Opinion
nber23
pression of
' insist that
/ater.
ha nge and
5 that these
: A&M can
1 be nation-
repared to
ist century,
oader per-
1 approach
ace.
-nts incor-
;eem an ex-
opment of
rth-Tsutsui
Biophysics
•n’s Studies
t, not
eded
liberal Arts
12 Sunday
rsity presi-
separate fa-
graduation
ie president
g and then
nand from
in tains,
ultural re-
I Arts leads
>ad the uni- !
nents. It is
ie chasm of
en and any
feel them-
irsuit of en-
on. Unfor-
new multi-
s A&M has
len in Poli-
Cay Bailey
en's issues
and that,
ice Thomas
)lack." The
nent agree
rement like
aomington
a dent must
d with one
ied are tru-
courses on
vJone of the
"gender is-
octrinaire.
e a part of
owever, so
ulticultural
e ultimate
After two
ling rather
1 travel to
al require-
lulticultur-
; the sum-
are around
d the pro-
i students
d transfers
generation
>art in the
dent voice
Thursday, September 23,1993
The Battalion Editorial Board
CHRIS WHITLEY, editor in chief
JULI PHILLIPS, managing editor MARK EVANS, city editor
DAVE THOMAS, night news editor ANAS BEN-MUSA, Aggielife editor
BELINDA BLANCARTE, night news editor MICHAEL PLUMER, sports editor
MACK HARRISON, opinion editor WILLIAM HARRISON, sports editor
KYLE BURNETT, photo editor
EDITORIAL
U.N. intervention
U.S. can't bear
The United Nations is
poised to engage in a large-
scale peacekeeping mission in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
A response is warranted,
but America must refuse any
preeminent role in the effort to
bring peace to the region. The
members of the United Na
tions, this reputed coalition of
countries, must equitably band
together to fight this battle.
The United States has a his
tory of contributing the majori
ty of the effort in these police
actions. In Bosnia this misguid
ed tradition is bound to contin
ue unless the United States
[puts a stop to it. Any action in
Bosnia promises to be a bloody,
lengthy war of attrition.
At the center of this crisis are
the Muslims, the Serbs and the
Croats, each vying to claim land
for their own people. Cease
fires and treaties have constant
ly failed in the two years since
the current unrest erupted.
The people have suffered se
vere human rights violations
as well, with practices such as
“ethnic cleansing" bearing a
frightening resemblance to
brunt of effort
those of Nazi Germany.
The United Nations was
chartered after World War II to
act as a world police force that
would intervene in times of
crisis. Since then. United Na
tions peacekeeping forces have
served in every decade and
nearly every region of the
world.
The tragedy in Bosnia has
no end in sight. A meeting be
tween the three warring fac
tions, the European Communi
ty and U.N. moderators Sept.
20 produced no results. With a
diplomatic stalemate firmly in
place, the United Nations is
now planning to intervene.
Right now the United Na
tions is planning for the United
States to provide at least half
the troops of any peacekeeping
force. Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin, however, has stated that
U.S. personnel will comprise
no more than 50 percent of the
required manpower.
The conflict in Bosnia is not
America's war to fight alone.
Rather, it is a battle to be
waged by all nations in a unit
ed effort.
The Battalion Page 11
Open your mind to concept of peace
Nations move away from waging war to achieve ends
C onflicts are as
much a part of
this world as po
litical rhetoric and usu
ally just as senseless.
1, along with most
of the planet, was
stunned to learn of the
Palestinian Liberation
Organization's deci
sion to bury the hatch
et — I mean Uzi —
with Israel. In sim
plest terms, it seems
that oT Yasser Arafat
just had a change of
heart — not too unlike
changing the oil in a
rusty station wagon.
Although Arafat's agreement with Israel's
G ime minister wasn't exactly what each side
s been striving for, the compromise with
specific parcels of inhabited land is not only a
major event of the last 50 years, but marks a
significant occurrence in world history as well.
Why did one of the most powerful terror
ist leaders in the universe suddenly go soft?
Did a six-year-old, teary-eyed Jewish girl
give him a cute little puppy or something?
Arabs and Jews have always been at each
other's throats, particularly since the modern
state of Israel was proclaimed in 1948.
The Jewish people deserve the land for
which they've fought — the same land which
was formerly Palestine. Of course, the same
land was formerly Israeli if we go back in time
far enough. So, when deciding who owns a
country, the question really is whose land was
it to begin with. But that just can't be, can it?
If battles and conquering land are unac
ceptable methods of obtaining a nation, then
Colorado should still be northern Mexico,
and we would all be vacationing in Crested
Butte to see the bullfights and drink Tecate.
Actually, "we" wouldn't be here at all un
less the Apaches decided to grant us tourist
visas from England — which by the way
would not be England were it not conquered
centuries ago by brave fighting men with the
desire to live there and tul the soil. We owe
our great country to shear guts and determi
nation in bloody battles against England.
The Palestinians deserve the land for which
they've fought. The Iranians deserved Kuwait
too; they fought for it as well. The Serbs de
serve what they can get too, don't they?
Can this really be the way we should look
at international conflict? Obviously not. If
every country got to keep whatever it con
quered, the entire world would be in chaos
— Quebec would want to rule France, Liecht
enstein would be looking to double its size
by declaring war on Rhode Island and surely
England would start eying our tax revenue
— after all, it's rightfully theirs. We never
made payment for all that tea.
The primary reason the nations of the
world remain somewhat within their bound
aries is international law.
We have the United Nations and NATO
to use as power wielders when another coun
try gets out of hand and needs to be militari
ly "spanked" or given "time-out" (sanc
tions). These restrictions on invasion are ab
solutely necessary, but because the United
States is the most powerful member of the
world, world laws seem to go overwhelm
ingly in our favor.
It is sad to say, but were the Palestinians
the finest military force who did the world's
fighting for it, Israel would still be Palestine,
and American Jews would be treated even
less fairly than they are now. And if we sup
pose that the United States was not the
mightiest nation, it's likely that our involve
ments in Vietnam and Korea would have
been looked upon as unnecessary interven
tions into world order. Consequently, we
would've been stopped by whomever the
world's policeman was at the time.
OK, you say. Maybe so. But good grief,
Stanford. What a ridiculous speculation.
How about checkin' into reality for a change?
Well, you have a point. It is ridiculous to
think of the United States as a second rate su
perpower, China as the world's leading eco
nomic contender, Cuba as the playground of
North America, Irish and British kids playing
together, or Japan on the verge of bankrupt
cy. It's just plain silly to think that the
Russkies — haters of moms, God and
Chevys who almost never eat chicken fried
steak — could actually be our friends.
We feel sorry for them now, for cry in' out
loud. It's sillier still to imagine Jews and
Arabs actually shaking hands over any thing.
Peace seems to be breaking out all over.
Boundaries and leaders are always changing,
so we must try to be open minded to the
most utterly ridiculous possibilities.
Like burying the Uzi.
Frank Stanford is a graduate philosophy major
FRANK
STANFORD
Columnist
Editorials appearing in The
Battalion reflect the views of
the editorial board. They do
not necessarily reflect the
opinions of other Battalion
staff members, the Texas
A&M student body, regents,
administration, faculty or
staff.
Columns, guest columns,
cartoons and letters express
the opinions of the authors.
The Battalion encourages
letters to the editor and will
print as many as space
allows. Letters must be 300
words or less and include the
author's name, class, and
phone number.
We reserve the right to edit
letters and guest columns for
length, style, and accuracy.
Contact the opinion editor,
for information on submitting
guest columns.
Address letters to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald ;T'
Mail stop 1111
Texas A&M University
Colle^Sja^km^TX 77843
— ^ —-—
iment that
rented in
because of
ated view,
icorporate
ht. Let us
;t creating
?ty simply
an empty
>me, let us
omach '84
’conotnics
U.S. troops roam Somalia, yet slaughter in Bosnia continues
T he term "an
other Viet
nam" has
been used so often
and so loosely in
the past as to make
it almost meaning
less.
Ironically, there
is no more appro
priate time to use it
than now, with So
malia quickly be
coming a quagmire
from which the *
Clinton adminis
tration stubbornly
refuses to escape.
Our misled intervention into a country
with a long standing distrust of foreign
ers began as a "humanitarian mission" —
George Bush's farewell to the country.
Perhaps Bush saw entering Somalia as a
way of avoiding entanglement with
Bosnia. Instead, his assurances that our
involvement would be minimal and
strictly humanitarian have become more
pathetically laughable than when first ut
tered.
Enter President Clinton. The man who
in his youth vigorously protested U.S. in
volvement in Vietnam has refused to con
sider a congressional action moving our
troops out of Somalia because withdrawal
would "be viewed internationally as a
sign of American weakness."
Now, American soldiers, along with
Pakistani U.N. forces, have killed over
100 Somalians in pursuit of Somali war
lord Mohammed Farah Aidid. In light of
the fact that CNN reporters obtained mul
tiple interviews with Aidid, his ability to
evade our finest military minds is puz
zling.
Sadly, the death toll among Aidid's
human shield includes not only soldiers
but women and children. Such tragedies
are common in almost any military ac
tion. What makes it particularly senseless,
however, is the reality that we are fight
ing a war in which the United States has
virtually no interests.
In stark contrast to this is our refusal to
intervene in Bosnia. Whether our current
stance on Bosnia is right or wrong is not
the issue. The issue is the hypocrisy of the
United States' involvement in Somalia
while firmly rebuffing Bosnian aid re
quests.
Whether our current stance
on Bosnia is right or wrong
is not the issue. The issue
is the hypocrisy of United
States' involvement in So
malia while firmly rebuff
ing Bosnian aid requests.
While we attempt to locate Somali war
lord Aidid in connection with the deaths
of 24 Pakistani peacekeepers, Serbian
leader Slobodan Milosevic, orchestrator of
mass murders and rape camps, has been
negotiating formally with us Geneva.
In addition, Bosnian President Alija
Izetbegovic, asking for our assistance, was
told by Clinton to expect no help. Izetbe
govic must wonder why his country was
not deemed worthy of the humanitarian
intervention afforded Somalia.
If Bosnia is considered to be outside of
our interests, why then is Somalia so dif
ferent?
Adding fuel to the already significant
level of frustration felt among many
Americans is a sense that the United Na
tions would be more appropriately
named the United States and Friends.
The original intent of bringing in U.N.
forces to Somalia was to free American
troops from singular military involvement.
Instead of easing out our troops, the Unit
ed States has taken on the role of a United
Nations strike force with authorization to
shoot first and ask questions later. So
much for humanitarian intervention.
The Pentagon has said that our in
volvement in Somalia will continue until
1995. Few believed Bush's "back by
Christmas" scenario when he painted it;
fewer still visualized us serving under
U.N. command for years.
As one historian purportedly said, the
Clinton administration believes foreign
policy is about helping the weak. In fact,
foreign policy is about containing the
strong who threaten our interests. With,
at last count, four Americans dead and 43
wounded, it makes one question Clin
ton's naming Somalia a "crucial Ameri
can outpost." Crucial to whom?
Our involvement in Somalia is ridicu
lous. If we were really there for the rea
sons being given, we would also be in
Bosnia and a dozen other countries that
could used a helping hand. A lack of con
sistency in American foreign policy is cer
tainly nothing new. This time, however,
an administration's stubborn refusal to
recognize the lessons of history could see
us reliving a chapter many would like to
forget.
Toni Garrard Clay is a senior speech
communication major
TONI
GARRARD CLAY
Assistant editor
Screw the NCAA —
screw the Batt, too
This letter is in response to the Sept.
21 Battalion editorial. This whole thing
about the NCAA has gotten too far out
of hand. What is so wrong with paying
collegiate athletes to play a sport?
Just think of the millions of dollars
that our football team brings in not only
to the University but also this city. You
can't get a hotel reservation within 50
miles for a home game. Things have got
ten so ridiculous that college athletes
cannot go out and even get summer jobs
for fear of NCAA retaliation.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that A&M
should just "accept the consequences"
like the editorial stated. I've got news for
whoever wrote this editorial. College is
expensive. Scholarships just don't cut it
anymore. The cost of living is outrageous.
I ask you, what harm comes from giving
five players a little spending money?
If an alumnus were to give an average
student money, it would be considered a
"scholarship." However, if that student
is an athlete, it is a violation of NCAA
policy. I say screw the NCAA!
As to your comment that it is disgrace
ful for the Interim President Dr. E. Dean
Gage to be angered about the actions tak
en by the NCAA, I say screw you, too! Dr.
Gage has every right to be angry. Texas
A&M spent valuable time and money
concentrating efforts to reach a fair and
just punishment for a crime which should
not be. Then, for the NCAA to come in
and overrule A&M shows that they only
want to flex their muscles a little. The
NCAA has to let everyone know that they
are still in charge. Yeah, right!
If the editors of The Battalion really
feels this way then maybe they should
go work for The Daily Texan.
Joel L. Dunn
Graduate student
Bad idea to privatize
A&M Food Services
I am amazed at the attitude that some
students seem to have on the idea of pri
vatizing parts of A&M's food service op
eration. As much as anyone, I would
like to see better quality and lower prices
but this is not what privatization will get
us. It is unquestionably against our inter
est to privatize.
Privatization means that a contractor
will run food service for a profit — his
profit. He can do this by becoming more
"efficient" — i.e. hiring workers for less
and cutting costs. Naturally, he expects
to make a profit or he wouldn't be in the
business. Or, perhaps he has a more effi
cient and technologically superior means
of producing the product.
In the case of burgers and fries, I
doubt that the contractor has all that
much of a technological advantage over
what we have now. The method most
contractors prefer on a short term con
tract is to milk the capital equipment and
facilities for all their worth and to limit
maintenance.
Why do we want a third-party to
make a profit from us? Wouldn't it be
better for us, the University, to make any
changes in the existing operation with
out selling the farm? By selling a part,
we lose the benefit of the whole. Privati
zation is simply a short-term answer to a
long-term challenge.
The contractor will make a profit.
Why does that money have to go away
from the University into a corporation's
account? Why can't that money be rein
vested here? Finally, why doesn't the
Student Senate start acting in our best in
terests?
Paul Deignan
Class of'94