Ignorance rears its ugly head

Tim Eldridge

Columnist

I'll begin with his statement: "Iraq isn't the nicest country in the world. ... They've started military battles; their government is known as an oppressive dictatorship that is unwilling to work with the UN ... they more likely have nuclear weapon. ... Iraq makes the world unsafe for the rest of the nations, and ... SPJ wants the sanctions lifted."

No, Iraq's GOVERNMENT isn't the nicest in the world, but neither is ours. Let's name a few battles that America has helped start in the past century: the Vietnam War, the Guatemalan Civil War, the Korean War, the Colombian Civil War, Bay of Pigs, East Timor, the 1973 Chilean Revolution, the Nicaraguan Civil War, the Salvadoran Civil War, the Iran-Iraq War, and yes Ņeven the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait.

That's right, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie (under orders from James Baker) basically encouraged Hussein to invade Kuwait. Why? So we could reestablish our dominance in the Middle East. Do you think our real objective was to "liberate" Kuwait? Our only objective (as always) was to liberate oil.

Iraq's GOVERNMENT is an oppressive dictatorship, but can we hold the Iraqi people responsible for their government's actions? The Iraqi people are human beings, just like you and me. Why should we punish an innocent five-year-old for the actions of Saddam Hussein? Tragically, that's what sanctions do.

How many oppressive dictatorships has the United States supported to protect the corporate interests? The Shah of Iran, Pinochet of Chile, Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez from Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia, Saddam Hussein (he used to be our ally before we made him our enemy), Batista of Cuba, Somoza of Nicaragua, the military rulers of Guatemala and El Salvador ... need I go on? Our government is certainly not opposed to oppressive governments-just those that negatively affect our business interests.

Next, it is in fact the U.S. most noted for disregarding the United Nations. A majority of the United Nations are in favor of removing the unilateral sanctions from Iraq or de-linking them from military sanctions. Three fifths of the Security Council (Russia, France and China) are opposed to the sanctions. Probably the most blatant example of stubborn American behavior is the current embargo on Cuba, a pointless policy directed at harming children and the elderly. For the past eight years, every member of the United Nations has voted to end the nearly 40-year-old U.S. blockade on Cuba, except for the United States and Israel. Of course, since we have veto power, the embargo has always stayed in place. Another example is the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia-a direct breach of the UN Charter, and even the North American Treaty itself! Apparently, a country is only guilty of crimes if they negatively affect a superpower's interests.

Israel is widely suspected of secretly possessing nuclear weapons, so why aren't there any weapons inspectors in Israel? Because Israel is under American control. Other nations see Israel's possession of nuclear weapons as a huge threat, but since America has good relations with Israel, there haven't been any large-scale actions taken. This is quite ironic, since most nations in the Middle East regard Israel as a threat, not Iraq. For instance, Israel recently bombed civilian neighborhoods in Lebanon in hopes of hitting Hezbollah guerillas.

Mr. Thomas's next statement: "There is a sad side to the sanctions ... a lot of the people ... affected by them have nothing to do with the controversy, but that is just a part of war and politics that is unavoidable."

Sanctions target infants, children, the elderly and the chronically ill. They have little to no effect on Hussein's regime. Over 750,000 children under five and approximately 1.5 million civilians total have been killed by this policy. Unavoidable? Hardly. That's a petty excuse given to justify killing babies. It's been long proven that unilateral sanctions are ineffectual. In all cases, they only give rise to hatred of the United States. America is holding the Iraqi people hostage and killing them at an ever increasing rate in hopes of getting Hussein to give in. This is the most sinister and immoral of foreign policies. Not only are sanctions avoidable and ineffectual-they are illegal. The sanctions against Iraq and Cuba blatantly violate several international laws, including: Protocol 1 Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977), International Conference on Nutrition, World Declaration on Nutrition, FAO/WHO (1992), UN General Assembly Resolution 44/215 (Dec. 22, 1989), Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, adopted by UN General Assembly (1974), and International Terrorism, as defined by the U.S. legal code (Title 18 ' 2331).

Mr. Thomas's statements about the School of the Americas: "The governments of Latin America have never been the safest in the world. ... they can go back and provide military protection. ... these armies sometimes, instead of protecting the country, actually overthrow the country. ... How many governments are overthrown because they are doing a good job? Not many at all."

The United States is the primary reason that Latin America has been so strife-torn. The CIA has meddled in practically every Latin American government. Their governments are inefficient and corrupt because we make them that way. Also, the Pentagon has admitted that torture, execution, false imprisonment, extortion and other techniques were included in training manuals used at the SOA and by mobile training units in Latin America. These soldiers are not taught to protect their country, they are taught to slaughter peasants and Amerindians.

Actually, many governments are overthrown because they're doing a good job. Several governments of Latin America were violently overthrown by the CIA because they were providing a better life for their citizens, and disregarding the rights of American investors. We replace them with oppressive (but capitalist) governments. Remember that list of dictators? The vast majority of them are graduates of the School of Americas. Can you tell me that an institution which produces these individuals is legitimate?

Mr. Thomas's final statements: "SPJ is fighting for causes that don't directly affect the people of the United States, for the most part. ... How can ... SPJ justify fighting for world causes when there are so many problems in our own country? ... shouldn't we be fighting to solve the problems in the United States before we ... solve the problems in other countries?"

Does this mean we should only care about Americans? SPJ realizes that there are several problems in the United States, and of course we would like to see them solved. One reason that we focus more on international issues is that there already are several institutions dedicated to raising awareness about problems in America. Very few people know what is really going on in places like Iraq or Latin America, as Mr. Thomas demonstrated himself. This is the precise reason that SPJ needs to exist. Mr. Thomas's views are the classic example of typical American ignorance. How many people know our government is deliberately killing children in Iraq and slaughtering peasants in Latin America? Such people must be informed.

Lastly, the members of SPJ feel it is our responsibility as human beings (not just Americans) to speak out against injustice, no matter who it affects. SPJ will always have a place at Wartburg because there will always be injustice as well as ignorance.