Page 2A'he Battalion/Tuesday, July 1, 1986
Opinion
Time to abandon sinking ship
While the recent brutal uprisings by blacks in
South Africa may have only increased govern
mental oppression, the incidents helped draw
many previous opponents of sanctions onto the
growing international bandwagon. Britain, how
ever, desperately clings to the rapidly sinking
ship of constructive engagement.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
has long opposed economic sanctions, maintain
ing that they rarely work. “Economic sanctions
are punitive and negative,” Thatcher said before
a meeting of the House of Commons. “The im
portant thing is to try to end apartheid by nego
tiation.”
But the main proponents of the negotiation
method were stabbed in the back by the U.S.
House of Representatives, which recently voted
in favor of harsh sanctions against the South Af
rican government. While the move probably was
nothing more than a powerplay by conservatives
to put off a real sanction bill as long as possible, it
made the primary sanction holdouts — the
United States, Britainand West Germany —
more aware of their shaky position.
Thatcher’s time is running out, not only with
respect to other nations, but within her own
country as well. The Commonwealth is united
against the prime minister, as are church leaders
and many members of Thatcher’s own Tory
Party, who are urging for some sort of trade eim
bargo.
The world trend is reflected in a recent UN
conference in Paris. “Comprehensive and man
datory” sanctions against South Africa were
called for by 128 member countries, including
many who opposed sanctions in the past but now
see them as the only effective solution.
“Let’s have no more of the tired argument
that sanctions will hurt blacks in South Africa
more than the government, ” said Oliver Tambo,
president of South Africa’s outlawed African
National Congress. “Blacks are dying now.”
Britain, as well as the other holdouts on the
sanction issue, needs to realize that negotiations
and constructive engagement, while noble in
theory, are impotent policies.
While Thatcher is negotiating, thousands of
blacks, stripped of their freedom, are dying.
The Battalion Editorial Board
Dellums bill has teeth,
but lacks discretion
There is a lot of
cynicism in the air
on the matter of
the vote by the
H o u s e of Rep
resentatives for
sanctions against
South Africa. It is
r e p o r t e d t h a t
when Rep. Ron
Dellums of Cali
fornia sprang up
after a long af
ternoon’s finicky debate about a moder
ate measure designed to levy progres
sive sanctions during the next year or
so, the Republicans quickly withdrew to
caucus: How should they vote on this
extraordinary measure, asking us to do
more by far than we ever did against
Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin; more
over, a measure proposed by a congress
man whose opposition to tyranny is con
fined to tyranny in South Africa
(Dellums wept over the use of American
force to liberate Grenada). What to do?
Well, the thing to do was pass it by
voice vote. That way, the Congressional
Record fails to reveal how an individual
legislator voted. Depending on how the
wind blows, he can later say that he was
one of the yeas, or he can say that he was
one of the nays.
But over all, it is said. Republican
congressional leaders reasoned that this
way, if the Senate happened to concur
with the Dellums bill, which is unlikely,
and it went to the president, he could
easily veto it. The harsher the bill, the
easier to veto it. President Reagan him
self proposed some sanctions and
brought them into effect a few months
ago by executive decree. You can no
longer buy a Krugerrand; big deal. But
the Dellums bill has teeth in it, and
forces us yet again to consider the con
sequences of attempting to emasculate
South Africa’s economy.
In the best of all possible worlds, the
Botha government would announce ba
sic reforms. Western democratic funda
mentalism has made things especial!)
hard for South Africa for one simple
reason, and that is that Western opinion
has consolidated around the proposi
tion that unless every black in South Af
rica over the age of 18 is given the vote,
there is still injustice in the land. But
precisely what the government will not
do is to grant political equality to every
one in South Africa.
Nor should it. It is preposterous at
one and the same time to remark the
widespread illiteracy in South Africa
and to demand the universal franchise.
There are a whole lot of countries in the
Middle East against which Dellums
William F.
Buckle^Jr
hasn’t thought to propose sanctij
against that don’t allow the vote!
women; and indeed, quite a fewvi
don’t allow the vote to anyone.
What’s needed in South Africa hi
political equality but equality of oppl
tuniiy. The most fundamental righil
a nation making its way throughfeudi
lism, is the right of property. If Soil
Af ricans were given the absolute n*
to own property of any kind, anywheB
the revolution against apartheid mil
be well under way. The second rigtiB
the qualified franchise conjoinedmj
bill of t ights. Bear in mind thatabifl
rights is the* equivalent of a bill of proa
bilious: i.e., a list of what the go\rl
merit isn’t permitted to do — for;]
stance, in our case, to passlaJ
abridging the* freedoms of speech..]
sembly, religion, etc. Whites whocanirl
pass a literacy test should notbepJ
mitted to vote, nor blacks; and wM
they do vote, they must vote withreit]
ence to the bill of prohibitions.
But the emphasis on overnightpolil
cal equality is the greatest guarantor[
ultimate resistance by over 4 tnillij
whites who are not going to divestther]
selves of the right to continue took;
their property by presiding over theft ]
mation of a legislative assembly 70pc]
cent black, with Nelson Mandela send
as premier and dedicated toagreatdtj
of Marxist class politics.
Assuming the Dellums bill were]
pass, what would you expect South J
rica to do? We are talking about $2f|
lion, (iO.OOO jobs and such servicesasti
provided by IBM, Mobil Oil andAnxrj
can Express, to name three of
American- t>wtied enterprises
there. What were you to do, if guided
the dictum Sal us populi, supremh
( The safety of the state is the prim;
concern)?
Exactly: Nationalize the industries.:]
suing government bonds to the old or)
ers. This is done all the time,andisli
under international law. South Africarl
wouldn’t have too hard a time purchi
ing supplies in other markets —the
c ause we always have used whenthetc
comes to argue against embargol
against the Soviet Union oi itssatelli
The end result? We would become
largest creditor of the South African
tion, hardly the moral posture Belli
is asking for.
Continue our moral pressure, byi
means. But a) stop trying to fme-tui
South Af rican policy from the Whi
House; b) pull back on the one-mai
one-vote business; and c) forget blanh
sanctions.
Copyright 1986, Universal Press Syndicate
U.S. selective justice threatens international law
President Rea
gan knows what
justice is. He
showed us by ap-
p o i n t i n g E d
Meese attorney
general. He
showed ns again
when he made his
nominations for
the Snp r e m e
Court. I u true
Hollywood style, he administered fair-
hancled justice to Libya for its known
terrorist activities and showed the whole
world he knows what justice is.
And recently, when he chose to ig
nore the World Court’s ruling on our
Nicaraguan involvement, he showed the
world not only that he knows what jus
tice is, but that he knows better than
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Mt'inOcr of
Texas Press Association
South west Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Mic helle Powe, Editor
Loren Stef ly, Opinion Page Editor
Scott Sutherland, Gitv Editor
Kay Mallett. Xeus Editor
Ken Sm y. Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is ;i tuni-piotii. sclt-suppni ling ncu spu-
pci npcniU'd ns n i r>nitnimit\ set vice to Texas A&M and
Hi vnn-(’<tllcgc Stniion.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion a/e (hose ot the
Editorial Hoard or the author, and do not neeessarih rep
resent the opinions ol Texas AS.M administrators. iacuh\
or the Hoard ot Regents.
The Battalion also set ves as a Inborntot \ tiewspapet tor
students in reporting, editing and photographx classes
within the Denai tment of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Mondav through Fridnv
during Texas AS..M tegulai semesteis. except tm holidav
and examination peiiods. Mail subscriptions ate $l(i.7~y
pci semester. S.'l.l.2.~> pei school vear and per lull
real. Advertising rates iurnished on rcc/ucst.
Out addiess: The Battalion. 2Hi Reed McDonald
Huilding. Texas ASrM L 'nix etsit\. College Station. 7 A
77H4S. '
Second c lass postage paid at College Station. EX 77S-4S.
TOS TMAS TT.R: Send addiess c hanges to The Battal
ion. 2l(i Reed Me Dtmald. Texas . \X:M L'niversitx. College
Station I X 77S4S.
anyone else. Justice, in the Reagan Dic
tionary, is whatever the president per
ceives it to be.
The World Court ruled 12-3 in favor
of Nicaragua on charges that the United
States violated international law by sup
porting the Contra rebels, saying that
Washington must make reparations to
the Sandinista government for its ac
tions. The Reagan administration said
fat chance.
In a more official tone, State Depart
ment spokesman Charles Redman said
the court’s decision “demonstrates what
we have stated all along: The court sim
ply is not equipped to deal with a case of
this nature.’’
What, then, is the court equipped to
deal with? When, in 1980, Iran pulled a
Reagan and ignored the court’s order to
release American hostages, court mem
bers — especially the United States —
were outraged. In that case, the State
Department would agree, the court was
“equipped” enough to make a justified
ruling.
But now that the United States finds
itself on the opposite side of the gavel of
international justice, it questions the
court’s “equippedness.”
The World Court was empowered to
render judgments on voluntarily sub
mitted disputes between states and to
give advisery opinions on matters re
ferred to it. The court bases its decisions
on the principles of international law.
International law, of course, lacks a
concrete definition, which is why the
Reagan Dictionary can define it the way
it does. However, international law (the
World Court’s definition), especially to
U.N. members, is considered binding.
While the court has no actual power to
enforce its rulings, it can call for sanc
tions against international perpetrators
in a variety of forms — including the
force of public opinion, self-help, inter
vention of third parties, sanctions by in
ternational organizations or even war.
The idea is that nations are supposed
to be responsible enough to realize the
importance of upholding international
justice. It’s a concept that’s easy to main
tain as long as the ruling isn’t against
your own country.
But in the Reagan Dictionary, com
munism, and its synonym Marxism, are
dirty words and must be exterminated.
Mining Nicaraguan harbors may violate
international law as the court defines it,
but then the court is not ‘ equipped” to
deal with this situation. As Reagan de
fines it, however, justice is a commie-
free world at any cost. In our overzea
lousness to rid the world of commu
nism, we have stepped on some signifi
cant principles. According to Reagan,
the ends justify the means — in this
case.
No other legal system, empowered by
a state, would tolerate such infidelity.
But whereas most judical systems get
their power directly from their govern
ment and — in the best situations — in
directly from the people, the World
Court draws its power directly from
those it’s supposed to have jurisdiction
over. Its laws aren’t any less important
than those of domestic courts, but they
require recognition of the need for laws
between nations just as we need laws
within them.
Justice, domestic or international is
not selective. Laws are not made on the
grounds that they may be disobeyed to
appease someone’s fanatical obsessions.
They are based on principles that don’t
waiver on whims. If Reagan is rig!
then Iran was right — even Hitler*!
right.
Standing by the law when it’sonoi
side is easy, taking our lumps when
goes against us isn’t. But upholdingla'
between countries is the first step!
ward global cooperation and perhaj
even peace. We can turn our back on
now, but we may find ourselves—as*
have in the past — in need ofitssymp
thies later.
International law is as just as we id
it. We have a responsibility to oursel"
and to the world to ensure thatjustict
not miscarried.
The World Court has handed!
United States a difficult pill and ask
us to swallow, but we spit it back ini
court’s face. Sooner or later we m*
learn to take our medicine. If wefol
the remedies listed in the Reagantt
tionary, world relations may becoc
very ill indeed.
Loren Steffy is a senior journalism!'
jor and the Opinion Page editor I
The Battalion.
Mail Call
Time for new tradition
EDITOR:
I’m proud to be an Aggie but now I have a
question in my mind about another Aggie’s pride.
On June 20, I took my children to Cain pool to enjoy
the cool water on a hot, sunny day.
We had fun until it was time to walk home.
Someone stole my son’s shoes (Nike hightops, size
10) and socks from the locker where he put his
clothes. The thief didn’t even have the consideration
to leave the old shoes in trade.
My son had to walk home to married student
housing barefoot in 90 degree sunshine.
The disclaimer posted on the locker room wall in
not a license to steal. If this is an Aggie tradition, I
want no part of it. Maybe the thief could start a new
tradition and return the shoes.
Sally Gauthier
Anthropology Department
Thanks for the foresight
EDITOR:
On behalf of the Brazos Peace Action, I would like
to extend a heartfelt thanks, to those 70 faculty
members — who amidst the controversy — signed
the petition to refuse the Strategic Offense Initiative
funding. We commend you for your courage and
foresight. You have brought a ray of hope, lighting
the way towards peace.
Right on, Karl Pallmeyer, f or youi Thursday col
umn.
Larry McCain
—
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. Tl«;
editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length
but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent, fait
lelter must be signed and must include the address and telepli»i ,(
number of the writer.