4
Opion
Page 6
Thursday, August 13, 1981
.1
The Michigan Daily
Vol.XCI, No. 61-S
Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students
at the University of Michigan
Old rivalries
and the
New Federalism
PRESIDENT Reagan's "New Federalism"
is causing a mild uproar across the
country among representatives of local and
state governments. With potentially profound
structural changes in the works, it is im-
perative that the three levels of government
cease their traditional bickering and assist
collectively in preparing for the transition.
The National Governors Association con-
luded its 73rd annual meeting earlier this
week, with more-rather than less-gaping
holes in their agreement on what exactly will
entail the renewed federalism. Just six weeks
ago, the United States Conference of Mayors
held a similar convention, which was
similarly marked by confusion and infighting.
Unfortunately, the debate over the ap-
propriate federal-state and state-local
relationships has been fought separately. The
governors bicker about the proposed changes
in federal economic support and political
responsibility, while the mayors complain
about the effects of "block grants" to state
governments on their own viability. Citing
traditional state governmental deference to
rural areas, the city leaders generally find the
federal government more receptive.
The debates on all levels sorely need some
sort of cohesion and continuity-they need to
be orchestrated. The traditional rivalries bet-
ween the different levels, which have reflected
national economic and ideological flu-
tuations, need to be restrained. All effected
parties, in light of the imminent power shifts,
should work together to forge their new
relationships, rather than independently.
And now is the time to start, while the "New
Federalism" is still on the drawing board
7x
_ /--.- '\
REa-,SID ENT Raga's "NewFederlism"
'Linkage' is a
two-way street
I
By Steve Hook
The Secretary of State's words
were remarkably succinct: "The
Soviet leaders must understand
that we cannot have full and
normal economic relations if they
are not prepared to respect inter-
national norms of behavior."
By expressing these thoughts to
the American Bar Association on
Tuesday, Alexander Haig Jr.
didn't actually advance the cour-
se of U.S. foreign policy, as some
newspaper analyses reported
yesterday morning. He merely
coalesced his heretofore diffused
efforts, brought them full circle,
and delivered the finished
product rhetorically to Moscow.
AND TO BE sure, this address
was not tailored to the lawyers in
New Orleans. This was a direct
communication to the Kremlin,
carefully and systematically
worded in the context of recent
administration statements and
actions. It was a concise ar-
ticulation of the "whole picture,"
and it provided an intriguing
overview of our international
representatives' arrogent, but
short-sighted mentality. For bet-
ter or worse, we should thank the
good general for clearing up the
ambiguities.
The Tuesday speech ex-
plained the American strategy of
Economic Strangulation. We
have all seen various components
of this strategy employed
separately, without perhaps suc-
ceeding in tying them together.
The central components have
been:
Create an Atmosphere of
Tension (subtitled Build up Our
Defenses). The idea here is to
create the physical opposition to
the Soviet Bloc (i.e. trillion dollar
defense budget, MX or B-1,
Europe-based strategic and
neutron weapons), and convey
the "will" of the American people
to use them if necessary.
* Run Down the Soviets.
Skillfully accompanying the
American build-up has been a
continuous rhetorical assault on
the Soviet Bloc strength. In the
New Orleans speech, Secretary
Haig declared: "The decade of
the 80s promises to be less attrac-
tive for Moscow." He
audaciously named names,
twice: "The once-staunch
Chinese ally has become an im-
placable opponent of the Soviet
quest for hegemony," and "as
events in Poland have demon-
strated, the Soviet ideology and
economic model are widely
regarded as outmoded."
For months, these two ap-
proaches have proceeded with
apparent randomness, seemingly
independent of each other. But
Haig's most recent speech
established the third leg of this
rhetorical triad:
* Tempt the Soviets with
Economic Favors. Now, we see
the whole picture. With American
might having been asserted, and
Soviet vulnerability exploited,
the appeal to potential economic
cooperation is a classic squeeze
play: "We offer the possibility of
Western trade and technology,"
Haig said, in possibly the most
profound of all his statements.
Admit you are weak, he tells the
Kremlin, refine your global am-
bitions, and the U.S. will be your
friend. Presto. Full circle.
The glaring defect in this ap-
proach, which will likely impress
the Soviets as-much as its con-
tent, is the refusal to
acknowledge American mor-
tality in foreign affairs: "The
most persistent troubles in U.S.-
Soviet relations arise from Soviet
intervention in regional conflicts,
aggravating tensions, and ham-
pering the search for peaceful
solutions."
I suspect an additional con-
straint in our relations is our
own occasional international
recklessness, which has not gone
.4
Secretary Haig
unnoticed by an increasingly
skeptical western alliance.
Military support to El Salvador is
an example of American inter-
vention in regional conflict, the
oddly timed decision to produce
neutron weapons has only
aggravated tensions, and refusal
to endorse a role for the
Palestinian nation has hampered
the search for a peaceful solution
in the Mideast. Our role in
southern Africa falls under all
three.
If the secretary could only
acknowledge that the quest for
superpower responsibility is
being undertaken by both
sides-that American restraint is
also being persued-significantly
more progress would be possible.
"Linkage is not a theory; it is a
fact of life that we overlook at our
peril," he told the lawyers. This
may be true, but Secretary Haig
needs to understand the Soviet
potential for applying the linkage
policy, in which case, considering
this country's occasional pen-
chant for interventionism,
bilateral progress would be
mired indefinitely.
This should not be construed as
an anti-American, pro-Soviet ob-
servation, but a hopefully
detached one that perceives
mutual culpability in superpower
behavior, and the apparent ad-
vantages that would result if this
is acknowledged.
Steve Hook is the Daily's
editorial director.
I
I
0
0
Letters and columns represent
the opinions of the individual
author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the attitudes or beliefs of
the Daily.
I
0