Letters to the Editor

Cuban fantasy To the Editor:

In regard to the visit to campus by the chief of the Cuban Interests section, Dagoberto Rodriguez Barrera, it is important to point out that he presented a very narrow view of the issues addressed Monday night ("Offical blasts Cuba embargo," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/8/02).

While he blamed the American embargo for Cuba's economic crisis, he neglected to mention that Cuba is free to trade with any other country in the world. The U.S. already allows food and medicine sales to Cuba and, as former President Jimmy Carter noted during his recent trip to Cuba, in almost all cases medicine and food is cheaper in Mexico than it is in the United States.

He would not admit that the former Cuban United Nations Ambassador, a recent defector, said, "the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba aggravates the island's problems... but Castro's socialist policies are principally to blame."

He did not mention that the embargo was tightened only after the Cuban government in 1996 ordered two MIG fighters to intercept and destroy a civilian aircraft over international waters, killing four American citizens aboard. These four men, all of Cuban descent, were on a humanitarian mission trying to find stranded Cuban refugee rafters.

He also failed to note that in April the U.N. Human Rights Commission voted to condemn the terrible violations that occur in Cuba, including the systematic religious and political persecution of dissidents. The initiative was launched by Uruguay, one of Cuba's poorer neighbors, to show that a developing nation has no need, or right, to disregard peoples' basic rights to life and self-expression.

Fred Hernandez Engineering '04

Human rights in Israel

To the Editor:

A recent letter claimed that certain groups have unfairly targeted Israel as one of the world's "worst human rights abusers" ("Distorting Israel's record," DP, 10/8/02). It is therefore prudent to remember certain facts about Israel's record.

During the period beginning Sept. 28, 2000, and ending Sept. 6, 2002, Israel is responsible for 1,741 Palestinian deaths. 1,108 were innocent victims -- which is to say they were unarmed with no previous record of aggression against Israel. This means that roughly 65 percent of the people killed during that period were "collateral damage." And of the dead, 454 were 18 or younger.

Israel maintains it has a right to use lethal force as a deterrent to would be suicide bombers. And yet, since the implementation of this hyper-confrontational policy -- when Ariel Sharon took office as prime minister -- Israeli deaths have skyrocketed. It seems that this mode of deterring would-be suicide bombers isn't quite working.

The same letter contends that in the face of such terror, Israel must put the lives of its citizens over concerns about "civil liberties." Once again, facts are in order. The first suicide bombing of the current uprising took place on Oct. 26, 2000, nearly a month after the first significant clashes and after 120 Palestinians had already been killed. If Israel is protecting itself against "terrorism," how does one account for these initial deaths?

As a Palestinian, I am no impartial source. But don't take my word for any of this. Research the truth for yourselves and read more.

Ahmed Moor College '06

Union would be a boon

To the Editor:

The Undergraduate Assembly's rejection of a resolution asking Penn to remain neutral on the issue of graduate student unionization ("UA votes down pro-grad union resolution," DP, 9/25/02) demonstrates a serious lack of understanding.

Universities have been operating like corporations for decades now. They look to cut labor costs and maximize "profit" -- often at the expense of undergraduate education.

Graduate TAs and RAs are hit the hardest because they have less power than faculty and are transient. The UA should have voted for the resolution because it is undergraduate education that stands to gain the most from a strong graduate union.

But it appears that a few were just misinformed. For instance, Ethan Kay expressed a fear of strikes, citing a case involving a union that wasn't from outside of the United States.

It should be stated that 98 percent of contract disputes are settled without strikes, but you only hear about the 2 percent that strike, not those who don't. Strikes are a last resort and must be approved by a majority of union members.

Should Penn lose it fight against unionization, Daven Johnson believes that the University should appeal -- even though there already are 22 recognized graduate student unions that have survived this process. Johnson wants, in effect, the administration to waste tuition dollars paying its lawyers to lose.

Also, arguments about infringing on the administration's "legal rights" are equally laughable. A student government resolution has no authority over the administration; it is simply a statement of what the administration should do.

The UA should reconsider the neutrality resolution, but only after they are properly educated about what they are voting on.

Justin Leto

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.