Daily Nebraskan
Wednesday, February 12, 1986
"Editorial
Nebrafckan
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
The ideal ASUN campaign
On the eve of another ASUN
election campaign, the
Daily Nebraskan imagines
the ideal campaign party plat
form: All interested parties meet
the filing deadline at 4 p.m.
today and overcome the games
played in past elections.
Campaigning will be honest
and fair, without the problems of
the March 1985 election, when
Change Party presidential can
didate Kevin Goldstein filed com
plaints against the winning
Target party.
Goldstein alleged that students
cast multiple ballots and mem
bers of the winning Target Party
were seen instructing voters near
voting sites. Goldstein also
questioned the Target Party's
financial form, saying it was not
in order and not filed on time.
The committee dismissed the
complaint because of "insuffi
cient evidence," but it left a scar
on the election.
In addition, last year's parties
disputed over campaigning in
residence halls and the alleged
removal of competitors' posters.
We hope this year's parties
can get beyond campaign quib
bling and address pertinent
issues.
But what issues are pertinent
to a body with only the power to
organize student groups?
Nebraska Attorney General
Robert Spire's ruling against the
proposed student regent vote
squashes any hope ASUN had for
actual power.
The proposal would have given
s ident regents from UNI, UNO
and the NU Medical Center one
cieair
My
Market should direct industry
The popular notion of "de
regulation" is not strictly
accurate. As used commonly,
the term means that government
intervention in some market is
reduced.
But it is a mistake to equate
the term "deregulation" with
the notion of no regulation.
Rather, the market becomes the
regulator, rather than the state.
In fact, sometimes the market
regulates more strictly than the
state. Being in favor of free mar
ket activity is certainly not the
same as being pro-business.
Take, for example, the Price
Anderson Act first passed in
1957 and currently before Con
gress for renewel.
Price-Anderson has two major
provisions. First, it imposes no
fault insurance on the nuclear
power industry. That means that
no matter why an accident
occurs, nuclear power compan
ies must pay the claims. The
second provision limits the total
amount of liability of a utility
resulting from accident claims.
Although the two provisions
are typically thought of as trade
offs no-fault liability for
Vicki Ruhga, Editor, 472-1766
Thorn Gabrukiewicz, Managing Editor
Ad Hudler, Editorial Page Editor
James Rogers, Editorial Associate
Chris Welsch, Copy Desk Chief
combined vote on the NU Board
of Regents. Spire struck down
the idea, saying that it violated
the "equal protection" clause of
the 14th Amendment and the Ne
braska constitution.
Thus, ASUN's only "power" is to
serve as an effective lobby for
UNL students and improve cam
pus environment. For example,
former ASUN president Matt
Wallace improved Student Legal
Services and worked to keep
Love Library open on football
Saturdays.
Yet some of last year's candi
dates promised to work for bene
fits they couldn't deliver. One
party promoted a satellite regis
tration program that would ena
ble students to register for
classes in their advisers' offices.
Others vowed to work for a
student recreation center or a
professional lobbyist for UNL
students, according to the March
12, 1985, Daily Nebraskan.
If ASUN parties want to serve
students, they should concen
trate on being powerful, articu
late advocates for UNL students.
To do this, parties must acti
vely seek input from students. In
the last two years, many ASUN
officials tended to explain UNL
administrators' positions, rather
than listen to students.
In some cases, administrators
and students will agree. But
ASUN should not quickly jump to
administrators' conclusions.
Instead of playing the politi
cal games of professional politi
cians, UNL candidates should
work for concrete goals they can
accomplish.
ener
limited liability in this day of
widespread court-imposed strict
liability in product liability suits,
the nuclear power industry takes
upon itself little added cost by
agreeing to be held liable irres
pective of fault. Any trade-off is
tipped heavily in favor of indus
try interests.
At the heart of the pro-Price-Anderson
position is a funda
mental non-sequitur: If, as the
industry claims, nuclear power
is a safe energy alternative, then
liability limits are unnecessary.
On the other hand, if nuclear
energy is so unsafe that insu
rance costs would price the
energy source out of the market,
why do we take the risk at all?
In this situation the free mar
ket will provide for a correct
accounting of the costs and bene
fits. Liability limits, such as exist
in Price-Anderson, are a form of
anti free market regulation. The
fear at the heart of the nuclear
power industry's plea for govern
ment protection is that it simply
can't make it in a less regulated
market. It's time to let the big
boys fend for themselves and
refuse to continue Price-Anderson.
ik p " fill I ffP
VZWl 1 THE PRESIDtNTj T, V-f JM 1 1 , ; i7
T 23? ' v s & i hi?
.N. resolution raises
Security Council
Last week, the United States vetoed
a U.N. Security Council resolution
that condemned the Israeli action
bringing down a private jet that Israel
wrongly believed carried Palestinian
terrorists. The U.N. institutional arran
gements surrounding such votes remain
quite amorphouse to most Americans
as does the entier U.N. structure.
On the eve of the 19th annual
Nebraska Model United Nations, it
seems useful to reflect upon the insti
tution behind the news. Irrespective of
one's attitude toward the United
Nations in general, the organization
represents an international forum that
can be ignored only at the cost of being
malinformed.
The general legislative body of the
United Nations is the General Assem
bly, which consists of all U.N. members
more than 150 countries. Because of
its size, the General Assembly is rela
tively unwieldly and only meets in reg
ular annual sessions and for special
sessions.
Thus, according to the U.N. Charter,
in order "to ensure prompt and effec
tive action" by the United Nations, the
Security Council is vested with "prim
ary responsibility for the maintenance
of international peace and security."
So powerful is this investiture that the
charter prohibits the General Assem
bly from making "any recommendation
with regard to a dispute or situation"
the council is reviewing "unless the
Security Council so requests."
The emineil itself is made nn nf IS
member-states. Five of these nations
. r
are permanent members of the body.
They are the United States, the Soviet
Union, China, France and Great Britain.
The other 10 nations are selected with
reference to national peacekeeping
prominence and equal geographical
distribution.
There are two types of proposals that
the Security Council can vote on. The
first are "decisions . . .on procedural
matters" that can be approved by an
mmiuauvc vine ui any nine memDers.
The second type are termed "other
matters" by the charter and require
nine affirmative votes including the
"concurring votes of the permanent
members." This is the basis of the veto
power that the United States exercised
McMahon not worst model for kids
For the past couple of days, I've
been pondering whether I would
like my kids to have grown up to
be like Jim McMahon, the Chicago
Bears quarterback.
The question arose because of some
scathing remarks made about McMa
hon by Joe Theismann, the star quar
terback of the Washington Redskins.
Theismann doesn't like M:Mahon's
flaunting of headbands and his casual
attitude toward the sacred game of pro
vetoes, hinge on defining procedures
last week with respect to the Israeli
action.
That is, if any of the five permanent
members of the council votes "no" on a
non-procedural motion, it fails, irres
pective of the number of affirmative
votes given the proposal by the other
council members.
Consequently, the question of what
constitutes a procedural matter be
comes one of some importance.
First, there are a central core of
obviously procedural matters. These
were first set down in 1945 by four of
the current permanent council mem
bers in what is known as the "San
Francisco Statement." I was informed
by Mr. Rosenstock, Chief Legal Counsel
for the U.S. mission to the United
Nations, that several other types of
proposals have since joined the list of
obviously procedural matters.
Jim
Rogers
These decisions, according to Good
rich, Hambro and Simons in their sem
inal work on the U.N. Charter, include:
order ana determent ot agenda items;
rulings of the council's president; meet
ing recesses and adjournment; imita
tions to participate in council proceed
ings issued to nrn-pminril mom hare.
j '
ueuuuigiu no longer Deseizeawitn an
issue; and "Uniting for Peace" sessions.
The status of some actions, however,
is still un in thp
cated that Council-sponsored "fact
finding" missions, if they "didn't prej
udice the answer," still have an indeter
minate status one which the council
would have to decide itself.
Given the currently narrow con
struction of what constitutes a "Dro-
j in , , .
-r ... i.vuviujvvA mm-
ceaurai matter, almost every action,
such as that condemning Israel for last
week's attack, s consirlprprl nnliti!
and therefore can be vetoed. There are
those who question the traditional
reasoning.
First, the "San Francisco Statement"
itself held that "the requirement for
unanimity of the permanent members
fessional football.
"If it weren't for football," Theis-
Mike
Royko
mann said, "he'd be some yo yo out
YU
if Y
meie unnKing Deer.
i ill E
questions
cannot prevent any member of the
Council from reminding the Members
of the Organization of their general
obligations assumed under the Charter
as regards peaceful settlement of inter
national disputes." Thus, if last week's
resolution simply reminded Israel of
charter prohibitions (assuming Israel
would be deemed to have broken these
prohibitions in the charter), the vote
could have been arguably merely pro
cedural and hence, not subject to U.S.
veto.
Beyond this recognized proviso, how
ever, is a 1974 U.N. special report on
"Modernizing the Security Council"
published by the U.N. Commission to
Study the Organization of Peace. The
commission argued that only actions
taken in response to actual threats to
international peace can be vetoed
(those are resolutions based on Chap
ter VII of the charter), while all resolu
tions urging the merely peaceful re
solving of disputes (under charter
Chapter VI) should be considered mere
ly procedural, and thus, not capable of
being vetoed.
Nonetheless, knowing the United
Nations' propensity for semantic ex
uberance, the resolution condemning
the Israeli action was probably within
the sphere of Chapter VII and therefore
was probably capable of being vetoed
under even the most stringent revision
ist interpretation of "other matters."
Additionally, Rosenstock clearly in
dicated that the U.S. would not tolerate
any tampering with the present Secur
ity Council veto system and I pre
sume the Soviets have a similarly dim
view of losinc the nnssibilitv of casting
a ucaiuiv iiu un niaiij vuuuvn
a aeatniy no on many
proposals.
Well, as with any political institu
tion and the United Nations is
purely a political institution we
quickly enter the realm of pedantry.
But given the widely divergent views
represented on the council, the current
process pedantic excesses included
is the only reasonable basis for
nations to bind together and act when
a consensus among powerful nations is
present. The marginal advantage seems
worth the cost.
Rogers is a UNL graduate student in
economics, a law student, and Daily
Nebraskan editorial assistant.
Rt MfMahnn's wnrct nffpnse. Th JlS-
mann said, is that his eccentric behav
ior could set a bad example for young
people.
". . . There is a responsibility to the
youth. What he doesn't realize is that
kids look up to him. Maybe he doesn't
care."
And he Diouslv concluded: "I sure
wouldn't want my kids growing up like
him.'
See ROYKO on 5
