editorial
mtwl
Cambodia aid should be cut
Rep. Paul McCloskey's approach to the
question of U.S. military aid for Cambodia
sounds uncomfortably like the
men-viewed-as-statistics thinking so prominent
among this nation's military leaders during the
late '60s.
"It's just a question of how do we get the
fewest Cambodians killed and get out of there as
quickly as we can," McCloskey said last week.
To hear one of the nation's leading doves talk
about getting Cambodians killed as if it were a
necessary evil, too trifling to be emotional about,
is shocking. To hear him recommending
continued U.S. aid is equally shocking. But, in
this case, it is perhaps necessary for a time.
The Lon Nol government, without a doubt, is
in trouble. The Khmer Rouge have gnawed at the
country's heartland until now they are within
miles of the capital, Phnom Penh. In that city,
fuel is in short supply, rockets are striking almost
daily and the food supply is so low that rice is
being flown in by the United States.
Without continued U.S. aid, proponents say,
Cambodia would fall to the Communists in a
matter of weeks, perhaps days. And if that
happens, they say with visions of dominoes
dancing in their heads, can Vietnam and the rest
of Indochina be far behind?
President Ford has recommended $222
million in extra aid for Cambodia. Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, no doubt fearing that a
Congress which cuts off aid to Cambodia would
just as easily do the same to Israel, has vocally
supported that.
"Are we to deliberately abandon a small
country in the midst of its life and death struggle
... a small Asian nation totally dependent on
us?" Ford asked House Speaker Carl Albert in a
message last week.
The answer, of course, is that we should not
deliberately abandon anyone unless the price of
continued involvement outweighs that of leaving.
In the long run, that is the case. Spending
millions of dollars each year to prop up a
government that may never be able to stand on
its own makes as much sense as paying Kissinger
by the mile.
But, in the short run, letting Cambodians
starve to death because we are unwilling to
extend emergency food aid is as honorable as
sending Americans to die in a war they have no
business being in.
Congress should approve emergency food aid
for Cambodia, either the $75 million requested
or more if needed. As for military aid, we have to
stop sometime. Halting military aid now may
mean the immediate fall of Cambodia. Stopping
aid later will, unfortunately, probably mean the
same thing.
If Congress decides not to continue military
aid to Cambodia, the U.S. will not, as some say,
be abandoning its friends. It will be regaining its
senses.
Wes Albers
'The Communists are at the door again. Can you send more
chairs, tables, etc. . ."
State, nation losers in attacks on Sierra Club
While in North Platte over the weekend, I was
amazed at the bitterness that the Sierra Club's
opposition to a proposed coal-fired power generating
plant at Sutherland has aroused.
While there has been stark division between the
proposal's supporters and those opposing it, the
division has become even more bitter in recent weeks
due to increasingly strong attacks on the Sierra Gub
by Nebraska' Public Power and area
businessmen-developers.
These, attacks have been attempting to give the
public a warped image of the Sierra Club-as a
roadblock to progress.
This attempt to sway public sympathies away
from the Sierra Club is similar to actions directed
against the Sierra Club and other environmental
groups by business-industrial groups in other areas of
the country.
Anyone who reads a magazine or newspaper or
watches TV knows that American Electric Power,
Exxon, Mobil, Conoco and many other companies do
extensive advertising on environmental issues. Much
of this advertising is designed to leave the impression
that these companies are doing everything possible to
protect the environment and that those who criticize
them on environmental issues are undermining
economic progress.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. No
environmental group is opposed completely to
economic or industrial expansion. Everyone,
including environmentalists, uses electrical power and
other industrial products. What thev do oppose is he
blind, short-sighted "progress" that has been
responsible for the unnecessary destruction of
priceless and irreplacable ecosystems and the general
environmental deterioration we are all aware of
today.
rickjohnson
rhymes ond reasons
Without the strong, vocal opposition of
environmental groups to such things as Sutherland's
Gerald Gentleman power plant and the Alaskan
pipeline, it is doubtful that many of the
environmental protection measures that have been
undertaken would have been.
It is sad that environmental groups must always be
cast in the role of spoiler-in opposition to
something. But since positive contributions in the
planning stages often are not solicited or ignored,
there is usually no other alternative but opposition to
a poorly planned project once it is begun.
Because environmentalists are severely
handicapped by limited budgets and small staffs, it is
impossible for opposition to be raised against each
project that is proposed which ignores environmental
considerations. Thus, only those projects which
blatantly disregard environmental considerations can
be directly opposed.
In view of this fact it becomes essential for
NEW5PAPE&S MAY LBSNJtf PUBLISH THE NAME OF A PAPE V1CHM
7
environmental groups to play an important role in the
development of national environmental policy.
But once again, a lack of money and staff places
these groups at a disadvantage when competing
against industry. The massive resources at the disposal
of industry to finance staff work and lobbying
seriously undermines the ability of less fortunate
environmental groups to counter these large scale
efforts.
John Quarlcs, deputy administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, has -said that
much environmental legislation is killed "not because
of superior logic, but because of superior resources".
Even in the face of these handicaps, however,
much of the initiative for new environmental
legislation has come from these groups.
It seems essential, if the momentum gained over
the past few years in positive environmental action is
to be maintained, that strong and effective advocates
of environmental protection, such as the Sierra Club,
continue their work on environmental issues.
To establish and maintain the proper
environmental balance on both specific projects and
broad policy issues, strong environmental groups are
necessary-if environmental concerns are to receive
fair and adequate consideration when they are in
conflict with industry's goals.
We who are dependent upon clean air and water
and enjoy the natural beauty of our state and nation,
will be the losers if business-industrial groups are
successful in their aim to destroy public support for
the. Sierra Club and other environmental groups.
- su?rAE cam DSC 15 VON
y- m
31 .......- , IS
page 4
daily nebraskan
Wednesday, march 5, 1375
