Vietnam

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30741, 4 May 1965, Page 16

Vietnam

Sir, —Atrocities, by both belligerents and civilians, are a natural and inevitable concomitant of war. Whether Asian or European, it is just as terrible to be gassed, bombed, or frizzled in phosphorous. The sentiments expressed by “F.W.P.F.” to increase the risk of spreading these disasters. The 1954 agreement at Geneva “prohibited the introduction into Vietnam of foreign troops, military personnel or bases, or arms munitions.” The United States refused to sign the agreement, but gave an undertaking that it would refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb the agreement. “The New York Daily News” states: “Bring on the showdown now, and we can in all likelihood kill off Chinese communism in a flurry—and if Soviet Russia intervenes, we can take care of that nation too.” What an atrocious and terrifying possibility! —Yours, etc., SETH NEWELL May 3, 1965.

Sir, —Human beings under war stress commit many inhumane acts, and in a conflict neither side is immune: but the Americans are hardly in a position to point the finger at the so-called Viet Cong. “The Press” has carried many reports, and also photographs showing their prisoners being sent across swamps as “human mine detectors” or dragged behind tractors through rivers and prodded with bayonets to extract information. The way to end this sort of thing is to end the war. History has given many examples where atrocities on the other side have been the pretext for widening a war and stirring up belligerent feelings to commit additional countries. The greatest danger in Vietnam is that this will end in the ultimate atrocity and folly of a nuclear war. “F.W.P.F.” should take pause before he helps to feed this flame.—Yours, etc., ELSIE LOCKE. May 3, 1965.

Sir,—When “F.W.P.F." talks of “one of the foulest and most ruthless eneriiies," does he think them worse than the Germans and Japanese in the last war, before they became our allies against our former allies? I would feel happier about “our way of life” if some of its adherents were more reasonable and less destructive. Had half the military budget of 16 million dollars an hour been spent constructively, democracy would now be more secure. “F.W.P.F.” claims the Viet Cong are uninterested in negotiation. He should be reminded that America still refuses to negotiate with the Viet Cong. Simultaneously, North Vietnam asserts that “the Liberation Front is not ruled from Hanoi” and that negotiation “must” be with “the Liberation Front.” We should persuade America to agree to negotiate with the Viet Cong, meanwhile strive to restrain killing, and other atrocities.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. May 3, 1965.

Sir, —It is strange that the most heavily armed nation in the world needs help from Australia, and possibly New Zealand and the Philippines, to defeat the small and com-

paratively undefended North Vietnam. If New Zealand is committed, it will be clearly the result of Mr Lodge’s visit, and the decision will be made secretly by Cabinet, thus by-passing Parliament once again. The United States, in by-passing the United Nations, which was set up for the very situation existing in Vietnam, could easily by miscalculation plunge us into a third World War in which all would be participants and victims. Hence all have the right to speak now, before it is too late.— Yours, etc., FOR U.N. May 1, 1965.

Sir, —“F.W.P.F.” is dealing with effects, not causes, and unfortunately the responsibility for these effects is not resolvent and confined within the perimeter of causation. In spite of the final declaration of the Geneva Conference and requests from North Vietnam, the South refused to co-oper-ate in an election supervised by the internatiohal commission. The unilateral action of the United States in Vietnam in violation of her United Nation commitments is aptly described by Senator Morse as making her an “outlaw nation.” As regards Australia, Mr Menzies must place United States fiscal policy before the significance of Asia in the world wheat trade, 60 per cent of Australian wheat going to Communist countries last year. Also, the price of wool being a determinant of wheat acreage, Australia cannot afford a misallocation of resources of land, labour, and capital. These events only prove that peace is only achieved by a sovereign source of law within the organisation built to develop human welfare.—Yours, etc., WEST WIND. May 3, 1965.

Sir, —The role of champion of victims of aggression sits incongruously on General de Gaulle, who himself caused callous and appalling suffering for years to even more innocent and helpless victims in Algeria than those whose cause he now so righteously upholds—but with so much less justification. He “got away with it,” without protest, interference or censure from Great Britain, U.S.A., or anyone else, bombing indiscriminately and mercilessly, every desert village his bombers could spy out, razing them Hat. killing, mutilating, any survivors left to inevitable ghastly death from hunger, thirst, exposure in the desert —men, women, children who did not even know why. The memoirs of Pierre Clostermann, a French pilot in Algeria, tell the awful story. Yet since then de,Gaulle was first to chime in for the rights of African states seeking selfgovernment—freely granted hy England—and now his latest, denouncing the United States in Vietnam.—Yours, 6tC. ONE LAW FOR OTHERS. May 2, 1965.