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.

June 01, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1967-06-01

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


I r Atr4tgau Batly

r

.:

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDJTED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD TN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

. w

Whe Oilln M 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

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.

THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: JENNIFER RHEA

Peace Party: Why Not
Make It a Foursome?

IN WHAT CAN only be described as an
excess of zealous naivete, a group of
political amateurs launched this week-
end a nationwide advertising campaign
to draft Sen. Robert F. Kennedy for
President in 1968, with Sen. J. W. Ful-
bright as his running-mate. The "Citi-
zens for Kennedy-Fulbright" began their
projected year-long appeal to the grass-
roots in the classic manner of the re-
spectable Left-they placed an ad in the
Sunday New York Times.
The group's members premise their
effort on their steadfast belief that Ken-
nedy, whose checkered career has best
been described as a "series of happen-
ings," will yield to the outpourings of
his notoriously quiescent conscience and
volunteer for the good fight against Lyn-
don Johnson and escalation.
These well-meaning people seem total-
ly oblivious to the simple fact that a
crusade against LBJ would, for Kennedy,
be a supreme act of political lunacy.
IT SHOULD BE remembered that no in-
cumbent President, no matter how un-
popular, has, since the Civil War, been
denied a renomination for which he ac-
tively contested. And even if Kennedy
could.somehow manage to wrest the npm-
ination from Johnson, it would be at the
cost of fragmenting the Democratic Par-
ty to such a degree that even the elephan-
tine Republicans could capitalize on it.
But the almost comic miscasting of
Kennedy as a peace candidate should
not be used to destroy the intrinsic merit
of the idea of an anti-war standard-
bearer. A peace campaign in '68, perhaps
building upon the success of Vietnam
Summer, would provide an unsurpassed
platform for political education and exert
the Left's largest possible influence on a
myopic American foreign policy.
In its own manner, America's Weltan-
schuung is the most circumscribed this
side 'of mainland China. The porspect of
a '68 presidential campaign with John-
son, Nixon and Wallace debating the mer-
its of bombing Peking will do little to
widen this rigid perspective.
IN ORDER to understand the political
effects of a peace candidacy on the '68
election, it is helpful to glance at the
parallel offered by Henry Wallace's 1948
quixotic crusade against Truman's "get

tough with Russia" policy. Wallace, mak-
ing almost every conceivable political er-
ror and with almost the entire country
convinced that the Progressive Party was
a front, still managed to collect over a
million votes. These votes were concen-
trated in the large industrial states and
managed to deprive Truman of the elec-
toral votes of New York and Michigan.
It is almost inconceivable that a peace
candidate cannot do as well as Henry
Wallace, and quite unlikely that he won't
do significantly better. The effects of
such a candidate of the '68 election are
obvious. In a relatively close election a
peace candidate would probably ensure
the defeatof Johnson and the election
of a Republican.
,This is not necessarily the unmitigat-
ed disaster that the image of President
Richard Nixon conjures up to cartooniAt
Herblock. For due to the large Demo-
cratic congressional majorities, and the
fact that a peace candidate will drain
off few votes at a congressional level, it
is improbable the Democrats will lose
control of Congress. A divided government
of this nature will bring back the good
old Eisenhower years when the govern-
ment did little good, but didn't do that
much harm either. And a Republican
President will free the leftwing of the
Democratic Party from their political ob-
ligations to support our Asian misadven-
ture. In short, a Republican President
would be far less powerful than John-
son, and it is Johnson's awesome person-
al power which is perhaps the most
frightening aspect of his administra-
tion.
THE FORMATION of Citizens for Ken-
nedy-Fulbright is a regretable enter-
prise, for its innocent indulgence in wish-
ful thinking can only distract attention
from more serious peace activity. The or-
ganization of a peace campaign in '63,
like all other forms of anti-war activ-
ity, will not immediately revitalize
American foreign policy. But given the
depressing realities of contemporary
American politics, it is probably the most
realistic course of action the peace forces
can take. And above and beyond all else,
a peace candidate would, for a change,
give the American people "a choice, not
an echo."
-WALTER SHAPIRO

f t I."
"ygt~

V4

r; ,'
?. ,
x,;
,..,
a

9

, :
,
.
s

-0

i . r i if. w i rN r i/ 7Ra .i

"Gentlemen, I think we have debated this question long enough .. ."
Letters to the Editor

Middle East
Today, as in the past, United
States policy in the Middle East
is characterized by glaring incon-
sistencies. With regard to free-
dom of passage through the Straits
of Tiran, the administration main-
tains that it is taking its stand
on the high ground of internation-
al law. Yet for nearly 20 years
the U.S. government has acquiesc-
ed in the exclusion of Israeli
shipping from the Suez Canal.
The logic of the situation would
seem to call for either forcing
the issue at both the Straits and
Suez or reluctantly recognizing a
fait accompli at the former as we
have done with the latter.
Second, administration spokes-
men wax very indignantly over
the' blockade and mining of the
Straits, calling this a violation of
international law. It would appear
to this observer that the U.S.
would find itself on much firmer
ground in upcoming UN debates,
if it would publicly forswear any
intention of blockading and/or
mining the harbor of Haiphong.
After all international law should
apply to great powers as well as
small nations.
LAST. the administration and
most pundits, including the usual-
ly reliable James Reston, have
given the impression that the
Egyptians have absolutely no
rights in the Straits. If these cri-
tics would only scrutinize all of
the statements of Secretary Dulles,
they would discover that the U.S.
position has always been ambigu-
ous on this question. For exam-
ple, at Mr. Dulles' press confer-
ence on Feb. 19, 1957 (New York
Times, Feb. 20, 1957, p. 8), the
thenssecretary was asked if the
Egyptians could stop a ship al-
leged to be carrying war materials
to Israel. His reply was as follows:
"I don't think so unless there is
some reason toesuspect the pass-
age was designed in some way to
injure one of the other littoral
(coastal) states." With the Israeli
attack on Sinai in 1956 as a case-
in-point, the Egyptians could
make a reasonably good argument
for closing the Straits to Israeli
shipping and with the blessing of
Secretary Dulles as well!
--Leland Bowie
Denial
I write in response to a letter
written to the editor by Eric
Wayne, '69, and published in The

Daily on May 26 under the head-
ing, "Silly Reasons." The letter
attributes to me a statement to
the effect that I believe that the
site of the new Administration
Building is off-campus.
Had anyone made the state-
ment to which Mr.dWayne ref er-
red and which was attributed to
me by a previous issue of The
Daily, I would be among the first
to acknowledge that it was drivel.
However, I have never believed
that the site was off-campus, and
I did not make such a statement.
-James E. Lesch
Assistant to the
Vice-President for
Academic Affairs
Support O(ur Boys?
Linda Diller's letter on why we
should support our boys in Viet-
nam was largely disagreeable, not
only in form but in content.
Her conclusions are justified by
her basic belief: ". . . it's not right
for us to be over there and it's
not wrong, let's just get the job
done so they can come home."
Sorry, Miss Diller, we don't see
it that way. If you choose to be
so totally lacking in responsibil-
ity, concern or even common sense
as to assume that we should do
something simply for the sake
of doing it, when it is "neither
right or wrong," that is your
choice. If you want to keep your
head in the sand, do so. If you
object, to people trying to im-
prove their country by exposing
its faults and working for changes
in its policies, rather than pray-
ing for them, it is you who should
leave the country.
DO YOU REALLY believe that
the flag-a piece of cloth-is wor-
thy of your worship and indig-
nant protection, while the lives of
Vietnamese and Americans are be-
ing wasted? We respect human
life, Miss Diller, not a piecerof
cloth which happens to be red,
white and blue.
The ignorance of your letter is
evident not only in your imma-
ture and illogical assumptions, but
in your callous and primitive con-
clusions. I hope you can "sleep
good," Miss Diller, knowing that
our boys are being killed and
are killing for no reason, as you
put it yourself.
You call us un-American. We
call people like you inhuman,
which, I feel, is a much graver
condition.
-Mary S. Roth

Walter Lippnann
Changes Format
Walter Lippmann, whose col-
umn runs on the Daily editorial
page, is instituting a new for-
mat for his essays. Instead of
writing three times per week,
he will write less frequent,
lengthier columns. The follow-
ing is a personal explanation of
the change:
As this is the last in the series
of regular columns, a personal
word of explanation is in order.
For 36 years I have been writ-
ing on a fixed schedule and at
more or less fixed length. The
production of such a column from
Washington requires immediate
and continual contact with the
centers of decision.
For about two years I have been
coming to the conclusion that
this immediacy and this continu-
ity is too much of a strain. It
was not a physical strain to write.
But it was a strain to be so con-
tinually and closely on the alert,
so attentive, so up to the minute.
More and more I have come
to wish to get rid of the necessity
of knowing, day in and day out,
what the blood pressure is at the
White House and who said what
and who saw whom and who is
listened to and who is not listened
to. The work of a Washington col-
umnist requires that kind of con-
stant and immediate knowledge,
and it is only too obvious that
the job should be done by men
in the prime=of their lives.
SO I AM GOING to stop the
regular column. But as I do not
mean to retire and lapse into sil-
ence I have been experimenting
with new forms-with longer ar-
ticles which cover a wider range
of subject matter and can, if the
editors choose, be broken up into
a series of smaller pieces.
I have already made two experi-
ments with these longer articles--
one a review of the Manchester
book and the other an article on
public television. I shall experi-
ment further during the summer
when I am abroad. When I re-
turn in the autumn I shall again
write newspaper articles, without
fixed schedules and with no dead-
lines to meet.
We shall see what I can make
of it.
(c), 1967, The washington Post Co.

-.-mTRAN VAN DINH
Questioning Legalit
Of Viet Commitment
Enough evidence has been gathered to prove that the U.S. military;
presence in South Vietnam is a flagrant violation of the 1954 Geneva
Agreements which ended the First Indochinese War (1945-1954). The
Johnson administration knows this, even if it does not admit it. That
is why since the last year, Washington cited its commitment under
the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) as to justify the
U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. Secretary Rusk has said: "It
is this fundamental SEATO obligation that has from the outset guided
our actions in South Vietnam" (Statement of February 18, 1966,
"Department of State Bulletin," March 7, 1966).
South Vietnam has never been a member of SEATO which was
created in Manila on September 8, 1954, as an anwser to the French
defeat at Dienbienphu. But South Vietnam was covered under Article
IV of the Treaty's Protocol and also under Article III of the same
Protocol:
"'Article III: The Parties undertake to strengthen their free
institutions and to cooperate with one another in the further
developments of economic measures, including technical assistance,
designed both to promote economic progress and social well being
and to further the individual and collective efforts of governments
towards these ends.
"Article IV: Each Party recognizes that aggression by means
of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties or
against any state or territory which the Party by UNANIMOUS
agreement may hereafter designate, would endanger its own peace
an safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the
common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Measures taken under this paragraph shall be IMMEDIATELY
reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. #
"2. If, in the opinion of any of the Parties, the inviolability
of the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political
independence of anyParty in the treaty area or any other State
or territory to which the provisions of Paragraph I of this Article
from time to time apply is threatened in any way other than by
armed attac or is affected or threatened by any fact or situation
which might endanger the peace of the area, the Parties shall con-
sult immediately in order to agree on the measures which should be
taken for the common defense.
"3. It is understood that no action on the territory of any
State designated by UNANIMOUS agreement under paragraph I
of this article or on any territory so designated shall be taken
except at the invitation or with the consent of of the government
concerned. (Emphasis added)
It is clear from the above that the U.S. military intervention in
South Vietnam did not meet with the unanimous, agreement of all
parties-United Kingdom, U.S., France, Pakistan, Philippines, Thai-
land, Australia, New Zealand. France and Pakistan refused to send
their foreign ministers to the last meeting of the SEATO in Washing-
ton, on April 18, 1967. It was also clear that the U.S. did not imme-
diately report to the Security Council of the U.N. when it intervened
militarily to South Vietnam.
Most important, South Vietnam cannot legally accept the U.S.
military presence. In fact, there exists, besides the Geneva agreements
in the archives of the South Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs a
very important document which so far has never, been brought to light
This document hereafter reproduced in full is "The government. (ol
South Vietnam) declaration of April 6, 1956 regarding the withdrawa
of the French Expeditionary Corps, the Demarcation Line and the
Control Commission"
"On March 30, 195, the French and Vietnamese delegations
entrusted with military talks signed a minute fixing the time
schedule of the withdrawal of the French Expeditionary Corps.
This withdrawal has been requested by the Government of the
Republic of Vietnam on January 19, 1956.
"On the eve of this withdrawal which is bound attract inter-
national attention, because of the problems which are raised by
the departure of the French forces, the Government of the Re-
public of Vietnam wishes to recall the permanent principles on
which its policy is based.
"This policy continues to be based on the defense of full and
completessovereignty of Vietnam and the preservation of peace
to which the Vietnamese government like the Vietnamese people,
is deeply attached. It is therefore in the light of this twofold prin-
ciple that the following problems concerning Vietnam will be solved.
"I. Withdrawal of the French Expeditonary Corps:
"For the preservation of its sovereignty and in the interest
of peace, the Republic of Vietnam has considered that it could not
accept the presence of any foreign forces or the cession of any
military base on its territory. It has equally thought it un-
necessary to join any military alliance.
In conformance with this principle, the Vietnamese govern-
ment, in agreement with the French government has decided on
the withdrawal of the French Expeditionary Corps. The departure
of the French troops which will have as its immediate consequence
the decrease of the military potential belowthe 17th parallel cannot
but prove in the most striking manner the wish for peace of the
Vietnamese government."

This document has been pub=shed in many official publications
of the South Vietnamese government, especially in a booklet entitled
"The Problem of Reunification of Vietnam" (Ministry of Information,
1958).
Up until now no government in Saigon denounced or nullified
this governmental declaration. Of course it is naive and even ridiculous
at this time to talk about the legality of the U.S. military presence
in South Vietnam but the document needs to be revealed for historical
record. It is also interesting to note that this declaration of neutrality
of the South Vietnam government has gained for South Vietnam
many friends in the neutralist countries of the Afro-Asian world. The
Burmese government, truly neutralist, which before accepted only the
representative of North Vietnam, has since the end of 1957 agreed to
the presence of a South Vietnamese diplomat. In October 1957, I my-
self was the first South Vietnam Minister Plenipotentiary and Consul
General of the Republic of (South) Vietnam in Rangoon.
"Be Virtuous, My Dear, And Beware
Of Strangers"

Automated Errors

THE COMPUTER has apparently elimi-
nated the inept employe as office
scapegoat. Managers and workers can
painlessly attribute any delay or error to
nebulous "computer breakdowns," even
though they otherwise cite the infallabil-
ity, and time-saving value of machine as
justification for its cost.
Take several local cases. A local apart-
ment rental service provided clients at-
tempting to fill vacancies with prospec-
tive roommates of the wrong sex. The
mistakes were blamed on the usual com-
puter failure. The Office of Student
Housing has been as much as six weeks
behind schedule in assigning dormitory
spaces for next fall; work was delayed by
a computer failure which employes could
not explain to worried freshmen who re-
ceived no housing application.

And now the Office of Orientation, un-
able to fathom the mysterious whims of
computers, has sent maize and blue
"Welcome to Michigan" booklets to all
transfer applicants, including those who
have already been rejected by the Uni-
versity.
THE GUILT must actually lie with busi-
nessmen and administrators who be-
lieve computers are a bureaucratic mir-
acle drug and expect inexperienced em-
ployes to understand computer technol-
ogy. Computer imperfections must be
accepted as an unavoidable consequence
of their complexity, and most of all, on
their dependence on the still technically
fallible human being.
-MARCIE ABRAMSON

d

of

Evening the Score

Hey, Did You See Stokely?'

"AT THIS HISTORIC hour of decision
when the best values of humanity's
heritage are at stake ... Egypt appeals
for help by volunteers, arms or other-
wise, to all those over the world who
care still for the dignity of man and
the rule of law in international relations.
'She needs your help'."
This documented statement was pre-
sented by the permanent representative
of Egypt, Omar Loutfi, to the General
Assembly of the United Nations on Nov. 6,
1956. Directing his comments primarily
to the state of Israel, with implied ref-
erence to the United Kingdom and
France, who had taken belligerent ac-
tions against a prone Egypt, Loutfi made
it clear that further aggression against
hic -1- -T -111 nn: P niratp+ . n r

its citizens would rise "against the forces
of evil in behalf of decency and a life
worth living."
EGYPT'S WARNING was a harbinger of
the crisis that the world is presently
witnessing. For 11 years, Nasser has been
licking his wounds, both to his military
and his pride-and biding his, time. Dis-
agreeing with France and the United
Kingdom, Nasser in the interim, turned
more attention toward the Soviet Union,
and received increased military aid to re-
build the Egyptian army. This was done
at the expense of improving the living
conditions of his people, and the econo-
my is now on the verge of bankruptcy.
Furthermore, Nasser suffered a serious
loss of prestige from the Suez episode.

By JANET WELLS
Collegiate Press Service
ATLANTA-The little girl on
the tennis court wasn't interest-
ed in anything but her new pink
dress and the imaginary game of
hopskotch she was playing on
the lines of the tennis court. She
got too far away from the people
clustering around the mikes and
TV cameras, and her father - a
moustached Negro man in a dark
suit-reached out a hand to pull
her back.
"Did you see him, honey?" he
asked. "Did you see Stokely Car-
michael?"
The little girl was only four or
yive and too young to know who
Stokely Carmichael was. She was
>robably too young, too, to know
anything a b o u t discrimination.
She went on bouncing on one
foot, her pink skirt bobbing, un-

zoning of the pleasant Negro com-
munity for business.
Stokely, talked instead about
black people.
He told them about their his-
tory, too often forgotten by the
writers of textbooks confined to
Western civilization. ("They teach
us what they want us to know.
They have brainwashed the hell
out of us.")
He informed them that the first
university in the world was not
in white Greece but in Negro
Timbuctu. He even pointed out
that if George Washington Carver
had not invented peanut butter,
whites would have to eat plain
jelly sandwiches.
His statements were provoca-
tive if you were white, but every-
one chuckled when he said, "We
got love, we got nonviolence, we
got morality. We got rhythm. We

The card seemed to sum up
what the young man was trying
to tell them, and the faces of the
people around him were lit with
the same excitement that sparkled
in the eyes of the little girl's
father. Stokely had told them and
made them believe what no one
else had-that they were not only
equal but beautiful, that one does
not have to be white to hold his
head with pride.
They seemed to have awakened
like the adolescent who realizes
for the first time that he is a
human being with a mind and a
will and a 'future of his own and
no longer needs or wants the con-
stant supervision of his parents.
There was a hint of teenage re-
belliousness, too, which would be
outgrown with the assumption of
new responsibilities.
When Stokely had finished, one

a

J StrtT 6i ', 1ti - r
aFo
k pQ rVPb CAr iipAT s
"".
1 0

A
U

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan