European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - September 14, 1977, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 12 the stars and stripes wednesday september 14, 1977 William f. Buckley there seems to be an obstruction the Panama canal in wartime situation co Vurnor Ronald Reagan has referred publicly to a presumably private letter addressed to president Carter by four distinguished retired military men. All of them former chiefs of naval opera Lions Arleigh Burke. Thomas Moorer Robert Carney and George Anderson. These gentlemen argued in favor of retain ing sovereignty and jurisdiction Over the canal zone on the grounds that we Arethus offered the Opportunity to use the waterway or to deny its use to others in War time. But it would appear that you have a confusion of arguments Here de Facto and de Jure. In wartime a government does what is necessary to protect its vital interests. It is to some extent influenced in what it will do by the Cost of the projected operation and by the political consequences of under taking it. For instance when Germany and great Britain went to War in 1939, the nazis spec lied a sea Lane which United states shipping bound for England would have to confine itself to ships outside that Lane would automatically be sunk said the Ger mans. They would learn that to say this to the United states is not quite the same thing As saying it let us Sav to the other hand the germans too had a canal. It was called the Kaiser Wilhelm Kanal and cutting through from the North sea to the Baltic eliminated a 500-Miledetour around Denmark. During the first world War As one would suspect the Ger mans closed it to other than Friendly tray a result the Versailles treaty after one of those Ristic orgies thai put one in mind of the treats of Paris specifying which Apple Orchard would be governed by which trilateral commission International the canal renamed it simply the Kiel canal and what to in 19,%. Not even waiting for War. Hitler simply repudiated the treaty unilaterally and dealt with the canal As his very own. They Call that Force Majure. Well in this part of the world Force a Eure is what we have got it we want to use it. Under the treaty we would have de Jure rights to intervene in the event the Panama canal were being denied to us or for that matter to anyone else. In a wartime situation we would calmly decide whether to permit the canal to act As a waterway for enemy traffic and if we decided negatively who would say us nay the president of Panama the world court our superintendence in these matters will depend on two things. I our military strength and 2 our disposition to use our military strength. The notion that in War time our juridical standing in the Panama canal zone Means anything at All is quite simply naive and no one should under stand that better than professional Mili tary men. If we Are saddled in time of War. With a president of the United states who declines to Stop enemy ships from gambling through the canal the better to bomb or blockade our cities we re going to lose that War whatever happens to the Panama is reasonable to reflect that the Tyran nation of the military by the commander in chief brings on sycophancy. But after All if it were so obvious that the four retired admirals were that their counterparts in office Are in Correct in assuring us that we do not need More in the Panama area than the treaty is in fact giving us. Then our chiefs of staff Are being charged with preferring their positions Over the safety of the United is reluctant to come to that conclusion. Nor is it necessary to go through Annap Olis or West Point or to serve 30 years in Active service to recognize the salient Mili tary Points the canal As a commercial Enterprise is under the control of whoever controls the Access Points to it and that is now done by the United states Navy and air Force. The other Point is 2 any Power that could remotely threaten the United states is in a position to close the canal. Ind there is literally nothing we can do to prevent this happening. Add to this Point the qualifier Al though Panama is not in a position to threaten the United states it is in a Posi Tion by sabotage to close the canal. It is unlikely to want to do so under any circumstances. It is much less Likely to want to do so if the panamanian Flag rather than our own flies Over the territory. I c i Star Syndicate Jesse Jackson 19 1977 los angelas times King s dream and Carter s neglect on aug. 28. 1963. The Rev. Martin Luther King or. Led thousands upon thou Sands through Washington and then climbed the Steps of the Lincoln memorial to deliver one of the most inspiring speeches of the civil rights movement. With the hushed throngs. Or. King shared his vision of the America that could be. I have a dream. He intoned and spelled out the challenges that had to be met and dealt with in order to give the poor and Black and Brown their shares of the american years and a Day later a group of 15 Black civil rights and political leaders gathered in new York City. I had the Privi lege of being included among then 15. The stated purpose of the meeting was to coordinate strategy to counter the Carter administration s callous neglect of Blacks the poor and our cities. In Short we met to assess the status of or. King s dream and rate woj u t aide we found it woefully unfulfilled. Consider what has happened in those 14 years and a Day the facts Are that Blacks won their civil rights but remain Servile in the american Economy. Blacks won the right to vacation any where they want but can t afford it there. They have the right to buy a new de troit car but can t afford to pay the note it takes to buy facts Are that Blacks have won All their rights but the economic realities of their lives confine them to the rotting hearts of the cities where unemployment now up to 34.8 per cent among Black youth is the Norm and indescribable hopelessness is the atmosphere. It is All too obvious thai the dream has been deferred. What once was a grape full of juice and buoyant with potential now is a hardened bitter Raisin of despair. So that Day in new York a few weeks ago a term was coined callous neglect. It was in tended to stand As a silent and obvious con Trast to a similar term of the Nixon Era benign neglect. Benign neglect was part of a Nixon strategy. It meant be Nice to them listen be sympathetic but Don t do anything yet for the Black and poor. As appalling As it seems Richard Nixon really could ignore the Black and the poor. He had no political obligation to Blacks and in his Frame of reference very Little moral obligation to them. But with Jimmny Carter it s different. He would not could not be president without the decisive votes of America s Blacks. He owes them a very real political obligation. Jimmy Carter has made human rights an element of our foreign policy and certainly feels no less strongly for those among us whose humanity is denied be cause of circumstances they cannot change. Circumstances Jimmy Carter has a moral obligation to do something about. But the Carter administration has been doing less than its Best and Thal s the rub that s the callous neglect. Carter s inaction May however have done something Blacks and the poor Haven t been Able to do columns comments for themselves it s brought operational Unity to groups that have been working separately on the same Basic Agenda. When the same thing happened during the Kennedy administration and filled the streets with marchers it brought John f. Kennedy into action for the Public accommodations act. When the same thing happened during the Johnson administration the unified pressure of minority won Lyndon John son s support for the voting rights act. Is it possible that president Carter will not take the Opportunity to save the cities and create the jobs that will fulfil or. King Stream until Blacks have made it Clear that they cannot accept callous neglect c los Angeles times Syndicate the opinions expressed in the columns and cartoons on this Page represent those of the authors and Are in no Way to be considered As representing the views of the stars and stripes or the United states government
