Lethbridge Herald (Newspaper) - January 18, 1971, Lethbridge, Alberta
4 - THE LETHBRIDGE HERALD - Monday, January 18, 1971 Dennis Bloodivorth Arms and politics The widely - held belief that because Prime Minister Heath advocates the sale of naval defence ships to South Africa, that he is in favor of apartheid, is far from the truth. Mr. Heath, along with South Africa and a lot of other nations oppose the unresisted build - up of Russian naval strength in the Indian Ocean. Military strength and political influence go hand-in-hand. But the Commonwealth nations are firmly opposed to the sale of arms, even of ships to South Africa even though the sale would go a long way to frustrate the Soviet plans. The black African nations see such a sale as support for apartheid, which it is not, and they fear that the British supplied arms will be used against them by white South Africa, which is also a doubtful supposition. South Africa claims that it cannot get the ships it needs to defend the sea routes around the Cape of Good Hope from any other power than Great Britain. It is true that the Soviet ships are now operating in the northern part of the Indian Ocean; but it is also true that they are not likely to remain there, and that defence planning must take place now, not after the fact. Britain cannot take over the entire cost of defending the area. Who will help her? Australia could chip in with a fair amount; Canada is unlikely to do anything, nor is the U.S. Other members of the Commonwealth in the Indian Ocean are either too poor, or like India, reluctant to antagonize the Soviets by participating in such a defence scheme. Thus, the circle has come back to the original point. Provide those ships for South Africa or allow the Russians to go on building up their strength in the Indian Ocean unimpeded. If Great Britain does sell the ships, she is in grave danger not only of watching the break-up of the Commonwealth, but of losing her influence in black Africa and opening it up to the tender mercies of the Russians who would like nothing better than to play godfather to them. Mr. Heatn is placed on the horns of a bitter dilemma, but there could be a way out which could benefit the blacks of South Africa at the same time that British interests in the Indian Ocean are protected. If the sale goes througn, Mr. Heath could make the terms plain to Mr. Vorster, even though it would be impolitic to spell them out in public. Either the South African government shows some progress towards relaxing apartheid, some easing of banning restrictions, increased welfare measures, the release of prisoners, or the arms sales will be discontinued. The London Economist writes that "if black Africa and the white-run south will agree to a period of more or less peaceful coexistence the economic forces at work inside South Africa will slowly make it a more tolerable society. It may not be a hope you can put all your money on, but it is the best hope we have. The issue in the row about the arms sales is no longer just the Indian Ocean. It is what is to happen in South Africa itself." One of their own The Indian Affairs Department, Alberta Division, has a new director. He is Mr. David G. Greyeyes, an Indian. This is an interesting development. It appears to be a step in the direction of giving the Indians control of their own affairs. As such it must be applauded. But one cannot help wondering if Mr. Greyeyes will be welcomed to his position by the native people. An impression is often given that any Indian who leaves his reserve to make his way in the white man's society is automatically considered to have sold out his cultural heritage. By virtue of having qualified for his appointment, Mr. Greyeyes is eligible for the usual uncomplimentary tags. Is it really possible for Indians to take over the administration of In- dian Affairs without being tainted? Can this arm of the federal government be phased over to Indian direction and be free of its real and imagined prejudices so that it can be acceptable to the native people? The federal government thought the Indian Affairs Branch couldn't be an effective instrument for the Canada envisaged for the future so its abolition was proposed. However, the Indians - especially their spokesmen in Alberta - were vehemently opposed to such a move and the proposition has been withdrawn. It appears that the government is tossing the ball to the Indians in the person of Mr. Greyeyes. If the department is to become an Indian instrument in Alberta much will depend on the new director but even more will depend on how he is received by his own people. Art Buchwald WASHINGTON - Mrs. Tanner walked into Dr. Federman's office and took .a chair. The learned psychiatrist asked her, "What seems to be the trouble, Mrs. Tanner?" "I don't know how to tell you this, Doctor. But nothing seems to shock me any more." "Why do you say that, Mrs. Tanner?" "I don't know. I was brought up in a middle-class family, went to a fine girls' school, attended the church of my choice on Sunday, married a respectable man and I thought I shocked very easily. But lately a numbness has set in and nothing gets to me any more." "Well, let's do a few tests," Dr. Feder-man said. He pulled the curtains in his office and went over to a slide projector. "Now I'm going to show you some slides against the wall, Mrs. Tanner, and I'd like you to tell ma your reaction to them." The first one was of a man and woman unclothed on a bed, making love. "What do you see, Mrs. Tanner?" "A man and a woman." "Is that all?" "And a bed." "What else?" "What else is there?" Mrs. Tanner said. Dr. Federman made some notes. He next showed a headline revealing that the cost of living had gone up in the country by 7 per cent. "How do you feel about that headline, Mrs. Tanner?" She shrugged her shoulders. "What else is new?" Dr. Federman pushed a button and the next slide to appear on the wall was a photograph of the havoc defoliation had wreaked on South Vietnam. "Does that shock you, Mrs. Tanner?" ''Why should it?" she said. "I've seen thousands of pictures like it before." Dr. Federman changed the slide. This time it was an aerial photograph of Detroit showing chimneys spewing out black smoke, covering the city with a dirty brown blanket. "That's a picture of Detroit," Dr. Federman said, watching Mrs. Tanner's reaction. "No kidding," Mrs. Tanner said, "I thought it was Philadelphia." The next slide consisted of scrawled dirty words on a wall. "Does that shock you?" Dr. Federman asked. "Heavens no. Ali McGraw used them in 'Love Story'. " The final slide revealed a group of bearded college students sitting around with several topless coeds in a dormitory, smoking pot. Mrs. Tanner sat up. "Why did you react that way?" Dr. Federman asked excitedly. "I thought for a moemnt I recognized my son, George, in the picture." Dr. Federman pulled back the curtains and sat at his desk. "Mrs. Tanner, you are suffering from a very common disorder known in medical terms as 'shockless-ness.' You've lost your ability to be shocked." ' "What can I do about it?" Mrs. Tanner cried. "You must stop reading Uie newspapers, listening to radio and watching television, and refrain from going to the movies for three months. If you do this, it's possible some, not all, shock ability will return." "I'll try, Doctor, but I'm not sure it will work." "That will he $�)," Dr. Federman said. "SIXTY DOLLARS?" Mrs. Tanner screamed. "Why, that's shocking." Dr. Federman smiled, "There, you sue? Your case isn't hopeless after all." (Toronto Telegram News Service) It's about time! J^LSPETH was late for our wedding. If she is in the right mood she will explain that no reluctance was implied-the friend who had agreed to drive her to the church was the one who was late. Otis was so late, in fact, that Elspeth By Doug Walker was all ready to go. When the doorbell eventually rang she answered it herself and said, "I thought you were never going to come." But it wasn't Otis at the door. II was an unknown gentleman delivering a wedding present! Uneasy calm in Sino-Russian cold war CINGAPORE - No season-^ al ceasefire in the cold war of words between Moscow and Peking marked the turn of the year when - with sublime hypocrisy - Pravi.a called China's condemnation of recent Soviet antics in Warsaw "the most impudent interference in the internal affairs of Poland." This followed a Maoist broadside last month chastizing the Russians for trying to maintain "Soviet colonial rule in Poland and Eastern Europe." Set against their carefully-traded gestures towards a diplomatic detente the continued mudslinging between the Communist giants at first seems incongruous. In the past three months they have exchanged ambassadors for the first time in four years, they have reached their normal annual agreement regulating navigation and shipping on rivers in the disputed border area between Manchuria and the Soviet Far East, and they have signed a trade pact. Sino-So-viet c o m m e r cial exchanges whose value had sunk to $55 million in 1969 were worth about $132 million in 1970 and are expected to soar higher during 1971. The Russians have strongly supported Communist China's entry into the United Nations (after two years of equivocal silence). The Chinese have urged that "differences of principle should not hinder the two countries from maintaining and developing a normal state of relations on the basis of the five principles of co-existence." During the same period, however, the Chinese have accused the "two Super Powers-America and Russia - of plotting to divide the world between them, and the Soviets have accused China of splitting the international Com munist movement. All this apparent schizophrenia occurs because for China relations between Moscow and Peking are necessarily split level. As ideological rivals for the mastery of the world Communist movement-if not the world itself - they are at war; as capitals of neighboring states they are at peace. The war is unqualified and a matter of conviction, the peace is qualified and a matter of convenience. Strong on argument, weak on arms, the Chinese have thrown themselves into a world - wide political offensive to win friends and influence people, to reject the Russians as "revisionist" traitors and colonial bullies, while taking the criticbl heat out of formal Sino - Soviet state-to-state relations until they are correct if cool. But this delicately - balanced dichotomy rests upon soft quicksands of distnict. To the Chinese the Russians were the most rapacious imperialists of the 19th century, In all, they say, the Tsarists filched about 700,000 square miles of territory from the Celestial Empire under a series of "unequal treaties". Chinese Communists are still Chinese and their hostility towards Moscow did not spring fully armed from the head of Mao when ex-Premier Nikita Khrushchev came to power, as some believe. It had simply been concealed as a matter of sound pragmatic policy. For before that China was weak and Stalin's Soviet Union a tower of strength. No Moscow-trained Marxist Messiah survived to hold power in a Communist Peking. After their second armed clash on the Manchurian border in early 1969, the Soviets claimed to have killed "thousands" of Chinese. Licking their wounds, the Chinese threaten to pay off this "blood debt", yet have done nothing but talk ever since. Once more conscious of their own weak- ness they are biding their time. In October, the Chinese exploded a device which took them another step towards the day when they can threaten to wreck Moscow with thermonuclear missiles. Some 36 divisions of the People's Liberation Army defend the 4,000 mile frontier with the U.S.S.R., supported by more than two million militia and one million men of the military pioneer organization, the Production and Construction Corps. The Chinese think of their nuclear potential purely as a deterrent and of their numbers on the ground purely as a defence. But the Russians, with 30 divisions along the border against half that number two years ago, is in no mood to take this on trust. On their side, the Maoists in Peking are uneasily aware that the hawks in Moscow may want to shame the Chinese military into turning against the old Chairman, who claims that victory depends on the self-reliant spirit of the masses rather than sophisticated weapons, and whose soldiers consequently lack modern equipment in certain significant fields. More stinging Soviet defeats of Chinese troops could discredit this Maoist military theory, persuade disillusioned "Heavens no! It's just Mr. Munro working on his new anti-smoking legislation ..." commanders in the border provinces that It is folly not to turn to a reconciled Russia for jet-age weaponry, and so threaten to erode national unity and loyalty in the sensitive frontier regions of the People's Republic. The one reliable safety valve in the pressure zone is the knowledge on both sides that if they go to war the only winner will be the United States. China's sincerity is therefore easily overestimated for, although she is going through the motions of making it up with Moscow, hers is a case of warm hand, cold heart. For the first time since Khrushchev suspended all aid to Peking in 1960 and withdrew all technicians, it appears that Moscow has agreed to supply spare parts for some immobilized Soviet plants and machinery in China. But the Russians remark sorrowfully that China now does 80 per cent of her foreign business with the capitalist world. Behind this lies the bitter memory .of the day the Soviets absconded and Chinese determination never to depend'on Moscow again. Sino-Soviet exchanges may be worth more than $132 million this year but in 1959 they were worth 16 times as much. Mr. Suslov of the Soviet Politburo has confessed that the negotiations for a settlement of the Sino-Soviet border dispute, which has dragged on for 15 months, "cannot be said to be easy." No match for the Soviet military, the Chinese are keeping the talks going since a collapse could bring premature trouble on the frontier. But Peking will not do a permanent deal with the Russian "revisionist" regime and is ready to filibuster until there is a palace revolution in the Kremlin or a popular one outside it. No real rapproachement Is possible as long as Mao lives. The Chinese suggestion that Sino-Soviet relations could be normalized "on the basis of the five principles of co-existence" was bait that concealed a sharp fish hook of an insult. For "peaceful co-existence" is a live-and-let-live formula for smooth dealings between countries of different political systems - notably between Communist and capitalist States. Peking today places Moscow beyond the Communist pale. The Chinese have seen the Russians ally themselves with the Anglo-American capitalists in order to fight Fascism. Now Moscow Radio accuses the Maoists of starting "an anti-Leninist political current" poisoned by "great Han chauvinism." In ideological terms Fascism did no worse. But it is to be hoped that both parties will remain suspended between policies dictated by hostility in the heart and pragmatism in the head. The West does not want a Sino-Soviet war - any more than it wants a Sino-Soviet wedding. (Written for The Herald and The Observer, London) David Haworth Nationalized industries under attack in Britain LONDON - Nobody in Britain was very surprised when Lord Robens stepped down from his 10-year-chakmanship of the State-owned National Coal Board a few days ago. A main characteristic of Mr. Edward Heath's Conservative government is its hostility to Britian's nationalized industries. Baron Robens of Woldingham is a Socialist peer. As plain Alf Robens he began his career as a trade union official in Manchester, and it was obvious from the moment the Conservative government came to power last year that a man of his calibre and experience was not going to be pushed around by doctrinaire new ministers who are hell-bent on hiving off some of the more profitable operations in the nationalized sector of British industry and putting them back into private hands. It is no secret that Lord Robens, along with other nationalized industry leaders, is deeply opposed to what they believe would be the decimation of the public sector if the government goes ahead with its apparent policies. They are only "apparent" at this stage because no final decisions have l)een made and the government has conducted its thinking in public by means of a series of inspired leaks. But the list is already formidable: the state airlines are to be obliged to give some of their routes to private enterprise, the governments wants private money to be invested in the British Steel Corporation and ministers have put a tick next to gas distribution, British Rail's cross-Channel hovercraft and the Thomas Cook travel agency. Sir John Eden, minister for industry, and the man who is keenest to see "hiving off" started as soon as possible, openly declared himself recently. He said: "By and large the public sector should be concerned primarily with those activities which cannot sensibly be done by the private sector." This was an embarrassingly frank declaration which displeased Sir John's colleagues because they feel that by speaking out in this way he is trying to force decisions on the government which it is by no means ready to take yet. It was later said that Sir John had merely been expressing "thoughts in advance of a decision," but even so it is clear enough that the government, anxious to cultivate its' reputation for "toughness," does intend to take a drastic line with the nationalized industries. A pressure group to counteract this has just been set up - the Public Enterprise Group - which consists mainly of academics, economists and trades union leaders. One of its founders is Mr. Richard Pryke, an economics lecturer at Liverpool University, who has just completed a study about the relative efficiency and productivity of the public sector and private industry. He has come to some startling conclusions. One is that over the to years between 1958 and 1968 output per man-hour in the nationalized industries rose by 68 per cent compared with 44 per cent in private industry. "If attention is confined to the last five years of the pe- riod (1963-8)," he says, "it is found that productivity has been rising about 50 per cent faster in the public sector than in private manufacturing." He goes on: "The nationalized industries' productivity gain compare extremely favorably with those which have been made in the same industries abroad. It would be-wrong to assume from this that the nationalized industries are relatively inefficient. Their level of productivity relative to those abroad is definitely higher than the rest of British industry." This, of course, is what upsets the nationalized industry chairmen most. They believe that the government will force them to sell off subsidiary sections of their activities even though they are running them with extreme efficiency and economy. Moreover, in those areas where the nationalized industries compete directly with private enterprise - the airlines, for inst a n c c, and the Coal Board's manufacture of chemical by-products - they manage to make good profits by doing so. Defenders of the nationalized industries therefore want the government to explain why these should be the very sections which are going to be returned to private hands. They point out that instead of introducing competition this would actually have the effect of removing it. On these grounds the logic of the government's position escapes them. But Conservatives have a traditional distaste of the nationalized industries which, they seem to believe, are inefficient by definition. , The present period of uncer- tainty while the government makes up its mind is doing the morale and standing of the nationalized industries no good at all. Men like Lord Robens believe that the government is doing an immense amount of harm to the industries by kicking their future into the political arena with a fine disregard for the consequences. It is clear that each state industry will fight government "hiving off" plans every inch of the way, but in the end of course there can be only one victor. It is very probable then that Lord Roben's departure, which followed closely on the heels of the government's sacking of Lord Hall, chairman of the Post Office, will be the first of several farewells to men whose achievements outshine those of private industry in every significant respect. Mr. Pryke insists that the present situation is ironic, to say the least, and one which could rapidly become downright tragic. (Written for The llcralil and the Observer, London) Looking backward Through the Herald 1921 - No liquor will be accepted by the CPR for points in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba after January 24th, when prohibition comes into effect in these provinces. 915 feet and the speed more than 30 knots. 1911 - To help ease the burden of those with relatives serving overseas an extension of low parcel post rates has been announced. 1931 - France has announced its intention to build the fastest and largest electrically propelled passenger ship in the world. The length of the ship will be 1951 - Alberta farmers' income from farm operations during the first nine months of 1950 was $940,000 below the income for Uie same period in 1049. The Letttbridge Herald 504 7th St. S., Lethbridge, Alberta LETHBRIDGE HERALD CO. LTD., Proprietors and Publishers Published 1905 -1954, by Hon. W. A. BUCHANAN Second Class Mall Registration No. 0012 Member of The Canadian Press and the Canadian Dally Newspaper Publishers' Association and the Audit Bureau of Circulations CLEO W. MOWERS, Editor and Publisher THOMAS H. ADAMS. General Manager JOE BALLA WILLIAM HAY Managing Editor Associate Editor ROY F. MILES DOUGLAS K. WALKER Advertising Manager Editorial Page Editor "THE HERALD SERVES THE SOUTH"