OPINION
University Daily Kansan, February 25, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kannan, UMPS 650-640, is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Fint Hall Lawn, Kaness 640-645, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday. Sunday, holidays and final periods Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kaness 66044 Subscription by mail are $15 for six months or
the county. County and $18 for six months or $3 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $8 per month. Postage for mailing address changes to the University Daily Kannan, 118 Staffer Fint Hall Lawn, Kaness 640-645,
MATT DEGALAN
Editor
DIANE LUBER SUSAN WORTMAN Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ROB KARWATH Campus Editor
LYNNE STARK Business Manager
DUNCAN CALHOUN MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
SUSANNE SHAW General Manager and News Adviser
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
David and Goliath
New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange last month backed up his prohibition of nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessels and refused to let a U.S. destroyer dock in one of its ports.
The Reagan administration immediately canceled joint naval maneuvers scheduled with New Zealand for March and cut off access to top-level intelligence reports on the Soviet Union.
The administration also threatened to deny access to other security information, threatened to end preferential treatment of New Zealand's exports and threatened to sell excess dairy products, thereby cutting into New Zealand's position in the world market.
The United States decided to flex its muscles and use New Zealand as an example of strictly adhering to an anti-nuclear policy.
"Unless we hold our allies' feet to the fire over ship visits and nuclear deployment, one will run away and then the next." a senior administration official said. "We will not be put in the position where they want our protection without the necessary weapons in place to do the job."
Fair enough, but the United States must learn the difference between holding allies' feet to the fire and in the fire. We're finding out that our allies don't like having nuclear weapons deployed within their borders without their knowledge.
U. S. contingency plans for such deployment have surfaced in the hullabaloo surrounding New Zealand's actions.
Aliies targeted for deployment include Canada, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Bermuda and the Philippines, according to a report released by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.
These nations are all strategically, politically or economically important. They're our friends. And they're angry. They don't like the shadow of Big Brother.
The growing opposition to nuclear deployment has been called "nuclear allergy." The United States risks being viewed as the carrier of nuclear disease.
"The administration's policies are as much the cause as the potential cure," said John Steinbrunner, director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
Nuclear weapons play an integral role in U.S. military planning for deterrence and defense.
We need access to other nations' ports and land, but they have the right to deny it and remain our allies, especially when our government persists in using cloak-and-dagger tactics.
We must deal honestly with our allies.
New Zealand, a country only slightly larger than Kansas, showed courage in its refusal and earned the respect of our mutual allies.
And the administration's heavy-handed retaliation is showing signs of backfiring.
Bad news for Brazil
Watchers of the International Monetary Fund were surprised last week when officials announced a temporary cutoff of credit to debt-ridden Brazil.
Inflation, estimated to be 200 percent annually, is cited as the cause. The action will withhold from Brazil $1.5 billion, the last installment of a three-year program totaling $4 billion. Brazil was counting on these funds to help finance its $98 billion debt.
This is bad news, not only for Brazilians who are already suffering declining standards of living, but also for friends of democracy worldwide.
The IMF is lending funds to Third World debtor nations just so those nations can continue servicing their already exorbitant external debts. Debt is being piled upon debt.
In other words, the poor of the world are made to tighten their belts just a little bit more to pay back the "poor" multinational banks.
In order to qualify for IMF loans, nations have to comply with a bevy of austerity measures at home — increased taxes, currency devaluations, decreased government spending and lower wages. The idea is to decrease nations' dependence on imports while increasing their exports.
But these austerity measures create a climate ready-made for political unrest. On the one hand, communist agitators are able to make political hay among the poor out of this suffering imposed by the United States and the IMF. On the other, authoritarian regimes, and their friends waiting in the wings, are forced to clamp down on swelling unrest in the most despicable way.
The losers are those in the democratic center — and the poor.
Soon Brazilian President-elect Tancredo Neves will be inaugurated as the first civilian leader in 21 years. We would like to see democratic, civilian rule take root in Brazil. We need not offer the military an excuse to once again leave the barracks and resume control of the country for another generation.
Elsewhere, democracy is evolving throughout the continent. Let's not throw water on the budding flame of liberty in Brazil just to save Western bankers from their own mistakes.
Who's coming after Chernenko?
An election, Soviet style, is in full swing in the Soviet Union.
Surely, for months the main concern of the 10 full members of the Politburo, aside from Konstantin Chernenko, has been who will be the next general secretary of the party, the most powerful position in the Soviet Union. Indeed, given Chernenko's campaign probably started the day he took office and accelerated with his deteriorating health.
There are also six candidate members of the Poliburo, but all past experience points to one of the 10 full members winning the election.
The presidency, or chief of state position, automatically goes with the job. Thus, within days or weeks after the presidential announcement will be made that the
new man holds the Soviet Union's two top jobs. In its next session, the Supreme Soviet will vote unanimously, as it does in all matters, to confirm the new president in his position.
In the West, primary campaigns, party nominations that are followed by public campaigns and crowned by major state parties determine leadership succession.
In Marxist-Lenonist states, the "nomenclatura," or the appointments list, determines leadership change. Election day is a holiday when 99 percent of the eligible Soviet citizens cast their ballots, 98 percent of whom vote for the single candidate for the particular office.
The selecting political leaders and policy-making are two activities the party controls completely. That also includes all nominations for election and appointments to key state and party posts at all levels. Thus, for each level of the hierarchy, higher party organs have lists of those suitable to fill the lower posts when they become vacant.
Since there is no higher body than the Poliburo, that body handles its own nomenclatura work. Technically, the Poliburo is the executive body of the member Central Committee of the party. In practice, however, the
For example, although the collective farm chairman is always elected by the farm members, the sole nominee is selected by regional election of the director of Pravda is so important that his selection is made by the Politburo.
The Soviet Politburo
Age. 62. Nationality: Azeri. Become full member of Politiburo in 1982.
Previous career: KGB.
First deputy chairman, member of Soviet Union Council of Ministers
may be appointed, security secretary for Avkhoev 100/00.
First deputy chairman, member of Soviet Union Council of Ministers,
major general, party secretary for Azerbaijan 1969-82.
KONSTANTIN CHERNENKO
Age: 74. Nationality: Russian. Became full member of Politiburo in 1978. Previous career: party.
General secretary of the party, president of the Soviet Union, chairman of the council of defense.
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Age: 54. Nationality: Russian. Became full member of Politburo in 1860. Previous career: party.
Secretary of the party's Central Committee, trained in law and agriculture. Politburo the agricultural specialist until 1983.
VIKTOR GRISHIN
1) Previous career: party & state.
2) Party secretary, presidium Supreme Soviet, trade union special lair.
ANDREI GROMYKO
Age: 76. Nationality: Russian. Became full member of Politburo in 1973. Previous career: state.
Minister of foreign affairs since 1957, first deputy chairman Council of Ministers.
DINMUKHAMED KUNAEV
Age: 73. Nationality: Kazakh. Became full member of Politburo in
1971. Previous career: party & state.
Party secretary for Kazakstan.
GRIGORII ROMANOV
Age: 62. Nationality: Russian. Became full member of Politburo in 1976. Previous career: party leader for Leningrad in 1970-1983.
VALDIMIR SHCHERBITSKY
Age. 67. Nationality: Ukrainian. Became full member of Politburo in
1973. Previous career: party
secretary to the Government, industrial specialist
MIKHAIL SOLOMENTSEV
Age: 72. Nationality: Russian. Become full member of Politburo in 1983. Previous career: party & state. Chairman of the party's Control Committee, economy and heavy industry specialist.
NIKOLAI TIKHONOV
Age: 80. Nationality: Ukranian. Became full member of Politiburo in
1979. Previous career: party & state.
VITALII VOROTNIKOV
Age: 59. Nationality: Russian. Become full member of Politburo in
new career. party & state
Chairman Council of Ministers, industrial specialist
1983. Previous career: party & state
Chairman Russian Republic Council of Ministers, industrial
industry
Politburo decides all important party matters. For purposes of legitimacy, weeks or months later at the next full meeting of the Central Committee, the Politburo's action is ratified unanimously.
Who will be Chernenko's successor?
be even tighter. But, in my opinion,
Grigori Romanov has a slight edge,
with Mikhail Gorbachev running
a close second.
When Breshney丁 I correctly picked Yuri Andropov I was also right in predicting Cherenkov's ascendency. This time the race may
A combination of factors are considered by the Politburo electors in making their selection. These including age, candidates can't be too old or too young; health; nationality, preferably Russian; career experience, party work is preferred; patronage; the candidate's current post; job performance and time as a full member of the Politburo. These criteria point to candidates from a monarchy as the two prime candidates.
Clearly, if Western observers had their way, Gorbachev would win hands down. That in itself is hardly a recommendation to his colleagues. Indeed, the very reasons he is the Westen favorite are prime reasons why I think he will not win this time around.
Repeatedly, Western commentators assert that Soviet policies and attitudes are due for a change when "a new generation takes over." Missed is the fact that the Polibutio is a self-perpetuating "get-ontocracy" dedicated to resistance change.
Unlike leadership change in the West, especially when there is a change in parties at the helm, Soviet leadership change is marked by continuity in both domestic and foreign policy. There is no party choice, rarely even a faction one.
Gorbachev is 54. The average age of his colleagues is 69. Thus, there is a virtal generation gap between him and those he votes he needs to win the office.
Agriculture is the Soviet Union's major domestic economic problem area. From 1978 to 1983, Gorbachev was the Politburo's point man for agriculture. Early in 1983, that body endorsed his radical scheme to improve personal and professional life, but he has not been fully implemented. The problems of agriculture continue to worsen, and he is no longer responsible for agricultures.
The Politburo gives out medals and orders for distinguished service to the state and party. The highest of all is the Order of Lenin, somewhat comparable to the French Legion of Honor. Gorbachev has three Orders of Lenin, one Order of October Revolution, two other orders and medals. Romanov has five Orders of Lenin, an Order of October Revolution, two Orders of Red Banner of Labor and many other orders and medals. Also, he is a Hero of Socialist Labor.
Gorbachev is the baby of the Politburo with a promising future ahead of him, but, I think, he still has to prove himself to be one of the good old boys who is fully seasoned to take over the ton Soviet office.
At this distance, perhaps the largest factor working against Romanov is that if he wins the election Soviet style, inevitably stories will go around about the resurrection of the Romanov dynasty. That would hardly be fair, for like Gorbachev, Romanov is of peasant origin.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Roy D. Laird is a professor of political science and Soviet and East European affairs.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Forgive and forget
To the editor:
I feel a need to respond to some of the allegations made about me in the University Daily Kansan's Feb. 5 edition, the editor by Michael Foubert
A lack of communication can be cited as the problem of my "leaving the meeting early on Saturday." The meeting on Saturday morning was attended by all members. The meeting was adjourned because of
the Student Senate retreat, attended by all Committee Board members. The Saturday afternoon meeting called by Foubert was, I thought, a separate meeting. Having already made plans with out-of-town company or lunch, I did not attend the Saturday afternoon meeting, although I planned to come back after my company had left.
statement, as I take my position as a senator verb seriously as well as the
Foourt thought it was a continuation of the morning meeting, and therefore he thought I was "leaving the meeting early" I resent this
I want my constituents to know how much I value my elected position on the Senate as well as on the House, and normally I wouldn't have left.
The statements of my being motivated by a personal grudge, thinking that policies did not apply to senators or personal friends and having unsubstantiated evidence are all a matter of Foubert's opinion. I
Staci Feldman
Stacey Feldman
Allied Health
strongly disagree with these statements as well as others in the letter, but who is to say who is right and who is not.  Staci Feldman
Allied Health senator EDITOR'S NOTE: Michael Foubert has read this letter and recognizes that it was a lack of communication concerning the meeting cited. He retracts the charge that Feldman deliberately did not attend the meeting in question. He still, however, stands by the rest of his statements.
1