daily nebraskan
monday.april 28.1980
page 4
Iran rescue attempt to have grave repercussions
As more details of the aborted hostage
rescue operation last week are made public, it
becomes clear that the mission's failure has put
the United States in difficult position with
questions to answer and a crisis still unresolved
and suddenly more complex.
The reactions of many actors are relevant,
but the difficulty of knowing those reactions
further compounds a situation that will take
historians to unravel and analyze. The reaction
of the Iranian government and of the militant
students holding the embassy has been amaz
ingly restrained, which is perhaps an important
message not to be lost in the. maze of facts.
The reaction of the American people, very
important in an election year, seems to be "too
bad it didn't work." Eight American lives,
apparently, were worth wasting on one of the
most dangerous American military operations
ever planned.
A New York Times story Sunday revealed
some details of the plan, and would make
doves very nervous. Most significant, consider
ing Iran's collective paranoia of the CIA, is the
revelation that CIA agents and Pentagon
officers were in Tehran as part of the opera
tion. Perhaps the American people will be more
likely to vote for President Carter in primaries
if they think CIA presence in Tehran enhanced
the mission's chances for success, but the hos
tages' lives cannot be made safer by telling the
Iranians that American spies were in their
streets.
Nor can the revelation that students guard
ing the embassy were to be "neutralized." Or
the knowledge that C-130 transport planes in
the operation were armed with high technology
equipment to "neutralize" Iranian radar and
ground-to-air missiles located near a rendezvous
site where the rescued American personnel
would have boarded the planes to leave the
country.
Although some American allies have sup
ported the rescue atttempt, the fact that Amer
icans were pressing for economic sanctions
while commandos and CIA agents moved
toward Tehran can do little to improve our in
ternational image.
The operation, however, could have made in
stant heroes of everyone involved, and would
have boosted American morale and gained for
us much respect through fear.
But it failed, and now American military
effectiveness seems very in tune with the post
Vietnam image of this country.
Although the Iranian operation was more
complex, comparisons will be drawn with the
last American military exercise-the Gerald
Ford-ordered rescue of the crew of the Maya
guez in 1975, which resulted in 41 deaths and
probably was not necessary.
Our track record is slipping. Ironically, the
hawkish mood in the country is at a peak, with
70 percent of those responding to a Louis
Harris news poll approving of the rescue
attempt.
The operation is not wholly condemned. But
the mess it has left in its aftermath-indudin
CIA agents in Iran and, most importantly, eight
dead bodies-will have serious repercussions for
some time.
Although Carter and Defense Secretary
Harold Brown have emphasized that the
mission was humanitarian; not an act of war.
the word "neutralization" leaves a strangely
war-like taste in the mouth.
America's high-technology war machine was
unloosed briefly, and fell on its face. If it
didn't seem so likely that the attack was moti
vated by a desire to ensure re-election, that fact
migrit not be so bad.
Randy Essex
COULDTfT nm
tqSEUF, JTStL
V - :
4 WxMJ
I
Broader perspective needed in Krugerrand issue
Throughout the history of the Krugerrand controversy,
the parties involved have failed to view this issue in light
of the total world perspective. We have heard much con
cerning the "North and "South" divisions in South
Africa, the disparity between black and white wages, and
the apartheid system which legalizes racism. Instead of
discussing only the South African situation let's broaden
our horizons and examine racism as a part of aggregate
world oppression.
Doreen Charles pointed out that 4iblack oppression
condoned anywhere is a threat to all black people." Fine.
I would think that oppression anywhere is a threat to
everyone, but let's ignore oppression elsewhere for the
moment and examine the existing picture in Africa.
Current conflicts include civil war in Chad and Ethiopia,
border clashes between Mali and Upper Volta, Morocco
and Western Sahara, and squabbles between Angola and
Zaire.
It is intriguing to note how little Black African nations
criticized Uganda's Idi Amin during his regime of
repression and terror. For those who prefer first-hand
information, I refer you to Mr. Joshi, a friend of mine re
siding in Sweden, who is one of the couple of hundred
thousand Ugandans expelled because they were of Indian
descent. Tanzania protested such inconsistency during a
1978 OAU meeting and stated, "when massacres,
oppression and torture are used by Africans in the
independent states of Africa, there Is no protest from any
where in Africa.' Perhaps this is because the oppressors
are "nonhites. Thus we learn of a queer quirk of
human behavior: those who lirst haughtily raise a finger
of scorn and condemnation fail to find three pointing
back. .
Do not assume that only a few countries are guilty of
ethnic persecution and racism. The Minority Rights
Commission in Britain has found more that 60 nations
with one form of official racial discrimination. For
example, the constitution of Liberia denies whites the
right to own property, and Saudi Arabia will not allow a
Jew to enter the country. Human rights are consistently
abriged in several South American nations such as Cuba,
Chile, Argentina and Colombia. The U.S.S.R. and both
Koreas are further examples. Pakistan's martial law rules
stipulate punishment by flogging or by dismemberment of
hands and such. The list goes on and on.
So what about the Krugerrands? 1 hope most indivi
duals understand that combating racism and oppression
is a little more complex than many simple-minded people
would make it seem. The crux is that returning the coins
is pointless protest. A vicarious victory might give APU
momentary satisfaction, but such symbolic protest docs
nothing to end racism in South Africa. Similar destruction
of symbols and protest occurred during WW I, when the
German language was prohibited in some schools and
German publications were banned and burned. This
helped flare up ethnic tensions, but did little to end WVI.
It has been very enlightening to observe the actions of
Mr. Chambers, who is adamantly against the misuse of all
drugs, when he recently opposed the "bong bill," on the
grounds that such a bill is symbolic of anti-drug legislation
that does little to end drug abuse. The logic: since sacrific
ing the profit gained by a few tainted headshops is only
treating the symptoms, and does nothing to cure the real
causes of drug abuse (the pusher and poor parents), the
"bong bill" is bad. Paradoxically, Mr. Chambers later
changes tack, and claims to espouse moral principle, nobly
calling for the return of the Krugerrands; notwithstanding
that such action is symbolic of protest which does little to
end racism. The logic: since sacrificing the profit gained
by a few tainted Krugerrands is only treating the
symptoms, and does nothing to cure the real source of
oppression in South Africa (the bigotry in the hearts of
Afrikaners), keeping the Krugerrands is bad. The reason
ing? Very confusing. The logical conclusion: Mr
Chambers somehow seems more concerned with oppressed
blacks in South Africa than white junkies in Nebraska.
Seriously, we must realize that just as destroying every
bong and baggie (the symbols) will never end drug abuse
in Nebraska, so will casting to the sea every one of the
millions of Krugerrands (the symbols) never end
oppression in South Africa. The source of the drug
problem lies within the home, and the source of racism
and oppression lies within the hearts of men. Accepting
the donation is no more an act of racism than opposing
die tkbong bilP is an act of pushing drugs.
There are many who would claim that moral principle
must be upheld, regardless of the price. Yes, it is noble to
support moral principle, but it is die height of hypocrisy
if we are arbitrary when we choose to do so. Perhaps some
people can label the oppression in South Africa as
unacceptable, and oppression elsewhere as insignificant. I
believe Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would call such rhetoric
asinine. If this allusion has struck deadwood, you might
consider edifying yourself and study The First Circle. If it
is morally right to return the Krugerrands, for any reason,
whether to protest apartheid or to exert economic
pressure through reducing circulation and demand, then
we must refuse currency from all nations guilty of
oppression, regardless.
Following precedent set by the UN, we also should end
trade with these guilty nations. Imagine what a wonderful
world of cooperation we could have when our metal
industry collapses as we cut off our only cobalt supply in
Zaire! We can cease to import coffee from Colombia, and
send alt our shirts and underwear back to South Korea.
No more Russian rubles; we must return them. Oppression
will certainly cease just as soon as we end all economic
trade and diplomatic ties with the scores of countries who
are guilty of such crimes. No price can be too high! If we
are morally consistent we ought to refuse our awn dollar
to protest crimes, past and present, perpetrated by our
own nation against the forgotten minority, the American
Indian.
Continued on Page 5
