European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - March 28, 1987, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Pago 10 columns the stars and stripes saturday March 28.1937 Anthony Lewis question of conspiracy looms behind scandal what criminal charges might a Cush from the special prosecutor s investigation of the Iran Loniro affair among Many possibilities one stands out. Thai would be a Broad charge of conspiracy in the Supply of arms to the nicaraguan Contra at a time when Congress had barred official military support. The Independent counsel Lawrence e. Walsh i at Loo Early a stage of his investigation for anyone o know whether he will find enough evidence of such a conspiracy to Pui it to a grand jury and see indictments. But there have been Many published reports of hidden activities thai seem to fit the relevant criminal statute. La. Col. Oliver North ran a network Complete with Swiss Bank accounts that funnelled arms and Money to the con iras. The Crews of supposedly private planes that dropped weapons to them made Telephone Calls to White House numbers including North a a Contr Aleader. Alfonso Robelo says he got 510,000 a month through North for a year. And so on. Then there was the Money siphoned from the arms sales to Iran. Some appears to have gone As Ransom to Leb anese kidnappers and kickbacks to Irani an officials. But whatever went to the contras would fit into such a conspiracy charge. The relevant statute is the conspiracy Section in the United slates code Sec lion 371 of title is. Ii punishes conspiracies to commit other specific offence listed in the code Bui in goes beyond listed offences to punish More generally conspiracy to defraud the United  a conspiracy to defraud under that statute does not require proof that the government suffered any financial  need merely involve the misuse of government resources personnel for example for ends that Are corrupt or that interfere with proper governmental functions. As Long ago As 1910 the supreme court said the statute is Broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any depart ment of  the watergate cover up prosecution relied in part on that conspiracy statute. . Haldeman John Ehrlichman and John Misc Hill were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United states of the government s right to have officials of the Justice department and the Cia transact their official business honestly and impartially free from corruption. In the Case of the contras it might be argued officials conspired to defraud the United states if they used their position and resources and Lime to defeat whal was then the Law the Boland amendment forbidding official Amis supplies. There would no doubt be evidence of conceal ment As in watergate that indictment spoke of deceit Craft trickery.," the Boland amendment was not a criminal Law. For hat reason some have jumped to the conclusion that there is no penalty for violating the policy it Laid Down. Bui a conspiracy designed to de feat the policy could Welt be punished under the conspiracy statute. The Maxi mum penalty is five years in prison and a j10.000 Fine. Of course everything will depend on the evidence dug out by Walsh and the17 lawyers and Many investigators he has working on the facts. But there is reason to believe he is focusing first on the question of Aid to the contras. One clue is that the House and Senate committees on the Iran Centra affair when they reached their extraordinary agreement to work together announced that they would investigate the Contr Supply operation before turning to the Iran arms sales. The committees made that decision Afler discussion with Walsh. There Are other relevant statutes on perjury and obstruction of Justice for example. Also Section 2778 of title 22makes it a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a $100,000 Tine to Export arms in violation of the rules the statute exempts officials Only if they arc carrying out a sales program authorized by  looming behind All possible criminal prosecutions is the question of president Reagan s role. Suppose North and rear adm. John Poindexter Are Given partial immunity and compelled to testify. Sup pose they say they were following the president s orders. At his press Confer Cnoc last week Reagan said with pm paying Loo much attention to such pass Phasis i set the policy in this admin is ing Phenomena As press conferences. The  greater engine for discovering the truth is at this stage All is speculation but i the criminal Law. Think one thing is Clear. We have been icim or a in "obv10i William f. Buckley or. When chips Are Down . Has room to act the Trade War with Japan which is very close according to , Trade representative Clay ton Teulier. Brings up those vexing complications that remind us How much we have to lose by forgetting principles. We Are a nation whose scholars spend life times defining the meaning of this or that phrase from the Constitution. But when economics and Trade practices come up we feel free to improvise at random. Now Here is the charge thai japanese manufacturers Are Selling computer chips at below Cost. That practice is called dumping and it is officially frowned upon both in forma agreements e.g., last july s with Japan and in generally accepted protocols of Trade. This docs not mean by the Way that the United slates does t dump. Everybody knows that the soviet Union gets our wheat for less than . Farmers arc paid to pro Duce it. But the question before the House is whal to do to Japan in the current situation. Now the chips the japanese arc dumping arc being dumped in developing countries. The reason for this would App a r to be not the Call of International Philan Thropay. But the not unconventional situation in which the inventory become so Large it is cheaper to get rid of some of it at below Cost pricing than to keep it in the warehouse. If the United Stales were to adopt thai policy toward our stored butter we could raise the cholesterol level of the entire third world. But of course a Chip made available to Argentina atless than Cost automatically makes the american Chip non competitive. The Public cry is then for protective tariffs. Apart from the deficient reasoning Here there is the singular problem that some products . Manufacturer produce depend on japanese chips. We do not make enough of our own drams and a prams As they Are called to satisfy our own needs. Accordingly a Flat Oul Tariff on japanese chips would damage . Manufacturing. The major difficulty on which time after time we founder is the search for symmetrical sanctions. The japanese arc dumping chips place a Tariff on their chips. The canadians arc driving Northwest Shingle manufacturers out of business tax the import of Ca Nadian shingles. The definitive Case against tariffs was made by Adam Smith and two centuries experience has not really altered the Case against tariffs. But there is room Tor government action. Polit ical reprisals arc in order when reasonable and disinterested observers can confidently conclude that a country is engaged in economic acts of aggression. The clearest example of this in our Lime has been the open Cartel. Whatever we decided to do in answer to that Cartel would have been justified As pol heal actions not As economic palliative. If the situation is As or. A Cutler describes in then the government of the United Stales should feel Justi fied in saying la the government of Japan unti you goods. We arc neither Dispo extent of your subsidy of products you dump nor to Cost account the damage done to us by your refusal to open up your Market to . Products. Such Fine Tun ing is impossible. We speak not As economic adjusters but As guardians of american interests. In order to . Manufacturers and Consumers a Chance to adjust we Wilt impose a id percent Price surcharge rising by 10 percent every month. Ten months from now Noth ing made in Japan will sell legally in the United slates. The alternative which we would very much Welcome is thai your acts of aggression should cease. The distinction Between political and eco nomic retaliation should be Revivi fied. It is uniformly a mistake and such mistakes can reach catastrophic Levels to engage in protectionism. In Ronald Reagan s administration notwithstanding his firm opposition to tariffs More imported goods arc taxed than Ever be fore and this of course engenders the reciprocal an retaliatory taxation thai last january very nearly resulted in a virtual suspension of Irac with the euro Pean economic Community in certain products. Ur., Iii press ii