Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Sept. 26, 1962
Blockade Cuba?
Is it possible or advisable for the United States to establish a sea and aerial blockade of Cuba to prevent further arming of this small Western Hemisphere nation by Communist Russia? The debate on this is developing in Washington and across the land.
Sen. Vance Hartke, D-Ind., among others, contends that a blockade of Cuba would be an act of war under international law and that it might lead to a world conflict with the Communist Empire.
In Oregon, State Rep. Carl Fisher, Eugene, an articulate and moderate Republican nominee for Congress in the 4th (southern Oregon) district, takes an opposite view.
It is possible, he said, that the United States "will be forced to take bold action such as setting up a sea and air blockade of Cuba to prevent further importation of Russian technicians and equipment." Steps of this kind, he said, would result in severe Russian pressures in retaliation, and "we should plan on this and refuse to wilt in the heat. . . Once again we've got to draw a line and say 'This is as far as you go' and mean every word of it."
If we were formally at war with Fidel Castro's Cuba, the question of blockade would be academic, as it would be were we at war with the Communist nations of Europe and Asia. But, under international agreements, a blockade is "an act of war carried out by the warships of a belligerent detailed to prevent access to or departure from" an enemy coast. Thus, it appears, to declare a blockade—which must be an effective blockade and not a "paper" blockade to be recognized by neutral nations—is to declare war. . .
The Soviet Union warned the United States again Tuesday that U.S. aggression against Cuba would result in a world war of nuclear weapons. We can believe that, or disregard it. But Soviet arming of Cuba violates the hemispheric treaty of the Organization of American States. Either we back down, and allow the Castro-Communist government to build missile bases, army, air force and navy which threaten us and other nations of this hemisphere, or we prevent it.
Should we assign the Navy and Air Force to stop the flow of Soviet personnel and munitions to Cuba, without a declaration of war and the establishment of legal "belligerents," the vessels of friendly nations, such as Canada, would be subject to search and seizure. The legality of this certainly would be questioned, as would the morality of the action. . . .
Blockade, which was defined and legalized in international treaties and law, was a tremendous factor in the Napoleanic wars, become less important in World War I and was only a word in World War II, when the scope of action against ships trading with the enemy was worldwide. Action against the island of Cuba would raise all sorts of new questions for international debate.
But the unhappy facts remain: The arming and communization of Cuba by a European-Asiatic power and its satellite countries threaten the security of the western hemisphere. If the Kennedy Administration fears to employ blockade, what does it intend to do? The longer nothing is done, the more lives will be lost when the showdown comes.
—(Reprinted from the Portland Oregonian)
The Correct Time Is ...?
Sit in the reference room of Watson Library and watch the clock. This is not conducive to good study habits but will prove to be not only interesting but aggravating.
Suddenly the whistle blows signifying the end of a class period. But, by scrutinizing the clock one can readily tell something is wrong. The whistle has just blown but the clock does not read the specified 20 minutes past the hour. It probably shows the time to be a quarter past the hour.
THEN ONE MIGHT yank the fob on one's pocket watch and find that time to agree with the clock on the wall. But the whistle just
blew—the University says it is 20 after. Who is right?
Obviously there must exist a struggle for power within the administration between two rather stubborn factions. Neither group is willing to give the correct time of day to the other because an agreement obviously cannot be reached upon what is the correct time.
Usually such intramural scuffles take place in other areas of administrative concern. But this time someone has decided to knock the entire University community off schedule with this irritating dispute over the right time.
FACE IT, coo-coo clock col-
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
leetors, you do not have a chance. Every conceivable timepiece is incorrect except that infernal whistle. The campanile bells do not have a chance of being accurate in stiff competition.
Of course it is not new that the campanile should be five minutes off in regard to the whistle. This has become history and tradition on Mt. Oread.
BUT, IT BECOMES somewhat obnoxious when radios, electric clocks, reports from confirmed accurate time machines, Big Bens and all other devices used to tell time are apparently false.
"GRAB A PENCIL MISS GRAVES — I'VE JUST FOUND AN EXCELLENT ESSAY QUESTION!"
Since the University has been right in almost all of its decisions in the past (this is a malicious rumor), the honking of the whistle must therefore be the correct time. Thus, worry no longer. There is no hope. But the sun is still rising and setting — at least a general conception of time can be gleaned from one source which should be right. Unless the University time-keeper has been tampering with Sol also. —W.G.
University of Kansas student newspaper Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904 triviewly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Daily Hansan
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service and the New York News service; United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the weekdays on saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Telephone VIking 3-2700
NEWS DEPARTMENT
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Scott P. Carney, Editing Editor
Richard Bonnett, Dennis Famey, Zeke Wigglesworth, and Bill Mullins, Assistant Managing Editors; Mike Miller, City Editor; Steve Clark, Sports Editor; Margaret Catcet, Society Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Clayton Keller and
Bill Sheldon
Co-Editorial Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martinache Business Manager
It Looks This Way...
Americans are growing frightened by the flow of Communist arms to Cuba. Their apprehension has been increased by Nikita Khrushchev's declaration implying that the Soviet Union would intervene in a U.S.-Cuban war. And each day the crisis deepens, intensifying the fear that Khrushchev and Castro are preparing for an attack.
Fear normally gives ground grudingly to reason. What follows, nevertheless, is an attempt to prove that fear of a nuclear war over Cuba is unjustified.
THE CENTRAL PREMISE is that Khrushchev and Castro are reasonable men. They are so reasonable, in fact, that they can be trusted not to start a war. It will be difficult for many Americans to impute such rationality to two men so despised and distrusted in this country. But to live in the age of missiles is to trust the men who control the missiles. If at least a degree of trust were not possible, the resulting tension and fear would be so awesome as to make living unthinkable.
So a part of the trust in these men is blind, yes; but much of it can be supported by reason, if one subscribes to the belief that heads of state are guided by consideration of national security. And to believe this is not difficult. It is a cornerstone of political science. More important, history proves its validity.
Castro is no fool, and in the life-or-death matter of a nuclear war he does not deceive himself about Cuba's chances. It is a small island, and could be quickly devastated by the United States. Children know this; it is foolish to imagine that Castro does not.
UNLIKE CASTRO, Khrushchev could start a nuclear war against the United States without encountering lopsided odds. Khrushchev knows this, of course. But he also knows such a war would be costly, regardless of the outcome. Someday he may be willing to gamble, on Berlin, maybe, or on China. But he has no intention of gambling his country's survival on Cuba.
Would Khrushchev declare war on the U.S. if this country attacked Cuba? The answer is no, and there is a historical analogy which helps to explain why. In 1956, when the world was wondering if the United States would intervene in Hungary to rescue the freedom fighters dying at the hands of the Communists, the United States did not move. Why? Simply because the U.S. was not willing to gamble its survival on Hungary.
A country's foreign policy is based on its national security. This is true even of the United States, whose citizens falsely believe that a major goal of its foreign policy is to protect the freedom of other countries. This may be a subsidiary objective, but it is of infinitesimal importance compared to the overriding consideration of national security. Our national security was not being threatened in Hungary; the national security of the Soviet Union would not be threatened if this country should start a war with Cuba. Khruschev would keep out of such a war, therefore, for the same reason that President Eisenhower kept this country out of Hungary in 1956.
—Fred Zimmerman
CUBA IS SERVING Khrushchev well in the war of nerves he so skillfully wages. But to him it is little more than a joke, a divertissement. And it is probable, in fact, that Castro is not at all deluded about Khrushchev's real interest in Cuba. If so, the likelihood that Castro will attack this country diminishes still more.
The situation off the tip of Florida is unpleasant. And it is certainly pesky. But there will be no war.
On Other Campuses
BOULDER, Colo. The following seven points "in the area or taking the lead in furthering the academic aims of the university" have been established by the Interfraternity Council at the University of Colorado:
1. A strong recommendation that a system of pre-school rush be retained.
2. An all pledge retreat held as soon as possible after Rush week at which fraternity pledges will come into contact with the administration and the administrative aims of the university.
4. Awarding of plaques to fraternities for pledge scholarship. In conjunction with this, Alpha Tau Omega fraternity will award a help-week trophy to the pledge class contributing outstanding help to the civic community.
3. A committee set up to study more extensive testing and counseling for pledges.
5. Elimination of mid-week social functions to allow more study time for fraternity members.
6. A recommendation that the problem of intramurals in the evenings be studied to make evenings freer for academic study.
7. A questioning of the value of the continuance of homecoming decorations.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Yale University finds the traditional freshman year is becoming obsolete, according to a report by a special faculty of seven professors. The committee urges a revamping of the curriculum and the handling of the first-year students.
The report recommends that the freshman class be split up and housed with upperclassmen, and not, as has been the case here for more than 30 years, treated as a separate unit on a separate campus. To this end, the administration of the freshman year should be assimilated into Yale College which would be responsible for all four years of the undergraduate student body, the report recommends.