Oist. NwtAmrlc Syndicate, 1960

The Daily Reflector. Qreenvilte. isi c

Sunday. November 9.1966 A*5

Josephs.

NyeJr.

Disarmament

% 1D6IV tMl, AC(AU.Yitt(TlM!^ AH W OUT lU A10CTBQQK

exit WMemiY tHsiHau&Tfy^ ah^ ' m lamim m om souhdo!.;^

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze met in Vienna this week but were unable to capture the spirit of Reykjavik. Before its bitter ending, the October summit had boosted the hopes of nuclear abolitionists. For a moment it appeared that the United States and the Soviet Union were on the brink of an agreement, only to be thwarted by Itonald Reagan s intransigence over his Stratetc Defense Initiative.

Would the world be better off if the two leaders had signed an a^ment to abolish nuclear weapons: Probably not. One of the problems with premature abolition is that it would neglect the most important part of our penl. It is not the weapons themselves but the hostility in the U.S.-Soviet political relation^p that threatens us most. After all, Britain has enough nuclear weapons to destroy us, but we lose little sleep over them. We should focus less on the number of weapons and more on the conditions that minimize tlue prospects of their use.

David

Lamb

A Decade Of Decline

as high as it is, early efforts to abolish nuclear weapons could actually increase the prospects of their use. There are at least thrw major reasons:

Since nuclear knowledge cannot be dismantled - short of burning the textbo(d[s and the scientists nuclear weapons can always be reinvented by hostile nations. In a

nuclear arsenals, third countries that refused to go along or that cheated on the agreement could wield extor-tionary power. It is worth rememberiiffi that Libya agreed to forswear nuclear weapons as a party to the Nonproliferation Treaty but has nonetheless made surreptitious efforts to gain them.

At the same time, we cannot be complacent about a world with n-clear weai)ons. People who think a system of nuclear deterrence will last forever must ask themselves if they also think humans have become infallible and if Murphys Law can be repealed. We need visions of alternatives to keep us from remaining in a potentially fatal nuclear rut. Just as abolitionists need to think more clearly about the conditions for stability in a non-nuclear world, so believers in deterrence must consider the conditions for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.

SDI and arms control can be mutually reinforcing. In the short term, SDI has provided a useful lever for serious negotiations because of Soviet concerns about American technology. Over the long run, modest defenses may serve as an insurance policy against hidden or proliferated Weapons or missiles, mus allowing significant reductions in missiles, though not in all weapons. In turn, SDI will need an agreement on significant offensive reductions if it is to meet the administrations own criteria of cost effectiveness and survivability. A safe transition to

S *ook back though many of his repressive, soon the 1980s as Africa s Decade of cialistic policies laid the foundation

Dwlme, yet from the String of for the poUtical instability and eco-

disasters culminating with nomic deterioration that helpied pro-

Ethiopia s famine, there appears to pel Ghana - and black Afriw as a

'AMean haden have othnHled ia puUk hnais Art although some problems are inherited and some are beyond their control, manv have been aggrevated by.., "some domestic political shortcomings.

n /

be a new realism emerging in black Africa. For the first time, African leaders have admitted in public forums that althimgh some proolems are inherited and some are beyond their control, many have been aggravated by - to use the wor adopted at a summit in Addis Ababa last year - some domestic political shortcomings.

Next March will mark the 30th anniversary of colonialisms death in black Africa. On March 6, 1957, the British left the Gold Coast after 113 ywrs and that prosperous West African colony became the independent nation of Ghana, the first of 48 African colonies that eventually would break the yoke of European rule.

Ghanas first president, Kwame Nkrumah, had studied in the Unit^ States in the 30s and 40s and when he left New York after World War II to lead the movement that would free an entire continent, he wrote: I saw the Statue of Liberty with her arm raised as if in personal farewell to me. (I said silently) You have opened my eyes to the true meaning of liberty. 1 shall never rest until I have carried your message to Africa. Nkrumah, who was overthrown in 1966 and later died in exile, remains a legendary figure in Africa, even

Whole into todays steep and steady decline. Sadly, for the legend-builders, it was always easier to dwell on the romance of Africa thantoconfront its realities.

And the realities of Africa in 1986 m cruel; what has happened there in recent years is tantamount to the effects of a world war. In terms of economic collapse, environmental loss, inadequate leadership and rainpaging birth rates, Africas crisis IS unique, and now, three decades after so much was promised and expected, it seems appropriate to ask a troubling question: What wentwr^?

That, in an indirect way, is one of the questions the nine-part TV series, The Africans, sets out to answer on the Public Broadcasting Service. To hear Ali A. Mazuri, the documentarys writer and sole commentator, tell it, Africa has only the exploitative West (from the slave-

tion to our understanding of a region that seems to catch our attention only during times of famine and revolution and superpower confrontation. First, we are seeing Africa through the eyes of an intelligent, articulate African, a perspective all too often missing in Western media ; second, we are well-reminded that Western policies, like those of the Eastern bloc, are often self-serving, narrowly focused and, yes, exploitative.

But distancing oneself from the West and thus, from the legacy of colonialism ~ is not in itself a significant yardstick of achievement, as Mazuri seems to imply it is.

Certainly, the West must share responsibility for Africas failure, but so must the Africans themselves. As for the Europeans: They carved up Africa with artificial boundaries and left a pvliamentary system that simply did not work in the tribally oriented politics of young, struggling nations. Iliey left economies rased on a single cash crop that were in-

the major purveyor of Africas misfortunes leaves important questions unanswered. Why are Liberia and Ethiopia, the only two black African nations never colonized, still among the very poorest, most undeveloped lands on the continent? Why have some countries in Asia been able to achieve astonishing economic ^owtti despite their own colonial heritage?

Part of the answer lies in the policies espoused by Nkrumah, who believed that Africans would never win their reaUfreedom until they moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy. When Ghana launched the independence era, Africa produced 95 percent of its own food; today eveiy country except South Africa is a food importer^ and the continent faces no more ommous threat than its inability to frad itself.

That inability is exacerbated by Africas fearsome population increase, an issue that leaders have not sufficiently addressed because to do

We need lass fxaagerated rhetorh 5DI and more hard negotiation abc SDI research within the traditional interpretation of the ABM Treaty.'

world where the superpowers have 50,000 nuclear weapons, it does not matter mi^ if (me side or tlm other were to hide 100. But in a nuclear-disarmed world, it would matter very much if a nation cheated and hid 100. Indeed, even the rumor of such behavior could lead to the worst kind of arms race - a crash program to reinvent nuclear weapons, with little time to develop the elaborate safety mocedures that now surround them. Mineover, in a crisis, there would be tremendous incentive to strike first at ^ other sides laboratories and

\.. today every country except South Africa is a food importer, and the continent faces no more ominous threat than its inabiiity to feed itself.'

the multinational corporations and

pms merchants of the present) to blame f(nr its disastrous condition.

Although Mazuris perceptions of Africa are very different from the pocs I gathered during ei^t years traveling the continent, ms comments make an important contribu

tended to help Europe, not Africa. Anil they left - after 500 years, dating back to the Portuguese settlements in Mozambiime and Angola a continent dreadfully unprepared for the burdens of nationhood. Zaire, for instance, had only a dozen university graduates among its 25 million people; Guinea-Bissau (formerly Portuguese Guinea) had not a single African doctor, lawyer or accountant; Mozambique had an illiteracy rate of 90 percent.

Yet the argument that the West is

so is to challenge the growth of the tribe and to deny the social-security safety net the elderly need. Africa is looking at a population of 1.6 billion by the year 2025; the continents fragUe infrastructure will clearly not be able to cope.

Perhaps most disturbing is the caliber of African leadership, wlch has passed to a second-generation of >residents and generals seemingly ess distinguished than the Kenyat-tas. Netos and Senghors who were at the forefront of independence.

Another problem with abolishing nuclear weapons before transform-ira the U.S.-&)viet political relationship IS that it would reduce inhibitions against conventional war. No only would this affect the balance of power, but many experts believe that tra most likely circumstances to impel the reinvention and use of nuclear weapons would be in an effort to win a conventional war. After all, that was how they were first invented and used.

A third difficulty with abolitionism is the problem of proliferation. In a world where the united States and the Soviet Union had abolished their

defense dominance will require a cooperative political climate. That is hard to imagine in a world where arms control agreements are not working.

Fortunately, the type of defenses needed for insurance and the timetable for transition are consistent with research, within the framework of the existing Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We need less exaggerated rhetoric about SDI and more hard negotiation about keeping SDI research within the traditional interpretation of the ABM Treaty. That will require flexibility by both sides. Whatever the prospecte for eventual nuclear abolition leading to a more stable universe, stability will not come from prematuie abolition agreements or unilateral technical fixes in a world where existii^ arms control regimes have been allowed to break down.

Joseph S. Nye Jr. is professor of government and director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University and author of *NucIear Ethics. George GallupPollMichael Barone

Small Uptick For The Out Party

WASHINGTON - Control of the Senate was not the only thii^ at stake in Tuesdays elections, and the results in other contests do not paint quite the same picture as the Democrats eight-seat gain in the Senate.

Consider the governorships. These are not as important for their effect on presidential races as they were in the age of patronage politics and party machines. But voters increas-mdy look to state government for solutions to major problems, and the results of gubernatorial races may tell us as much about voters ap-proaidi to issues as contests for senator.

phasizing historic Democratic issues: New Yorks Mario Cuomo, Michigans James Blanchard and Massachusettss Michael Dukakis boasted of cutting taxes, attracting new business and encouraging welfare recipients to work. It is not entirely self-serving for Jack Kemp to say they are being asked for an encore because theyve been singing some Republican tunes. Democrats

Democrats held several mimr states by impressive margins. But they di(i not always do so by em-

sylvania. But this was nearly a Mndale state, and Gov.-elect Bob Casey is an abortion opponent who ran sbrongly among the partys older and bliKHXillar base. This is not the wave of the future.

Meanwhile, Republicans won the ttiree huge Sun Belt states of Florida, Texas and California - states that

accounted for half the nations gain in House seats in 1980 and could ito so again after the 1990 U.S. Census. All three states were governed by popular Democrats when Jimmy Charter was elected president; all have chosen Republicans now.

T%e House of Representatives was designed to be a political barometer, and here the Democrats made the most minor of gains the first time since 1968 that a party has gained mmre Senate than House seats. In Senate and governor races the party with more seats to lose lost more; but though they had more seats to defend, the House Democrats, led by campaign chairman Tony Coelho, defencted them so well only one Democratic incumbent lost, in the relatively few open seats there was

more flux, but little net gain for either party. Voters in effect voted for the House they already have.

There are no cheap victories in politics; you pay for every win sooner or later, and 'Diesday the Republicans paid the price for some 1980 windfalls. The result is a less heritable legislative environment for Reagan and his par^. But, when you look at the other things at stake, you find no across-the-board rejection of Reagan Republicanism or, for that matter, of the diverse Democrats. Historically this election resembles the election of 1926 - a small uptick for the out party in the era of Calvin Coolidge, quickly forgotten as politics was ut-' terly transtormed by the events of l29and the 1930s.Alton Frye

Reagan Should Listen

The climax approaches in the diplomacy of Ronald Rc^an and Mikhail S. (torbachev. Their encounters have opened more room for negotiation tnan any of their predecessors enjoyed. They have only a few hundred days to exploit it.

mverseiy, an aoiniiusirauon that is proud of its har-nosed approach to

superoower poUtics has displayed an inabiiity to make hara

We shall soon know whether the prospects sketched at Reykjavik are real.

iru choices amcHig military and diplcunatic op-tions. There has develops within tra government a curious atmosphere that discourages open give-and-take

on the full range of strategic deci cuTai

President Reagan does not lack for advice concerning how to proceed in dealing with the Soviet Union. Much of the advice he can prudently ignore. The moment has come, however. when he urgently needs to consider eouneel from isurees that have weighed toe HghUy in Ut delihn-tionstodate. ^

sions, particularly the possible traiMfs between offensive force postures and strategic defenses.

This self-intimidation is compounded of one part condescension -Iteagan does not cotton to detailed analysis of military matters - and one part fear challenging his preconceptions has seeined too rhdiy for those warring in the bureaucratic trenches. The result has beeh to

shelter the president from a full and direct confrontation with the evidence on which responsible policy must be based. Testimony to that truth, were any needed, came in the cavalier disregard for professional milita^ advice in the rwid succession of proposals that Reagan put forward in Iceland.

The president needs to listen more attentively to the nations senior military officers as he plans future moves in the negotiations. Many observers think that the uniformed chiefs have been virtually subjugated by the strong-willed civilians brought to the Pentagon by Caspar

services nave oeen preoccupied with vast development and procurement programs. They have been only bit players in crafting basic negotiating initiatives.

That pattern must change. Before proceeding with the far-reaching strategic reorientation that he proposed to Gorbachev, Reagan desperately needs to hrar the precise assessments of the military chiefs. The likelihood of that is enhanced by the arrival of a gifted new chairman, Adm. William Crowe, and the passage of legislation strengthening his authority to tender advice.

PRINCETON, N.J. The vote of the one-third of the electorate who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians provides a crucial margin of support for Vice President George Bush in early test elections against the leading Democratic challenger for the presidency in 1988, Sen. Gary Hart.

In the latest Gallup surveys, combined results show Bush to be the choice of 50 percent of registered evangelicals to 40 percent for Hart with 10 percent undecided. In parallel contests the Vice President leads N.Y. Gov. Mario Cuomo, 59 percent to 29 percent.

Among non-evangelicals, however. Hart holds a 48 percent to 43 percent edge over Bush. Cuomo also fares better with this group, but still lags behind Bush, 39 percent to 50 percent.

Since toe views of the large bloc of evangelical voters in the U.S. will likely be a major factor in the political race between now and the 1988 presidential election, the Gallup Poll will re|ularly report the vote of both evangelicals and non-evangelicals in three key dimensionscandidate popularity, basic party strength, and issues.

These questions were asked of registered voters in the current survey:

Supprae the 1988 presidential election were being held today. If Vice President (leorge Bush were the Republican candidate and Sen. Gary Hart (New York Gov. Mario Cuomo) were the Democratic candidate, which would you like to see win? Those who named other candidates or were undecided were asked: As of today, do you Idlh more to Bush, the Republican, or to (name of candidate), the Democrat?

At least some of Bushs stronger showing among evangelicals than nonevangelicals agairat both potential Democratic rivals can be attributed to evangelicals relatively greater identification with the Republican Party. As shown in the following table, similar proportions of botn groups describe themselves as Democrats, but evangelicals are slightly more inclined to identify with the GOP and fewer say ttiey are Independents.

Evangelicals are twice as likely (83 percent) as non-evangelicals (41 percent) to say that religion is very important in their lives. Furthermore, evangelicals and non-evangelicals differ markedly on personal and moral issues. For example, evangelicals are nearly 4-to-l of the opinion that homosexual relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while non-evangelicals are evenly divided on the issue.

In asse^ing the finding it is important to bear in mind that evangelicals include a hi^ pixqwrtion ^ blacks, who are overwhelmingly Democratic in their political orientation. Evangelicals also include a disproportionately high percentage of Protestants and Southerners. Here is the question and results: Most of the findings are based on interviews with 972 self-described evangelicals and 1,725 non-evangelicals, out of a total sample of 2,517 adults, 18 and older. The interviews were conducted in scientifically selected localities across the nation in an in-person survey July 11-14 and a telephone

---ww MSIA H ^VI^pilVlIV

survey Sept. 3-17. For results based on the total sample and for the suh-sample of non-evangelicals, one can say that 19 times out of 20 the error attributable

to sampling and other random effects should not exceed 3 percentage poir either direction. For results based on the sub-sample of evangelicals a lowance of plus or minra 5 points should be made for sampling i The test election results are based on interviews with

W. Weinberger. Generously treated by the Reagan defense budgets, the

Alton Frye is the Washington director for ihe Council on Foreign Relations.

intsin an al-

! error.

----------------------- 625 registered

evangelicals and 1,318 registered non-evangelicals out of a total sample of 1,943 registered voters. For results based on the total, the error margin is 3 points, and/or the subsamples of registered evangelicals and nonevangelicals, 5 and 4 points, respectively.

In addition to sampling <;rror, the reader should bear in mind that question wording ami practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of