduce the likelihood of encountering that threat.
Americans traveling abroad would do well to be informed of the situation in each country or area they are visiting. Avoiding large tourist hotels and airports known to be dangerous or less secure wouldn't be a bad idea, either.
For KU students abroad, many important decisions must be handled by the studyabroad officials, who are appropriately concerned. The director has said the program's main objective is to monitor the situation and not do anything dangerous.
Good plan. The study-abroad programs will forge ahead as long as the students are not in direct danger. It would be truly unfortunate if terrorism stood in the way of education.
The right to no life
The question has been debated for at least two years — perhaps longer. Does a person have a right to refuse medical treatment that is saving her life?
Although the question is answered only temporarily — the county is appealing to the California Supreme Court — it is a fair and judicious answer.
ng heroes. Does Elizabeth Bovia, who was born with cerebral palsy and also suffers from progressive arthritis, have the right to refuse food and water from hospital officials, and thus starve herself to death?
The first time the question was asked of the courts, the answer was no. But a California appeals court last week ruled that yes, Bouvia and others can refuse medical treatment, even if that treatment is life-sustaining.
Bouvia's decision was not made on the spur of the moment in response to immediate, but temporary, distress. It was given years of careful thought.
Bouvia's condition is extremely painful and requires constant infusion of narcotics to ease the pain. She is not able to care for herself and no doubt sees too many years of dependence and pain ahead.
In situations such as this, the government should leave quietly and close the door behind itself. Physicians and hospital officials should allow individuals the comfort of death when their medical situations are irreversible and they've made a clear and rational decision.
For Elizabeth Bouvia, and others like her, death is a welcome respite from years of suffering; they should be allowed to face that death unhindered.
News staff
Michael Totty ... Editor
Laureta McMillen ... Managing editor
Chris Barber ... Editorial editor
Cindy Murcury ... Campus editor
David Giles ... Sports editor
Wilfredo Lee ... Photo editor
Susanne Shaw ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Brett McCabe ... Business manager
David Nixon ... Retail sales manager
Jim Williamson ... Campus manager
Lori Eckart ... Classified manager
Caroline Innes ... Production manager
Pullen Leo ... National manager
John Oberzan ... Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced, fewer than 200 words and should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and homework, or faculty or staff position.
Guest shots should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The
writer will be brief.
They will preserve the right reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Strauffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuffer/Finn Hall, Lawrence, Kan. KAN6045, daily during the regular school year, during Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Wednesday, during the summer session. Second-class postage lawrence, Kan. KAN6044. Subscriptions to this volume and $35 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Stuuffer-Fint Hall, Lawrence, Kanus, 66045.
OFFICIAL NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION SOUVENIR TARGETS
CHILD WHO
FOUND A
PISTOL IN THE
DRESSER
DRAWER
BUSJFA FA WLW 0198G
MOTHER OF FOUR SHOT IN DOMESTIC ARGUMENT
HUNTER SHOT BY ANOTHER HUNTER
U.S. shouldn't fear another Vietnam
FBI AGENT
GUNNED
DOWN BY
CHURCH-GOING
FAMILY MAN
Vietnam.
Vietnam.
The word stirs different images in different people.
The war in Vietnam has forever changed the people of the United States and U.S. foreign policy. It is clear that changes have been for the better.
But how much do the U.S. people really know about the Vietnam War? An ABC News/Washington Post poll seemed to indicate that a lot of people are ignorant on the subject of Vietnam.
The responses to the question of what type of government Nicaragua has, were just as interesting. According to an Associated Press article,
The poll, taken last year during the media flood of "11th Anniversary of the Fall of Siagen" stories, indicated that one-third of the adults didn't know which side the United States supported, and more than half said they didn't know what the war was about.
Now hold those numbers in your mind for a moment.
A New York Times/CBS News poll, taken earlier this month, reported that only 38 percent knew the Reagan administration supported the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and not communist Nicaragua.
Victor
Goodpasture
Staff column!
Staff columnist
The answer to both questions is that they don't.
"Although the Nicaraguan government is aligned with the Soviet Union, only 20 percent said it was communist, 19 percent said it was a right-wing dictatorship and 49 percent said they didn't know."
That lack of knowledge may have something to do with why only 25 percent said we should aid the freedom fighters. Sixty-two percent opposed the aid, citing, among other things, the risk of "another Vietnam."
And if they don't really know what the current situation in Central America is, or even the type of government Nicaragua is, then how do they know if aiding the freedom fighters is necessary or not?
Which brings me to my point — if people are ignorant of what went on in Vietnam and of the lessons of Vietnam, then how are they capable of making an intelligent assessment on institutions "another Vietnam?"
Furthermore, when someone says "another Vietnam," what does that mean?
Does it mean the United States will support a government that is corrupt and that doesn't have the backing from its own people?
Does it mean the media will give distorted coverage of the war saying the United States is losing battles when it is not?
or does it mean the United States will involve itself into a war with no set policy or objective?
Is it all, some or none of those things? These are questions that should be asked. But instead, a simple "another Vietnam" seems to get a lot of "oohh's" and "aahh's" and wins approval. The war cannot involve itself in any type of military action, even in self-defense.
The results of the two polls raise serious questions about the knowledge of the U.S. people of recent and current events.
What most Americans know about Central America is what the network anchors tell them in two-minute stories, which leave the viewer feeling as though he has learned something and thus considers himself knowledgeable.
which brings me to my second point — the media do not give a complete picture of the situation in Central America. I don't believe in a so-called "left-wing conspiracy." But I see as "the nature of the beast" the media's leftward slant, which includes a distrust of the U.S. government with a little more tolerance toward communist governments.
This is not to say our media are communist sympathizers. But the media, for whatever reason, seem to be engaging in adding the spread of communist influence.
For example, their refusal to admit that Nicaragua is aiding communist guerrillas in El Salvador with arms and training, continues to baffle me.
The way for us to make the best decisions concerning domestic and foreign affairs is to read from different sources, to be aware that an intelligent, reasoned opinion.
As long as we remain knowledgeable of the past and informed on the present, we need never forget that our name is what we whatev- definition one puts on it.
Fear should not prevent the United States from striking back at the sources of terrorism or in aiding those who wish to establish freedom loving democracies.
Aid only hurts struggling countries
U. S. Defense Secretary Caspain Weinberger met on April 6 with the new president of the Philippines, Corazon Aquino.
Behind the smiles, friendship and aid rhetoric was the U.S. determination to maintain its economic and military interests. The people of the Philippines, authors of the revolution that ousted corrupt dictator Ferdinand Marcos, received the visitor with demonstrations of protest.
The people's hostile reaction to this apparently friendly offer of military and economic aid is often puzzling to the nation and needs some explanation.
Foreign aid, including military, is one of the artful justifications for exportation of capital. It may mean several things, from charity giveaways to credits for the purchase of arms to high-interest bank loans.
our main purpose is the creation of opportunities for investment which will benefit capitalist nations while exploiting the raw materials and cheap labor of the host nation. Although they are alluded to as big philanthropic endeavors, they also encompassceptions, foreign aid programs brought under development than development.
The main purpose of foreign aid, in the words of former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, is to make sure America out for the United States' interests.
Constancio Garay
Guest columnist
Former President Richard Nixon also said the main purpose of American foreign aid was not to help other nations "but to help ourselves."
Keith Graffin, author of International Inequality and National Poverty, describes foreign aid as an instrument to achieve two objectives, one geoeconomic and one economic.
The first objective, which is world domination by the United States and its allies, is reflected in the unscrupulous policies applied to Latin America under the pretext of pushing back communism.
The achievement of geopolitical domination advances the economic objective. Aid programs, intended to satisfy the capitalist appetite, are biased against directly productive projects.
For example, hospital and highway construction are encouraged, while factory construction is discouraged. Large projects such as sports complexes and tourism hotel sites may be built by poor villagers who need schools, irrigation and better housing, not as hand-butts or a fair compensation to their natural
resources and labor.
Since the aid programs finance only the foreign exchange cost of a project, the receiving countries have an additional incentive to select projects that are capital-intensive.
A significant stratagem of foreign aid programs is to keep the new market open for continued investment. Aid raises the cost of imported
The capitalist countries cannot wash their hands of the consequences of their so-called caring.
At the same time, interest policies perpetuate dependence in the receiving countries instead of promoting their economic self-reliance.
Almost four decades of U.S. aid policies raise angry feelings in the Third World, such as those expressed recently by the people of the
goods beyond the world price, and it ensures an escalating flow of high-imp imports in the form of spare parts and ancillary equipment.
Such protests and other hostile acts are justified because aid is used to manipulate internal policy of the recipient countries, create interest
groups, favor authoritarian per regimes, sell arms, overthrow legitimate governments and sometimes even damage innocent people's crops.
Foreign aid often creates tensions between the donors, or lenders, and the receivers, becoming a source of conflict rather than a source of mutual support. Foreign aid cannot wash their hands of the consequences of their so-called caring.
The military and economic aid offered by Weinberger to the Philippines indeed furthers U.S. geopolitical and economic objectives. But the people of this power stricken nation, in lessons of their mind and aware of the fish hook hidden in the bait gave a clear answer.
In the long run, these imperialistic policies create resentment and pave the way to communism — lending credence to Lenin's statement that "imperialism is the last stage of capitalism."
The values that once made the people of this country admired are being eroded by the selfish purposes of foreign aid, combined with the immoral operations of the CIA. Such activities are particularly notorious in southern countries with a high percentage of indigenous population.
Their signs of protest read: "U.S. sponsor of Marcos regime is here again." "Go home." "We don't need you."
Mailbox
Secrecy is necessary
Residents of Lawrence should once again feel privileged. Twice in one semester we have been involved in the political prowess of Bob Mears.
In one letter, he told us why the U.S. government is made up of liars and why the attack on Libya was precipitated by the U.S. government is deceiving the public because it does not disclose its intelligence
However, this does not seem to bother Mears. One even wonders if he would support the publication of names of CIA agents. It was such a publication that led to the assassination of an agent in
sources. It does not matter that revealing this might in some way compromise U.S. intelligence or its agents.
As far as attacking Libya for a falsified reason, I think that Mears should talk to the relatives and
Bill Wallrapp Abilene, Texas, sophomore
Thanks to Campbell
friends of the countless victims of Khadafy's reign of terror. He is far from realizing who the real instigator is in the Mideast confrontation.
I was sorry to learn that professor Karlyn Kohr Campbell has decided to leave the University of Kansas.
Rarely does a teacher truly stand out among her peers, inspire her students to exceed their own expectations and serve as an academic and professional role. Campbell does all his jobs and more.
Thank you, Professor Campbell. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have studied in a room are richer for the experience.
Phillip Wilbur 1982 graduate
1