Page 2/The Battalion/Monday, April 18, 1983
opinion
Prospects for negotiations
by Maxwell Glen
and Cody Shearer
Cuban officials responded with wry
and wistful detachment to last week’s
calls for U.S.-Cuban talks over growing
tensions in Central America.
Pragmatic as negotiations sound, the
Cubans said, appeals by elder statesmen
from the U.S. and several Latin Amer
ican countries probably won’t bear fruit.
Indeed, interviews with several members
of Fidel Castro’s inner circle reveal that
the common cause needed for negotia
tions seems non-existent. As a result, the
warring factions in El Salvador and
Nicaragua may be forced to resolve their
differences to the last man.
Of course, the appeal for a “many-
sided dialogue” — issued April 5 by a
group of prominent citizens including
banker David Rockefeller, former secre
taries of state Cyrus Vance and Edmund
Muskie, and former officials from
Argentina and Mexico — seemed to
come at a critical juncture. Cuban-backed
guerrillas have been mounting a new
offensive in El Salvador while U.S.-
backed rebels have been challenging the
Sandinist government in Nicaragua.
Both Havana and Washington have be
gun to worry that their clients will draw
them into larger, unwanted conflicts.
Stressing themes of non-intervention
and respect for national sovereignty, the
private group suggested that negotiation
“should begin among the governments
of Central America, their opposition
movements, the U.S., Cuba and the
Soviet Union ... to explore whether the
vital interests of each of the parties can be
safeguarded without continuing war in
Central America.”
Yet, when we made the same sugges
tion last Thursday to Ricardo Alarcon,
Cuba’s vice minister for foreign affairs,
he said such talks would yield too little,
too late, if anything.
Alarcon said that while talks might
have been useful to Cuba a year ago when
Salvadoran troops were on the offensive,
“Now we must wait.” Recent events, he
said, indicate the FMLN guerrilla forces
in El Salvador would “inevitably” prove
victorious, perhaps “within a year.” lii
this light, negotiations are no longer
squarely in the interest of Cuba or its
allies in El Salvador’s countryside.
Alarcon feared that a negotiated set
tlement would be as improbable as the
talking points would be vague. A former
head of Castro’s Havana undergrourid
during the 1958 Cuban revolution, Alar
con contended that negotiations would
only help the Reagan administration
“persuade people that it’s not only think
ing in military terms.”
Cuba’s intrasigence, unfortunately, is
compounded by an equally-reluctant
U.S. posture. According to American di
plomats here, the Reagan administration
isn’t interested in sitting down with the
Cubans — or their allies in Nicaragua
and El Salvador. They say that Cuba’s
repeated snubbing of U.S. overtures has
left Washington cool to the idea.
But, as The New York Times revealed
last week, negotiations are generally
anathema to U.S. policymakers. The
Times disclosed an April 1982 National
Security Council document on Central
America which stipulated stepped-up
efforts to “isolate” Nicaragua and Cuba
and “to avoid congressionally-mandated
negotiations, which would work against
our interests.”
Further deflating the prospect for
cooperation was the postponement last
week of a regional summit scheduled for
May. Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua,
El Salvador and Guatemala said that talks
at present would serve no useful pur
pose. Few, if any, parties involved in Cen
tral America are willing to work out their
differences amicably.
Does this mean that negotiations are
hopeless? Not necessarily. Incursions by
U.S.-backed anti-Sandinist forces have
added an ironic new twist to the region’s
affairs. Ronald Reagan stands to lose as
much political prestige at home as Fidel
Castro’s allies may lose in territory. The
president might find Nicaragua the best
place to start lowering the region’s tem
perature.
Yet, on balance, the lines have been
drawn too deeply and for too long to
expect a mutually constructive give-and-
take. Teh forces which favor military
solutions simply outnumber those that
believe in peaceful means. Even where
there may be room for creative initiative,
machismo will take precedence over the
interests of peace.
Letters: Changing Corps of Cadets
Editor:
After four difficult but rewarding
years in the Corps of Cadets, I have ex
perienced Final Review for the last time.
It’s sad leaving Texas A&M after all the
good times I’ve had here, but I’ve got a
challenging future ahead of me that I’m
looking forward to.
I am a third generation Aggie, a fact of
which I am very proud. My grandmother
graduated from A&M in 1927. After a 30
year Army career, she retired as a lieute
nant general. My mother graduated in
1948 and she became an F-86 Sabre pilot
in the Korean War. She shot down five
MiGs and became an ace.
When I joined the Corps in 1979,1 was
determined to do whatever I could to
remind those men that the Corps is a
woman’s place. That year was the first
time male seniors were allowed to wear
Aggie boots. “No boobs, no boots,” I used
to say to them. But now men in boots are
no longer an issue. Women in the Corps
accept men in boots without question.
This acceptance bewilders good Ags like
me.
During my four years in the Corps, I
have seen more acceptance of the “bag
gies” by the women. This used to distress
me very much, but not any more because
of a traumatic thing that happened to me
during spring break.
accidently cut his finger with a carving
knife and bled on his apron.
I couldn’t talk my brother out of it,
either. I told him that men in the Corps
are all amazons. I told him how disgust
ing men in the Corps are for never shav
ing their legs. But he wouldn’t listen to
me.
So my own brother is going to be a
baggie. He’ll be in that men’s outfit over
in the Brigade.
There are still some good of Ags like
me in the Corps who ref use to accept the
baggies. Well, that’s fine. But let me tell
you something, ladies. You can pick on
somebody else’s baggie, but NOT MINE,
by God! You creeps had better leave my
little brother alone!
Many changes have occurred in the
Aggie Corps over the years which shock
my mother and grandmother. They re
member when men were first admitted to
A&M in the 1960s. They felt A&M was
surely going to the dogs. But the real
shocker came in 1974 when men were
allowed in the Corps. “MEN in the
Corps? Blasphemy!” they gasped. But
alas, it was so.
My little brother, a high school senior,
told me he is joining the Corps next fall. I
nearly vomited from shock. I ran into the
living room in rage and begged my
mother to stop him. She said she couldn’t
because she and Father already had a
terrible fight over it. Father just wouldn’t
give in. He rarely disagrees with my
mother, but he put his foot down this
time. He was so upset with Mother, he
Lisa Turner ’83
Phone calls threaten
Editor:
I am writing this letter to the student
body of Texas A&M about a letter writ
ten by my roommate, Mr. Kevin John
son. He has spoken out about an activity
at the University that is degrading to him
and many other Ags. He spoke out as an
exercise of his freedom of speech and
also as a good Ag.
Because of his letter he has been re
ceiving threatening phone calls from
“Norma G. Crocker.” If this is what the
University calls good Ags, maybe they
should let everybody know before hand.
If being a good Ag means no right to
freedom of speech without threats, I
want no part of it.
P.S. The name has changed but the
auction block’s the same.
T. L. Vance
Kenneth Lilly
the small society
by Brickman
THAT
{PlJfZ ££>MPAr4Y
f^ PL &T&LY
* • •
M/feC? A &(Z3AP
IH T&PAY —
<£)1981 King Features Syndicate, Inc. World rights reserved.
Slouch By Jim Bail
“Zi’s not a bad idea, it’s just that I think it would be easier
to give up smoking.”
Hospitals’,
conflict of
by Art Buchwald
I worry about doctors. Not all doctors.
But just the ones who have investments in
private hospitals. The reason I worry ab
out them is that when you’re a stockhol
der in a hospital you might have a conflict
of interest between doing what is right
for the patient, and what is good for the
corporation.
Dr. Wesley Heights, who owns a piece
of the Kidney Stone Memorial Hospital,
told me he saw no ethical problem in a
doctor investing his money in a private
hospital.
“Doctors should own hospitals,” he
said. “Then they can personally see that
their patients get the best treatment
money can buy.”
“But some people argue,” I said, “that
if a doctor has a financial interest in a
medical facility he may subconsciously
hospitalize people, just to keep the occu
pancy rate up.”
“That’s ridiculous,” Dr. Heights said.
“I’ve never put a patient in Kidney Stone
Memorial unless he absolutely needed to
be there. The Board of Directors does
not pressure me to send them patients.
Asa matter of fact, I don’t even put all my
sick people in Kidney Stone. I send many
of them to the Sisters of Mercy, which is a
nonprofit hospital.”
“How do you decide?”
“It’s strictly a medical decision. If they
have a good health insurance plan, I put
them in Kidney Stone. If they don’t, I
find them a bed at Sisters of Mercy.”
“Sisters of Mercy must be thrilled to
get all your indigent patients.”
“They probably would like more who
can pay their way, but Kidney Stone
Memorial’s computers are not set up to
handle non-insured patients, while Sis
ters of Mercy has been doing it for years.
So I know when I send a destitute patient
to Sisters he’ll get much better treatment
than he would at Kidney Stone.”
“Will Kidney Stone take a non-insured
person?”
“Of course we will if it’s a life or death
situation. But as a profit-making hospital
we owe it to our stockholders to make
doctors
interest
This
Scon
Tex;
renll
othe
sure our loss-per-bed isheldtoi
mum. Some people have accused
trying to put the nonprofithospic
of business. This is not true.Ii
them as much as they need us.
fh
“Why do they need you?" _
“Because we take the burden of®
by providing services for peophlB ,
af ford them. If we didn’t takettif®
tients, they wouldn’t be abletoa f| m
date the non-paying patientsiff [r
need hospital care.” But
“I guess what troubles me isiHlel ai
idea of private hospitals, butthett» ties
that doctors own stock in lhemB u
doesn’t bother you?” ||1k
“On the contrary. Medical®'
should own a piece of the hospitB (:(
put their patients in. Who know['jU
now to keep costs down, andmai®J
the institution is being run aiafM si|
Private hospital employees areo[|j lm
toes because they know we’rewill so
them as carefully as we’re watcliB
patients. What makes Kidneyw
great hospital is that our doctors'I
about the bottom line.”
“I guess that’s the only thingvoil
to worry about,” I said.
“What the heck does thatniear|
“If you worry about the boiio:!
and your patient, you could hare*
flict in medical judgement.”
“The patient always conies fol
Heights said angrily. “Idon’tkfl
doctor at Kidney Stone who haseittl
a client there longer than wasatel
necessary, unless it was a niceM*
and no one was waiting for the w
“You don’t have to get sore.’
“When I graduated from
school I tookanoaththatlwouldtl
patients alike whether they
Cross, Group Health or Medical;
never violated that oath. Asa
fact, since I became owner in
Stone Memorial, I’ve been able: I
medical care not only fromthepl
viewpoint but also from the
ders’. This has made meabetterl
and richer for the experience." I
The Battalion
USES 045 360
Member ot
Texas Press Association ,
Southwest Journalism Conference
Editor ' Diana Sultenfuss
Managing Editor Gary Barker
Associate Editor Denise Richter
City Editor Hope E. Paasch
Assistant City Editor Beverly Hamilton
Sports Editor Jot 111 Wagner
Assistant Sports Editor J°hn Lopez
Entertainment Editor Colette Hutchings
Assistant Entertainment Editor .... Diane Yount
News Editors Daran Bishop, Brian Boyer,
Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom,
Shelley Hoekstra, Johna Jo Maurer,
Jan Swaner, Jan Werner, Rebeca
Zimmermann
Staff Writers
Melissa Adair, Maureen Carmody,
Frank Christlieb, Connie Edelmon,
Scott Griffin, Patrice Koranek, Robert
McGlohon, Ann Ramsbottom, Kim
Schmidt, Karen Schrimsher, Patti
Schwierzke, Kelley Smith, Angel
Stokes, Joe Tindel, Tracey Taylor,
Kathy Wiesepape
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Graphic Artists Pam Starasinic
Sergio Galvez Thompson, Fernando
Andrade
Photographers David Fisher,
Guy Hood, Eric Lee, Irene Mees,
Barry Papke, William Schulz
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news
paper operated as a community serviceloW\
University and Bryan-College Station. Of'-j
pressed in The Battalion are those of the eio\
author-, and do not necessarily representl/it'Sj
I'exas A&M University administrators or lv : l
hers, or of the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratot)
for students in reporting, edilingandphoiof•■ I
scs within the Department of Communiaw* L
Questions or comments concerning W1
matter should be directed to the editor.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed! 1 "]
length, and arc subject to being cut if tlitp^l
The editorial staff reserves the right toedii^E
style anti length, hut will make every effort 11 !*®
the author’s intent. Each letter must alsoltfVjy
show the address and phone numberoflff 11 *
Columns and guest editorials are also
are not subject to the same length constraints^
Address till inquiries and correspondent*C
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas
versity. College Station, TX 77843,or phontl ' ,
2611.
The Battalion is published daily duringTt'*
f all and spring semesters, except for holida' 11 ®:
nation periods. Mail subscriptionsare$l6.ISf ff j
ter, $.'E3.2. r > per school year and $35 perfulh*’
using rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed
Building, Texas AX.-M University, CollegeSt-
77843.
United Press International is entitledextn
the use f or reproduction of all news dispatd |# 'T|
to it. Rights of reproduction of all otherna^ ;
reserved.
Second class postage paid at College R'-'V
77843. â–