Vietnam

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30452, 28 May 1964, Page 14

Vietnam

Sir, —Views, on this subject vary widely. It is good that they have been aired. There seems to be some confused thinking, , however, when followers of the Prince of Peace are equated with Communists, who are atheists. Would Jesus have done what the soldiers were doing in the cable page picture on May 26? In a violent situation in Gethsemane, he healed the soldier wounded by one whosought to protect Him. He relied on spiritual power, not physical force, with its attendant cruelty. He accepted, the crucifixion as God’s will, though not without agony. “Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done.” He prayed: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Do we know what we do when we support one side against another in a civil war in another country?—Yours I MARY THORNE. I May 27, 1964.

Sir, —Since “Political Science” has linked his generalisations about Communistfront organisations with the controversy between a member of Parliament and a member of the United Nations Association, he implies that the latter is such an organisation. As one of the many concerned to ensure the integrity of the association, 1 am most interested to learn :the names of the Communist infiltrators whom he has in mind, and challenge him to name them publicly. They would have no hope of . steering those in control—Sir John Walsh, Dean of the Dental School; Mr G. C. Burton, till his retirement a senior officer of the External Affairs Department; Major Knowles, of Wellington; or Mr C. E. Thomson, Mayor of Timaru, to name a few past and present holders of high office in the association. But doubtless 1 am jumping to conclusions, and the writer is. referring to Parliament itself as a Communist front. After all, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition officially open the annual' conference of the association and have publicly stated that support of the United Nations is a basic principle of New Zealand foreign policy. It seems we are all in the mud together.—Yours, etc., D. M. UNWIN. Timaru, May 26, 1964.

Sir,—l drew attention to the customary verbal gang-ing-up tactics against Mr Walker. True to style, this eventuated. Now, after his propaganda fiasco. Mr Ross, apparently as a spokesman for that group of agitators, tells us that they are going to desist from further namecalling. Good! That sounds more like “peace-mongering.”

But only yesterday someone called to tell me: “You escaped the clutches pf revolution in Europe but. you won’t have your second chance here.” Another angel of peace! The trouble with Mr Ross and his political friends is that in their arrogant superiority they are neither at peace with themselves nor with people around them, the fact so amply demonstrated by their bellicose and • vituperative personal attacks. Attitudes like these may impress primitive natives of Indonesia and Vietnam but leave unmoved the enlightened New Zealand. —Yours etc., V. H. HUNTER. May 27, 1964.

Sir, —Many contributors on this topic have the right diagnosis. Others have the wrong prescriptions. The cause of the hullabaloo is government by. inefficient politicians. Babies burnt with napalm bombs,, vicious raids on Cambodia and the brutal river-hauling of. prisoners confirm this. Mr Walker should be wary of introducing the anti-Commo poppycock about wicked and perfidious Communism after the astronomical financial deals now being made with Russia and China. It is no use trying to divide the world, or Vietnam, even, into red and white. Even the American policy towards Communism is now more flexible than ever before. Both the New Zealand and British Governments could exert a decisive power if they chose, as Attlee did in Korea. —Yours, etc., RALPH S. WHEELER. Timaru, May 27, 1964.

Sir, —Senator Goldwater suggested dropping atomic bombs in Vietnam, The best thing Americans can do to lose the cold war in Asia is to elect Senator Goldwater President. There won’t be very much left in the world to quarrel over if that happens.—Yours, etc., N. Y. K. FOO. May 26, 1964.

Sir,—A short while ago I mentioned the’ alarm felt over New Zealand’s readiness to help the South Vietnam Government militarily. Now I see that a small non-combat-ant, but military, force- is going there. It is ironical that you have also just published a photograph showing the bat baric behaviour of the Government soldiers. In any war, especially one of this type, there are. atrocities on both sides. Mr Walker seems to ignore this fact. Thus, it is a tragedy that New Zealand ouould participate in this strife. We are allying ourselves with America, which supported the corrupt Diem regime until it became so rotten that even Washington hid had enough. I submit that the succeeding Khanh regime has shown scant evidence of much change and therefore cf increase in popular support. Even your second leader today expresses some doubts.—Yours, etc., W. A. SYKES. May 26, 1964.

Sir,—Viewing the developments and implications in the turmoil in Vietnain, one - is confronted with the inescapable fact that the United States activities there were of their own initiative, although enjoying the approval of dissident individuals and aggregations under the specious plea of stopping aggression. It is a small minority in the United Nations which protests against United States intervention in several countries. The United Nations has several trieritbrious achievements to its credit at the expense Of potential, war enthusiasts. It requires the essential conscious objection

of the people in general, allied to United Nations efforts, to ensure a successful curb on what U Thant terms lunatics.—Yours, etc., D.H.C. •May 27, 1964;

Sir, —Mr Ross would appear to be playing the’part of a "Neville Chamberlain. In other words, he considers peace at any price to be the ultimate goal. Vietnam does not concern New Zealand, • seems to be his attitude; so why become involved? I would like to ask Mr Ross at what point in the stand against communism does New Zealand become involved? We let the Communists take over all Southeast Asia and Australia, and on principle we should not fight as no-one is interfering with us. That seems to be the argument. This will certainly suit the Communists, as Khrushchev himself said that “while the bayonet strikes slush you keep pushing it home, but when you strike cold steel you withdraw.” It is time there was more “cold steel” instead of all this smug talk about peace by groups whose opinions have been perverted by Communist infiltration.—Yours, etc., NUTSIN MAY. • May 26, 1964.