100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 13, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-01-13

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


Awwr f a rtt gan en
Seventy-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

%-im'

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEWS PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: STEPHEN WILDSTROM

.
r

Can You DIG It?

THIS GIRL IN the Berkeley student
union places a collect call to New
York.t
"Hello, Daddy? I lost my job."
Pause.
"Oh, no. I'm not worried."
Pause.
"But, Daddy, I am doing something
steady."
"Daddy, I'm into Meditation."
Long pause.
And as the San Francisco KDIA SOUL
magazine would say at this point, "Can
you DIG it?" Because if you can't, San
Francisco is only the Mark Hopkins
Hotel and the Condor Club, home of
Carol Doda. As a former Detroit boy,
now an expatriate in Berkeley says,
"Listen, man, everyone in San Fran-
cisco is turned on."
THERE'S THE LADY who runs a ham-
burger joint near the ocean and
Golden Gate Park. "I'm a vegetarian,
you know. Have been for nine years.
I guess I've always thought of it this
way: You are what you eat." Yeah.
And later there was the boy who had
quit the army and had been placed in
a mental hospital by some devious
Catch-22. On his day off he was bring-
ing an eagle feather to Joan Baez
who was spending the Christmas holi-
days in the Santa Rita Rehabilitation
Center for her participation in the
Oakland demonstration.
Of course he couldn't get in-it was
only Christmas day, not visiting day-
and the cops told him to get out fast,
and maybe try again.
"And, man, The Doors are really
heavy." But so is the ticket collector
at the Dylan film who told us that
smoking isn't allowed inside-only
cigarets
"Now dig it- Out here we're into

people." So they dig San Francisco
Chronicle columnist Charlie McCabe
who wants to legalize grass. And they
dig the former Ohio State radical who
digs ping pong and his dog Stokey.
And you did them too.
And what about the hundreds of
stoned people who wander into the
all-night U-Save market at 3:00 a.m.
grabbing Hostess cupcakes and Japan-
ese food with directions in Japanese?
SOME PEOPLE can't dig it. There was
the tired man in the restaurant on
Market St. who told me to sit down
and let him buy me a Coke. "My six-
teen year old boy ran away to Haight
St. today. Me and my wife, we've al-
ways given him what he wanted. Why
did he do this?"
I'm sorry.
The man in the old Chevy couldn't
dig it either. As he drove down Uni-
versity St. in Berkeley and saw us
passing out Peace and Freedom Party
leaflets he stopped to tell that we
werc nothing but a bunch of dirty
communists and what the hell did we
think we were doing. We knew, but I
gues. he didn't.
And Roger Heyns can't dig it so he
is methodically suspending those who
can
"And, you, know, the people on my
block, they're not giving money to
SNCC. They're saving up for the James
Brown concert at the Oakland Coli-
seum That's where they're at. Dig it."
And you drive into Oakland that Fri-
day night and do dig it.
But then the most unexciting of
flight annuoncements: In ten minutes
we will be landing at Detroit's Metro-
politan Airport." Detroit. And you
can't dig it.
-LISSA MATROSS

A rI
By WALTER SHAPIRO
THE INDICTMENTS last week
of Dr. Benjamin Spock, Rever-
end William Sloane Coffin and
three other anti-war leaders on
charges of conspiring to promote
draft resistance represent far
more than merely the initiation
of the long expected government
counter-offensive against the po-
tentially e x p 1 o s i v e anti-draft
movement.
Viewed from the standpoint of
individual liberty, the indictments
-and probable convictions-ex-
emplify the massive coercive
powers which our government
can unleash against the freedom
of the individual when it so
chooses.
While the problem is a hoary
one, the theorists of liberty have
never developed an adequate
method of protecting the rights
of a dissenting minority against
the onslaughts of a hostile gov-
ernment supported by the appro-
val-or more likely-the acquie-
scence of the majority.
Traditionally the silencing of
dissent in America has followed a
style characterized by the arrest
of pacifists during World War I
and government's infamous Pal-
mer Raids against all suspected
radicals which followed soon after
that "war to save the world for
democracy."
A MORE contemporary exam-
ple of these traditional visceral
reactions to dissent is provided
by the continuing spectacle of
the fulminations of General Her-
shey. While the intolerance of
the superpatriots is infuriating,
their misguided attempts at re-
pression usually resemble the fun-
damentally purposeless frenzy of
the late Senator McCarthy.
However, the indictments of
Spock, Coffin and the rest handed
down by Attorney General Ram-
say Clark represent a far differ-
ent philosophy of repression than
this.
The initiation by Clark of the
persecution of the draft resistance
leaders was based solely on po-
litical calculation and not upon
emotional reaction. And dispas-
sionate repression is infinitely
more dangerous than the tradi-
tional flag-draped variety.
Furthermore the forthcoming
prosecution of the five anti-draft
leaders for counseling resistance
to the Selective Service System-
a charge they readily admit---'"f-
fers from many other well a r-
tised acts of civil disobedience be-
cause the alleged crime did not in
any way imperil the rights of the
majority.
FOR THE ONLY conceivable
right endangered by those who
counsel resistance to the Vietna-
mese War is the state's morally
dubious power to ship young men
without any viable legal options
to fight a destructive balance-of-
power war in a distant land.
Furthermore the government is
seriously overstepping its just
powers by attempting to apply to
the War in Vietnam laws created
to protect the Selective Service
System at a time when our na-

oscri ption

effective law enforcement, while
they avoid appearing repressive to
those liberals .ho are sensitive
to indicators of a New Mc-
Carthyism.
But except when dealing with
the hard core of incorrigible dis-
senters the Johnson Administra-
tion believes such symbolic prose-
cutions can be almost as effective
.as wholesale government indict-
ments in inducing a stultifying
sense of caution into the anti-war
movement.
THE GOVERNMENT hopes that
the overhanging spectre of poten-
tial indictment-made abundantly
clear as a result of the Spock case
- should effectively discourage
many liberals and students tee-
tering on the edge of militant re-
sistance from resolutely opposing
the war they deem unwise and
immoral.
In fact it is conceivable that
the impact of the government in-
dictments may be so severe as to
deter the timid from participating
in even perfectly legal anti-war
activities.
There is something innately to-
talitarian about the paranoia
which these arbitrarily selected
symbolic prosecutions will tend to
induce in draft resisters by caus-
ing them to worry as to if and
when they are to be indicted.
For there is little more injur-
ious to continued effective action
that the knowledge that your
freedom can be revoked by the
government at will if you ever
become too dangerous or obnox-
ious in your dissent.
CONSEQUENTLY last week's
indictments present a twofold
challenge to the rights of the in-
dividual through persecution of a

foh

Dr.

Spock
dissenting minority and by the
arbitrariness of punishment.
These are fundamental threats
to the right of the individual to
mold his own behavior without
fear of legal sanctions as far as
this behavior does not interfere
with the maintenance of society. A
And therefore the need has never
been greater for conscientious and
concerted individual action to
preserve these rights.
But the ultimate tragedy of this
attempt at repression lies in the
denial once again of the untapped
libertarian potential of American
society.
For as a consequence of the
stability induced by its unpre-
cedented e c o n o m i c prosperity,
America could safely stretch the
boundaries of legally sanctioned
individual behavior far beyond the
arbitrary limits currently set by t
those paralyzed by a deep fear of
real freedom.
IN THESE perilous days of un-
checked government arrogance,
conscientious civil disobedience in
those areas-such as draft resist-
ance-where majority rights are '
not thereby imperiled cannot be
abandoned as one of the funda-
mental tactics of the anti-war
movement.
It is in this vein that the in-
dictments of Spock, Coffin and
their three compatriots must be
fought to the utmost on both the 4
legal and ethical spheres.
For this country and those
liberties which once appeared
imbedded in its very fabric will
be the ultimate losers if anti-war
and anti-draft activities are in
any way slackened as a conse-
quence of the government's at-
tempt at 'slap-dash' repression.

Rev. Cofffn Dr. Spock

tional territorial integrity was
threatened. For the unhampered
existence of the state is certainly
not threatened by the outcome
of the current war whose rationale
at best lies in protecting some
nebulous national interests.
Observers of our deeply revered
democratic practices can hardly
be surprised that minorities are
given such little protection in
contemporary America.
All that the much vaunted
American electoral process offers
to the majority is the periodic
opportunity to exercise its veto
power in what usually amounts
to meaningless exercises in lesser-
evilism.
AMERICA'S traditional bastion
of individual rights, the Supreme
Court, has exhibited in its refusal
to hear almost all draft cases a
decided unwillingness to impinge
upon the almost all powerful
military prerogatives of the Ex-
ecutive Branch.
Such subservience to the Presi-
dent marks a return of the Court
to their policy of non-involvement
during World War II when they
ignominiously sanctioned the in-
ternment of Japanese-Americans
on the West Coast.
These indictments of anti-draft
leaders also illustrate the almost
total arbitrariness of American
jurisprudence when confronted
with a massive discrepency be-
tween social practice and the law
of the land.
The government recognizes that
it has to make at least a sem-
blance of enforcement to main-
tain its credibility with both the
electorate and the violators of the
law.
BUT WHEN confronted with
the social prestige of those who
counsel draft resistance - or the
millions who violate what are
commonly known as narcotic laws
-the government recognizes the

staggering political and social
consequences of any attempt to
legally punish all the violators of
the law.
Since the government recog-
nizes that any far-reaching at-
tempt at law enforcement will
point up the unjust absurdity of
the law, they are forced to settle
for symbolic indictments of law
violators chosen through some
mysterious and arbitrary process
which can be considered 'slap-
dash' repression.
The arbitrary manner in which
the five defendants in the Spock
case were chosen provides an al-
most classic example of 'slap-
dash' repression in operation.
Among the overt acts mention-
ed in the indictment was the Oct.
16 meeting at Boston's Arlington
Street Church where Cdffin and
Michael Ferber, a Harvard grad-
uate student, gave speeches which
allegedly violate the law. How-
ever, observers present claim that
Howard Zinn, a Harvard history
professor, who was not indicted
gave what was by far the most
potent anti-draft address of the
meeting.
THE OTHER major action cited
in the indictment was the Oct. 20
protest at the Justice Department
during which Spock, Coffin, Mar-
cus Raskin, co-director of the In-
stitute for Policy Studies, and
Mitchell Goodman, a New York
writer, tried to return several
hundred draft cards to the gov-
ernment.
However, Seymour Melman of
Columbia University and Arthur
Waskow of the Institute for Policy
Studies were not indicted although
they were equally conspicuous in
the delegation which presented
the draft cards to Justice Depart-
ment officials.
By arbitrarily indicting five
men as symbolic of all those who
counsel d r a f t resistance, the
Johnson Administration mimes

w

'uI11r 3i4tipnuDaily
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service.
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term by
carrier ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic school
year ($9 by mail).
Daily except Monday during regular academic school
year.
SDaily except Sunday and Monday during regular
summer session.
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Michigan,
420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor. Michigan, 48104.

Editorial Staff
ROGER RAPOPORT, Editor
MEREDITH EIKER, Managing Editor
MICHAEL HEFFER ROBERT KLIVANS
City Editor Editorial Director
SUSAN ELAN............Associate Managing Editor
STEPHEN FIRSHEIN ...... Associate Managing Editor
LAURENCE MEDOW....... Associate Managing Editor
RONALD KLEMPNER .... Associate Editorial Director
JOHN LOTTIER......... Associate Editorial Eirector
SUSAN SCHNEPP................Personnel Director
NEIL SHISTER ............Magazine Editor
CAROLE KAPLAtk.........Associate Magazine Editor
LISSA MATROSS......................Arts Editor
ANDY SACKS........................Photo Editor

GOT T~f GODtS ON DOCTOR ff0QK,

..a,. W tJ, .>::x:::. l.A

r fr:XY^} " ,i"'."i;"':~ {{r"r/'Y ../'4r3 . }., 1

c

:.
.
'
l
.' ;
f.6' *,

TheV
By ROGER SMITH
MR. CHAIRMAN, Congressmen:
the question to which I would
like to address myself concerns
the response of Vietnam's neigh-
bors to (1) a continued high level
of American involvement in that
country- and (2) American de-
escalation and phased withdrawal.
Of South Vietnam's neighbors,
only one, Cambodia, has been
outspokenly critical of American
military involvement in Vietnam.
The government of Thailand and
Laos, because of the restrictions
imposed upon them by their alli-
ance with the United States, have
publicly voiced support of our
actions in Vietnam.
At least in Thailand, however,
there is growing uneasiness about
the intensification of the Viet-
namese war. If the past is in any
way indicative of the future, con-
tinuation of the war will in-
evitably lead to further escalation
and ultimately to the involvement
of other powers, in particular of
China.
When this should occur, Thai-
land's own peace and security
which she has strived to maintain,
will be directly threatened. But
even if the worst does not come
to pass, That leaders are aware
that in the face of a continuation
of the status quo increased press-
ure will be brought to bear upon
them to provide more tangible
support for our position.
This they are reluctant to do
for several reasons, among them
being: (1) their feeling that they
cannot afford to divert military
manpower from their efforts to
cope with insurgency within their
own borders, and (2) their belief

ietnam Conflict

-- IV Southeast Asia's Response

feel uncomfortable with respect to
the presence of American military
bases and troops in their country.
Paramount in their minds is their
fear that these may serve to in-
vite the hostile acts of certain
neighbors.
Apartfrom this consideration
there is widespread displeasure at
the inroads which the American
military presence, so evident in
Bangkok and other urban centers,
is making into Thai culture.
IN UNDERSCORING the ap-
prehensions with which Thai
leaders regard the high level of
American involvement in Vietnam,
I do not mean to imply that the
Thai would welcome an unquali-
fied withdrawal of the United
States from her commitments
there.
Such an eventuality would im-
ply to the Thai that we have lost
interest in Southeast Asia and,
therefore in Thailand, leaving a
balance of power in favor of
China and North Vietnam, fear
of whom is rooted both in his-
torical relationships with these
countries and in modern ideo-
logical differences.
However, if withdrawal were to
follow negotiations in which we
affirm our interest in seeing peace
and stability restored in Vietnam
and preserved in other parts of
Southeast Asia, we need leave no
question in the mind of Hanoi,
Peking or of our allies that we
are determined to help the Thai
people.
Moreover, continued and in-
creased economic assistance to the
Thai would be further evidence
of our unwavering interest.

On Nov. 28, 1967, five leading Asian scholars,
four from the University, were assembled in Wash-
ington to give their analysis of America's Vietnam
involvement to a bi-partisan group of 19 Congress-
man. The hearing was initiated by Rep. Donald W.
Riegel, Jr., a Republican from Flint. The team of
experts was lead by Prof. Alexander Eckstein, di-
rector of the University's Center for Chinese Stu-
dies.
Today's article, the fourth of a six-part series,
is by Dr. Roger H. Smith, an assistant professor in
the University's Political Science Deparment and a
research associate for the University's Center for
South and Southeast Asian Sudies. Prof. Smith
visited Laos, Cainbodia, Thailand, and Vietnam in
1960-62 and 1966-67 under grants from the
Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. He has recently
published a book on Cambodia's foreign policy.

freedom of action in international
affairs.
His task has not been easy, for
he has had to contend with polit-
ical rivalries among his subordi-
nates and with pressures exerted
on his country by one or the
other blocs in the cold war.
For several years he has viewed
with alarm the increasing military
activity of the United States in
Vietnam. In Sihanouk's view,
American intervention under-
mines the very respect of inter-
national law on which Cambodia
depends for her survival.
Furthermore, the Cambodian
leader believes that because it of-
fends Vietnamese nationalism,
American policy can in the end
lead only to a North Vietnamese
victory, the reunification of Viet-
nam, a discrediting of the United
States and its subsequent banish-
ment from Indo-China.
To many of you familiar only
with Sihanouk's castigations of
American policy, it may appear
puzzling that he should be so con-
cerned with the preservation of
American influence in Indo-
China and Southeast Asia. The
fact is that on many occasions
he has declared that for her sur-
vival Cambodia depends on the
balance of power in Southeast
Asia fostered by the American
presence.
Prince Sihanouk is keenly aware
that his country's independence to
a large degree depends upon op-
portunities to balance one rival
power against another. When this
balance is upset by the fading in-
fluence of one or the other anta-
gonist, he fears that Cambodia,
will be at the mercy of the re-

ally, and Vietnam, now unified
and emboldened, will resume the
expansionist policies which char-
acterized their relationship with
Cambodia before the French in-
tervention in 1862.
APART FROM THE dire con-
sequences which he has predicted,
Prince Sihanouk opposes the Viet-
nam war on still other grounds,
including the fact that Cambo-
dian villages bordering on Viet-
nam have been bombed and
strafed, albeit accidentally, on
several occasions.
Moreover, he is apprehensive
that with further intensification
of the fighting, it will inevitably
engulf all of Cambodia.
For these reasons, then, Cam-
bodia is anxious for the cessa-
tion of hostilities in Vietnam.
Beyond this, Cambodia, having
her own survival in mind, would
like to have assurances of Amer-
ican recognition of and respect
for her borders, either as part
of the Vietnamese settlement or
in the form of separate agree-
ments.
In essence, it is hc. Ad that this
would have the effect of putting
all potential aggressors on notice
that the United States is stand-
ing behind Cambodia in her ef-
forts to remain independent.
IN SUMMARY on the basis of
the feelings of the Cambodian,
Lao and Thai leaders, one can
conclude that we stand to lose
face and faith more from a pro-
tracted "no-win" war than from
a negotiated withdrawal.
Even if military victory were
eventually to be ours, it could be

Roger Smith

control of the Hanoi-backed
Pathet Lao.
Given this dependence of the
Lao government on the United
States, one might reasonably ex-
pect that it would favor the con-
tinuation of a strong American
involvement in Vietnam.
Yet, Souvannaphouma has re-
frained from addressing himself
to the American commitment in
Vietnam, and on the few occa-
sions when he has been led to do
so, he has been extremely circum-
spect in his treatment of the is-

struggle use their country as a
corridor between North and South
Vietnam.
In light of this, they look for-
ward to an early settlement of
the Vietnamese war, but not in
the form of a complete abandon-
ment of the American position in
Indo-China. Ever mindful of the
historical rivalry between Thai-
land and Vietnam to exert domin-
ance over Laos, usually by playing
off local factions against each
other, they are fearful that with
the withdrawal of the protective

promise by the North Vietnam-
ese to cease their material support
of the Pathet Lao and guarantees
by the United States which would
give substance to Vietnamese as-
surances.
In short, they would like to see
terminated all foreign interven-
tion in what they regard essen-
tially to be a struggle for power
among domestic elements.
Some hope that when this state
is achieved, the Pathet Lao will
be forced to yield their recal-
citrant position and that a com-

I

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan