0

OPINION

Page 4

Thursday, November 6, 1980

The Michigan Daily


Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

v

Vol. XCI, No. 55

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, M1 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

MSA recognizes CARP

CERTAINLY THE local chapter of
the Collegiate Association for the
Research of Principles is a mysterious
organization. Some would call the
small group-which is directly af-
filiated with the infamous Rev. Moon's
Unification Church-fishy.
But the Michigan Student Assembly
acted correctly Tuesday night when it
recognized CARP as an official'student
organization. There exists no
documented proof that CARP has
committed any wrongdoings since it
set up shop on campus last year. Not
recognizing the group would have been
unfair and contrary to the spirit of free
exchange of ideas that prevails in the
University community.
This is not to say CARP is an
especially desirable student group.
Some MSA members have alleged that
CARP-known for its extreme right-
wing political stances-is affiliated
with American and Korean intelligen-
ce agencies and is engaged ih spying
on student activists.

Further, a flood of reports from for-
mer "Moonies" indicates that the
Unification Church allegedly employs
physical and mental intimidation in
the recruitment of its members.
Several MSA members were worried
that CARP might employ similar
recruitment practices on campus.
It may well be disturbing to many
that CARP, by virtue of its MSA
recognition, can now apply for Assem-
bly funds and student office space.
Yet CARP is a very small
organization. Last year it had fewer
than 10 members; this year CARP
leaders have been reluctant to reveal,
the group's size, but many surmise it
has not grown. MSA has the power of
approval over any funds that CARP
might request, and any allocations will'
probably be made in relation to the
group's size.
It would be improper to legislate
CARP off the campus, as MSA has
determined. But there is nothing
wrong with just ignoring the group.

AQ. &J
Stanley Swinton, a 1940 graduate of the
University, is currently vice president and
director of world services for the
Associated Press. A former Daily editor,
Swinton has reported from more than 100
countries since he joined AP the day he
graduated. His accomplishments have in-
cluded eyewitness accounts of the public
slaying of Benito Mussolini behind Ger-
man lines in 1945 and the Chinese inter-
vention into North Korea in 1950. He has
served as a combat correspondent for
Stars and Stripes from North Africa,
Italy, and France. He also was an AP
bureau chief in Southeast Asia, and then
in the Mideast. He has been AP's director
of World Services since 1960, and vice
president since 1972.
On Tuesday, Swinton spoke to a
political science class on campus. He
predicted a "falling apart" of the current
world political order in the coming half-
century, and expanded on his views in an
interview yesterday with Daily staff writer
Steve Hook. An edited transcript follows.
* * * *
Would "pessimistic" be a correct word to
describe your perspective of the next 50
years?'
Swinton: Grim, grim or pessimistic. I feel
that the forces are changing fundamentally,
that economic pressures are going to become
more important than nationalism, for instan-
ce, or communism-that the have-not nations
are going to want more from the haves, and
this is going to cause a fundamental recon-
figuration of power postures.
How does the election of Ronald Reagan af-
fect this vision?
Swinton: I think the primary thing about
the Reagan election is going to be how he
changes the continuity of U.S. foreign
policy-the ongoing things that are going on
which are very important. Whether he will,
for instance, raise the question of the Panama
Canal, which has been resolved but which
might become an issue again. I think over-
seas, in other countries, the main thing
they're looking for is some kind of stability in
American foreign policy, and if he can
provide more stability than Carter did-not
waffle and go back and forth so
much-Reagan's election might be welcomed
overseas.
One of Carter's biggest problems was that
he made a lot of promises that he had no
chance to come through on, given in-
stitutional restraints he was under, such as
Congress and state governments. Do you
think Reagan will have a comparable in-
stitutional problem getting his policies im-
plemented?
Swinton: I think he'll have an institutional
problem without any question. I remember
talking to Jack Kennedy after he had been in
for about six months, and he could not get the
bureaucracy to move. He'd say, "Let's do
this" and then the bureaucracy, the Congress,
and other people would inhibit him. Every
president, since the Congress took back so

much authority from the president, has had
this problem. He'll definitely have that
problem, I would foresee.
With regard to foreign policy, you
suggested moving the Secretary of State into
the White House as a means to improve the
way our strategies are planned.
Swinton: I think physically the Secretary of
State should be next to the president so they
can talk to each other eight or ten times a day.
When the National Security Council head is
sitting in the White House, the president tends
to talk to him, rather than have somebody
come from across town. Proximity is always
a good thing.-

Swinton: Right, it is a possible structure. I
think it's more likely, however, that you'll get
regional alignments, which will then build up
to be more than regional.For instance, you'll
get a regional alignment in Latin Americ
that will cooperate with a regional alignmen
in Africa. It'll happen on a continental basis,
rather than in the U.N.,where everything is
thrown together.
So you think that is the structure that creates
the most optimism for the future.
Swinton: If it evolves, that's a hopeful sign.
No one has a crystal ball-you can't tell the
future. But I would think that if you get
economic development in the countries that
are grossly underdeveloped, that they'll then
be less worried about their own problems an
more cognizant of the problems of othe
nations.
Many organizations nationwide have called
for the abolition of the CIA. You claim it is a
necessity.
Swinton: In the first place, every nation in
the world going back a thousand years has
had an intelligence organization. If you don't
know what's going on in other countries-if
you don't know, for instance, that another
country is planning a pre-emptive a
tack-you're a giant with your hands boun
The excesses of the CIA-the so-called "dirty
tricks" part of it-are probably counter-effec-
tive and should be minimized. But we should
still have a very effective intelligence system,
so that whoever is sitting in the White House
will be able to make decisions on U.S. national
interest based on valid information.
There was a football analogy used ...
Swinton: Right-it's like trying to be a
quarterback wearing a blindfold. Who do you
pass to?
Although we're in an era in which more an
more new , nations are forming and
developing, the American brand of a free
press is a rare species. What impact do you
think the predominantly government-con-
trolled international media will have on the
world order?
Swinton: I, think" it's going to be very
negative-there are only about 22 countries in
the world with a fully free press, and not more
than 30 or 40 with a partially free press.
you get these government-dominated new
systems, the persons in those countries don't
have access to other ideas; they don't really
trust the government press. And the ideas
contrary to what the government wants tend
to be far more radical. With a free press, you
get a more stable order.
You explained that the horrifying potential
of nuclear weapons will make such a war
unlikely. Given the course of human history,
what makes you think the line'will be drawn
now?
Swinton: Because in the course of huma
history there has never been weaponry that
has even been close to what we have now.
There are all sorts of possibilities in the
military frame of reference, and I just can't
see any world leader unleashing those. I think
we're going to have a lot of smaller, sort of
World War II type wars-technologically
speaking-particularly in the developing
world. But I don't foresee a world war-I
think it would destroy the world.

A.

with an AP v.p.

Worse than Watergate

D URING 1973 AND 1974, as more
and more dirty facts about the
Watergate scandal came out, some"
Americans regarded the news
emerging from Washington as
something less than dark and
shameful. Democratic liberals, for the
most part, didn't think the Republican
mishaps all that bad. They believed the
dishonest dealings of Richard Nixon
and Company. proved the moral
bankruptcy of GOP policies and ethics,
and they hoped independents and even
some disenchanted Republicans might
come to see things the same way. Some
pundits even went so far as to predict
that Watergate would spell the begin-
ning of the end for the Republican Par-
ty altogether.
It doesn't seem to have turned out
that way. In fact, it is the Democrats,
who only eight years ago were chor-
tling over the opposition's misfortunes,
who today have reason to wonder
about whether their party will survive
the decade.
Jimmy Carter will soon have seen
the last of the White House,rbut he was
never a bona fide part of the
Democratic tradition in the first place.
George McGovern, Birch Bayh, and
Frank Church were, however. These
men, who stood up to the Vietnam War
and to the insidious policies of Richard
Nixon, will no longer grace the halls of

the Senate. That rings far more
ominously than Jimmy Carter's
defeat.
In 1974, the electorate turned out in
droves to vote in a strongly
Democratic Congress-including
many liberals from districts that had
never dreamed of voting Democratic
before. The Democratic triumph was
interpreted as a sign of contempt for
the party that had brought the nation
Watergate.
Tuesday's Republican rout will be
interpreted as a similarly angry
response to the behavior of the
Democrats. But this time; there is no
Watergate scandal to take the blame
for the voters' wrath.
These are times when many of the
remaining liberal Democrats in the
Senate-all men who have stood up to
fearsome opponents in the past--might
at last be tempted to abandon the
progressive faith, in fear of reac-
tionary reprisals in 1982 or 1984.
It is sad enough that the Senate has
taken leaps to the right, and that Strom
Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Barry
Goldwater will together rise to
positions of dismaying power. But the
thought of those whom we used to
regard as liberal heroes having to
cater to an increasingly conservative
citizenry is sadder still.

Stanley Swinton
As the developing nations grow and become
more economically dependent upon each
other and upon industrialized nations, do you
see political relationships intensifying bet-
ween these nations, and would this be a
positive or negative trend?
Swinton: I think it's inevitable that the
economic forces that bring them together will
also run into political forces. J1 think you'll
also find a major problem in the developing
countries of trying to integrate their
minorites into the societies-for instance the.
Indians in Peru, the Indians in Mexico, who
are not in the cash society. That will pose a
very substantial internal problem.
Do you think the United Nations can
realistically intercede in the mounting inter-
national instability which you envision? '
Swinton: I think the role of the United
Nations in misunderstood. It has no power to
enforce-the most important thing that hap-
pens at the U.N. is the General Assembly
meetings, where the heads of state and
foreign ministers are there. Beneath the sur-
face, the U.N. is a very effective thing, but as
a dominant international stabilizing force, I
don't see it playing any major role.
You claim that any optimism, internationally
speaking, is going to be dependent on some
new structure of authority. Isn't the U.N. in a
position to fill this void?

7

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:

Carter endorsement lacked courage


I\

To the Daily:
Congratulations are in order
for the Daily's editorial on why
we should not vote for a can-
didate "other than Carter or
Reagan" (November 2). Not that
anyone really expected you to
take your courage in your hand,
but one would hope that a student
newspaper would put principle
and conscience above political
expediency.
That apparently is not the case
at the Daily. When it comes down
to the wire, the editors are stuck
in the same old either-or rut of
bipartisanship. Apparently the
editors have swallowed hook line
and sinker the old story about the
nil chances a third party or per-

son has of winning. If you say it
often enough, voila, your
statements will come true and
the third party will fall by the,
wayside.
It is the person you endorsed,
however, that is most troubling.
An endorsement of Clark or even
Commoner was out of the
question, and you were not ready
to go the route of Hall or Pulley.
And one must commend you for
finally exposing Anderson for the
fraud that he is.
But Carter? The man who said
he would never lie to us? The man
who has brought slavery back for
millions of young people? All
because you perceive Reagan to
be more evil than Carter. You are

telling a young man that he
should vote for the man who has
forced him to register for the
draft (so that he can be shipped
over to the Persian Gulf) because
the alternative will send him over
to the Persian Gulf. Your logic is,
difficult to comprehend.
A Fort Wayne, Indiana
newspaper did a courageous
thing a few weeks ago. It rose
above bipartisan politics and
political expediency. It looked at
the real world of politics and
urged its readers to turn their
backs on the Democratic and
Republican presidential choices

and instead register a none-of-
the-above vote by voting for
Clark or Commoner. The
newspaper's feeling, which
shows a greater awareness of
what realities are, was that wi4
either Carter or Reagan we, the
people, will lose. Principle and
reality are not opposites; they
are the same. Separate one from
the other and you become a hack;
an apologist for the status-quo.
Well, don't blame us. We voted
for someone other than Jimmy or
Ronnie.
-Jim Greenshiel
November

Gary Numan sensational

Fire Don Can ham

To the Daily:
This past week has seen both
the physical accosting and sub-
sequent arrest of Daily editors
Mark Parrent and Joshua Peck,
two apparently peaceful and in-
nocent people whose sole crime,
such as it was, was attempting to
exercise a First Amendment
right. This is of course
disgraceful, and as a concerned
member of the University com-
munity I wish to offer a proposal
that might minimize subsequent
incidents of this sort.

an institution such as ours.
Second, it would move the
University slightly closer to a
goal of educating rather than
amusing its students. I doubt
that either Mr. Canham will be
let go or that the structure of in-
tercollegiate athletics will be
altered to any significant degree.
There is too much money to be
made in athletics and we as a
nation are woefully addicted to
blood sports. And after all, what
are the rights of the two reporters

To the Daily:
What do you get when you send
a Lawrence Welk fan to a Who
concert? The same thing you got
when you sent Mark Dighton to
see Gary Numan on October 24. -
His perception of Gary Numan
was that of a true-blooded rock
fan. The caption "Alienating the
Audience" gave it away from the
start that Gary's concert was
right on the button. Rock fans

aren't supposed to like Gary
Numan. It would ruin his image.
For those of us who find Gary's
macabre concept of the future
compelling, and his incredible
stage show mind-boggling, the
concert was sensational.
-Kent Nissenbau
Spiv Brendler
October 27

Editorial policies
Unsigned pditorials annearin-a nn thel eaft ,cirlp f

- ' - 1 - I I 'Wi