European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - April 10, 1986, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 10 the stars and stripes thursday april 10, 1986 Tom Wicker is . Missing real Chance of reduce nuclear risk has the Reagan administration been unwilling to take yes for an answer in its arms control exchanges with the soviet Union a former . Negotiator Paul Warnke thinks so and charges that As a result the administration May be missing an Opportunity to make very major Steps toward minimizing the nuclear when for example Mikhail Gorbachev made Public in mid january an extensive series of arms control proposals the . Response was Little More than to hum although president Reagan to his credit did say he found parts of the proposals but the administration s arms control experts saw Little new in Gorbachev s ideas. The defense department called them a re iteration of old soviet proposals others referred to a repackaging of Moscow s familiar ideas. But Warnke pointed out that Gorbachev s january message actually was a repackaging of american proposals american ideas and urged now that or. Gorbachev has come around on. Key Points that we have been pushing for All of these years let s not turn it addressing the annual National awards banquet in Philadelphia of physicians for social responsibility Warnke cited five of Gorbachev s Points restrictions on strategic defense. Not a soviet idea Warnke said recalling that from 1967 to 1972 . Negotiators spent a great Deal of time trying to persuade the russians that going ahead with strategic defense was an absolutely stupid move be cause it meant there could be no reduction in offensive the Effort culminated in the abm treaty because the soviets Learned their but Warnke said we have forgotten ours. We arc now making the same arguments Back to the soviets that the soviets made to us in 1968, 69, 70." a comprehensive test ban. Again this is an american idea that has now been rejected by the Reagan administration and taken up by Moscow. The russians have accepted the principle of on site inspections which the William Buckley som edit son this Willu All. Be Vours / United states has insisted on since the Eisen Hower administration and have said they will accept any other form of but the administration has not Only re fused to join Moscow in a moratorium on testing it is unwilling even to enter negotiations for a test ban. Banning anti satellite weapons. Warnke pointed out that he led the american delegation on the first anti satellite weapons ban talks in june 1978. We spent quite a period of time trying to persuade the russians that it was a poor idea to develop an anti satellite capability. And again apparently we persuaded but now the Reagan administration opposes such a ban ostensibly because the rus sians have an operating anti satellite weapon although it is known to be primitive to the Point of uselessness. Yet Warnke observed the anti satellite weapons both sides Are thus permitted to develop would be Able to destroy the space stations that Are necessary to Rea Gan s proposed strategic defense. Deep cuts. The russians have now accepted the idea of a 50 percent Cut in intercontinental strategic weapons. That was a Rea Gan administration but now that Gorbachev has read Back the idea to the United states the defense depart ment rejects it on grounds that it would encourage instability because it would leave fewer targets for the soviets to so cutting in half the number of nuclear weapons on both sides is a bad idea after All. The Zero option. Reagan originally proposed this idea too that the rus sians should remove All their european based intermediate Range missiles in re turn for which the United states would not deploy Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe. Moscow rejected the plan . Deployment began in 1983, and continues. But in january Gorbachev repackaged this idea too proposing that the russians eliminate their intermediate Range missiles in Europe provided that the United states eliminate its Pershing and cruise missiles. He did add the conditions that the British and French not increase their nuclear forces and that the United states not Transfer title to its missiles to its allies two very reasonable conditions for a major step for Ward Warnke said and most analysts out Side the administration probably would agree. But the Reagan men not taking yes for an answer picture All this As just the same old soviet stuff. No wonder the latest round of arms talks has come to a fruitless almost unnoticed end. C new York times Stanford bows of chinese pressure in research Case Frederick w. Mote is a sin Logist at Princeton University in the opinion of some the outstanding scholar in the Field since the retirement of John Fairbank. His dramatic intervention in the matter of Mosher is. Stanford is a major event because professor Mote in a letter addressed to Donald Kennedy the president of Stanford says in As Many words i do not believe you. I charge you and Stanford University with hypocrisy. You Are doing yourselves great damage As also the cause of free research. What is this All about in 1981, Steven Mosher a Young Stu Dent working for his . At Stanford went to China. He was there for a Cou ple of years returning in 1983 with full and documented reports on some of the horrors being practice in China by officials Bent on population control. Not Only did the measures being prac tired go so far As forcing women to have abortions even in the third trimester but in the toleration of infanticide. This practice comes about As follows a chinese couple is permitted let us say to have a single offspring. A child is conceived. A child is born and it is a girl. But the couple wanted a boy a traditional predilection among Orien tals and so the infant girl is disposed of. On releasing these data Young Mosher brought on his head the furious denunciation of the chinese. This was not surprising societies especially totalitarian societies do not Welcome publicity Given to their uglier practices but what then happened alarmed More ple than Are alarmed by one More re cording of life under communism. Charges were levelled against Mosher by the anthropology department of Stan Ford. They involved everything Only narrowly excluding the Kitchen sink. There was a dispute Over Mosher s Purchase of camera did it belong to him or did it belong to Stanford was it a Nikon be or a Nikon f2, what was the actual Cost of the camera Given that you could buy the same camera As advertised in modern photography for this figure rather than that figure and what exactly was the relationship Between Mosher and his technical assist ant in China and did he say this or did he say the other of yes and when incredibly after 18 months of this kind of thing Mosher was fired from Stanford and disqualified from pursuing his . Degree. Unhappily for Stanford Mosher decided to fight Back. He answered in detail All the charges levelled against him. He published his find Ings widely. And he said that what was going on was just this simple China was saying to Stanford look if you want to get any More of your scholars admitted into China you d better make an example of Young Mosher. The Steven Mosher defense committee . Box 1710, Clovis Calif. 93613 was set up and it had some heavy academic names on it including Werner Dannhauser of Cornell Herbert London of new York University and Charles Mosher of George Washington University. But the letter from professor Mote is devastating. Now having read or. Mosher s rebuttal quoting the hitherto secret re Cord he wrote to president Kennedy of Stanford it is no longer possible to credit you or responsible members of the Stanford administration and faculty with having reasonable justification for your Mote is unsparing. It is not merely a matter of your having gravely wounded Stanford All academics have a stake in denying you the License to so misuse your administrative authority that you create precedent for such misuse elsewhere. Your continuing failure to dispel the Well substantiated View that Stanford s action against Steven Mosher was in fact taken in response to pressures from the chinese government has grave implications for the entire Field of our chinese studies. It inexorably raises the question of How free scholars Are and have been from those same professor Mote s concluding Point strikes resonantly at everyone in America who for 25 years was fooled about Mao tse Tung Reading the sycophantic work of such As professor Fairbank and Felix Greene and Anna Louise Strong and Ross Terrill. One outside the Field May Well wonder How Many scholars we have in the China studies Field and widespread willingness by this Field s experts to Wear blinders through the worst recent periods of chinese abuse has added to the legitimacy of those ques professor Mote concludes for this reason it becomes absolutely necessary that Stanford s mishandling of the mosh or Case be repudiated by All scholars in the China studies quite. Universal press Syndicate
