Letters to the Editor: 02.26.98
Language Of The Unheard
New York City
February 20, 1998
Dear Helen:
Regarding the current war hysteria being fomented regarding Iraq, thanks for continuing to offer us an oasis of sanity.
This is a time when Government officials are trying to reduce a country to a person, so that Iraq, with all of its people and history translated into "Saddam Hussein," are trying to promote the view of anticipated civilian deaths as bloodless "collateral damage" and even our own potential loss of life as a necessary incidental price.
And when practically no air time on the major networks is given to opposition statements, it is small wonder that frustrated students like those at Ohio State express their fears and outrage disruptively. We would do well to recall the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: "A riot is the language of the unheard."
Sincerely,
D.H. MELHEM
A Poor Track Record
East Hampton
February 23, 1998
To The Editor:
As the U.S. prepares to attack Iraq again it is necessary to review the history of the Gulf War to try and gain some perspective on the current situation.
Prior to the Gulf War Iraq and Saddam Hussein were our allies. They fought Iran with our support. They sold us petroleum. They were the recipients of billions of dollars in aid and arms sales. Hussein fought a brutal war with the Kurds with our support. He brutalized his people with our support. He was a cruel, inhuman dictator with our support.
When Iraq took over Kuwait, supposedly with our okay, it became our enemy. We simplified a complex relationship between the two countries into a case of unilateral aggression. Black and white, good guys and bad guys. (Like white men and Indians.)
We fight a war and are amazed at what we find. The second-biggest army in the world doesn't really exist. Its air force, elite guard, navy, etc., are all a fantasy. Iraq shoots four missiles into Israel and collapses. Virtual reality to unbelievable heights. We turn a war into a video game and nobody feels a thing. Darth Vader becomes Minnie Mouse. Except for 100,000 dead Iraqis and a few hundred dead allies, life goes on.
We analyze the war and realize that Iraq was not a military threat. (The East Hampton High School marching band could have taken over Kuwait.) We liberated Kuwait, an oil- producing, undemocratic ally with a subzero human rights rating. Hussein is still in power. Iraq is severely punished for its transgression, but life doesn't go on. Was the war a scam? Was it about something we didn't understand?
Five years later we have still not begun the rehabilitation of Iraq. Its people are starving and living in pain. We now say that Iraq is in violation of the United Nations resolution and must be punished for it. Iraq now poses a threat to world peace (weapons of mass destruction) and Saddam Hussein must be kicked out.
Weapons of mass destruction. We are the experts. The only one who ever used them is the U.S. Hiroshima and defoliation of Vietnam. If Iraq had them, Israel would be the target. Who really cares? Israel is our ally but our self-interest could change in six months. We know what Iraq has. Every country in the world is capable of producing these weapons.
Undemocratic dictators. It's hard to find one we haven't embraced. Pick a continent. From Franco to Noriega, Marcos to the Shah. Even Hitler was cool when he stayed at home. Do we have the right to intervene in another country's internal affairs? Our track record is poor.
On the other hand, it would be great to get Hussein out of Iraq, China out of Tibet, Khadafi out of Libya, and so on. What is absolutely unquestioned is that the United States is not the vehicle to bring these events to fruition. We don't have the leadership, understanding, experience, or the vision to handle this job. We are always motivated by financial and archaic political concerns.
We must look at ourselves in the mirror. What we see is a 3,000-pound gorilla who only likes other 3,000-pound gorillas. We don't deal well with anyone who isn't huge and hairy. The racism that we exhibit is profound and pervasive. We are great in the jungle but worthless at a conference table. We aren't really leadership material.
What becomes obvious is the need for an international body that has the authority to act. Something like the U.N. maybe. A body that doesn't allow for unilateral actions by its members. A body which we don't sabotage, pay our dues to, and support its initiatives for world peace (i.e., no land mines). It is the only viable solution to the problems in Iraq or anywhere else.
One of the great precepts of American political reality is that the people will believe anything twice. We are in the process of being done in again for a few barrels of oil and a couple of camels. It's time we stand up to our politicians and put an end to this lunacy. Where is Fay Wray when we need her?
NEIL HAUSIG
Who Is Guilty?
Montauk
February 14, 1998
Dear Helen:
While The Star editorial "To Eat or Not to Eat" (Feb. 5) stressed the complexity and difficulty of managing an international fishery, I feel it missed the point as to why many chefs and consumers are choosing to no longer serve swordfish: The resource is plummeting, and people who know the facts are making a moral choice not to participate in the destruction.
For 19 years the stock of North Atlantic swordfish has been declining at a precipitous rate. When put on graph paper, the stock level tracks along a 45-degree declining angle which, when extended, hits zero in 2005.
The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the organization which, according to the editorial, has "strict regulations," is the same organization that has mismanaged the fishery since the mid-'70s. (Would you trust a broker who has lost money 20 years straight?) Chefs and consumers who are boycotting swordfish are simply not willing to endorse failed policies.
The editorial also mentioned that "harvesters of North Atlantic swordfish have cut their production by 50 percent since 1989."
Well, if cutbacks have happened, it has not been for a lack of trying or slaughter. The number of U.S. longline hooks in the water increased from 6.5 million hooks in 1987 to 11.1 million hooks in 1995 (the last year numbers are available), or an increase of 70 percent.
The number of dead undersized discards has increased from 363 metric tons in 1992 to 589 tons in 1996 (that's about 40,000 fish). The insanity of the situation is underscored by the fact that nearly 90 percent of all female swordfish caught are not sexually mature, and have not had a chance to breed even once.
Of course ICCAT has never suggested raising the minimum weight to equal breeding weight. But that's because they know that longline fishermen cannot possibly control what bites on their hooks. (Longlining is more or less the ocean equivalent of hunting for deer with a string of land mines - there's no way to control what gets killed.)
Lastly, The Star editorial claimed that if the U.S. did not harvest its ICCAT share of swordfish, it would be reallocated to other nations. Not true, according to Dick Stone, former head of Highly Migratory Species for the National Marine Fisheries Service. The U.S. is free to use its allocation in any way it wants, including by not using it.
Chefs and consumers who are participating in "Give Swordfish a Break" have had enough of politics and promises. In "Killing Mr. Watson," Peter Matthiessen asks, "If no one is innocent, who then is guilty?"
Well, the old boys club that includes longline fishermen, ICCAT officials, and even a few of our government officials at N.M.F.S. would love to have everybody together in the same boat. But some people can no longer stomach the fish or the crew.
Sincerely,
BILL AKIN
P.S. Anyone interested in learning more about what is happening with the world's fisheries should read Carl Safina's amazing new book, "Songs for the Blue Ocean." For the first time someone has told it the way it really is.
Please address correspondence to [email protected]
Please include your full name, address and daytime telephone number for purposes of verification.