Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 19, 1991)
Eric Pfamer, Editor.. 472-1766 Bob Nelson, Editorial Page Editor Victoria Ayotte, Managing Editor j«na Pedersen, Associate News Editor Emily Rosenbaum, Associate News Editor Diane Brayton, Copy Desk Chief Brian Shellito, Art Director Apartheid Repeal of laws won’t end inequality South African President F.W. de Klerk, with the help of sanctions from the international community, has begun dismantling apartheid. Already, the pass laws and mixed marriage laws have been repealed. De Klerk has promised the removal of remaining apartheid legislation, which includes the Group Areas Act, the Land Act and the Population Registration Act. If the remaining apartheid laws are removed, European Community foreign ministers have promised to lift sanctions against the country. The U.N. anti-apartheid committee rightly calls the EC’s offer to remove sanctions premature. It is urging the EC and all nations to continue economic sanctions until South Africa adopts a new constitution. A new constitution would have to ensure racial equality, such as voting rights, to all blacks, a move that most assuredly 2 would bring the collapse of the white-minority government. Pretoria, by allowing a new constitution, would slit its own : throat. Ana even with constitutional Ireedoms, economic opprcs s sion against blacks still would continue. Years of apartheid | have left most of the black majority poor and uneducated. One example: Blacks could have the right to buy land, but not the means. In many people’s minds — especially many black leaders’ — the only solution to land inequities is the redistribution of property by the state, which would leave the dourttfy’s agricultural infrastructure at the mercy of novice producers and distributors. Such redistribution has caused massive famines in communist countries. In a nutshell, the problems of South Africa will not end with the end of apartheid, or even with a new constitution. Gaining | equality in South Africa will be a painful and bloody process, one that very easily could plunge the country into chaos for decades. Those laying sanctions against South Africa must realize this also. The U.N. ami-apartheid committee is right in calling for sanctions until a new constitution is written. But by making that call, the world also must be willing to help South Africa through the ensuing debacle, perhaps with earmarked funds. By financially supporting black integration into a constilu I tionally egalitarian society once the political apparatus of | apartheid is tom down, the United Nations can help ensure a | viable future for South Africa, with true freedom for all its I people. The United Nations, with the promise of support, also could quell many of the fears of Pretoria that may block a new constitution. The world must be willing to continue punishing human rights violators, but it also needs to offer them viable altema | fives. Panama and many other countries have suffered from | punishment without rehabilitation. South Africa should not be forced to suffer that fate. — B.N. -LETTERS tTh°e EDITOR Defacing property not a right I am responding to the letter writ ten by a group of University of Ne braska-Lincoln graduates (DN, Feb. 18). Respecting others’ opinions is part of being an American. You and I may not agree with what someone else docs or says, but it is a constitu tional right to think freely and to act freely (within the limits of the law), just as it is a constitutional right to disagree with another’s thoughts and actions. Defacing public property wilh spray paint is not protected under the First Amendment, nor is it protected by any laws by which our nation is gov erned. Seeing the spray-painted side walks on campus, my first reaction was “Whai an idiot!” This was not a result of what was said but more by the tact, or lack thereof, that was used. Did he honestly think that ac tion this shallow would influence the way students thought about the gulf crisis? If there were no other results, it did provide a ‘‘negative label” to anyone who opposes die war. Chances are, students will think this is how the majority of protesters act. “Desperate measures” is right; I personally choose to ignore desperation. To encourage vandalism by rewarding actions, such as the paintings, with support is abso lutely absurd. I doubt Mr. Chandler would appreciate 25,000 students (or even one or two) going to his place of residency with a can of spray paint forcing on him their opinions, but this is exactly what he did by painting the campus. You and I may think what we want; whether we agree or disagree, 1 will respect your thoughts. 1 am proud to that I am a member of the Nebraska Air Guard. Every night before I sleep, I think about the war and every morning when 1 awake it is the first thing on my mind. Along with being a member of the military, I also have many friends in the gulf. Please do not tell me how and what to think and most of all, do not tell me to “think about it!” You and I may act and react the way we want, whether it be tasteful or not, but please abide by die laws and alibw me to enjoy my rights as an American! May there be peace in the world! Richard Naughtin junior business . m if,-*. LISA UUNUVAN Go all the way or stay home I took the yellow scarf off my backpack today. There’s no use in being a hypocrite. All the rhetoric in the world won’t justify it — there’s no possible way to be against die war and support the troops. The night the war broke out I spoke with a man whose son is stationed in the Persian Gulf. He said that if there were one thing he didn’t like about the war, it was some of the attitudes here at home. He said he was tired of turning on the television and seeing all the war protesters. In a nutshell, he said that the only way Operation Desert Storm would be successful was if we backed the troops and their cause. And the only way to support their cause was to support Operation Desert Storm. Anything else would translate into a stinging kick in the pants. For more than a month that con versation has been bothering me. I’ve struggled with understanding that it is not the fault of the soldiers that George Bush thinks armed conflict is the only way to protect our interests in the Middle East. i vc aiso wresuea wun me narsn reality that these people for various and extenuating reasons chose to play a part in a war machine. And I’ve come to the realization that because I’m against the war in the Persian Gulf — and war in gen eral, for that matter —^1 don’t support the troops. At least f don’t support their mission. Don’t get me wrong. There isn’t a day that goes by when I don’t think about the soldiers in the Middle East. I’ve even caught myself praying for their safe and expedient return. But I think I lose sight of myself when 1 get caught up in the news reports that tell of successful allied bombing raids. What the hell is a successful bomb raid? Should it be applauded? Compassion for humanity often takes a back seat when the line is drawn and it’s us vs. them. But I can’t fathom how anyone could find it rewarding to watch footage of Iraqi civilians walking over scorched rubble they once called home. But even I had succumbed to the The Persian Gulf conflict so far has churned out a bunch of war phi losophv from Iks, left. but it is noth ing more than pol liti£ally_ correct bullshit that trans lates into hypoc risy. war mentality. I had begun to adopt the idea that there was no use in protesting our troops being over there, that it was better to lake a stand on air war or ground war. But this is warped. We’re talking about human lives, and that is exactly why I can’t support the troops — I don’t want them, the Iraqis or anyone else to die. The Persian Gulf conflict so far has churned out a bunch of war phi losophy from the left, but it is nothing more than politically correct bullshit that translates into hypocrisy. It’s time that people felt comfort able coming out for or against the war without qualifications like: “I’m against the war, but I support the troops” or “I’m for Operation Desert Storm, but I think that once this con flict is over the United Stales ought to look at more diplomatic ways to re solve problems in international pol icy.” The problem with the qualified support or protestis that is doesn’t do any good. Tum oct the television or read the Sunday papers: The vast majority of troops don’t want people saying they support them and protest the war. The troops are conducting the war. Sup port to many of them means they want U.S. civilians to say ‘‘go out there and kick some bootic.” What I’m trying to figure out is what the pro-troops, anti-war protest ers support. If they support the troops’ efforts, and the soldiers are stuck in a war, then that adds up to pro-troops and pro-war. If they support the safe return of the troops, that’s just plain stupid, because no one, barring the enemy, would argue against that. I remember concluding my inter view with the man who had a son in the Middle East. He talked about how war protesters didn’t appreciate what his son and the rest of the U.S. troops were fighting for. He said the troops were fighting to protect the freedoms U.S. citizens enjoy, and that no one should be against that. unioriunatciy, mis logic is nawco. If he believes that the troops are fight ing for our constitutional rights, he should realize that freedom of speech is one of those rights. In fact, he could argue that the war protesters arc morons, because they don’t realize that war sets them free. But anyone who adopts that logic only uses it as a way of blocking out the real debate — beyond whether to support the troops — of whether it’s right to fight a foreign war amid seri ous domestic crises. Instead debating that issue, Ameri- t cans will wear their yellow ribbons and wait. I can’t help but think about Charles Ktirall, talking on “America Tonight” about how yellow, once a color and symbol of cowardice, now represents hope and honor. And hy pocrisy. Donovan is a senior news-editorial ma jor. a Daily Nebraskan senior reporter, col umnist and supplements editor. --LETTER POLICE The Daily Nebraskan wel comes brief letters to the editor from all readers. Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeli ness and space availability. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit letters. Letters should be typewritten and less than 500 words. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Letters should include the author’s name, ad dress, phone number, year in school and group affiliation, if any. Submit material to the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588 0448.
