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


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.

May 23, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1967-05-23

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

Seventy-Sixth Year

..., ..

p. - >a


NEwS PHONE: 764-0552


W RjO- A-

Universities And
Foreign Policy -- II

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



TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1967


r r
, +
4 T
" 6 ,VA


Oh Where, Oh Where
Have the Vietnamese Gone?

ONE OF THE FEW remaining props to
that fiction that our purposes in Viet-
nam are idealistic has crumbled. The new
American ambassador, Ellsworth Bunker,
has transferred control of the much-her-
alded pacification program from civilian
hands and placed it under the beneficent
direction of the military.
The rationale behind this shift is the
claim by the military that while they
have been making major progress on the
military front, the pacification program
designed to generate support for the war
and'the Saigon government among the
civilian population, is achieving no com-
parable results.
The civilians defend their record by
blaming their lack of success on the in-
ability of the South Vietnamese Army to
provide the necessary military security
in the villages, although most of its forces
have been taken out of combat for this
Bunker, with that cockeyed logic which
has marked the American effort in Viet-
nam, decided that General Westmore-
land's persuasive abilities are equal to a
task far beyond the promotional capaci-
ties of even a P. T. Barnum. This of
course precludes the possibility that the
failure of the pacification is due primar-
ily to the deficiencies of the product it-
self, rather than the identity of its ad-
EVEN SUCH DEEP and incisive politi-
cal thinkers as Senator Thruston Mor-.
ton and Michigan's own irresponsible,
steel-jawed Governor George Romney,
have seen the fallacies inherent in the
No one will question the persuasive
capacity of a bright-eyed, idealistic, heav-
ily-armed American soldier. But for such
opinion -molding to be long-lasting, the
soldier's presence must be of comparable
h duration. Thus for the pacification pro-
gram to be successful an even larger

commitment of U.S. troops will be re-
quired. And there is no guarantee that
these men would not be needed long after
the elusive and exceeding hypothtical
military victory is secured.
An awkward problem remains as part
of the residue from the alteration of the
leadership of the pacification program:
What is to be done with the gallant
fighting men of the South Vietnamese
Due to their marked inability to win
the fight int he field, or for that matter,
to stay for the fight in the field, they
were put to work in the pacification pro-
gram. And the U.S. Army took over their
military functions. Now it seems that the
South Vietnamese Army has also proved
incompetent in carrying out its civilian
functions. And thus the indefatigible,
ubiquitous American Army has also ab-
sorbed these tasks.
BUT THIS COUNTRY insists on dog-
matically contending that the South
Vietnamese are playing a key role in
molding their own destiny. It is for this
reason that we are forced to endanger
our own military security through the
necessity of finding a task to occupy the
This denial of reality is our main stum-
bling block to glorious victory in Viet-
nam. Our military problems are directly
due to our dealing with foreigners osten-
sibly on our side. This is an American
war and to achieve victory we must ad-
mit this fact. We must no longer waste
our time with silly and impractical games
such as the pacification program and
free elections. Of what relevance to any-
thing are the opinions of the South Viet-
namese people?
Victory in Vietnam can only be achiev-
ed after Congress annexes all of South
Vietnam and appoints General West-
moreland dictator.

'F .Y
. "'
a,_ ,;

* (I i



IMF,. The Register
stdi Tribune Synicatew
(3iL: :os rSS$ n w-.I


"What were you saying about a 'negotiated settlement'... ?
_the crystal palace,
Dr. King Stands on Integrity

It is perhaps understandable
that the Freedom House would
criticize Dr. Martin Luther King's
stand against the Vietnam war.
The foundation, whilehsupporting
civil rights at home, has for the
last two decades maintained an
archaic view of foreign affairs.
By lending his "mantle of re-
spectability to an anti-Vietnam
war coalition that includes well-
known Communist allies and lum-
inaries of the hate-America
Left," charged the group's "posi-
tion paper" issued Saturday, "Dr.
King's own position in the head-
lines has been considerably erod-
"Theamajority of the marchers
may have been motivated by their
devotion to the cause of peace, but
the Communists were clearly in
evidence among the parade man-
"It would also be foolish and
dangerous to ignore the Commu-
nists' participation or their rising
hopes for exploiting King and oth-
er non-Communists for their own
ends in the future."
FREEDOM HOUSE itself boasts
a luminous board of directors that
includes former Sen. Paul Doug-
las, NAACP director Roy Wilkins,
columnist Roscoe Drummond and
New School chancellor Harry Gid-
That these men would lend
their mantles of respectability to
such a shameful smear on Dr.
King's intentions must consider-
ably erode their own position.

The NAACP has already de-
nounced King's linking of civil
rights and the peace movement at
the April 15 Spring Mobilization.
The Freedom House further in-
sinuates that King is probably
seeking a "third-party power," al-
though reasons for diverting the
civil rights movement "can only be
speculated on."
dom House, its charges have been
amply countered by Dr. Kinghim-
self. In a speech given at the
Riverside Church in New York on
the eve of the gigantic peace
rally last month, King left no
doubt as to the sincerity of his
motives in lending his support to
Vietnam Summer Project.
He cited the frustration of the
war on poverty caused by drain-
age from mounting costs for the
war in Vietnam. He cited dis-
crimination in sending "the sons
and brothers and husbands of the
poor to fight and die in extra-
ordinarily high proportions rela-
tive to the rest of the population."
He cited the corruption of civil
rights' non-violent approach in the
face of increasing brutalization as
a national foreign policy.
And finally:
"As if the weight of such a
commitment to the life and health
of America were not enough, an-
other burden of responsibility was
placed upon me in 1964; and I
cannot forget that the Nobel Peace
Prize was also a commission - a
commission to work harder than
I had ever worked before for the
'brotherhood of man'."

It is from his position as a
minister, as a citizen of the world,
as a child of God and brother to
the suffering poor of Vietnam
and the poor of America, as he
eloquently puts it, that Dr. King
"Neither is it an attempt to make
North Vietnam or the NLF para-
gons of virtue" that he does not
address himself to Hanoi or the
guerrilla "enemy."
And he is "as deeply concerned
about our own troops as any-
thing else . . . for we are submit-
ting them not simply to the bru-
tilizing process that goes on in
any war... (but) adding cynicism
to the process of death, for our
troops must know after a short
period that none of the things we
claim to be fighting for are.really
DR. KING's Riverside speech is
filled with a tragic sense of the
direction which America is going.
It is pervaded by the weary des-
pair of a man who has given the
prime of his life's work in the
cause of social justice only to
find his one-time supporters slan-
der him for abiding with his mor-
al convictions.
In the end there is only the
appeal to conscience upon which
one must judge the worth of Dr.
King's stand:
"I speak as an American to
the leaders of my own nation. The
great initiative in this war is ours.
The initiative to stop must be

This is the last part of a
speech given by Sen. . William
Fulbright, chairman of the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Commit-
tee, before a meeting of the
Center for the Study of Demo-
cratic Institutions.
When all is said and done,
when the abstractions and sub-
tleties of political science have
been exhausted, there remain the
most basic unanswered questions
about war and peace and why
we contest the issues we contest
and why we even care about them.
As Aldous Huxley has written:
There may be arguments about
the best way of raising wheat in
a cold climate or of re-afforest-
ing a denuded mountain. But such
arguments never lead to organiz-
ed slaughter. Organized slaughter
is the result of arguments about
such questions as the following:
Which is the best nation? The best
religion? The best political theory?
The best form of government?
Why are other people so stupid
and wicked? Why can't they see
how good and intelligent we are?
Why do they resist our beneficent
efforts to bring them under our
control and make them like our-
selves? -. -
Why is it, scholars should be
asking, that nations seem to have
to prove that they are bigger, bet-
ter or stronger than other na-
tions. Why is it, they should be
asking, that implicit in this drive
is the assumption that the proof
of superiority is force-that when
a nation shows that it has the
stronger army it is also proving
that it has better people, better
institutions, better principles -
and, in general a better civiliza-
tion. Why is it, they should be ask-
ing, that so great a part of our
organized efforts as societies is
directed toward abstract and mys-
tic goals-toward propagating an
ideology, toward enhancing the
pride and power and self-esteem
of the nation, as if the nation
had a "self" and a "soul" apart
from the individuals who compose
it, and as if the wishes of individ-
ual men, for life and happiness
and prosperity, were selfish, dis-
honorable and unworthy of our
best creative efforts.
IT IS A CURIOUS thing that in
an era when interdisciplinary
studies are favored in the uni-
versities little, so far as I know,
has been done to apply the in-
sights of individual and social
psychology to the study of in-
ternational relations.
It would be interesting - to
raise one of many possible ques-
tions-to see what could be learn-
ed about the psychological roots
of ideology: to what extent are
ideological beliefs the result of a
valid and disinterested intellectual
process and to what extent are
they instilled in us by condition-
ing or the accident of birth? Or,
to put the question another way,
why exactly is it that most young
Russians grow up believing in
Communism and most young
Americans grow up believing in
capitalism or democracy or, for
that matter, what accounts for
the coincidence that most Arabs
believe in Islam and most Span-
iards in Catholicism? What, in
short, is the real source of ideolog-
ical beliefs and what value do
they have as concepts of reality,
much less as principles for which
men should be willing to fight
and die?...
I think that the universities
could profitably pursue these bas-
ic questions of human motiva-
tion and differences In perspec-
tive. Another area that might be
explored is that of the relation-
ship between a nation's foreign
and domestic concerns. My own
feeling is that an excessive pre-

occupation with foreign relations
over a long period of time is a
problem of great importance be-
cause it diverts a nation from
the sources of its strength, which
are in its domestic life. A nation
immersed in foreign affairs is
expending its capital, human as
well as material; sooner or later
that capital must be renewed by
some diversion of creative ener-
gies from foreign to domestic pur-
I would doubt that any nation
has achieved a durable greatness
by conducting a "strong" foreign
policy, but many have been ruin-
ed by expending their energies on
foreign adventures while allowing
their domestic bases to deterior-
ate. The United States emerged
as a world power in the twentieth
century not because of what it
has done in foreign relations, but
because it had spent the nine-
teenth century developing the
North American continent; by
contrast, the Austrian and Turk-
ish empires collapsed in the twen-
tieth century in large part be-
cause they had for so long neglect-
ed their internal development and
organization. As one student of
politics, I would be grateful for
academic enlightenment on this

WSU: Aftermath and Prelude

J. William Fulbright

IN APPOINTING FIVE university admin-
istrators to investigate charges of
camera-snooping in a Wayne State Uni-
versity's men's room, WSU President Wil-
liam R. Keast last week displayed an un-
responsive attitude toward the principles
of student involvement in. university af-
fairs. According to Vartarl Kupelian, edi-
tor of , the WSU newspaper the Daily
Collegian: "Keast very eloquently told
them to go to hell."
The election of three out of four stu-
dent-power slate candidates to the Stu-
dent-Faculty Council in university-wide
elections last week was an endorsement
by Wayne students for the demands
of the' Wayne Student Movement and
mirrored wide dissension over Keast's pa-
ternalistic attitude. As WSM leader Chuck
Larson said before the election: "If I
were the only one elected, I don't think
it could be called a mandate for student
power, but if other members of the slate
are elected, then it could."
The voter turnout indicates a growing
student interest in campus issues at
WSU. "I'm not really disappointed in the

turnout," Larson stated yesterday. "Two
thousand voters out of 14,000 full-time
undergraduate students are very impres-
BUT EQUALLY significant, the election
results impose obligations on both the
WSM and the Keast administration.
The WSM must engage the president in
discussions of the means to increase
meaningful student participation in uni-
versity affairs. But furthermore, it must
not settle merely for student representa-
tion on the athletic advisory committee,
for instance, but must press to insure
that students are represented on such
vital committees as the budgetary com-
mittee and the new committee investi-
gating the camerai ncident.
It is the responsibility of the Keast
administration, in light of the student
support for the WSM, openly to discuss
both the principles underlying the six-
point demand of the movement and var-
ious ways of implementing them.

tion, separating those experiences
which seem to have general appli-
cation from those which are
unique or accidental..
We must recognize that history
can be misleading as well as in-
structive, and we must avoid the
pitfalls of simple and literal anal-
ogy--such as the eternally re-
peated example of Munich, which
is so often cited as an object les-
son for cases which it resembles
only slightly or superficially. We
must utilize our knowledge of man
and his past in the only way it
can be utilized, not as a source of
detailed prescriptions for specific
maladies but as a source of gen-
eral insight into the kinds of ef-
forts that are likely to succeed
and the kinds that are likely to
fail, the kinds of policies that are
likely to increase the possibility
of human survival and the kinds
that are likely to reduce that pos-
We must be prepared to ex-
amine each situation and each
problem on its merits and we must
be prepared, as only educated men
can be, to discard old myths in
the light of new realities. More
important than any single policy
decision that we might make is
the strengthening of our capacity
to reconsider established policies
in the light of changing facts and
circumstances. It is not so much
change itself that the universities
can usefully encourage as the ca-
pacity for change. Even in the
case of those of our present poli-
cies which are perfectly sound, it
is not at all certain that we would
be prepared to alter these policies
quickly in response to a wholly
new situation or an unforeseen op-
portunity. One of the basic prob-
lems of our policy is thus intel-
lectual rather than political.
WHILE THE relationship be-
tween the executive agencies of
the federal government and the
universities has become stiflingly
close, Congress and the communi-
ty of scholars have seldom been on
intimate terms and have often re-
garded each other with open dis-
dain. In recent months the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee
has been engaged in an experi-
ment designed to correct that long
estrangement. Inspired as we have
been by President Johnson's policy
of "building bridges" to eastern
Europe, we have undertaken to
build a few bridges between the
Senate and the universities.
With results thus far that seem
to me highly satisfactory, the
committee has made itself avail-
able as a forum for the meeting of
politicians and professors and,
more broadly, as a forum through
which recognized experts and
scholars could contribute to con-
gressional and public understand-
ing of the problems associated with
the American involvement in Viet-
nam and relations with Commu-
nist China. We expect in the near
future to hold hearings on the
Atlantic Alliance and it is my
hope that in coming months and
years the committee will continue
to invite professors and scholars to
join with it in periodic programs
of public education.
I believe that a rewarding re-
lationship can be built between
the Congress and the universities
without either losing sight of its
principal responsibility - that of
the Congress to represent and of
the un7ersities to educate. Valu-
able though the academic rela-
tionship can be to politicians, who
have little time but great need
for the insights of history, phil-
osophy, psychology and the other
disciplines, the education of poli-
ticians must obviously be no more
than an avocation to those whose
principal responsibility is in the
IF THERE IS any one place to
which we are entitled to look for
the wisdom which may save our

generation and future generations





Buddhism: The Wray of Peace

Memorial Day

WASHINGTON (A--President Johnson
yesterday designated Memorial Day as
a day of prayer for permanent peace. At
the same time, Johnson said in a procla-
mation, "We shall continue to resist the
aggressor in Vietnam, as we must."
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service
Summer subscription rate: $2.00 per term by car-
rier; ($2.50 by mail) $4.00 for entire summer ($4.50
by mail).
Daily except Monday during regular academic school
Daily except Sunday and Monday, during regular
summer session.
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Michigan.
12:, Maynard St., Ann Arbor. Michigan, 48104.
Summer Business Staff
SAMUEL OFFEN................Business Manager
ED NEUBAUER ................ Advertising Manager
STEVE ELMAN..................Circulation Manager

In designating Tuesday, May 30, a day
of prayer for peace, the President acted in
accordance with a congressional resolu-
tion adopted in 1950. He set the hour be-
ginning in each locality at 11 a.m. as a
time to unite in prayer.
"I also urge all of the people of this
nation," he said, "to join me in prayer to
the Almighty for the safety of our na-
tion's sons and daughters around the
world, for His blessings on those who
have sacrificed their lives for this nation
in this and all other struggles, and for
His aid in building a world where freedom
and justice prevail, and where all men
live in friendship, understanding and
With the reference to Vietnam, John-
son said, "We continue to hold open the
door to an honorable peace, as we must."
IDbTTmT PP. RAM hthe UTnited Stteshasto

Buddha's birthday this year falls
on May 23. The event is being
celebrated by all Buddhists in
the world (over 550 million). For
the Vietnamese who are suffer-
ing from the longest, the most
monstruous and the most cruel
war in their long history, this is
an occasion to re-dedicate their
efforts for peace.
Buddha was born 2,511 years
ago for the suffering of man.
Buddhism, instead of being a "pes-
simist" religion, is a dynamic and
actual one, a religion which faces
suffering, solves it by going deep
in the causes of suffering. To
struggle for peace is the natural
duty of Buddhists because war is
the greatest source of sufferings
of men. In this struggle, espe-
cially since 1963, the Buddhists,
both monks and laymen, some
time immolated themselves by
fire and these acts are referred
in the West as "suicide." To dis-
pel this very serious misunder-
standing, I would like to repro-
duce below a letter written by
the Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh,
a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, poet,
scholar, writer (he is the author of
the famed "Vietnam: Lotus in a
Sea of Fire") to the Rev. Dr. Mar-
tin Luther King, Jr., on June 1,
"The self-burning of Vietna-
mese Buddhist monks in 1963 is
somehow difficult for the West-
ern Christian conscience to un-

burning oneself. To say something
while experiencing this kind of
pain is to say it with utmost cour-
age, frankness, determination and
"During the ceremony of ordi-
nation, as practiced in the Ma-
hayana tradition, the monk-can-
didate is required to burn one
or more small spots on his body
in taking the vow to observe the
250 rules of a bhikshu, to live the
life of a monk, to attain en-
lightenment and to devote his life
for -the salvation of all beings.
One can, of course, say these
things while sitting in a comfort-
able armchair; but when the
words are uttered while kneel-
ing before the community of
sangha and experience this kind
of pain, they will express all the
seriousness of one's heart and
mind and carry much greater
"The Vietnamese monk, by
burning himself, says with all his
strength and determination that
he can endure the greatest of
sufferings to protect his people.
But why does he have to burn
himself to death? The difference
between burning oneself and burn-
ing onself to death is only a dif-
ference in degree, not in nature.
A man who burns himself too
much must die. The importance
is not to take one's life, but to
burn. What he really aims at is
the expression of his will and de-

culties. (2) Defeat by life and
loss of hope. (3) Desire for non-
existence (abhaya). This self de-
struction is considered by Bud-
dhism as one of the most serious
crimes. The monk who burns him-
self has lost neither courage nor
hope; nor does he desire non-
existence. On the contrary, he is
very courageous and hopeful and
aspires for something good in the
future. He does not think that he
is destroying himself; he believes
in the good fruition of his act of
self-sacrifice for the sake of oth-
ers ...
"I believe with all my heart
that the monks who burned them-
selves did not aim at the death
of the oppressors but only at a
change in their policy. Their ene-
mies are not man. They are in-
tolerance, fanaticism, dictator-
ship, cupidity, hatred and discrim-
ination which lie within the heart
of man. .."
ONE CAN READ in the Repub-
lican Party White Paper on Viet-
nam this: "Just as difficult to
comprehend are the 'politics' of
the Buddhists, or the meaning of
their proposals for a peaceful,
independent Vietnam; we dismiss
them as visionary or unrealistic,
yet they may be more acceptable
and understandable to the South
Vietnamese, after 27 years of war-
fare, than anything we propose
in our Western political termin-

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan