Vietnam

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30763, 29 May 1965, Page 14

Vietnam

Sir, —The Government has chosen a fine time to display a stubborn intention to interfere in Asia, all of which (excepting only Thailand, the Philippines, and the Communist sector) is solidly in favour of mediation in Vietnam. So now we celebrate Freedom from Hunger month by helping to reduce extra thousands to starvation in a futile and fruitless war. Our country is shamed in the eyes of the world.—Yours, etc., ELSIE LOCKE. May 28, 1965.

Sir, —As a family unit we wish to protest in the strongest possible way against the decision to send troops to South Vietnam. Now is the time for the churches to take a stand en masse in the cause of Christianity and peace. The Rev. O. Burton, Wellington, Dean Pyatt, Mr McDowell, and others have given a lead —let us hear the voices of their churches’ leaders backing them up vociferously and continuously, without wavering at any opposition. As Christians, as we know they all are, they cannot be afraid to follow the teaching of the Prince of Peace. The time has come for them to do it verbally, at length, and to the death. We ordinary people who do not understand the machinations of the politicians and big business, are seeking desperately, as we hover on the brink of annihilation, for help from some reliable source with no axe to grind.—Yours, etc., MARGARET COLLIER, MAXINE COLLIER. HARRIET SKILTON. May 28, 1965.

Sir, —Traditionally, New Zealanders have always been prepared to tackle the issues of the day with determination and courage. In committing the New Zealand armed forces to Vietnam, the New Zealand Government has demonstrated in a manly fashion that we are ready to play our full part with our allies in finding common answers to common problems. The responsibilities and the burdens must be shared by all the partners in the free world. If we are to survive as a nation and as a free people, we must face up to the facts, however unpleasant they may be. We must take care that the rights and interests of others are fully respected. We must do nothing to encourage aggressors to believe that aggression or threats of force will be allowed to succeed. Peaceful co-existence, Communist style, is a trap which promises neither peace nor co-existence. We must strive for liberation and self-determination of enslaved peoples.—Yours, etc., V. H. HUNTER. May 28, 1965.

Sir, —I am a youth eligible for conscription. For the following reasons I would refuse to fight in Vietnam: (1) Communism breeds in hunger, poverty, and discontent. War creates these conditions. Thus war can only serve to further communism. (2) By sending troops to Vietnam New Zealand can only increase the presstire on North Vietnam to call on her allies, thus expanding the war. (3) The threat of the spread of communism in Asia cannot be overcome by increased military action. Communism can only be stopped by raising the standard of living of the Asian people to a point where communism is irrelevant in their lives. Democracy claims to be a superior form of government. We must prove this claim in terms of food, not guns. I implore the Government to reverse its decision to send troops to Vietnam.— Yours, etc., MICHAEL JOHNSON. May 28, 1965.

Sir, —Mr Holyoake “feels sure that the majority of New Zealanders will be behind the Government’s decision” to send combatant troops to South Vietnam. Whether the unthinking are really in the majority in New Zealand—which I question—is not for Mr Holyoake to say in the absence of a referendum. The confidence vote on this matter will, of course, be cast at the General Election at the end of next year. However, that might turn out, here is one hitherto National vote that will, in future, be cas* for Labour.—Yours, etc., S.J.F. May 27, 1965.

Sir, —In reply to “F.W.P.F.” 1 did not oppose intervention in Vietnam. Not being an “intellectual,” 1 leave such decisions to those qualified by having the facts, including the confidential information, years of experience, and de-

mocratic authority. I thank “F.W.P.F” for his explanation about demonstrating university intellectuals: an inexperienced and easily-led minority with Communistinspired leaders. I agree, but trust the authorities and public are not influenced by them beyond their worth. To our church leaders and others I would suggest that faith in God includes faith in men of goodwill. Who, five years ago, would have claimed Wilson of England, Johnson of America, Menzies of Australia, or Holyoake of New Zealand as being warmongers or being men other than of goodwill? Who would suggest that they are inexperienced? Who would suggest they have not all the correct facts and available information? Let us be one and have faith in our leaders; divided we will surely fall. Loyalty is a virtue.—Yours, etc., ADAM. May 27, 1965.

Sir,—lt is being implied that the students of the University of Canterbury are opposed to military aid for South Vietnam. The staff of this institution have already stated their views, but this does not mean that all the students follow their example. I maintain that if not a majority, at least a large minority, do support our Government’s policy. The public would be much mistaken to assume that all the students are anti-Govemment or in any way acquiescent to the views of Communists, who would try to justify the atrocious aggression of North Vietnam, or to the defeatists and pacifists, who would betray not only our closest allies but also the South Vietnamese, whose freedom and independence they would sell for the price of a temporary peace, or try to negotiate a settlement without a suitable position from which to negotiate even if the Communists desired peace—which they do not.—Yours, etc., NATIONALIST STUDENT. May 27, 1965.

Sir, —It is very good news that the Government is sending troops to Vietnam. I think it is likely to be the start of a long, small war. New Zealand, in the interest of peace, should send 12,000.1 hope this has the approval of the people.—Yours, etc., 1939-1945. May 28, 1965. Sir, —Now let Peking tremble.—Yours, etc., BEE WARE. May 28, 1965.

Sir, —The Government by sending troops to Vietnam, has in traditional Tory style lowered the humanitarian and democratic flag of New Zealand to half-mast. To say that New Zealanders agree with his policy is incorrect and wishful thinking. Can anyone in the name of commonsense expect the harrassed and war-torn Vietnamese to welcome with open arms the aggression and bombing of America and its way of life with its sordid treatment of the Negroes (despite the civil rights policy), its millions of unemployed, and the horror of the Ku Khix Klan society? Would New Zealanders, if placed in the Vietnamese position, accept that way of life? The Government has hitched the New Zealand waggon to an irresponsible foreign policy. We are now on a war footing—one enemy missile would finish us.—Yours, etc., “R.1.P.” May 28, 1965.

Sir,—The sending of New Zealand troops was obviously the price the Americans extracted from us for spare parts for equipment which could have been obtained more cheaply from Britain. The Americans blocked the Vietnam question from going to the United Nations. They have also been opposed to reconvening the Geneva convention. New Zealand troops should only be part of a United Nations peace-keeping force, as advocated by the Labour Party.—Yours, etc., DISILLUSIONED NATIONALIST. May 28, 1965.

Sir, — E. Stricker classes the war in Vietnam as a civil war. Just what does he think caused thousands of refugees to flee from north to south when the n J ew Government took over? And also, why have not Russia and China been asked to send troops by the Government of the North? Quite simply, having gained independence, they are wondering just

when Russia and China would pull out of the country. 1 doubt if E. Sticker has seen the latest issue of “Time.” That would show him just how dirty this conflict is.— Yours, etc., DIG IN. May 28, 1965.