Page:The Minority of One 1961-10.pdf/2
Adenauerization of U.S. Policy
WHO WON THE WAR?
In a spirit of jubilation the American press has carried pictures of West Germans heckling, provoking and hurling stones at East German Soviet-backed border guards. According to historically established precedent, these heckling thugs should have been shot to death. Not that we recommend such drastic action; but the resistance of occupation forces has traditionally, if unjustly, been met by severe action to quench rebellion. Theoretically, the Soviet presence in Germany is not confined to the East German Democratic Republic; wish this state of affairs to prevail East German Democratic Republic; it is a function of war-won participation in the administration of all of Germany. That an unconditionally surrendered country, prior to its change of status by the signing of a peace treaty, has become a challenge and a threat to one of the countries to which it surrendered is possible only because of outside, and in this case, American interference. That the leaders of the surrendered country should impose territorial demands upon the victors, and arm and join military alliances against him is the story of an unconditional-surrender-turned-victory.
The reversal of the German surrender, in the diplomatic sense at least, exists not only vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. but also vis-a-vis the U.S.A. and her allies. West German foreign and military policy is no longer the ward of the State Department. While the West Germans have gained the proxy power to involve America in war, America can no longer completely control German intentions and militancy. Adenauer has been filling the German arsenal, not as a warehouse keeper of the Pentagon, but in support of what he and his successors might conceive as the national interests of Germany. Were the American President to recommend to him that he give up the arms he received from America, such recommendation would be no more fruitful than is Khrushchev’s actual urging to this effect. There is, however, no prospect for such a West German-American disagreement. On the contrary, the American-manufactured Berlin crisis, whatever its political outcome, has brought about a further adenaverization of America’s foreign policy. However the Berlin crisis is resolved, its net result will be a world with more arms and more soldiers. The governments who wish this state of affairs to prevail must produce international circumstances that can be used as "justification" of more arms and more soldiers. The world in the post-Berlin crisis period is therefore not going to be as it was before that crisis. There will be more instead of fewer international tensions, conflicts and threats. There will be more military skirmishes, clashes, local wars and armed interventions.
If we are to be given more Koreas and Laoses, and ever-greater ones, no one can be certain that one of such "episodes" may not turn into a general conflagration. All this, however, seems to be Mr. Kennedy's adenauerized formula for American prosperity. A prosperity so achieved has a singular value: while its internal economic effects will be the most direct ballot attraction for Mr. Kennedy's second term, the electorate can be propagandized to lose sight of the high cost to all mankind.
Disarming Frankness about Disarming
Those people who refuse to believe that our national leadership would deliberately manufacture international crises in order to “justify” continued or increased armaments, and similarly refuse to accept the theory that our diplomats intentionally sabotage negotiations for disarmament and the banning of nuclear tests, would do well to consider a recent episode involving the White House and the Pentagon.
The Pentagon planned to close the naval shipyards in Boston,Philadelphia and San Francisco. The plan was based on a two-year study conducted for the Navy. This secret decision leaked out. The pressures resulting from this leak caused a reversal; and a Pentagon spokesman announced that “there are no plans for closing the Boston, Philadelphia and the San Francisco yards.”
Jack Raymond reported in the New York Times of August 23rd on the circumstances which brought about the reversal of the Pentagon's decision. He based his report on information obtained from Pierre Sallinger, White House Press Secretary, and from the Pentagon. It turns out that President Kennedy himself “divulged the tightly held information” to Representative John F. Shelley of California, a fact confirmed by Pierre Salinger upon the President's own instruction.
President Kennedy’s intention in divulging this secret need not be guessed at. Rep. Shelley recounted the following conversation that ensued after the President told him of the Pentagon’s plan:
Shelley: “They can’t do that, not with this defense build-up,” President Kennedy: “I don’t think so either.” Rep. Shelley added that the President also told him: “Now you know about it, go to work.” And to work Mr. Shelley went. Raymond reports that “Mr. Shelley said that when he returned to his office, he called people in Boston and Philadelphia,” and he also talked with the representatives of the San Francisco Navy Yard Employees Association and with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. Raymond further informs us that “the complaints Mr. Shelley inspired were effective, it was indicated at the Defense Department.” The Pentagon’s reversal resulted from pressure of interested economic groups generated by Rep. Shelley. Here we are confronted with a situation in which the Administration itself admits that the continuance of the naval shipyards in three cities resulted from nothing but the pressure of an interested lobby. How then can one contend that it is impossible for the Administration’s international and armament policies to depend on the interests of the arms lobby? If such a link has been admitted by our Government spokesmen in one case, one can no longer claim its existence unthinkable, or the invention of pathologically suspicious minds.
This episode should have such an eye-opening impact that even the staunchest supporters of our Government’s policies should feel compelled to weigh seriously the allegations that our national policies are often no more than the business policies of profiteers.
It is also indicative that the New York Times reporter, Jack Raymond, in soliciting official data on the matter was advised that the Boston Navy Yard employs about 8,300 civilians, the Philadelphia yard about 9,600 and the San Francisco yard about 7,600. Obviously, President Kennedy had no hesitation in admitting the leak of the Pentagon’s secret to Rep. Shelley, on the theory that he would be absolved by public opinion because his intention was to save about 25,500 civilian employees from unemployment. Indeed this social consideration may have been the President’s reason for sabotaging the Pentagon’s plan. If this be so, however, does it not stand for reason that similar but greater-in-scope considerations determine our Government’s position in disarmament talks?
If the employment opportunities of 25,500 people proved to be a decisive consideration in maintaining huge naval installations, certainly the employment of several million people in our defense establishments may well be an overriding consideration in charting our global policies. This is why all talks about disarmament and even the creation of a special government agency for effecting it is nothing more than empty propaganda on the part of the American Government, as long as it is not seriously involved in a search for an alternative basis for our industry and economy. Without such a radical economic adjustment, disarmament would bring disaster upon the American people. This does not mean that an alternative basis for our economy could not be blueprinted and eventuated, but as long as neither the blueprinting nor the realization of the blueprint are under way, it is clear that our national leaders do not even consider the possibility of being serious about disarmament.
Prof. Ernest B. Zeisler is vacationing in Europe. His column “To Set The Record Straight’’ will be resumed in the November issue.