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: 20

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 (Newspaper) - November 1, 1971, Lethbridge, Alberta 4 - THE IETHBRIDCE HERAID - Monday, November 1, 1971 A stunning action The U.S. Senate's decision to end foreign aid is ;i stunning action. It has upset President Kichard Nixcn and it would alarm people everywhere if they could grasp the possible ramifications. No doubt the action roots in the massive revulsion the Americans are now experiencing for the V i e tnam war. The Senators reflect a majority desire to be done with militarism. Mr. Nixon says the end of foreign aid produces unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. In this he has reference to the very large portion of foreign aid that goes to military investments for the purpose of creating a defence against Communist aggression. But the disastrous experience of the Vietnam invol\ement leaves a great many people unconvinced thai U.S. national security is enhanced this way. This kind of doubt may be legitimate and could juslity cutting off the expenditure of aid funds for military purposes. But terminating development aid is another matter. The economic dislocations this will create could he so serious as to threaten IS. - and world - security in another way. A great depression could follow from the inability of nations to carry on trading. There are faults to be lound with the international development program in which the U.S. has played such a large role. Wrong projects have been launched; funds have been drained away into unnumbered Swiss bank accounts; oppression has been reinforced. Perhaps the worst aspect of the undertaking has been the spirit associated with the concept of aid - it has engendered resentment on the part of recipients because of a real or imagined superior attitude on the part of the donors, and a countering anger at the lack of appreciation. Much of the trouble might have been averted if the whole thing had been framed in terms of the Canadian experience with equalization grants and selective economic stimulus for the good of the whole. There is a desperate need for people to realize that just as a country cannot be healthy as long as highly disparate economic conditions exist, so t h e world cannot prosper with huge pockets of poverty. Survival of mankind may very well depend on quickly finding some way to get the United States back in the picture of building a world community. It seems certain at least that while Canada will not be directly affected by the U.S. Senate's decision there will be repercussions in the way of further trade reduct/'i- ;>>id more unemployment. Tito-a great leade r Canada is host to yet another European Communist leader, Marshal Tito, a genuine hero to his people, a man of Stirling courage and great political acumen. Although democratic people like ourselves, would detest living under the Communist form of government, we would find Tito's interpretation of it more acceptable than any other. He has encouraged a limited free enterprise system, and Yugoslavs enjoy greater individual liberty and freedom of speech than they do in any communist country in the world. Today President Tito is faced with Die problem that eventually confronts all human beings. The inevitable march of lime has brought him to old age and the certainty that either death or debilitation will soon force him to give up the reins of government. He has been preparing for these eventualities. No one knows better than he does that divisive forces are at work to break up Yugoslavia, a country fragmented by varying cultural backgrounds and historic animosities. External influences, particularly from the U.S.S.R. would not. and have not, been slow to stir up regional hatreds. Tito knows that he him- self is the t'ical point of national unity and he fears what will happen to destroy it when he is gone. Pie has prepared as best he can by setting up a collective leadership to replace him, He has extended greater control of regional affairs to the autonomous provinces, in an attempt at decentralization. One of the reasons for this is that Tito wants to establish the greatest possible hedge against anv successful attempt at a military takeover in Belgrade when he is gone. For years young Yugoslavs of both sexes have been trained in guerilla warfare. They continue to take refresher courses every year. Now many of them are learning the use of conventional weapons to more e^ffe-tively back up the large standing army. Invaders would confront a tough, determined, and highly trained opposition. Preparations for the future have been built on a solid base, and in the meantime the leader remains- at 79. vigorous beyond the expectation of most men. Canada extends a warm welcome to Josip Broz Tito, a man of courage, who has served his people with devotion for so many years of his long life. Give up, Joey The determination of Premier Joey Smallwood to remain as head of the Liberal party in order to contest the recent Newfoundland election was disastrous for him and for his party. By staying at the helm he spoiled his own record of election successes and may have severelly damaged the fortunes of the party. There seems to be little doubt that a considerable disenchantment with the usually ebullient Joey Smallwood has settled over the people of that province. Whether the same thing applies to the Liberal party is difficult to assess since the attempt to persuade the voters that it has a new look was frustrated by the old face out front. In view of the fact that the Pro- gressive Conservative party got 52 per cent of the popular vote and gained one more seat than the Liberals, it would seem to be the courteous, if not the sensible, thing to do to concede victory. By stubbornly insisting on hanging onto office, Mr. Smallwood is probably alienating even more people and thus insuring a clear majority for the Conservatives in the election that is bound to have to be repeated. A comfortable majority for the Conservatives would not be a tragedy, of course. But for as staunch a Liberal as Joey Smallwood to be instrumental in producing that result would be ironic. Joey should give up before he takes a worse beating. Big deal! After Finance Minister Edgar Benson announced recently that there would be a three per cent cut in personal income tax, Canadians looked forward to future cheques with anticipation. Alas, they will be the same as before. Mr. Benson admitted somewhat reluctantly that wage - earners would keep on paying the same old tax rates until the end of the year. The best they can hope for will be a refund in February or March of 1972, without interest of course. The idea behind the tax reduction was to put money into citizens' pockets so that they could pump it back into a sagging economy and help Ottawa over the current financial crisis. But oven at best the cuts are nothing to get immensely excited about. For example, a single man earning $6,000 a year will have a tax saving of $12.12 in 1971, or a little over a dollar a month. A married man on the same salary with two children to support will get the princely saving of $23.16, while a married man with no dependents earning $3,000 will have a saving of $19.26. No one will benefit from the saving until 1972. Commented one soured father who looked to the Benson money - in-the-pocket promise with understandable expectation, only to have realism hit him on pay-day, "well that $12.12 I'll get back next year isn't exactly going to send me on a spending spree, so I hope the economy is not counting on it very heavily." From now on all Canadians will take tax cuts rather calmly, and instead of rushing out to spend their small tax returns in 1972, they are far more likely to sock il away for the rainy days that seem to be coming closer. Not even time for a quick snooze Carl Rowan Why punish UN for U.S. defeat on China? 1 'NITED NATIONS. N.Y. -That inevitable U.S. defeat on the China representation issue is now a reality, and it has provoked some asinine reactions from various American conservatives. Senators James Buckley of New York and William E. Brock of Tennessee want to punish the United Nations by reducing the U.S. financial contribution, so incensed are they that Peking was voted in and Taiwan was ousted. That is about as silly as wanting to set fire to the Senate chambers because 51 Senators voted in what you thought was a foolish way. Buckley makes the outlandish assertion that the not-unexpected vote to oust Taiwan may have been ''the beginning of the end for the United Nations.'' That is the empty threat of conservatives who had no real use of the IN even in days when Uncle Sam could pretty much call the tune od any important vote. But there is jusl no reason to believe that Congress is so myopic that this first major defeat will make it so petulant that it will try to destroy the UN by holding back a few dollars. Why pick on the UN as an institution? It did nothing to offend Americans or harm American interests in the recent China confrontation. It was 59 sovereign nations, including some of American's closest allies, who cast the votes that sank the United States' two-China ploy. . Canada voted Peking in and Taiwan out. Does Buckley suggest that we declare war on Canada? France voted against the U.S. position. Does Brock propose that we all swear off French wines and perfumes? Great Britain voted Peking in and Chiang Kai-shek out. Do the conservatives want to draft the declaration that we are ending our special relationship with Britain - forthwith? Why not? If we are going to do something stupid, let's go all the way and have Uncle Sam cane the nations and peoples who voted "wrong"' instead of just picking on that poor old inanimate thing called the UN. The truth is, if Buckley, Brock and Co. want to punish the people really responsible for the UN defeat they'll want to start by taking Richard M. Nixon and Henry Kissinger to the woodshed. Taiwan's diplomatic goose was cooked the moment Nixon sent Kissinger on that secret mission to Peking to set in motion a stunning reversal of U.S. policy. Once Nixon decided that mainland China ought to be in the UN, he liberated a lot of governments that had voted for Taiwan in recent years only under Washington-applied duress. With Kissinger in Peking again, and the U.S. going all out to speed up the Sino-American thaw, w h y should Malaysia take an anti-Peking stance in the UN debates? Or Nigeria? Or Singapore? Reluctantly and gallantly, Japan went dowt. to defeat with the U.S., and the Sato government probably already regrets tho decision to do so. I hated to see Taiwan ousted. I want to see the UN become a universal body - and thus, hopefully, a more effective organ. But Taiwan's ouster ought not blind anyone to this central truth: If the UN had any relevance to man's search for peace before Peking's admittance, it has even greater meaning now that 800 million people are coming back into the family of nations. The challenge to the U.S. is not to dream up pouting schemes designed to weaken t h e UN. We need some -:oul-searching, some new planning, in the hope that we can find a way to make the new arrangements serve the larger interests of mankind. With Peking on the Security Council, selection of a new Secretary-General becomes a far different exercise from the old U.S.-Russian confrontations. The stand Peking takes on peace-keeping operations will tell a lot about whether the UN's financial crisis can be resolved and the organization can ever come close to its Charter-expressed goal of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The Nixon administration surely sensed that the UN defeat was inevitable. It concluded long ago that only with Peking's co-operation can we make this revised UN a bulwark against both the ravages of nature and the destruction that flows from man's foolishness and foibles. Certainly the foibles and foolishness that we must now reject lie in the rhetoric of those nearsighted men who think this is the time to tear down the UN. (Field Enterprises, Inc.) Maurice Western Tito deserves as warm a welcome as Kosygin rvTTAWA - In the House of Commons recently Tom Bell, the Conservative whip, asked t h e prime minister wheth r the Canadian government is going "to accord to President Tito the same level of honor and acclaim during his forthcoming visit as it did to Premier Kosygin" and whether it hoped to sign cultural and trade agreements. Mr. Trudeau, in a careful reply, observed that there is a question of protocol, in which he is not expert. There might be some variance since "one is a head of state and the other is only the head of the government." As for any agreement, that would have to await discussion. It may be doubted, however, that Mr. Bell was thinking exclusively in terms of protocol. He probably had in mind matters much more understandable to Canadians generally. He may have entertained the hope that, when the prime minister raised las glass to the president, he will express the sentiments of the country in plain speech and not in the latter day jargon of the department of external affairs. There are some fairly safe subjects. Mr. Trudeau might recall, for example, the Canadian - Yugoslav association in UNEF; an outcome of the Suez crisis. The very cordial relations between the two countries, undisturbed by any harrowing bilateral problems, data from that time. Subjects even more dear in the heart of the Trudeau administration are travel and cultural exchanges. As tho prime minister will doubtless recall, the Yugoslav government abolished visas some years ago: it offered to waive them permanently for nationals of any country which would reciprocate. Some west European countries responded. Other countries did not. The difficulty is that the Canadian government was among those which averted their eyes from this promising initiative. It is a safe assertion, however, that Canadian admiration for President Tito is not rooted in peripheral considerations of trade and travel. He is one of the great figures of our times; far more significant on any objective evaluation than the ruling Moscow bureaucrats 'including our recent distinguished guest) who inherited their power and their policies from other Moscow bureaucrats. As the leader of a small country he is the man who, with quite incredible cour-age, successfully defended Yugoslav i n d e p e n dence first against Nazi invaders and then against the pretence of the most powerful despot the world has known - the great sun of the universe of our dear departed guests. Almost a quarter of a century has passed since Stalin boasted that he would shake his little finger and there would he no more Tito. The finger duly wagged and Yugoslavia had to withstand military intimidation, an economic blockade, border incidents and efforts to disrupt the country from within. Everyone knows that the pressure was successfully resisted. How much resolution was required, however, may not bo generally appreciated. It is forgotten now that the Yugoslavs, because they had been so loyal to Russia, had to face the crisis without friends. Also people associate Yugoslavia with mountains and thus with natural defences. But Stalin's armies were across two of the traditional invasion routes, one leading to Belgrade, the oilier to Skopje, The Vojvodina, north of Belgrade, is like the Portage plains; if it has any natural defences they must be cornstalks. Any tribute to Tito which ignored or slurred over this, although it might be considered tactful by our recent exalted friends, would read strangely to many Canadians. For it is not a chapter from ancient history. The pressure has been applied in diverse forms again and again, ft was perhaps most dangerous in 1968 when Tito was wildly acclaimed in Prague. It is not on record that any western leader took such risks in that tragic period. The Trudeau government is a fervent exponent of detente. So is President Tito, whose country being more vulnerable, has more to fear from the aggravation of tensions. But detente Ls not simply a matter of state visits and communiques. The concept could never be taken seriously so long as the Communist world was one g r e at, single system monolith ruled by a wagging finger in Moscow. It became conceivable only when the monolith was broken and this was achieved not by the tanks and repressions of our recent peace-loving guests but by the iron resolution of Tito and the people who closed ranks behind him. There was, of course, more to it than that. The Yugoslavs wr;nt on to offer tbsir neighbors the example of a much freer and more humane system with features -- as Mr. Brezhnev recently told a Yugoslav factory audience - which do not seem acceptable to Soviet communists. Fortunately, Mr. Brezhnev on the same visit also denied the existence of the doctrine which bears his name and Ivy which the Czech invasion was justified. As Mr. Trudeau did not hesitate, while in Russia, to iden- tify the great power which poses problems for us, there is no need to gloss over the identity of the power which President Tito was called on to resist. Any attempt fo do so would seem ludicrous; as if the Yugoslavs had played cit their role in some sort of vacuum. ' Mr, Bell's question seems to me relevant for another reason. It has been my impression, unfortunately acute on certain occasions, that the Canadian government in the recent past has rather carefully avoided outward manifestations of sympathy with the Yugoslav government and people. Hopefully this has changed since Mr. Trudeau's interrupted visit. The feeling lingers, however, that leading ministers were rather more concerned in these relations with domestic political considerations than they were with dangerous international realities. It seems to me, as presumably to Mr. Bell, that President Tito deserves at least as warm a reception as that accorded the Soviet premier. Anything less would raise questions in my mind, and possibly in the minds of many other Canadians, about the moral values of the Canadian government. (Herald Ottawa Bureau) Looking backward Through The Herald 1921 - Prohibition officers from Ontario, the three Prairie Provinces, and the border states will gather in Regina to discuss methods of carrying out liquor legislation to the best interests of both countries. 1931-One hundred and fifty agriculturists and businessmen, guests of the CPR were in the district Saturday to visit the sugar factory at Raymond and the CPR show stock at Coal-dale. 1911-South Alberta teachers convention is to be held in the Central school this weekend with Dr. Frasier as principal speaker. 1951 - Alberta's first large-scale tuberculin testing of school children was a marked success in Lethbridge. liKil-Taber High School Eagles of the B division in the Southern Alberta High School Football League earned a shot at the A division champions, the LCT Rams. The Lethbridge Herald 504 7th St. S., Lethbridge, Alberta LETHBRIDGE HERALD CO. LTD., Proprietors and Publisher* Published 1905 -1954, t/y Hon. W, A. BUCHANAN Second Class Mall Registration No. 0012 Member of The Canadian Press ana me Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers' Association and the Audit Bureau of Circulations CLEO W. MOWERS, Editor and Publisher THOMAS H. ADAMS, General Manager JOE BALLA WILLIAM HAY Managlno Editor Associate Editor ROY F MILES DOUGLAS K WALKER Advertising Manager Editorial Page Editor "THE HERALD SERVES THE SOUTH" ;