Page 3
Berlin Top Crisis Area
Wednesday, Dec. 13, 1961 University Daily Kansan
By Bill Mullins
The number one area of crisis in the world today is the Berlin Crisis initiated by the Kremlin. West Berlin—prior to its being sealed off from East Berlin by Communist barricades—was a major headache for the Kremlin and its puppet East German government.
THE BARRICADEs cured the major reason for that headache: the steady flow of East Germans through West Berlin to West Germany. This refugee stream was draining East Germany of needed manpower and skilled professional people.
The harrassment of West Berlin continues, and the West remains determined to keep it free. But the Kremlin has accomplished its main goal.
A long festering sore on the African continent is Algeria. This French territory is suffering from
Nuclear Showers Are Coming
a civil war that has raged since 1954. The war has drained France's resources and manpower and hindered her economic progress.
The Algerian Moslem rebels appear to have the support of the approximately nine million Arabs in Algeria. The European settlers number about one million and are bitterly opposed to the rebels.
THE REBELS are demanding complete independence immediately and President de Gaulle wants gradual separation, possibly with ties to the French community. Negotiations have failed to produce a solution as yet.
Another area that shows increasing signs of unrest and violence is Latin America. Fidel Castro succeeded in a revolution that sent Cuba into the Communist bloc and aroused the implacable opposition of the United States. The dictator of the Dominican Republic, Trujillo, was assassinated after a 30 year reign and his henchmen and family fled the country. A democratic element is presently struggling to maintain order and bring the country under control.
DANGEROUS SIGNS of possible civil war appeared in giant Brazil, a nation larger than the continental United States and having a
population of more than 70 million. A leader of thousands of dissatisfied peasants in the depressed northeastern area of Brazil admitted he was a Communist and threatened to stage a Castro style revolution.
impoverished peasantry that is becoming increasingly vocal in its demands for a better life.
THEER ARE tremendous problems that are preventing a solution of this situation. Large landholders are resisting any efforts to provide the peasants with land and the peasants, unable to get relief from their difficulties, have begun to listen to Communist agitators. Northeastern Brazil has long had a record of Communist influence.
The Latin American nations
Brazil is suffering from a problem that faces most Latin American nations today: a huge, landless and
themselves are plagued by entrenched and corrupt bureaucracies, inflation and a lack of funds for development.
The United States recognized the dangerous situation in Latin America at the time it launched its Alliance for Progress in that area. The program is designed to aid the Latin American nations in their development and relieve their financial problems. The Kennedy administration plans to channel billions of dollars into the effort.
In these unsettled days of a shrinking world and expanding crises, when dominions struggle to be nations and nations struggle to survive, when men everywhere are awakening to the liberating power of education and yet cling desperately to their ignorance and their fears, it is fitting and proper that this institution of higher education in the very center of this nation devote one day to the formal consideration of the world in crisis.
Wescoe's Statement
The University of Kansas is particularly proud that this day has been conceived and organized by its students. Their understanding, their commitment, their dedication, speaks well for the future. If we can understand others, we have made a beginning on the problem of world understanding, for lack of which this world may yet explode.
W. Clarke Wescoe Chancellor
I commend the students who have put their thoughts and their energies into this day. I hope that every student able to do so will make World Crisis Day truly an all-university event.
The Control of War Decisions Cause War
By Thomas C. Schelling
Accidents do not cause war. Decisions cause war. Accidents can trigger decisions; and this may be all that anybody meant. But the distinction needs to be made, because the remedy is not just preventing accidents but constraining decisions.
If we think of the decisions as well as the accidents we can see that accidental war, like premeditated war, is subject to "deterrence." Deterrence, it is usually said, is aimed at the rational calculator in full control of his faculties and his forces; accidents may trigger war in spite of deterrence. But it is really better to consider accidental war as the deterrence problem, not a separate one.
We want to deter an enemy decision to attack us—not only a cool-headed, premeditated decision that might be taken in the normal course of the Cold War, at a time when Russia does not consider an attack by us to be imminent, but also a nervous, hotheaded, frightened, desperate decision that might be precipitated at the peak of a crisis, that might result from an accident or false alarm, that might be engineered by somebody's mischief—a decision taken at a moment when sudden attack by the United States is believed a live possibility.
Either way it takes a decision to initiate war. The difference is in the speed of decision, the information and misinformation available, and the enemy's expectations about what happens if he waits. He must have some notion of how much he would suffer and lose in a war that he starts, and of how much more he would suffer and lose in a war that, by hesitating, he fails to start in time. And he must have some notion of how probable it is that war will come sooner or later in spite of our best efforts, and his, to avert it. In deciding whether to initiate war the enemy is aware not only of retaliation but of the likelihood and consequences of a war that he does not start. Deterring premeditated war and deterring "accidental war" differ in those expectations—in what the enemy thinks, at the moment he makes his decision, of the likelihood that if he abstains we won't.
Accidental war therefore puts an added burden on deterrence. It is not enough to make a war that he starts look unattractive compared with no war at all; a war that he starts must look unattractive even as insurance against the much worse war that—in a crisis, or after an accident, or due to some mischief—he thinks may be started against him. We have to make it never appear conservative to elect the lesser danger of "pre-emptive" war.
Disarmament Is Complex Problem
By Clayton Keller
"Disarmament is the most complex, most elusive, most involved problem I have ever faced," John J. McCloy, adviser to the President on disarmament, said recently.
"It is complex not only because of its size and importance, but because it cuts across every aspect of life: defense, economy, politics, the way we live," he said.
The complexity of the disarmament problem can be seen in the fact that talks have been held almost continuously without any tangible results. The first atomic bomb was dropped 16 years ago, and four nations are now stockpiling nuclear weapons. A fifth—Red China—may enter the picture in the extremely near future.
TODAY, ENOUGH nuclear weapons are stockpiled by the two major producers—the United States and the Soviet Union—to completely destroy civilization. The seemingly impossible problem is how to get rid of this stockpile.
At the present time, both the Soviet Union and the United States appear to be following a policy of "deterrence." The idea is to keep the enemy from doing something for fear of what you will do to him.
But there are serious dangers in this policy. First, there is always the danger of accidental war. False radar signals, accidental explosions, faulty intelligence warnings and the unintended spread of limited wars could put all these stockpiled weapons into use.
Second, more and more countries will be getting nuclear weapons. Some may, because of economic necessity, sell weapons to other nations. Some may act rashly. There is always a danger of accidental or unauthorized use of weapons in a smaller country.
Third, rapid technological advances are being made. It is not impossible to conceive of a major technological advance that would make all existing weapons obsolete.
MANY PEOPLE believe that the arms race cannot continue without an end in sight. Eventually, they say, the nuclear weapons must be used.
Both sides are afraid that the other side has designs to conquer the world, and they believe that its nuclear stockpile is being built up for that purpose. Leaders of each side equate the other's military capability with his military intentions.
But serious negotiations have been unsuccessful because of the attitude of mistrust which prevails. Any new proposal by either side is immediately suspected of having an evil purpose behind it.
One problem facing the negotiators is how a disarmament agreement could be enforced. The United States has demanded an adequate control system based on free and unlimited inspection of each country.
The Soviet Union has rejected this proposal. They say this would not actually advance disarmament but would merely mean legalized espionage.
FREE INSPECTION, many maintain, does not get to the base of the problem—world tensions. The arms race is a direct result of the tensions, and free inspections will only increase the tensions. Small nuclear blasts cannot be detected, and no control system could possibly cover the huge areas in which nuclear weapons could be hidden. There would always remain the possibility that something was escaping the attention of the inspectors.
Also entering the picture is the effect disarmament will have on the economy. What will be the effect of disarmament on the nation's economy, which is over 50 per cent based on defense preparations?
Another thing entering into disarmament proposals is politics; neither side can appear to go very far toward compromise for fear of being termed an agent of the enemy. Khrushchev's recent de-Stalinization attempts show the problem he is facing. Were he to go too far toward compromise, he would be unseated; an American president who went too far might be voted out of office.
THE FAILURE of negotiated disarmament agreements has led many people to advocate unilateral disarmament. The disarmament of the United States, they maintain, would be the first step in eliminating world tensions. The Soviet Union would then see that the United States has no evil intentions, and would disarm themselves.
Must we be either "Red" or "dead?" Is the choice either unilateral disarmament or death? Or is a negotiated disarmament proposal possible? These are the questions which are facing the world today.
But others point to the Soviet Union's vow to buy capitalism. They point out that the Soviet Union's goal is world domination by Communism, and they say any unilateral agreements would only be an invitation to put this goal into effect.
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, trieweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912
Telephone VIking 3-2700
Extension 711 news room
Telephone Viking 3-2160 Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.