County coastal archipelago. When thennews about Napoleon’s irrevocable exUenarrived in Savannah and Charleston, itnwas immediately assumed that the deposednemperor would come there. Annavalanche of social activities, parties,nballs, and festivities was planned—althoughnthe sentiments about Bonapartenmight have been somewhat mixed bynthat time. Preppies would have understoodnboth the excitement and the neednfor some pluralistic equanimity. Joggers,nas they mostly incorporate liberal feelings,nwould probably have forgotten thenNapoleonic code and focused on his imperialism.nThis is exactly the trouble wenhave in connecting equanimity with liberalismnthese days. Dnrill. Mr.Ki( \ PKOS( I:MI MnHigh TechnologynA founder of the Contadora group (thenlatest Latin American forum of politicalnconscience), Mexican Foreign MinisternMr. Bernardo Sepiilveda Amor, shares inna Time magazine interview the LatinnAmerican notion of representative andnpluralistic democracy:nWe do not think that the Nicaraguannopposition can legitimize its positionnthrough the use of force. On the contrary,nwe think that right now the Nicaraguannauthorities are doing theirnbest to find a mechanism by whichnTimers PrecisionnTime’s shining light in the domain ofnpublicistics, Mr. Hugh Sidey, instructsnRonald Reagan on why and how wenshould be cautious and measured in flexingnAmerica’s military muscle:nTwice in the past four decades wenmiscalculated, and we had war in Koreanand Viet Nam.nWhat did we “miscalculate” in Korea?nOn June 25,1950, with no prior indicationsnof an armed conflict. North KoreannJOURVM.ISMnpolitical parties wQl be able to fiinctionnin that society.nThis is exacdy what Stalin told Rooseveltnand Churchill in Yalta about how thenSoviet puppet regimes in post-WorldnWar II Eastern Europe would evolventheir “mechanisms.” Roosevelt andnChurchill bought it. We know what happenednnext. And now, almost four decadesnlater, Time is still buying it. Mr.nSepiilveda Amor is presented as “Thenstylish, eloquent former professor of internationalnlaw .. . actively involved innseeking a peaceful solution to the conflictsnin Central America.” Dntroops—equipped, trained, and tacticallyninstructed by Soviet supervisors—nmassively attacked the internationallynand legaUy determined border betweennthe two Koreas and invaded the South.nThe free world, under America’s leadership,nwas brutally confronted with a historicalnfeet, coerced to respond, and hadnnot a modicum of other choices but tongo to war. The only other available optionnwould have been an unconditionalnsurrender, aUowing the despairing SouthnKoreans to be red rather than dead. Sonhow did we miscalculate? What chancendid we have to miscalculate anything?nAn even more blatant case of precisionnnnThe ChoicenThe last time a British writer wonnthe Nobel Prize in Literature wasn1953, unless Samuel Beckett (1969),nan Irishman who can be identifiednwith France, or Elias Canetti (1981),na Bulgarian who resides in England, isnbent to fit the category. Curiouslynenough, the 1953 presentation wasnmade not to one of the country’snnovelists, playwTights, or poets, butnto Sir Winston Churchill. Clearly,nEngland was overdue. ‘ITie .selectionnof William dolding tor die 1983 prizenis surprising, as he is, although a serviceablenenough stylist, reaUy a twobooknman: Lord of the Flies (1954)nand The Spire (1964). In the first henessentially shows that Rousseau’sngarden is no place that anyone wouldnwant to live in—^and certainly not dienin; the latter delineates man’s reachnand the elusiveness of a handhold.nDuring the 10 years between the twonbooks and in the nearly 20 years sincenThe Spire Golding has continued tonproduce books, none of which hasnhad any significant cosmopolitan effect.nThe Nobel is still the premiernliterary award, so one would expectnthe recipients to be like Caesar’snwife. In this case—^as in others duringnrecent years—that isn’t so. RobertnGraves and I^wrence DurreU wouldnbe more defensible choices, yet evennthey lack the breadth of vision that anNobel laureate should be expectednto have. And then there’s GrahamnGreene, who has been long waitingnin the wings and who certainly exhibitsnall of the manners necessary tonbe in syTic with the “progressive” sympathiesnof the Stockholm academy.nGiven the time frame, Greene shouldnslip out of the theater. Dni49nDecember 1983n