Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 11, 1970)
viEWiiDiEinrA iy Fred Schmidt Facunlty Focus . Two days after President Nixon an nounced that no U.S. troops have been killed in ground combat in Laos it was revealed that an American officer was kill , ed last year in that country. It was also learned that 26 American civilians have "en killed in Laos since 1962. White House spokesmen were qaick to point out that the officer's death technically did not occur in ground combat since he was working with a Laotian force at the time it was ambushed. The fact that the man is dead is not so important to the White House as the juggling of terms to keep the President's credibility intact. THIS INCIDENT illustrates an impor tant flaw in U.S. foreign policy, especially with regard to Southeast Asia. Although the popular slogan of our government under Lyndon Johnson as well as Richard Nixon has been "peace with honor", the real goal has been peace without losing face. Honor is that to which respect and esteem are rightfully due; face-saving is the protection of reputation, concerned with appearances rather than actualities. , . President Nixon does not want to be the first chief executive to lose a war. Instead of withdrawing all U.S. troops, he employs a tactic called Vietnamization, a program designed to gradually transfer the responsibility for the war's outcome to the South Vietnamese. Should the South Viet namese lose, they are the ones who lose face, not the United States. THE FLY in the ointment is that the United States v has precious little face to save in Southeast Asia. The only people whose opinion is swayed by Nixon's policy - are the American people. We simply do not want to see our winning streak end. We have, by our policy in Southeast Asia, lost face in the eyes of the people of Europe and the third world. We might regain face if we did the only truly honorable thing, und left Vietnam. True honor does not consist of keeping military commitments to dictators of coun tries created arbitrarily by outside forces. South Vietnam is a poor excuse for a nation, Laos a poorer one. Our so-called commitments in these lands were made not out of concern for their people but out of fear for some dread monolith called Communism. IT IS IMPORTANT that the rate of withdrawal from South Vietnam be in creased. It is more important that our involvement in Laos become no greater than it is. We have an erroneous image of our country as the pure and invulnerable champion of the weak, which we defend against all evil. We must stop kidding ourselves and recognize the totalitarian ' strain of the present Saigon regime. We must recognize that Laos is a conglomerate of tribes and that the most significant nationalistic force in that country is the Pathet Lao. To deal justly with people rather than cater to certain governments would be honorable; such a policy might even help us regain face in the eyes of the world. by John Janovy, Jr., Assistant Professor, Dept of Zoology "Ecology", "overpop ulation", and "space" are now household wards: furthermore, environmental and population problems are, like interstellar dastances, of such a mag nitude as to preclude human visualization.. A plethora of current popular writers screams the need for immediate control of human populations and predicts dire, virtually Malthusian, positive type checks within t h e forseeable future. Ha w by Ken Wall Amidst all the vilification and heated charges accompanying the "Chicago 8-1" trial, one salient question remains unanswered. Why were the defendants brought to trial? The usual answers supplied by the left and the right do little to solve the mystery. They right declares that the eight men were guilty of breaking a federal law and were thus brought to account for their misdeeds. The left responds that the wlwle episode is an example of the federal government suppressing dissident views. TIIE FIRST justification is only partially correct. Presumably there were some honest and sincere men who thought that prosecution was justified due to the defendants' acts of law breaking. But we can assume there were just as many honest and sincere men during the Johnson Administration, when, despite possession of the same informa tion used during the trial, it was decided not to prosecute. Similarly, the second argument Is true as far as It goes but no farther. The Nixon Administration has never been particularly subtle about Us desire for political unanlnlmity a mo ng American citizens. Toward this end, it has unleashed Splro Agnew to intimidate the media. Post-trial Interviews with several of the jurors confirm the suppressive purp- WE ONES DAY, MARCH 11, 1970 r i , t v . i : , i . ; pose of the proceedings, and indicate that the eight were being tried more for their life-styles than for their ac tions. YET IF the purpose was merely one of suppressing dissidence, one wonders that the government couldn't have found a more effective law under which to prosecute the defendants. There seenw to be a general agreement that the conspiracy law won't stand up under supreme court scrutiny. And even more imDortnnt. not pvrn John Mitchell's Justice Dept. could be dumb enough to suppose that convicting people like David Dclinger, Bobby Scale, Abby Hoffman, et. al. would teach anybody a lesson. The martyrdom the eight have undergone was predictable from the outset So we are still In the dark ns to why the trial was ever held. This writer believes that the decision to try the eight men was largely a partisan one. Basically, It was more by the Republican party to besmirch the reputation of the Democratic party. TWO ASSUMPTIONS underly this theory. First, Richard Nixon has always put partisan considerations above the national interest. While alienating the young people of our society is dearlv against the best Interests of the U.S., Nixon has deliberately pursued this course of action to placate his Large Reticent Majority. Secondly, Nixon realizes that it was, more than any innate quality of his personality or pro gram, the disunity and public disrepute of the Democrats that got him the Presidency. WHAT MORE beautiful way to cement his own authority th;tn a trial of accused rioters? Recall that virtually every news story during the trial referred to the eight as men who allegedly committee crimes during the Democratic National Conversion in 1968. Very subtly the link was drawn between violence, riots, hippies, revolu tionaries and the Democratic party. By the end of the trial, the association had become vir tually unbreakable. The consequence is that Nixon can again capitalize on his "Bring Us Together" facade and contrast this with the undesirable attributes of his opposi tion. ASIDE FROM being a handy tool during the next few elections, the tactic has more long-range Implications. It raises anew the old question of ra tionalizlng ethics with politics. It is too much to ask that a President use ethics as his stile base in decision-making, it is too cynical to demand that politics be his only criterion. We can justifiably hope that he will at least temper one with the other. The decision to try the Chicago defen dants is an indication that this plea is being ignored. Political disen chantment can be the only outcome. Today is branded the final date to opt for survival. Yet in a manner analogous to the civil rights movement, the survival movement has been and is still characterized by confident idealism founded on morality, myopic and by nature labile, rather than objective analysis accompanied by precipitous action. A CURSORY glance through the animal kingdom reveals that man is "doin' what comes natur'ly"; like genocidal in terracial conflict, environmen tal exploitation, albeit oassiv-A in most species, to the limits of an animal's ability, is a natural biological phenomenon. Our response to these natural phenomena which have caused us so much agony is normally legislative, a response which psychologists from other, more reasonable galaxies, upon ex cavating our planet in some future archeological expedition, will classify as "displacement behavior," i.e., action designed to relieve our internal moral stress but not intended to effect the conditions causing that stress! Somehow convinced our ac tions are appropriate, we become still more frustrated when they fail to produce the desired results. OUR RECORD with other natural phenomena is also not enviable: we are unable to control the weather, although we can occasionally predict it: we are unable to halt aging, although we can make it more comfortable; we have been virtually unable to increase the world's radiant energy-trapping efficiency although it is said this must be done if we are to feed ourselves years hence. From where, then, stems the confidence that we can abolish disc rimination. end en vironmental exploitation, and control the world's human burden? A good question for philosophers! PERHAPS the prognosis is not so bleak, once the nature of our ' problems is realized: however, what is necessary for survival at a high living stan dard is. in addition to a civil rights act, a human population which forcibly impresses the normal biological response to a closely-related competitor, in addition to anti-pollution laws, a population wliich can limit the fanatical innate desire to garner energy. In addition to contraceptives and publicity, an educated population able to enact sensible abortion laws, able to end the psychotic belief that God didn't mean for us to practice birth control, and able to conduct an effective dialogue between nations, e.g. the U.S. and Red China, riding the same space vehicle. The formers are easy; we already have them. The tatters are still untouched and unless brought about will eventually negate our hitherto feeble ef forts to surv ive. IT IS AN awesome task. Those of you destined for posi tions of public trust years from now would do well to examine today how much fortitude will be required tomorrow to ac complish these ideals for an exploding, energy- and education-starved, world. I;, h ii fi i f i. ! vv t V It i'i' . r fx ' til K n THE DAILY jE BRAS KAN PAGE 3 .