Lethbridge Herald, The (Newspaper) - November 4, 1970, Lethbridge, Alberta
Wednesday, Novtmh-r 4, 1970 THE LCTHDI1IDGE HERALD 5 Julius K. N-yvrerv Tanzania's President States Case I'l'llE BRITISH government has announced that it is considering the resumption of arms sales lo South Africa. The African countries, and most Commonwealth countries, arc urging thai the present ban should Ire maintained. Unfortu- nately (hero is a concerted tempi being made (u confuse the issues at slake. II is being suggested that the Common- wealth and Africa are trying lo push Britain about, that we arc accusing the British govern- ment of racialism, and that we are denying Britain's right to defend her interests in the In- dian Ocean. None of Ihese tilings is true; but in the welter of words aboul them the real issues are in danger of being lost. No one is challenging Brit- ain's right to sell amis lo Soulh Africa. Britain is an indepen- dent sovereign state and, as such, has the righl to deter- mine her own policies in the light cf what she regards as British interests. The question we arc asking is not whether Britain has the right lo defy Uie United Nations' resolution calling for an arms embargo, but whether Britain realizes the effect this decision would have on herself, as well as on the rest of the world. But only Britain con make the decision. The suggestion lhat Tanzania wishes to "push Britain around" is absurd. Tanzania is a small nation and is bitterly opposed to the big nations pushing small nations around. We have said so many limes, for we are often the victims of such an allempt. We had nol thought il was necessary lo say that we are against small na- tions pushing big ones around; for an ability to push implies power, and by definition small and poor nations do not have that power in relation to big and rich ones. If, however, it is now regarded as necessary, we can state clearly that we would be against small nations pushing big nations around, if it were possible fo them to do 60. Yet we do wonder about this accusation. For the agreements under wihieh the Simonslown base is now available lo Britain were made in 1955 incidentally, before any of the British colonies in Africa bad become free. Under those agreements, Britain undertook to supply certain quantities of certain kinds of arnii. We are told that all these were sup- plied many years ago. Indeed, from 19W until now 11 has been possible (or Britain to refuse lo sell arms to South Africa and still lo keep the use of that base. Now. however, it is being said by the advocates of arms sales although not so far by South Africa in pub- lic that if Britain does not sell arms South Africa will lake certain action i.e. will deny Britain the use of the base! This is not regarded as pushing Britain around. Yet Tanzania is accused of pushing Britain around when she points out that we shall be forced to take certain consequential actions if Britain does decide lo sell arms lo a racialist slate which is locked in a fundamental con- flict with us, Isn't this odd? Secondly, Tanzania is not Saying that consideration of this proposal means that mem- bers of (he British government arc racialists. What we are saying is thai the British gov- ernment is proposing to arm racialism. By so doing il will be acting in support of racial- ism. Ard because we are men anil not God, (he states of Africa and of the Common- wealth have to respond lo Ihe actions of governments and na- tions, not to their motives. Thirdly, il is being said that What Tanzania is saying lo Britain is, please lliink careful- ly how you look aflcr your in- terests in the Indian Ocean. Before any nalion adopts an- other as ally il is as well for il lo consider whether this new alliance means becoming in- volved ir other, separate con- flicts which arc irrelevant to its purposes. II is Ihe total situ- ation which millers, not one new ally for a possible fulure conflict. if What, then, are the points which Africa is trying to make? First, there is a con- flict going on in Africa now. It is not a conflict between com- munism and freedom, or com- munism and democracy, it is a conflict between the apartheid policies of Soulh Africa and Ihe colonialism of Portugal on the one hand, and the African peo- ples of Southern Africa wilii the support of Ihe independent African States on (he other hand. IL is a conflicl aboul ra- cialism and colonialism. In this conflict we have honed, and are still Africa and Britain can be on the same side. For Britain it- self has freed its colonies; it has accepted the principle ol national self determination. Further, the British philosophy of democracy, of human equal- ity and human dignity, is fun- damentally opposed to racial- ism. An alliance between Brit- ain and rociaPsm is unnalurrl. That is the first point. Yet to arm Soulh Africa is to arm racialism. It is to side with racialism lo have il as an ally. This may not be Ihe in- lenlion, but it Mill be the effect. It does not mailer how small Ihe quantity of arms, not how restricted the type. For no one supplies arms to a regime which they would like to see overthrown. Only when a na- tion is actually involved in a war, and therefore cannot choose ils allies, is the supply of arms not also like, a certifi- cate of respectability. And in lliis case il is a publicly an- nounced friendship which the South Africans waul from Brit- ain much more than they want any particular arnia- menls. Brilain is not at war. She has interests in the Indian Ocean, but she does not need military allies regardless of the political consequences. If she were at war Africa would realize Ihal Britain has no choice in her alliances. Bui thai is not the position. Soulh Africa, on Lhe other hand, is involved in a war however light the fighling now. The African peoples of South- ern Africa have declared war on the governments which con- Irol Iheir land and Lheir lives, and which deny nol only their human equality but even Ihcir bumanily. They (ricd peaceful methods of struggle for many years. But they achieved no re- duction in their misery and hu- miliation; on Ihe contrary Lhere was a sleady increase in Ihe racialism anil oppression under which they suffered. Fi- nally, Ihey realized thai Ihey must, eilher acquiesce in Iheir condition or show lhat they were willing to fight for free- dom and dignity. What this means is that just as Brilain is concerned to guard her freedom so Africa is equally concerned to gain hers. And Tanzania does not believe Ihal Ihese Iwo desires for free- dom need come into conflict. But we do now see a real danger thai (hoy might collide. Britain is concerned about what she regards as a Com- munist threat to her security. Africa is concerned with Lhe existing racialism and colonial- ism in Southern Africa. W7ould it help Brilain if her anti-com- munism became identified with the racialism against Africa is now fighling? They are nol, in fact, the same Lhing. llul South Africa wanls them lo be the same thing. And if Britain announces Ihal she is willing lo sell arms lo .Soulh Africa, she is making racialism her ally; in elf eel, she is sayirg that there is an identification of inleresls exisl- ing between herself and this evil doctrine. She will then be forcing Africa to think of Brilain and South Africa lo- gelher. And if tins occurs, llien Africa has lo acl accordingly. Whatever happens, Ihe peoples of Africa cannot accept Ihe slaLus of second-class subjects in Iheir lands and on their own continent. -V Brilain believes she needs the Simonrtown base. But Ihe agreements under which she operates do not require Brilain lo sell more arms. And Ihe fact is lhat South Africa is becoming increasingly isolalcd in Ihe world because of her apartheid policies. She does nol like Ihis; she needs Brilain much more '.ban Britain needs South Africa. There is no possibility Lhal South Africa will make the Simonstown base available lo the Soviet Union if Britain maintains its present arms em- bargo. So, Lo whom will Soulh Africa offer il if she does ask Britain to withdraw? To Brit- ain's ally in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, France? I would hale to believe that this possibility is what the argument i- really about. For that would mean that we arc not lalking about problems of defence, hul about the making of profit out of selling arama- ments to racialism. France does not pretend Uiat her abys- mal sale of arms to South Afri- ca is because of an alleged Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean; she sells Lhem simply because It is good busi- ness. Is Britain really deter- mined lo make ILS believe lhat the basic cause of this argu- ment about British arms to South Africa is a trade coin- pelilion between allies in Eu- rope? For she tells us thai she determines her own policies, and does nol simply follow (he example, or the advice of others however friendly. I believe and I certainly hope thai when Brilain has finally considered ail the issues involved, its government will realize Ihal ils legitimate in- leresls in tlie Indian Ocean are best safeguarded by friend- ship with the young and free nations bordering the Indian Ocean. I believe she will be able lo come lo lhat conclusion quite apart from the represenl- alions which are being made (o the British govcrnme.nl by other members of Ihe Common- wealth and by Africa. These representations indicate our deep concern over this matter. But only Brilain can make the decision. Tanzania and Britain have Quarrelled several times over African issues; tliere may even be other differences in the fu- ture. But Ihis issue is different in kind, as well as in degree, from Ihe others which have arisen, or which we foresee. For an agreement lo sell arms lo Soulh Africa would mean Lhat Britain has chosen her side in Ihe Southern African con- flict. She would have become an ally of South African racial- ism. She would not even be neutral ar more. We are appealing lo Britain nol Lo lake sides against free Africa in its conflict wilh ra- cialism and colonialism. Na- Lions, like individuals, can be judged by Iheir choice of friends. (Written for Tlie Herald aud Tlie Observer. London) 'Now you're June it! Were sure ie be tola __ home, and ve'tl nisi parf 'Sesame Street'l" S 1910 t; Report fo me on the pemble "implications of mjr adopt- ing Ms os a characteristic Maurice Western Information Canada's Identity Program Africa is asking Brilain (o ig- nore ils own defence interest's which, it is alleged, are now threatened by the so-called So- viet naval presence in the In- dian Ocean. Once again Ihis is not what Tanzania is saying We arc saying lhat the So- viet naval threat is not a proven fact. Britain's own al- lies do nol appear lo be con- vinced of il; some arc amazed. The Soviet Union appears to he amused, and the Brilish Labor Party promises lo reverse a de- cision lo sell arms to South Africa. We are saving that when a nation like Britain de- cides to dcf. world opinion and arm a racialist regime like Soulh Africa the impelling rea- sons for doing so in the na- tional interests should be very clear lo all men of good will. We arc not saying Ihal. Bril- njn has no inleresls in (he Indian Ocean, nr thai siic no right In look after her in- terests I here. We recognize lhat Britain as a Irading nation has an interest. Bul other na- lions have similar interests. Indeed, "anznnia has a great interest in the Indian Ocean. But our interests cannot be served by (he arming of Soulh Africa they are harmed by rViTAWA: Hoberl Stanbury, probably aller consultation wilh the manpower department, has found employment of the make work variety for Infor- mation Canada. This is an achievement of sorls because idleness is demoralizing and the public might sooner or later have come 'o resent the allo- cation of funds lo an agency which confined itself lo medi- laling in the Laurcnlians or grazing at ils navel. Information Canada has been assigned the task of implemenl- ing as soon as praclicable Ihe "federal klcnlily program.'' This has been inspired by Ihe thought, unexceptional and by no means novel, (bat "the inter- ests of Canadian Confederation arc served when the people of Canada understand the of responsibility of Die govern- mcnls which serve them, "and when (hey arc able to identify tlie source of government ser- vices available lo them." This leads in tm'n lo the daz- zling idea that we ought to have a simple syslem of distinguish- ing designs, familiar lo all CH- nadians, to identify federal ac- tivities. If would be an error lo suppose Ihal. Info has done Hi? work itself- TIis inevitable con- sulting firm has been called in and lias produced a design of no obvious distinction for 000 which may be too much bul is mercifully cheap by modern government account- ing. Unenlightened taxpayers may have assumed lhat Ilia coat, of arms was a symbol of idsnlifi- cation. Info anticipated (his cri- ticism and now solemnly in- forms us thai "there has never been an emblem which repre- sents the Canadian government as an entity within (he Cana- dian nalion." II haslens, as well il might, to reassure apprehen- sive persons lhat "the program we arc adopting does not sup- plant any existing emblem of Canada." The minister's announcement, however, comes with a "fact prepared apparently by Information Canada. This "The right lo use (he flag (and coat, of arms) as an identifying mark is reserved to the federal government by chapter 9 of Iho Trade Marks Act." Mr. Stan- bury's argument seems tenuous, to say the least of it. Bul Info, slimulated by the Laurentian breezes, has provid- ed the minister with a second argument. In the absence of an identification syslem designed So They Say We used to take it for grant- ed that intelligence, cultiu'e, holiness, alhlelic prowess, plus perhaps Ihe privilege of being old, were respected and perma- nent values of society. Now that is not so accepted in the world Raymond Cooper, chairman of the Preparatory Schools Conference, England. for all federal activities; Uie var- ious departments, boards and agencies have adopted their own designs, some of which do not suggest a relationship wilh (hs governmenl of Canada. The new program is to replace this multiplicity. is kidding whom? Tlie various departments have ad- opted these designs because they wish (o be distinguishable from each other. Naturally ag- riculture wishes to distinguish itself from the department of industry. Naturally Ron Basford is reluclanl to have the house- wives department confused, say, wilh Ihe lariff board. Whal will happen is obvious. They will keep their distinguish- ing symbols. To Llicse will be added, at slightly extra print- ing expense, the bar and maple leaf. Had there been no inter- cst in downgrading Ihe coal of arms, exactly the same result could have been achieved by in- sisting on ils general use. On its face, the supposed dis- tinction between the Canadian government and nation and the insistence thai wlial is being done "will enhance the prestige and dignity of symbols" repre- senting Uie nation es a whole" ii purest sophistry. Where is the new design lo be used? Accord- ing to the fact sheet, practically everywhere; on forms, cheques, publications, advertising, signs outside and inside buildings used by (he government, vehicles, various uniforms. Where is ILe coat of arms to be used? Sig- nificantly, we are not told. The reason is simple. How is the nalion, as distinct from ils political emanations, to be iden- tified? Are we all U> go about with coats of arms sewed on lo the seals of our Lrouscrs? Mr. Stanbury's argument is prepos- terous; mere camouflage for a hoax perpetrated on Ihe public by the mosl useless agency gov- ernment has yet conceived. It is moderately reassuring thai the cost of this completely unnecessary cxer c i s e is set about al Thif seems low but Mr. Slanbury may have in mind savings other lhan those mentioned in his an- The intention is lo "identify Ihe federal govern- ment at work in Ihe service of Canada." Possibly this excludes Ihe federal government al play or al ils studies or at tasks of dubious service such as the painting of the Bonavcnlure and various other pastimes on which Ihe auditor general regularly rcporl5. On (he other hand (here is the disturbing fact thai Infor- mation Canada is apparently I he first to qualify for leaver, and bars, Tlie (rouble with Mr. Klan- biu-y's explanation is that it is simply not credible. What docs Ihe governmenl have against Ihe historic coat of arms and why will it not he candid about ils transparently obvious pur- poses? (Ilcralrl Ottawa linrcau) Pornography Repori From The Washington Posl I1' JT is a that President Nixon so bla- laully nu'sscd the point of the report submitted by the Commission on Obscen- ity and Pornography, lie might have con- tributed to a rational discussion of what is undoubtedly a touchy and troubling nation- al problem, Ihe merchandising of smuL. In- stead, lu> chose to rack up a coupl? of easy politic-si points in an election season by some conventional moralizing and by dis- missing the thoughtful, conscientious work of the commission as "morally bankrupt." Could Hie President have read any of lite detailed and documented 874- page report'.' He seems to have been under a misapprehension lhat the commission praised pornography, that it recommended the dissemination of obscenity. It did noth- ing of the sort, of course. Congress did not ask for a sermon or a homily. II asked the commission "to analyse the laws pertain- ing lo the control of obscenity and to "explore the nature and volume of in these commodities, lo study their effect upon Ihe public and lo recom- mend "appropriate action." The commission looked at a lot of porno- graphic material, consulted a lot of ex- perts, Look a lot of testimony and came lo Lhe conclusion thai, however sordid, shoddy, shocking and dislasleful such material mighl be, Ihere was no evidence al all lo show that "exposure lo or use ol explicit sexual materials play a significant role in Lhe causation of social or individual harms such as crime, delinquency, sexual or non- sexual deviancy or severe emotional dis- turbances." Now, thai is a scienlific, nol a moralislic, finding, and iL affords a basis of rational consideration of tlie subject. In Hie light of this finding the commission recommended thai "federal, slate, and lo- cal legislation should not seek to interfere with the right of adulls who wish lo do so lo read, obtain, or view explicit sexual ma- terials." 11 also recommended regulations to protect young persons and lo prelect the privacy of all persons who do nol want such material thrust upon tlreiu. The commission kept clearly in mind a consideration which the President should surely not have ignored that efforts lo prevent the enjoyment of explicit sexual materials by persons who find them en- joyable are necessarily dilficull, dangcrou.i and futile. They arc difficult because no- body has been able (o dense a workablo dcfijiilion of obscenily or pornography; they arc dangerous because they may, as they have so often done in the past, suppress material of greal artistic or intellectual value; and Ihey arc futile because the sex- ual drive which occasions interest in Ibcm cannol be curbed or controlled by legisla- tion. One interesting fact uneaiilied by HIG commission is thai "Ihe proporlion of peo- ple in Lhe United States who have been ex- posed to erotic materials is very similar Lo the proportion of adulls in Copenhagen, Denmark, who report having seen porno- graphic books arid Censorship slimulates more Lhan it suppresses curio- sily. This country, indeed the whole of HIR Western world, is in a period of dramatic cultural change in wlucli folkways and, in- deed, moral values are undergoing critical re examination. The tastes of the past or of the present cannot lie frozen into per- petuity. Standards of "decency" are in flux no less Lhan fashions in dress or in dating. Repressive legislation simply cannot gov- ern them. IL is essentially healthy and sound that (he sexual drive in human beings is now being recognized and deall will] more open- ly and candidly lhan in Ihe past. If thij entails, as it undoubtedly does, excesses and uglinesses, Ihese are, on the whole, less damaging lo sociely lhan Lhe costs ed in Idling some peliy official determine for the whole community whal it may wil- ness and enjoy and evaluate for itself. Po- litical nonsense and are danger- ous loo, but Lhe rool premise of Lhe Ameri- can system is lhat they are less dangerous than allowing authority to suppress what it may deem undesirable. The great virtue of the commission re- port, apart from its foundation in solid fact instead of in empty moralizing, is lhat" it recomircnds a positive approach lo the problem of pornography Ihrough sexual education and Lhe kind of honesly which is Ihe comerslone of any sound moral system. This is much more likely to put Ihe porno- graphers out of their shabby business than any kind of repression. Peace And The Green Revolution From The Washinglon Post 'J'HE award of a Noble Peace Prize lo Norman E. Borlaug, leader of Ihe team which produced 'the high yield grains of the "Green confers liigb honor on a dedicated and accomplish- ed American. Laymen may not be able to judge the quality of his science bul (hey can see ils results. Working al ino Eoclre- feller financed International Wheat and Majze Improvement Center in Mexico, Dr. Borlaug developed thn "mirac" stains which have increased harvests dramatical- ly in Mexico, India, Pakistan, the Philip- pines and elsewhere. Could there be a hap- pier, more humanitarian application o[ technology to men's needs? The Nobel committee's answer was unequivocal. It cited Dr. Borlaug for a technological breakthrough which makes it possible to abolish hunger in the developing countries in the course of a few years. "In said Lhe committee's chairman, "we do not any longer have lo be pessimistic about the economic future of Ihe developing countries." It is noteworthy that Dr. Borlaug him- self, speaking to newsmen, was consider- ably more restrained. "We have only de- layed lire world food crisis for anolher 30 he said. "If Ihe world population continues to increase at the same rate, we will destroy the species." His point was well taken. For despite the ebullience of many flag-wavers for Lhe "Green Revolu- tion" in 1965 Dr. Borlaug himself ex-. peeled the new technology to feed Ihe world for "the nexl 100 200 remain tremendous hurdles to develop- ment, and to general nourishment. Indeed, some hurdles may have been raised by Ihe very of lire Green Revolution so lar. To the extent that the new seeds encourage or allow attention lo be diverted from population control, lhat crucial cause suffers. William C. Paddock, a skeptic among agriculturalists, has noted a fur- ther danger thai ''Lhe governments of tlie hungry nalions will once again turn their thoughts away from the No. 1 prob- lem of solving the agricultural and rural problems of their countries and resume their emphasis on pacifying the cities and Vnirsliiping the idol of industrialization." QucsLions of the sort raised by Paddock may not seem entirely appronjiale lo an occasion celebrating a Nobel Prize. They are, nonetheless, central. Paddock has pointed out, for instance, thai Ihe Green Revolution has been credited wilh gains attributable in important measure to good weather; that Ihere are major genetic risks in inlroducing new strains quickly and widely in new areas; Ihal general in- Iroduclion of the new seeds requires in- vestments for fertilizer, irrigation and price supports on a scale quite beyond the existing or foreseeable resources of almost all developing nations. Certainly, as Lester B. Brown, a leading spokesman lor Ihe new agronomy, has written, "Tills agricul- tural revolution is not Hie ultimate solu- Lion but it does buy some much needed additional lime in which lo mount effective family planning programs." But how is lhat time being used? Hardly al all, every- body knows. There is a certain irony imbedded In tha award of a Peace Prize to a man whose work, however immediately peaceable and beneficent, may yet contribute to Ihe larg- er populations which arc a drag on eco- nomic and social progress. "There is an irrefutable relationship between violence and economic Robert Mc- Namara declared in his Montreal speech in 1956. "Given (lie certain connection be- tween economic stagnation and the inci- dence of violence, the years Ihal lie ahead for Ihe nalions in the southern half of (ha globe are pregnant wilh violence." It is worth pondering on. Contradictory Advice From The Winnipeg Free Press usual, the eeonoinisls and financial experts are giving (he country con- tradictory advice on how lo get. out of ils present economic dilemma rising prices, rising unemployment. The latest report of the Econonu'c Coun- cil of Canada has come down slrongly for jwlicics Lhat will hasten a return lo lull employment. It says, among other things, lhat inflation has lo be Lrcaled as a long- term project and (hat immediate, priority IHU.-.I Ix- given lo policies thai will stimu- late gnmth and >o provide more jobs. This is in keeping wilh Ihe general line lhat the council has followed during the in- flationary period. It has never appeared lo treat inflation as seriously as other econo- mists and has warned more of the danger of overkill, or trying loo hard by wage ajid price restraints to halt inflation, (ban of the dangers of a continued price spiral. On tlie other hand, recciilly. Louis Ita- minsky. governor of tile Bank of Canada, reiterated Lhe altitude that he has consis- tently laken. In a speech in Rcgina he said that authorities would not move ahead lo expansionary policies until (hey had somo clear indication of restraint in wage and salary increases. Mr. Hasminsky noted lhat Canada's price record in recent monllis has been good. But wage and salary increases have been discouraging and unless these show an improvement. Canada's price per- formance v.ill nol keep up. To Ihe layman Uus In niala se.nr.e. Wages and salaries do conslilule substantial part of the cosl of products. II is only common logic Ihal as Llrcse continuo to rise so must costs and prices. 7o en> bark on growth or expansionist policies at a time when wages and salaries arc in- creasing rapidly is simply lo invilc a lar- ger dose ol what we sro trying to set rid of.