Reparations argument faulty
Why am I not surprised that the Daily Bruin Editorial Board
jumps at the chance to rave and rant for “reparations”
(“U.S.
must give slave reparations for justice,” Viewpoint, Feb.
4)? The arguments for reparations just do not add up, primarily
because slavery ended well over a century ago with no living slaves
or slave owners around.
The editorial board assumes that the economic situation of today
and modern-day people are directly related to what happened
economically in the mid-19th century. This conveniently ignores
that the economic wealth of this nation was through the
industrialized North, which led the charge against slavery! Even if
the wealth of this nation was due to the economic sphere that
utilized slavery, which it isn’t, then you can correlate
economic prosperity today with economic prosperity over a hundred
years ago. There is no way to show, if slavery was not present,
that none of a slave owners descendants would have accumulated
wealth on their own.
The argument that since many blacks suffered slavery in the past
that all blacks suffer from it today is completely unverifiable,
since there can be discrimination and bigotry without slavery. It
must also be noted that many other racial and ethnic groups
suffered discrimination and bigotry in the past, yet have done
fairly well in the present.
If you can find a former slave, or slave owner who is alive
today, then you can argue about reparations. Until then, advocates
of reparations have no ground to stand on.
Daniel B. Rego Alumnus Class of 200
Doesn’t anyone support U.S.?
Wednesday’s paper must be the most anti-American and
anti-President Bush I have ever seen. I would first like to reply
to Mohammad Mertaban (“U.S.
sanctions destroy lives of innocent, Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Feb. 6) that the only person to blame for the plight of
“innocent” Iraqis is Saddam Hussein. Under
Hussein’s dictatorship, Iraq has suffered because he
spends most of the country’s income to build up his military.
Giving free aid to Iraqis would only benefit Hussein’s cause.
It’s funny how the international community condemns the U.S.
for not helping Iraq, but again condemns the U.S. when it makes a
gesture to eliminate Hussein. Catch-22?
The editorial (“President’s
actions not Nobel worthy,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb.
6) states that the president’s actions are not Nobel worthy.
I totally agree. Bush only started an international campaign toward
stopping terrorists around the globe in order to promote peace and
political stability. And with a terrorist named Yasser Arafat
receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, Bush certainly deserves no
such prize.
As for the
Q&A with the member of the Muslim Student Association
(Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb. 6), I ask you to remember last year
when they had an “Anti-Zionist Week.” Though it has
been renamed “Islamic Awareness Week,” when Muslims
claim Islam is a religion of peace and a Muslim college group had a
week dedicated to opposing a specific community of people, what am
I to think?
James Kim Second-year Business economics
Iraqis should demand change from Hussein, not
America
The picture painted by Mohammad Mertaban (“U.S.
sanctions destroy lives of innocents,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Feb. 6) is a sad one to be sure, although slanted and
devoid of a few critical facts.
The suffering of the Iraqi people is the fault of one man,
although this man lives in Baghdad, not in Washington. There can be
no doubt that the blame for Iraq’s current situation falls
completely on Saddam Hussein. The sanctions began in 1990 when Iraq
invaded Kuwait. Upon the conclusion of the Gulf War, the United
Nations enacted Resolution 687 in April 1991. This resolution
called for a blanket embargo with the exception of food and medical
supplies. Contrary to Mertaban’s claim, the terms of the
sanction do allow for humanitarian supplies, although all imports
require approval of the U.N. sanctions committee.
Additionally, the resolution provides the terms under which the
sanctions will be lifted, most of which insure the complete
dismantling of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons, as well as its long-range ballistic missiles. The
sanctions could end tomorrow if Hussein would submit to the terms
that he agreed to upon the Iraq surrender at the end of the Gulf
War.
It is also important to note that although the sanctions against
Iraq are the longest standing sanctions in the history of the U.N.,
under better stewardship the money that the Iraqi government takes
in from oil sales could feed the people. The only reason people are
starving is that Hussein has other goals for his country.
Unfortunately, most of these goals involve the development of his
power and prestige. While his people starve, Saddam is building new
palaces for himself, constructing mosques named in his honor, and
buying cars for his military officers (through black market
channels).
It should be clear that the reason for the continuing sanctions
is two-fold. First, lifting the sanctions removes all leverage the
U.N. has to force the dismantling of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction. Second, restoring Hussein’s economic power would
allow him to build his military, unchecked by the U.N. or the
coalition.
The anger felt for the suffering of the Iraqi people should be
directed at Hussein and should hopefully one day lead to his
removal from power. On that day, in answering Mertaban’s
closing question, will most likely be the day on which the
suffering of the Iraqi people ends.
Kevin Williams Graduate student Chemistry and
biochemistry