EDITORIALS

...At least by appropriating these American properties they would have been directly defending their right to existence, whereas by grasping the oil territories of others we would be defending only our right to luxury, that is to our mammoth autos and our unique levels of consumption...

...Here we, not they, initiate the attack...

...But to claim that right in this case is absurd and self-contradictory...

...Self-defense from overt attack is, to be sure, such a right...

...We seem here to believe in the sovereign right of private property only (Continued on page 436...

...Kissinger does not hold this principle to be valid for others and with regard to what is now our territory or property...

...For here "self-defense" means in fact the right to commandeer by force, i.e., to steal, whatever territories and goods belonging to others we may consider necessary to our survival or even, in this case, to our well-being, an entirely different principle from self-defense in the face of overt attack...

...Kissinger claims in this case the "time-honored right" of a group to defend itself, from "strangu-' lation" as he put it...

...If Kissinger be correct, all that saves our shores from "legitimate" attack is the Indian and African lack of the necessary power...

...To the Editors: The current threat to use force, to initiate war, over oil would be incredible were it not so traditional—traditional, that is, in a world in which aggressive self-concern has long paraded as a "natural right" and has led inevitably to mutual destruction...

...Obviously Mr...

...and according to this same principle those nations dependent on our alfalfa had the right to come and take it by force when for domestic reasons we suddenly cut off all exports...

...According to this principle India and several African states have the right to commandeer by force the American food utterly necessary to the life of vast numbers of their peoples...