European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - May 11, 1989, Darmstadt, Hesse Page 10 the stars and stripes columns William Safire half loaf worse than none in Moscow Beijing the 20th Century has taught the world this lesson you cannot have Freedom without some insecurity you cannot have Security without giving up some Freedom. Communism professed to offer Security stability the elimination of risk the state will make certain you have a Job will ensure that your Money will buy the necessities at a stable Price and will provide for you in ill health and old age. Capitalism at first offered mainly risk the rewards of Success and the pain of failure the Good life for the talented and Tough minded and the Devil take the hindmost. However it turned out that too Many were Hind most. A third of the Way into the Century As communism s Security was made More appealing by the great depression capitalism began stealing a March on its opposing ideology. Some social Security was offered along with unemployment insurance and a safety net for the helpless and handicapped. The Cost in economic Freedom was higher taxation but capitalism gained strength from its ability to adapt. The system discovered that a shot of Security could stimulate rather than sedate free enter prise. Communism to the contrary did not adapt. In the second half of the Century its anti risk system grew Ever More rigid. Its leaders in Moscow and Beijing successful in building military strength saw Freedom Only As a threat. Then during the Reagan Thatcher decade it dawned on collectivists that capitalism s profit motive was delivering Prosperity while communism s Security motive was failing to put food on the table or Cope with the Competition. Belatedly communism on both sides of the world examined the capitalist cake and tried to pick the most delicious raisins out of it. Communism in China tried to take the capitalist Road in business exploiting a natural chinese trait without permitting capitalism s political Freedom. Result today s turmoil among students and workers which is Likely to Worsen. China has had an upheaval in every postwar decade there s still time in the 80s. Soviet communism on the other hand tried to use a limited Freedom of speech to jump Start its economic engine without turning to private property As an incentive. Result dissatisfaction in the open resistance to Reform underground. The Reader having dutifully waded through this his tory is entitled to a few Nice paradoxes. The Peoples of China and the soviet Union have been forced to accept some economic or political James Freedom at the Price of some of what they thought was their Security. Many find this unfamiliar risk making painful some even unbearable. Chinese youths arc upset with unemployment after decades of make work. Elderly chinese and soviet Citi Zens who were accustomed to a lifetime of shortages thought they could at least count on Security but find their declining years betrayed by Western style inflation. These people Are angry at their communist govern ments not for the right reason because communism failed to provide the promised Security but for the wrong reasons because the capitalist cure contains the pain that goes with economic Freedom. That includes inflation unemployment labor management strife. In capitalist countries we re accustomed to those agonies we tolerate the business Cycle because we know that the Downs Are followed by ups that recession will bring inflation Down that the blessings of Freedom far outweigh the curses of inequality. People living under communism do not have our inoculation of experience. Many see their leaders flirt ing with new thinking and the capitalist Road and they wait in lengthening lines for food or work and wonder who stole their Security. They now feel they have less than Ever before not Security and not real Freedom either. In Moscow it s of to criticize the past but not the new general Secre tary in Beijing it s of to Start a business but not to put up a poster. Communism is now desperately imitating aspects of capitalism but does not have the hang of it. This causes people in communist countries denied old opiates to blame their pain on the Experiment in partial Reform rather than on the failure of their old system. These Ordinary people and out of favor soldiers arc the Natu ral allies of disgruntled maoists and stalinist. A severe reaction to Reform is the ghost at next week s chinese soviet Summit in Beijing. We can Hope the turmoil ahead in the communist world will be in the direction of More Freedom but logic suggests that it will come from those who lust for a return to communism s false Security. Newyet Timu Aid Bill could be colled cremation of the Contros the Capitol nights to Para phrase the poet of the Yukon have seen queer sights but the Queerest they Ever did Sec was the night on the Hill when they passed a Bill that butchers democracy. The Bill of course was an act that should have been titled an act to sell out the Freedom fighters of Nicara Gua for that is what this infamous piece of legislation involves. Sen. Bill Arm Strong r-colo., called it a betrayal and he had it exactly right. By one count it was the 63rd piece of legislation since 1981 relating to the communist takeover of Nicaragua. In that period the Congress has breathed hot and breathed cold it has advanced it has retreated it has extended Aid amounting to s311 million and it has denied Aid. Under this Bill $66 million would be authorized in non military humanitarian Aid. This will Salve con sciences it will buy no resistance. While the Congress has backed and filled and shill cd and shall cd the marxist sandinista have clenched their hold on Nicaragua. They have trampled on civil rights harassed both press and Church raised the largest standing army in Central America and armed it with $500 million in soviet weapons. With this act the sandinista no longer have anything to fear from the contras for the contras will cease to exist As a viable military Force. The civil War has ended not with a bang but a sellout. Perhaps this was to be expected. Mem Bers of Congress bitterly divided on the whole Issue of supporting resistance to soviet adventures wanted nothing so much As to get the contras out of their hair. What was not expected was the astonishing jaw dropping Side agree ment that became an implicit part of the Bill. The thing is incredible. The Deal that was reached Between Secretary of state Jim Baker and five members of Congress cannot withstand the first Breeze that blows off the Constitution. The supreme court emphatically has rejected the idea of a one House veto. This Deal apparently would permit a one Man veto. Apparently because the weasel words of this ctr algal Accord defy easy understanding. The Aid is to continue through feb. 28, 1990, unless. Unless what unless any one of eight men or perhaps 13 men decides the Aid should Stop on nov. 30. The Deal repudiates the very essence of representative govern ment. Secretary Baker has written a letter to confirm the Deal. This is the language. It has the clarity of crude Oil. The assist Ance will not be obligated beyond nov. 30 except in the context of consultation among the executive the Senate majority and minority leaders the speaker of the House of representatives and the minority Leader and the relevant authorization and appropriations pause for breath. Ponder if you please what exactly is meant by the context of now let us continue for this is the unbelievable part. Aid will continue after nov. 30 Only if affirmed via letters from the bipartisan leadership of Congress and relevant House and Senate authorization committees and appropriations the democratic leadership has put its own interpretation on the language. Aid will cease in november unless eight men write letters of affirmation. These eight Are Sens. Claiborne Pell . Jesse Helms Daniel Inouye Dha Waii and Bob Kasten a wis. And Whitten a miss. Silvio come r mass. David obey a wis. And Mickey Edwards a okla. Collectively they Lead the House and Senate committees on for eign relations and the subcommittees on foreign operations within the two appropriations committees. It is possible As seen through the Gauzy veil of this Side agreement that five others May also have veto arc George Mitchell of Maine majority Leader of the Senate Bob Dole of Kansas Senate minority Leader House speaker Jim Wright of Texas House majority Leader Tom Foley of Washington and House minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois. What arrogance what consummate Gall How in the name of the Constitution can a legislative veto be vested in any one of these distinguished gentlemen during Senate debate. Helms denounced the Deal As unconstitutional. Not a single member arose to dispute him or to defend the scheme. This was a done Deal and a shameful Deal it was shameful in every Way. Universal of is Syndicate
