Wednesday, November 20, 1985
Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
Wo
lid leader
wmst, Tbe flexible
protect peace
4-
w
hile "Star Wars" might be President Reagan's
solution to the arms race, his unwillingness to
bargain on the defense system jeopardizes the
future of the human race.
Going into the summit talks in Geneva this week
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said that a halt on the devel
opment of space-based missile defense is the central issue of
the talks. Reagan, however, refuses to budge on the Strategic
Defense Initiative.
For progress to be made in arms control, Reagan must be
flexibl i on the Star Wars issue. All other agreements between
the two leaders and future U.S.-Soviet relations hinge on Rea
gan's compromises.
Reagan maintains that the Star Wars system is purely defen
sive. He claims that its development would not escalate the
arms race.
Reagan tells the Soviets that after the United States deploys
the SDI, ballistic missiles would be useless and reductions
could be made on both sides, said Leo Sartori, a UNL physics
and astronomy professor who was a special adviser to the U.S.
SALT II delegation in 1979.
The Soviets, on the other hand, view the deployment of the
SDI as a chance for the United States to have better first-strike
advantage, Sartori said.
A space-based missile defense could be used to destroy any
missiles left after the initial U.S. land-based attack, Sartori
said.
Maybe the Soviets are familiar with the words of William
Jennings Bryan, one of Nebraska's most famous politicians and
congressional representatives: "We dare not trust the peace of
the world to those who spend their time in getting ready for
wars that should never come."
If the United States continues its Star Wars development, an
arms buildup will take place. The Soviets think they have no
choice but to develop and expand their offensive forces to
counteract SDI, Sartori said. Star Wars presents such a threat
to the Soviets that they also would escalate their research and
development of their own space-based defense system.
By supporting SDI, Reagan advocates a plan that will strain
the economies of the United States and the Soviet Union and
weaken relations between them.
Americans should urge Reagan to change his attitude.
If the Soviets propose an attractive arms-reduction deal, the
European allies should pressure Reagan into modifying his SDI
stance.
A fair agreement that satisfies both sides would require
flexibility by both Reagan and Gorbachev, but the purpose of
the summit is to negotiate and compromise.
The Soviet Union already has proposed a 50 percent reduc
tion in strategic arms. However, Reagan threatens the produc
tiveness of the summit with his staunch position on Star Wars.
As the two talk about the world's future, they should
remember the words of Nebraska's Bryan: "Preparedness pro
vokes war."
The Daily Nebraskan
34 Nebraska Union
1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448
EDITOR
NEWS EDITOR
CAMPUS EDITOR
ASSOCIATE NEWS
EDITOR
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
WIRE EDITOR
COPY DESK CHIEFS
SPORTS EDITOR
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
EDITOR
WEATHER EDITOR
PHOTO CHIEF
NIGHT NEWS EDITOR
ADVERTISING MANAGER
VlcMRuhga, 472-1768
Ad Hudler
Suzanne Teten
Kathleen Green
Jonathan Taylor
Mlchlela Thuman
Lauri Hopple
Chris Welsch
Bob Asmussen
Bill Allen
Barb Branda
David Creamer
Gene Gentrup
Sandl Stuewe
The Daily Nebraskan (USPS 144-080) is published by the UNL Publica
tions Board Monday through Friday in the fall and spring semesters and
Tuesdays and Fridays in the summer sessions, except during vacations.
Readers are encouraged to submit story ideas and comments to the Daily
Nebraskan by phoning 472-1763 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The public also has access to the Publications Board. For
information, contact Joe Thomsen.
Subscription price is $35 for one year.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the Daily Nebraskan, Nebraska
Union 34, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0443. Second-class postage paid
at Lincoln, NE 63510.
ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 1S35 DAILY NEBRASKAN
International talk hasn't ended aggression
U
N
This last summer the 40th anniver
sary of the founding of the United
Nations went largely unheralded
by most Americans.
The convening of the 40th U.N. Gen
eral Assembly in September also has
gone popularly unnoticed. Some may
lament this disinterest, yet it isn't so
obvious that the attitude is all that
unjustified evidence of the organi
zation's impotence abounds.
Jim
Rogers
The preamble to the U.N, Charter
emphasizes the goal of saving "suc
ceeding generations from the scourge
of war." Yet aggression still flourishes
in the world and is perhaps more
vicious than ever. Even this week's
summit between the U.S. and the
Soviet Union, given that it is not occur
ring under the auspices of the United
Nations, manifests a belief that the
United Nations is essentially irrelevant
to the predominant conflict of the last
half of this century.
There has been some justified scal
ing down of the goals of the United
Nations during the last generation
from those of actually "practic(ing)
tolerance and liv(ing) together in
peace with one another as good neigh
bours. . . " to one where nations can at
least come together and talk. (The
organization also has made quite
impressive gains in health and disaster
relief, but that's scarcely mentioned in
the preamble.)
Such a scaling-down of vision, how
ever, does not mean that the United
Nations is no longer important. It
means simply that it is a sadder, but
wiser, institution. In a recent inter
view, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Ver
non Walters affirmed that the organiza
tion is still important: "First, because
people all over the world think it is
important, and second, because it is a
forum in which every nation, no matter
how small, can make its voice heard."
Granting that the United Nations is
important does not entail bringing a
wide-eye naivete to the organization.
The West cannot allow itself to be
sedated by the narcotic belief that
talking is necessarily a substitution for
conflict.
Also, problems abound for the Uni
ted Nations in the immediate future,
not the least of which is the conceptual
difficulties the organization faces in
outlining a proper response to the
specter of terrorism spawned by claims
of national identity and a right to
self-determination.
Yet such a claim seems patently
absurd. No one can reasonably believe,
for example, that Uganda was better off
"self-determining" under Idi Amin or
that Kampuchea (Cambodia) guaran
teed more rights under Pol Pot and the
Khmer Rouge.
Also, there is substantial ambiguity
within U.N. documents as to which
people actually are to enjoy this right
to self-determination while other groups
have only the right to protection as
"minorities."
Because the United Nations is unable
or unwilling to resolve this basic ambi
guity, it actually may serve to heighten
tension and violence in the world by
terrorist groups that have proclaimed
themselves prosecutors of their "right
ful claim" for self-determination.
Insead of its original messianic and
absurdly grandiose vision, the United
Nations today has more manageable
goals of aiding nations with emergency
needs and providing a sort of coffee
house for the world's nations to come
and talk, argue and condemn. But then,
who laments that the heated discus
sions at a coffeehouse pass by largely
unnoticed by the rest of the world?
All is, in fact, as it should be.
Rogers is a UNL graduate economics
student and a law student.
Soviets not just spouting off
U.S.S.R. still aims at Lenin
In a century of steel and war, Swit
zerland has made industries of
chocolate and the pursuit of peace.
Above-the-fray Switzerland thinks of
itself as unoffending.
But it has much to answer for: It was
Lenin's haven until Germany sent him
in a sealed train to Russia to ignite the
revolution that would take Russia out
of World War I. Germany used Lenin (in
Churchill's phrase) "like a typhoid
bacillus." It found the disease in
squeaky-clean Switzerland.
While in London, Soviet First Lady
Raisa Gorbachev vetoed a visit to Marx's
grave in Hightower Cemetery, prefer
ring instead to visit the crown jewels in
the Tower. But she will go as a pilgrim
to Lenin's Geneva haunts. She will
celebrate the man who vowed to purge
Russia of "harmful insects" and ordered
"shooting on the spot one out of every
10 found idling." Lenin pioneered
modern genocide by ignoring individ
ual guilt, enforcing collective guilt
against "class enemies," also known as
"harmful insects."
The Gorbachev family's division of
labor is between theory and practice.
She is a university lecturer in "Marxist
Leninist philosophy," which is an oxy
moron. He is concerned with practice.
While she is genuflecting at Geneva's
10 Rue du Foyer, where Lenin lived
with Krupskaya, Mikhail Gorbachev
will, we are asked to believe, be seek
in world tranquillity, to enable him to
build communism in one country.
The theory, advanced by many West
ern intellectuals, is that the Soviet
elite does not mean what it says when
it says, as it constantly does, that it
embraces Lenin. He did not believe
there could be communism in just one
country. Lenin said: "As long as capi
talism and socialism exist, we can not
live in peace. In the end, one or the
other will triumph." However, there
never is a shortage of Westerners eager
to assure the West that Soviet leaders
do not mean the menacing things they
say, that what they really mean is ... .
Today's theory is that Gorbachev
wants a respite from the arms race, and
especially from one involving techno
logically exotic defense systems, so he
can "solve his economic problems."
But it is absurd to say that military
spending is causing the regime's eco
nomic problems. Military spending is
the regime's raison d'etre. The regime
has never given priority to the comforts
of the masses. It has never made a
serious effort to provide a Cuisinart in
every apartment, or even a separate
apartment for every family.
George
Will
Yet the West's wishful thinkers in
sist: Gorbachev wants to build commu
nism. Which means .. . what?
In "Travesties," Tom Stoppard's antic
play that turns on the fact that Lenin,
James Joyce and the Dada artist Tris
tan Tzara were in Zurich during 1917
18, a character is told that a "social
revolution" has erupted in Russia. He
asks: "A social revolution? Unaccom
panied women smoking at the opera,
that sort of thing.?" He is told: "Not
precisely, sir."
Even communists have had trouble
saying precisely, or even vaguely, what
communism is supposed to be. Lenin
said, with nice concision: "Commu
nism is Soviet power plus electrifica
tion of the whole country." If Lenin was
right, communism has come to Russia,
Is Leninism right? Ask Raisa Gorba
chev, who teaches the stuff.
Lenin liked electrification but loved
terror, and said: First things first.
Trotsky said, "We shall not enter into
the kingdom of socialism in white
gloves on a polished floor." Lenin said
you do not make an omelet without
breaking eggs. He established an egg
breaker: Cheka, the secret police. By
1919, Cheka was killing 1,000 people a
month for political offenses. In the
preceding 80 years, the number of exe
cutions in the Soviet empire had aver
aged 17 a year.
When the First Lady of the Soviet
state makes pilgrimages to places made
sacred by association with Lenin, she
reaffirms the iconographic role of the
man who unified the theory and prac
tice of mass murder. She is not a pea
sant; she is what passes for a philo
sopher in a society where the humanit
ies are illegal. She knows what Lenin
said and did, and what she is doing. Let
us do her and her husband the honor of
taking them seriously when they say
they take Lenin seriously, even rever
ently. In 1907, Lenin wrote to his mother
from Geneva, saying he was weary, but
was getting a "wonderful rest" in rest
ful Switzerland: "No people and nothing
to do is the best thing for me." Indeed.
But by March 1908, he had his pep back.
He told a Geneva meeting that during
the Paris Commune, the proletariat
was guilty of "excessive magnanim
ity It should have exterminated
its enemies." His placid Swiss listeners
probably murmured, "Well, of course,
by 'exterminated' he really just
means "
We know what he meant. And we
know what Soviet leaders mean when
they say they are Lenin's children.
1985, Washington Post Writers Group
Wl!l I a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnUt
and a contributing editor for Newtweek
magazine.
