Newspapers / Daily Tar Heel (Chapel … / Oct. 25, 1961, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
ic ii.j'Www ji,iiiii"iiwii.iiii '"' Id V UN P tfje atlp Sat t avin Heel We si w in its sixty-ninth year of editorial freedom, unhampered by restrictions from either the administration or the student body. j The Daily Tar Heel is the official student publication of g I the Publications Board of the University of North Carolina, i . . I personal expressions of the editor, unless otherwise credited; they y r wo necessarily representative of feeling on the staff. October 25, 19G1 Tel. 942-2356 Vol. LXIX, No. 31 I SSSlWV -.WkviW-AM End Of Communism? The word "Stalinism" has been appearing with renewed regularity in the political analysts' columns of late. With Khrushchev apparently hav ing some difficulty keeping himself tightly in control of the world Com munist movement, he appears to have done another of his peculiar political backflips. After having de nounced Stalin in true Communist adherence to the policy of making sure dead people stay buried, Khrushchev is now lamenting the fact that he no longer has the con trol over the world Communist movement that Stalin had. A rather morbit joke that circu lated some time ago, following some Chinese Communist refusals to ac cept the Khrushchev dictates at face value, capsuled the American senti ment by saying that optimists are learning Russian, pessimists are learning Chinese. The new twist is that the pessimists are now learn ing Albanian. The claim to humor for either statement is tenuous, but there is no refuting the underlying fact: Khrushchev has been unable to keep other Communist countries under the Russian thumb. The Albanian split is not the first, nor is it apt to be the last. Com munist movements in other coun tries are split into two, three, and sometimes more, factions. - This is especially true in the Com munist youth movement. The Zen gakuren in Japan, for instance, is split into three incompatible fac tions, with the Marxist philoso phical faction currently the most popular. Those who adhere to the "Moscow line" are in the minority. Khrushchev is not unaware of what is going on in countries other than Albania, countries that appear on the surface to look to the Russian premier for leadership, but actually would rather practice their own brand of Communism. This is na turally asource of concern to Khrushchev and the old Stalinism is beginning to look better and better to him. Whether this apparent swing to ward disaffection with Khrushchev will have any lasting effect is diffi cult for anyone to predict. However, one thing is hardly open to question, and that is if the situation becomes too dangerous to Khrushchev and his aim of complete domination of the world Communist movement, then he will take whatever steps are necessary to protect his posi tion. There is also a chance that he will be unable to do anything, in which case the fearful image of a completely unified Communist will have been faded somewhat. Our hope, naturally, is that Khrushchev will be unable to draw the Iron Cur tain tighter, and the end of unified world Communism already begun. Curfew Last night's showing of the film "Operation Abolition" in Carroll Hall drew an unusually large and in terested crowd. The Harrington Lewis debate that followed the film was exactly what everyone expected it to be, a careful, point-by-point dissection and analysis of the film and its sponsor, the House Commit tee on Un-American Activities. We don't think anyone changed his mind" about either the film or the committee, but at least more people know what they're disagree ing on. Of course, both Fulton Lewis and Mike Harrington might be wonder- WAYNE KING Editor Marcahet Ann Rhymm Associate Editor Lloyd Limi Executive News Editor Bnx Hobbs Managing Editor Garry Blanchakd Assistant Editor Jim CxoTFHxrEa Assistant to the Editor Stevs Vaughn News Editor Nancy Babr, Linda Cfavotta Feature Editors Barry W. Lloyd Sports Editor Davtd Wysong Subscription Manager Jim Eskh,dce Circulation Manager Ed Dupbee Asst. Sports Editor Jim Wallace. Photography Editor TIM BURNETT Business Manager Mnc Mathers Advertising Manager The Daily Tab Heel Is published dally except Monday, examination periods and vacations. It is entered as second class matter in the post office in Cnapel Hill., N. C. pursuant with, the act of March 8. 1870. Subscription rates: $4.50 per semester, $8 per year. - . The Daily Tar Heel is a subscriber to the United Press International and utilizes the services of the News Bu reau of the University of North Caro- ''.no h ! PiiMfcat.ion Board of the University of North Carolina. Chapel Iiiil. N. C .'j-mjuuMUMOHMfr J : V 3'.' l M"tf "'""''VM'W 1 rffS TTT 'JZLgKrtiMvi ; .cai : --r-'-''- ttv.iVrfrtfflnft 1 II m s ing what prompted over half of the audience to walk out' before the de bate was finished. We can assure them that it had nothing to do with lack of interest. It was simply because the coeds had to meet their 11 p.m. curfew. Blanket late permission was extend ed for the Yack beauty contest, but not for the debate. That's because the Yack beauty contest is more important. A Word For It (Associated fress Log) "A passel of double-domes at the G. & C. Merriam Co. joint in Spring field, Mass., have been confabbing and yakking for 27 years which is not to inTer that they have not been doing plenty work and now they have finalized Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridg ed, a new edition of that swell and esteemed word book." So says an editorial in the New York Times, pointing out that if you like the English prose in that first paragraph, then Webster's is just your dictionary, since all of the words used are listed there "with no suggestion they are anything but standard." The Times suggests that the Web ster editors do not throw out the printing plates of the second edition since there is likely to be a continu ing demand for it. It would also make a platform For a new. start, says the Times, and however costly or arduous, a new , start is needed. Dag Hammarskjold is gone; there is no slightest light on his sucessor; the problem of Red China is heavily hanging; the Berlin problem is mov ing from worse to worst and the Congo problem seems to have reach ed to a point to give an impression of an endless oscillation of strifes. Surrounded by those and many other difficulties the birth of the U.N. is ; celebrated by its member nations this week. At this time one must reflect about what is to be changed and what is to be done in the U.N. based on past experiences. There is a great tendency among the nations, especially in. America, to depend la2ily on the U.N. to make a peace and to fix major interna tional disputes. The U.N., nowever, is still too young and too immature to handle such a huge problem, as the leading powers of the world have to give. There is a great fear that the U.N. itself would be crashed by the weight of their gigantic disputes. IF MAJOR nations keep passing their crucial decisions to this organi zation as they have done they will endanger the existence of the U.N. itself. If I use a simple way of ex pression we have to go easy with it because we do not have another Dag Ilammarskjod yet, who could manage the unsuitably large prob lems for the organization with his intellect alone. We should not bring into the U.N. again such problem as a Suez' crisis, which would not have been troubled the U.N. if the American govern ment had not give to the allies around the Canal the unyielding facts that they had been misguided and un guided. Again, we should not bring into the U.N. such problem as a Congo crisis, which would never never have been if the Western countries had realized, before the Belgian withdrawal, that it was a Western responsibility to prevent the disturbance and to make a free in dependent Congo.. Then we had Dag "You Ain't Heard Nothin' Yet" W-'-4; .(;.- . " - v4gw 1 resumk J: V- -: A.7 : . S. . ft Mr. K & His Yo-Yo Diplomacy By PHIL NEWSOM UPI Foreign News Analyst PARIS An American official here calls it "yo-yo diplomacy." It is the combination by which Nikita Khrushchev first ships the world out to the end of a string with threats and then reels in again with sweet talk as suits his purpose. This official believes it is time the world got off the string. This dispatch is written at the end of the week of talks with high French and NATO officials in which they spoke frankly of problems rang ing from Berlin to Laos but with the condition that any information used later would not be directly attributed to its source. However, the views are authori tative. The French government believes it is receiving adequate reports on Washington and United Nations dis cussions of the Berlin problem. HOWEVER, IT is not entirely cer tain it knows President Kennedy's and Secretary of State Dean Rusk's exact thinking on Berlin or the Ger man problem as a whole. It opposes any move to extend talks on Berlin to the question of European security. It opposes any concessions on Ber lin which might lead to a "creeping neutrality" over Western Europe. The French believe this not only would lead to eventual withdrawal of American forces in Europe but also to collapse of the whole system of West European unity built up so carefully over the last 16 years. The French are hopeful of a Closer relationship with the Kennedy ad ministration than exisited under the Eisenhower administration. THEY BELIEVE that the Eisen hower administration, heavily sprink led with successful business execu tives, frequently took too rigid a view toward world events without regard for the lessons of history. Both French and NATO officials believe that the morale factor of the peoples involved in the present crisis is important. They admit that United States public opinion for a strong stand against Soviet threats is far ahead of that of Europe. But they say it is not because Khrushchev's nuclear threats have frightened the peoples of Europe. It is simply that after recurring crises, they simply don't believe them. The main idea is to get off the Russian yo-yo, both by increased awareness among public opinion and by a steady Duildup of Western strength regardless of - Soviet at tempts at confusion. Hammarskjold, but not now. A GENERAL NOTION on the UN, that it is the only place in the world to settle the international disputes and to make a world peace, tends to make many nations irresponsibly bring into the UN the problems which may not have necessarily been submitted to the UN, if the countries and the people of the countries pay due effort and feel due responsibility to solve those problems before their submittances knowing that making a peace or settling an internatonal dispute is primarily the matter of each individual nation and the peo ple of each nation. We should make the burden of the UN as light as possible in order that the UN would not be expended by the problems. We ought not have over-confidence on the UN to fix international crisis or to make peace for us. Before we pass lazily through tha-e problems to the UN we must do our best to make a world peace and to settle in ternational disputes by ourselves. We should cherish, nourish, treas ure, and raise it by piece meals of problems of suitable si;:e if we dream a rosy dream of a firm estab lishment of common laws among the nations through the Unite'd Nations in the future. Haruo Konishi R eacler Argues Choice Of U. The October 17, 19G1 edition of the Daily Tar Heel contained a pacifist diatrible by Haruo Konishi directed at American selfishness. Without going into the over expounded arguments between pacifist and patriot, I would like to comment on some of the obvious inaccuracies used in this particular article. In the first place there are some points of agreement between myself and Konishi. I acknowledge that the strife between the "free" countries and the "communistic" countries threatens man's conquest of nature, his civilization, and possibly his health. Also, Americans would do well to re appraise the value of "keeping face" before the world. I too agree that President Kennedy's disarmament proposals should be accepted through the United Nations. And finally, I recognize the central problem as con cerning the preservation of existing civilization. LOGICAL REASONING, not emotional sentimentality or selfish desire, pre vents me from accepting the following assumptions: 1. Freedom is simply a luxury. 2. Civilization, must be preserved at the risk of freedom. 3. The choice is between destruction (because of our steadfastness) or preservation of the human legacy (through the sacrifice of our free dom and doctrines). Konishi feels that our dogged insistance on freedom threatens the peace and hence threatens the world with the annihilation of civilization. On the other hand I believe freedom to be the sustaining force in any highly civilized state. What is freedom? Has not the growth of individual freedom and respon sibility paralleled the growth of a particular civilization? If as Emerson said, we should judge a civilization by the individuals it produces, is not freedom the prime requisite for a highly developed civilization? My point is this, that civilizations grow because FREE men develop their individuality and in turn assist their fellow men. A civilized state is one in which men are encouraged to think and mature freely. Seen in this light freedom is more than "petty selfish desire." THE POLITICAL growth of civilization is a struggle to be free of over 'ords, the environmental growth of civilization is a struggle to be free of disease, disaster, and natural limitations, the spiritual growth of civiliza tion is a struggle to be free of selfishness, and so on. Arnold Toynbee, the noted contemporary historian, has stated that the decline of democracy, personal freedom and liberty into a totalitarian state INEVITABLY MARKS THE BEGINNING OF THE DECLINE OF THE CIVILIZATION. When men surrender their political and individual freedom in favor of security, as Eric Fromm says, they are choosing the easy way out. When such a surrender is made the decline in the civilization will follow as surely as Rome fell. Konishi intimates that that we must give up our freedom in order to preserve civilization or be destroyed. But if we do give up freedom our civilization will definitely decline into a period comparable to the Dark Ages. Modern Western Civilization can only be preserved through freedom, democ racy, liberty, and equality and these elements must be kept in good bal ance). We must resist foreign overlords as well as patriotic extremists at home who would both deny us the right to think. HOWEVER, IT IS inevitable that sooner or later our modern civilization will decline. We must be sure that Western civilization developes even more and doesn't begin its decline until the "germ" of freedom has been deeply planted in upcoming nations and cultures. This is the only good guarantee that the future will see much of Freedom. Yet, IF the' choice WERE between freedom with war or surrender with peace today, perhaps it would be better to choose the quicker of the two methods for destroying contemporary civilization. Better to be flushed down in a nuclear holocoust with the hope of vigorous, free survivors than to see our civilization and ALL expressions of freedom wither by surrender. And if we should so surrender and decline, do you think a disarmament pledge would be safe in the hands of a President Nero of the American People's Republic? But the choice does NOT have to be freedom and death versus submission and peace. We must tactfully set our goals for freedom, not simply the maintenance of freedom at home, but also in the foreign lands not yet sub verted. Freedom is a terrifying thing, security is more appealing we must be strong men in the face of terror and temptation. a FORD ROWAN ATTITUDES by Clotfcltcr Maybe The Nation Isn't Worth Saving r? About Letters The Daily Tar Heel invites readers to use it for expres- If sions of opinion on current topici regardless of viewpoint. II Letters must be signed, con- tain a verifiable address, and be free of libelous material. Brevity and legibility In. crease the chance of publica- tion. Lengthy letters may be edited or omitted. Absolutely none will be returned. I Bob Somers, in a recent letter to the editor, lists some of the Pa triotic Legislation with which the House Un-American Activities Com mittee credits itself. The latter, which ardently defends the Commit tee, brags of what are to us some of HUAC's most objectionable fea tures. Somers named five legislative rec ommendations which had come from the House Committee. These con cerned (1) "deportation of alien spies and saboteurs;" (2) outlawing any organization, "which is shown to be under the control of a foreign gov ernment" (Somers forgets to say who will "show" these groups to be foreign-controlled, since HUAC sup posedly is nof a judiciary body); (3r More legislation on- depbTtfcv . 1 1 tion of saboteurs; (4) restriction of tax-exempt privileges to Communist-controlled groups (again,. who is going to prove them Communist?); and (5) "Added legislation to place re strictions on . . . totalitarian propa ganda ..." RECOMMENDATIONS (2) and (4) involve a judgment of "question able'' organizations, which HUAC as a legislative committee is unable' to make. The first and third recommenda tions concern legislation against per sons who commit physical acts of subversion. This field takes the Committee far beyond its House mandate, which" states: - "(HUAC) is authorized to make from time to time investigations of the extent, character and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States . . ." THEREFORE, recommenda tion (5) is legitimate under the HUAC mandate. But is it necessary and advisable? "Added legislation to place restric tions on the distribution of totalitar ian propaganda, when that distribu tion involves any cost to the Amer ican taxpayers," says iMr. Somers. In plain language, he means either censorship, rigorous restriction or total stoppage of Communist mail ings. What Mr. Somers is trying to tell us, or trying not to tell us, is that the dirty Reds shouldn't be al lowed to mail their literature. A mericans are too susceptible to pro paganda . . . the Communists are so shrewd that they could twist the facts and confuse the average Amer ican . . . the nation would be de livered into the hands of the Soviet Union delivered by your friendly mailman. If the "home of the brave'' is so weak and sick and gullible as to be converted to Communism by mail order catalog, maybe the nation is not worth saving ... Or maybe Mr. Somers and his friends refuse to give the United States credit for enough sense to reject tired totali tarian philosophies, both at home and abroad. Jim Clotfelter
Daily Tar Heel (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 25, 1961, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75