Opinion
The Battalion
EDITORIAL
I AGE DISCRIMINATION
Students must have a voice
“No taxation without representation” was the rally cry
for the American Revolution, one that changed the balance
of power in the colonies forever. Despite being more than
220 years old, there is no statement more pertinent to cur
rent local politics.
The College Station City Council has managed to mar
ginalize the very citizens who put the “college” in College
Station. Now, the council is attempting to remove the right
of Aggies to take an active role in the government.
According to College Station Mayor Ron Silvia, por
tions of the council believe that citizens over the age of 17
but under 21 lack the maturity to serve as council members,
so the council is considering raising the age requirement
from 18 to 21.
The sad irony of this comment is that numerous local cit
izens and Aggies under 21 are deployed overseas, risking
their lives so that democracy might flourish. That is a true
litmus test of maturity, and one that does not discriminate
between 18- and 21-year-olds.
Students must attend the April 24 meeting of the College
Station City Council to let the Council know that a town made
up of college students will not stand for barring the majority of
those students from seeking office. Most importantly, on elec
tion day, students can show that they are not just a source of rev
enue, but a constituency to be represented.
THE BATTALION
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
Brandie Liffick
Sommer Bunce
Brieanne Porter
Rolando Garcia
Asst. News
Member
Member
Melissa Sullivan
Sara Foley
Matt Maddox
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
less and include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor
reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submit
ted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-111], Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com
MAIL CALL
Admissions should not be a numbers game
In response to the April 14
front page article "Top 10 per
cent plan under fire":
The Battalion misrepresented
the capacity in which I was
quoted for the article. The
Battalion reporter who inter
viewed me did not inform me
that 1 would be quoted as the
spokesman for the African-
American Student Coalition, a
position 1 no longer hold and
have not held for several
months. Furthermore, to clarify
the out-of-context quote attrib
uted to me in the article, it is
dear that students admitted to
universities under athletic
scholarships are admitted
under a different set of stan
dards taking into account the
other assets they bring to the
table (i.e., their athletic ability)
and there is nothing wrong with
thatbecause admissions should
not be purely a numbers game
(SAT scores and CPAs) as
socioeconomic factors beyond
the control of applicants can
influence those supposed
measures of potential.
However, students from
diverse backgrounds whether
Rebuilding
DAVID
SHOEMAKER
the diversity of their back
grounds are based on other tal
ents, socioeconomic status, eth
nicity/race, geographical origin,
or other factors also bring valu
able assets to the table and as
such should be granted the
same consideration as athletes.
The merit only opponents of
affirmative action do not seem
to mind athletes who are black,
for example, being admitted
under a set of standards that dif
fer from the set of standards
that the general applicant pool
is subjected to even though the
merit of those athletes may be
wholly non-academic in nature
(i.e., their athletic ability). Yet
students in the general appli
cant pool who are black, for
example, are apparently not
entitled to the same considera
tion of their non-academic
assets in the admissions process
(i.e., the diverse and valuable
perspectives that they would
bring to a university setting).
That was the inconsistency to
which I was referring.
Berekat Bisrat
Class of 2004
France should
have no part
N ow that Allied
forces have pene
trated deep into
Iraq, people in the United
States, the United
Kingdom and other allied
capitals are beginning to
plan for the future of post
war Iraq. There are others,
notably in places such as
Paris, who are also mak
ing similar plans. As details of the U.S.- led
plans have begun to leak out, France has
made it clear that U.S. leadership in postwar
Iraq would be unacceptable. If such a reso
lution came to the United Nations, it would
be vetoed.
The French are trying to thwart the
United States to protect their own interests.
The country is seeking to avoid large eco
nomic losses from deals previously made
with Saddam Hussein.
For example, according to an article in
the International Herald Tribune,
TotalFinaElf, a large French oil firm, made a
deal with Saddam giving Elf rights to Iraqi
oil after the Gulf War sanctions were lifted.
Elf does not have close ties only to Saddam,
but also to French President Jacques Chirac.
Also according to the Tribune, one of Elf
former executives, Loik Le Floch-Pringet,
admitted he gave money to Chirac’s political
party during his tenure. Le Floch-Pringet
was quoted as saying, “There were politi
cians who didn't want to favor Elf. We had
to keep them quiet, to have them on our
side.” It seems that the French government
has a vested interest in the international law
making the United States’ actions in Iraq
illegal as they have making sure they keep
their contracts.
However, now that Saddam is no longer
in control, France is afraid the contract will
be dishonored by a new Iraqi government,
especially one unfriendly to the trappings of
the old regime. One French diplomat was
quoted in the Tribune saying that French
Finns know Iraq well, it is just their “con
tacts and allies tend to be linked with Ba’ath
party rulers, who are liable to be on the
wrong side in a new Iraq.” The French are
also afraid that a new Iraqi government will
dishonor loans made by France and its cor
porations to Saddam. According to an article
in the Houston Chronicle, the postwar gov
ernment will need to write off many loans to
reduce its large debt.
The French seem to be hoping that if they
can steer the reconstruction effort under the
cover of the United Nations, then maybe
they can avoid activities that will hurt their
interest. The United Nations needs to avoid
becoming a cover for the French and help
preserve what status it still has with the
Bush Administration.
The United Nations can and should have
a place in postwar Iraq, but not if it is going
to be a cover for France and other coun
tries, such as Russia, to secure an advan
tage. The ultimate goal should be what
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
was quoted as saying in an article by the
Tribune: “that the Iraqi people administer
Iraq.” But until they are able to do so, the
Allies and the United Nations should join
forces to run the country.
According to an article in the Houston
Chronicle, British Prime Minister Tony Blair
has been trying to build support for a United
Nations-backed civil authority in Iraq. The
Bush Administration has already made
preparations for a military administration for
the immediate period after the war, but has
yet to decide how long it should operate and
what role the United Nations will play.
The United Nations has important skills
and experience to offer, especially in the
areas of humanitarian aid and rebuilding of
infrastructure. But its ability to show good
political leadership would be compromised
by the fact that Russia and France have
extensive ties to the old regime. If the goal is
to remove all ties to Saddam, the fact that
United Nations decision-making might be
influenced by France might not be in the
best interest of the Iraqi people. The United
States and its allies would be a betteExhoice
for the political responsibilities. One com
plaint that some countries will have with a
coalition-supervised political administration
is the fact that they will probably decide to
award many necessary business contracts to
firms in allied countries.
But there is no good reason for the allies,
who have borne the brunt of political criti
cism and human casualties, to allow the end
of the war to enrich those who opposed it.
There is a place for the United Nations in
post-war Iraq. But there is no place for the
French to derail Iraq’s escape from dictator
ship so they can make a buck.
David Shoemaker is a junior
business management major.
Graphic by Becky Maiden.
ill
V
\
5B • Thursday, April 17, 2003
Iraq
Let the Iraqi
people decide
T he war is drawing
to a close.
According to major
news sources, Saddam
Hussein’s regime is fin
ished. Fox News has
already reported that
some soldiers will begin
the journey home in a
matter of days. In their
place will be a coalition
of people, resources and,
hopefully, a sound plan for the future of
Iraq. In America, many questions have
sprung up concerning the rebuilding of Iraq.
Should the United Nations be involved?
Should France, Germany or Russia be
involved? Should the “coalition of the will
ing” finish the job without help? The
answer to all these questions is simple: ask
the Iraqis.
Forget all this rubbish about whether
France or the United Nations should be
involved in the rebuilding. All of these argu
ments leave out the most important part of
the equation - what do the Iraqi people want
and what countries or organizations do they
want to provide it?
But no one seems to want to ask them.
They are the biggest variable, yet they
seem to have been marginalized by world
groups. According to Fox News, the
French and English have agreed that the
United Nations will have a central role in
the future of Iraq. The United Nations has
not stopped to think that given its pathetic
record with rebuilding countries, the Iraqis
might not want it inside their borders.
Instead the United Nations assumes it can
just waltz into Iraq, start putting together a
government and throw in some humanitari
an aid. But maybe the Iraqis want that.
There is no one better than the Iraqis to
determine what countries and organizations
should help administer their country.
From the pro-war American standpoint it
could seem outrageous to let either the
United Nations or France help with the
reconstruction of Iraq. But one must keep
two things in mind. The main goals for
which the “coalition of the willing” strived
were simple: to eliminate the security threat
posed by Saddam and to liberate the Iraqi
people. Saddam is no longer a threat. The
Iraqi people have been liberated. The future
of Iraq should be up to the Iraqis.
Interestingly enough, this situation is
reminiscent of a stand-up routine that
appeared on Comedy Central a few weeks
ago. Todd Barry, a short, balding, mono
tone voiced comedian, wrapped up his act
by asking the women in the audience a
question and then gauging their response.
Recalling the rumor that Brad Pitt does not
like to shower or bathe regularly, he pre
sented this scenario: “Let’s say that Brad
hasn’t showered in a year and a half, and
has just run the Boston Marathon. I, on the
other hand, have just taken a shower, deep
conditioned my hair, and walked through a
carwash - now, who would you rather
sleep with?” His self-deprecating humor
was well received by the audience and, in
this hypothetical scenario, all the women
picked Todd.
Politically and physically, the French
have not bathed in 20 years. When it comes
to Iraq, France’s laundry is dirtier than
Monica Lewinsky’s — but enough about
hygiene. The country has supported the mur
derous, tyrannous regime of Saddam for
years. Many in the world, in an attempt to
discredit the United States and the United
Kingdom entry into Iraq, shout “Blood for
Oil!” Considering how many barrels of Iraqi
oil have flowed into France for the last 20
years, coupled with the fact that France sup
ported the vicious dictator to the 11th hour,
how many barrels of innocent Iraqi blood
also should be shipped to France? Barrel for
barrel seems appropriate. The United
Nations is crippled and impotent. Led by
France, the organization has successfully
thwarted any real action against Saddam
under the guise of peace, but the Iraqi people
are not stupid. They will soon realize that
they have been nothing but pawns—expend
able, useless to the French and to the world,
except for Britain and America.
Given the choice, will the Iraqis choose
France and the United Nations or the United
States and Great Britain? Make no mistake
about it, the choice should be left with the
Iraqis no matter how much Americans may
ultimately dislike it. The Iraqis have the
most at stake. At the end of the day, French
President Jacques Chirac will sleep in
France and President George W. Bush in
America, but Iraqis will sleep in Iraq. The
least the world can do is to give these peo
ple, who have suffered the reign of a vicious
dictator for 20 years, the chance to have
some voice in their new country.
MIKE
WARD
Mike Ward is a senior
history major.