Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday, Sept. 27, 1962
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
Communist China
The United States, at times, appears to believe that if a problem is ignored it will cease to exist.
For 13 years, the United States government has officially ignored the communist government of China, despite the fact that this government controls a territory larger than the continental United States, containing the largest population in the world.
UNOFFICIALLY THE UNITED STATES is extremely aware of the Communist Chinese. We fought them in Korea, and we have noted their ideological disputes with the Soviet Union. U.S. officials have nightmares over the possibility of a clash between Red China and India and over the certainty that before much longer Communist China will become the fifth nuclear power.
Before World War I, the United States generally followed the practice of recognizing a government which clearly was in control of a territory and its inhabitants.
Officially, however, the United States continues to withhold recognition from a government which has held firm control for 13 years, through numerous crises which might have been expected to cause it to weaken or collapse.
AFTER THE RUSSIAN revolution, however, we changed this policy. It was not until the early 1930s that the United States recognized that the communists definitely were in power in the Soviet Union and probably were going to stay in power for many years to come.
Since then, the United States has continued on occasion to withhold recognition from governments of which it does not approve. Whether this sanction has had any influence in removing such governments from power would be difficult to determine.
Chiang Kai-shek, who claims to be heading the government of China from his outpost on Formosa, certainly is not going to force the communists out. For 13 years he and Mao have muttered threats at each other, each vowing some day to invade the other's territory and place it under its "rightful" government.
CHIANG IS ANTI-COMMUNIST, but other than that there seems to be little about him which ordinarily would endear him to the United States. Mao is a militant communist who probably would think nothing of sacrificing half his population to get what he wants. Taking the lesser of the two evils, and looking at the problem from the practical standpoint, a China under Chiang would be best for the United States.
But this is beside the point. The point is simply that Mao, whether we like it or not, controls China, and there is little the United States is going to do to help Chiang regain control.
In withholding recognition of the communist Chinese government, we have made our point clear to the world. We don't like Mao, his type of government or his methods. But he is in control, and to continue to ignore his government is not helping our position.
—Clayton Keller
It Looks This Way
Limited Blockade for Cuba
By Terry Murphy
President Kennedy has maintained that the buildup of arms and the presence of Russians in Cuba do not constitute "a serious threat to any other part of the Western Hemisphere."
He also tried to reassure worried minds by saying the United States will not tolerate Cuba becoming an "offensive military base of significant capacity for the Soviet Union."
WHAT STANDARD IS HE using to measure "significant capacity?" A more real danger than missiles is present in Cuba.
And the United States had best upset several implications of that precedent.
That danger centers around the undeniable fact that the Russians have taken over Cuba. It represents a precedent.
How?
SEVERAL PERSONS IN POSITIONS of responsibility have called for a naval blockade of Cuba. To a point, I agree.
Before attempting to establish the point of agreement, let us deal with some valid questions raised by any blockade.
Columnist Scotty Reston of the New York Times posed an important question: Do the proponents of a naval blockade realize that a blockade is an act of war? And are they willing to run the risks inherent with a blockade of Cuba?
CERTAINLY THERE IS A point beyond which we cannot "push" the Russians without facing the very real danger and potential horrors of a nuclear war.
But there is another horror toward which I feel the United States is being pushed—the horror of a communist-dominated world.
International politics involve a delicate balance. This balance is maintained through an acute awareness of the multitude of factors which, if played correctly, can in some cases absolve differences with a minimal risk of a war which no one could win.
BUT THE UNITED STATES IS playing a game which only the Russians can win. Elastic containment of communism is not a means of insuring national security. It is nothing but a slow and easy way for the Russians to win without a war.
Cuba is not the prize that
Khrushchev is playing for. If it were, we could accept President Kennedy's promise of doing "whatever is necessary."
But Cuba is not a stopping point.
WHAT. THEN, IS THE grisly King of the Kremlin after? By degrees and measures, which can be yielded with little loss of face, Khrushchev is edging down the path to a decisive victory in his desire to run the world.
Time favors the Russians in the present game.
The Russian rules for the Latin America "game" were demonstrated in Cuba. It goes like this: watch for revolutions; tie the winner to the Kremlin's economic apron strings; when the "winning" regime is securely sacked up, move in and take over.
The precedent for the permissibility of this game in the Western Hemisphere has been established in Cuba.
THE UNITED STATES HAS a habit of facing a bully and very firmly drawing a line which he is told he must not cross. The bully then backs off, huffs and puffs until the line has been covered with side issues — and then, with the reassurance of past experience, crosses into the forbidden territory.
Thus far, little more than criticism has been offered here. That criticism is an easy task is attested to by the number of critics.
The fact that the line drawn by the Monroe Doctrine is an old line does not need to change its meaning.
NOW FOR THE PROPOSALS which I feel are basic to the task of maintaining a balance of international power which will permit the citizens of the Western Hemisphere the privilege of exercising self-determination in politics.
My plan would permit them to achieve this goal. Certainly with the technicians and arms they have there now, they could repel another Bay of Pigs invasion. But I would erect a blockade to prevent further technicians and arms going to Cuba.
The Russians have blandly stated they are in Cuba for the sole purpose of aiding Castro's regime in the task of erecting defenses against imperialist aggression.
But if we allow Russia to stockpile in Cuba, we permit them the precedent to do so anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.
And the neutral nations which emerge from revolutions have shown an inclination for playing East against West, which opens the door for Russia to repeat the tipping of the economic apron string.
LATIN AMERICA IS THE scene of revolution. Changing regimes open the door for a repeat of the Cuban pattern.
The Russians are willing to aid any country in the world—just as long as the prospect for complete takeover remains bright.
I propose to dim the prospect of trading economic aid for political control.
THROUGH A LIMITED blockade of Cuba, the United States could establish the precedent that further appearance of Russians will be regarded as an act of war.
And to achieve this plan does not require interference by the U.S. in the process of any country's self-determination—including revolutions.
What we must do is re-establish and enforce a set of rules which both Russia and the United States can follow without posing a threat to the security of either. An enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine poses no unreasonable threat to Russia.
Permitting our allies such as England to continue economic trade with Cuba poses no threat that we shouldn't be willing to accept.
ALL THAT I PROPOSE banning from Cuba are two things: more "technicians" and more arms.
In fact, if communism can successfully compete with democracy without resorting to force and takeover, I, for one, am willing to accept it as a fair competitor in a bloodless fight for survival.
As leader of the Western Hemisphere and defender of the right of each country's citizens to political self-determination the United States must establish that the principle of the Monroe Doctrine is applicable to all times.
RUSSIA'S TAKEOVER in Cuba is a serious enough threat. Permitting the hammer and sickle to gain further military strength would be folly.
President Kennedy said Castro is in trouble. At least Castro had enough sense to act in a manner to change his situation.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S MADE STRONG & BLACK ON PURPOSE-
IT'S SUPPOSED TO KEEP US AWAKE DURING CLASS. "
Lagerkvist, like many others dealing with Biblical subject matter, has enlarged and improvised. The story of Barabbas is a well known one—the convicted thief whose place on the cross was taken by Christ. Barabbas remains a hard, vicious, savage man, but one who wants to believe and understand what he saw on Golgotha.
Understanding does not come for a long time, and then, fittingly enough, only on another cross, this one in Rome. The adventuring of Barabbas has taken him many places. At all times, the writing of Lagerkvist has an emotional quality, an epic sweep, and a remarkable feeling for imagery.—CMP
BARABBAS, by Par Lagerkvist (Vintage, $1.25).
When Par Lagerkvist won the 1951 Nobel Prize for Literature, he was virtually unknown to most American readers. "Barabbas" was the book for which he was best known, and it remains one of the supremely moving stories of the past decade or so.
Basically, it tells us how a pious, good, God-fearing man who goes through more trials and tribulations than anyone this side of Job finally has things worked out for him. Fortune lost, home lost, children lost, daughter dead, himself jailed—when almost everything has been worked out satisfactorily, one finds himself saying, "Now if only Olivia could be restored to life." And what do you know?—Olivia wasn't even dead!-CMP
For that reason, it can't hope to maintain audiences much outside of English Lit courses. Goldsmith must have paid much attention to both Defoe and Fielding in setting down this semi-picaresque story, but it is leagues behind "Moll Flanders" or "Tom Jones."
THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD, by Oliver Goldsmith (Signet Classics, 50 cents).
* *
One of the best-known of all English novels, "The Vicar of Wakefield," despite its charm and hopefulness and pastoral beauty, is one of the most contrived and unbelievable tales in literature.
University of Kansas student newspaper
Daily Hansan
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Vikking 3-2700
Telephone Vlking 3-2700
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.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Managing Editor
Scott Payne Managing Editor Richard Bonett, Dennis Farney, Zeke Wigglesworth, and Bill Mullins, assistant Managing editors; Mike Miller, City Editor; Steve Clark, Sports Editor; Margaret Cathcart, Society Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Clayton Keller and Bill Sheldon ... Co-Editorial Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martinache ... Business Manager
Dan Meek, Advertising Manager; Doug Farmer, Circulation Manager;
Gene Spaulding, National Advertising Manager; Bill Woodburn, Classified Advertising Manager; Jack Cannon, Promotion Manager.