Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSrrY OF MICHTGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
1 '4
'. - -,_
1e~rtth OInn Ae 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MicH.
NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
.r ...
Editorials printed m The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1967
NIGHT EDITOR: WAILACE IMMEN
° I
f I ,'r me
STAR~tG- LEI
ABM Gamesmanship:
What Price Survival?
United Nations Power
THE USEFULNESS of international or-
ganizations has always been sought in
the political sphere, rather than in the
economic or social, which generally com-
prise the greater portion of the activi-
ties of these organizations and offer
great possibilities for achievement for
them.
For example, it was expected that the
abandonment of the principle of unan-
imity which marked the founding of the
United Nations 20 years ago would yield
far more spectacular political results
than it actually has.
But recent crises have strengthened
suspicions that instead of inspiring the
willingness to compromise implied by the
concept of majority rule, the UN can only
function as one more stage for acting
out the comedy of errors which is world
politics. The barely perceptible impact of
the UN on the course of events during
the Middle East Crisis bears these suspi-
cions out.
The secret of the UN's longevity is, par-
adoxically. that it has carefully refrained
from taking decisive action. Its absorp-
tion into the world power structure has
been phenomenal, and in all probability
it is there to stay because it seems to
know its place. It has rarely interfered
in situations where world peace is really
threatened or opposed a major power on
any vitally important issue; its idealism
is comforting and its -damage has so far
proven insignificant.
MOST OF THE WORLD'S trouble spots
have managed to calm down since
World War II, postponing the necessity
for devising any permanent solutions to
their basic problems. And gestures against
popular bogies like Rhodesia are cheap,
with little danger that such expression
of UN powers will set a precedent for al-
lowing the organization to function as
an instrument of overt action by tem-
porary majorities.
Is the UN doomed to such roundabout
ways of "making the sentiments of the
world community felt?" Or can it facili-
tate the nations' defense of their inter-
ests by peaceful means? The prosperous
nations. see the organization entirely in
political terms, and very narrow ones at
that. They consider the UN a failure un-
less it punishes "aggressors," preserves
the "peace," and lays the groundwork
for world government.
THE FACT that we seem to be stuck with
a UN that performs these tasks exceed-
ingly inadequately does not prevent us
from desiring something better. But we
generally look for it in the wrong form-
that of a strengthened political organiza-
tion. It is far more likely that the most
useful thing that the UN can do is to dis-
pense foreign aid.
Obviously world peace and world well-
being are interdependent. And economic
instability, though rarely the precipitat-
ing factor in a crisis, feeds the passions
which are aroused in such situations.
The crux of the problems of the de-
veloping nations is the fact that popula-
tion increases surpass productivity gains.
The tendency for contact with the West
to stimulate consumptive values more
than productive capacity, for terms of
trade to turn against the developing
areas, for nationalistic upheavals to dis-
courage Western investment, and for in-
dustrial enclaves to develop without bene-
fits accruing to the nations involved,
makes developing these economies a chal-
lenge in itself.
An economy can develop only if popula-
tion growth is not allowed to run ram-
pant and a skilled industrial population
can adapt technology and modes of eco-
nomic organization for the exploitation
of its ;own resources. But foreign aid is
indispensable as a stimulus.
THE ROLE for the UN should be to en-
sure that foreign aid is a constant and
coordinated effort. Armed with the re-
sources currently being poured into for-
eign aid by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.,
which have not always brought these na-
tions rewarding relations with the re-
cipient countries, the UN could probably
do much to combat the cynicism inspir-
ed both by the bureaucracy and corrup-
tion of the nations' own governments and
by sensitivity to the political aims of the
donors.
A compromise position must be reach-
ed on control of the funds-ensuring rea-
sonable security to the developing areas
without creating excessive hardships for
the donors. And a coordinated effort
should replace the proliferation of bu-
reaucratic agencies.
Though weakness seems so far to have
been the price the UN has had to pay for
survival, and though the organization
must seem relevant to the political in-
terests of the major powers, its short-
comings in the political sphere must not
be allowed to obscure its achievements,
and its even greater possibilities, both
economic and social. We must make the
best of a paradoxical organization, re-
vered as a peacekeeping instrument, but
exerting most of its efforts in the eco-
nomic sphere.
-ANN MUNSTER
Double Billing
.. :r... Y <.BARRY GOLDWA TER,
'Wars of National Liberation'
One firm statement came out of
the entire rigamarole of last week's
summit meetings.
That statement came at the end
of the circus when, occuping the
ring all by himself, Comrade
Alexei Kosygin flatly, coldly and
pointedly told a UN press confer-
ence that the Soviet Union firmly
intends to continue to support
"wars of national liberation."
There is no more important
concept in the conflict of our
times than these "wars of nation-
al liberation." They are the poli-
tical devices by which Commu-
nism alone has kept the entire
world embroiled in violence ever
since the end of World War II.
A war of national liberation is
simply any effort directed by any
political force against any gov-
ernment that supports or is sup-
ported by the United States or
one of its major allies.
IT IS NOT necessary at the out-
set that the war of national lib-
eration be altogether Communist.
It is necessary only that it be
against some power that opposes
Communism.
As such wars develop, however,
they inevitably become more and
more Communist-oriented in a full
and technical sense. But a war
of national liberation is not for
anything so much as it is against
-against the United States, the
ultimate target-of all Communist
conflict. Communist policy regards
the United States as the final
fortress that must be taken be-
fore Communism can control the
woild and its people.
There is no important statement
of Communist policy that serious-
ly modifies those points. Taken
together, they are the root cause
of the cold war, the definition
of the cold war and the terms on
which it will be ended.
The North Vietnamese-Soviet-
Red Chinese assault against South
Vietnam is a "war of national
liberation" in Communist terms.
Its goal is to bring a new and
critical area of the world directly
under Communist control and to
deprive the United States and its
allies of influence in or aid from
that area.
SOUTH VIETNAM is a vital rice
growing area. Red China needs
food, as does the Soviet Union.
Thus, South Vietnam must be
"liberated" from independence and
thrust behind the Communist cur-
tain.
The war is costing us thousands
of lives. And Comrade Kosygin,
a guest in our home via his UN
press conference, could look us
straight in the eyes and tell us
that his guns, his advisers, his
wealth, his agents would continue
to fight us in Vietnam.
He then took off for Cuba. There
is another example of a "war of
national liberation." Cuba is to-
day nothing less than a Commu-
nist military base strategically
close to our shores. It has noth-
ing to offer in the way of social
revolution or any other kind of
revolution. It certainly hasn't lib-
erated anyone. What it has done
is to aim Communist power right
across our southern borders and
to aim Communist subversion into
the homelands of our southern
neighbors. And Kosygin let us
know in no uncertain terms that
his government will work to create
more Cuba's in the future.
The spirit of Glassboro or the
spirit of Hollybush or whatever
name you use was very simple
in Communist terms: war to the
finish against every non-Commu-
nist government and philosophy
on earth.
Copyright, 1967, Los Angeles Times
By DAN HOFFMAN
Hanson Baldwin, the military
editor of The New York Times re-
cently wrote that the United
States has arrived at a scientific-
political crossroads similar to the
H-bomb controversy which split
the scientific community in this
country twenty years ago. He was,
of course, speaking of the "to build
or not to build" dilemma sur-
rounding the Anti Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile (AICBM or ABM)
system. Already, powerful forces
within the scientific, government-
al, military, and academic com-
munities have been marshalled in
support of the conflicting posi-
tions. The lineups seem to blur the
traditional American dove-hawk
polarities on international rela-
tions and have confused and al-
armed many of the members of
Congress with whom the ultimate
decisions will rest. It is, therefore,
not surprising to find that the
'matter is both complex in detail
and multi-issued in scope.
The argument itself is most ap-
parently an extension of he games-
manship banter which infuses all
strategic cold war thinking. How-
ever, the situation is vastly com-
plicated when one realizes that the
gamesmanship arguments stretch
across a multitude of disciplines
ranging from the scientific and
technical to the military, political,
economic, psychological, and socio-
philosophic. Thus, a seemingly
endless array of permutations and
combinations appear to cloud a
final resolution of the problem. A
brief intrduction might therefore
reveal the enormous depth of the
controversy.
THE ENTIRE ABM controversy
can be observed most readily as a
disrupting influence to what many
regard as the growing detente be-
tween the United States and the
Soviet Union. Aside from any
quantitative escalation in the in-
delicate "balance of terror" which
the adoption of an ABM race
would provide, such escalation
would certainly strike a grievous
blow at hopes for a qualitative
change in the temper of East-
West coexistence. It would per-
petuate the concept of teeth-
grinding coexistance as an in-
evitable way of cold war life ren-
dering further attempts at closer
Sino-American-Soviet ties a cruel
folly.
Yet if there are those who see a
source of black humor in such
an arrangement, there are also
those who regard such an "anti
race" as the eventual source of
peace if carried to a proper con-
clusion. Among this group are the
Berkeley physicists whom Baldwin
refers to as the "Californians."
Spirited by veterans of the govern-
ment-science wars such as Edward
Teller and Harold Agnew, the
"Californians" believe that the
road toward proper social use of
technology lies in the unhindered
proliferation of science and in its
widest application. A properly
functioning ABM system, they feel,
when deployed by both sides,
would greatly reduce the chances
of a trigger-happy nuclear war by
invalidating either side's hopes of
gaining "first strike effectiveness."
A rigidly impregnable ABM sys-
tem, Teller argues, would destroy
the need for either side to cal-
culate a nuclear trategy in its
political or military armaments.
The ABM system, according to
such thinking, could be the tech-
nological genie that would remove
the nuclear threat. The answer,
say the "Californians," would be to
bring the genie more completely
out of the lamp, not to push him
back in.
OPPOSED to the "Californians"
are an equally prestigous group of
physicists known as the "Cam-
bridge" group. This group numbers
among its members many Nobel
laureates based around the Harv-
ard-MIT complex, including for-
mer Presidential science advisor
Jerome Wiesner. The Cambridge
group bases its opposition to the
ABM system upon the principle
that a completely invulnerable
ABM defense is still several years
away. An adoption of ABM com-
plexes by the United States and
the Soviets might touch off a heat-
ed escalation cycle which in the
interim could result in a nuclear
war. Such a rapid cycle would be
inevitable, given the basic psycho-
logy inherent in an ABM confron-
tation. Wiesner feels that each
participant in the confrontation
would, by the very nature of the
situation, be riddled with uncer-
tainty and suspicion as to the
other's capabilities and motives.
Since there would be no sure way
of judging whether an ABM pow-
er's motives in a particular action
would be for defensive purposes or
for the cover of aggression, each
power would pursue an irrational
escalation for fear that the other
power has escalated. Similarly,
each power would face heavy in-
ternal pressure to act "protect-
iively" by pursuing a position of
superiority. Wiesner further argues
of the civilian protection which
was hoped for.
Undeniably, the economics of
the issue is alarming. Estimates
for the development of a workable
ABM system range up to $40 bil-
lion. Actually, any estimate of the
total cost of an ABM system is
conservative. As Oren Young of
Princeton write in the May "Bul-
letin of the Atomic Scientists," the
military-technical gamesmanship
of an ABM system has "actuarial
uncertainty":no doubt, the costs
of an expanded ABM escalation,
over and above initial deployment,
would exceed $40 billion over a
number of years. Perhaps ithas
been the lack of any financial
predictability which has caused
Defense Secretary McNamara to
line up with the Cambridge group.
As everyone who has ever read the
hoary legend of McNamara knows,
one of the Secretary's major con-
tributions to the Pentagon has
been the concept of the program-
med budget and the cost-effective-
ness study. The ABM system does
not lend itself to this methodology.
For this reason, once the country
embarks upon the development of
an ABM system, it must be willing
to either see the project through to
its conclusion-perhaps a several
hundred billion dollar prospect-
or abort the project midway,
chalking up the money thus far
spent as a lesson to experience.
A FURTHER REBUTTAL to the
"Californian" argument is that
raised by David Inglis of the A-
gonne National Laboratories. Ing-
lis states that a drastic conse-
quence of an ABM deployment
would lie in its insurance that the
United States and Russia would
remain the main protagonists in
any global nuclear strategy, since
no other power could afford to
develop such a system. Similarly,
no other power would be able to
then muster an offensive threat
to either of the two superpowers,
creating a situation of superpower
invulnerability against the rest of
the world. Since the United States
and the Soviet Union, in such a
position, would each be seeking to
represent the interests and court
the favor of lesser powers for econ-
omic and other reasons, it would
be unlikely that the two could
work agreeably from the heights.
On the contrary, since the second-
ary powers wouldn't 'want to see
themsleves as cannon fodder in a
nuclear confrontation, pressures
for a get-tough policy would likely
be brought to bear upon either
side.
The problem of the escalation is
given imediate urgency by the fact
that the Russians have already
deployed a number of ABM units
around Moscow and to a lesser
degree, around Leningrad. Russia's
innate fears of a military, on-
slaught from the West, conditioned
by napoleon and the two world
wars of the twentieth century,
have made hopes of Soviet ration-
ality on this subject seem rather
remote. The Johnson administir-
tion has already requested from
Congress contingency funds for
the prerequisite research and de-
velopment necessary for a Nike X
system. The Congress, titillated by
Admiral Rickover's recent scoring
of McNamara, might be in a most
oblidging mood. Indeed, Rickover's
denunciation is a good counter to
the McNamara notion of economic
impracticality. "Our society," said
Rickover, "is threatened by any
man who knows method but not
meaning, technique but not prin-
ciple-any man who tries to ope-
rate in a professional field in
which he is unqualified, any man
who depreciates wisdom, experi-
ence, and intuition."
Strangely enough, however, the
Rickover denunciation might apply
better to the "Californians," the
Joint Chiefs, the Godwaterites,
and anyone else who favors ABM
deployment. It is a simplistic level
of gamesmanship to argue that
the United States is less apt to be
attacked if it can better to defend
itself. It is equally simplistic to
reply, that in light of the country's
military capabilities and economic
resources, how much is "better"?
THE REAL PROBLEM lies in
the formation of a social philo-
sophy. The deployment of an ABM
system would be one more step
to decreasing social and political
latitude and fulfilling the Marshall
McLuhan-Teilhard de . Chardin
theory that the technology control
the society, rather than the other
way around. David Riesman has
argued that American foreign pol-
icy is the product of an American
society during times of prosperity
with a social ethic that is suited to
a time when subsistence com-
modities are scarce.
This has produced, Riesman
argues, a large group of disen-
chanted who seek to affect so-
ciety, and ultimately foreign pol-
icy, by either a fight (get tough,
lob one in the Kremlin mens'
room) or flight (make love not
war) attitude. This has produced
an emotional rather than a ra-
tional response to world politics.
4
p
4'
+i
Letters to the Editor
World Trivia Roundup
FOR THOSE WHO THINK The Daily
has no awareness of the things that
are truly significant to the little peo-
ple, we offer the following sampling
of world news:
DES MOINES, Iowa (R)-Pedro the dir-
ty-talking parrot at the Des Moines
Children's Zoo, is a changed bird. Now
he uses only clean words. Big ones.
Pedro, actually a macaw, was ban-
ished from the zoo's "Birthday House"
several weeks ago when custodians dis-
covered he had learned some colorful
profanity during the winter. They
blamed his shocking new vocabulary
on some plumbers who had been work-
ing at the zoo.
But Charles R. Elgin, zoo director,
now claims Pedro spouts only well-
laundered if esoteric words such as
"transcendental" and "megalopolitan."
How did they bring about this marv-
elous transformation?
"Off and on for weeks I'd read him
chapters from Oswald Spengler's 'The
Decline of the West'," said the zoo
chief. "I'm not reading excerpts to him
from Spengler's 'The Hour of Deci-
sion'."
Elgin said Pedro has reformed so well
they plan to place him in a special cage
where visitors can hear him recite.
WASHINGTON (R) - Miss Betty Fur-
ness, the President's special assist-
ant for consumer affairs, will marry a
tjilcvisinn veeitiv on Aue. 15 her nf-
twice previously. Her first marriage to
musician John Green, ended in divorce.
Her second husband, Hugh Ernst, died
in 1950. She has a daughter by her
first marriage, and a baby grandson.
DETROIT (R}-D. D. Gibbons, national
chairman of the Prohibition Par-
ty, resigned Wednesday at the open-
ing of the antiliquor group's 25th na-
tional convention.
"I've been working four days a week
for the party and three on my prac-
tice," said the 62-year-old chiroprac-
tor from Kalamazoo, Mich. "My heart's
still with the party, but my health and
my business are forcing me to step
aside."
The party is expected to nominate
E. Harold Munn, Sr., an associate dean
at Michigan's Hillsdale College, as its
presidential candidate for 1968. Munn's
main competition is expected from
Mark R. Shaw, 78, of Melrose, Mass.,
Munn's running mate in 1964.
The field for the 'nomination was
narrowed when Charles W. Burpo, a ra-
dio evangelist from Mesa, Ariz., with-
drew his name in a speech Wednesday.
"I don't want to be president of this.
wonderful country," said Burpo.
"I have a more important job to do
-spreading God's word."
The party, which traditionally has
opposed beverage alcohol as the chief
cause of most of the country's ills, is
expected at its convention to go on
record against confiscatory income tax
JerusalemA nnexation
In all the fuss being made in
certain quarters about Israel's
stated intention of reuniting the
city of Jerusalem, integrating the
Old City with its borders, certain
facts have been oddly ignored.
Certainly all who accept the prin-
ciple that no nation should ag-
grandize its territory as a conse-
quence of war, would agree that
this principle must be applied with
equal rigor to both sides of any
dispute.
It has gone largely unmention-
ed that the West Bank was an-
nexed by Transjordan as a result
of conquest by its Arab Legion
after it invaded Israel in May,
1948. The Old City of Jerusalem
was included in the conquered
territory. In 1949, in defiance of
the UNGen eral Assembly resolu-
tion calling for the partition of
Palestine into an Arab state and
a Jewish state, the occupied terri-
tory of Palestine west of the Jor-
dan River was formally annexed
by Transjordan, which changed its
name to the Kingdom of Jordan.
Jordan and Egypt occupied and
annexed most of the territory of
Palestine that the UN had allotted
to the proposed independent Arab
state, and Israel got the rest. Be-
cause of these Arab invasions and
subsequent annexations, the inde-
pendent Arab state called for by
the UN never came into being.
NOW, just what claim does the
Kingdom of ,Jordan have to Je-
rusalem and the West Bank, or
Egypt to the Gaza Strip? Does
anyone seriously think that since
Israel obtained control of this
land by use of force, it must re-
linquish it to those who invaded
it before?
-B. D. Fine, Grad
SDS and Israel
Having read the article about
five proposals reported all adopt
the same basic line: a complete
condemnation of Israel as an ag-
gressor and as an imperialist
power under American tutelage.
But the real "sleeper" is point
four which denies Israel's right to
statehood.
In denying the right of the
state of Israel to exist, the SDS.
members have belied their name.
Without being told the legal bas-
is for Israel's statehood, SDS must
at least be conscious that Israel
embodies the very ideal of democ-
racy in the Middle East. If there
is any hope at all for a demo-
cratic society in this area, it must
begin with support for the de-
mocracies that already exist there.
IN POINT FIVE, SDS affirms
its support for progressive revo-
lutionary movements in the Middle
East. A socialist Egypt supported
by Communist money and arms
whose tanks lie broken in the des-
ert and whose people are nearly
starving-does this personify to
SDS the progressive revolution?
Anyone who has looked at the
Middle East situation since 1948
can clearly see that Israel seeks
only to live at peace with its
neighbors. But when its neighbors
attack its borders, close its ports
to international trade and raid its
villages Israel must defend its
right to survive. Self-preservation
is not the equivalent of imperial-
ist aggression.
-Ellen Panush
-Shira Joffe
Because of an editing error,
the printed story failed to clar-
ify which points were included
in the minority and majority
proposals, respectively, which
were formulated in the SDS
workshops held Wednesday and
reported in Thursday's Daily.
The five points enumerated were
components of the majority pro-
posal. The minority proposal be-
gan after these points. These
were merely proposals for dis-
cussion before the plenary ses-
sions of the convention.-Ed.
!IP
0
1~
I
I
I