NATIO
THE BATTALIi
i curt
street’s
: battle
ay, late-day profit-talf
s just modestly higl
y dosings
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 • Tuesday, April 8, 2003
The coalition myth revised
begins: 8,286.60
April 7: 8,3Mll
e countries included are only supporting the war in words, not actions
i 21 25 27 31 4/21
I & Poor’s 500
begins 875.67
April 7:8J!i
r v
l
9 21 25 27 31 4/21
begins: 1,40 2.77 I
April 7:1,38911
l 21 25 27 31 4/21
•ociated Press
before falling pn:
trenched,
est policy for dal:
at ion is to avoii
y by acting pre-ei
said,
e of this, someec
ieve the Fed will:
its May 6 meetins
in into effect, op:
; federal funds
n emergency cot
possibly as soa
1
Ihe most outrageous
aspect of the war in Iraq
is not the fact that
[America has sent hundreds of
[housands of young men and
Ivomen across the world to risk
[heir lives. Instead, it might be
[he administration’s distortion
pf the truth to mislead the
American public. Case in point,
[he “Coalition of the Willing.”
Americans have been led to believe that this
var is no longer unilateral and is supported by a
arge multinational coalition — one larger than
hat assembled for the Persian Gulf War,
iecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said. But
lumsfeld’s statement is based on half-truths and
i willing disregard for facts.
Currently America’s coalition consists of 46
:ountries from around the world. According to
he White House Web site, www.whitehouse.gov,
t “includes nations from every continent on the
lobe." Did someone forget about Antarctica?
he list certainly contains notable world powers
uch as the United Kingdom, Australia and
apan. The list also includes other stable and
trong countries including Italy, Portugal, Spain,
ingapore and South Korea.
However, all of these countries are headed by
epresentative democracies. All of these countries
lad extremely large anti-war movements, but
heir elected officials have chosen to bow to the
Jnited States rather than represent their popu-
ace. All these countries may back the United
Itates, but only the United Kingdom, Australia,
’oland and Spain have committed troops,
iccording to the White House site. Spain’s troops
von’t even be participating in ground combat.
According to The Washington Post, Poland ini-
jally denied supplying troops, but recent pictures
ave revealed a limited number of its special
rces currently in Iraq. Denmark has even sup-
lied a submarine, though the usability of the
entless, unabasl
24, 25 feet and jj u b ma ri ne in a desert seems dubious
3y the end of the® jf t b ese circumstances were not already
- his season n'f ldiculous enough, the list itself becomes more
52-42. The 53® umorous
by one teamiM
The White House counts six unarmed coun
tries, some of which would be a challenge to
locate on a map. Palau, Costa Rica, Iceland, the
Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Solomon
Islands and Afghanistan are countries the White
House includes in the coalition. According to
alternet.org, three of these countries are com
pletely dependent upon the United States for
funding and defense.
Most of the countries included in the
Coalition of the Willing support this war through
rhetoric only. The Washington Post wrote,
"Morocco’s weekly al Usbu’ al-Siyassi claimed
that Morocco has offered 2,000 monkeys to help
detonate land mines.” Although this is a highly
speculative assertion, this generous sacrifice of
primates would represent one of the contributions
by a coalition country.
The majority of countries supporting the war
have seemingly chosen to do so for economic or
diplomatic reasons. Bulgaria, Albania, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland,
Romania and Slovakia are either trying to gain
membership into NATO or are relatively new
members that must stand strong with NATO
powers to ensure their relevance within the
organization. Along with the NATO countries,
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan all rely on
the United States in case of a threat from their
Russian neighbors.
The South and Central American countries of
Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama are trying to
align themselves to be included in President
George W. Bush’s The Free Trade of Americas
plan, which will act like NAFTA and likely be a
boon to'any economy. Also, many African coun
tries with deplorable human rights records and
shaky U.S. relations rely on the United States for
aid and support and have signed on to keep from
losing the support they need.
Even more amusing, the Department of State
has been warning Americans not to visit seven of
the coalition countries because they could be
killed or kidnapped. Turkey is listed as a coali
tion country, but denied the United States the
right to use its bases to launch an incursion from
the north. Eritrea made the cut, along with
Ethiopia, which does not have the resources to
provide food for its own citizens. Taiwan is even
listed, but the United States does not recognize
Taiwan as an independent country.
The Persian Gulf War consisted of 34 coun
tries that provided military support, according to
Milbank Quarterly. That coalition would have
been more than 100 by the accounting standards
employed today by the Bush Administration.
Declaring this coalition larger than the one
assembled by former President George Bush is
an insult to all those involved in the diplomatic
efforts prior to the Gulf War.
The Bush administration employs a spin
unseen since Clinton left office. This is a coali
tion of necessity to most countries that have no
choice. In the 1992 Gulf War, Yemen lost funding
from America after voting against the U.N. reso
lution authorizing a war to liberate Kuwait.
The “Coalition of the Willing” is not com
posed of nations willfully and actively supporting
this war, but of governments that have chosen to
sign a piece of paper rather than anger the
American power broker.
Justin Hill is a junior
management major.
Graphic by Ivan Flores.
the best playei
or four players
g Anthony, the
mg Player, aftet
Peace process begins with the Palestinians
f the key. A ball
the legs there, a
- nothing was on
ly, and very little
:d acting up, Antlt
Dwyane Wadf
I player with a tnf
urnament. As it*
shy.
struggling down
t play catchup"
t has been weeks since the last terrorist bomb
ing in Israel. Yet, even with this calm, a new
-terrorist bombing is all but certain for this
carred state. Before the eye of this latest hurri-
ane passes and the winds in Israel begin to surge
gain, it would seem fitting to discuss the conflict
f the Jewish state and the Palestinians.
In 2002, the BBC published a report on its
veb site that discussed the history of the con-
lict. “The principle of land-for-peace that has
ormed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is
ased on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for
lead. A greater jieace deals recognizing Israeli borders and its right to security.”
;ft when, trailing' in laymen’s terms, Israel currently occupies the West Bank,
i off a bad passtr»which is land it won in the 1967 war, and the Palestinians want
court. But Kart [heir land back. However, Israel has currently returned more
\ and Anthony nrt 1 than half of the land it confiscated during the war in exchange
)range ahead. or “peace” from its Arab neighbors. Israel retains the West
t to 12 with 7 Bank today to guarantee its safety.
>uld never overeffl Yet Israel’s safety is all but assured. Last fall the second
anniversary of the newest Palestinian intefadeh, or uprising, was
defeat for Wiliil met with celebration from Arabs throughout the Middle East even
le one victory f fthough it has killed more than 2,400 Palestinians and Israelis,
herwise impeccaj
according to Fox News. Nothing should have been celebrated.
When Israel’s first response team, the Zihui Korbanot Ason
(Hebrew for “Identification of Disaster Victims”), must scrape off
the sidewalk the bits of brain and body tissue of a 14-year-old
Israeli girl who was on her way to school when suddenly her bus
exploded, there is nothing to celebrate. When a Palestinian youth
is caught in crossfire an Israeli gunship destroying a terrorist com
pound, there is nothing to celebrate. But as the Palestinians cele
brated, Yassar Arafat, the infamous Palestinian leader, proclaimed,
“We are not only defending our holy places, but every inch of our
holy land.”
But it is no longer Palestinian land and thus the argument
against Israeli occupation of the West Bank is built on a faulty
premise — that Palestinians have certain rights. According to
the BBC, Abu al-Abed, a 24-year-old Palestinian and member of
Hamas, argues “that every human being who has his land invad
ed, all he possesses taken and his rights denied has a right to
resist.” If one starts a fight and then subsequently loses the fight,
does one have a right to be upset? This is what has happened in
the West Bank.
Al-Abed can claim that his land was invaded, but when he
fails to mention that the Palestinians provoked and lost a war, he
loses credibility.
> decide whether^
» at North Caroli|
; to return to
-unfinished bi
Generation faces new fears
Some, including Israelis, argue that Israel should return the rest
of the land to the Palestinians and be done with it. However, as Dr.
Victor Hanson, classicist and visiting military professor at the U.S.
Naval Academy, offers, “The first three wars were waged when the
West Bank was in Arab hands; so why would the premises for the
next war be any different from those of 1947, 1956, or 1967, when
the goal, as Egyptian General Saad Ali Amer (stated), was ‘the
elimination of Israel.’”
This situation is far more complex than “land for peace.” Israel
is an island of democracy in the sea of tyranny that is the Middle
East. That this island has successfully weathered multiple storms
only increases the fury with which various waves seek to drown it.
The Palestinians want the West Bank, but they also want Israel.
Though the United States is Israel’s staunchest ally. President
George W. Bush outlined a plan for Palestinian statehood.
However, until Israeli citizens are no longer the targets of coward
ly suicide bombings, Israel has no choice but to continue the occu
pation. Clearly, the violence must stop, but it is the Palestinians
who must make the first move, not the Israelis.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.
MAIL CALL
Suggestion of media black out is absurd
)unselifi{
tin
to help others?'
w cvelcMu !
derson Hall.
fO ext. 133 or visit
nteer.asp
VN STD
' IT!
fOU ARE
; CONDOMS.
ential
stored Nurse
tation
(U-WIRE) NORMAL, Ill. -
“Let the word go forth from this
time and place, to friend and foe
alike, that the torch has been
passed to a new generation of
Americans — tempered by war,
disciplined by a hard and bitter
peace, proud of our ancient her
itage — and unwilling to witness
or permit the slow undoing of
those human rights to which this
nation has always been commit
ted, and to which we are com
mitted today at home and around
the world.” — President John F.
Kennedy, January 21, 1961.
I was reading about the histo
ry of our nation the other day
and President Kennedy’s speech
fell under my eyes. Reading it, I
thought that it was comparable
to our generation. After reading
it again, I believe it truly is.
Whether any of us realize it
or not, the “new torch” has been
handed onto us. As our parents
grow older, we are constantly
reminded that we are the next
generation, the one that will ulti
mately make up the majority of
the population. And while we
often hear how spoiled we are
with our cell phones, Internet,
television and whatever else, I
think that our generation has
been shortchanged.
Do we have more than pre
vious generations? Sure we do!
But that’s the mark of the previ
ous generation. Each generation
before the next always tries to
make the newer one have a bet
ter life.
Our grandparents lived
through the Great Depression,
and a World War. In turn, they
tried to give as much as they
could to their children, dubbed
the Baby Boomers.
The Baby Boomers suffered
through the Vietnam War, bad
economies, and some major
political scandals (Nixon’s
Watergate and Clinton’s
Zippergate).
When the baby boomers
experienced more financial
growth, they gave their kids as
much as they could. While both
generations were good to their
children, there were shortcom
ings. But that is expected. There
is no such thing as perfection.
So what about our genera
tion? The supposed “spoiled
brats?” Yep, we’ve gained quite a
lot materialistically, but what
have we seen as a whole? We’re
products of broken homes.
According to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s projections, one half of
all marriages will end in divorce.
Can our generation knock that
statistic down, and focus in on
the importance and sanctity of
marriage and also realize how
important that marriage is to
family life?
We’ve been a generation
affected by terrorism. In no other
time has the United States been
so ravaged by terrorists. We saw
the Alfred R Murrah building
tom by an explosion in
Oklahoma City. And we all
watched in horror on Sept. 11.
We are a generation scarred by
attacks on our everyday life.
And don’t forget the school
shootings. We all were a little
more jittery after the Columbine
massacre, wondering if our
school was the next one to be
shot up.
We’ve been a generation tem
pered by war. The Persian Gulf
War, the War on Terrorism and
now the War in Iraq has us
watching the tickers and reading
the articles on the dead troops
that are our age.
I think I speak for most when
I say we live in a scary time. But
through this confusing time, our
generation has risen above the
challenges presented to us.
As President Kennedy said 42
years ago, we are proud of our
heritage and our country. The
enlistment of those that are our
age, making up the armed serv
ices, proves that claim.
It’s a bitter peace now, with
terror threats lurking around the
comers, but we still go on with
our daily lives.
But the torch has been
passed to us. It’s our turn for us
voices to be heard, and for us to
begin making a difference in
this country.
Don’t listen to the negative
comments. Ignore those that try
to knock our generation. Instead,
stand up and get ready to take
charge: The future is us.
Nate Brown is a columnist
at Illinois State University.
In response to an April 7 U-Wire
column:
After reading the sentiments
of Kori Hahn, a columnist at
Texas Tech University, on the
media coverage of our war on
Iraq, I'm astounded that her edi
torial made it into our paper.
It is ridiculous for anyone who
watches the war coverage on
any of the major media outlets
like CNN or FoxNews to be
under the impression that what
they're seeing on television is
any sort of military secret. We're
not sending out information to
worldwide satellites that is
going to compromise our mili
tary position. For proof, I'll quote
an editor's note from an article
on CNN.com: "This report was
written in accordance with
Pentagon ground rules allowing
so-called embedded reporting,
in which journalists join
deployed troops. Among the
rules accepted by all participat
ing news organizations is an
agreement not to disclose sensi
tive operational details."
Hahn suggests that we're
antagonizing Saddam by show
ing the death and destruction
of his military regime. I've got a
hunch that Saddam Hussein
has too many pressing matters
at hand to be sitting back in his
La-Z-Boy, eyes glued to the big
screen in his living room. In
regards to Hahn's calling out of
President Bush on putting a
'cease-fire' on the media cover
age, 1 find it laughable that a
member of the 'press' would
be so unversed in her First
Amendment rights as to sug
gest that we lose freedom of
the press.
Hahn suggests that this has
become a media war in which
the combatants are using the
media to try and convince others
that what they're doing is right.
We tried convincing several coun
tries, including the United
Nations, to no avail. 1 don't think
that our leaders are afraid of any
sort of media fallout and ill-recep
tion we'll get when we've gone
into Iraq, overthrown a tyrannical
dictator, liberated millions, and
established a sound government
in a country that's been corrupt
for decades.
Will Tolliver
Class of 2005