Internet Payments

Secure & Reliable

Your data is encrypted and secure with us.
Godaddyseal image
VeraSafe Security Seal

Lethbridge Herald Newspaper Archives

- Page 4

Join us for 7 days to view your results

Enter your details to get started

or Login

What will you discover?

  • 108,666,265 Obituaries
  • 86,129,063 Archives
  • Birth & Marriages
  • Arrests & legal notices
  • And so much more
Issue Date:
Pages Available: 56

Search All United States newspapers

Research your ancestors and family tree, historical events, famous people and so much more!

Browse U.S. Newspaper Archives


Select the state you are looking for from the map or the list below

OCR Text

Lethbridge Herald, The (Newspaper) - August 21, 1974, Lethbridge, Alberta 4-THE LETHBRIDOE August 21, 1974 Horner fears tainted conservativism NATO problems The Greek decision to withdraw military forces from NATO has brought to light the little known defence system called NADGE, Nato Air Defence Ground Environment. This is a complex of radar stations, similar to those which line the Canadian north, and which stretch from the Arctic Circle to Asia Minor. They are complex, semi automatic posts designed to warn against oncoming intercontinental ballistic missiles. The withdrawal of Greece from this warning system, which is very expensive and still under construction, leaves a large blind spot in the defence line between Italy and Turkey. It can be plugged, but only at considerable cost, by experimental U.S. aircraft. Regardless of how one feels about the madness of warfare, at a time when the U.S.S.R. and the six other Warsaw Pact countries can be expected to rattle a few sabres to test the mettle of the new U.S. administration, it would be better for all concerned to have Western Europe's defence system intact. Reports from Europe indicate that NATO planners, if they had to choose sides, would prefer to go with Turkey, which is even more strategically located than Greece. This may account for Turkey's boldness in its sustained invasion of Cyprus. It may also be that the new Greek premier, Constantine Caramanhs, was rattling a few test sabres of his own when he announced the decision to withdraw militarily from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The fact is that his move must have been anticipated in high diplomatic quarters. After all, 85 per cent of the Greek armed forces were attached to NATO. Considering the size of the military operation mounted by Turkey in connection with the Cyprus invasion, it was only natural that Caramanlis should want some of those forces, at least, under his own command. Furthermore, it should be remembered that the Greek premier spent most of his years of self imposed exile in France and he is much more apt to be influenced by French thinking and French example than by U.S. persuasion. France, which withdrew its military forces from NATO in 1966, is the maverick of the alliance and Greece may well follow suit. The French participate, but only to a limited extent, in NADGE. Whether Greece's withdrawal will be complete has yet to be learned. Regardless of this and regardless of the outcome in Cyprus, it seems obvious that NATO strategy will have to be re shaped along its southern flank. Eventually this may lead to wholly new alliances. Perhaps this is for the best in the long run. The old opposing alliances, NATO versus the Warsaw Pact, have been stalemated for too long in their search for accommodation of military and political interests. Arab maturity needed It is a sign of maturity in the world community of nations when a country recognizes the interdependent nature of life on this planet regardless of political or other boundaries and assumes a cor- responding responsibility. A confidential staff report of the World Hank indicates that some of the oil producing countries have yet to reach this stage of maturity, although they are amply equipped uuanclilly to do so. The world organisation estimates that by 1980 H will need an additional or billion tor its over all aid program and that by 1980 the accumulated reserves of the OPEC countries will reach the billion mark. Some of these countries are able to absorb their reserves. Indonesia, Nigeria and Ecua- dor are poor and need all their oil revenues. Algeria and Iran are among oil producing countries with a high absorptive capacity, although they will have some excess petro dollars. But most ot the Arab countries are "awash with liquidity" in the words of the report and with absolutely no way in which they can spend all their income internally they can and should do much more for the developing countries hard hit by astronomical oil prices. At the moment. Kuwait furnishes the best example of a country with excess dollars. By 1980 that small country will have an estimated per capita income of This will be the highest in the world and is three or four times as high as Canada's present personal per capita income. Yet Kuwait has just declined to contribute to a UN emergency fund to aid countries hardest hit by oil prices. Not all of the Arab oil producing countries turned down the request of Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, By the end of July the largest pledges to the fund or to UN assistance agencies had come from Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Canada. Venezuela. Japan and the nine EEC countries. The Kuwaiti ambassador told Waldheim that his country had given million to various Arab loan funds and couldn't spare any more for the United Nations. This is too narrow a view ol brotherhood at a time when the World Bank is pleading for concessional capital, when the UN is attempting to assemble an emergency fund and when Arab money is not only available but has few other places to go. If the Arab countries want to take their rightful place in the world community they need to accept the responsibility that goes along with it. RUSSELL BAKER Nixon unqualified for prison Most of the debate about whether it is fitting to jail an ex-president is so high-flown that one feels a bit timid about injecting some realism into it. It is with considerable diffidence, therefore, that I suggest that the whole debate is silly. Those arguing for jail say no man can be beyond the law, while those against it say it would be a terrible thing for the country to lock up a man who has been president and, anyhow, his unscheduled departure from the White House is punishment enough. Nobody has yet asked the central question: is locking the fellow up going to do any good? In the case of Nixon, or any other ex- president, the answer seems clear. It will not. Therefore, prison ought to be ruled out. If we look at the American prison system, the overwhelming logic of this conclusion becomes manifest. The American prison is primarily an educational institution. We send young men to prison and they come out finished criminals, just as we send other young men to Yale and turn them ir'o tankers. A constant supply of criminals out by our prisons contributes to economic licait' by maintaining full employment in the police and the judicial industries, enriching lawyers and insurance companies, keeping social workers occupied and supporting government bureaucracies. Offering the benefits of prison education to former presidents, however, makes little sense. To begin with, they will invariably be too old to profit from it and repay the country with the long career at crime necessary to amortize the high cost of prison education. When I last saw the figures, the federal government was paying more to maintain a man in prison per year than it would cost to send him to Harvard. For an education as expensive as that, society is entitled to some assurance that he is going to be able to repay his debt to its prison-related industries. The average ex-president will be in his late 50s or. more probably, in his 60s, before he even enters prison By the time he comes out, By Maurice Western, Herald Ottawa commentator OTTAWA Very strange things happen when a political party finds itself in a period of transition after defeat at the polls. Last week Jack Horner, the outspoken member for Crowfoot, pressed certain advice on the Conservative caucus and its leader, Robert Sf 'd. About the same t 'ton Camp, also a party figure, was -sinj-- his advice on the p t y and leader. 1 .art ibly, in the light of C iiservative history, the advice was the same. Both felt that Mr. Stanfield should 'ite for his resignation which should occur as soon as possible. To those who take only an intermittent interest in politics, this might suggest the question: Has Jack become a Camp-ite or Dalton a Hornerite? Evidently the answer, to either question, is No. For Mr. Horner's argument includes dark references to Mr. Camp who remains, in the Albertan's estimation, a sinister force in the party. Mr. Camp's argument includes pointed reference to Mr. Horner who, we are given to understand, played a mischievous role in the recent election campaign. Oddly, Mr. Horner's fear is that postponement of a decision will enable Mr. Camp to choose a Conservative successor or at least create that general suspicion. Mr. Camp's fear is that until a date is set and while the party "dithers" on the leadership issue no successor will emerge. In a television interview Mr. Horner, a "loyalist" in days when some Conservatives insisted that there was no vacancy at the top and later a self-professed has further elaborated his views on the convention and future of the party. His concern is that a convention, if mistimed, might end in a race between "Socialist Conservatives." The suspicions of the member for Crowfoot centre at the moment on Flora Macdonald, who has been the party's critic on Indian affairs, Joe Clark, an Albertan representing Rocky Mountain, and apparently Gordon Fairweather. Mr. Horner, like Mr. Camp, is without a leadership candidate at present. He feels, however, that the party has been "pretty far on the left hand side of the road" in recent years. This may be the his useful criminal life will be negligible. No insurance company in the land would bet against actual odds like those. A secondary purpose of prison is to provide storage space for poor people. In the criminal, legal and judicial classes, it is an established principle that the less wealth a felon has, the more time he must serve. This has the incidental political value of holding down the unemployment statistics, but the main reason for it is that poor people, as all the data prove, are far more likely to go into crime than the well-to-do and, therefore, far more likely to profit from the benefits of prison's criminal education. Former presidents will almost invariably be far too well-heeled to qualify. If admission to prison were conducted like admission to ivy league colleges, with a lot of hocus-pocus testing to determine the andidate's chances of succeeding, former presidents would be so obviously doomed to failure that prisons would reject them without the courtesy of an interview at the admitting office. Does it make the slightest sense for the country to spend more than the cost of a Harvard education on men like ex-presidents whose very wealth must prevent them from ever making first-rate of themselves? Another secondary purpose of prison is to silence people whose political opinions are obnoxious to society but who insist, nevertheless, on airing them. Prison protects us from having to be harangued by people we disagree with. Timothy Leary, war resistors, black militants, nudists, practising Christians and others of that stripe. No man who has been president of the United States could conceivably qualify for prison on these terms, since no matter how grave his offense we are not likely to concede that we could have ever elected a man of unorthodox mind. When we consider, then, what prison in '.merica is truly about, the question whether former presidents should go is easily answered. The answer is nn They are totally unqualified SHOOOOSHH! Cyprus trouble not U.S. business By William V. Shannon, New York Times commentator WASHINGTON The Ford presidency has begun with another of those futile, irrelevant "crises" that have distracted and worn down American presidents for so many years now. On Tuesday, Aug. 13, Secretary of State Kissinger, called away from dinner at the Egyptian embassy to be told of the Turkish decision to conquer northern Cyprus by military force, awakened President Ford with a telephone call to pass on the news. As the Turkish army advanced that night. Ford had his rest disturbed by two more bulletins. During the next several days, worse was to follow. Kissinger took up the president's time giving him lengthy briefings on each new Cyprus development. Ford's prestige was needlessly deployed by an invitation to Greek Premier Constantine Caramanlis to come to see him. His prestige was then diminished when Caramanlis, quite properly from his standpoint, rejected the invitation. Now the American ambassador in Cyprus has been murdered, and U.S. senators are boiling the water with attacks on American military aid to Turkey. It is time to call a halt to all this nonsense. Cyprus ought not to be an American responsibility. The crisis there is no direct concern of the American responsibility. The crisis there is no direct concern of the American president or the American people. The military defence of the U.S. and its major European allies does not depend on anything Greece or Turkey can do. The populations of what are now Greece and Turkey were fighting one another years before th U.S. was founded. In all likelihood, they will be fighting one another when Kissinger and Ford are forgotten names in a dusty history book. There are some controversies such as those between Greek and Turk, between Protestant and Catholic Irish in Ulster and between Hindu and Moslem on the Indian subcontinent that are so ancient, so complicated and so bitter that only the participants can fully comprehend the memories and emotions that are involved. Those participants should be left to sort them out by themselves. The British after the Second World War decided that they could no longer be policeman and judge in other people's quarrels. Only in Ulster are they still engaging in this profitless pursuit. The United States ought to emulate their discreet withdrawals and stop trying to manage the unmanageable. This country is now the scapegoat for the defeat of the Greek Cypriots because we have unwisely involved ourselves far too deeply in Greek affairs. Under the Johnson administration, this country apparently gave the Greek colonels a tacit go- ahead to overthrow the civilian government installed by King Constantine. Under the Nixon administration, we went out of our way to show approval of the Greek junta, even shifting the Sixth Fleet's base from Italy to Greece. For many years, the Central Intelligence Agency has paid bribes to important Greek politicians and army officers. This whole record of American meddling in Greek internal affairs is morally obscene. It is profoundly repugnant to everything the United States used to stand for in the world and ought to stand for again that our government should be using our money to pay Greek thugs to suppress freedom in that country, to torture people and to drive Greek intellectuals and artists into exile. Nothing the U.S. has gained in military 'security'' in the Mediterranean in the past decade could justify this squalid involvement. If the U.S. had kept the Sixth Fleet based in Italy, which has a friendly, democratic government, if we THE CASSEROLE had maintained a detached, diplomatically correct relationship with successive Greek governments, and if we had stayed strictly neutral in previous Greek-Turkish arguments abut Cyprus, the present crisis would be none of our affair. Now that Turkey has at least for the time being resolved the Cyprus dispute by the harsh arbitrament of force, it would be a further mistake for the U.S. to try to undo that decision by military or diplomatic pressure. This country is not called upon to be an "honest broker" in this affair. Secretary Kissinger is faintly ridiculous in offering to fly to Cyprus to reconcile the antagonists. He appears to mistake himself for a medieval pope who cannot allow two distant tribes to go to war without his pronouncing on the respective rights and wrongs and offering to mediate. Let Sen. Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut and his colleagues also stay their hands. There is no need for mischievous amendments to cut off military aid or for bringing up the irrelevant issue of Turkish opium growing. Turkey is not going to be intimidated. As for Turkish heroin, every addiction study shows the health of America's youth is in far greater danger from Kentucky bourbon and North Carolina tobacco. Most of the real problems confronting America are here at home. It is time we had a president and a Congress who concentrated on them. If Secretary Kissinger wants to call someone late at night, let him call his mother. reason why he has wondered aloud whether there was room in it for Conservative ranchers from Crowfoot. Thus his prospective candidate, when found, will presumably be someone who would, if successful, pull the party back to the centre of the road, as Mr. Horner discerns it. Agreeably, Mr. Horner does not call for a purge of his leftist colleagues. It is not clear from the test whether this tolerance extends to Mr. Camp or not; perhaps he can also stay providing his influence is eliminated. There would be obvious difficulties about reconciling such a demand with the argument applied to the Leonard Jones case, that it is wrong for a party to reject a "large or wide constituency of thought." According to Stanfield supporters at the recent caucus, Mr. Horner has been unhappy almost frorr the outset with the present leadership. Evidently there is substance to this view: on television the member for Crowfoot recalled his "first the fact that Mr. Stanfield at the time of the Pearson's Government defeat on a tax bill more than six years ago consulted Mr. Rasminsky of the Bank of Canada without mentioning it to caucus. The more recent grievance apparently is, however. that the Conservative party "has been too much of an echo and not enough of a choice." If a choice was clearly spelled out, the voters would respond. It seems to be quite generally agreed, however, that we had in early summer an issue election, the first in a long time. Mr. Horner did not like the issue and warned against it. Controls, in his opinion, are socialist and not in harmony with conservative philosophy. The fact remains that Robert Stanfield, far from echoing Pierre Trudeau, did pose an issue and could not be budged from it. On one side were the Conservatives (apart from dissidents such as Mr. Horner) and on the other the Liberals. For once, metooism was out and the voters had a choice. In general, of course, the Conservatives are distrustful of government by regulation. But except in the matter of controls, which were advocated as a relatively short term means of curbing inflation, matters have been more complicated than Mr. Horner suggests. The outstanding critic of government by regulation is Jed Baldwin, who served as Mr. Stanfield's right hand man and one of his closest associates was Gordon Fairweather, identified on the program as one of the more dangerous Socialists. There are problems in sponsoring a leadership candidate. He may appear sound but, once in office and subject to all the diverse pressures that bear on a party leader, will he in fact be proof against malign and even Socialist influences? Mr. Horner evidently understands this. When he last attempted the Warwick role, he showed admirable prudence putting forward the name of his brother. But no candidacy is perfect; Dr. Hugh did not make the starting post, but turned aside instead into provincial politics. Undeterred by his experience, Mr. Horner is putting together a team to beat the bushes in quest of a candidate capable of re- aligning the party. Mr. Camp thinks that the party is wasting time, which rather suggests that he is impatient to beat the bushes too. If the 1967 contest was instructive there is a reasonable prospect that other bushes will yield candidates without excessive beating. The mere fact that there does not appear at the moment to be a credible successor in sight may be of positive encouragement to those with strong ambitions. It is more likely than not that the Conservative track will be crowded by convention time. A despatch from Rome reports that 12 million gallons of what Romans have been buying and drinking as Frascati wine was mixed in Sicily, shipped to the mainland by tanker, and consisted of "a vile concoction of water, dregs from pressed grapes, molasses meant to be cattle feed, and coloring." When governments decide to "forgive and forget" those who have opposed them, it's usually with emphasis on the "fr rget" part. Not so India. The government a New Delhi has agreed to grant war pensions 10 veterans of the Indian National Army, a force recruited by the Japanese from among Indian prisoners of war. that fough' allied troops in Burma and elsewhere dur: le Se- World Wn- The economics of adding lead to gasoline are strange. Premium gasoline, which con- tains tetra-ethyl lead, has always cost five to seven cents more than the standard grades. Now Esso is putting out an "unleaded" gas- oline, which it says will sell for three cents a gallon more than regular gasoline. So it sounds like it costs money to put it in. but it also costs money to leave it out. The Lethbridge Herald 5047th athbridge. Alberta s LETHBRIDGE HERAI CO. i TD. Proprietors and Publishers Second Cl Mn Registration No 0012 CLEO MO.VERS DON H. PILLING Managing Editor ditor and Publisher DONALD R. DORAM General Manager Horse lovers everywhere should be pleas- ed to hear that the department of transport has banned the shipment of live horses from Canada by sea Denartmental studies have finally convinced the U.: caucrats that horses are bad sailors, something horsemen have known for ages. ROY F. MILES Advertising Manager DOUGLAS K. WALKER Editorial Page Editor ROBERT M. FENTON Circulation Manager KENNETH E BARNETT Business Manager "THE HERALD SERVES THE SOUTH" ;