Vietnam

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30745, 8 May 1965, Page 14

Vietnam

Sir, —The British Protectorate of Brunei is not and never has been one of the constituent States of Malaysia. The “phony” Singapore referendum took place in August, 1962, whereas the State general elections were held in Sepetmber, 1963. The electorate who opposed the idea of Malaysia had the opportunity of voting the Barisan Socialis Party to power in 1963 and thus reverse the referendum results. In the event, only 33 per cent of the electorate supported the Barisan Socialis—approximately the same percentage of Singapore citizens who had a year earlier cast blank” votes in protest partly against the “phony’ referendum and partly against the Malaysian merger. Who are the leaders of “the real independence movement of the common people” in Malaya proper? What is the name of this movement? Which of S? *m? minon People” support it? The Malay rakyat? The Chinese urban - proletariat? The Baba-Chinese? The Orang-China? The Tamil rubber workers?—Yours, etc., „ „ F. G. TAY. May 7, 1965.

Sir,—Mr Ross’s recent letter quotes a French historian that Vietnamese atrocities commenced in 1957 when Diem launched a reign of terror, literally driving the people to take up arms in self-defence. Self-defence must have become elastic, because in 1964 alone well over 400 South Vietnamese hamlet chiefs and other Government officials were brutally murdered by the Viet Cong terrorists and 1131 were kidnapped. Also, more than 1350 civilians were killed in Communist Bombings and othe violent acts, and at least 8400 civilians were kidnapped. Mr Ross further quotes Senator Gruening (United States), who claimed the civil war began when the Diem regime, at United States urging, refused to hold elections for Vietnam reunification required by the Geneva agreement. North Vietnam outnumbered South Vietnam, and two years of North Vietnamese Communist regimentation made free elections an illusory prospect. The Geneva accord was signed by the Communist Viet Minh and France, not by South Vietnam. —Yours, etc., HARVEY C. BROWN. May 6, 1965.

Sir, —The worthy ideal of “F.W.P.F.” of “making it possible for the ordinary people to move into the sunlight of freedom” could be realised if the “Peaceniks" could succeed in their efforts to save us from communism—communism which must result from the certain universal destruction by nuclear warfare. There is an influential body of opinion in the United States that China must be defeated (and, if necessary, Russia too), before the Chinese perfect their nuclear

weapons. Hostilities in Vietnam are a step towards this objective, and constitute the greatest threat confronting humanity.—Yours, etc., SETH NEWELL. May 7, 1965.

Sir, —John May apparently believes that those New Zealanders who have been responsible enough to concern themselves with events beyond the ends of their noses, and protest against the United States policy in Vietnam are “potential traitors.” Traitors of what? one asks. Perhaps to a spurious ideology composed of empty words. How anyone can imagine “freedom” or “liberty” or both, if that is possible, to be the justification of United States foreign policy in Vietnam and lately the Dominican Republic is not beyond me, for the majority of New Zealanders believe that only one side can be right, and accept uncritically the views bf those Who make public opinion in this land. What is so tragic, is the manner in which our worthy decision-makers are handing over the sovereignty of our foreign policy to the self-appointed defender of the “free world.” If we are to be a pawn, let us get back into the open market and-help to make the U.N. effective.— Yours, etc., DAVID BEDGGOOD. May 5, 1965.

Sir,—The great need is to stop the war in Vietnam before it expands to become a nuclear war which would destroy everything that either side is fighting for. We should ask our Government to do everything possible to encourage both sides to negotiate at once, and to avoid actions (such as sending further New Zealand forces) which could tend to extend the war. Albert Einstein said, “The unleased power of the atom has changed everything, except our ways of thinking.” But if we are to survive in the nuclear age we must change our ways of thinking. Vietnam makes the issue only too plain.—Yours, etc., MARY WOODWARD.

May 7, 1965. Sir, —Had it not been for Rutherford’s atom-splitting and the present fear of nuclear weapons, the aggressive illogic of both the Communist and anti-Communist extremists would by now have landed us in the third and worst World War of the century. Mr Scott’s aphorisms about prompt attack being “the only means of prevention” would not have delayed the disaster. Whatever the position of other “peaceniks," I have never advocated “appeasement,” but only that our side should seek to achieve a clearly-defined and justifiable goal with a minimum of bloodshed and of departure from its own ideals. Unfortunately, because of the McCarthyist tirades of some correspondents, a restrained discussion of tactics, goals, and consequences seems to be impossible. Everything is reduced by such people to communism or anti-communism and all else—Christianity, democracy, humanity, and sound strategy—is swamped.—Yours etc.,

MARK D. SADLER. May 7, 1965.