Seventy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Truth Will Prevail"
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: ELLEN SILVERMAN
Should the US . Stay in the UN
The Cuban Crisis:
Two Views
UNITED STATES is teetering at the
edge of a severe international disaster where
a mistake at one of several points could lead
to nuclear war. It is a ti'e for patience, not
for fear, hysteria or recriminations.
Monday President John F. Kennedy an-
nounced that the Soviets had pulled off the
biggest coup in years, arming Cuba with short
and medium range intercontinental ballistic
missiles and jet bombers, both capable of carry-
ing nuclear weapons. This marked a major
change in American history. The threat of war
now is more immediate and more personal
than at any time in the past 70 years.
In the past Americans have fought and
died in wars on foreign soil. Civilians with
soldiers or sons or with relatives in war zones
were personally affected. But the battle and
the threat of immediate death were absent.
War was an abstraction. The men, women and
children were dying "over there."
Not even the realization that the Soviets
had missiles that could wipe out the entire
United States in one strike brought this im-
mediacy close to home. After all, the missiles
5000 miles away in Russia. Now they are 90
miles away. The American people are living
under the gun.
MEANWHILE, Kennedy is trying to do the
best he can to eliminate this immediate
threat to American security. He has taken both
aggressive and diplomatic action.
On the diplomatic front, the United States
has convened a meeting of the Organization
of American States to rally the equally-exposed
Latin American nations behind the United
States. The OAS ministers have responded,
giving United States military actions a less
unilateral flavor.'
Rightfully, the United States took its threat
to the United Nations Security Council to
demand that the missile bases be dismantled
under UN supervision. This approach could
lead to a more general lessening of tensions
if the United States would agree to take sim-
ilar steps with its missile bases that already
ring the Soviet Union. As such a U.S. agree-
ment is unlikely, nothing much can be ex-
pected from the United Nations.
Lastly, Kennedy offered the Soviets, the olive
branch of continued disarmament talks, but
in view of past proposals and current actions,
this is merely a formal gesture.
THE MAIN IMPETUS of Kennedy's response
is military in nature and presents grave
and immediate perils to world peace. The
president ordered a "quarantine" of Cuba. In
reality this is a stoppage of military weapons.
There is no indication yet whether the Rus-
sians will accept the "quarantine" or what
the' response will be when one of their ships
is stopped.
As Prof. Joseph R. Julin of the Law School
points out, there is little legal standing for a
"quarantine." The Russians could claim that
stoppage of their ships is an act of war and
unleash the final atomic war. The Soviets
could undertake lesser measures such as con-
voying their ships and fighting tie United
States on a limited basis or harassing this
country at other cold war pressure points such
as Berlin.
The great danger facing the United States
is as much internal hysteria and fear as it is
the Soviet threat. The administration must
not be pressured into aggressive action, as any
rash move could be fatal.
The United States will be treading a thin
line of the abyss for many days, weeks or
years until the Cuban situation stabilizes. Any
misstep and a nuclear war may be unleached.
A LONG-TERM disaster can result from in-
ternal fear, hysteria and frustration.
Americans are not used to living under the
shadow of destruction. It is a more immediate
and frightening experience which cannot be
erased. A danger lies in the possible seeking
of internal scapegoats to relieve their tensions.
Under the strain of the Korean War, the
American people went into a period of hysteric
reaction, striking out at everything that did
not conform to accepted political standards.
Only in the recent years has the United States
moved out of the McCarthy era which has
expanded the range of unsanctioned opinion.
This reaction could set in again if the
United States panics. The leaders of both par-
ties and of other significant opinion groups now
have the task of maturing American opinion
and teaching it how to live calmly under
crisis.
THE NEARNESS of enemy missiles may also
accelerate the already strong tendency to-
ward the garrison state. More demands than
ever will be made for national defense. These
must be weighed reasonably so that America
does not lose its economic and political free-
dom trying to defend freedom.
Kennedy called upon the American people
Monday to resolutely meet this latest and
severe crisis. If Americans are concerned about
the future of their country, they will respond
with patience and courage.
-PHILIP SUTIN
IF WORLD WAR III is the end result of the
present Cuban debacle the United States
will have had the dubious distinction of start-
ing it, no matter who starts flinging the
bombs first.
This may not be obvious to those who let
their patriotic sunglasses act as filters against
facts. But if one removes the glasses for a
while the instituting of the Cuba arms block-
ade by the United States appears not only il-
legal under international law but also reeks of
hypocrisy and a "my country right or wrong
is always right," attitude which is not only
out of place in today's world but makes us
as bad if not worse, than we purport our
enemies to be.
From the first our policy towards Castro
has been characterized by aloofness and re-
jection. Batista's use of American arms to
kill his men did not exactly leave a good taste
in Castro's mouth. Soon after coming to power
Castro visited the United States where he was
snubbed by the Eisenhower administration
Our hostility grew when he began to think in
terms of nationalizing American owned in-
dustries and we asserted our displeasure with
such steps by eventually cutting off our im-
ports of Cuban sugar and finally breaking
off diplomatic relations with Castro's regime.
When Castro turned to the East for friends the
Russians welcomed him with open arms. This
friendship has lead to the apparent building
of Russian nuclear missile bases in Cuba, the
immediate cause of the arms blockade.
I say apparent because while there is little
doubt that there are missiles in Cuba, we have
reconnaissance plane pictures indicating such,
but there is a very definite doubt as to whether
there are atomic warheads stationed there,
since this cannot be determined from pictures.
This is not to say that any kind of missiles
in Cuba are a good thing; there are too many
missiles stationed in too many countries now
for the world's comfort. But to assume that
there are warheads in Cuba requires informa-
tion from other sources. The most obvious
one that comes to mind is the Central In-
telligence Agency, an organization whose past
record of achievements contains some highly
glaring mistakes and interventions.
BUT ASSUMING that there are missiles for
offensive purposes in Cuba-does that jus-
tify the blockade?
Anyone familiar with the American defense
posture is aware that we have military bases
in allied countries rimming the Russian border
from Europe and the Far East. In three of
these countries we have intermediate range
ballistic missiles topped with hydrogen war-
heads. We have 60 Thor missiles in England,
30 Jupiter missiles in Italy and 15 Jupiter
missiles in Turkey, closer to the Russian bor-
der than Cuba is to Florida.
TIDE PENTAGON has an answer for this par-
adox however. Viewing the Western Euro-
pean nations as "under the threat of Soviet
attack" an official Defense Department spokes-
man said that "there is no similarity between
the arming of nations under that threat, on
the one hand, versus the arming of Cuba on
the other-which obviously was not under the
threat of nuclear attack from this country.'
Thus the Pentagon would have us believe
that our missiles are in those countries solely
to protect them from Russian attack. Yet
under the "shield and sword" concept which
NATO is supposed to, operate under an attack
on Western Europe would be regarded as an
attack on the United States and would call
for retaliation by the nuclear armed bombers
of the Strategic Air Command.
As a matter of fact the fact that our
intermediate range missiles in those countries
require 15 minutes before they are ready for
firing and those countries are at the most ten
minutes away from Russia (which has the
location of the bases pinpointed) there is an
excellent chance that those missiles will be
destroyed on the ground.
IT IS TRUE that Cuba was not under the
threat of a nuclear attack from this country.
It is equally true that Cubans were living an-
der the possibility of a conventional invasion
from this country, either by United States
troops or by Cuban refugees backed up by
U.S. supplies.
Cuba simply does not have the strength to
deter a conventional attack from this country,
and if you don't think one could occur remem-
ber the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961.
Thus the only thing that will deter another
U.S. invasion would be nuclear weapons in
Castro's hands which willmake the U.S. think
twice before attacking him. So actually as a
peace preserving measure the missiles in Cuba
are more positive than negative.
OK you say, but these missiles can be used
for offensive purposes and Cuba is only 90
miles from the U.S. Furthermore President
Kennedy pointed out all the vulnerable places
in his speech last night and its pretty scary.
But this situation is not markedly different
from what it was before, because ever since
1960 the Russians have had us zeroed in with
intercontinental range ballistic missiles based
in Russia proper.
, ;t t " '
r rf -.l 7 : f 1 f4: ,
x - : i" .: t 1 i
11 A in l . (
itir~yfai:" 4 ; r t .'- }.. ttY .
d F~y - tt z ,trl1 ,. -;,"t "j' tt ll r x".tf L, f~ t,..'
17 ,'~
5 I~ tt " !:,'f' ,"r .' YML2"t S: .f ti I f1 ,, #
, f . a x E~xl> 4'!1. r.
t f t
7 i ; **T"f ili i C
} C ti t= . I
Yes .
0 .
( "'SOMEDM
l A.s.. tN
&wi te " ¢I rP sa vs 1
SvS, YOU'LL
TIAANK NMb FOR
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Protest Kennedy Action
To the Editor:
HIS AFTERNOON a group of
University people and Ann Ar-
bor residents will demonstrate in
opposition to unilateral action by
the United States in the Cuban
crisis.
The purpose of this demonstra-
tion is to express our conviction
that the only rational course of
action for the United States is an
attempt to resolve the crisis with-
out further use of force. We sup-
port the following proposals:
1) that a United Nations com-
mission be empowered to in-
vestigate United States charges
concerning the nature of Soviet
military shipments to Cuba.
2) that if a threat to the peace
exists in Cuba, an attempt be
made to end this threat through
negotation and the peace-keeping
mechanisms of the United Na-
tions.
* s *
WE ARE DISTURBED that the
administration has decided to con-
front the Soviets militarily, with-
out any prior diplomatic confron-
tation.
We believe that the installation
of Soviet missiles in Cuba and the
imposition of an American block-
ade are actions which put the
great powers on a collision course
which may end only in mutual
suicide.
Though only a few moments,
perhaps, remain before the final
crash,-sane voices must be heard,
urging that the truly courageous
action would be to stop playing
"chicken" and start living as re-
sponsible men --responsible to
mankind, to principle, to life.
We hope those who feel such
responsibility will join us. We will
gather at the Diag at 4:00, and
meet a group of Ann Arbor resi-
dents at the City-County Building
at 4:30.
-Tom Hayden, Grad
-Dick Flacks, Grad
-Jean Converse, Grad
-Harold Orbach
-Dick Magidoff, '63
Dissent ".s.
To the editor:
MONDAY NIGH T, President
Kennedy announced that the
U.S. would impose a "quarantine"
on certain cargoes to Cuba and
enforce it by any means. Several
of us entered into a discussion of
the situation and in a nice ideal-
istic way we decided that we
would protest what we believed to
be a decision by our President that
could only lead to the destruction
of all humanity.
Everything was fine until a local
TV station showed spokesmen of
both political parties and labor
and business, calling on the Amer-
ican people to, in effect, give up
a consideration of the real issues
at stake, and instead, to support
men's agreement somewhere and
without any war Cuba will get
traded for Berlin or vice versa.
* * *
BUT WE still choose to dissent;
not just because of sympathy for
the Cuban people and their revolu-
tion, but because there is so little
time left. Someday and soon, it
will come to a point where neither
side can afford to back down, and
they will come to blows. Only it
will notbbe with sticks and stones.
It will be with weapons that will
destroy all men, the "right" ones,
the "wrong" ones, the "neutral"
ones.-I
Sure, maybe we do back down
on Cuba, and maybe the Soviets
do on West Berlin, but what about
the next "cold war" crisis in Tai-
wan, in South Viet Nam, or in
Iran? What will happen when
neither, side can afford to back
down? The U.S. with its policies
is beginning the military escala-
tion that can only culminate in
nuclear holocaust. We all can
prevent that day from ever com-
ing if we act now. We were silent
in 1945, when atom bombs were
dropped on Japan; we were silent
when the U.S. began building ui
a nuclear arsenal; we were silent
when a passive nation allowed
corporate interests to ally with
the military and then to dominate
our policy making institutions;
and most tragic of all we were
silent when the few voices of pro-
test were stifled and ignored.
AND MONDAY these voices
were again labeled traitorous be-
cause they questioned the sanity
of a policy that can only lead to
the annihilation of all peoples.
The right to dissent is being de-
stroyed in the U.S. and with it
goes the last opportunity we have
to save humanity, our people, our
families, or ourselves.
Certainly, all those who believe
that the existence of a critical
and constructive body of dissent
is necessary to the survival of
democracy (whether he agrees
with the Cuban revolution or not)
must rise up in protest over the
policy that is being dictated for
Cuba.
It should have happened long
ago, but Americans were told that
dissent is a not so necessary lux-
ury that can be sacrificed. But it
cannot. We have too little time,
and we have missed too many op-
portunities. We need positive
policy, not one that can only lead
to the destruction of all humanity.
We must dissent, and it must be
now.
--Michael Brown, '63
Peter A. Signorelli, '63
Elephants . .
To the Editor:
A "FREEDOM in the Air" rec-
ord is worth more than an
elephant's tail.
--Michael Kass, '65
By MICHAEL ZWEIG
THE PRIME responsibility of the
United Nations is the study and
mediation of international dis-
putes. An affirmation of the Unit-
ed Nations is the affirmation of
the principle of international me-
diation.
It is very tempting, however, to
list the weaknesses of the UN and
conclude that the organization
cannot do practically what it is
supposed to do in theory. It is
still more tempting to conclude
that the organization is not worth
continuing because of its high cost,
especially to the United States, in
the light of its ineffectualality.
No one can honestly deny that
the United Nations as a political
power is weak. But it would be
dangerously narrow to conclude
that it must be scrapped.
THE REAL POWER of the
United Nations is determined by
its prestige and consequent au-
thority with the member states.
The United Nations is a world
power to the degree that indivi-
dual nations recognize it to be.
Now this is an enlightening
realization. It means that the poli-
tical weakness of the United Na-
tions is not due to any inherent
flaw in the organization, but re-
sults directly from national politi-
cal jealousies which refuse to sub-
mit to a higher authority.
The United Nations operates
politically as an advisory body.
Where all parties have abided by
the advice, as in the Suez crisis of
1956 and the subsequent UN pa-
trol in Gaza, there has been peace.
Where one or both parties have
refused to acknowledge -the au-
thority of the UN, as in negotia-
tions concerning the Arab refugee
problem, tension has remained
dangerous.
The power of the United Na-
tions, unlike that of China, exists
when governments believe it exists,
and disappears when recognition
is withheld.
* * *
THE UNITED STATES is a
member of the United Nations,
yet it has deliberately withheld its
recognition of UN powers as a
mediator on many occasions. The
same must be said of the Soviet
Union, France, and many other
leading nations.
"President Kennedy announced to
the world that Cuba, with its mis-
sile bases, constitutes a threat to
peace. Somehow this threat must
be diminished. The United States
can try through unilateral action,
or it can bring its appeal to the
United Nations for study and me-
diation. The former increases ten-
sion, the latter does not.
The President h s chosen to act
unilaterally and establish a block-
ade, an act of war In itself. He has,
however, injected a protest to the
UN asking for censure of Cuba.
Nonetheless, Kennedy has acted
outside the framework of the
United Nations in the most sub-
stantive part of his action to re-
duce the tension over Cuba, ap-
pealing to the UN only as an after-
thought.
In so doing, he has in fact
heightened the tension and sub-
verted the power of the United
Nations to deal adequately with
the situation. The refusal to rec-
ognize the United Nations as an
organ of mediation, at least as a
discrete first step, is a great failure
in the President's action, and per-
fectly exemplifies the source of
the weakness of the UN.
-* * *
THE SOONER the nations of
the world bring their disputes to
the UN as a prime source of action
instead of as an afterthought, the
sooner the UN will be able effec-
tively to deal with areas of tension.
If the United States is to be
a responsible leader in the world,
it must set responsible precedents
in solving, or attempting to solve,
international crises. The esp6n-
sible thing to do is to strengthen
the United Nations, not only by
praising its principles, but by us-
ing its channels for substantive
action. This no nation has yet
done consistently, and it is to the
discredit of the United States that
it too has declined to establish
responsible precedent.
* * *
THOSE VOICES which cal, for
U.S. withdrawal from the United
Nations call for the end of the
only existing organization which
can act as a substitute for war
and unilateral national political
action which heightens world ten-
sion.
The call to destroy the United
Nations must be replaced by an
effort to strengthen it. The de-
mand for national absolute sov-
ereignty and international chaos
must be swept away by the de-
mand for law and order on the
International level, administered
by an international authority. The
United Nations is one such author-
ity, with extreme potential if only
governments will recognize it and
abide by it.
Efforts to dismember the United
Nations, if successful, would result
in the negation of the bravest step
forward in this century by human-
No . .
By MICHAEL HARRAH
City Editor
R EGRETABLY, United States
membership in the United Na-
tions is becoming more and more
ludicrous every day, and the cur-
rent developments make it vir-
tually necessary that the United
States withdraw from the world
organization.
Americans cannot continue to be
placed in the awkward position of
having to support financially the
anti-democratic and anti-Ameri-
can actions both of the member
nations and of the UN organiza-
tion itself.
The dichotomies within the UN
are now bordering on ridiculous.
India is suffering heavy casulties
in the Himalayan highlands before
the guns of the Red Chinese. Yet
this same India is the sponsor of
Red China's application for UN
membership.
* * *i
THE UNITED Nations is bound,
by its charter, to peaceful arbitra-
tion of disputes between its mem-
bers. Yet it allowed, without lift-
ing a finger, India to overrun
Portuguese Goa by force-a situa-
tion which was clearly unsatis-
factory to everyone but the In-
dians.
It virtually ignored the bellicose
threats of Indonesian President
'Sukarno against the Dutch ter-
ritory of West New Guinea, and
only when the Dutch were faced
with physically defending a terri-
tory they did not particularly
want did the United Nations make
any intervention whatsoever.
In the Congo, again in violation
of their charter, they are still
seeking, after more than two years
of conflict, to interfere in, the
internal affairs of the Congolese
nation! by, rightly or wrongly, at-
tempting to suppress the national-
ism of President Moise Tshombe's
Katanga Province. In this quest,
they have actively slaughtered Ka-
tanga citizens on the streets of
Elizabethville-hardly a proper ac-
tivity for an organization dedicat-
ed to peace.
THE LIST of indignities and
injustices goes on and on. The
United States is constantly being
slapped around in the United Na-
tions chambers, and stabbed in
the back outside its borders.
The result of course is that the
little nations of the world-those
who hope to be dedicated to free-
dom-can only look for leadership
to a nation which compromises its
rights and those of its citizens in
order to kowtow to every two-bit
sword-rattler that comes along.
NO OTHER NATION in the
world would be this tolerant.
America has permitted a band of
international brigands to run wild
within her borders, in the name
of a cause which has long been
ignored-peace.
But the time has come when
the United States must assert it-
self in the name of the respect it
deserves as a sovereign power.
Americans should no longer suffer
any indignity and insecurity to
further the international con-
spiracy against them. And since
the activities of the United Na-
tions have degenerated to include
these, then it is no longer worthy
of American financial support or
political participation.
Former President Herbert Hoo-
ver has suggested an organization
of nations, dedicated to the ideal
of peace and freedom, and his
suggestion comes far closer to ful-
filling the. original intent of the
United Nations than does the
existing UN. With the presence
of the Communist bloc in the UN,
there is no longer any hope that
the organization can work to ful-
fill the ideals of its zharter, for
the Communists are far too in-
terested in international intrigue
to cooperate and compromise.
Now, especially in 'he light of
President Kennedy's action against
Cuba, the United States is kidding
herself if she continues to believe
that the UN will aid her. Better
it will be if she would pull out
of the UN and apply her finanzial
and political efforts to an organ-
ization which is truly dedicated to
the international policies to which
the United States can subscribe.
* * *
EVER SINCE the end of World
War II, the United States has been
kidding herself into believing that
friendship of lesser nations can
be bought somehow.
But the events of the last few
weeks, which have seen Britain
and France politely ignore an
American request for cooperation
on the Cuban problem, should
clearly demonstrate that even the
closest allies aren't too loyal.
America must be prepared to
look out for herself and protect
herself and her people wherever
possible. United Nations member-
ship is compromising this respon-
sibility, and the longer the mock-
ery continues the harder its ef-
fects will be to erase.
* * *
CERTAINLY it should be ap-
parent by ,now that many UN
me ber nations feel they should
co oerate with the Communist
IN DETROIT:
'Pen go' Charming,
Lightly Funny'
I
"LORD PENGO" is a rare ex-
perience f o r theatre-goers
accustomed to the bawdy, gaudy
entertainment vehicles of Broad-
way. Adapted by S. N. Behrman
from his "New Yorker" series,
"The Days of Duveen," "Lord
Pengo" (now at the Fisher The-
atre in Detroit for a three-week
pre-Broadway tryout) gently rec-
ords the last five years in the
life of an art dealer who is a
"visionary with the gift of real-
ity."
The play does not overwhelm
the audience with intense emo-
tional rants and raves; it quietly
charms with consistent under-
statement.I
For example, the play is billed
as a comedy, which may be mis-
leading to theatre-goers who us-
ually see this label only on spicy
Broadway confections. This is a
comedy only because it is not a
tragedy. "Lord Pengo" is never
funnier than when a character
observes that "the English are in-
corruptible; you can't give them
money-only a check."
The one problem in Mr. Boyer's
character is principally the fault
of the author. Lord Peligo goes
through an involved opening scene
in which he rehearses a used-car-
salesman kind of speech to sell a
valuable painting. This is permis-
sible because it is the manner in
which Lord Pengo sells his paint-
ings, but it gives the false im-
pression that he has a crass re-
lationship to art-an impression
which takes nearly two acts to
diminish.
Agnes Moorehead plays the
minute role of Lord Pengo's sec-
retary. Not even appearing in the
first act, she has about 25 lines.
It is curious that, first, Miss
Moorehead would take a minor
role and that, second, the pro-
ducers would allow an inadequate
performer play a larger role which
would fit Miss Moorehead's talents
perfectly.
* * *
RUTH WHITE plays a nuevo
riche art enthusiast who has an
incurable romantic streak which
leads her from lover to lover.
Unfortunately, Miss White cannot
del1iver a, hiiyvrnim ine wirt tr~h anvz