Page 2
University Daily Kansan Fridav. October 29, 1961
The Disarmament Myth
The Berlin crisis, the meeting of the Communist Party Congress and events in other troubled parts of the world have led to an increase in the discussion of disarmament. The discussion takes many forms. Khrushchev says he wants complete and general disarmament. Poland has advanced the idea of disengagement in Central Europe. The United States wants a nuclear weapons ban. None of the governments involved considers any proposals on these issues acceptable but its own. A thoughtful look at the hard facts of the world situation quickly shows that there are serious flaws in all these proposals.
Khruschev's call for complete and general disarmament is hypocritical. Expansion of the Soviet Empire has always depended, and still does depend to a great extent, on the use of arms. But even if we could believe that Khrushchev really wanted peaceful competition between communism and capitalism, there is one stark reality that would prevent Soviet disarmament: the Soviet Union cannot maintain its empire without troops. If it really underwent complete disarmament, many of its satellites would quickly break away and their peoples would throw out the communist regimes they are suffering under. We need only look at the 1953 East German uprising and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution for proof of this. In both cases Russian troops had to be called in to handle situations that Soviet puppet governments had not been able to deal with.
If we turn to the disengagement proposal for Central Europe, many of the same reasons apply. The Soviets would have to withdraw an estimated force of 20 divisions from East Germany to comply with a disengagement agreement. Those troops are the only thing that keeps the East German puppet regime in power. An explosion would be almost certain if they were withdrawn.
The nuclear disarmament proposal of the United States, unless it has decided to revise its
entire military establishment, must also be labeled as hypocritical. If the NATO alliance was stripped of its nuclear weapons, the Soviet conventional forces would then be so overwhelmingly superior that they could overrun Western Europe with ease. The reason they have not done so is the firm commitment of the United States to use nuclear weapons in the defense of the NATO countries.
There is also the question of whether the great powers can be persuaded to disarm in any degree in view of the increasing number of nations that are developing nuclear weapons. Israel is probably engaged in developing nuclear weapons, which would be the long term protection it would need against the Arab powers. Red China is working on nuclear weapons and is expected to have them in a few years. Other nations are probably at work on nuclear weapons also. Added to this increasing ownership of nuclear weapons is the rapidly developing national power of many former colonies and underdeveloped nations. Red China has become a belligerent major power, and barring some great catastrophe, will become a great power. Brazil is developing rapidly and will soon take its place among the major powers. Other nations will follow these two. Thus the problem of disarmament is one that involves many nations with diverse purposes.
The chances for any kind of disarmament are therefore very dim. Disarmament is an action that can only be dictated by cold, hard realities. The condition of a turbulent world bars significant disarmament. Possibly disarmament could be carried out to a limited degree, but even that is unlikely. For at present the key reality that governs any effort toward disarmament is the Soviet Union's determination to maintain its empire and continue its expansion. The West and the NATO countries are heavily armed basically as a reaction to that imperial attitude of the Kremlin. And that attitude shows no signs of changing.
-William H. Mullins
Lawrence's UN Day
Saturday has been proclaimed United Nations Day in Lawrence by Mayor Ted Kennedy. It has been set aside as a day for "community programs which will demonstrate the faith in the UN and contribute to a better understanding of its aims, problems and accomplishments."
Since 1953 Lawrence, in cooperation with the Foreign Student Hospitality Committee of Douglas County UNESCO, has welcomed foreign students during this celebration with a large dinner, usually held at the Kansas Union.
For the past two years, however, the students have been invited into private homes, establishing closer contact and better understanding between the host and guest.
True enough, the conversation does not often deal with the United Nations Charter or its problems, but it does deal with students and their problems in America.
This student found one evening talking with people interested in him provided him with an experience that lasted over a year. It is an experience he will take home with him to share with his friends.
One student who participated last year said he found a Lawrence family who helped him adjust to "strange American customs" and was willing to spend time with him listening to his troubles.
These Lawrence residents volunteer to act as hosts; they are not asked by anyone nor solicited
by any group. They are not specified as official good-will ambassadors by the University, but they are unofficial good-will promoters to the student.
These residents receive no recognition, only personal satisfaction, knowing they are helping a student new to our way of life.
Ambassadors, CARE packages, tools, books and papers sent by the United Nations can do only a small part of a big job to help the peoples of the world in a fight for peace.
Personal contact, understanding and a knowledge of the problems that exist in all parts of the world are necessary also in this effort to maintain and further peaceful conditions.
So many times a citizen of a community asks,
"What can I do to help?"
Lawrence residents have a ready answer. But more than that, they have proof that by working together with students through personal contact, not just once, but several times a year, each side benefits and shares these benefits.
The foreign student last year found friends to aid him.
His new friends saw his country in a different light, became interested in it, studied it and now can see more clearly the problems facing the small country.
Carrie Merryfield
This is part of a job being done in Lawrence by citizens who think they are just "ordinary." But they are big people, helping do a big job.
My congratulations to Moses Gumf for his excellent and pointed letter of Oct. 11 which referred to the University housing list and discrimination.
On Housing Policy
Editor:
IT SEEMS TO ME that there has been a great deal of discussion and debate on a basically simple matter that could be cleared up by one stroke of the administration's pen. Chancellor Wescoe disapproves of the University telling the landlord to stop discriminating. But by eliminating a landlord's name from the approved housing list would only mean that KU does not condone discrimination.
... Letters . . .
Moses stated it very clearly in his letter when he said, "It would honestly seem that since the University approves housing in which students must live, it would seem that one of the requirements would be that landlords rent to persons regardless of race, color, or creed, and that if such landlords feel differently, then they may rent to whoever they de-
sire, but would not be on a list approved for housing by the University."
IF KU DOES NOT take the initiative of setting a precedent in this case, who will? Surely not the Lawrence landlords! It is KU's obligation to speak out, leaving the landlord to get along without the approved University Housing list if he believes as strongly in discrimination as KU should believe against it!
Jim McMullan
Class of '61
Ex-member of CRC
Sound and Fury
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"—this is the socialist ideal; is it the prospect for the future? There are many indications that it is. Indeed, the United States took a big step towards the realization of the first part of this ideal with the advent of the progressive income tax and is moving rapidly toward accomplishment of the second through federal housing, aid-to-depressed-areas, etc. Consequently, it behooves all concerned with the future to familiarize themselves with the practices, promises and history of socialism.
There is a fact of historical importance, the significance of which has been too much ignored or overlooked: Where socialism has been tried on a small, private level it has usually had short life. It has succeeded only when implemented on a national scale through the instrument of government, an institution of legal compulsion, the final authority of which is the gun!
The significance of this fact, then, is the implication that socialism, to succeed, requires the use of force.
This use of force, would, of course, be controlled by the majority in a democratic socialist state, as it is controlled by the majority in a market-economy democracy such as ours. However, while the guns of our government are used primarily to restrain, i.e., prevent and punish crime, in a socialist state the punitive potential of government would be the motivating force in every facet of the citizen's productive life.
It is unlikely that productive genius could survive under this latter condition; and it would be of small consequence if it did, for economic decisions would be made not by the business genius but by the bureaucrat, a breed of particularly little creative ability. The inevitable result would be a material and moral regression probably ending in chaos and finally in totalitarianism. This situation is graphically described in the novel "Anthem" by Ayn Rand.
If there is no natural law justifying the right of the majority to dispose of the lives of the minority as they wish—at the point of the gun—and I know of none, there is no reason why the minority should recognize such a right. Nor is there any reason to believe that such a right exists except in the minds of greedy men.
However, the crux of the issue is not whether socialism will work or not but whether there is any moral or ethical justification for the pervasive use of force which is implicit in national socialism.
Marick Payton Lawrence junior
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Vlking 3-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 276, business office
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 $3 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.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Tom Turner ... Managing Editor
Linda Swander, Fred Zimmerman, Assistant Managing Editors; Kelly Smith, City Editor; Bill Sheldon, Sports Editor; Barbara Howell, Society Editor.
Ron Gallagher Editorial Editor Bill Mullins and Carrie Merryfield, Assistant Editorial Editors.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Tom Brown ... Business Manager
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"I UNDERSTAND WITH THE RANK OF 'COLLEGE PRESIDENT'
GOES THE RIGHT TO DESIGN YOUR OWN UNIFORM."