Opinion
i -
Jana Pedersen, Editor, 472-1766
Eric Pfanner, Editorial rage Editor
Diane Braylon, Managing Editor
Walter Gholson, Columnist
Paul Domcier, Copy Desk Chief
Brian Shclliio, Cartoonist
Michael Stock, Columnist
Two steps back
Setbacks plague Middle East peace
President Bush said Thursday that the world was on “the
brink of a historic breakthrough” that could lead to a
Middle East peace conference.
But if past headlines are any indication, the world is no
closer to Middle East peace today than it ever has been.
Since the defeat of Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait, talk of a
Middle East peace conference has drifted on and off the front
pages of newspapers around the world.
Each story tells of new breakthroughs to bring negotiators
closer to the bargaining table. Or of new setbacks to push them
further away.
A peace conference sounds simple enough. Leaders of the
quarrelling Middle East states would meet to talk out their
differences. The rest of the world would wait with halted breath
for a happy ending.
But for Muslims, Jews and Christians, for Palestinians,
Israelis, Arabs, Americans and others, nothing is so simple.
Each player in the possible peace conference brings along a
history’s worth of conflict with other players. Each conflict
requires the settlement of grievances that have festered at least
for decades.
Ironing out the chtrerences will he no easy cnore, especially
with new wrinkles developing daily.
Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir an
nounced plans to move forward with building settlements for
Jewish Russian immigrants in the occupied territories.
Thursday, Bush countered with a veto threat to delay action
on an Israeli request for $10 billion in loans to move forward
with immigrant housing developments. Shamir responded by
saying the United States was morally obligated to provide the
loans.
This week also saw Israel release Palestinian prisoners, a
move that seemed to be a gesture of truce.
But Palestinians said Thursday that the gesture is too small.
One step forward. Two steps back.
Bush may believe the world is teetering on the brink of
resolving the crisis in the Middle East, but it will take more
than threats and hostage peddling to tip the scales toward
i peace.
1
Reader applauds column,
supports unpopular opinion
I would like to applaud Chuck
Green for his tell-it-likc-it-is column
(“Double standards need burial,” DN,
Sept. 11,1991) on double standards.
I am not a white male, but I am fully
aware of the abundance of reverse
prejudice in our society. The “only
white males can be sexist, racist, etc.”
attitude is tiring and really needs to be
put to rest. People need to lighten up
and not be so quick themselves to
throw around labels such as “preju
diced” and “sexist” based on some
one’s skin color or gender. They are
being just as sexist and prejudiced
themselves by doing so, as Green has
pointed out.
I often feel uncomfortable about
having white skin and being some
what conservative because people will
automatically assume that I am racist
or prejudiced. This is not right. I do
not feel that there is any justification
for these automatic judgments other
than that they are the socially accept
able attitude to have right now.
Green’s opinion is definitely not a
popular one, nor is it very trendy. For
that reason, he has my respect and,
I’m sure, that of many others.
Juli Inness
junior
speech communications
Old American perspective
changing for the better
It is interesting to note the number
of cynics there are in the world today.
The situation with the Soviet Un
ion is a perfect example. Last Thurs
day, columnist Paul Domeier told us
that we shouldn’t “get swept up in the
moment” and “lose our perspective.”
For the last 40 years, the perspec
tive that Americans have been living
with could keep the most negative
cynics on Cloud 9 permanently. The
perspective has been that the Soviet
Union is an evil monarchy cloaked in
communism, that it is hell-bent on
keeping itself afloat and would be
willing to destroy the world to do so.
For the first time in a long time, the
skeptics are being proven wrong. The
American people aren’t stupid. They
realize the reasons for all the changes
in the Soviet Union. We aren’t ex
cited because the Soviet Union is
turning into another America. We are
excited because, for the first time, we
are being given the opportunity to
grasp onto an identity of a people that
is good, rather than evil or anything
else; and that for the first time in 40
years, we are given the peace of mind
in knowing that there may be a chance
that someday we will be able to wake
up and know that we don’t have the
potential of destroying the world and
ourselves at any moment.
Chris Halligan
arts and sciences
senior
W 30K^G
^iom com?
(MUTWROW
1HKT OMt
I 3KCK /
CHRIS POTTER
U.S. leading world, not nation
Three years of successful for
eign policy and lucky happen
stance have wrenched the United
States from Cold War stalemate and
thrust it into a period of indisputable
world leadership.
But a nation’s world leadership
entails a double burden. One burden
is to lead the world. The other is to
lead the nation. President Bush and
Congress, undeniably successful in
foreign policy, have failed to provide
solutions to the most pressing con
cerns of the people right here in
Down home, USA.
This is not to take away from the
role the United Stales played in some
of the most remarkable events in the
20th century. First came the anti
communist revolutions in Eastern
Europe. Then came the decisive U.S.
response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait
despite the dithering of other nations.
Now comes the most important of
all recent foreign events, the political
and economic collapse of the Soviet
Union. The Soviet collapse leaves the
United States as the sole heir to world
power. As one seasoned observer put
it, “the center of world power is the
unchallenged superpower, the United
States.”
Before gloating over world para
mountcy, however, Americans should
examine the state of affairs in their
own country. They should also exam
ine the domestic costs of sustaining
that paramountcy.
After all, nationalism and economic
collapse, not U.S. foreign policy, led
to the failure of communism in East
ern Europe and the Soviet Union.
And our own economic crisis forced
us to depend largely on other coun
tries for the cash to carry out Desert
Storm.
Democrats have seized on Presi
dent Bush’s lack of a serious domes
A nation’s world
leadership entails, a
double, burden. One
burden is to lead the
world. The other is to
lead the nation •
tic policy as their main campaign
issue. But the fact is that the predomi
nantly Democratic Congress, too, has
failed to provide comprehensive and
long-term solutions to domestic woes.
Obsessed with re-election, lawmak
ers have largely abdicated their re
sponsibilities to the president.
Even a brief listing of pressing
domestic issues, each calling for
decisive leadership, would crowd the
page. A partial list would include the
environment, the national deficit, the
recession, AIDS, Social Security,
affirmative action, abortion, the Sav
ings and Loan bail out, the BCCI
scandal, poverty, education, drugs,
the legal litigation explosion, NASA’s
troubles, gang violence, health care,
crime and racial conflict.
On virtually every one of these
issues, Bush and Congress have taken
a laisscz fairc altitude when many
actually require a program on the
order of FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s
Great Society.
Instead of creating such programs,
Congress and the president have re
sorted to what amounts to little more
than chcerlcading. Bush proclaims
that he is the environment president,
the education president and the crime
president, as if such proclamations I
alone will resolve these issues. His M
“Thousand Points of Light” volun- <
leer program is noble in conception
but sadly insufficient in execution.
Behind their failure to create the
massive governmental programs
necessary to address domestic issues
is a fairly obvious reason: They cost
taxpayer money. Large government
programs lend to produce enormously
inefficient burcaucracies, black holes
into which money pours with little
visible result.
Bui the new world order, one in
which the risk of global superpower
warfare is virtually nil, allows the
United States a solution to scarce
funds. One of the massively ineffi
cient bureaucracies currently in place
can be reduced radically. Congress
and the president must rechannel
money from the defense department
toward new domestic programs.
How many families mired in pov
erty could be fed for the cost of one
defense department toilet seal? How
many Americans could receive ade
quate health care for the cost of one
defense department airplane? How
many endangered species could be
saved for the cost of one defense
department tank?
A nation’s international leadership
ultimately depends on its domestic
strength. The Soviet Union recently
has given dramatic proof of that truth.
If the United Slates is to sustain its
newly acquired international role, d
must address domestic problems with
the same decisive and immediate action
with which it addresses foreign prob
lems.
Potter is a senior physics, philosophy, his
tory and math m«tJor and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
-LETTER POLICY
-EDITORIAL POLICE
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
readers.
Letters will be selected for publi
cation on the basis of clarity, origi
nality, timeliness and space avail
able. The Daily Nebraskan retains
the right to edit all material submit
ted.
Anonymous submissions will not
be considered for publication. Let
ters should include the author’s
name, year in school, major and
group affiliation, if any. Requests to
withhold names will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
Si., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
Signed staff editorials represent
the official policy of the Fall 1991
Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the
Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its
members arc: Jana Pedersen, editor;
Eric Pfanner, editorial page editor;
Diane Brayton, managing editor;
Walter Gholson, columnist; Paul
Domcier copy desk chief; Brian
ahcllilo, cartoonist; Michael Slock,
columnist.
Editorials do not necessarily re
flect the views of the university, its
employees, the students or the NU
Board of Regents.
Editorial columns represent the
opinion of the author.
The Daily Nebraskan’s publishers
arc the regents, who established the
UNL Publications Board to super
vise the daily production of the pa
per.
According to policy set by the re
gents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely
in the hands of its students.
