Evening star., 1961-04-14
Cuba and Common Sense

In his news-conference remarks
on the subject, President Kennedy has
emphatically rejected the idea Of having
our country move militarily against the
Kremlin- serving Castro tyranny in
Havana. He has summed up his basic
position in these words: "I want to say
that there will not be under any condi-
tions i. an intervention in Cuba by
United States armed forces. This
Government will do everything it
possibly can to make sure that there
are no Americans involved in any
actions inside Cuba"
This is rather sweeping statement,
perhaps much too sweeping. Even so,
although one can conceive of conditions
that might make intervention desirable,
If not imperative, it is a statement
altogether in keeping with our country's
traditions and treaty obligations. And
more than that, of course, it is in keep
ing with the reality that most of the
nations of Latin America (not to men
ton those Of other continentS) probably
would bitterly condemn us if we took
military action against Premier Fidel
CaStroS regime. This they would do,
in all likelihood, even though they
rightly regard that regime as a grave
potential menace serving the Sino-
Soviet Red totalitarian conspiracy to
move in on the Western Hemisphere.
Accordingly-in terms of our tradi-
tional American moral position, our
commitments in International agree
ments and our need to oprotectsourselveS
as a Nation from being libeled as perpe-
traitors OF crime comparable to
the Kremlins savage suppression of
Hungary'S freedom-the President has
done fitting and timely thing in
affirming that the United States will
not intervene militarily in Cuba, no
matter how much such action might
seem justified. Still, a certain gnawing
question remains for those who believe,
come hell or high water, that our
country must bend over backwards to
avoid even the appearance of straying
from the letter and spirit of any treaty
it has signed, including particularly in
this instance the Charter of the Organi-
zation of American States.
The question is simply this: Despite
Mr.. Kennedy's anti-intervention stand,
is the United States honestly and faith
fully living up to one of its key COM
mitmentS as signatory of the OAS
Charter? If words mean anything, the
commitment makes clear that our
country has no right ito intervene,
directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external
affairs Of any other state" Yet it
seems fairly apparent that our Govern
ment, by indirection at least, has been
offering important aid in support of
Cuban refugees intent upon bringing
about general anti-Castro revolt and
invading the island to topple the bearded
pro- Communist dictator
Clearly, assuming that such aid is
actually being extended, our Govern
ment is being Machiavellian regarding
its GAS pledge, and strict purists in the
matter are therefore entitled to raise
unkind, moraliStic objections to MIR.
Kennedy's policy. Nevertheless, given
the nature of the Castro regime and
its threat to freedom in the Americas,
there is much to be said for the view
as expressed long ago by realist-that
there are times in the life of men and
nations when the better part of wisdom,
and even virtue and valor, is to rise above
principle in critical situations where
security is at stake. This would seem
to be quite in line with the fundamental
and overriding law of self-preservation.