THE DAILY NERRAKAN
FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 1969
PAGE
2
ljiiihiii iMimi-i ii 1 rcn
,jja.aMnajaaMiwiaD
Oyfitostfaik
iimMiM iwwBMBiinimi " 1 " " "Bf -Tl
Toward a new balance of terror
by Jack Todd
Nebraskan Editorial Columnist ,
il For weeks now, America's doves have had
no one on whom to vent the accumulated wrath
nd frustration of the Johnson years. The old presi
dent bowed out gracefully, leaving most of his
critics shuffling from foot-to-foot like schoolboys
wanting to go out and wondering if they really
Jshculd have driven him from power,
I The new president began so cautiously, so
slowly that the critics had nothing to focus on
'm- no moves, either liberal or conservative, which
would give some indication of the direction his
presidency would take.
r NOW, LESS THAN two months into office.
Richard Milhouse Nixon seems on the verge of
blowing it all. Sometime today he is expected to
announce his approval of a limited Sentinel anti
ballistic missile system, throwing away the uneasy
seven-week truce he has maintained with the
liberals, and more importantly, committing this
nation to a nuclear arms escalation to which there
pan be no end in sight.
. Even a limited ABM system would continue
the strange government policies that have elected
to feed the military and starve the cities since
the end of World War II. Boston City Councilman
Tom Atkins, addressing a panel of experts in Lex
ington, Mass., during a debate on the ABM's merits,
phrased it best:
"YOU TALK of megatons. We are interested
in snow removal. You talk of penetration aids.
What we want is housing. You tali of nuclear
sufficiency. I say there is massive insufficiency
as far as our domestic sanity is concerned."
In this country, which prides itself among the
nations for freedom of religion, it is an unfortunate
fact that after nearly 200 years there is still no
freedom from religion.
In the supposedly enlightened second half of
this supposedly enlightened century, our supposedly
enlightened modern America still has not divested
Itself of the institutionalized superstitions of the
past; in fact has further solidified certain areas
of religious practice which border on the absurd.
"CHURCH ATTENDANCE" has become a must
for anyone running for a public office in this coun
try, regardless of the public actions of the can
didate. It is as important to belong to the right
church in mosf communities as it is to belong
to the right contrv club or the right chapter
of the American Legion or Elks Club.
Even parents whose outlook is not religious
In nature are often self-coerced to "take" their
children to Sunday School, because it Is an institu
tion of our society.
We who have no national religion print "In
God We Trust" on our money, insert references
to our Anglo-Saxonized, monotheistic god in our
government proclamations and our "Pledge of
Allegiance." ("One nation under (one) God".)
IT IS only recently that our government has
decided a man may be against killing another
man without proclaiming a belief in one of the
"acceptable" mythical deities before a court. And
sadly, as witnessed by the Abbott case, that law
lias not gone beyond the lawbooks into practice.
Our soldiers, who are to protect tiie "religious
freedom" of our country, are actually forced to
attend a church "of their choke" each Sunday
while in training. There Is no "choice" to not
make a choice.
In our scientifically-advanced society, the en
lightened institution of Hyde Park on this campus
Is too often still preoccupied with unrelenting
religious "arguments" by zealous Nebraska farm
boys.
They nitpick at one another's shades of dif
ference, using for reference quotations from a buok
written by men who did not even know the world
was round.
ONE IS OFTEN tempted to muster a group
of young men to compete as the "Reform Atheist"
team in the local Church League softball tourna
ment and see what would happen.
But, of course, what would happen is all too
obvious and the point of it all would doubtless
be lost amid the pious Indignation and righteous
bate.
The worst part of the whole religious fervor
of this nation, however, is not that it has mada
social facade of what was once a sincere move
ment dedicated to social reform. The worst
manifestation is the attempt, frightenlngly 19844sh
In nature, to rewrite history to make the early years
of our country's existence seem to be a religious
"crusade", sanctioned by some great "God" who
had chosen America as His People.
GEORGE WASIILNGTON, although his beliefs
tended toward a Deist point of view, is presented
to our young school children as a religious zealot,
with most of the pictures they see of htm depicting
him on his knees praying for divine guidance In
killing the British.
Other early leaders, such as Benjamin
Franklin, are also glossed over In similar ways.
Our slaughter and eventual near-genocide of
the "savages" who occupied the country before
God's people arrived, our expansionistic wars, our
Imperialistic disregard for human life and property
In building the country Is labe'ed "Manifest
Destiny", with an aura of heavenly assent added.
THE FIRST whites to land on the Eastern
bores are proclaimed "Pilgrims" In search of
a land where they can escape from persecution
so that they may practice their religion In freedom,
la actuality they were all too often looking for
a place where they could substitute their brind
of persecution for another.
Perhaps, with time, things will get better.
Perhaps, in time, the light just to live will be
accorded equal importance with the right to live
tot some sort of undefined afterlife, presided over
by an equally undefined deity. Man-willing.
Whatever the arguments for sanity in terms
of the balance between military and domestic
spending, the crux of the problem is fear. In
escalating the arms race, the President would be
pandering to those millions of Americans who are
afraid they can kill more Americans than we can
kill Russians. Here the figures come in.
With a full ABM system, the proponents say,
we would lose only 30 million Americans. Without
it, we may lose as many as 120 million in an
all-out conflict. Some choice.
FORMER SECRETARY of Defense
MoNamara, who was partially responsible for the
original go-ahead decision on the Sentinel, has
himself expressed the fear that the decision will
blossom from the original "thin" commitment,
capable of thwarting a Red Chinese attack, into
a "thick" commitment to shield the nation from
Soviet missiles, eventually costing something in
excess of the current national debt.
The twin results of such a proliferation of
missiles are obvious. First, the approaching finan
cial crisis of the cities will become a certainty,
with city governments unable to rely for emergency
funds on a federal government hamstrung by
missile costs.
Second, the President will have foregone the
opportunity for a bold new step in the direction
of peace, and heightened the possibility that we
may lose 30 million people, even after spending
billions of dollars.
TIIE CHOICE is this: a step up the ladder
of insecurity toward a heightened balance of terror,
or a step down the ladder toward a balance of
confidence, domestic and international security.
If the President goes ahead with the ABM
system, the honeymoon will end. It should.
"YOU'RE the semantic., Dr. llayakuwa! . . . YOU tell them they're
afraid of scarecrows I"
Paris and the Middle East Crisis
by Rowland Evans
and Robert Novak
Washington Aside from
spreading goodwill, the one
solid accomplishment of
President Nixon's 'ong talk
with Gen. de Gaulle in Paris
was assurance that the
French would not be the ad
vocate of the Arab countries
in the Big Four Mid-East
talks now being arrang
ed. The exact details of de
Gaulle's assurance are
secret, but there was this
promise: despite France's
long courtship of the Arabs,
de Gaulle would play an
even-handed role as go-between
for the two sides.
That pledge was crucial to
President Nixon's
m e ticulously-planned ap
proach to the first stage of
what he calls the "era of
negotiation."
WITHOUT THE French
pledge, Mr. Nixon might
never have committed the
U.S. to full-scale talks with
the Russians, British, and
French at the United Nations
on the flaring Middle East
crisis
Thus, until Mr. Nixon's
visit to Paris, the U.S. had
reacted with extreme cau
tion to the pitches for a four
power approach that began
pouring out of Moscow and
Paris last fall. With the
Soviet Union and France
obviously lined up on the
Arab side and the British
ambivalent, the U.S. wasn't
about to get into four-power
talks to propose a settlement
of the issues with the cards
stacked against Israel.
That's why the White
House reaction under both
Presidents Johnson and
Nixon was distinctly
cautious. The most he would
talk about was a possible
four-power statement ap
pealing to Gunnar Jarring,
the UN's Middle East
mediator, to make another
try at a settlement by long
distance mediation. That
caution avoided a vicious
backfire from pro-Israeli
politicians charging that the
U.S. was indirectly un
dercutting the Israeli position.
BUT AFTER seeing de
Gaulle two weeks ago, Mr.
Nixon abruptly broadened
this cautious approach. The
U.S. is now ready to go along
with Big-Four talks at the
UN on the whole range of
substantive Arab vs. Israel
issues that has made the
Middle East so dangerous to
world peace.
That may not seem much
of an advance. In tact,
however, It was crucial to
thi President's delicate first
stage of negotiations on
East-West Issues, the most
Important of which is
nuclear arms control.
Quite apart from Middle
East questions, the four
power talks are designed to
give Mr. Nixon his first
reading on a vital point: ore
the Russians serious about
negotiating a relaxation of
tensions or do they simply
want a quickie arms-control
agreement with the U.S.?
Contrary to critics who
claim Mr. Nixon Is pushing
Moscow too hard by insisting
on a Middle East agreement
as a prior condition for arms
talks, the fact is otherwise.
What Is expected of the
Soviets Is not total agree
ment on a Middle East set
tlement (although, of course,
that is the objective) but
evidence that Moscow ge
nuinely wants a solution.
EVEN THAT condition is
too much for some critics,
who want Mr. Nixon (and
wanted President Johnson
before him) to take im
mediate advantage of the
Soviet Union's lust for an
arms-limitation agreement.
Mr. Nixon's refusal to take
that route is deeply imbed
ded. His "era of negotiation"
is no passing fancy, and he
feels there is no shortcut for
the step-by-step course he's
now embarked on. Moreover,
he is showing patience with
the Russians, testing each
step carefully.
Futhermore, in rebuttal to
Mr. Nixon's critics is this
startling fact about recent
U.S.-Soviet relations: more
time was consumed the past
10 years negotiating cultural
exchange agreements than
arms control. Given that
background, Mr. Nixon feels
justified in not entering
quickie arms-control
talks.
As of today, that ground
preparation probably will
last about two months. If that
produces fertile soil for U.S.
Soviet relations,, the time
spent would be productive
indeed.
(C) 199, PubilihwcHill Synd.
The Scene: An underdeveloped nation in the Middle
East, South East Asia, or Black Africa.
The Cast: Dr. T-----s , M.A., Ph.D.
in Economics, Political Science, or
Psychology from the University of Ne
braska, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.
The Plot: Dr. T S and his party
have seized the reins of power in a
bloodless coup against the central gov
ernment. The military pledges its sup.
port as the government radio station an
nounces the nation will now be taking
a neutralist position in the arena of in
ternational politics. The United States
has been given 48 hours to terminate
its economic and military missions. Dr.
T S refuses to grant an
interview to the American ambassador.
High sources tell newsmen that the new
party leader intends to steer the nation
away from the West into a pro-Eastern
position. The leader, bitterly tlhsillu
sioned by his experiences as a student
in the United States, privately states
that Uncle Sam can go to hell.
Does this sound like the plot of a best seller?
If yes, then read it again and think about some
of the comments foreign students have been making
in the Rag and at Hyde Park about their reception
at the University. The consensus is that Nebraskans
are disinterested, perhaps tolerant at best, of the
international students on campus. The foreign
student's first reaction Is bewilderment, later
alienation as he retreats to the company of other
foreigners, and finally a keen feeling of resentment
against Americans and the United States.
These angry people return to their homelands
with graduate degrees and enter into high positions
In society and government. Unlike the United
States, Western Europe, and the Soviet Union, most
of the nations of the underdeveloped Third World
lack adequate facilities for advanced training.
Students wishing to continue their education beyond
the undergraduate level, must go abroad to study.
Their experience abroad has special meaning
for them. Time spent in a university, whether
in one's own country or abroad, is full of questioning
the purpose of life, formulating a personal
philosophy, and interacting with one's fellow
students. Unfortunately, many foreign students in
the United States leave here with psychological
scars from their negative experiences.
Few Americans realize that both Ho Chi Minn
and Che Guevara spent some time In the United
States in their youth. Admittedly their examples
are extreme and neither was a student here, but
both were affected by their experience in the United
States. There is little doubt that the actions of
both these men have had personal consequences
for all of us.
The point of all this is that the African or
Asian student who you see sitting by himself in
the corner of your class or looking lonely in the
Union Lounge might possibly one day be announcing
over the radio in the capital city of his nation
that all United States property is Immediately con
fiscated and diplomatic relations are being severed.
If you had only talked to him, history might have
been different . , ,
DAILY NEBRASKAN
Second clana poaUaa pud at IJnciiln, Neb
Talaphonaa Editor. 473 Mil Nwa 472-;m. Builiwat 47J-JSSO.
Subscription rata ar U par Munmlw of n ti endemic yaax,
Publlahad Monday Wadnaaday Thuraday and rrlday during Ui Khuol
rant upl during vacation
Editorial Staff
Editor! Bd loatmrtaj Manitlng Cdiloi Lynn Gottafhallii Nawa Editor
Jim Bvlnaori Nlitht Nawt Ediioi Krtil Cnckaoni Editorial Aaalatant
Junt Waauneri AaalaUm Nawa Editor Andy Woudi Spuria Editor Mark
Cordon. Vahiaakan Btari Wntara John Dvorak. Ilm Hvdaraan, t'luima
Winalar. Suaai Janlnna Rill SmlUiorman, sua Srhllfhli-nwiat Sua
Patty. Run Taloutt, Joanailn Arkarmaa. Barhlttar Slnxh, Phutukraphara
Uau Ladaly, Unda Kannady Mlkt Hay mum Hapurtar-Photonraiiliar
UI Anaon. John Nollendorfai Copy Editor J L Schmidt loan Waio
w. PbriUi Adkiaakia, Dava Filial, Oar Ncnwicdar, auaaa Maaid.
Binaural Manfr Road
auruon manual lumly
Business Staff
BOWl Uwal Ad liaiunr Joal flavlal
VI HlMlkkMM RnH Mi, u. I In i bMin
anal .Boatman, Clanalfltd Ada Joan Maavi Hubat-rloUon Manauar
Llttda IHrlrh. Cllrulatlor tAunmemr ttn l.u.t. m... it u. ,
Stall r , d vairtiavlnM RaiiramntaUvaa M Brown. Uai Urahnoulft.
unda aUbUawa, ,
K'fiiiiinniiNNiiiittiitiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinitmiiiuiiiiiinriiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiniiiitiiiiiiiini
The Daily Nebraskan is solely a siu-
dent-operated newspaper independent
of editorial control by student govern- i
ment, administration and faculty. The i
opinion expressed on this page is that i
of the Nebraskan s editorial page staff. !
biiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiuiiiiiiiinnaiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiuiitiiiiuuiiiiiiniJ
44
. . You ay they'r BOTH our
t
