Page 2/The Battalion/Friday, March 25, 1988
Opinion
OHie North has the lead in fooling America
Ollie North is
not a national
hero.
Last summer,
Americans
couldn’t get
enough of the
charming lieuten
ant colonel who so
stoutly defended
his motives in the
Iran-Contra af
fair. “Ollie for
President” shirts sprouted overnight. At
the Kansas City Star, where I was work
ing, a few decidedly middle-America-
type picketers showed up to protest the
paper’s coverage of the Iran-Contra
hearings.
But last week, North was indicted on
charges ranging from obstruction of
justice to conspiracy to defraud the IRS
— 16 counts in all. And the patriotic
glow that once surrounded him is wear
ing thin despite the not guilty plea he
entered Thursday.
Many Americans will buy North’s
claim that he’s a mere pawn in a large
and unsightly chess game between Con
gress and the president. But that claim,
like much of Ollie North, is mere the
ater. For proof, you need only look as
far as Time magazine, where North’s
voice was reported to tremble with emo
tion as he told a press conference:
“I have been caught up in a bitter dis
pute between the Congress and the
president over the control of foreign
policy, the power of the president to
deter communism in Central America,
and his duty to protect our citizens from
terrorist acts abroad ... I intend to fight
allegations of wrongdoing for as long as
necessary.”
You gotta give the guy credit: He
knows how to work a crowd. North dis
carded his familiar Marine uniform and
chestful of ribbons for a plain blue suit
— even though his resignaton doesn’t
take effect until May 1. Proper costum
ing and all that, I suppose.
But underneath the costumes, more
Just what
in Central
is the deal
America?
Mark my words,
the Sandinistas’ at
tack on Honduras
will go down in
history as the
worst military
blunder since Po
land invaded Ger
many in 1939.
Because NOW
we all know that
the Sandinistas
can’t be trusted
Donald
Kaul
and that negotiating with them is futile.
Because NOW the United States can
send troops into area to protect free
dom and democracy with a clean con
science.
Because NOW Republican congress
men have license to foam at the mouth
and roll around on the floor of the
House of Representatives in support of
more aid to the Contras.
Because NOW everybody will realize
that Ollie North and John Pondexter
and the rest of that crowd were right
and all right-thinking Americans will
united behind their cause.
It was a bad mistake all right. But
even Washington cynics marvel at the
coincidence of the invasion coming
right on the day that North, Poindexter,
et al were indicted for their roles in the
apparently illegal diversion of funds
from Iran to the contras. The odds on
that happening must have been tremen
dous.
But it did. By accident. Of course it
did. Hey, would the White House lie?
The thing you have to wonder is
whether this is the best we can do to de
fend freedom and democracy in Latin
America.
I was in Mexico last week, While I was
there the Mexican economy got some
ggod news; inflation dropped to 8.3
percent. That was for February. Infla
tion in January had been 15.5 percent.
For the 12-month period ending last
month it was 180 percent. Whooppee.
But the news wasn’t all that rosy.
Here are some other headlines I saw in
Mexico City papers:
• “Businessmen See A Dim Future
For Job Seekers” — Mexico, a nation of
80 million people, has 6 million unem
ployed. In the next year business lead
ers hope to create 500,000 jobs, leaving
500,000 new job seekers without pros
pects.
• “Low Earners Affected By Grow
ing Malnutrition” — A recent survey re
vealed that 80 percent of the children in
low-income households — those earn
ing the minimum wage, $120 month —
show signs of acute malnutrition.
• “Mexican Creativity Aids Lear
ning” — A happy leadline, but the guts
of the story was that the collapsing Mex
ican economy has made it all but impos
sible to provide teachers with teaching
tools; not audiovisual equipment or
computers, mind you. Books.
There were other stories involving
Latin America: “Lower Oil Income
Means Austerity for Venezuela,” “Ar
gentina Debt Crisis Looms,” “Peru’s
Economy on War Footing” and “The
Mess in Panama.”
When he took office more than seven
years ago (and isn’t if funny how time
flies when you’re in a dream world?)
President Reagan announced a plan
that would help them share in our pros
perity and stabilize the region politi
cally.
If such a plan ever existed outside the
imagination if a White House speech
writer, it has been a dismal failure. Latin
America stands poised on the edge of
economic ruin and we, the giant of the
north, stand aloof.
No, not entirely aloof; we protect
them from the scourge of Nicaragua.
A yeat ago Mexico devised a plan by
which it would buy back some of its debt
at discounted rates and refinance it with
bonds backed by the U.S. treasury. It
had hoped to buy back as much at $15
billion at 60 cents on the dollar. The
banks didn’t go along with the deal. The
Mexican government was only to buy
$3.67 billion of its debt and was forced
to pay more than 69 cents on the dollar
to get even that. After the refinancing,
the total reduction in debt was barely
more than $1 billion.
It seems that much of our national
political debate is taken up with the wis
dom of sending arms to a rag-tag group
of rebels in a small, poor country of
small consequence. We do it, when we
do it, to fight communism in Latin
America. In the meantime we ignore
the volcano that is building to an erup
tion everywhere else in the continent.
Here is the deal:
Communism does not spring forth
out of a prosperous people. It does not
feed on justice. It is a political and eco
nomic philosophy that is fueled by de
spair and povery and malnutrition and
ignorance. It is a false god — it does not
deliver what it promises — but when
hope vanishes almost any god that of
fers change will win converts.
We can give the Nicaraguan contras
$30 million in “humanitarian” aid or
$100 million in “lethal” aid or we can
give them gold-lame Elvis Presley outfits
in hopes that they can sing the Sandinis
tas to death. It won’t work. We are not
losing Latin America to the Interna
tional Communist Conspiracy; we are
losing it to poverty and drugs. Sending
troops down there is just plain stupid.
How many times do we have to learn
the same lesson?
Copyright 1987, Tribune Media Services, Inc.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Sue Krenek, Editor
Daniel A. LaBry, Managing Editor
Mark Nair, Opinion Page Editor
Amy Couvillon, City Editor
Robbyn L. Lister and
Becky Weisenfels,
News Editors
Loyd Brumfield, Sports Editor
Jay Janner, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the
editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, fac
ulty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for students in reporting, editing and photography
classes within the Department of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday
and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62
per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising
rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station TX 77843-4 111.
changes appeared to be in the works.
Last summer, North trumpeted his will
ingness to be the fall guy if Congress
was determined to punish someone for
the shipment of arms to Iran and unau
thorized diversion of funds to the Con
tras. At his press conference, though, he
said he was resigning because remaining
in the Marines would be incompatible
with defending himself against the
charges. His lawyer, North said, may
subpoena the “highest-ranking officials
of our government.” Some fall guy.
seems to be saying that he didn’t do any
thing wrong — but that if he did, it was
only because Congress had unfairly
usurped the president’s foreign policy
role.
Ronald Reagan and George Bush
may or may not be quaking in their
boots at the prospect of testifying in
North’s trial, but North definitely has
cause for concern. He wavers between
saying, as he did at the press confer
ence, “I did not commit any crime” and
maintaining that such frolicsome mis
deeds as document shredding took
place only because he was trying to pro
tect the president’s foreign policy.
North must make up his mind. He
It seems fairly clear that North did do
something wrong. Quite a few things,
actually, beginning with embezzling
$4,300 in travelers’ checks given to him
by Contra leader Adolfo Calero. Then
there’s the matter of the $13,800 home
security system North accepted. And
the infamous document-shredding with
Fawn Hall, intended to keep as many se
crets as possible. The list goes on.
And no matter which side of the for
eign policy debate you come down on, it
appears that North’s activities were in
deed illegal. If Congress is justified in
setting policy, it had every right to cut
off funding to the Contras. And North
was an integral part of a covert plan de
signed to undermine that decision.
You say foreign polit
with the president? Fine.
;y powers rest
But according
to all the testimony. North and his,
nies at the National Security Com
never bothered to mention their I
diversion of funds to the president.)!
the president authorized the arms l q r
hostages trade. Yes, he niade it
that he supported aid to the Contrl
But underlings who taketliil
statements and, without telling theB]
idem, start an illegal supply networil
not supporting the idea of a foreign JB- exas /\
icy run by the president. They are sign failed
porting the idea of a foreign polioBecond
by low-level goons in the admin Jd ROI
lion’s considerable bureaucracy. com l
KO at I-
North no doubt will continue toiUkdand s£
the patriot. It’s a good role, one the
lie likes (just look at Ronald Rea®^
But if North supported the funddnH st j an
sion, his decision to turn tail andruHgO, Ki
the lace of indictment bodes ill foilrhe tea
patriotic pose. Hbat ski
I Hrc. Th
And what a pose it is. la rope
c wr , • |rse and
Sue Krenek is a senior joumalm£^ ,1,, \
jor and editor ofThe Battalion.
Hie gun.
^Iso reqi
lying with
fitness
iujrse, a 1
nnaisst
I patrol i
ill the otln
^Btland st
Way Sur
science
er, saic
i ome high
Hi miliui
|s have
■e. Plus i
|Cirklanc
cadets;
kilN and s
Ity scienc
do.”
k&M w;
Mail Call
We’re a peaceful people
EDITOR.
As a member of Students Against Apartheid, I would
like to clarify a few points made by Brain Frederick on
March 22. In his article, he claims that the South African
Government is making sincere efforts to dismantle apart
heid. Though some reforms have been instituted, the gov
ernment has taken several steps backward, resulting in
further restrictions. Among these are:
1. A 21 -month old state of emergency.
2. A press ban on anti-apartheid media.
3. A ban on the political activity of 18 anti-apartheid
organizations.
4. An effort to end foreign humanitarian aid to op
pressed South Africans, as well as increased violence to
ward blacks by government police and soldiers.
Mr. Frederick feels that sanctions and political pres
sure will result in a bloody revolution. This is not true.
These are means of PEACEFUL, NON-VIOLF'NT
change and are a stimulus to prevent a revolution. He in
stead, feels we should tolerate slow change. However, one
must realize that this results in prolonged imprisonment,
torture and murder of blacks, with no guarantee of real
change. Furthermore, the reforms already implemented
may not have been enacted without pressure from the
West.
Students Against Apartheid does not advocate violent
change, instead we advocate peaceful change through po
litical pressure, economic sanctions and racial harmony.
We operate in the spirit of Nelson Mandela, who, though
in his 26th year of imprisonmen for opposing apartheid,
still opposes violence as a means of change. Additionally,
we are not advocates of the ANC, whom Mr. Frederick,
with the ferverof Joe McCarthy, labeled as communist.It
stead we are advocates of all oppressed South African 1 ;
The ANC is only one of many anti-apartheid organ©
lions.
Finally, Mr. Frederick, despite your ethnocentrick
liefs. South African blacks are just as capable of promotinj
democracy as are Americans.
Jeff Dyess '89
Ugly for a purpose
EDITOR:
Many people are upset alx>ut the Students Against !
Apartheid’s anti-apartheid s,.ack: “I blemishes the
campus." They are not concerned with what the shack
stands for — but with the way it looks: ugly. What theyfailj
to comprehend is that APART HEID is ugly. T he shackis
not meant to be a beautiful addition to the campus—itis
meant to make people aware of the ugly situatin that exist 1 !
in South Africa: legalized segregation and violence.
Removing the shack would remove the “eyesore,”but
it would also make apartheid easy to ignore — out of sight 1
and out of mind. Instead of trying to get rid of the shack j
through complaints and vandalism, these “concerned” I
students should attack the root of the problem and work
with S.A.A. for divestment and ultimately the abolishment'
of apartheid.
Margaret Dominguez ’91
Ife
J
Letlet 'i tu the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial
serves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort 1 ’
maintain the author's intent. Each letter must be signed and must include thet^M
sif n ation, address and telephone number of the writer.
BLOOM COUNTY
600P MORNING, 5TBVB.
rve Been Msietjev by
we'STeve mlu\s
PERSONALITY INVeSTfOTWON
comtrree ~ tv pevemiNe
THE EXTENT OF YOUK...
by Berke Breath*
THOUGHT IV
TOOK MORE LIKE
FLAN ALVA