Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-10-03
Wheat for Russia

Wne0t Tor kuSSId
Now that the disposition of
the wheat surplus Is In the
air, we must ask ourselves,
where do we stand? With
caution and suspicion, we
edged into a cultural pro-
gram on an exchange basis,
with its offspring, the ex-
change Of scientific data.
With caution, suspicion and
distrust, we edged into q
pending plan Of nuclear test
suspension with the same
country. With caution and
disgust. we recognized In fact
at all times the presence Of q
cold war against the Com
munists with economic ideol-
ogies out to destroy each
other. In cooperation with
non-Communist nations, we
formulated alliances and
trustingly assumed that in
ternational morale was such
that we would all work to-
gether constantly to protect
a precarious peace.
What do we see now? In
ternational m orale has, as
always, become q high
sounding mockery. Our latest
example, Canada-and we do
not know how many more
countries to follow-will sell
wheat or anything else to
a1yone-Russia or no Russia,
morale or no morale. We in
turn have done our best to
keep up our end Of mutual
cooperation for defense pur-
poses. However, it looks as II
the pressure to get rid Of our
surplus wheat is going to win
out. Governmentally, we do
not want to. but the pressure
is on. Everything was quiet
till Cana d. burst into the
picture. with the economic
squeeze Of the European Com
mon Market on one front,
wheat producing countries on
another and the Com
munist bloc on q third eco
nomic front, we are back
where we started with the
problem Of self-protection.
Shall we feed our enemies
even If it hurts usP There ap-
pears nothing left to do but,
sadly enough, keep armed to
the teeth, watch our hand
shaking enemies and beware
Of our friends.
Samuel Lightman-
go
I am opposed to selling
wheat to the Soviet Union for
dollars or gold. Even though
it would ease the rate Of
gold lost every year and serve
as q means Of getting rid
Of some Of the gigantic wheat
surplus, it is still unwise.
BY selling wheat to Rus
STA, we would be granting aid
to an enemy and would con-
tradict our stand against the
spread Of communism. The
wheat would aid the Rus
slams in bolstering their
economy. Their total output
Of wheat every year is not
enough to feed their huge
population, and this is why
they must seek to buy it
. elsewhere, not only In the
United States but in Canada
and Australia as well.
The countries Of the free
world should refuse to sell
these goods to the Reds.
Rather they should impose an
unofficial boycott on the So
viets, leaving them to fend for
themselves. Without neceS-
Sary merchandise from other
countries, the Russians will
sooner or later suffer an eco
nomic breakdown which
would curtail or seriously
weaken the spread of COM
muniSn.
Thomas Eller.
= &c
Instruction is In order
where the facts are not
known or recognized, or
where one is not keen enough
to recognize principle. But
The Star has the facts and
your editorial writer's are
keen.
Yet you urge Lets Close
the Deal" for the sale of
wheat to the Soviet Union,
your argument being that
others will If we don't, and
that to do so will help us sew
eral ways financially. Princi-
pie is apparently nonexistent
or not to be considered.
Since instruction and argu-
ment would apparently be
fruitless, I add only Sham