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-(’ 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.