Evening star., 1960-10-27

You are quite right in your
editorial Of October 81, in
stating that there is q diff
ference between Mr. Kennedy
saying that we should "ex-
press regrets" for the U-2
flights and Mr.. Nixon ex-
pressing regret for the Cap
tive Nations Resolution. But
you err in your analysis.
Senator Kennedy meant
that we should have expressed
formal diplomatic regrets for
the U-2 flights. This is not
new. The Administration ex-
pressed regrets on February 2,
1858. for the flight Of a U. S.
Air Force plane over East
Germany and in June, 1858,
expressed regrets for the
fight of an unarmed trans
port over Russia. President
Eisenhower expressed regrets
to Castro this year for the
flight Of a private plane over
Cuba.
The fact Of the matter Is,
in November, 1914, the United
States signed the Convention
on International Civil Avia-
ton in which we agreed that
every state has complete and
exclusive sovereignty over
the air space above its ter
ritory." This has long been
an accepted doctrine Of inter-
national law, and just because
we are the strongest nation in
the world doesn't give us the
right to break the law and
ignore our treaty commit
ments. In this case, the ex-
preston Of formal diplomatic
regrets was the normal, cor
rect procedure, and the effort
made by Mr.. Nixon to twist
this into q political issue
reveals either a lack Of
diplomatic knowledge or else
q complete lack Of states
manship.
AS for the Captive Nations
Resolution. this was not a
breach Of international law.
Granted, under the circum-
stances, it was ill-timed. But
the Russians have known
how we stand on Eastern
Europe. In 1852 Mr.. Nixon
himself pledged to "liberate"
the satellites. Why should we
have to apologize for this?
Herbert G. Klein has stated
that this is a campaign
smear" and the Vice Presi-
dent never made such a
statement. Surely there can
be no national security in
volved in releasing a CONVEX
sation between Mr.. Nixon and
Mr.. Khrushchev. Earl Mazo,
a Republican supporter Of the
Vice President, has seen the
document. If the charges are
false. they can be easily ex-
posed Sby the release of the
text Of the interview.
John w. WarnOck, Jr.
There are dangers Of an
alliance between certain Har-
ward University professors
and leaders of certain labor
unions. such as Reuther,
Carey, and others.
The Harvard professors are
dedicated to the belief that
they will prove to be the saw
iors Of the Nation provided
that they possess the power to
formulate programs and direct
the expenditure of Federal
funds derived from the Ma
tion's taxpayers. This is their
goal.
The leaders of many labor
unions have never been
guided or influenced by the
economy Of the country and
the effect of foreign compe-
tition. Their primary objec-
tive has always been, and re-
mains unchanged, to force
the raising of wages irrespec-
tive Of the state Of the Ma
tion's economy and the pres
sure of competition from
abroad.
These leaders are faced
with the necessity of con-
trolling the labor policy of
the Federal Government and
the production of our private
enterprise system. Unless
such control is secured, they
fear that the union members
will wake up to the fact that,
because of their leaders past
policies, the workers in almost
every important domestic in
dustry are now faced with
severe competition from
abroad. To save their own
skins, the union leaders must
have control over Federal
funds, create cheap money,
follow infiationary policies,