Soviet entry into Afghanistan

It is said of Babrak Karmal, the Soviet puppet ruler of Afghanistan, that he ``invited the Soviet troops to Afghanistan after he came to power in 1979,'' [``News in Brief,'' Jan. 17]. If that had been the case, the Soviet invasion would have been legitimate under Article 51 of the UN Charter and under provisions of the Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty of December 1978. Although these are precisely the justifications given by Soviet propaganda, it bears little relation to what really happened.

In fact, Karmal returned to his country after the Soviet invasion force that subsequently invested him after murdering his predecessor, Hafizullah Amin.

There was no way he could have ``come to power'' without Soviet aid, because Amin and his Khalqi faction had previously executed or imprisoned all important members of the Karmal faction (Parcham) within their reach. Karmal himself, while ambassador to Prague, had been dismissed from Afghan party and state posts in the summer of 1978, and, refusing an order to return to Kabul, had vanished from sight.

He made his first personal public appearance on Jan. 2, 1980, after Soviet troops had crushed forces in the capital loyal to Amin. Anthony Arnold Novato, Calif. Micronesia

The situation in Micronesia demands closer scrutiny [``Islands gain freedoms, US keeps missile test sites in South Pacific,'' Dec. 20].

Under the trusteeship agreement with the UN by which the US gained control of the islands after World War II, we were to promote the economic advancement or self-sufficiency of the inhabitants, protect their health, and lead them toward independence. Have we done this?

Have we not rather fostered economic dependency in order to force the inhabitants to accept our military bases in return for continued financial support; subjected the inhabitants to the fallout from nuclear bomb testing, and then failed to give the victims adequate assistance; thwarted the manifest wishes of the people of Palau that their islands be a nuclear-free zone?

The fate of Micronesia is a question of human rights. Mary B. Davis Georgetown, Ky.

Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published and none individually acknowledged. All are subject to condensation. Please address letters to ``readers write.''

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK