University of South Carolina Libraries
* tdjAjo^laJUy LEADING TO CAMBODIA Don't PANIC#! Some of Washington’s “doves” have claimed they were “surprised” and “confused” by our Cambodian ac tion. Although we would not classify our own Sen. Ernest Rollings as a “dove”, he has been doing a lot of coo ing lately and has joined the admin istration’s critics concerning the Cam bodian campaign. In a column printed elsewhere on this page, Sen. Rollings gives his view point of the Cambodian episode. For the record, we’d like to present some of President Nixon’s comments prior to his decision to send troops into Cambodia to clear out Commun ist supply areas In a major policy speech on Viet nam on November 3, 1969, which was heard and read by millions of Ameri cans, the President announced our pol icy of gradual withdrawal, and the re duction of our forces by 60,000 men before the end of 1969. (Over 100,000 have now been withdrawn). But the President also enunciated a very clear, and in our opinion unmistakable warn ing. He said: “Along with this optimistic es timate, I must—in all candor—leave one note of caution ... I want the record to be completely clear on one point ... I want to be sure there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy . . .” “We have noted t’ e reduced level of infiltration and the reduction of our casualties and are basing our withdrawal decisions par tially on those factors. “Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an in crease in violence will be to its own advantage. I f I conclude that in creased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and ef fective measures to deal with that situation. “This is not a threat,” said the President. “This is a statement of policy which as Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces I am making in meeting my responsibility for the pro tection of American fighting men wherever they may be.” On November 14 last year, in an other major policy declaration, the President said: “. . . I reaffirm now our willing ness to withdraw our forces on a specified timetable. We ask only that North Vietnam withdraw its forces from South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos into North Vietnam, also in ac cordance with a timetable. “We include Cambodia and Laos to ensure that these countries would not be used as bases for a renewed war.” When, in April of this year, the communists did increase their ag gression on the Cambodian front, stepping up their infiltration to an estimated 80,000 armed troops and guerilla fighters, they were, in ef fect, calling our bluff. Let us fervently hope that, this time, the Communists got the mes sage. The withdrawal program of the United States does not contem plate turning the people of South Vietnam over to the mercies of the Red killers. The war in Vietnam will be over on the day that the Commun ists cease their aggression and withdraw their troops to North Viet nam. That may provide the hint of an answer to Sen. Rollings’ question of “. . . what in the devil are we fight- for?” THE DOOR IS OPEN You really believe in the value of an education, don’t you? Do you be lieve it strong enough; to give up sev- e^Whis a week for Several years? There are at least 21 adults who be lieve that strongly in education. They are the 21 who completed their high school education and received high school diplomas recently through the Adult Education program of Laurens County School District 56. These are people who had to give up their schooling when they were younger. Most of them are parents with families to manage and care for. They are people who work for a living. With all these responsibilities they still believe enough in education to take the time necessary to return to school and work for their diplomas. Some of our iriends are attending the Adult School and they are inspi rations to us. They attend classes faithfully and they do their home work—often late at night after the rest of the family has gone to bed. They get tired and they get discour aged but they stick with it. They have a purpose. These adults should be examples to young people who drop out of school. These adults once had to drop out of school for one reason or another but, through the years, they felt an empti ness in their development and they saw that their educational status was a handicap. They were willing to sacrifice their time and energy to fill that void. It is so much easier and simpler for the young, without family or job obligations, to go on and com plete their education. If you know of someone who never finished school, tell them about the Adult Education program in Clinton. The program is for persons ranging from illiterate to semi-educated. Mrs. Ossie Lee Rice said it well in a recent letter: “Education plays an important part in life, as health does to the body. With a good high school education, you will have the knowledge and certain kimL of skills that will help you in everyday life, as well as in Christian work. Most jobs today require at least a high school education. Education helps you get along better with people and to exchange ideas with one another. “The door to a high school eduea tion is standing open—accept the op portunity to go back. I did and I am glad. I received my diploma in 196S and I am still going to school. The more I learn, the more I want to learn.” That last statement indicates a truly educated person—“The more I learn, the more I want to learn.’ Parson lones Says Happy Recollecting Dear Mr. Publisher: I just got back from a meet • log of a new dub in our com munity. It’s called the “ old- timers fellowship’. These older citlms got together, not to dis sent but to reminisce. Thepre- sident of the organisation al lowed as bow every time they taflt ata* what used to be, folks lust tuned up their noses and rilk sway. He claimed they had Mst as oncti right to talk about k> food oi» ftps as young folks ...” and folks knew which war you meant One old timer al lowed as bow he remembered when a car dkhi’t wear out be fore it was paid for. Big Slim, who was just old enough to make the grorg) told how he could re collect when withholding meant keeping your pay check from your wife. Wen Sir, this kind of recol lecting went on for two hours without a tweak, tt was an ole- timers laugh-in. Some of the said deserve a spot I don't think they’re m 2-B—THE CHRONICLE, Clinton, S. C., June 11, 1970 UNITED STATES SENATOR mmm. ....... r.':... gap it might be well to point out that the problem may be an experience gap. Be good - and remember the days when a fella had to suffer for his sins in stead of blaming ’em on his parents. Take heart, tilings could get worse! Parson Jones * * * Episcopal Majority To The Editor: Episcopalian Christians have been shocked to learn of a shameful publication put out by their national head quarters staff in New York. In a news release dated May 22, 1970. the members of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church demanded that our government effect an immediate withdrawal of all our armed forces now in Southeast Asia. These church leaders urged the reduction of this nation's strategic forces. They voted their support of the recent — and violent — student riots that shocked America. They justified these riots by claiming our govern ment is unjustly harassing the Black Panther Party and is misusing National Guard and police forces to kill American students. They called for a voluntary church offering to finance future student strikes, and to finance “political education campaigns” by these striking students. The majority of Episcopalians do not at all agree with the violent political objectives and tactics of our current church leaders. The majority of us do not support the foreign policy aims of the communist nations and we do not seek to contribute to the slaughter of helpless millions of Asians by our precipitating immediate American retreat from that area. We deplore the killing of American students and we deplore the reigning lawlessness in our land which allows trained agitators and agents to use our children ia their deadly revolutionary games. We elected our present church leaden to promote the Gospel of Christ end the help ing of mankiad — not to pro mote revolution, anarchy and racial strife. We deny the competence of these church leaders to direct national and international af fairs. We deplore their public encouragement of stone and concrete throwing mobs. We deplore their defending the Black Panther Party just as much as we woyld deplore their defense of the Ku Khix Klan. Whatever our political con victions, the majority of Episcopalians honor t h a Biblical teachfa* that de mands respect for legally con stituted government We do not wish for «r Church to nt^r** of God with any pCmuCal OT fOCUU 9L God’s Word is not to ba fused with nun’s. We urge government to If- ■ore me uiesjujunDie ana unauthorised poBtiad irumi fftrfoo of OUT Cl cnurcn moors, ai uk tjm» | to ing, peaceful and just ways, to bring about a better society in this land. We pray that Christ will silence the false prophets who pervert His Word and mislead and harm His people, and that He will make us. and make this country to be a blessing to the nations of the world. REV. PETER R. DOYLE (Rector, Episcopal Church of Our Savior) Rock Hill. Nixon Giving Away Undersea Resources If you are planning to var nish a floor, consider the ap- of a floor sealer political power byi^Kikl Ia vcrci* croupi u ibbi woo/Ky* We wiahthe brave mb and BY THURMAN SENSING Elecutive Vice President Southern States Industrial Council In recommending a treaty un der the provisions of which the United States would renounce all rights to undersea resources beyond the depth of 200 meters (218.8 yards), the Nixon Ad ministration proposes the most colossal giveaway in the history of this country. It is hard to be lieve that President Nixon, in view of his strong national in terest stand on many issues, has been fully advised of the implications and effects of the treaty proposed by his adminis tration. The sea floor pact statement released by the White House said the proposed treaty would call for establishment of *an international regime for exploi tation of seabed resources* be yond thy 200 meter depth. This international organisation would "provide for the collec tion of substantial mineral ro yalties to be used for interna tional community purposes, particularly econimic assis tance to developing countries.* What must be impressed qpon the American people is that the proposed treaty would deny to the United States vast wealth to which it is entitled and which it is particularly well equip ped to acquire. The United States is the lead er in ocean technology, espe cially ocean engineering. Hund reds of taxpaying, tree eater- prise companies in the U.S. have developed the equip ment and the techniques for oil drilling and mining in the depths. Since 1946, more than 9 00C offshore wells have been drilled by companies. President Truman, in 1945, asserted A- merican Jurisdiction over the continental shelf, thereby assuring protection of a vital national asset Bat toctomlocy to Mfvtog eta rapid rale. The National Petro- lem Coracfl pointed art tort ns Qnnftve will frUUnc andavtantton in depths of 1,500 tort(45TMtors) The Cause of the Chaos fr»m ^ ffht Bible By your words you will be justified.—(Matt. 12:37). When we acquire the habit of daily meditation we live our lives more effectively. It helps us to grasp a principle of Truth and apply it where we an 1 , in what we are exjH'ri- encing. When divine order is established in mind and heart, then everything in life is blessed and harmonized. holders, this country should be able to develop a vast new source of wealth the conti nental slope and adjacent ocean floor areas. These submerged lands, where there is "waiting wealth,* are part of the North American continent. They just as much belong to the United States as the cold regions of Alaska. The American people are entitled to the wealth that lies off the coasts of the United States and that can be obtained by the know-how of U.S. free enterprise. It would be tragic beyond words for tins wealth to be turned over to an international regime for distribution to coun tries around the world, many of them incompetent to run their own affairs or antagonistic to the United States and its free society. It is hard to believe that the American people, con sidering their vital interests and real needs, want the country to propose or sign a treaty that would yield their assets to an agency of the United Nations or anything similar. Yet that is in the cards unless there is a strong grassroots protest The National Petroleum Co uncil, in a definitive study of undersea resources, has said that "the continental shelf is the frontal edge of the submer ged continent ... it is the lo gical starting point for localiz ing the approximate outer limit of coastal-state Jurisdiction.* The Council said that the Uni ted States "should promptly and forthrightly assert (its) rights* over the continental slope and at least the landward portion of the continental rise. To do otherwise would he to deprive the American people of wealth to which they are entitled. The denial would be for aD time. It is dismaytog and shocking that the nfenlntetration foiled to heed the words of the Coun cil and instead has adopted a position TtrtnaQy identical with to to ton felted Nations. Very few people realize—and none want to admit—that prior to Cambodia, the Nixon policy in Vietnam was one of retreat. I say this as a factual ob servation. not in criticism, be cause the majority of the people of America approved this policy. There are two ways to ‘‘protect the troops” fighting a war. One is to at tack and bring the enemy to the conference table. The other is to withdraw or re treat. President Nixon, after taking office, announced that we did not seek military vic tory in Vietnam and he set his withdrawal policy. In No vember and again now in April he stepped up the rate of withdrawal. Now what was his policy on sanctuaries? He announced it publicly when he signed the Cooper-Church Amendment on Laos and Thailand into law on Decem ber 29, 1969. The debate on this score and the comments afterwards are illuminating. The charge was made that Congress was undercutting the President. The charge was made that we were taking away from his powers as Com mander in Chief. The charge was made that we were play ing politics—that we didn't trust the President. Mind you. as I write, there are 68,000 North Vietnamese troops in a sanctuary in Laos and Laos has a 200 mile frontier along the South Vietnamese border. What happened? The Senate passed the Cooper-Church Amendment on Laos by a vote of 80-9. And what did the President do'* He approved it - signed it into law. The day after the Senate vote the Re publican leadership met with the President. Republican leader Hugh Scott said the Cooper-Church Amendment was definitely in line with Administration policy." Re publican Whip Senator Griffin stated. "I can report to my fellow Senators that the Pres ident is pleased with the amendment and he recognizes that it is in accordance with his announced policy." The President indicated when he stepped up the with drawal figure to 150,000 that the policy was unchanged. Forty-eight hours before going into Cambodia. Secretary of State Rogers appeared before the committee in the House and stated, "We recognize that if he escalates and if we get involved with Cambodia with our ground troops, that our whole program is de feated.” Obviously you can't pursue a withdrawal policy for six teen months, approve a con sultation policy for third coun tries and then launch into a third country after consulting South Vietnam for weeks and not your own Congress. But whether or not we go into third countries, whether or not we spread this war, is the responsibility of both the President and the Congress. The President and Congress jointly assumed this responsi bility on Laos without poli tics and recrimination. Why not Cambodici? The Cooper- Church Amendment com mences with the following lan guage: "In concert with the declared objectives of the President of the United States . . ." I think it is important that the President, the Con gress and the country move together in one direction. I would never vote to with draw funds from men on the field of battle. W r hile I was quoted accurately to this ef fect, some of the news reports gave the exact opposite im pression. And let me state once again, I oppose the Me- Govern-Hatfield Amendment to end the war It sets target dates that immediately slow down the withdrawal Once set it puts us into a position that could have us fighting our way off the beaches in Vietnam I share the concern that the •42.118 killed, 278,006 wounded, 1430 prisoners and 7949 other casualties have not sacrificed in vain But my immediate problem is that an additional 329,000 casualties not sacrifice in vain If you're not seeking a military victory, if the pol icy is retreat, if, from elec- t ons, you will accept a Com munist government, then what in the devil are we fighting for? SENATOR STROM k THURMOND REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE Examining Our Defenses The Senate Armed Services Committee has been working hard on the 1971 Military Pro curement Authorization bill. This bill lays down the authority to buy the weapons and equip ment which this country needs to defend itself within the months to come. Every year, the Senate Com mittee spends many long hours carefully scrutinizing every out lay proposed by our defense ex perts. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for devising the programs necessary to carry out the strategy of the President as Commander-in-Chief. The Con gress shares in the defense re sponsibilities by authorizing the Secretary to put these programs into effect. But authorization alone is not enough; at a later date. Congress will appropriate the funds to carry out the au thorized programs. TWO-STEP PROCESS Thus Congress goes through a two-step process in approving every penny spent for our de fense. During the authorization step, the need for the program must be established, and bal anced against the available rev enue. Most cuts are made at this point: however, cuts may also be made at the time appropria tions are decided upon. Aa am additMmal check upon defenae spending, theme two are kuidM in each the.Coagreea by two sep arate Committees; Anood Sere lees Committee, aad tions 'Committee. Whom matters come before the Seomte Appropriation Committee, I rit om the Defemae Smheemmittee aa a repremeatative of the Seaate Armed Services Committee. Ia I alas serve aa the Pre- you begin to varnish. These 'sealers penetrate the fiheri of the wood, form ft: -resistant surface which not extend above the at the wood and make an excellent base for ttftnpplfcatlon of varnishes. MUttoe wfll aflow fraUacind 41 profeci* to water *pA>Qf 4,aoo - (,ooo fort •s logical so that are provided COMMITTEE SPENDING 'ITS The Senate Armed Services Committee has always performed its work with great care. Last year the Committee pruned more than $1.9 billion from the Ad ministration’s request, in an ef fort to cut overall spending. The Committee has sometimes been unjustly criticized: yet a group of opposing Senators, who led more than two months of hostile debate against the authorization, were able to cut only a small percentage more. These cuts were made not only for the aake of economy but to bring our spending in line with our ability to pay. When meas ured against the Soviet threat, any cut-back is a grave decision. This year, .there are three stra tegic weapons systems that are absolutely essential to the future defense of our country. The Min- uteman III intercontinental bal listic missile, the Poseidon re conversion of our Polaris system, and the next phase of the Safe guard antibaUistic missile sys tem. The first two of these pro grams represent the application of multiple warheads to our land and sea-based missiles. These multiple warheads, the so-called MIRV, are critical to the reten tion of a credible deterrent, in the face of Soviet developments. Similarly, we must not falter on the ABM program if we in tend to convince the Soviets that we will remain invulnerable. NECESSARY PROGRAMS These programs are especially necessary because of the present Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in Vienna. The Soviets will never come to terms on reducing nuclear weapons if tlmy see that the U.S. Senate is faltering in Us deter mination to maintain these weap ons at proper levels. The Soviets will have no incentive to eat back if they nee that the U.S. is cut ting back without demanding *^fhT Senate Armed Services Committee has examined these three programs, both this year and in the past. They are essen tial to keep our defenses strong. The surest way to avoid an all- out war is for the Soviets to be convinced that we have both the power to win and the will to win.