University of Virginia Library

I should like to reply to Mr.
David Cox's article on U.S. Asian
policy in The Cavalier Daily, October
10th.

As his opening critique of our
Vietnam policy, Mr. Cox states
"We have made countless enemies
among the peoples of the world,
and strained our relations with
others—including our allies." I
would like to reply to Mr. Cox
by way of proposing that it is the
sworn duty of the United States,
to do what it believes to be right—
and I submit that the defense of
liberty is a moral imperative—
regardless of whether world
opinion opposes our actions or
not. An example: A majority of
the countries in the United Nations
are on record as favoring the admission
of Communist China to
that organization. The United
States, however, has not been
afraid to recognize that the exclusion
of Red China stands as
one of the great moral judgments—
perhaps the only moral judgment—
in the history of the United
Nations, and that Red China's
admission would be a perversion
of the noble ideals of that body.

Mr. Cox's phrase to the effect
that "In the 'third world', our
image as a peace loving nation
has been shattered", causes me no
great pain. Who in God's name
has OK'ed the moral credentials
of these "third world" countries—
the murderous African bloc, for example—to
pass judgment on the
United States? Bertrand Russell?

Proceeding to Mr. Coz's next
attempt at profundity: "Underdeveloped
nations are particularly
shocked at this war, in which a
tiny, underdeveloped country is
pitted against the premier nation
of the world." Mr. Cox declines
to mention that the two leading
aggressive powers of the world
(Russia and China) are wholeheartedly
engaged in making possible
North Vietnam's attempt to
destroy the freedom of the South
Vietnamese people. Without their
aid, I grant that North Vietnam
would be just a harmless little
totalitarian state. With their aid,
Uncle Ho is far more dangerous.

It is in the second half of his
essay—if I may so distinguish it—
that Mr. Cox begins his descent
into absurdity, however: "...Laos
may teem with Communists, but
who cares?" Alas!, where is Mr.
Cox's compassion for the underdeveloped
nations now? I'll tell
Mr. Cox who cares: the Laotian
who has seen his government
degenerate into something not
worthy of its own people.

Mr. Cox reaches his peak in
proposing that the United States
support popular, nationalist reform
movements in underdeveloped
countries, "Communist
or no," rather than pro-Western
rightist regimes, "in the hope that
the people would benefit and that
the Communist regime would be
moderate and realistic. The U.S.
would really have little to lose, for
theoretical Communism does not
work, and in practical application
is a form of socialism as in
Sweden...Through our influence
on the country, perhaps we could
avoid the pitfalls of dictatorship.
Assisting a communist-led movement
would indeed be truly novel,
with results which would no doubt
be amazing." Well, Mr. Cox,
that certainly is novel, but the
results would not be amazing—
they would be catastrophic. Supporting
Communist movements
and, thence, the establishment of
totalitarian dictatorships, with the
supposed goal of instituting
Swedish-style democratic socialism,
is the most asinine suggestion
that I've yet heard, is
repugnant to everything this nation
has ever stood for, and is so appallingly
naive in its presumptions
that only Senator Fulbright could
have proposed it.

Mr. Cox's conclusions as to
U.S.—Asian policy, insofar as they
are based on his foregoing proposals,
deserve no comment whatsoever.

Undoubtedly, we shall be seeing
more and more of these dirges
appearing in The Cavalier Daily,
the editorial bias of CD having
been made abundantly clear in
earlier displays of kindergarten
rhetoric. I shall be on hand to
reply, as, I know, will others.
For, as Mr. Jefferson said: "Eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty."