U.S. Urged To ‘Freeze’ Laos Crisis

Press, Volume C, Issue 29402, 3 January 1961, Page 9

U.S. Urged To ‘Freeze’ Laos Crisis

[Specially written tor the N.Z.P.A. by FRANK OLIVER] (Rec. 10 p.m.) WASHINGTON, Jan. 1. The Laotian civil war is a terrible example in the jet and missile age of what can happen to threaten world peace in that horrendous interval between the United States election and the inauguration when the administration is changing from one party to the other. Several writers, including Walter Lippmann, have said the duty of the outgoing administration is to freeze the Laos situation till the Kennedy administration has a chance to study it and make its policy and its decisions. That, as others had said, is easier raid than done specially if it is true, as Marshal Chiang Kai-shek claims, that Chinese Communist “volunteers” are ready to invade Laos through Vietnam. The one thing all are agreed on is that the situation is slightly dangerous with explosive possibilities. No-one here wants another Korea, or even another Congo.

Few people in the United States understand what is going on in Laos or understand what forces are involved and how deeply the United States is involved. Not many people seem to know even that American actions in Laos have been under some criticism from various allies and friends, including India. Britain, and France.

Indeed. Lippmann says, Britain and France know a great deal more about that part Jof Asia that the United States and this administration should work with them to avoid the overhanging crisis.

Some of the well-informed believe the situation is by no means beyond repair. Some think that reports of invasion by Chinese troops are premature and are more likely a threat of what could happen: in other words, the reports are a more forceful warning than Peking’s warning about what would happen in Korea if Allied troops approached her borders.

Today's situation appears to be a test between the Far East policies expounded during the campaign by Mr Nixon and Mr Kennedy. In general terms, the difference was between “preventing one more foot of free soil going to Communist control” (Mr Nixoni and “not attempting the impossible” (Mr Kennedy). Cool heads here seem unanimously against trying the impossible. The “Washington Post" for example, says that if experience with Chinese intervention in Korea is any guide, then the warnings to the United States from neutral and Communist sources ought to be taken very seriously indeed. The paper thinks the United States may have pushed its policy of backing anything anti-Commu-nist too hard and that Britain. France and India were right when they argued that the neutralist Government under Prince

Souvanna Phouma. which aimed at unity with the pro-Communist Pathet Lao rebels, was the best thing obtainable. It is agreed that there is no guarantee that neutralism could have survived if the Pathet Lao rebels entered the Government in Vientiane, but though no-one here seems at all sure what should be done, they now seem agreed on what should not be done and that Is to take any steps that could bring another Korean holocaust nearer. No one wants to hand MrHammarskjold a Laos headache before his Congo headache is cured or even considerably better and some think even if that indefatigable man were sent, it would intensify the Communist campaign against him. Some are suggesting that the Russians might accept Mr Hammarskjold in Laos if their larger hopes of an accommodation with the Kennedy administration depended on it, but that revives the discussion of relations between Moscow and Peking—whether they are amicable again or whether neither Communist centre is willing to listen to the other where its particular interests are concerned. This leads on to discussion of

that old problem—relations with China, which, one commentator remarks, just gets older. The situation does not make for a happy New Year and there is a general feeling of anxiety. But about the only concrete suggestion to date is that the United States might well consult Britain, France and India about what should best be done.