Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

The Newberry Sun, Newberry, S. C., Thursday, July 13, 1967—PAGE 7 DITCHING THE CANAL President Johnson has an nounced that he will shortly sign and bring to the Senate for approval three treaties con cerning the Panama Canal. Al though the details have not yet been revealed, the general out lines are known. The first treaty abrogates the original agreement with Panama, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty of 1903, which guaran tees our right to exercise our sovereignty in the Canal Zone in perpetuity. The second treaty provides the conditions under which a so-called sea-level canal may be built, if such a canal should ever prove feasi ble. The third treaty concerns status-of-forces agreements for the defense of the Canal, the Canal Zone, Panama, and the Western Hemisphere. BURDEN OF PROOF No one has yet presented the slightest case demonstrating the need for new treaties. The Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was authorized by specific legisla tion in Congress, the Spooner Act of 1902. Both houses of Congress have repeatedly reit erated their approval of the fundamental provisions of that Treaty. Congress has not au thorized, or requested the ne gotiations leading up to the President’s recent announce ment. Of course, the President does not need Congressional authorization; but by acting upon his own initiative, he must at the same time assume the burden of proof. These treaties Justly ought to go down in history as the John son Treaties. President Johnson initiated them, and is responsi ble for their contents. If they are approved by the Senate, a profound change will come over the operation of the CanaL The President may well be Judged in future generations by the soundness and workability of a new and untested concept—the concept of whether the Canal can still serve U.S. interests if it is no longer operated under the direct control and sover eignty of our nation . U.S. sovereignty and control guarantees the independent and safe operation of the Canal for all maritime nations. We pledge to operate the Canal in perpe tuity by two other treaties: The Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 with Great Britain, and the Thomson - Urrutia Treaty o f 1914-22 with Columbia. It would be reasonable to assume that these treaties must also be abrogated, as well as the basic Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. £. Do the new trestles pro tect the American soil of the Canal Zone, obtained both by treaty with Panama and pur chase of property from individ ual owners? 3. Are the new treaties in accord with our international obligations undertaken by the Hay- Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 with Great Britain, and the Thomson - Urrutia Treaty of 1914-22 with Colombia? 4. Do the new treaties abro gate the body of law in the Panama Canal Zone Code, and the administration of justice based thereupon? 5. Do the new treaties pro tect the Investment of $4.9 bil lion made by U.S. taxpayers between 1904 and 1966? 6. Are the new treaties in conformity with the expressed will of Congress as embodied in U.S. law, namely, the Spoon er Act of 1902, the Panama Canal Act of 1912, and the Panama Canal Reorganization Act of 1950? 7. Do the treaties protect U.S. interests in the existing Canal, in the event that a sea- level design or nuclear excava tion prove impractical? 8. Do the new treaties pro vide for improvements that can be justified on a business-like basis? 9. Do the new treaties put American and free world inter ests ahead of passing considera tions of Panamanian politics? 10. Do the new treaties pro vide for a status-of-forces de fense agreement which would provide protection equal to that the U.S. now enjoys? Our sovereignty in the Canal Zone has been usefully and honorably exercised as a man date for civilization. If these questions can be hon estly answered in the affirma tive, then the treaties deserve approval; if any one answer is “No," then many Americans will be fighting the battle of Panama Canal to the last ditch. r Looking M Ahead by Dr. George S. Benson President NATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM Searcy, Arkansas COMMUNIST GOAL Another important factor is that the Communists first an nounced their intention to overthrow U.S. control of the Canal as early as 1917. They have never lost sight of that goal. After last month’s Mid- East crisis, the Soviets repeated their demand that all strategic waterways be put under “inter national" control. Yet that same crisis, and the shut-down of the Suez Canal by Egypt demonstrates how important it is to freedom that the Panama Canal remain in strong and responsible U.S. hands. TEN QUESTIONS When the Johnson treaties are unveUed, therefore, and when the President presents his case, all citizens will want to judge them with an open mind, according to basic and objec tive principles: 1. Do the new treaties pro vide for undiluted control and operation of the Canal by U.S. authorities? NUCLEAR DANGER GROWING Red China’s apparently suc cessful test with the horren dous H-bomb, and the reported estimates in the U. S. that belligerent Mao Tse-tung should develop missilery cap able of delivering warheads in about six months, ought to put new urgency into demands that Defense Secretary Robert Mc Namara withdraw his opposi tion to deploying our anti- ballistic - missile systems throughout the United States. Communistic Russia now has in orbit, circling the globe and passing over the United States, mysterious space vehicles which could be carriers of H-bomb clusters awaiting to be triggered; and for four years Russia has been deploying an ABM defense system. In 1965, again in 1966 and 1967, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose primary responsibility is to recommend to the President and Defense Secretary mili tary measures for the security of our nation, unanimously urged the deployment of a anti-ballistic missile network. Defense Secretary McNamara, overriding his military advi sors, has adamantely refused; and just recently McNamara’s Under-secretary said the ABM system would “never” be needed. Sober Warnings An authoritative source in Washington, who wishes to re main anonymous, made the following disturbing observa tions on the grave danger of the “defenselessness” of the United States confronted with an aggressor who has deployed an ABM system: “Time factors are particular ly crucial in the deployment of a major weapons system of this kind. The deployment of an American ABM system is estimated to require five years at a minimum, starting with the moment of the decision to deploy . . . “The effect of the Soviet ABM deployment on America’s capacity to deter nuclear war — in the absence of any such defensive system in this coun try — is dramatic and pro found. Such a development raises doubts, at the very least, as to whether U. S. re- taliatorv strikes can destroy the Soviet Union, assuming the Soviets strike first. Therefore, if the Soviets have confidence in the capability of their ABM system, the completed deploy ment of the system (our in telligence apparently is incap able of determining how ex tensive thus far the deployment is) could be the factor that tips tne balance in favor of a Soviet decision to risk a nu clear strike.” Inviting Attack? Our Washington source con tinues: “(The odds favoring such a decision would, of v ourse, be affected by the nature of the man or group that holds power in Moscow at the moment: while any Soviet leadership must be assumed to be willing to make the strike if the odds are right, the enemy estimate as to whether the odds are right will neces sarily reflect human and politi cal factors not strictly connect ed with the military equation.) “A further consideration must be kept in mind. Even should the USSR’s confidence in the capacity of its ABM system prove unfounded — i.e., should the Soviets attack, and then discover that their ABM system has failed — it remains that the U.S. objective of deterrence would also have failed. The effectiveness of a deterrent depends not on whether retaliation will inflict unsupportable damage on a potential attacker, but on whether the attacker thinks he will incur such damage. Danger: Nuclear Blackmail “This is an important part of the reason why proponents of immediate deployment of the Nike-X system are ap proaching the problem with such urgency. They believe that nothing less than actual deployment by the U. S. will offset the all-too-subjective factors in the equation of de terrence. . . “It goes without saying that whatever decision the United States makes regarding ABM deployment must take into ac count the emergence of Red China as a nuclear power, and its prospective entry into the ranks of nations possessing de livery vehicles of intercon tinental range. . . “The gravity of the decision now facing U. S. policymakers is the result of a series of political misjudgements — above all, misjudgements of the intentions of the Soviet Union ... To the charge of procrastination and failure to meet the. challenge of Soviet strategic weaponry develop ments, Secretary McNamara has consistently replied that Administration is critcized by Hollings Knute Rockne used to tell his Notre Dame teams between halves, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” When the going got tough for Israel ten days ago, thank heavens Israel got going. Nas ser first pulled out the U. N. peace keeping forces. He then invaded by closing the inter national waters of the Strait of Tiran and while amassing his divisions at the Gaza Strip, he shouted to the skies that Israel would be wiped from the earth. King Hussein turned over his armies to Nassar, and Russ'a in support moved her navy through the Dardanelles into the Mediterranean. The free world sat in fear. President Johnson kept run ning around with Arthur Gold- bery in the UN for a resolu tion to open up the Strait. And at a time of moral crisis, the great United States said it was “neutral in thought, word and deed.’’ We had numerous secret briefings by the State Department here in the Senate but the only secret was the position of the United States. The State Department never could tell us this. Now with the cease fire, the following comes clear: There is no question that the Middle East war was Soviet instigat ed. Russia was pressuring us to back down in Vietnam. But she overplayed her hand. Had not Israel stood up, it seems that Russian calculations could have been right. I’d like to say that we knew what we were doing all the time. But the fact is that the United States was in limbo on his one. Divid ed in Vietnam, our leadership was saying we could not become involved in two wars for free dom. Aggression was prepared to feed on our indecision and weaknesses. But Israel had the courage of our convictions. The one-eyed general showed what could be done when the necessary military force is em ployed. Dayan did not use an atom bomb. But neither did he palaver with rules of engage ment, sanctuaries and fear that civilians may be killed. Instead of stop the bombing, he bomb ed the Arab world to a stop. If he had not adhered to the cease fire, he could have been in Cairo by now. And even the Arabs realize this. A lot more lives were saved. The war was far more humane with a seven day victory than with a seven year war. The attrition strat egy in Vietnam of keeping the battle at the level set by the enemy has got to go. On Saturday at the Jim Byrnes testimonial, General Lucius Clay said that we should have sent divisions instead of ad visers years ago to Vietnam The Vietnam paddies are dif ferent than the Sinai desert. But if let alone, the military could save years and lives in the war in Vietnam. Israel must now remember Hitler. Hitler thought military force was everything. It gave him Europe but it lost him the war. Military power cannot save Israel in the midst of a vast and hostile Arab world. Israel has won her recognition, Jer usalem, and the right to the Canal and Gulf. But refugees, famine and hate are on the up surge. Russia will do her best to fan the fire of hate and the temptation will be great for the U. S., through continued research, was ‘keeping the options open’ on various strategic systems. But it is now clear that the option time is running out. Unless deci sions are made soon, the dan ger of nuclear war could vastly increase, to say nothing of the danger of successful nuclear blackmail.” Concerned citizens ought to discuss this situation with their Senators and Congressmen. Income Tax Information . Q.—We have agreed to take a disturbed child into our fam ily. The agency placing her is giving us a small amount each month for her food and cloth ing. Is that considered income for us? A.—These payments do not have to be reported as income unless they exceed the support you provide. You can claim the child as a dependent if she is a member of your household for the en tire year, you provide more than half her support and cer tain citizenship or residence re quirements are met. Q.—I plan to return home to London this summer. What do I need to get a “sailing permit” from IRS? A.—You should show that your tax affairs are in order. To establish this, copies of your tax return* for the past three years as well as a statement of estimated income and expen ses for 1907 should be brought to your local IRS office. Bring your passport and re-entry per mit. too, if you plan to return to the U. S. These requirements are dis cussed in IRS Document No. 5589, “U. S. Tax Guide For Aliens.” Send a post card to your district director for a free copy. Q.—Whose Social Security number should be used on a joint savings account, the hus band’s or the wife’s? A.—Use the husband’s num ber. On accounts opened jointly with a minor, use the adult’s number. Q.—I’ve been called in for an audit. Is there any publica tion I can get that will help me prepare for it? A.—Yes. Write to your dis trict director and ask him for a copy of IRS Document 5202, “If Your Return is Examined.” ().—How far can IRS go back in checking a person’s tax re turn ? A.— The basic statute of lim itations is three years from the date the return was filed or the date is was due, which ever is later. ]n fraud cases or in failures to file there is no limitation. Q.— I’ve been offered a job as a summer camp counselor. W'll my room and board be considered taxable income? A.— Not if the room and board are furnished on your employer’s premises and for his convenience. In addition, ac ceptance of the lodging must be a condition of your employ ment. both sides to develop the bomb —the Israelis thinking of to- norrow and a new Arab army and the Arabs thinking of their failure even with superior num bers and hardware. We do not want a balance of terror. Israel has intelligence and responsible leadership and the free world should cooperate with her to temper her victory with toler ance. Finally before building any more bridges, the United States should cross the bridge of commitment in Vietnam. Since January, in the Senate we have been bombarded with the word “detente.” It means you understand what the source is and I don’t. What they under stand and I don’t is that “the Cold War is over,” “troops no longer needed i n Europe,” “Russia wants peace, but >n Vietnam we keep escalating.” To show that we could “de tente,” the Senate approved over my objection the Consular Treaty, troop withdrawals from Europe, and we were preparing this week to launch extensive East-West trade. But last week something funny happened on the way to detente. The doves sprouted hawks’ wings and the charade is over. Maybe now we can close ranks—and fight with resolve. Westmoreland says that’s what’s needed. And little Israel has shown what a nation resolved can do.