SETTLEMENT BY DIPLOMACY

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30480, 30 June 1964, Page 13

SETTLEMENT BY DIPLOMACY

French Approach To South-East Asia

(N.Z. Press ■ Association —Copgright?

NEW YORK, June 29.

The French Foreign Minister, Mr Maurice Couve de Murville, said yesterday he believes the Americans cannot “win that war” in South Vietnam. He described the structure of the North Atlantic Alliance as outmoded.

“We (in Europe) are responsible for our own defence—we want more national armies for more defence,” he said.

The rift between the Soviet Union and China is “one of the big events in this century,” Mr Couve de Murville said.

The Minister was speaking on the first interview programme to be transmitted across the Atlantic by the United States satellite Telstar, was answering questions from American reporters from a studio in Paris. Asked why France was suggesting a 14-nation Geneva conference which would include China, to neutralise South-east Asia when China had violated a previous agreement for a neutral Laos, he replied: “Nobody can say that anything in this world is settled forever.” The French suggestion of a conference was “probably the best way to come out of the present difficulties.” Psychological Referring to France’s wish for a political settlement of the Indo-China conflict he said: “This is a war which is much more political and

psychological, and the purpose of that war is not to defeat the enemy army. “it is to win the people, the people in the country where the fighting is going on. “And that is the reason why we said that the problem cannot be settled by military means but should be settled by political means ” Effect Of War Referring to renewed fighting in Laos Mr Couve de Murville said: “The main reason really is that while we worked hard to settle the Laotian problem the war was going on in South Vietnam. It is hard to see how the Laotian problem can be settled while a war is going on in Vietnam.” A big question was whether victory in Vietnam was worth war “and if it is, is it worth world war.”

“I think we can dispense with war and that is why we say a political solution is best,” he said. France had no “ready-made operation.” An attempt at finding a political answer “is the policy which we think it would be wise to follow but we also say that it is to be very difficult and very long.”

The United States and France did not “exactly draw the same conclusions on what we observe,” adding: “Of course, I refer to China.”

There was no longer a Communist bloc to deal with. The Sino-Soviet split meant that if South-east Asia were conquered the balance of power in Asia would go to the Chinese —not to a Communist bloc. France did not see why it should deal with one major Communist power to the exclusion of the other. N.A.T.O. Shortcomings

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's “present military position is more or less outmoded,” he said. A military organisation in N.A.T.O. was, however, necessary, ‘ provided European countries had more responsibility in the force. “That’s the only way to have the feeling in some extent, and even in a large extent, that we are responsible for our own defence,” he said.

“We want more of national armies and more national defence—especially in time of peace. That does not mean that in time of war there is not a need for allied cooperation.” He said it was necessary for the peace of the world, Europe and the United States that large American military forces remain in Europe.

“But,” he added, “that is another proposition and they are under American command.”