The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 78, No. 24, Ed. 1 Friday, February 8, 1991 Page: 3 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1991 3
Stockwell's paranoid theories no more true than establishment
To the editors:
Along with around 40 other Rice
students, I attended John Stockwell's
talk on United States foreign policy,
given on January 30, 1991. Appar-
ently, Mr. Stockwell, largely due to
his experience with the Central In-
telligence Agency, has become quite
a popular speaker on the Gulf crisis.
In fact, that night ABC News dedi-
cated a few minutes to exclusively
cover his speech at the University of
Houston.
Mr. Stockwell argued that the
United States was a "permanent war
complex," constantly engaged in
pointless destabilization of peaceful
nations to fulfill its "nationalpsyche."
Ultimately, in accordance with this
system, the United States must go to
war approximately every fifteen
years. He argued that incidents such
as Pearl Harbor (which the president
and top military leaders supposedly
knew of in advance) and the Gulf of
Tonkin are actually orchestrations
by hidden power structures seeking
to manipulate public opinion to sup-
port a war effort
In terms of the Persian Gulf, Mr.
Stockwell asserted that the C.I A
provoked Kuwaiti economic aggres-
sion against Iraq and deliberately
gave Saddam Hussein a green light
to attack Kuwait This was all part of
yet another ploy to orchestrate an
incident to provide a war and satisfy
the American craving.
I believe that Mr. Stockwell cor-
rectly points to past excesses and
errors in United States foreign policy,
such as U.S. policy in Cambodia in
the 70s and U.S. military assistance
to U.N.I.T.A. in Angola (where he
headed a C. IA mission in the 1970s.)
However, there was at least one per-
son in his audience that believed his
point to be overclaimed and U.S.
policies to stand for something be-
yond unnecessary repression and
suffering.
Initially, Mr. Stockwell admitted
to having "no patent on the truth,"
and recommended a Cartesian style
of doubt for anyone exposed to offi-
cial media engineered by the hidden
power structure. He proceeded to
claim that this power prepares
Americans for war from childhood,
using cartoons like "He-man" and
"Thundercats" to introduce ideas of
good guys being forced to stand up to
and defeat evil. Movies like "Rambo"
and "Red Dawn" are the next stage of
this propaganda machine, involving
agents ranging from producers to
political figures who glorify war and
manipulate public opinion to support
it Meanwhile, social and economic
problems are swept under the rug by
this fever of militancy. Finally, he
advised the audience to avoid such
programming by the system, and,
instead, "to program ourselves," us-
ing a list of books that "uncover the
truth behind U.S. foreign policy."
My first reaction would be to ap-
ply this Cartesian doubt to his as-
serted truth-statements. Are we vic-
tims of a silent struggle mastered by
immoral, profit-hungry agents of
power? As Dr. Von der Mehden of
the Rice political science department
points out the media in postwar Ja-
pan has glorified violence to a level
far beyond that of the United States,
but relatively low violent crime rates
and agenerally pacifistic international
posture seem to argue against social
correlations based on this fact It is
also difficult to completely discount
as propaganda reports that the United
States continues to lead the world in
aggregate and per-capita wealth and
productivity. Furthermore, the con-
cealed nature of these structures
seems to follow the lines of most
conspiracy theories; that is, the
dearth of apparent evidence indicates
that the conspiracy has been that
much more successful in hiding it I
wonder if an even simpler approach
would be to discount the conspiracy
altogether and look at U.S. media
and foreign policy as unique but im-
perfect elements of our society. His
recommendation for self-program-
SEE CIA, PAGE 6
Former editor labels Thresher opinion on war 'one-sided'
To the editors:
When I returned to the Rice cam-
pus in the fall I was pleasantly sur-
prised to see the emergence of two
new publications produced by the
student body. The impressive news-
paper of the Rice Women's Alliance
as well as The Rice Sentinel help to
remedy, I believe, a problem that has
existed on campus for some time: the
monopoly the Thresher (my former
employer) had as an outlet for writ-
ten presentations of issues within the
hedges. The campus benefits when
diverse voices are given an outlet to
express ideas and opinions within
the community.
But the fact that other outlets ex-
ist does not negate the responsibility
the Thresher has to provide a forum
for differing voices on crucial issues.
Kurt Moeller's January 15 editorial
("The Least Bad Alternative") on the
Persian Gulf war presents, I believe,
a one-sided and misleading analysis,
and the lack of any opposing view-
points on the pages of that issue of
the newspaper is disappointing and
alarming.
One does not have to be a pacifist
or an isolationist to question how the
United States managed to lead the
world into this war. Mr. Moeller
suggests that Saddam Hussein bears
complete responsibility for the de-
struction of the Middle East, and
though Hussein's dictatorship bears
the vast majority of blame, our own
government's continuing ineptitude
also led to this conflict <
President Bush and Secretary of
State Baker would like us to believe
thatHussein's invasion of Kuwaitwas
unexpected, and that we are merely
responding to a threat to the sover-
eignty of the other nations in the
region. But our government, while
attempting to appease Hussein in the
months preceding his assault on the
neighboring nation, looked the other
way while he assassinated a British
journalist and attempted to annihilate
the Kurdish population in his coun-
try. When Hussein hinted that he
was having a border dispute with
Kuwait Baker simply ignored the
situation.
The fact that the ThresherbeWeves
this is indeed a "just" war does not
mean that we should blindly follow
our government's justification for its
incomprehensible foreign policy.
Before the war, Hussein was our ally
because of his hatred of Iran; now,
President Assad of Syria, a man who
has also brutally murdered a large
portion of his population and who
continues to threaten the security of
the region, is our new ally. Is there
foreign policy present in any of this?
Should people be dying because of
Bush's "ally of the month" approach?
Mr. Moeller would like us to be-
lieve that Hussein is another Hitler,
and that right and wrong is as clearly
defined as it was during World War
II. That analogy is not only false —
Hussein has neither the military
power nor the debilitating philoso-
phy to threaten the safety of the world
—but also dangerous, for it blurs the
true conundrum which a situation
like this one present The war in the
Gulf will likely lead to thousands of
deaths without dealing with the di-
visions which will continue to tear
Vision of war ignores death, destruction
To the editors:
More than two weeks ago our
government gave us a vision of war;
an initial vision of the mighty power
of good defeating the weak forces of
evil, of triumphant jubilation, of the
simplicity of combat (a few thousand
sorties and good weather equals
victory). But this vision no longer
persists. As the number of casualties
and the length of the war increase,
we see this is no simple war. The
image-makers, assisted by the pub-
lic relations personnel in the Penta-
gon, show us pictures and charts of
strategies, soldiers, sand dunes, and
numbers, and we hear the pro-peace
and pro-war slogans across the
country and in our campus' halls.
However, I would like to offer another
vision, avision almost ignored by the
image-makers' news reports and the
policy-makers' plans of action: the
innocent victims of our carpet bomb-
ings and sorties, a people and a civi-
lization not housed in an almost im-
permeable bunker at the earth's
core. One of the ignored conse-
quences of this war is that we are
literally destroying a nation, a piece
of land that contains the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers (the Fertile Cres-
cent and the cradle of civilization).
We are destroying its power plants,
water supplies, and phone lines. Af-
ter Hussein is caught or killed, these
innocent civilians will have to rebuild
their nation, but many large pieces of
history (artifacts dating to the be-
ginning of recorded time) and culture
(buildings and paintings) will be ir-
replaceable. Lives are not the only
permanent losses in war. And a large
portion of this burden and blame will
fall on the Allies, as it did in Germany
and Japan.
I would like for you to place in
your mind the picture of your church,
mosque, or temple; your town's mu-
seum displaying valuable paintings
and artifacts; and your high school
gymnasium. Then picture your
kitchen: a cup of water under the
running faucet, the pot of soup on the
stove, the phone on the wall, and the
light switch. Now, completely clear
your mind of every one of these
thoughts. Let your mind become a
blank void, and I offer you my vision
of war.
Bobby Kapur
Hanszen College '93
Bush, Amnesty condemn Saddam
To the Editors:
As president of the Rice chapter
of Amnesty International, I was de-
lighted to read Doug Tancos' letter
to the editor last week('No Blood for
Oil'not sacred), in which he cited the
AI report oitelraqi President Saddam
Hussein. I look forward to seeing
him at our next letter-writing table at
the Pub, every Tuesday from 9-11
p.m. We certainly missed him at our
tables lastyear, when we wrote letters
condemning Hussein's use of
chemical weapons against the
Kurdish population in Iraq.
President Bush also did not seem
very interested at the time. But then
suddenly, last month, Bush wrote a
letter to college newspaper editors,
in which he also noted AI's documen-
tation of Iraqi atrocities. I wonder
why he has suddenly developed such
an interest in human rights violations,
at least in Iraq. Perhaps someday he
will be similarly moved by AI reports
on violations in Guatemala and El
Salvador, and no longer advocate
sending military aid to these coun-
tries' governments. Maybe if they
invaded Mexico and Venezuela and
took over their oil reserves.
President Bush and Tancos are
both right about one thing: the pro-
tection of human rights around the
world is an ideal that Americans hold
very dear, and are willing to work to
uphold. But I am truly astounded
that by citing AI statistics, Tancos
hopes to make anti-war protestors
appear unpatriotic. Not only were
many of us concerned about Saddam
Hussein long before Tancos, whom I
doubt could have named the leader
of Iraq before August, but unlike the
Bush administration, we* are now
devoting a great deal of time to ex-
posing human rights violations in
the U.S.S.R., against peaceful pro-
testors in Lithuania
In his new zeal for the protection
of human rights, I hope that Mr.
Tancos will perform what he clearly
sees as apatriotic duty, and join us at
AI meetings. If not I hope he will
stop crowing that selective morality
is an ethic that I, as an American, am
expected to uphold.
Sarah Leedy
Will Rice College '91
apart that region of the world. What
exactly will have changed in the
Middle East after we bomb Baghdad
into submission? This may be a war
which had to be fought, but by
painting Hussein as "evil" without
attempting to understand why he is
supported by a substantial portion of
the citizens of that region, we are
merely perpetuating this country's
tradition of ignoring the complexity
of other areas of the world for the
sake of appealing simplicity. We can
believe Hussein's action s are "wro ng"
without buying into the ludicrous idea
that every action of the United States
over the past few months is "right".
I'm pleased that the Thresher
continues to examines issues out-
side of the hedges. As students we
have the responsibility to look at the
world around us, and I'm glad that
Mr. Moeller is using his forum to
express his viewpoint. But we must
not shrink away from our duty to
SEE EXAMINATION, PAGE 6
Arab-Israel conflict not
related to Iraqi invasion
To the editors:
Since the beginning of the Gulf
Crisis, many people have attempted
to equate Saddam Hussein's occu-
pation of Kuwait with Israel's occu-
pation of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip. The American government has
rejected this linkage with excellent
reasons. It is necessary to have a
minimal knowledge of the Israeli-
Arab conflict to better grasp the
fallacity of the comparison.
The occupation of Kuwait results
from an aggressive Iraqi invasion.
The occupation of the West Bank
and the Gaza Strip is the result of
Israel defending itself against Egypt,
Syria and Jordan in 1967. Israel won
the "Six-Day War" in 1967 and cap-
tured the territories of the W est Bank,
the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights,
and the Sinai during this war fought
in self-defense.
From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank
was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza
Strip by Egypt When combatagainst
Egypt started, Israel sent a message
through the United Nations to King
Hussein of Jordan who at that time
ruled over the West Bank. In the
message Israel told King Hussein
that if he were to stay out of the
conflict no harm would be inflicted
upon his country. King Hu ssein wrote
himself in his autobiography that he
rejected what was a peace offer
handed to him.
He attacked Israel too. Israel de-
fended itself in 1967; Iraq attacked in
pure self-interest in 1990. Therefore
the UN approached each situation
differently. In the case of Israel, UN
Resolution 242 recognized that
Israel's presence in the territories
was the result of a war forced upon it
by its hostile neighboring states. The
resolution therefore legitimized
Israel's presence in the territories
until the Arabs made peace. But the
UN body did not grant any legiti-
macy to the Iraqi action.
Iraq annihilated Kuwait and called
itits 19th province. Israel never called
the territories its 19th province and
always said that their future was ne-
gotiable among the parties. Thus, at
the end of the 1967 war Israel offered
the Arab statesadeal: it would return
all the captured territories if the Arab
states agreed to recognize its right to
exist and made peace with her. This
offer was firmly rejected.
Iraq does not hold on to Kuwait
because it fears for its security; Israel
stays in the territories because itdoes.
Remember that Israel's close neigh-
bors are not Mexico and Canada, but
countries like Iraq, that did not hesi-
tate to destroy another Arab nation
this summer, and Syria, that killed
20,000 of its own'citizens in Hama.
Missiles sent from Iraq to Israel did
considerable damage.
We can imagine the deadly re-
sults if in the present situation Arab
nations and terrorist groups hostile
to Israelhad access to the West Bank,
10 miles from Tel-Aviv. Israel is sur-
rounded by 20 nations that still refuse
to recognize its right to exist and are
still formally at war against her. Even
the PLO covenant still calls for the
destruction of Israel, despite Yassir
Arafat's words of recognition for the
Jewish state in 1988.
The hatred for Israel is real and
creates security problems that ham-
per the creation of a Palestinian state
in the West Bank. The hatred is not
related to the occupation of the ter-
ritories.
In 1948, there were to be two
states, a Jewish and a Palestinian
state, and the Israelis welcomed this
British partition plan. But the Arab
states rejected it They attacked Is-
rael the day after a UN vote approved
of its creation, in the hope of throw-
ing the Jews into the sea. Israel won,
but Jordan kept the West Bank, and
Egypt kept the Gaza Strip, not for
security reasons, but destroying the
Palestinian dream of an independent
homeland.
Froml948to 1967these countries
did not make any effort to create a
Palestinian state. The PLO was
founded in 1964 in Kuwait during the
Arab occupation of the territories,
with as its main goal the destruction
of Israel. When the Arab states at-
tacked Israel in 1967, there was no
occupation excuse. The Arab-Israeli
conflict has much deeper cau ses than
the Palestinian issue. The Palestin-
ian problem is a complex one, and I
hope a solution will be reached one
day that will allow Israel and a Pales-
tinian state to live peacefully together,
like the 1947 partition plan wanted it.
However, Israel alone cannot
solve the problem. The Arab nations
must also work on solving it by ac-
cepting to negotiate directly with
Israel like Egypt did in 1979. If the
Arab nations really care about the
Palestinians, they must give Israel
the necessary peace and security
guarantees it needs. So far they have
shown no committment to the peace
process.
When Egypt and Israel made
peace in 1979, Israel returned the
Sinai to Egypt The other Arab na-
tions reacted to this peace progress
by severing their diplomatic relations
with Egypt for having recognized
Israel's right to exist (they were re-
stored last year only). Israel cannot
for its own survival leave the territo-
ries now, so long as the Arab nations
do not recognize the UN Resolution
accepting the creation of the state of
Israel. And this conflict has nothing
to do with the UN resolution asking
for Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait
Tania Glowinski
Will Rice College '92
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Moeller, Kurt & Yates, Jay. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 78, No. 24, Ed. 1 Friday, February 8, 1991, newspaper, February 8, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245775/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.