Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona on August 15, 1970 · Page 13
Get access to this page with a Free Trial
Click to view larger version

A Publisher Extra Newspaper

Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona · Page 13

Phoenix, Arizona
Issue Date:
Saturday, August 15, 1970
Page 13
Start Free Trial

Page 13 article text (OCR)

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC A Word Page S Saturday, Aug. 15, 1970 Where The Spirit Of The Lord It, There /s Liberty II Corinthians 3:17 Published Every Morning by PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS, INC.' 120 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 EUOINI C. NJLLIAM, NblMi«r Word And Deed Not much in the way of illumination can come from charges by a Negro Democrat that the Nixon administration has made unsubstantiated claims about appointing blacks to major federal positions. That is the kind of partisan politicking — the statement was issued by the Democratic National Committee — that forces people to choose sides on the basis of statistical mumbo-jumbo, \vhile diverting attention from the real issue. Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., the first Negro to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is still angered over having been eased off the commission to make way for a Republican. In his bitter indictment of President Nixon, Alexander made .it clear that he believes blacks should be appointed to the cabinet, to the Supreme Court, to federal courts, to regulatory commissions — in short, to all appointive offices. And they should be appointed simply because they are Negroes. THAT IS an unfortunate attitude, but it is not surprising. And it would be naive to deny that this sort of quota system has strong support — particularly among those politicians who insist that people should be judged as individuals, not on the basis of their religion, ethnic background or color. Thus to that extent, the federal government — which similarly preaches a colorblind impartiality, even while it regularly practices the quota system — is guilty of hypocrisy. But it is a hypocrisy we can live witlu since it is symbolically important as a sign of racial unity. And such signs are badly needed in these racially troubled days. But the fact is that the Nixon administration has gone out of its way to appoint Negroes to important federal positions, even though — since most blacks are Democrats — it stands to gain very little by so doing. Obviously, this gains the Republicans few votes among blacks or white liberals, who support the quota system as virtually a right. And it could cost the GOP large numbers of votes in the South, THOSE WHO THINK appeals to the South are abhorrent simply don't understand the first rule of politics — "to get elected" — and choose to forget how for years and years the liberal Democratic Party ardently courted Dixie. More important than token representation of Negroes in federal posts (and any representation would have to be token, since Negroes are overwhelmingly Democrats and a Republican administration is in office) is the administration's attitude toward Negroes and other minorities. And the Nixon administration's attitude has been excellent. ,' •. ; 1 No, the President hasn't resorted to those familiar opportunistic appeals, which few people really believe and which ultimately create disillusionment. But he has made it clear, by word and deed, that the administration's goal is equality of opportunity. And no one or no class of people could legitimately ask for more. Russo-German Treaty West German Chancellor Willy Brandt has signed an important non^ageression and co-operation treaty with Soviet Russia. The U.S. government, as well as all other Allied governments in West Europe, have warmly welcomed the treaty as "A first step in a process that will lead to an improved situation in Europe," to quote the State Department statement on the subject. But in West Germany an important section of the press and. several leaders of the opposition Christian- Democratic party have denounced the treaty as a "sell-out" to Russia. We are inclined to agree'with the appraisal of the State Department. It is, of course, true that the treaty makes certain important concessions to Russia which are particularly painful to the Germans. For the first time, since the end of World War II, West Germany officially agrees to recognize the Soviet-imposed postwar frontiers in East Europe as "inviolable." This includes the so-called Oder-Neisse line which forms the frontier between Poland and East Germany, as well as the frontier which separates West Germany from East Germany. West Germans had hoped that these frontiers could be revised in their favor at some time in the future. .. THESE WEST GERMAN hopes, however, were based on wishful thinking only. Neither West Germany nor any of her Western, allies can revise or change the frontiers except by force, meaning war with Soviet Russia. Such a policy is unthinkable. A policy recognizing the new frontiers, on the other hand, is a policy based on post-war realities. As Chancellor Brandt said in a broadcast to the German nation, the treaty "does not lose to Germany anything which was not gambled away long ago" — 25 years ago, to be exact, as Nazi Germany lost the war and surrendered unconditionally. Brandt is right to forget the past and abandon wishful thinking. He also is right in following a pojicy which is based on European realities. The treaty's most important provisions concern not the past, but the future. West Germany and Russia have expressed their determination "to improve and extend ;co-operation" between themselves. This includes economic relations as well as scientific, technological and cultural contacts. WEST GERMANY'S economics minister, Karl Schiller, is to visit Moscow next month to arrange the details of an extensive German-Soviet trade agreement. This will have a great and favorable impact on West Germany's relations with all East European states, now considered Soviet satellites. These states have wanted to trade with West Germany for a long time,, but their initiative was always vetoed by Mps- cow. Now this will Change ~ for the better. The Berlin problem is also scheduled fpr discussion next September. In this way, economic conditions in Europe can become normalized and political relations between East and West European states may become better. The U.S. has everything to gain if the present tragic and crisis-provoking division of Europe is gradually removed. The process of East-West reconciliation will, of course, be very slow and very difficult. But every step which j.MM's thai way is helpful ami /nost we Meaning Relies On Use Of Words By JOHN P. ROCHE Playing around with the meaning of words can be a very tiresome futile exercise. Let us explore two formulations beloved of the press — the use of the word "mercenaries" and the phrase, " a political solution." Just suppose for a minute that a newspaperman back in World War II had sent a dispatch beginning "American mercenar- >$ ies today seized the ROCHE air field at Guadaca- nal.",0r, from Italy, "the 44th Regimental Combat Team, composed of Japanese- American mercenaries, today struck across the Arno." Now before angry Marine or Nisei veterans start firing off letters to the editor let me make the central point. The term "mercenaries" as used today refers to nothing more or less than somebody else's "volunteer army." The ethnic Khmer who were recruited in ARVN, were and are citizens of the Republic of Vietnam. So are the Nungs and other Montagnards who compose the irregular forces. * * * MOVING ON TO THE PHRASE, "a political solution," here we generally find the following sort of polemical counterpoint. "Rejecting a political solution, the United States attempted military pacification of the Vietcong." The readier would assume that political and military "solutions" existed'in different universes, while in fact they are, of course, intimately mixed. The essence of a political solution is usually presumed to be "winning the hearts and minds of the peasants," a program centering on economic aid. A military solution, on the other hand, is thought to focus on establishing security and ignoring the real grievances of the rebels. It is both "bad and unworkable." A little reflection, however, suggests that while it may be bad, it is anything but unworkable. * * * THE UKRAINE, for example, is "pacified," though any member of the Soviet politburo who thought the regime had won the "hearts and minds of the peasants" would doubtless be sent off for a psychiatric examination. The conviction that military power could not work in Czechoslovakia led a number of newspapers and commentators to anticipate almost momentary failure; only recently has the bad news penetrated: The Czechs are "pacified." . But the key problem is highlighted by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's current difficulties with the "Naxalites," a' Chinese Communist-sponsored peasant revolt centering in West Bengal. Madame Gandhi in recent months sounds more and more like South Vietnamese President Thieu. Indian troops are out fighting the terrorists and have been playing extremely rough. The Indians are clearly not interested in apolitical solution short of unconditional surrender by armed Maoists. * * * IF ONE WERE TO URGE Mrs. Gandhi to put aside hopes of a military solution and form a coalition government with the Maoists, that strong-minded lady would probably have him thrown down the stairs. She would argue, quite correctly, that the armed Maoists are not a political party that spends its time distributing the little red book. (There is in fact, a "constitutional" Maoist party -that has repudiated violence.) And she would, point out that any compromise with armed rebels would undermine the stability and legitimacy of the Indian Republic. In doing this, Mrs. Gandhi has not opted for a military solution. She has been forced to use military power to make a political solution possible within the democratic framework. Military force may not accomplish much that is positive, but it can prevent a lot of negative developments that would add up to disaster for India. It would be useful if those who employed the terms "military solution" and "political solution" would indicate the extent to which they are in fact Siamese twins; that no policy can exist without both elements preferably in an effective mix. Statue Of 'Liberation* By Reg. Manning Arizona Republic Staff Artist The Political Scene U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice Says Judicial System Needs Reform LAWRENCE By DAVID LAWRENCE WASHINGTON — Chief Justice Warren E. Burger intends to be neither timid nor apathetic in urging the lawyers of America to make clear to public and to Congress the needs of the courts. He feels that crime can be reduced and the process of law can be vastly Improved if better management methods are introduced in the judicial machinery, as well as additional personnel. WHILE MOST of his predecessors have complained about the same thing, he was even more specific and explicit in his address to the American Bar Association about the changes which, he said, are necessary. He declared they are long overdue and that, if this means the spending of additional money, it will still be only a small frac- .tion of the $200 million cost of one C-5A airplane, inasmuch as the entire cost of the federal judicial system for next year— $128 million—is less than one of those planes. MILITARY aircraft are of course important, essential in this uncertain world. But so is adequate support for the judicial branch. More money and more judges alone is not the primary solution to the problems of the courts. Some of what is wrong is due to the failure to apply the techniques of modern business to the management of the purely mechanical operation of the courts—of modern record keeping and systems planning for handling the movement of the cases. Some is also due to antiquated and rigid procedures which not only permit delay, but encourage it. "I HOPE I can provoke debate, even controversy, over these things, to explore and test what I have to say... "In the federal courts today the problem areas are essentially in the large cities. Here we find in the judicial system no more than a reflection of the complexities of modern life... "But the increase in the vol- ume of cases is not by any means the whole story. Experienced trial judges note that the actual trial of a case now takes twice as long as it did 10 years ago, because of the closer scrutiny we now demand of confessions, identification, witnesses and evidence. "NOW, if trials were held promptly and swiftly completed, and if appeals were heard without delay, this would be less of a problem, and perhaps even these heated debates over preventive detention would disappear. .. "There is a widespread public complaint that the present system of criminal justice does not deter criminal conduct. That is correct. It is correct so far as the crimes which trouble most Americans today. Whatever deterrent effect may have existed in the past has now all but vanished as to those crimes. "IF EVER the law is to have a genuine deterrent effect on criminal conduct, we must make some changes.. The simple and obvious remedy is to give the courts the manpower and the tools, including prosecutors and defense counsel, to try criminal cases within 60 days after indictment, and then let us see what happens. I predict it would sharply reduce the rate of crime." The chief justice noted that the additional judges which were needed in 1965 were not authorized until 1970. He asserted that problems in the courts cannot be solved by waiting to meet needs five or more years after they arise. JUSTICE BURGER also- made a number of interesting suggestions for the improvement of the judicial system as it operates in the states as well as in the federal government. In particular, he said: "The whole process of appeals must be re-examined. It is cumbersome, it is costly, it takes too long. Finality of decision at some point is essential to any rational and workable system of justice." For many years now, at meetings of the American Bar Association, criticisms have been voiced about the situation in the courts, the overloaded calendars, and the inadequate number of judges and other personnel. But somehow there has not been a champion of the cause who could mobilize public opinion. MAYBE Chief Justice Burger is going to prove that kind of exponent of reform for the management of the judicial system in America. •••M Book Brief The Rockefeller Report on . the Americas, by Nelson A. Rockefeller. Quadrangle, Chicago. 144 pp., $1.95 (paper). Last spring and summer, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller undertook a mission for President Nixon to 20 Latin American nations. Rockefeller, whose public exposure to Latin America dates back to the early 1940s when he served as FDR's coordinator for Inter-American Affairs, was asked to prepare recommendations for U.S. policy toward our southern neighbors. This book is the complete text of his report. Although the Rockefeller peo- From The President Of The United States ~ Greetings pie talked with some 3,000 Latin Americans, the trip was criticized for having been too quick, too superficial. Those criticisms — which can be made of most official fact-finding missions — were legitimate. NEVERTHELESS, what emerged from the mission is a document which, while it could have been written on the basis of scholarly studies and material available in every good library in this country, is both controversial and illuminating. The most controversial section of the Rockefeller Report is that suggesting that the-U.S. no longer withhold recognition from non-democratic governments, but that it deal with existing regimes without reference to ideology. THIS, in fact, was the basis of FBR's Good Neighbor Policy. Both approaches can be defended on pragmatic, moral, and self-interest grounds. But Rockefeller believes that the U.S. "cannot allow disagreements with the form or the domestic policies of other American governments to jeop-. ardize its basic objective of working with and for thejr peo« pie to our mutual benefit." He calls for an end to strings attached to our economic aid. He favors the sale of military equipment to Latin armies. He proposes preferential trade treatment for Latin America, and he stresses the necessity of bolstering education, health, and housing. Most of the Rockefeller recommendations, even the most «J)IUOV<T-];I|, .-ire worthy of ex- A Soldier** View Three Changes Disturb Military By COL. R. D. HETNL Jr. WASHINGTON-Like it or not (and they most certainly don't), the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been told to shut up and swallow the highly controversial defense reorganization recommendations presented to the President by his so-called "blue - ribbon" defense panel headed by M Gilbert W. Fitzhugh. Deeply concerned over far-reaching, and, as seen by most military men, visionary changes proposed by the panel, the Joint Chiefs have neverthe- HEINL less been sharply instructed by Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird not to undertake any counter-studies or analyses tending to shoot holes in the Fitzhugh report. * » * THE SOLE precedent for Laird's apparent desire to shield the Fitzhugh report from searching professional analysis can be found in President Truman's 1947 directive which forebade officers of the navy and Marine Corps from presenting testimony criticizing the controversial Collins Plan for merging the armed forces. Among many startling changes, the proposals which today most alarm the Joint Chiefs, as well as experienced members of Congress, are three: —Divestment of the JCS from corporate responsibility for overall operations of the armed forces—a professional responsibility which, since 1942, they have discharged with wisdom and distinction. • » « —CREATION of a separate defense staff under a single chief who, although responsible to the secretary of Defense, looks very much like the Prussian-style armed forces chief which Congress has repeatedly rejected. —Submergence of the departments of the army, navy and air force (and therefore of their secretaries and of the . military services themselves) under a new deputy Defense secretary for resources, along with a prolifery of housekeeping and management agencies. All three of the foregoing proposals have been repeatedly urged in the past by certain defense doctrinaires, and have just as repeatedly been shelved by Congress in the defense reorganization struggles of 1946, 1947, 1949, 1953 and 1958, A Conservative View U.S. Crime Rate Shows Small Dip By JAMES J. KILPATRICK WASHINGTON - J. Edgar Hoover's annual report for 1969, just released to the press, contains one small ray of statistical hope. The rate of increase in serious crimes last year was not quite so high as the rate of increase the year before. That is the only crumb of consolation the FBI director offers. Over the past nine years, while population increased by 13 per cent, crime increased by 148 per cent. Every classifica- KILPATRICK tion of crime has soared; and every section of the country , has shared in the appalling experience. Hoover is a methodical man, not much given to. sociological speculation. His pages of tabulations, compiled from the reports of local police departments, offer few insights into the causes of this ugly picture. , • * * »' MY OWN GUESS is that the disproportionate increase in crime is largely a product of fundamental changes in American society over the past 20 years. The whole meaning of "community" has altered perceptibly in this time, and the restraints once imposed by the mores of a neighborhood or a small town have diminished year by year. Add to the disintegration of community .the steady erosion of other forces that once were powerful: The church, the school, the family unit. At least one other subtle factor has played a part. This is a constant conditioning to violence. The criminal of 25 was born in the year of Hiroshima; he has grown up to the vivid immediacy of war in Vietnam. • * * ' HERE IN Washington, serious crimes seldom make news. They are routinely covered in the small type used for classified ads: Raped Yesterday, Mugged Last Night. As Hoover's report makes clear, a vast deal of serious crime is the work of repeaters —. of professional criminals who make a career of crime. Our present system of criminal justice plainly is ineffective against these offenders. A follow-up study of 3,145 convicts released from federal prisons in 1963, presumably rehabilitated and ready to rejoin society, discloses that 76 per cent of them had been re-arrested by the end of 1969; Prison had done nothing for them, or for 'society either. These few paragraphs barely skim Hoover's 1969 report. For any serious student of American life, the book is a valuable reference tool. It.can be had lor $1 M from the Government Printing <>tli<-(- J.'i-n.- .MI Wohhini.uu

Get full access with a Free Trial

Start Free Trial

What members have found on this page