Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday, March 8, 1962
Model U.N. Dissension
The trite, but publicity-prone game of spy counter-spy is rapidly reaching prominence at KU through the pubescent efforts of a few members of the Model U.N.
It got started a week ago with the Model U.N. Steering Committee charging that a hidden microphone had been planted at its meeting.
THE PRESIDENT of the committee said the microphone had been planted by the members of the Russian delegation to get "a little added information on the third and fourth resolutions before they are released to the rest of the delegations." He said these resolutions would not be released for another few weeks, and prior knowledge of their content would give a delegation a great advantage over the others.
The highly significant game went on with a stout denial issued by the president of the Soviet bloc to the effect that the Russian delegation did not plant the microphone, but that he would investigate other members of the Soviet bloc to see if they had done it.
"We ARE JUST as anxious to find out who did it as anyone else. We'll investigate the group to find out for sure," he said.
Yesterday, having evidently made his "investigations," he said the Steering committee's accusation was a "boldface lie."
The Steering committee made the charges, he said, because his delegation was the Russian delegation and supposed to be "bad guys."
Apparently smarting from the accusations against his group, he then proceeded to accuse the United Kingdom delegation of spying on the Steering committee's meeting and the Latin American delegation of padding its bloc with a country that doesn't exist.
THESE CHARGES will probably bring raucous refutations from the groups accused, then more refutations about the refutations, ad infinitum.
It is this editor's understanding that the philosophy behind the Model U.N. is to give its participants a better awareness and understanding of world government.
It's doubtful these adolescent espionage activities go very far in promoting this awareness. Why not spend a little more time on discussing issues and problems of these countries represented, rather than hurling "Spy! Spy!" charges at each other? The theoretical significance of the Model U.N. deserves a more serious approach.
—Karl Koch
Praise For CRC
Editor:
Congratulations to the Civil Rights Council for exposing the problem of fraternity-sorority racial and religious discrimination on the KU campus! It is certainly heartening to know that there are a few with the strength of their convictions who are willing to "stand up and be counted" on this controversial issue.
What better place than at the university — among a group of other students — for a person to participate in living with others of
THE FRATERNITY-SORORITY system could well profit from the "New Frontier" which such an intermixture of races would create. In this day of world tensions, it is becoming evident to any thinking person that world problems will be (and are being) solved by a knowledge of other races and cultures which helps to break down mere "appearance barriers." It is a well-known fact that the more one gets to really know another person and the reasons for his actions, the less one is likely to be critical of the particular person.
a different race or religion! This is the time when lifetime values and attitudes are formed and a time when the student ought to look at issues objectively, seeking the truth in the issue. The truth is that the minority groups of the world are, in the 20th century, seeking to better their standard of living and way of life. They are succeeding, and are contributing much to man's knowledge.
WHY MUST THE Greek organizations at KU hold back while the "rest of the world goes by." leaving them behind? It is my opinion that if the fraternities and sororites refuse to integrate within the next few years, they will be taking a fatal step backward, a step that may well prove to be their extinction as a campus living group.
James Rhodes
Lawrence graduate student
* * *
Criticism For Mullins
Editor:
"The President's Decision" to resume atmospheric testing has been praised by Mr. Mullins' editorial of March 6. Mr. Mullins does not realize that this "necessary" and
"freedom-protecting" decision will only increase the Arms-Insanity which is racing us toward annihilation. And, once again tightens the grip that military and war economy profiteers have over our society.
HOWEVER, these facts do not seem to worry Mr. Mullins. He claims the need for atmospheric testing is based on the necessity to develop anti-missile-missiles and experiment with the neutron bomb. Little does he know! For the problems of developing an effective anti-missile-missile are not connected with nuclear tests, but revolve around complex electronic difficulties. Moreover, the neutron bomb is one of the most hideous of all forms of impersonal slaughter. Its purpose is not to destroy a country's industrial capacity; but, rather, to kill people without damaging their material possessions. Therefore, the two reasons presented can in no way justify the resumption of tests for the purpose of deterrence. The first is being done successfully without a pollution of the atmosphere and the second seems to increase the possibility of mass suicide.
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
NOW-I HOPE THAT WILL BE THE LOST WE HEAR ABOUT
MR. LAWERENCE WELK AND MR. GUY LOMBARDO."
WE CANNOT understand Mr. Mullins' ethical system or lack of one—when he assumes that the resumption of nuclear tests "is not a question of morality" and that the possible effects of such tests on the world's population is entirely subordinate to "necessity." Does he value human life so cheaply as to dismiss it for a "necessity" which is not only unjustified but immoral? Or does Mr. Mullins mean to revitalize the old proverb that "the end justifies the means"?
Robert Bosseau
Robert Bosseau
Pittsburg junior
Jeff Bor
Newport, R. I., sophomore
Chuck Menghini
Pittsburg senior
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
trineweekly 1983, daily Jan. 16, 1012.
Telephone VIking 3-2700 Extension 711. news room
Extension 711 news room Extension 320
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East St. 51. New York 22, N.Y. Mail subscription rates: national. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturday afternoons and examination periods. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas. class
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Ron Gallagher ... Managing Editor
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT,
BILL MILLER
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT.
Bill Mullins Editorial Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martinche .. Business Manager
Sound and Fury
Mr. Sugwon Kang's comment on and criticism of my U-2 talk is on a higher and more mature level than other previous comments and addresses itself to the substantive questions raised and positions taken by me. As such it is deserving of comment and criticism in its own right which I hereby offer. While Mr. Kang unfortunately did not attend the Current Events Forum meeting in question, and thus had to base his comments entirely on what he read in the Kansan, I feel that his comments do not in any way vitally distort what I had said. Nevertheless I do not agree with Mr. Kang's major contentions and feel that he has not offered any arguments which detract from the basis for my position.
A Reply to Kang
MR. KANG'S capsule account of the events between May 5th and May 7th is basically correct and corresponds to the description I gave in my talk. Mr. Kang takes the view that Khrushchev's disclosures forced the President to acknowledge the facts and take personal responsibility. I disagree strongly. By May 7th (prior to the President's assumption of personal responsibility) the U.S. government had already acknowledged the following facts: That a U-2 aircraft, studying weather conditions in the upper atmosphere in the vicinity of the Turkish Soviet border strayed from its course due to oxygen trouble, that the pilot lost consciousness, and that steered by its automatic pilot the plane flew into Soviet airspace. This fabrication acknowledged the existence of the plane, explained the flight and left the U.S. Government and the President free from any personal blame for the incident.
Mr. Kang maintains that apart from the "confession of culpability," which the President eventually undertook, he had only two other alternatives; to deny the whole thing, or to deny his personal responsibility while acknowledging the flight. This is an absurd contention. The president had dozens of other choices, the most important of which was simply to remain silent by saying, as many a president has wisely said: "No Comment." The State Department release quoted above was all the information the U.S. Government needed to disclose. There was no necessity to be stamped into further disclosures by Khrushchev's cajoling. Khrushchev had said in his May 7th 1960 statement that "I am prepared to grant that the President had no knowledge of a plane being dispatched to the Soviet Union and failing to return." It is hard to understand why Eisenhower chose to take the blame, when Khrushchev clearly showed that while he would milk the incident for all the propaganda value he could get out of it, he was quite willing to leave Eisenhower and the U.S. Presidency out of it.
IN MOST SITUATIONS, honesty is the best policy. In espionage, honesty is the worst possible policy, exposing the guilty party to shame and humiliation. There was no necessity nor any positive propaganda reason to make this disclosure. Mr. Kang says we would have gained little by a denial, and antagonized the Russian people in the bargain. Let me remind Mr. Kang that on May 7th prior to the Eisenhower announcement the Russians were already as antagonized as they were ever likely to be, for Khrushchev had painted the incident in lurid tones in his statements. What, may I ask, did we gain from Eisenhower's confession. The love and respect of the Russian people? Nonsense! We got derision, humiliation, scorn, fresh abuse, and the collapse of the summit. Clearly the best policy would have been to stick with our original disclaim of any intention to violate Soviet air space.
I don't know what makes Mr. Kang think that the Soviet denial of Abel's espionage was "effective." No one in my circle of acquaintance believed that denial. I didn't. Did Mr. Kang? I doubt it. What was so effective about the denial then? It does not follow that our denial would have been more ineffective or "disastrous." What disaster would have befallen us? What could the Soviets have done that was more "disastrous" than the world-wide publicity fiasco which followed Eisenhower's confession? This confession is what set the President up for the humiliation which he suffered at Khrushchev's hands in Paris. What a trap to fall into! To be put in a position where Khrushchev could actually demand an apology from the American President. Of course Eisenhower could not be expected to apologize. One might have hoped however that he could have handled this incident in such a way that Khrushchev would never be put in a position where he could ask for an apology. This he could have done if he had merely remained silent, referring all protests to the original position of the U.S. government cited above.
THE EVIDENCE points to the fact that Mr. Eisenhower did the worst possible thing, and by his actions brought about the very humiliating circumstances to which this nation was subjected as a result of his confession. International politics and international espionage are not polite parlor-games involving the preservation of friendly father images. Nice guys don't win in this particular league. Eisenhower is everybody's nice guy. I think he is a nice guy too honest and sincere and lovable. But as far as handling international espionage incidents is concerned like could learn a lot from the tricky British (see their handling of the Commander Crabbe spy case) and the wicked Soviets (see their handling of the Abel case). That is where I stand on this matter and I hereby rest my case. If anybody else wants to argue the case, please come to my office in Room 16, Strong Annex B, and I'll be glad to oblige, but let's give the Kansan a rest from Mr. Pringsheim's disputes with his public.
$T $T $T $T
Klaus H. Pringsheim instructor of political science
---