Laos: a temptation
After eight years of relative calm, the military situation in Laos has suddenly become an annoying pebble in the United States' retreating world combat boot. Just when America seemed to be successfully disengaging from its traumatic power play in Vietnam, Communist and neutralist forces clashed on Laos' strategic Plain of Jars last month.
The battle ended with the Communists' capture of the plain. But the action's implications ranged beyond a mere loss of face for the American-backed government troops. It also heightened the controversy over the extent of U.S. involvement in Laos, a controversy previously confined mainly to the floor of the Senate.
The Senators (Fulbright, Symington and others) who questioned the Nixon administration's sincerity in downplaying the number and use of our men and equipment in Laos were afraid the conflict might be transformed into another Vietnam. Their fears may be confirmed by a tragic Vietnam-like buildup in Laos, unless the administration and the American public make a careful assessment of the actual threat.
The Communist Pathet Lao, supported by an estimated 15,000 North Vietnamese troops, were the aggressors in the Plain of Jars, which was officially declared neutralist territory after the 1962 Geneva accord. But whether they intend to remain there or to continue driving toward the major Laotian cities of Luang Prabang and Vientiane, and possibly into Thailand, is uncertain.
The physical signs, which include more heavy battle equipment than on previous Communist excursions south, point to further strikes. The political situation and Hanoi's own logistical limits indicate that the new communist movement is less dangerous and that the domino theory may not be revived after all.
First, Hanoi may be attempting a diversionary tactic to prove that "Vietnamization"—any American support to the Asians short of supplying ground troops—is futile. The Laotian soldiers are infamously nonchalant about battle. They are reluctant to fight and, when forced to, generally do so by Marquis de Queensbury
rules. U.S. bombers and infantry advisers, which President Nixon believes will eventually be sufficient to keep the South Vietnamese government in power, couldn't help the neutralist troops stop the Plain of Jars push. Thus, Hanoi has shaken the groundwork of the concept of handing major responsibility to the Asians.
Second, Hanoi could be aiming at new U.S. compromises at the Paris peace talks. The North Vietnamese have said repeatedly that any major peace breakthroughs must come at the negotiating table, not through long-term American withdrawal. Until now, the United States has felt relatively safe from new enemy attacks in South Vietnam; American negotiators in Paris have made no concessions recently, in the belief that they had Hanoi under control. But the United States might have to reconsider its position with the knowledge that providing adequate deterrent forces in Laos would not be politically feasible at home.
Third, Hanoi must realize that it cannot extend its troops indefinitely southward. By the time the Communist forces reached the border of Thailand, they would probably be on inferior terms with the highly capable Thai army. And American public opinion might shift in favor of heavy U.S. ground and air support, should Thailand be endangered.
Hasty reaction on the part of the administration or the public to the latest Laos offensive could drive America into a situation similar to the one which it is now trying to leave.
The Nixon Doctrine advocates a "low posture" for the United States in the world. It posits a reluctance on our part to engage in small power disputes. But, like the obese matron who has sworn off candy, then cannot control her appetite when she is faced with an array of sweets, the administration may be inclined to reverse itself and enter the Laos dispute on the pretext of safeguarding American security. This is especially possible if the President hides the degree of our involvement from the public.
The United States must proceed carefully in Laos, hopefully away from intervention. There is a precedent for going the other way and its lessons are too painful. -Monroe Dodd
"IT'S NOT TRUE THAT WE'VE ESCALATED THE FIGHTING AND BOMBING IN CAOS, IT AT THE SAME LEVEL WE HAD IT FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO."
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansas Telephone Numbers
Newsroom--UN 4-3646 Business Office--UN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except a quarterly publication. 36 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kn. 69044. Goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without any obligation. Information is necessary those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser . . James W. Murray
Managing Editor ... Ken Peterson
Campus Editor ... Ted Iliff
News Editor ... Joe Bullard
Editorial Editors ... Mike Shearer, Joe Naas, Monroe Dodd
Sponsor Editors ... Bruce Capeh, Steve Swiver
Makeup Editors ... Charlie Capeh, George Wilkens
Wire Editor ... Ken Cummins
Women's Page Editors ... Linda Loyd, Carolyn Bowers
Arts, General Resources, Kuala Geary
Assistant Campus Editors ... Weki Phili, Nila Stewart
Assistant News Editors ... Donna Shrader, Cass Sexson, Robin Stewart
Photographers ... Ron Bishop, Bruce Bernstein, Randy Lefflingwell
BUSINESS STAFF
BUSINESS STAFF Business Advisor . Mel Adams
Business Manager Jerry Bottenfield
Assistant Business Manager Mike Banks
Advertising Managers Larry Cates, Joanne Bos
National Advertising Manager Oscar Robinson
Classified Manager Shelley Bruy
hearing voices—
To the editor:
This letter is in reply to Mr. Jonathan Jordan's letter (Kansan, Feb. 24).
It seems that Mr. Jordan is either ignorant of the facts about establishing the Zionist state of Israel or he knows the facts and tries to conceal them by reiterating the classical false Zionist claims.
I will pick Mr. Jordan's claims, or the Zionist claims, and show that they are completely false. My references and documents will not be Arab. They will be foreign and particularly Jewish.
Zionist claim: Israel wants secure borders.
First:
My claim: Israel is an expansionist state. (Reference: the monthly publication of the National Working and Studying Youth (part of the Israeli Histadrut) edited by S.K.Emanual, special edition, June 20, 1967. In this publication, the Histadrut gives the map of future Israel. The map involves the Sinai Peninsula, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and most of Syria.)
Israel is always recruiting more Jewish immigrants. I just can't see how present Israel (of 1967) could accommodate all the Jews of the world (about 12 million) unless there is a plan to achieve the map of the Histadrut. Israel will design further "secure borders" (to conceal its aggression) to satisfy the Histadrut map.
Second:
Zionist claim: All Israeli arms are purchased with hard currency.
My claim: The hard currency of Israel is probably not enough to buy Phantom jets (among other heavy arms). In this respect I would like to mention that Israel received official U.S. help (1964-1968) in the sum of $1.127 billion. (Reference: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants, P. 15)
The huge amount of money collected by the United Jewish Appeal which is essentially American, and tax-free, is sent to Israel. I guess that Mr. Jordan now realizes how Israeli arms are purchased by American money and not by Israeli hard currency. If Israel spends its revenues from citrus fruits and other exports to purchase arms, the Israelis will have to eat arms or starve to death.
Third:
Zionist claim: The Jews accepted the partition plan of the United Nations and Arab armies invaded Palestine. The Refugees were a result of an order of the Arab High Command that Arab citizens evacuate Jewish areas.
My claim: If the Jews truly accepted the U.N.'s partition plan, why did they capture more land in 1947 than had been allotted to them? This is not to forget lands captured after Israel's establishment (1948). They are Al-Uja and Um-Rashrash (now Eilat), both in Egypt. (Reference: United Nations maps and any
Atlas showing 1948 Israel.) The United Nations never recognized the new additions of 1948. People didn't forget the Israelis' annexation of Arab Jerusalem in spite of all the world governments of the United Nations except the United States, which abstained.
Let me remind Mr. Jordan that Israel declared its independence while the United Nations was convening to find a solution to the problem. Let me also point out that Israel was denied membership in the United Nations at first, then afterwards it was provisionally accepted. (Israel owes its admission to the United States and other Western powers' pressure.) The United Nations at that time was composed of 55 members, the majority of which were Western states that always supported Israel. A face that might surprise some: The United Nations has accepted Israel against its charter. Also, the United Nations has no right to partition Palestine.
If the Arabs did not flee because of the massacres of the Zionist terrorists such as the Irgun gang and Stern gangs, how does Mr. Jordan explain the Massacre of Kier-Yassin? Here I quote Menachim Begin, leader of the Irgun gang which was responsible for the "supreme victory" at Dier-Yassin. In his book, "The Revolt," he writes, "Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel); in the rest of
In Dier-Yassin, 250 people were massacred in cold blood (Reference: Jon Kimche, a Jewish scholar, in his book, "The Seven Fallen Pillars," 1953, p. 228).
the country, Arabs began to flee shouting Dier Yassin." Menachim Begin was member of the Israeli parliament and was recently awarded a cabinet post.
The claim that the Arabs were ordered to evacuate the land has no support and bears no truth. The Zionists say that the order of the Higher Arab Command (if such a name exists) was broadcast over the Arab radios which were monitored by the British Broadcasting System.
The fact is brought up by the Irish journalist, E. Childers, in an article published by The Spectator, May 12, 1963. In that article, Mr. Childers finds out the Zionist claim is a legend. I challenge the Zionists to support their claim (that the Arabs left after a command from the Arab armies).
Fourth:
Zionist claim: Arabs in Israel enjoy all the rights of an Israeli citizen.
My claim: This is false. On many occasions, it has been said by many Zionist leaders that they want a "pure Jewish state just as France is French and America is American." In such an "Israel," do gentiles have a place? i. e., Do Arab Christians and Arab Moslems have
a place? Logically, the answer is no.
In an Israeli I.D., the following items must be filled out: citizenship, nationality and religion. I wonder in which country do citizenship and nationality differ? I am a Christian. My Jordanian passport asserts that my citizenship and nationality are Jordanian. There is no item regarding my religion. Why should an item appear on the Israeli I.D. (or any other country's) unless some religions have certain privileges?
Mr. Jordan ends his letter by admitting that he has no solution to the problem.
I end my letter by presenting the solution adopted by the Palestinian Command struggle (Al Fatah and other commando groups): Let Israel compromise. Instead of occupying more lands and hence create more refugees, let the refugees go back to their private property.
Let all inhabitants of Palestine (now Israel), including the two million Palestinian refugees, establish a democratic, non-religious, non-racist, secular state in which all faiths coexist and have equal rights. Let Israel evacuate the lands that it occupies that are non-Palestinian.
After that there will be no problem and no wars that endanger the world peace.
Muwaffak J. Haddadin Amman, Jordan graduate student