Basic HTML Version
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, NOVEMBER 11, 1983
PAGE 11
President Carter tried to practice detente without deterrence.
The results were a disaster. The Soviets expanded their domina
tion in the Arabian Peninsula, in southern Asia, in Africa, and
in Latin America.
The lesson is clear.
If we block their
advances, they will choose restraint and negotiate. If we give
an inch, they will take a thousand miles.
President Reagan has won Soviet respect with his actions...• This
puts him in an ideal position from which to open a new
relationship. Our first goal must be to take the profit out of
war.
To deter war we must remain powerful enough so that
potential aggressors will conclude that they stand to lose far
more than they could possibly gain from war....
We can then reinforce the effect by providing them [ the Soviets]
with the rewards of peace.
We should have no illusions about
what trade can accomplish.
Trade by itself will not produce
peace or prevent war. Trade should be expanded only in ways that
serve our interests.
That means that we must not sell the
Soviets goods and technology that directly contribute to their
military capability. It also means that our trade must not be at
subsidized prices or on easy credit terms. The rule should be
"trade, not aid." We should sell them rope, if they want to buy
it, but do so in a way that binds their hands and prevents them
from reaching out to further their domination....
Our primary goal should be to build a new relationship with the
Soviets in which we will be able to prevail upon them to cease
their aggression. This can only happen when the qilateral rela
tionship with us becomes more important to them than their adven
turism.
Not a very encouraging picture, is it? But it is reality--at least reality
as far as the East-West ideological struggle is concerned.
--Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau
Correction:
In the "On the World Scene" column in the October 28, 1983
PASTOR GENERAL'S REPORT, I misstated something on page 10, fifth paragraph.
In discussing the excavation of the "Cardo" in Jerusalem, I mentioned that
a "lighted pit along the arcade path revealed a portion of the wall of the
first templel" This is not quite right. I clarified this matter with Mr.
Richard Paige, associate professor of history at Ambassador College, and
on-site director of our summertime "dig" in Jerusalem. He explained that
Professor Avigad (Cardo project director) obviously referred not to the
wall of the first temple, but to the city wall during the time of the first
temple. The Jews, Mr. Paige explained, often date events�ording to the
time of the first (Solomon to Zedekiah) or second (Zerubbabel to 70 A.D.)
temples. I should therefore have written
1 1 • • •
a portion of the city wall
during first temple times." The next sentence then should read: "Another
pit showed where blocks of the wall from the first temple time (c. 700 B.C.)
joined those of the second (2nd Century B.C.).
1 1
I hope this clears up any
misunderstanding I may have conveyed.
--G.H.H.