Thursday, April 11, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.
GOOD HEAVENS, won't we ever learn from past experiences? I'm writing about President Clinton giving tacit approval for Iran to send weapons to the Muslim-led Bosnian government when publicly the U.S. was supporting a blockade to prohibit them from receiving outside help. Didn't he realize or care that along with the weapons came Iranian soldiers and allowed for another foothold for that country's extremists?
Just three weeks ago, U.S. officials were complaining that Bosnia-Herzegovina still had a large number of armed Iranian mujahedeen running loose. They are seen as a threat to the peace agreement made in Dayton, Ohio, last year where all sides agreed they must leave. Also, according to Pentagon officials, they pose a direct threat to U.S. troops serving as peacekeepers. They are the proud possessors of AK-47 rifles, ammunition, mortars, antitank weapons and shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.
Even if the armed Iranians leave Bosnia, their converts and brothers in battle will remain behind. NATO and the United States have done a fine balancing act when dealing with different enemy factions in the former Yugoslavia. Now they are informed that, in addition to unmarked mine fields, their next biggest problem is armed Iranians who don't want to leave. Iranians and weapons President Clinton winked at as they entered the combat zone.
The White House doesn't appear reluctant to admit its role in allowing Iranian weapons to reach the Muslims. This is probably because Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., the GOP nominee for president, was a loud advocate for arming the Muslims and bombing the Serbs. Little did he realize that his wishes were being executed by one of the world's leading supporters of terrorism with approval from his political opponent, President Clinton.
The flow of Iranian weapons into Bosnia-Herzegovina started before Clinton entered the White House. President George Bush in 1992 had the Croatian government seize the arms brought into Zagreb on an Iranian 747. This was done so the weapons couldn't reach the Muslims in Bosnia. A couple of years later, the arms pipeline was providing a steady flow of weapons from Iran to Turkey into Croatia, where they were carried overland into Bosnia. The White House knew it but didn't interfere.
We now must hope that we didn't make another error like we did when supporting and trading with Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. We knew Saddam was bad news but continued to do business with him. The very expensive Gulf War was our reward.
It's easy to understand Clinton's hoodwinking all of us and even Congress by not stopping the flow of arms he knew were entering Bosnia. But his giving even tacit approval to their coming from a terrorist nation that supports killers of Americans all over the world is difficult for me to accept. For this, he is wrong, and we now must hope that the outcome will not result in more pain for more innocent people.
Acts of diplomatic hypocrisy aren't confined to the White House and the United States.
All Americans should be upset with the television coverage of two Riverside County, Calif., sheriff's deputies clubbing two illegal immigrants they had finally caught after a long and heated chase. It wasn't a good show, and the film was repulsive to any human being watching.
Several Hispanic groups in the United States have shown their displeasure with peaceful demonstrations. One of these displays of controlled anger took place in front of the Foley Federal Building in Las Vegas. It wasn't even close to the severity of the beating administered to Rodney King in Los Angeles, but it was certainly excessive force and an unnecessary violation of human and civil rights. It's encouraging that county officials show honest concern and disapproval for what happened. This is a good outward sign not shown in the King case.
While commending U.S. Hispanics and all others demonstrating their concern peacefully, I find the Mexican government's expressed anger hypocritical. Time and again, I've listened to Central Americans complain about their treatment when apprehended by Mexican authorities. During Nicaragua's Contra-Sandinista war and the bloody fighting in El Salvador, thousands of refugees trying to escape to the U.S. were beaten and robbed after crossing Mexico's southern border. Yes, beaten and robbed by Mexican soldiers and police. The Guatemalans fleeing into Chiapas have found no better welcome during the last couple of years.
Come to think about it, complaints about the brutal police treatment of Mexicans in their own country aren't uncommon. For a country that refuses to find the money necessary to properly feed starving Indians and eagerly pushes other poor citizens northward across its border to now complain about what happens after they cross the border doesn't impress me.
The United States will properly handle the civil rights problem exposed on national television, and justice will be found in our courts, criminal and civil. Then we will continue our watch to prevent any and all possible future rights violations.
Don't be surprised if Riverside County eventually has to pay a large sum of money for the indiscretion shown by one or two of its deputies. When was the last time a Mexican citizen was able to claim payment for mistreatment by that country's soldiers and/or police? If you are a gringo who runs into trouble with Mexican authorities, you flee home as soon as possible and are thankful for being alive.
What happened in Riverside County was wrong and must be corrected and paid for by those responsible. But please, no more pious sermons and complaints from Mexico City.
archive
