Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 5, 1981)
The Battalion Viewpoint August 5, \{ U.S.-South Korean ties in ‘best shape ever’ By JOHN NEEDHAM United Press International SEOUL, South Korea — The Carter admi nistration and its human rights policy are gone from the White House and South Ko rean officials say relations with the United States are better than ever. “I certainly think our relations with the United States currently are in far more satisfactory shape than they were earlier,” said a senior adviser to President Chun Doo Hwan in an interview. “Some of the people I have spoken with on both sides — professionals, academics — seem to agree U.S.-Korean relations now are in the best shape ever compared with any earlier period in our bilateral rela tions.” The most spectacular sign of the closer links occurred when Chun became the first head of state to meet with President Ronald Reagan following the Republican’s move into the White House. The two presidents’ joint communique following the February meeting produced a pledge that U.S. troops, now numbering 39,000, would remain in South Korea. It said not a word about human rights. By contrast former President Jimmy Carter, in his July 1979 visit to Seoul, pub licly called on President Park Chung-hee, who was assassinated nearly four months later, to match his nation’s giant strides in economic development with progress in human rights. Chun came to power after a December 1979 military mutiny and in the months that followed Washington expressed its displea sure over political repression, arrests, silencing of opponents and allegations of torture in South Korea. A major problem in U.S.-Korean rela tions last year was the sedition trial on what the State Department called “farfetched charges” of Kim Daejung, the country’s foremost dissident. Kim was convicted and condemned to death. Chun commuted the sentence to life imprisonment just before receiving his in vitation to Washington. The diplomat denied there was a trade off involved but said, “Everyone knew Chun would not have been invited if Kim would have been killed.” Because of dissatisfaction with South Ko rean domestic repression, the United States in 1979 called off meetings about security, economic matters and policy plan ning. They have been resumed this year. In addition, the Reagan administration held up publication of its report on human rights in South Korea until after Chun left Washington so he wouldn’t be embarras sed. It will also sell the South Koreans F-16 fighter planes and used tanks. The Reagan administration’s choice as the next ambassador to Seoul, Richard Wal ker, said in his July 13 confirmation hear ings that Reagan has “restored warmth and personal trust to U.S.-Korean relations.” The senior adviser to Chun, who played the same role for Park and who declined to be further identified, said that historically in South Korea, “There has been a tenden cy to assume that the United States would play the role of messiah and Santa Claus and any other agency of grace and good gifts you could think of. Events tended to buttress this. “The United States, after all, made it possible for Korea to win independence from Japan. The United States made it pos sible to preserve our independence against North Korea. The United States made it possible to launch the process of economic recovery and growth.” He said both sides were inevitably dis illusioned last year, with some South Ko reans wanting more U.S. pressure on Seoul “to do what they themselves could not achieve” in winning more domestic free dom, and others criticizing Washington for “meddling too much in our internal af fairs.” He said the Carter administration, in promoting human rights, was “trying for an authentic expression of its own (American) values, a reflection of its own history.” But “how many people can you expect to be aware of American history” in South Korea? We perceived this as interference.” He credits the Reagan administration, which insists it will still promote human rights in a quiet way, with a “new maturity which recognizes the fact that constant and noisy protestation of one’s ideals and poli cies is not the most responsible way of realizing one’s goals.” The Battalion U S P S 045 360 MEMBER LETTERS POLICY Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress i i i * i Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in a i - i j length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer. The Editor nge ique °P^ an editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and City Editor rus length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's Photo Editor Creg Gammon intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the address Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy phone number of the writer. Focus Editor. Cathy Saathoff Make-up Editor Greg Gammon Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and are StaffWriters Bernie Fette, Kathy O’Connell, not subject to the same length constraints as letters. Denise Richter, Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Sentt MeDnllar Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. EDITORIAL POLICY The Battalion is published Tuesday, Wednesday and The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper Thursday during Texas A&M’s summer semesters. Mail operated as a community service to Texas A&M University subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school and Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Bat- year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on talion are those of the editor or the author, and do not request. necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M Universi- Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Build- ty administrators or Acuity members, or of the Board of ing, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes United Press International is entitled exclusively to the within the Department of Communications. use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. should be directed to the editor. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. Tax cuts reverse 50-year poli By DAVID S. BRODER ATLANTA — Last Wednesday was a his toric day. The television spectacular was the magnificent royal wedding, but Amer ican history books will probably record as more significant that this was the day that almost 50 years of Democratic-dominated economic and social policy came to an end. The budget and tax victories won by Presi dent Reagan on both sides of the Capitol reversed the policies Congress had fol lowed under every President from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter. By coincidence, at the same time that the House of Representatives was prepar ing to give Reagan the tax-bill victory that sealed his domination of that nominally Democratic body, a panel at at the National Conference of State Legislatures here was discussing the question of the role of party discipline in legislative bodies. The only conclusion a person could reach from that panel is that the conservative poli cy and political power so spectacularly dis played in Washington is no surface phe nomenon, but a pattern that extends across the country and into the reaches of state government as well. There were four speakers on the panel. The three Democrats all said — in plain and sometimes almost cynical terms — that if you wanted to invoke party loyalty in de fense of Democratic goals, forget it. The lone Republican, William Polk, the speaker of the state of Washington house of repre sentatives, was also the lone exponent of the view that party discipline can be used to achieve party objectives. Despite the fact that Washington state has no party registration for voters and a “blanket primary” that encourages ticket splitting, Polk said, “the Republican Party has become a very important force, at least among members of the legislature.” “It’s become an election machine,” he said, and, largely as a result of the funds and services the national and state GOP provides legisla tive candidates, “we have a strong caucus. ” The testimony of the threee Democrats was dramatically opposite. State Rep. George Fettinger of New Mexico explained why he and 10 other conservative Demo crats had broken party ranks in 1979 and again this year to form a conservative coali tion with 26 Republicans that elected a renegade Democrat as speaker, against the Democratic caucus choice. “The Demo cratic Party in New Mexico, Fettinger said, “is completely out of touch with the electorate. No Democrat can run for office in my part of the state on its platform — and still be elected.” Assemblyman Willie Brown then de tailed how he had been elected as the first coalition speaker of the California assembly last winter, by exploiting a split in the Democratic caucus and cutting a deal in which Republicans supplied 28 of the 51 votes that he received. Brown is a black legislator who describes himself as “one of the most liberal Democrats in existence.” He said he had no trouble dealing with “20 to 25 Republicans who come from districts where white sheets are regarded as formal attire...They made certain requests. They were relatively modest. They wanted ev erything except speakership. ” the Democratic Party.” Richard M. Scammon, the ii election analyst and political conm was the third self-indentified Dei-; the panel. He explained that int- “parties are big empty shells. lot; them up with anything. Thebasicf; any party is mush, mush andmorei Scammon said that Ronald Red been elected in 1980 largely on hiij ality, not his policies, and addedtj cause of the “flexibility” of politicalj “it is almost impossible to mainta:[ pline in a party caucus in Congres Scammon did not explain how,ij he spoke, Reagan and the Repa were about to reverse 50 years ofi policy and put through the biggestuj history by maintaining almost party discipline in the House and^ My own reaction to the disema and the news from Congress is tj so-called disarray of the Democral! goes far deeper than most of its^ leaders in Washington will admits level of government, Democrats*! as Brown, as conservative as Fettiaj as smart as Scammon have become! inventing political and intellect^ lizations for rejecting the cloahj loyalty. s ' - He had no trouble accommodating them, he said, and his GOP friends had no trouble with his liberal positions. The reason is sim ple: “Seldon will you find me using the office of speaker to enhance the position of At the same time, they have maaj obliterate from their consciousness ognition that Republicans have vered the utility of a political pi means, not just for gaining office remaking policy — in very laigei sions. That is an t one that i but this era of American politics A& pochal developmentbr. • ■ ' likely to shape, notjustilB'^^7’1 | wo4cwot«wne-nn.nev6 ’mxm Transporl versify are us driving haza In 1979 si their autoinc says a state h persons wer property dar Now, sm risk of injury fidld enginec sion of the St Transportatii Under cc researchers i Texas A&M various maill the supports project is D engineering. “Wooden supports,” R tion during t there are sai Man Mr. Sam, Tip — some comparison By ARNOLD SAWISLAK United Press International WASHINGTON — Last week, when the roof was caving in on Speaker Tip O’Neill for the third time in this session of Con gress, someone said, “This never would have happened to Sam Rayburn.” Wrong. Sam Rayburn got whipped all the time when he was Speaker of the House. The difference between the legen dary Texan and the battered Massachusetts speaker is that Mr. Sam’s defeats were not quite so public as O’Neill’s. In addition, the only opposition presi dent Rayburn had to deal with was the mod erate Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had to be reminded from time to time that he was a Republican and who usually was willing to compromise with Rayburn and a Senate Democratic leader named Lyndon Johnson. O’Neill has to cope with Ronald Reagan, who seems just as intent on building his adopted Republican Party as he is in mak ing a record for his administration. His idea of compromise is to invite the Democrats to surrender in the White House. tees, such as Ways and Means, Budget and Rules. When Rayburn was speaker, the com mittee chairmen could and did simply re fuse to deal with bills they didn’t like. The seniority system was absolute and junior members of the House had practically no thing to say about its governance. District of Columbia and Wilbur it Ways and Means killed them off I wanted kittens dropped into the ri'f United F I FORT WO j 23-year-old {broke into tl Davis mansit found lying o and an apple The man, police he wa: friend, went t plate glass dc through it, p Karen Da and four chi locked themj called Gullet When officer the “spaced-c living room c and eating ar The Davis the scene of < left two pec others wounc then-wife Pri Several things have change the conservative southerners wborul^ House committees generally are gotf and one-party domination of the So^ 1 ended. O’Neill’s real problem, however, is that he hasn’t got the alibi Rayburn had when he couldn’t deliver Democratic bills. The pre sent Speaker has control of, or at least cooperation from the key House commit- That was especially true of the House Rules Committee, which was ruled during the last years of Rayburn’s speakership by “Judge” Howard Smith of Virginia, a court ly old gentleman and a rigid right wing reactionary. If a liberal bill slipped through one of the House committees, Judge Smith would stall it in Rules, or write a special rule for its consideration that would just about assure passage of a conservative substitute. That’s how the LandrumGriffin Act be came law. It started out as a union-backed measure — the Senate version originally was sponsored by Sen. John F. Kennedy — and ended up as a conservative piece of legislation organized labor hated almost as much as Taft-Hartley. But most of the time, Rayburn couldn’t get bills liberal Democrats wanted out of committee even when he wanted to. Com mittee chairmen like Smith, Graham Bar den of Education and Labor, Clarence Can non of Appropriations, John McMillan of Second, the House breached thesf ity system by giving rank and filemei 1 a vote on committee chairmanships; put a leash on the tyranny of Rayburn^ The House also opened the committf' cess to public scrutiny. No import® can be killed in a closet. And third, O’Neill and his lead f were able to stack the key committee- enough liberals to assure that the bill wanted would get to the House floe' But O’Neill could do nothing to southern, and some northern, states sending conservative Democrats k House. They don’t have the powers'' process that conservatives had in Rot day, but they still have a vote whe» ; gets to the House floor. The result has been public humitoj O’Neill. His committees send himaf cratic bill and the House votes for aft lican bill. It is true that didn’t happen* to Mr. Sam, but that was becauseb* feats were occuring behind closed d f F. E The with hush Pota