Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 5

ALL EDITIONS The ArizonaRepublic Speaking of 'flood control' Michael Padev Rnubllc fertlan dltor Success of Nixon summitry Page 6 Phoenix, Sunday, July 16, 1972 Where The Spirit Of The Lord Is, Tlwre Is Liberty Corinthians Published Every Morning by PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS. INC. 120 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 EUGENE C. PULLIAM, Publisher WASHINGTON -A year ago this weekend, President Nixon surprised the world with an announcement that he had concluded an agreement with the Communist government of China for a Incredible petition If we.

all A WANT TO BE L.k. AWAY" WE'D BETTER I-fM Start preparing If we throw a quick political glance at the world at large today, we can see, clearly, that the whole international situation has improved considerably everywhere, including Vietnam. In certain fields of international relations, the effect of President Nixon's summit conferences has been truly spectacular. The old atmosphere of gloom and cqjh' flict is being replaced by a new era of peaceful negotiations and friendly cooperation. Who would have thought, for example, one year ago, that the Russians would buy U.S.

grain for $750 million and thus greatly help the American farmer? Or that Secretary of State William Rogers would pay a friendly and very successful visit to Communist East Europe? Or that both the Russian and the Chinese Communist governments would help President Nixon's efforts to negotiate an honorable peace agreement with North Vietnam? Or that West Germany and East Germany would sign treaties for co operation, which are welcomed by all Germans and by all European states? Or that the Middle East conflict, though not yet solved, would cease to be a serious cause for quarrel between Washington and Moscow? Or that, for the first time in contemporary history, the two atomic giants, the U.S. and Russia, would sign a disarmament agreement, which virtually guarantees world peace? Since the end of World War II, we have been accustomed to read about and hear about bad news from almo.t all corners of the world. Perhaps, because of this, we do not seem to be able to realize how much better the international situation is today in comparison to what it was a year ago. that ring the Communist city. If it had managed to land safely the plane would undoubtedly have been kept as war booty.

Its passengers and crew members probably would have been put into a prison camp along with the other American prisoners now in North Vietnam. Morally there can be no question that Captain Vaughn did the right thing. Legally, the case is equally clear. The captain of an aircraft (like the captain of a ship) is the sole commander whose word is the law. Both maritime and aviation law have long supported this position.

Captain Vaughn did the right thing. It is utterly amazing that any rational person would now wish to punish him for what, actually, was the action of a hero. It seems incredible that 19 persons could have signed a petition asking the Federal Aviation Administration to suspend Eugene Vaughn, the Pan American Airways pilot who directed the shooting of a hijacker in Saigon. Ordered by the hijacker to take the plane to Hanoi, capital of North Vietnam. Captain Vaughn put down in Saigon instead, grabbed the hijacker, and told another passenger with a gun to shoot the criminal.

And now 19 persons have asked that his license be lifted. We think he should be given a medal. What would have happened if the giant 747 with 147 passengers and crew members aboard had come into Hanoi airport for a landing? It may well have been shot down by the defensive missile launchers and anti aircraft guns summit conference to be held in Peking not later than February, 1972. Later on came another surprise that President Nixon would travel to Moscow in May 1972 for a summit conference with Russia's leaders. Both summits are now well behind us, and we should examine their results carefully and objectively, in the light of world developments and U.S.

foreign policy positions. World public opinion welcomed both summit conferences with relief and with hopeful expectations for better times ahead. U.S. Chinese and U.S. Soviet disputes had poisoned international relations for many years.

The situation was particularly ugly in Southeast Asia, where the Vietnam war constituted a serious danger to world peace. There were grave risks that Vietnam might develop into a U.S. Chinese and even a U.S.' Russian conflict, which would have brought us to. the brink of a global nuclear war. Republic editorial paap cartoonist Pawn of fate? William F.

liaehley Jr. Move lef prompted by mistaken calculation does Bobby Fischer think Joe Namath? Who he is tism, or to conservatives dissatisfied by Mr. Nixon's liberalism. I wish our literary moralists would come to a formal conclusion on the question whether a ghostwriter is entitled to go on and w-r i a book in which he blithely divulges what after International observers often talk about the "German miracle" or about the "Japanese miracle" when they discuss the rapid economic progress which West Germany and Japan made in the past two decades. I submit that we should proudly talk about the "American miracle" when we discuss the extraordinary achievements of President Nixon's foreign policy, which culminated with the two summit conferences in Peking and in Moscow this year.

These, two Nixon summits have really changed the world for the better. All international troubles are not over, course, and all world disputes have not been solved, nor are they likely to be solved for years to come. But a most important and valuable step toward peace has been made with the agreements signed in Peking and Moscow. The world now knows that the awful danger for a great power confrontation has been removed. This is a tremendously encouraging development for all mankind.

Tax Sharing The book is less ideological than personal. Indeed, Whalen closes it by writing a memorandum to in the style of the dozens he had written during the months before the political conventions. "What the yea-sayers and your Republican apologists do not dwell upon," he tells- Nixon chillingly, 'is the direction of much of (the) progress (made by your administration). It is away from the goals you proclaimed in the 1968 campaign. "The difference between what your administration has done and proposed to do, and what a Humphrey administration would have done, is not very significant.

What is sadly significant is that a liberal Democratic administration would have acted out of mistaken conviction. began, it ended at a motel in San Diego, where Nixon's staff was holed up after the triumphant nomination, tore-consolidate for the campaign against Hubert Humphrey. There the staff was subjected to parietal regulations that sophomores at Harvard would rebel against, so that when he decided he had had enough, Whalen had to pack his suitcase and slip furtively out the side door. This bitter book is a documentary of disillusion. Whalen expected a great deal from Richard Nixon, and slowly he came to the conclusion that Richard Nixon was purely a political functionary, without any thought at all expect to enhance his fortunes.

Whalen's account is, of course, highly colored by amour propre. It is for that reason all the more fascinating', precisely because, as a sensitive man, he notices and reacts to slights which others would accept as a matter of course, or in any event, would not dwell upon. On one occasion, at the convention in Miami, Whalen found that the Nixon bureaucracy had given him an identification badge that denied him access to the floor occupied by Nixon's top team in the hotel. He made a fearful row, there and then, and got his credentials hiked. And one thinks of life at Versailles, or at St.

Petersburg, and the agony and the ecstasy brought on by the emperor's chance snub, or smile. Whalen tells us, in effect, that such a life is bearable for those engaged in grand purposes, but that no such purposes are being served by Richard Nixon's court. It is the principal failure of the book that he does not really make the indictment convincingly, either to liberals dissatisfied by Nixon's conserva If so, it is tragic for his reputation as an internationally respected master of chess. But in a way, Fischer could be seen as representative of some other American young people in the past several years, although he does not share in their reputation for destructive radicalism. He and they, as U.S.

citizens, have enjoyed individual freedom to a degree that makes Russian chess champion Spassky a robot by comparison. They could choose to take advantage of their oppor-t i i or reject them. Often through drug abuse, they threw away highly promising options. And Fischer, in abusing the position he has competed so hard to gain, may be throwing away his opportunities in the international chess community. But it will be by Fischer's own choice, and neither the State Department nor the Pentagon has the slightest say in the matter.

Spassky, on the other hand, would be ruined by Russia's political leaders if he allowed his temperament a similar rein. Soviet party leaders consider him the representative of Russian communism in a way incomprehensible to many Americans, who would never regard Fischer as the representative of the Republican or Democratic parties. But this is a stern reality confirmed recently when leading Soviet poet Josef Brodsky was expelled from that country because he, unlike other prominent, talented Russians (such as U.S.-baiting poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko), did not actively advocate totalitarian communism. Fischer will rise or fall on his own efforts, not a politician's dictates. However, if he cavalierly aborts the matches, he will still owe a serious apology to thousands of disappointed chess fans throughout the They, and the rest of us, have been caught off balance because, while we all believed there would be some perplexing strategy on the chess board, we didn't think Fischer could checkmate himself without making a move.

Granted, Fischer's demands for more money and his refusal to compete at -the world championship chess matches may amount to little more than has been done in the past by such personalities as egocentric sports star Joe Namath and television prima donna Johnny Carson, both of whom have departed from key positions until their wishes were acceded to in one way or another. But the world likes to think that at least chess remains a game of precision and the intellect, not subject to the vagaries and tantrums besetting other areas of life. Granted, Fischer's temperamental behavior at the matches in Iceland has probably helped gain the game more attention in the media than ever before. But the publicity generated by this low-grade drama is of a totally unneeded sort. And granted, the concentration and- study demanded of a world chess expert might very possibly make him withdrawn, aloof, and introspective, therefore contemptuous of what he perceives to be the mean little demands of a grubby, hustling world.

But Fischer's refusal to consent to television coverage of the games in Reykjavik even though a substantial part of the prize money he has demanded comes through sale of television rights seems inexplicable. Fischer, although famed as an introvert, has been before the cameras before. Boris Spassky, the Russian defending his world title, obviously can compete in the public eye. It is difficult to believe that Fischer would willingly forfeit the grand chance awaiting him merely because of peccadillos. Is there more to the story than we know? Has a crisis coincidentally chosen this very time to benumb him? Has Fischer to use that metaphor which suddenly applies almost literally in this case become a pawn of fate? all was said to him in a confidence that grew out of a professional relationship.

Emmet John Hughes did it, at Eisenhower's expense, and got some sort of a prize, and it has all become quite routine, though the feeling that something is wrong persists in the pit of the stomach. This said, let me recommend Richard a 1 's book, "Catch the Falling Flag." There is altogether too much there, now that it is published, that people should not deprive themselves of. Whalen is the young author of "The Founding Father." When in 1967 Richard Nixon was assembling his staff, something Whalen wrote in Fortune magazine caught his eye, and he asked him to come around for a talk. Forthrightly, Whalen reminded Nixon that the excruciatingly critical review of his book, "Six Crises," published in National Review in 1:, had been written by Whalen. whose services Nixon was now soliciting.

Mr. Nixon appeared not to mind at all, and the collaboration began and, briefly, prospered. But days after Nixon was nominated, and 10 months after Whalen's frustration "Your administration's slithering to the left to borrow a phrase from our common political hero, Churchill is prompted by mistaken calculation. "In the course of the 1968 campaign, you declared: I seek Ihe presidency, not because it offers me a chance to be somebody, but because it offers me a chance to do something. I believed then that you sincerely meant that, and so did others around you.

"In June, 1968, you may recall, you confided to a visitor that you expected to be a one-term president. Somewhere in the transition from citizen to monarch, your principled determination truly to govern, rather than merely reign, faltered. "For that reason, I am bound to say, the chance that you will be a one-term president is perhaps greater than you realize." James Hilpatriek Republicans accept notion of Democratic disarray at their peril But if Republicans fail to respond with energy and appeal and ideas to the ferment of this born-again Democratic Party, they could be badly surprised in November and not merely this November. In other Novembers to come. Bloodbath avoided in Vietnam MIAMI BEACH -One uncomfortable thought uncomfortable from a conservative point of view rises hazily from the steam-baths of liberalism here in Miami Sir Robert is the British expert on guerrilla warfare who helped a 1 a i a put down the Communist revolt (sparked by the ethnic Chinese) that broke out after World War II.

Writing recently for the New York Times, Sir Robert said that if the current North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam had succeeded, well over 1 million (out of 18 million) people in South A second assumption is that the Democratic Party, through its various reforms, is undergoing a significant overhaul and reassembly. The assumption is quite valid. A great deal has been written about the differences that marked this convention the sharply increased representation given to women, to the young, to minority groups. It was strikingly true. You have to have seen some of these delegates to have believed them.

Within the party, the shift of power is dramatic, and this broadened base provides a new foundation for the support of new political machinery. It is not yet possible to predict how well this new machinery will work in terms of winning elections. One production goal, obviously, is to mobilize a black vote. As various studies make it clear, Negro America offers a tremendous political potential: Thirteen states have more than half a million blacks of voting age. In 19 states that Humphrey lost in 1968, a fully activated black vote could have reversed the returns.

Another production goal envisions the enrollment as card-carrying Democrats of 15 million young people. In key states their impact also could be decisive. Republicans need to think upon these things. The putative black vote is not monolithic: A large black middle class is repelled by black radicals. Neither is the youth vote automatically to be assigned to a Democratic future.

Factions within the party fought over tariff; they fought over nullification; they fought over slavery; they fought over silver and gold; they fought over Prohibition; 20 years ago they almost disemboweled themselves on issues of civil rights. The party history, in brief, is not a history of unity, but a history of disunity. Democrats have fallen upon one another with shillelaghs, bowie knives, and bung starters. They have fought like so many alley cats in quest of a mackerel prize, and ordinarily they have fought on gut issues where wounds are deep and slow in healing. My thought, this time, is that the quarrel is more over form than substance.

No gut issue appears. There is busing, of course, on which the embattled factions are indeed passionately at odds, but other disputes are mostly matters of degree how much for welfare, how much for defense, where to shift taxes. The big fight is over control of the party structure itself, and this is not a fight that lends itself to deep public concern. W7hat I am suggesting is that this notion of "fatal disarray" is spurious. The Democrats, possessed of a ravenous appetite to recapture the White House, may squall for a time like petulant children; but in the end, come November, they will eat their nasty okra before they go to bed hungry.

Vietnam would have been murdered. He added: "The critics of the war may claim that the forecasts are exaggerated. But Colonel Tran Van Dac, a North Vietnamese officer who defected after 24 years in the Communist party, stated that the Communists, if they win, would slaughter up to 3 million South Vietnamese, and another colonel, Le Xuan Chuyen, who defected after 21 years, stated that 5 million people in South Vietnam were on the Communist 'blood debt' list and that 10-15 per cent of these would pay with their lives. When asked in an interview if the possibility of a bloodbath had been exaggerated he replied: 'It could not be exaggerated. It will happen.

The chances now are that it won't happen, largely because American airpower and South Vietnamese ground troops have blunted the North Vietnamese invasion and turned it back on itself. But a catastrophe of that nature would have placed a black mark against the U.S. in Asia that would never have been removed. Today" quale From an editorial in the Richmond, News Leader: Mrs. Philip Hart is one of your yo-ho types who is congentially incapable of making relevant distinctions.

For instance, she can comprehend no difference between the government that exists in South Vietnam now, and the government that the North Vietnamese ara seeking to impose on the people. So, she says, the United States should not be supporting the South Vietnamese, and she says she is not going to pay $6,200 in taxes she owes to the Internal Revenue Service until the last American in South Vietnam has come home. Very well. Mrs. Hart is the wife of Sen.

Philip Hart of Michigan. The senator receives a generous salary for his duties, courtesy of the United States taxpayers. On the premise that what is a husband's is a wife's and vice versa, Mrs. Hart is refusing to pay taxes on income that both she and her husband enjoy. Surely the taxpayers would endorse withholding from the senator's salary an amount equal to the amount jvlrs.

Hart is withholding from the IRS. Beach: The Republicans, bless their Whiggish hearts, had better get on the ball. That hortatory observation is offered free of charge, and without regard to the Democratic ticket for 1972. It was the universal assumption that the nominee would be Sen. George Mc-Govern, and that the convention would provide him an ideologically compatible running mate.

Several other assumptions were universally bandied about all week. Some of them have much validity; others have little or none. Let me sort a few of them out. There is, first off. the prediction that the Democratic Party will drag itself from Florida in a state of "fatal disarray." Republicans will buy this happy thought at their peril.

The Madisonian era of good feeling ended nearly 150 years ago; the Democrats have been in fatal disarray ever since. Peking ducks A story making the rounds in Taiwan deals with a French journalist who had visited Nationalist China and then had gone to the mainland. At a de luxe dinner in Peking the Frenchman is supposed to have said to Mao Tse-tung, with more truth than diplomacy, "The Peking duck was better in Taipei than it is here in Peking. Why should that be?" And Mao is supposed to have replied, "As you know, the Peking duck should be force-fed. In Com-i munist China no one is force-fed.".